Scan barcode
alijc's review against another edition
2.0
It was pretty dry, written in an economist's vocabulary, with the basic premise that the only economic unit that functioned well was a city-region, a city with it's surrounding industry and agriculture. She thought that nations were too large for the chaotic improvisation of capitalism to function. And forget about planned economies.
steve_t's review against another edition
4.0
This is a well written, engaging, though occasionally dry book. It is worth reading because of the unique perspective it gives in relation to nations, cities, economic output, and trade. Jacobs is undoubtedly the greatest prophet for cities. I am not entirely convinced by her argument, but at least it is original.
My only real complaint is that her prescription for economic stagnation is politically impossible, something she acknowledges. It gives the book a feeling of unending pessimism; our destruction is ingrained by the very world we inhabit.
My only real complaint is that her prescription for economic stagnation is politically impossible, something she acknowledges. It gives the book a feeling of unending pessimism; our destruction is ingrained by the very world we inhabit.
apermal2's review
4.0
The idea that cities are the main economic unit is intriguing and argued well. I cannot critique the argument though as I know so little about econmics. Still, it made sense for the most part. The organization in the book is usually good though I was at times annoyed by her sentence structure.
The book is rather dated (what will become of those Soviets?) but sounds remarkably fresh in the context of the "buy local" movment. This book and Jacobs' ideas should be adopted by those who are dedicated to getting people to purchase from local producers. It makes sense because not only do the profits from Wal-mart stores (or Starbucks for that matter) not stay in the local economy (they go to Arkansas or Seattle) they also stifle local stores and producers. The stifling of local stores is obvious but if you look around in a Wal-mart you'll start to notice that very few items are from your local area. Which makes sense for the stores, they buy in bulk from national producers, not local ones. When you start to think of cities and not states or countries as the primary economic unit, you realize how bad that is. Even if Wal-mart were to buy US made products, that would do little for the small producers in Rochester.
Jacobs would probably point out that even if the producer in Rochester were to make a better product than a producer in Phoenix, for the same price, Wal-mart would probably go with the Phoenix producer if they were larger; so Rochester would continue to stagnate. Everybody else in the country would be fine with that until the same thing happened to their own city's producers, or God forbid, Wal-mart selected suppliers in China. (What would that be like?) The US based example seems like a wash when you look at the economy on a national level; it starts to look disastrous when you look at city economies like Jacobs would have us do. Maybe if the economy weren't currently in the toilet I would be a little more skeptical, but given the current situation and nearly endless string of recessions, I'm inclined to buy Jacobs' vision. So, buy local.
The book is rather dated (what will become of those Soviets?) but sounds remarkably fresh in the context of the "buy local" movment. This book and Jacobs' ideas should be adopted by those who are dedicated to getting people to purchase from local producers. It makes sense because not only do the profits from Wal-mart stores (or Starbucks for that matter) not stay in the local economy (they go to Arkansas or Seattle) they also stifle local stores and producers. The stifling of local stores is obvious but if you look around in a Wal-mart you'll start to notice that very few items are from your local area. Which makes sense for the stores, they buy in bulk from national producers, not local ones. When you start to think of cities and not states or countries as the primary economic unit, you realize how bad that is. Even if Wal-mart were to buy US made products, that would do little for the small producers in Rochester.
Jacobs would probably point out that even if the producer in Rochester were to make a better product than a producer in Phoenix, for the same price, Wal-mart would probably go with the Phoenix producer if they were larger; so Rochester would continue to stagnate. Everybody else in the country would be fine with that until the same thing happened to their own city's producers, or God forbid, Wal-mart selected suppliers in China. (What would that be like?) The US based example seems like a wash when you look at the economy on a national level; it starts to look disastrous when you look at city economies like Jacobs would have us do. Maybe if the economy weren't currently in the toilet I would be a little more skeptical, but given the current situation and nearly endless string of recessions, I'm inclined to buy Jacobs' vision. So, buy local.
More...