The Invisible Heart: An Economic Romance

The following is an excerpt from "The Pentimento" (Volume V Issue 2 - a quarterly arts newsletter published by Gordon Galleries, LLC): The way this book came to my attention is almost as interesting as the book itself. My stepdaughter and I love to hang out at the gorgeous pool at Hill Country Harbor at Possum Kingdom Lake (Texas) as often as we get the chance. I've even painted it (you can see "Nocturne at Hill Country Harbor" on my website, [...]. If you've ever been there, you know why: it's simply one of the most pleasant places left on earth. Cerulean water, plashing waterfalls, sun, great landscaping and a disappearing horizon. Oh, and fire pits. You get the idea. So last Saturday, we were pulling up a lounge chair poolside, and there on the concrete was this book. Someone had left it there just for me! The subtitle, "An economic romance" naturally intrigued me. Turns out it is a page-turner; a delightful romance and a very sound apologetic for clear economic thinking. I couldn't put it down. Okay, so I did put it down eventually, because it didn't belong to me, and now I'm eagerly awaiting the arrival of the copy I bought for myself from Amazon.com. I haven't run across a book so thoughtful and inventive (and entertaining) in a long, long time. Maybe ever. So what has all that got to do with art? I'll quote good old Robert Henri once again, "Art tends towards balance, order, judgment of relative values, the laws of growth, the economy of living -- very good things for anyone to be interested in." Hats off, Russell Roberts! Please keep writing!

As a believer in the massive power of the free market to do good things in our world, it's very hard to explain to non-believers that you aren't a heartless jerk. Russ Roberts does exactly that in this very readable account of a fictional high school Economics teacher making that very case to a fictional English teacher that he is starting to like. The story provides the framework for a very solid explanation of free-market economics and how it really does do more good for a larger number of people than any other system if we are willing to let it. What is often seen as uncaring or unfeeling to an outsider is often just the opposite while the actions of the "caring" often have the opposite impact of what they intended. This book should be required reading for Americans. It shows the system that brought America to greatness in all of its glory and it shows it to be the greatest tool in the world for helping the unfortunate. At a time when we seem set on the idea of abandoning the free-market principles that have brought us so far so fast, this book is more important than ever. That and you get a cool plot twist thrown into the mix as a bonus. Give this one a try. Very highly recommended.

A romance novel whose protagonist is a full-blooded libertarian? Or a thinly veiled vehicle to have libertarian views get 5 times the page space as the interventionist views they are easily shooting down? Either way, a fun, page-turning read. Now, for the book's content: Libertarian, libertarian, libertarian. Most of the book says: Great things happen when there are unregulated markets allowing people who want to buy and make and sell things get together. And if you try to mess with the system, all kinds of strange things happen, and important opportunities are foreclosed. Active policy often has visible results (saving a factory town from international competition) but the invisible results are the more important ( a general overall improvement to the nation from having cheaper imports). That's why politicians, and the populace, like policies: they can say they're doing something good (even if it's not). Generally, so far so good. I agree. Overall. But the book takes is too too far. Roberts thinks there should not be antidiscrimination laws. Roberts thinks there should not be consumer protection laws. He thinks everything should be private property-based. Why is it that all rich countries have chosen to provide the elderly with Social Security and medical care? To provide public education? Is this pure folly? Roberts and similar libertarians like to point out the collapse of the USSR: "Central planning doesn't work." Of course not. But the next step they make is dangerous and illogical: "We should dismantle the government." Roberts also need only look around him to see the pervasiveness of government in everyday life. Schools, parks, roads, public transportation--does he want to privatize these, too? Why has none of the rich countries done this? The pure libertarian also gets to avoid the sticky issues of fairness in taxation and spending, since there is none. But once you admit that we need government (for protection of contract and property, at the least), then raising revenue for the related government functions becomes an issue. Nowhere does the book mention any of this. Still, the book is a wonderful shift from your ordinarily dull economic treatises on supply and demand. Roberts is right on target that new ways of communicating economic principles are needed. Students are unlikely to forget what they learn from this book; this cannot be said for most 1000-page introductory tomes.

"The Invisible Heart" really is "An Economic Romance" and as such my daughter found it very appealing when I read it to her when she was nine years old. While captivated by the romance, she also absorbed some of the economic lessons contained in the book as well. For example, two months after I read the book to her, she returned from Halloween trick-or-treating. She and her friends traded candy and while they were doing that she said, "Daddy, it's just like in the book - when we trade candy, we're all better off!" Oh, and what did I think of the book? I think it's easily the most enjoyable economics book you'll ever read. The economics is very introductory, but very easy to absorb and understand.

Russell Roberts, a well qualified economist with a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago, sat down one day in the late 90’s to begin work on what I’m sure he thought would become a great tool for the average person to get a basic grasp of economics. This piece would eventually become a book entitled the Invisible heart: an economic romance. This story follows Sam Gordon and Laura Silver as they debate and expand one another's political, economic, and social beliefs. Sam, being a libertarian and believing that people ought to be able to be responsible for themselves, is often at ends with his coworker and “friend” Laura Silver who believes that any problem can be fixed by the government. This book may be good for those few who are interested in economics but don't have the time or ability to take a course on economics either in person or online. While the Invisible Heart leaves much to be desired when read for entertainment purposes it is a fine tool for learning basic economic ideals. This book contains awkward dialog and plots that are seemingly held together with nothing better than duct tape left over from the 80’s. The literature style in this book is not great but what else is to be expected from someone without a single qualification for fiction writing. This book just seems to drag on and on. Neither the plots with Laura and Sam, nor Erica and Charles, seem to go anywhere. There's no sense of time passing nor any semblance of character development. Setting is nowhere to be seen, I think it takes place in DC but I have no clue what the Edwards school looks like or any the characters for that matter. Laura seems overall underdeveloped and a bit weak of a character to pair with Sam’s strong arguments and boisterous personality. This pairing is so mismatched to the point that due to Laura's failure as a debater Sam begins to argue with himself more than he does with Laura. Overall this book is not a world class novel and while it's not the worst thing I've ever read, it really is a close call. This book as a learning tool for economics really isn't that bad. The caveat here being that you do have to sit through chapter upon chapter of a terrible romance to learn anything. I think that the economics in this book are solid, but a bit one sided. Sam does seem to be a good economics teacher and I really do feel that this book would have been better if it had focused more on Sam’s arguments. Russell Roberts is a brilliant economist and that shows in his examples, which are both entertaining and informative. They really paint a picture of a sound economic philosophy. The downside being that the philosophy included in this book is very one sided with very few of the faults being explored when they could have been relatively easily since the premise of most of the book is Sam and Laura arguing. Overall this book is for a very specific audience and I’m just not it. This book does go by fast at only two hundred and fifty pages it’s not quite the Same torture as reading William Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury when Quentin rides around on a trolley for fifty pages discussing his own depression and twisted crush on his sister. But I digress, this book has very little substance and can best be described as a marshmallow. Light and airy with just enough substance that you could, if you really wanted to, walk away having learned a thing or two. I recommend this book to the average consumer who may want a light feathering of economic knowledge without committing to a new wealth of knowledge.

In this story, each character is represented as an ideology, most clearly Sam as libertarianism. His dialogue overtakes most of the text, resulting in no opposition against his views. The characters are two dimensional and lack motivation to further the plotline. However, laid within the unsubstantial story, central economic topics were discussed. “The Invisible Heart” by Russell Roberts fails to develop characters or unbiased arguments, but presented main economic ideas. This novel contains four main characters, two of whom are a part of a TV show. The two real characters are extremely underdeveloped, which is the main reason why this book is not an example of adequate literature. Firstly, the dialogue is completely flat and with a rehearsed tone. Sam sounds like he is reading from an opinionated scholarly article, while Laura only answers with short phrases or continually asks “why” he feels a certain way. Since these characters have no background or endeavors, except teaching in the book, the dialogue is left to reveal these character’s stories. However, because Sam seems to be just blurting basic concept after concept, he appears completely two dimensional. Just as a textbook, this book contains little to no emotion. While Sam does get agitated when his beliefs are questioned, this is supposed to be a romantic novel with passion. He rarely shows interest in Laura, and Laura spends most of the book annoyed with his inability to control his reactions to other’s judgements. Sam’s long monologues of thought, instead of acting as insightful, prove how little the author really knows about this character, as his rambling ideologies shift chapter to chapter. Laura speaks with a passive tone, merely agreeing or presenting broad, simple questions. There is no connection between the reader, characters, and plot. The characters don’t actively desire or work towards a goal, there is no climax of the story, and consequently, the reader has no reason to care for what happens to these characters. Another issue exhibited in “The Invisible Heart” is bias laid within underdeveloped arguments. Sam agrees with libertarian views frequently, and is unchallenged by Laura. One instance of this is when Sam and Laura are discussing his father disagreeing with the government about his unsafe porch. The government wanted him to remove the porch, but his father refused to. Sam discusses how he also has issues with government intervention in the statement “...it’s bad enough for the government to keep children away from dangerous porches… Not only is there less delight in a world of little danger, but there is less humanity when we are always being treated like children.” (pg. 29). In this argument, Sam assumes that people will learn from their mistakes, and that regulation takes away from what makes us human. Laura mostly replies to his arguments with comments such as “That’s a nice line” (pg. 28), “Oh I don’t know” (pg. 30), and “You’re not easily offended” (pg. 31). Because Laura does not challenge him, they don’t discuss the positive impacts of government or the fact that not all people have the cognitive ability to learn from their mistakes or be self sufficient, a main objective of libertarianism. Another example of an insufficiently developed argument is when Laura and Sam are talking about business rights after Laura complains about how women’s dry cleaning is more expensive than men’s. He believes in business’ right to raise prices for poorly manufactured products, “Because profits help the customer. The potential for profit spurs a business to please its customers.” (pg. 66) While the business may want customer satisfaction, they also must value a large profit. This profit does not always benefit the consumer, such as when prices may heighten and wages lower. Also, compared to large firms, small businesses such as (likely family owned) dry cleaners don’t have the market power to fluctuate their costs and product quality, as their goods have greater elasticity. However, because Sam’s views weren’t challenged, this lead the reader to assume that his perspective had “won” the argument, even though it was constructed by many beliefs rather than facts; only his undisputed opinion was presented, while “Laura looked puzzled” (pg. 72). Because most of this book was spent evaluating simple economic concepts rather than creating an actual story, it does provide theories for students to form their own opinions of. This includes subjects such as oil consumption, minimum wage jobs, and inflation. Sam discusses these in the classroom and with Laura, and usually sides with the unexpected opinion. Because of Sam’s spontaneity, readers are able to think past the conventional. However, these topics could be thoroughly discussed in a classroom setting over a much shorter time period than it takes to read this book. The lives of the characters and description of setting take up space between the economic lessons, resulting in a strange disjointed relationship between the discussion of economic ideas and the realistic aspects of the novel. “The Invisible Heart” does explore core economic concepts, but does not effectively portray contrasting opinions or a basic plot line with three dimensional characters. This is proven through the one sided, flat dialogue, which feels forced and unnatural. The author analyzes a somewhat atypical viewpoint of economic ideas, but only voices this though one character, between the otherwise simple, cliche writing style. Economic novels should not be written with evident bias or especially romance.

Bought this during finals week and couldn't start studying for my classes until I finished reading this book - it was that good! This book gives new perspective if you are not that familiar with economics and as cliche as it sounds, it has changed my view on aspects of life. It gives a very romantic view to economics and promotes the idea that self-interest can actually be a very good thing. After reading the book I gifted my friend an online version since I wanted him to be as enlightened as I was, and I also bought a hard copy for a teacher I had. Don't expect too much from the novel as a "romance", since it doesn't offer much as a love story. It's more romantic in the sense that it discusses economic principles in a very optimistic light and will make you fall in love with free markets and appreciate how they work.

The Invisible Heart is a novel written by Russell Roberts. In this book, Roberts offers up a debate about the morality of capitalism via the romantic sparring of protagonist, Sam Gordon, and his love interest, Laura Silver. Sam is a free-market economics teacher. Laura, who teaches English, takes a more favorable view of government regulation than of markets. Roberts uses Sam and Laura’s argumentative attitude toward one another to debunk common stereotypes of free-market economics and economists. Throughout the book, the author uses the characters to describe economic concepts and even occasionally uses them in a real life situations rather than Sam just explaining it in a class. For example, when Sam and Laura are discussing government intervention, Sam brings up an idea that is, “‘Airbags or seat belts aren’t the only way to keep a kid safe in a car. There are other, cheaper ways. You can drive more slowly. You can drive less often. You can postpone travel when it rains.’” (Roberts 23) This is an example of a trade off. This book has a lot of bias, and not a lot of plot. I found it very forced how he tried to fit economic concepts in there and try to make it a story when in reality it just didn’t work. Roberts was opinionated in his “economic stories” between Sam and Laura and I found it unenjoyable. For example, during the airbag conversation, Sam says “Deactivating it is against the law. In theory, you are allowed to install an off-on switch. You have to write a letter to an official in Washington explaining why you want to turn it off… If the official finds your reason acceptable, he sends you a letter giving you permission to turn it off. Isn’t that thoughtful? He sends you a letter giving you permissio n to use your own car as you see fit.” (Roberts 24) This clearly shows the ideas of a Libertarian. He expresses how there should be no government intervention by passive aggressively responding. In conclusion, overall this book was not very well put together in my opinion. While there were some valid arguments and good ideas, it was very biased and forced. I would not recommend this book to anyone.

私は理想的な資本主義は「夜警国家」であり、政府が市場に介入することは出来るだけ避けるべきと漠然と考えていましたが、この本のサムとローラのように相反する考えの男女がお互いの考え方をまっすぐに伝え議論している本を読んで、自分の意見の正しい部分もあった反面、間違っていた部分も良く分かります。理想的な資本主義はいったいどのようなものかの結論が出ることはないと思いますが、改めてそのような題材を投げかけてくれるこの本は価値があると思います。また、本の内容も堅苦しい経済本ではなく恋愛小説的な一面もあり、構成もあっと驚くような内容になっています。経済学の導入書としても十分役立つ本だと思いました。

ラブストーリーを楽しみながら法律学習ができた名著「否認」（堀田力著）に比肩しうる傑作。 いや、シカゴ学派の経済学をわかりやすく理解できると言う点では、本書のほうがよりすぐれているとも思える。 主人公が経済学を説明する台詞にも具体例がたくさん盛り込まれており、初心者にも十分理解ができるように配慮されている。

Pretty neat.

恋愛小説／経済学の本、どちらにしても中途半端ですが、 軽く読めるところが良いと思います。 久しぶりに（試験勉強ではなく）勉強したいなぁと思いました。

経済学の教師と文学の教師の恋愛模様を中心に両者の価値観、思考方法の対立を通じて経済学的（特に市場主義的）な考え方を浮き彫りにするという手法が成功していると思われます。講師をしている文学系の短大で、課題として学生に感想文を書いてもらいましたが、恋愛ストーリーに釣られて、自然に経済学的思考も理解できたようです。恋愛にイマイチ盛り上がりが欠ける、という指摘もありましたが････。