UCLA professor Stephen Bainbridge believes that Partha Dasgupta's Economics: A Very Short Introduction is a bad book. He wrote, in his Amazon review:
1.0 out of 5 stars: Very disappointing, September 25, 2007: By Stephen M. Bainbridge: "If you're looking for a VSI to Econ 101 and 102, skip this book. The treatment of microeconomic basics consists of exactly 14 pages. Macroeconomic theory gets a whopping 4 pages. The rest consists mainly of a political tract on wealth and poverty. It's the first VSI whose title amounts to a misrepresentation..."
Partha Dasgupta, of course disagrees. Which do you tend to agree with? (You can say that you are in the middle, but setting out and defending an "in the middle" position is actually very hard here.) Explain why and to what extent you come down on Dasgupta's or on Bainbridge's side of this dispute. Justify your opinions by setting out what you think economics is, or ought to be.
Write 400-500 words, and submit them on this webpage.