6–46262.
A three-part work on economics illuminated by the thought “that the symbol of a revolving wheel is the natural symbol of the reproduction of wealth, and that the laws of the increase and decrease of wealth, as well as the immediate deduction therefrom, must be identical with, and so be transferable from the mathematics of a mechanical wheel of wealth and the science of political economy.” Part 1, treats of “Reconstruction;” Part 2, “Free trade and protection;” Part 3, surveys the “Critical and historical” aspects of the subjects, passing under review the English and foreign schools.
“So thoroughly is political economy ‘reconstructed’ in this modest volume, that we fail to recognize the battered, though regenerated, science. The book is as disproportioned as a monster. Vital economic problems are completely disregarded, other questions are treated at excessive length.”
| − | Ann. Am. Acad. 29: 633. My. ’07. 160w. |
“Dr. Crozier possesses a bright and generally intelligible, though perhaps occasionally rather roystering style, great learning and great industry. It is not a book to be hastily passed by, and should be studied carefully by those who disagree with it.”
| + + − | Ath. 1907, 1: 191. F. 16. 1700w. |
“Eliminate the wheel; moderate the oratorical rush of the writer; reduce the book to a half of its length by omitting many explanations which really obscure, and metaphors which are none the less superfluous because ingenious; substitute occasionally a short mathematical formula for an eloquent paragraph and this book would take a high place in modern economical literature.”
| + − | Lond. Times. 5: 434. D. 28, ’06. 1390w. |
“In a work which reconstructs an entire science in a single stroke, it is an ungrateful task to call attention to such minor defects as errors of fact and inference; and in a single number of the ‘Nation’ it would be impossible to chronicle more than a small part of Mr. Crozier’s mistakes. It is only fair to say that the ‘Wheel of wealth,’ like the author’s preceding works, is entertainingly written, and is an interesting, if not successful, addition to the books that have undertaken to reform the unregenerate science of political economy.”