Who Cooked Adam Smith's Dinner?: A Story of Women and Economics

Not really a spoiler. 'Economic man" pervades all aspects of society. What if economic woman was just as important?What does that Q even mean?

A reexamination of the foundations of economics as born in Wealth of Nations. It is a feminist perspective and it is about women, but it is not really at the same time. More so it is a critique of the rational actor or 'economic man' as it is called here. We all know this is nonsense even the economists who hang their life's work on economic theory that relies on this. This book sets up a story of first how we got this economic man and how Margaret Douglas cooking her son's meal her whole life being left out got us in this mess and second the long range consequences of not just ignoring women and unpaid labor but pretending any one is truly a rational actor in reality. This is the story of how we have turned a theory that we know isn't very good into the ideal that we should in fact try to become. Very interesting read. Quite funny. The only clue I had that this was a translation was not so much the phrasing but that some examples are of the native Sweden which is odd unless it is a Swedish book as an American reader.

A good eye opener into the obfuscation of women's work. All mothering - the daily physical labor, the constant monitoring and anguish, the loss sleep; the life time of care - let alone the housework NOT PAID, NOT RECOGNIZED BY ' ECONOMIC MAN'...And those who are poor and stupid and lazy and shiftless. That is what Marcal brings to the front...Wish I knew more about economics as s he draws on economic theory. Only complaint, she maligns Freud and she was wrong about that. I give her a pass as her other areas are very vital.

A delightful overview of the basic place of food in Economies,and the role of women inproviding it.Agood ingroductory text for students in all branches of Social Sciences

This book is a pretty heavy-handed indictment of the modern view of economics. Rightfully, Marcal criticizes the exclusion of unpaid and caregiving work from economic modeling, and makes a strong case for why the concept of an economic man who is unaffected by the trials and tribulations of the world around him is outmoded at best, and misogynistic at worst.Marcal's main failing is that she inadequately visions an alternate reality. She employs effective rhetoric in explaining the flaws in the current system, however does little if anything to explain what might change, or how that change might begin. This book is absolutely worth a read (it is very short) whether you not are comfortable with the invisible hand controlling your world.

For the first third of this book, Marcal seemed to have some interesting things to say about the history of economics...some fluff and padding, but there was enough meat to hold my attention. Basically, she appeared to be teaching me things I didn't know that related to a combination of history and arithmetic. (Why arithmetic? What is economics without numbers?)Then I came to this: "Twelve hundred years ago Aristotle spoke of how the philosopher Thales..." No! No, no, no!Twelve hundred years ago the year was 817, almost exactly halfway between our time and Aristotle's. (The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle had been dead for over 1100 years in 817.) More to the point, you don't need to know the exact dates to know that Aristotle lived well over 2000 years ago; all you need is a general grasp of Western history and a knowledge of basic arithmetic.I kept reading for a while after that, but I had lost all trust in Marcal's accuracy. Whether a howler like putting Aristotle in the early medieval world comes from sloppiness or ignorance doesn't really matter - what matters is that from that point, I could only believe Marcal when she told me something I already knew without reading her book.

Who'd thought the father of economics, had his momma care for him his adult life Unpaid?

The most important book writtenThe most important book written in years. An economic perspective that usually does not receive exposure, discussion. Most of us have a mother, but for some reason we never paid attention to her economic contribution. It was the women who rehabilitated the economies after the stupid wars of men. years.

A fast-paced, relatively easy read which takes a sledgehammer to mainstream modern economic theory and pounds it until it breaks. The concept of 'economic man', Marcal argues, not only bears no relationship to the way humans behave but also can only exist by ignoring the unpaid labour of women - Adam Smith was able to behave in an 'economic' self interested manner only because his mum was available to cook his dinner. Like all good polemics (The Communist Manifesto, The Rights of Man etc) there is no attempt at nuanced argument or consideration of other viewpoints - there are at least a couple of points where what the author says Adam Smith said aren't quite what he was arguing - but that's not really the point. As a starting point for rethinking what economics is, how we should value things and - most importantly - how it can address fundamental issues around women in society, this is an important and worthwhile read that should provoke much thought and debate among men as well as women,Probably my only criticism of it is that it doesn't propose any solutions or ways in which this 'new economics' would work - may be that's for the follow up!

A good challenger book against economic orthodoxy that has largely failed us to date,taking into consideration the 2008 financial ruin that was forseen by so few economists. Now seems a good time for a wider look at economics and how we measure economic wealth. Focussing on a model of so called rational economic man can no longer be touted as a reasonable thing to do, nor the obsession with measuring GDP . We can have other targets that take into consideration a far wider section of society. For example, womens domestic work has no impact on GDP. The author of the book asks ,quite rightly, if we are measuring the right things. It book delivers a fierce rebuttal and critique of all past economics,starting from Adam Smith,who though most likely loving his mother very much, considered all her love and care of him(into his adult life) as economically worthless. Do we want to live in such a society anymore?

The writer needs to learn the difference between capitalism and economics. All Katrine Marçal does in this book is blame economics or the ‘economic man’ for the shortcomings of capitalism. Then she goes on to contradict herself, by referencing studies that prove that the human beings are not the economic man. Her views of economics is quite outdated. Seems like her knowledge of economic theory is only limited to classical economics and the economics of Adam Smith. Many economists today agree that the human being is nothing like the ‘homo economicus’. When creating economic models the economists are aware that these are only mere assumptions and that there is no way of calculating one’s utility. And we are aware that economic models are simplifications! To quote G.E.P Box, “all models are wrong but some are useful”. The book also has feminist intentions but doesn’t really focus on feminism all that much, instead it criticises economic theory in a very superficial way. I bought this book after doing a microeconomics module to gain more knowledge about economics and to build on what I already know but I guess it was a waste of my time and money.

This quote for me describes the why of this book: "Economics should help us rise above fear and greed. It should not exploit these feelings. Economic science should be about how one turns a social vision into a modern economic system. It should be a tool to create opportunities for human and social development. Not just address our fears as they are expressed as demand in the market. It should be devoted to concrete questions that are important for humanity. Not to abstract analyses of hypothetical choices. It should see people as reasonable beings. Not as wagons hooked to the consequences of an unavoidable, coercive rationality. It should see people as embedded in society. Not as individuals whose core never changes and who float in a vacuum at an arm’s length from each other."

The title makes a good point, that not all work is valued and women have often been forced into unpaid carer roles.However the book doesn’t develop beyond that. It’s easy to be critical of the 2008 financial crisis and of the patriarchy and after reading a few chapters of this book, I feared the author would take the easy route and she does. No solutions are offered, no novel in-depth analysis and much repetition of economic man does bad things.Disappointed - “ invisible women “ is 20 times better.