5 comments about Today's ISMS: Socialism, Capitalism, Fascism, Communism, and Libertarianism (11th Edition).

1. I liked it, but think that previous editions were better, the older edition I picked up in the library was much better I think.



2. This very concise book explains four major political structures that have shaped nations in the twentieth century. It is useful as an introduction to the theories of socialism, capitalism, fascism, and communism, but most people already have some idea of what these things are about. The greater benefit in reading this book may be in learning how these ideologies have been put into practice in different countries. In each section, the authors discuss the history and theory of the ideology, how it has been implemented, and then some other issues that relate to the topic. I was most curious about communism, and was glad to find that almost half the book is devoted to it. This book is for those who want a quick and informative overview on the varieties of political thinking that have been influential and continue to be influential in our world. In attempting to understand other nations, it is necessary to have some understanding of the politics that have shaped them.

   The edition I read was the tenth.




3. *this review concerns the edition that did not discuss libertarianism.. that would be a welcome addition*
   I give this two stars because there WERE parts of the book that were factual, interesting, and important. However, I found the entire book as a whole to be sloppy, confusing, and poorly written. For example, throughout the entire book, I was waiting to see a simple definition of socialism, or for a distinct difference between socialism and communism. However, not only does the author never do this, but he confuses the reader more and more by talking for dozens of pages on MARX in the SOCIALIST chapter, when Marx wrote the COMMUNIST manifesto!?! Does he explain the links or relationships between the two? Never. I was surprisingly disappointed in this book, as I would be very interested in a thorough, succinct, clear analysis of these philosophies.



4. I use this book to help prepare lecture notes for the AP Govt classes I teach. It is quite readable and simply organized. Any instructor of govt or any serious student of govt should have this book.



5. Based on 11 editions and 4/5 stars I was expecting much more. The chapter on socialism was extremely weak without even an attempt at a formal definition. The capitalism chapter described statism/mixed economy, as it exists in the U.S., and called it capitalism. I cut my losses on this book after the first two sections. This is an eighth-grade level survey of political theories.

1 comments about Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference (Rodolfo DeBenedetti Lectures).

1. I used this book for two courses as a freshman at Princeton University. One of them was a seminar on politics of economic inequality, the other one - an introductory comparative politics course. This book provides a good introduction to explaining political outcomes in terms of socio-economic interests (as opposed to just culture or institutional arrangements). The argument of the book is fairly interesting and well-developed: the size of the welfare state depends highly on racial fractionalization of the population and political institutions (federalism, checks and balances, winner-take-all electoral system) which are the result of a historical interplay of socio-economic interests. The discussion of the historical context (e.g. the "entrepreneurial" use of racial hatred to fight against redistributive policies) and possible counterarguments are both well done. Furthermore, this book debunks some myths such as the notion that upward social mobility is higher in the US than in Europe.
   
   However, it is not without its problems. It gets fairly dry and repetitive sometimes. The arguments themselves are not flawless either. Alesina and Glaeser imply that the reason for the large welfare state in Western Europe is the strength of the left and the labor movement, while in reality the welfare state in Western Europe was largely built by right-wing parties (the Consevatives in the UK, Gaullists in France and Christian Democrats in Germany). The attempt to argue in terms of "the right" and "the left" often backfires, too, since it is not always possible to clearly draw the line. Nevertheless, this is a solid and thought-provoking book.

5 comments about Creative Destruction: How Globalization Is Changing the World's Cultures.

1. Book Review For: Dr. Nicholas Capaldi
   Loyola University New Orleans, Louisiana
   BA705 Business Ethics-Spring 2004

   In Tyler Cowen's Creative Destruction, he addresses the viability of diverse culture in a rapidly expanding global market economy. Most specifically, he focuses on "the particular aspects of culture consisting products which stimulate and entertain us." Cowan defines the following: "music, literature, cinema, cuisine, and visual arts, as the relevant manifestations of culture." The book attempts to answer, by his own account, the age-old question "dating back at least far as Greek civilization: Are market exchange and aesthetic quality allies or enemies?" He proposes that market economies and cross cultural trade have catapulted societies throughout history by facilitating the spread of scientific ideas, creative arts, and enabling isolated cultures to experience a "richer menu of choice" The author offers extensive detail concerning alternative arguments throughout the book as well as the fact that, as in all things, there are opportunity costs associated with each view and some resulting in tragic outcomes.
   Cowen qualifies himself on this subject by defining his approach according to his "background as an economist" and his relevant studies of the "scholarly literature and diverse experiences as a cultural consumer", rather than an analysis based on a "single path of specialized study." He outlines his argument that the global economy fosters positive influences on the world's culture by subsequently analyzing the following three "primary lessons":
   1. The concept of cultural diversity has multiple and divergent meanings.
   2. Cultural homogenization and heterogenization are not alternatives or substitutes; rather, they come together.
   3. Cross cultural exchange, while it will alter and disrupt each society it touches, will support innovation and creative human energies.
   Cowan begins with the concept definition of cultural diversity as it can be understood in multiple contexts. He explains that diversity is not a single concept. First, "diversity within a society refers to the richness of the menu of choice in that society." The most fragile cultures, with respect to technology, also tend to respond in an explosive fashion to the introduction of new ideas and technologies. They have proven to adapt these technologies and innovations in ways their trading partners never anticipated.
   Secondly, Cowan states, "Many critics of globalization focus on diversity across societies comparing whether each society offers the same "menu of choice" and whether societies are becoming more similar," through the process of globalization. He notes that generally, "diversity across societies is a collectivist concept because it does not consider the choices faced by an individual." A libertarian would allow "individuals to create their own meaning." For the purpose of Cowan's argument, libertarians foster individual creativity which is agreed by most to be the backbone of culturally diverse arts.
   Limitations placed by government, or activists for that matter, on the market of exchange can significantly alter the outcomes, possibly even the survival of, poorer cultures. Cowan believes that poorer cultures especially, should be allowed to participate in cross cultural trade, even at a social cost, in order to experience the "gains from trade" with outside cultures. As Adam Smith argues in his, Wealth of Nations.., "the best vehicle for innovation is a free market system." Cowan's argument borrows from Smith's ideas and appropriately applies this concept to his claim that cultural diversity requires innovation for the survival of those poorer cultures which would otherwise cease to exist in the long run. As the adaptation process of the new technologies an innovations occur within a poorer culture; it becomes interwoven with aspects borrowed from foreign cultures. Cowan defines this concept later as "synthetic culture."
   Synthetic culture refers to the fact that pure societies are mostly obsolete. For example, "The original ideas and inspirations of tribal groups of Zaire have been commodified, and shaped into new synthetic forms, for the purpose of courting outside markets Cowan retorts that the same "defenders of diversity decry the passing of previous cultures and implicitly oppose diversity-over-time," without regard to the necessity of innovations for survival. Cowan's argument has remarkable semblance to that of Cass Sunstein's "Paradoxes of the Regulatory State" where Sunstein argues that "redistributive regulation harms those at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder." Here, Sunstein points out that often times regulations have "perverse effects" which serve opposite to the activist intended agendas. Likewise, Cowan argues that those who defend cultural diversity for the sake of "creative purity" will, if successful, risk eliminating the cultures they claim to be defending.
   Cowan's final "primary lesson" states that "Cross-cultural exchange brings about value clashes that cannot be solved scientifically, in the short term. In the long run however, any "disruptions and alterations will inevitably support innovation and creative human energies." The whole world has a broader menu of choice (from participating in cross-cultural exchange) but older synthetic cultures must give way to newer synthetic cultures." Cowan states, "As we might expect from cross cultural contact, it supports greater diversity of identity, or ethos, within each society while limiting diversity across societies. As identities move closer together, they cease to make artistic production distinct in varying locales." Cowan claims however, that these ethoses are replaced inevitably by a greater number of partial "niches."
   Cowan concludes that "Modernity allows us to enjoy the diversity of the world to a very high degree, relative to the previous ages, even when it undercuts that diversity in some regards. The mere fact exists that change will produce serious disappointment for individuals who seek to preserve particular markers of cultural identity." Cowan states "that it is not obvious (nor reasonable) why markers from the past should have more normative force than other possible markers." So, "Are market exchange and aesthetic quality allies or enemies?" Cowan believes that not only are market exchange and aesthetic quality allies, but they are also interdependent and make the whole world better off. Cross cultural exchange broadens cultural diversity across cultures and its influences within some cultures may even save them from extinction.




2. If you're at all interested in this book, ignore Hoan Chau's review. How does Cowen know Mexicans enjoy the choices available at Wal-Mart? Simple, they shop there and keep it in business. You don't have to like Wal-Mart (I sure don't) to recognize that it doesn't coerce anyone into its store. In an impoverished country like Mexico, it brings in more goods at lower prices than were previously available, thus improving people's standard of living.
   
   On creativity: Cowen isn't writing a philosophical treatise on creativity, so if he ignores the "external influences" on it, that's not a just criticism. But it's surprising that someone could read this book and miss the point: Cowen is arguing that the creativity of others is an external influence on an individual's creativity, so the value of global exchange is that our creativity is stimulated by contact with other country's cultural goods.
   
   Consider the U.S. without Chinese or Mexican food (or, in my case, the nightmare of not having Thai food). Consider the U.S. without the influence of African music. No spirituals, no jazz or blues, no "Graceland" by Paul Simon. Consider how popular Jackie Chan is, not to mention the more respectable Chinese films such as "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." If you're more highbrow, consider the absence of Mozart or Paganini. Imagine no access to Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" or the Tao Te Ching, or the Boddhisatva.
   
   In short, Cowen's point is that the global exchange of cultural goods enriches our lives. Efforts to restrict globalization will restrict the flow of these goods, impoverishing us all in ways that are hard to measure in dollar terms, but are easily understood in terms of cultural vivacity and creativity.
   
   And, importantly, contrary to popular wisdom, America isn't exerting cultural hegemony--the Disneyfication of the world is overstated (easy to do when we have such jarring sights as a McDonalds jammed next to Beijing's Forbidden City. But other countries, including developing countries, export their cultural goods to the U.S. This increases the value of their cultural traditions, making it beneficial for people to hang onto them.
   
   Remember, it's individual people (you and me) making these choices. We don't choose them unless we believe we're benefitting. And while we will make mistakes, it's a bit hard to believe that almost all our decisions almost all the time are actually harmful to us. It's even harder to believe that a small group of elites--whether in government or the self-appointed protectors of culture--will be able to make better choices for us. In short, this book is also an argument for preserving individual liberty.



3. What happens when an economist steps outside of his field to don the hat of an armchair cultural anthropologist? Tyler Cowen's "Creative Destruction" is the result - a book that ignores global corporatism and the roles that states and their creations - i.e. corporations have played in corrupting free enterprise and free markets not only by attacking, usurping, and infiltrating the cultural programming centers of target nations: sport; entertainment including music, cinema, and televison; books and magazines; fashion including cosmetics, clothes and accessories; school and university textbooks, but by attacking, usurping, and infiltrating the cultural programming avenues of America itself.
   
   "Ethos makes globalization a nontrivial problem for culture"(p50) writes Cowen, "By ethos I mean the special feel or flavor of a culture" (p48). Cowen maintains that "There is little danger that economic growth, international trade, and the spread of technical knowledge will bring inferior quality hammers, refrigerators, or vacuum cleaners either to the United States or to lesser developed nations" (p50). It would appear that the last time Cowen walked into a Wal-mart, K-mart, or other department store was to purchase a new pair of shoes for his high school graduation - nearly every item for sale in department stores today is produced by slaves in Communist China. Prior to Clinton's late 1990s trip to Communist China, `Made in China' meant Free China - the Republic of China on the Island of Taiwan. How it became legal for Communist slave-produced goods to be sold in the United States is a question that boggles the American mind! When did America ever allow Soviet goods to be sold in America? Never, to my knowledge. But today slave-produced goods from Communist China are everywhere.
   
   Not only that, the quality of these slave-produced goods is greatly inferior to the quality of goods produced by free workers (workers who may safely say to their employer - "Take this job and shove it, I ain't workin' here no more!"). For example, the Delphi spindle bearing plant in Communist China that is supposed to be a reflection of the Delphi spindle bearing plant in Ohio cannot make bearings that will last through the 50,000-mile new vehicle warranty, whereas the U.S. Delphi bearings last 400,000 miles. Pontiac Aztecs and Buick Rendezvous have Communist Chinese bearings on the front wheels and U.S. bearings on the rear wheels. When Delphi was spun-off from General Motors in 1999, the plan was for the Chinese plant to replace the U.S. plant by 2006 because the Chinese government charges Delphi far less a month for a slave worker than an employee demands in the United States through union negotiation. Now Delphi is stuck with a U.S. plant it doesn't want because General Motors needs the bearings but the Chinese duplicate cannot produce the quality to meet even minimum standards. Delphi, and Cowen, should know that slaves have no incentive to do a good job. Only freedom creates incentives.
   
   Cowen's six chapters in his 179-paged book are 1. Trade Between Cultures 2. Global Culture Ascendant: The Roles of Wealth and Technology 3. Ethos and the Tragedy of Cultural Loss 4. Why Hollywood Rules the World, and Whether We Should Care 5. Dumbing Down and the Least Common Denominator , and 6. Should National Culture Matter? These chapters are followed by a section labeled References followed by an Index.
   
   Cowen sidesteps the issue of the role states play in cultural planning and their relationship to corporations, which are nothing less than creations of the state themselves. Cowen's book is short on cultural theory, cultural policy and planning, the political framework, national identities, and statist cultural planning to include arts administration and practice, tourism, media, the sports industry, or even urban and regional planning. He never mentions the statist UNESCO - the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and the ways that governments use cultural resources to integrate development of towns, regions, and countries. And he is silent on the role of the soldier in globalization. Cowen's book is simply the mixing of apples and oranges, of the theoretical free market and today's global corporatism, with the effect of providing camouflage for what is really happening - i.e. economic fascism on a global scale, as uninformed anthropologically as it is mistaken. This is all a shame because Cowen's prose is quite artful and could have been a delight to read.
   
   A book that does a much better job introducing readers to the processes of globalization is Tony Spybey's "Globalization and World Society" (1996), which should sit on one's bookshelf next to a copy of Paul H. Weaver's "The Suicidal Corporation" (1988).



4. Tyler Cowen very adeptly reminds the reader that the world's regional cultures have never been static. What we think of as "native" art is really a product of global influence on a local population. So of course it seems silly to decry globalization as homogenizing cultures, when we understand that cultures have always interacted with each other. Indeed, what we are seeing with globalization is the increasing heterogenizing of cultures. Sure you see McDonalds almost everywhere, but you also see indigenous art from Central America, music from the Congo, movies from France, and food from India.
   
   Tyler Cowen does not dismiss the degredation of certain cultural aspects, but he matter-of-factly points out that the alternative, protectionism, is more destructive in the long run, since creativity is stifled.



5. This book is about how globalization is *changing* world cultures, for better or for worse. One of Cowen's central arguments is that globalization creates less diversity between cultures but more between individuals. So should we be pro individualism or pro collectivism?
   
   His last three chapters on Hollywood, Dumbing Down, and National Culture are the most memorable, and persuasive. I especially enjoyed the chapter on Hollywood. His explanation of how modern cinema is what it is was enlightening.
   
   Overall Cowen does what he set out to do; explained how globalization has changed world cultures. More often than not Cowen thinks this has had a net positive effect, but he does argue the other side of the coin. In my opinion Cowen contributes to the globalization vs. anti-globalization debate arguing that it's really one of collectivist culture vs. individual culture.

4 comments about Economics: Making Sense of the Modern Economy (Economist Books).

1. Having no formal background in economics, I never thought that I would enjoy reading this book so much. I enjoy reading the Economist magazine, but I found this book even more enjoyable. The "real world" examples really delivered the points in a clear and relevant manner. I found that I could read large chunks of this book at a time without getting bored. I am planning on reading this book again so as to glean further pieces of information on the second pass.



2. I have no formal economics background and have often wondered how dangerous the US trade deficit is, what are the real benefits and risks of globalization, the US versus the Eurozone versus Japan, and what role central banks and interest rates play in the global economy. It is often difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff in any attempt to understand these issues, it seems as if there is an economic pundit or expert on TV or the internet who will support virtually any position. This book, published by the Economist magazine, is an easy to read discussion of virtually every major economic issue of importance today. This book is not an economics primer, per se, so if that is what you are looking for, buy a textbook. It is, however, a primer about a wide range of topics in economics of particular importance in the modern world economy. This book is divided up into four major sections: The New Liberalism (the case for globalization), the lopsided world economy, the arteries of capitalism, and Wordly philosophy. Each of these major sections contains several smaller monographs about specific issues such as growth and China, the US trade imbalance, the case for globalization, finance, banking, and many others. Each of these monographs is short, focused, and only loosely tied with the other monographs, making this an easy read. The level of this book is about that of the Economist magazine itself, if you like their weekly publication, you will probably like this. I strongly recommend this book to anyone who wants to better understand the global economy.



3. How the world economy evolves and how the market economy behaves are something this book can offer us to understand.



4. whilst the contents and presentation are good, many articles appear five years or more ago and the editors have not updated them with the latest figures, although it's a 2nd, 2006 edition, very few data or studies cited are updated to 2006

5 comments about The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth.

1. Friedman begins with a few troubling statistics, particularly the fact that except for a brief period in the late 1900s, most of the fruits of the last three decades of economic growth in the U.S. have accrued to only a small slice of the population. Further, after allowing for higher prices, the average 2004 worker in an American business made 16% less each week than 30+ years earlier. With more and more two-earner households and more individuals holding two jobs, most families' income have more than held their own. But nearly all the gain in the last three decades came only in the late 1990s. Young men entering the American job force in the 1970s started off earning two-thirds more, on average, than the generation starting out in the 1950s; by the early 1990s it was one quarter less than their parents.
   
   Economic growth positively affects the character of the society as a whole, and because neither tolerance nor democracy is a good that private markets value, there is a role for government measures to seek growth beyond what the market would provide on its own. Improved transportation, crime reduction, safety from external attack, savings, education, and patent protection are examples of valuable government contributions.
   
   Friedman asserts that declining investment is a problem in the U.S., and blames it on increased current consumption and government borrowing. (But what about the fact that much cheaper labor is available in Asia?) He goes on to posit that chronically large deficits' depressing effect on America's investment probably received a greater spur from change in the tax structure than the positive aspect of the tax reductions.
   
   Friedman suggests improvement that begins with undoing the Bush administration high-end tax changes that provided 60% of the benefits to the top 10% (earning over $120,000) to reduce the deficit and improve society.
   
   Fireman, like many others, very much wants to improve American education. He begins by focusing on improving the high school graduation rate - stable at about 90% over the last several decades - through more spending. (Friedman, however, forgets that enormous increases in inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending also occurred during this period, and that dropout rates closely correlate with race - ergo, positive home influence is probably a much more potent lever.) More government support for college education is also highly recommended because their incomes average some 70% more than those without a college degree. As for class sizes, Friedman is aware that most quality research has found reductions do NOT improve pupil achievement; nonetheless he suggests reductions would improve graduation rates, though the sources he cites seem to confound race and socio-economic status with class size as influences. He also supports competition within education, citing several inner-city positive examples such as Harlem Community Schools.
   
   Another significant recommendation is raising the Social Security retirement age.
   
   What is puzzling about "The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth" is that Friedman does not address a major issue of today's economic growth - the impact of free trade and illegal immigration on American incomes. Also, his treatment of economic development and population growth on environmental impacts is overly optimistic. These issues seriously limit the book's contributions.



2. Mr. Friedman's book begins with an interesting thesis, defining morality and its definition within a context of economic growth. The idea that economic growth or stagnation effects the mindsets of the people living in that time period is a logical argument that Friedman often well supports with historical facts. However, the exceptions to his argument make me wonder if he really believes in his own thesis, or if he just felt the need to write a book. Furthermore, for every chapter in the book, there seem to be at least one or more flawed arguments or points that, with a little thorough thought or research, don't make sense or can easily be disproven. With these things being the case, I find Friedman's argument a little hard to buy. The entire book seems to build up to the final chapter, which Friedman uses to make policy recommendations that would aid in economic growth; this final chapter could have stood alone from the book entirely, however, because the evidence in the book an his arguments elsewhere in the book (ie. the importance of education) do not add or support his final policy recommendations. His policy recommendations could have easily been listed by students in an economics class as responses to the question "What should the government do to promote economic growth?" They don't push the argument forward or indicate anything that hasn't already been suggested in the past, nor do they give suggestions as to how to go about implementing his policies.



3. Friedman explains how growth is good for promoting a freer, more tolerant and open society. The author gives good reasons for defending growth as the major objective of any government.



4. Economics is often considered a values-free discipline (and economists - well, a sperm cell has a better chance of becoming human). Economists have promoted this view with their emphasis on "positive" (scientific) economics. Economic theory must generate testable hypotheses which stand on their ability to predict the future and withstand the test of data. This is actually very important if economic theory is going to serve as the basis for policy. Without a rigorous and dispassionate analysis of the problems we face and their potential solutions, policy is more likely to be destructive than useful. But taken to an academic extreme, this approach makes economics rather arid, an extremely formal social science that looks more like a branch of mathematics. Indeed, some economics journals publish articles so arcane they might as well be about string theory for all the relevance they have to actual human beings.
   
   Friedman understands that economics is much more than mathematics, that it deals directly with human happiness. It's the most optimistic and joyful of sciences, not simply a ruler by which we can measure policy. Its uses and conclusions are fundamentally moral (or immoral). Economic growth isn't just about GDP and reams of statistics, but about the expansion of opportunity, the lifting up of the poor and the powerless to prosperity and self-determination. Markets aren't just about money, but about liberty. It may be the responsibility of economic advisors to be cold, impartial and rational in their analysis and advice, but policy makers and citizens must apply moral reasoning and moral sense to the products of that analysis.
   
   Friedman's book is a solid introduction to the moral relevance of economics. Friedman shows us that economics matters, though it doesn't matter in quite the way that physics matters. Physical knowledge may be used for moral or immoral purposes, but physics is fundamentally without morality. It also need not deal with anything that really matters to you and me. Economic theory can explain human behavior in ways similar to thermodynamic explanations of molecular motion, but humans aren't molecules. You can't simply describe the impact of globalization or tax policy on humans without a moral framework; an attempt to objectify humans as you'd objectify hydrogen molecules contains its own grim morality. It's the strength of Friedman's book that it makes clear that economic decisions and economic analysis are firmly embedded in a moral framework, no matter how hard we might try to ignore it in our pursuit of scientific and mathematical rigor.
   
   Friedman's book isn't just a moral tract; he attempts to make a case for his moral stand. Friedman is a skilled economist, and he marshals historical data and comparisons of different nations and different periods in our own history to make his case. He provides some information useful for evaluating his thesis that economic growth is moral, he doesn't simply assert it. But herein is a weakness in his book. He doesn't provide nearly as much hard information as he should, and he scatters his supporting numbers throughout the text. It would be very helpful to the reader if data were gathered into charts and tables. There's but a single Figure in the book, no tables of data. It should also be noted that his national comparisons leave out some states (China, Singapore, Vietnam) that might contradict his thesis regarding the linkage between economic growth and political liberty. He's chosen his examples far too carefully.
   
   Another weakness of this book is a natural danger of the type of text Friedman has written. Because he is dealing with economics as a moral issue, he takes a moral stance, one that's clearly to the political left in many ways. I have no problem with this, even though I'm somewhat to the right of him, but we should be very clear on one point. While a trained economist like Friedman is in a much better position than the average person to analyze the effects of different policies, he's no more qualified than a pastry chef to comment on the relative desirability of those different policies once their effects have been laid out in terms the pastry chef understands. Friedman makes a number of policy suggestions in his book with which I disagree. He doesn't make it sufficiently clear that their potential effects aren't unambiguously better than those of alternative policies designed to create or enhance economic growth.
   
   My final objection to this book is its length. Friedman is clearly a well-read man of wide interests, and he brings a great deal of his erudition to this book. It strengthens his case, but I'm not sure that the marginal benefits of the 400th page exceed the marginal costs. More than once I found myself wanting an executive summary of the chapter I was reading and wishing that he would just cut to the chase. But that's really a minor complaint. I benefited from reading this book. It's an interesting and thoughtful contribution to the issue of economic growth (and by extension to international trade and economic aid to developing countries), and I strongly recommend it.



5. 
   Since the rise fascism and Bolshevism in the 1920s there has been the question of how political rights and civil liberties correspond to economic rights and growth. Amartya Sen has argued that the political rights and civil liberties should not be divorced from economic process (Development As Freedom). Sen's normative approach of equating economic rights to the freedoms one achieves with guaranteed civil liberties is one that many can respect.
   Benjamin Freidman has taken a more positivist to the same issue. In doing so he asks, "Which came first the chicken or the egg?" Does economic growth in a capitalist setting require democracy and civil liberties or visa versa? Friedman's study looks back not only over all to this question in modern economic history. But, he also takes specific case studies from the United States, Germany, France and others to see the over all trends of the problem.
   From this he develops a matrix on the issue. In times of growth political rights tend to expand. In times of stagnation they tend to contract. What is interesting his not how Friedman arrives at this basic framework, but his look into the exceptions of this common sense rule. Why in the 1930s was the political openness of the New Deal accepted, but the recent economic stagnation in France caused the rise of the right-wing Le Pen party?
   Friedman is one of the foremost experts on the political economy. He has held a seat at Harvard since 1972. Yet, in this work for public consumption his writing is more along the lines of an historian. He does not delve too far into the economics or the political science of the issue, which many academics tend to - even for the lay reader. Instead, he sees to it that the main ideas are gotten across.
   His prescriptions are simple. Maintain economic growth and we can maintain political and civil liberties. While Amartya Sen may find a problem with placing the chicken before the egg, after this work one must understand that economic stagnation helps noone.

1 comments about A New View of Comparative Economics with Economic Applications Card and InfoTrac College Edition.

1. This is one of those books - you would expect in the thirties or fourties - that tell you how bad planning is but then suggest that a socialist society is probably great if you live there. The only really annoying part is when facts are down-played, which they are in certain descriptive paragraphs. Describing a centrally planned economy:
   
   "Restrictions on movement and the central determination of wages made the market for labor clumsy and unresponsive, but on the whole workers responded to material incentives just as in the developed market economies."
   
   -- Anyone who has studied Socialist planned economies knows just how untrue that statement is. Material incentives were introduced and constantly re-worked in an attempt to get a response from workers, but largely the material incentives did not work or did not work as planned. Firms could not profit-maximize because they had to fulfill a plan, the plan would be given in "tons" or "square meters" and the incentives were skewed toward fulfilling the plan - sometimes for material reward, other times due to coercion, but in neither case was it an incentive system that lined up in the way it does in a market economy. The phrasing leads one to beleive that the incentive is similar in both systems, but the incentives in a planned economy were a constant struggle and often produced the opposite of the objective (eg incentive to produce less instead of more).
   
   One or two just misleading paragraphs would not bother me. But there are very many:
   
   "Workers performed because of piece rates, bonuses, or the prospect of advancement as well as supervision, just as in the West... Truly coercive systems of labor allocation and job performance are those that rely on slavery, serfdom, indenturement, or peonage."
   
   -- So, the USSR had no gulags, then? Forcing people to work and allocating a job for them at a certain wage, with all consumption products from housing to media to milk to clothing also planned and priced by the government - the one employer - is nothing like serfdom, then?
   
   The wording is clearly trying to convince the reader that the USSR was an improvement on what came before it. Many Russian would disagree and you have to skew the facts and omit facts - keep the discussion at a very high level - to get this viewpoint across.
   
   In case you think I am twisting the words of the writer, he states several times that planning is not that bad, the market is coercive through its "whip of hunger", and "it may be premature to assume that central planning is buried forever", "the widely held belief in the superiority of the market, which may well be called into question in the future." etc etc.
   
   My other complaint is that although it *does* do a nice job of describing many different economic systems - it doesn't go into great detail about all of them, and clearly at least some of the high-level analysis is questionable. Therefore it remains a very introductory text on comparative systems that ought to be taken with a grain of salt.
   
   There is also one absurd thing that the author does - maybe more than one, but here is an example of a ludicrous bias.
   
   There is one very dishonest and obviously biased paragraph in this book. Its so obvious that its bizarre to see it published in a textbook. The book makes the choice to compare two economic freedom rankings. The first is the Heritage Institute's Indices of Economic Freedom. The ranking is described and the table is shown and then the author provides a caveat:
   "The six 'freest' nations are all small, with an average population of less than 4 million. ... On the whole it is difficult to draw lessons for the design and conduct of an economic system from the experience of such small states, no matter how rapid their their recent growth experience. It is simply not realistic to assume that Russia or India will undergo sustained growth by adopting the same policies as Hong Kong or Singapore."
   
   Okay. Reading this one may notice that he seems to want to defend more socialistic states, but perhaps he is simply making the observation that if the "freest" countries by this measure are all small and have had recent growth but not long-term growth, then you may not be able to draw any conclusions.
   
   But the table is included and I sincerely hope that no reader falls for that or moves on taking his words at face value. It is completely dishonest. One look at the table shows that his "6 freest" are actuall 6 of 8 - the first three are ranked #1 #2 and #3, then there are 5 ranked #4 that are all equal in score!
   
   Guess which countries came in #4 with a score of 1.8 exactly?
   
   Estonia
   Ireland
   Luxembourg
   Netherlands
   United States
   
   Then the next in rank is Australia with a score of 1.85.
   
   So, is it "difficult to draw lessons" from the Unites States - ranked equally to some of those 6 that he mentioned? Is it "simply unrealistic to assume that Russia or India will undergo sustained growth by adopting the same policies as" the United States, ranked equal to some of his 6?
   
   Why pick six? He picked them because they were small, and if the United States ranked *after* them by score, it would make sense, although you might expect him to mention that the US came soon after, if it was close in score. But the US didn't come after, the US tied in score! So did the netherlands which is 19 million, not under 4 million. And then Australia was in fact very close, another larger country.
   
   It would be an outrage if it weren't so idiotic.
   
   Then again, if you are buying it second hand as I did, only two years old and under $10, it is probably worth the buy and worth the read.

3 comments about How We Compete: What Companies Around the World Are Doing to Make it in Today's Global Economy.

1. More than two million jobs disappeared from the U.S. between '01 and '04 - half a million in high-tech industries alone. Further, Steven Roach, chief economist at Morgan Stanley, estimates that there have been about 8 million fewer jobs in the current recovery than would have been expected from prior history, and most of the new jobs come with low wages and few benefits.
   
   Berger knows these numbers have caused a rising fear that no American job is safe from low-wage countries. To discover whether these fears are justified, Berger and a group of MIT researchers visited over 500 workplaces and factories around the world. Their conclusion is that cheap labor is not the answer.
   
   This conclusion is currently true in some instances; however, the authors fail to see that cheap labor (the "China price") is increasingly dominating decision-making - both in services and manufacturing. Jobs that formerly were not candidates for outsourcing (finance, market research, industrial design, computer systems design, paralegal research, reading X-rays) now are; strategies that previously fought off Asian alternatives often fail to work several years later as China and India adopt new techniques; in fact the authors often cite previously highly successful American companies that subsequently succumbed.
   
   G.M. and Ford are additional examples where this may yet happen - despite years of world-leadership. Part of their problem was believing that they could let Japan have the low-cost market - this worked for awhile, but now Toyota et al have applied the lessons learned in that market segment, and leveraged their distribution etc. systems on to producing competitive SUVs and innovative hybrids as well. Meanwhile, Toyota sees Korea and China as its most formidable future challenges, and despite its vaunted Toyota Production System, maintaining direct control throughout all stages (so does Microsoft, but that hasn't kept it from substantial outsourcing to India), and co-locating with suppliers, is seriously looking at China. Remember Visteon and Delphi (Ford and G.M.'s former parts arms)? Spinning them off was supposed to encourage more companies to utilize them, and it worked - for a time. Today's successes are far too often ephemeral!
   
   To be fair, the authors also point out that studies and analyses on the impact of outsourcing reach conclusions all over the map. However, I think the most accurate (and certainly highly credible) conclusion is that of former MIT economist (and Nobel prize-winner) Paul Samuelson - globalization should increase the world's total income and average standard of living, but there's no reason to think any particular country or region's advances will outweigh its losses.
   
   Berger, et al, also go on to recommend substantially improving American education. The "bad news" is that this has been tried for at least 30 years, with little impact. Further, others have determined that Asian IQs average about ten points over that of American whites. Regardless, what difference would improving education make, even if we did achieve equality with Asian outcomes, when the workers are paid but a fraction of Americans?
   
   Berger does mention the rationale for foreign corporations choosing to continue building millions of cars in the U.S. - laws requiring U.S. content. Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes, BMW, Subaru, VW and others have built large plants in the U.S. as a result of this act. However, the authors fail to recognize this as a potentially strong and viable overall solution to the hollowing of America.
   
   Another important omission is the problem of outsourcing large numbers of jobs to illegals within this country - in fact, Berger et al reference a situation involving such as a solution! Estimates are that AT LEAST nine million illegals from Mexico are here - depressing wage levels and stealing jobs that Americans formerly did. And what about the large number of Canadian truck drivers within the U.S. - soon to be augmented by Mexicans. (There are NO American truck drivers in Mexico that I know of, and very few that I've seen in Canada.) Then there is the self-inflicted problem of L1 and H1B visas bringing hundreds of thousands more, albeit legally. While technically not "outsourcing," the impact of each of the preceding is the same.
   
   Another thought from some "experts" is that sending off the lower-level jobs allows the U.S. to focus on "higher level" jobs such as innovation. That's ridiculous for at least two reasons: 1)Manufacturing, for example, involves more than drilling, welding, molding, etc. It also involves design, production management, production layout, machine design, etc. These are NOT low-level jobs, nor is operating highly technical equipment. 2)How are all the displaced workers going to become eg. biomedical researchers, rocket scientists, etc.? (Oh yes, the Chinese and Indians are moving into those areas also; I have encountered a number of Americans who took recommended training in new areas after being "outsourced" from a long-term occupation only to become outsourced again.)
   
   Also missing from "How We Compete" is any discussion and recommendation on healthcare. Auto manufacturers repeatedly claim that having to pay healthcare for their employees adds $1,000+ cost to each car - creating government-funded universal healthcare like other nations would help save jobs in America.
   
   "How We Compete" address an important topic - however, its focus on CURRENT approaches (vs. trends) results in conclusions that are seriously over-optimistic. (Inadequate analysis by Berger and others helps explain the maze of contradictory conclusions on this topic; political and economic motivations of short-sighted clients are additional drivers.) Eight million jobs here, nine million there, etc., etc. - it adds up and hurts a lot. Meanwhile, America's competitive status declines daily and our government does little or nothing in defense.



2. In the boom years of mass consumption after WWII, the vertically integrated companies flexed all their muscles. Giants like RCA, IBM, Levi Strauss, and Volkswagen coordinated all the functions from research and development to distribution within their own control in the company. "For the first time in history, a great number of complex manufactured goods, like automobiles, refrigerators, canned foods, bicycles, and radio and television sets, became affordable for people with ordinary earnings."
   
   In this book, they attempt to report on what the team learned about constraints and strategic choices in the global enonomy. "As far as I know, this is the first large-scale analysis of globalization that starts with a view from the trenches -- the people under great pressure to respond to new challenges in hundreds of companies around the world." If all manufacturing leaves America, can research, design, and services be far behind?
   
   Firms locate production abroad or contract out to foreign manufacturers to get the cheap labor. It doesn't matter that the quality is poor and not up to standard. "Finding workers at lower wages is the main concern." Who makes Dell computers and where? The December 19, 2004, 'New York Times' article quoted Kevin Rollins as saying that "Dell makes them in the United States." They even moved a production group to Nashville, Tennessee. "None is outsourced; none is made in other countries and shipped in." It has been pointed out that Dell laptops are assembled abroad." In 2005, 'Fortune' named Dell "America's most admired company." Ms. Berger maintains that "the only operation that take place in Dell factories in the United States are those involved with final assembly -- in other words, screwing in the parts and burning in the software options selected by the customer" and that Dell outsources all the manufacturing of the components which are included in its computers.
   
   Lenova Group Ltd. may be the world's third-largest computer maker after acquiring IBM's personal computer business, but it's a household name only in China. It provided an Internet cafe in the Olympic Village at Torino with free access to thirty-four computers for email service for the athletes and trainers. NBC's Olympic crew leased 1,000 Lenova notebook and desktop computers. Because of this exposure and the expensive sponsorship, its aim is recognition as a worldwide brand.
   
   Global trade has railroads humming again. The right train of thought can take you to a better station in life. Norfolk Southern is leading the way. As manufacturing moved abroad, more finished goods needed to crisscross the country from ports. In the 20th century, train engines, railroad cars, and thousands of miles of railroad tracks were all Norfolk Southern needed to reach prosperity. With the assistance of University of Tennessee as a key management tool to a broader understanding of the global logistics economy, Norfolk Southern is now more integrated in the global supply chain.
   
   Many of their trains are reassembled at the John Sevier Yard where my dad worked in the Fifties for the Southern Railway. Norfolk Southern who bought them out operates in twenty-two states and Canada, employing 30,000 people with Knoxville as a key hub because of its location and the CSX local Railroad. Sourcing of parts and materials is more global not only on a 21,000 mile cross-country route, but the Asian products headed to the Midwest will use Eastern ports like Norfolk, Virginia.
   
   At present, six major U. S. ports including Miami, Florida, are being used by Arab Emirates businesses which merged with a subsidiary of a London-based firm purchased by Durai Ports Wrold for $6.8 billion to allow direct access to American soil. Medicare is already substituting generic medicines manufactured in Israel and Germany in its new drug "insurance" whereby the American patient has no say in the matter. And it is not free! Competing globally for manufactured goods is one thing but putting the American population, especially the fragile elderly, at risk for chemical warfare -- or national security -- is another matter.
   
   Previously, I reviewed Thomas Friedman's THE WORLD IS FLAT which this author takes a differing opinion. She says that he claims "talented individuals from all over the world are now competing on a level playing field." She advocates that our world is still round. When MIT came out with another study, "Made in America" in 1988, "we learned about senior corporate delegations making visit after visit to Japanese plants to fathom the secrets of Japanese success." The Toyota and Nissan plants were built in Smyrna, Tennessee, and Lexington, Kentucky, and Detroit lost some of its automobile production to Spring Hill, Tennessee. Now, the digital companies have decided on Middle Tennessee to relocate.
   
   This is a five-year study by a dozen (nine men, three women) MIT Industrial Performance Center Globalization Team of which the author was a member. She teaches political science at MIT and was also in the group which produced the earlier study, "Made in America." Established in 1991, the IPC is headed by Richard K. Lester. There is a group picture on page 335 of the illustrious group which has now decided "How We Compete." I say, we don't!



3. A real page turner, plenty of insight into outsourcing and globalisation, very impressive piece of work!

No comments about Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy, 2nd Edition.

5 comments about The Dollar Crisis: Causes, Consequences, Cures , Revised and Updated.

1. "Politics is the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen. " (C) Winston Churchill
   
   According to this definition, Mr. Duncan is a good politician and he probably should run for office.
   
   This is a second edition of the book. First edition was written sometime around 2001-2002 and was predicting imminent collapse of the dollar and post-dot-com-bust recession turning into major depression.
   
   As we all know, that didn't happen. Instead of going into the ground, U.S. economy started a gradual trek upwards, partly due to real estate boom brought about by low interest rates, partly due to ingenious fiscal and monetary policy of Washington DC and support from national banks of China and Japan.
   
   By 2005, Mr. Duncan felt compelled to write a new edition of his book, this time adding passages about real estate bubble and a whole new section describing developments since 2002 - in essence, explaining why predictions of 1st edition haven't come true yet.
   
   Jokes aside, this is a solid book and it's highly recommended to any serious reader. A warning, though - it's not a popular book, and it's not meant for light reading - it leans towards scientific style, so it may seem dry and hard to read, especially to someone without basic knowledge of macroeconomics.



2. I never studied Economics at college so this book became my 101 and explained in depth why foreign countries, until recently, kept buying our US Treasury Notes even though they knew we were trillions of dollars in debt. Intuitively I suspected the current bull market was on borrowed time but this book spells out in detail how our current relative affluence is about to end and nothing can stop this train wreck from happening. This train wreck is not just the end of the latest bull market but the beginning of a severe recession and depression. Richard Duncan brings together the separate catastrophes of Peak Oil, Global Warming, the Collapsing Dollar and the Loss of its Reserve Currency Status and, the Lack of American Savings to clearly explain why the good times are about over. So be warned that this book is not a comfortable read. If like me you are wanting to absorb the message quickly, rather than try to nit pick his findings, then I would fault his over-use of charts and data tables. I started skipping them after I realized they were extra detail and not essential to the theme of the book.
   
   Richard Duncan goes to lengths to explain how we are part of a global economy and gives a plausible reason why the only way out of the coming depression, which mainly is the result of severe trade imbalances between the US/Europe and ASEAN countries, is for these third world exporting countries to raise their living standards. This will likely mean an internationally agreed minimum wage for all forms of labor. Only by using a flat playing field can free trade occur as it is intended to.
   
   Other informative books to read in this gendre are "Crash Proof" by Peter Schiff (Dr Doom)Crash Proof: How to Profit From the Coming Economic Collapse (Lynn Sonberg Books)
   and
   The Coming Economic Collapse: How You Can Thrive When Oil Costs $200 a Barrel by Dr. Stephen Leeb.
   
   Having read these and other publications I am now cashing in all my diversified US Dollar denominated investments held by a major Wall Street investment house, in order to buy quality foreign stocks and bonds directly from foreign stock exchanges using their own strong currencies. There are ways explained in this book on how to mitigate the coming extreme pain but we will all suffer a diminished life style.



3. Best I've read (and re-read) that gives a semi-informed layman an understanding of the dynamics of the global economy. In light of the current global credit crisis, the deflation of the US property bubble, the downturn in US consumer spending and sentiment and the likelihood of the a US recession, this book is amazingly prescient.
   
   The recommended solutions to the credit and currency crises won't happen due to the self-interested nature of national politics, which suggests there is no positive outcome to this.



4. A very good and readable presentation of the global economy and how the profligate spending and massive debt accumulation of the United States will bring about severe ramifications not seen since the great depression.



5. This is a great book. This is not light reading. But in regards to the review of this book, I guess it depends on the age of the reader. I am 100% sure no one under the age of 28 have ever read the book or would care to read it. But I am old enough to know that when I was born there were only 150 million Americans, gas was .25 cents per gallon and the coins in my pocket were 90% silver. My first job paid $1.53 per hour and I can remember going into a country store and telling Mr. Childers "I want .25 cents worth of balogna, cheese and crackers" and I would get stuffed. Mr Duncans Cures? Maybe so, but I believe we will fix nothing and our money is now a joke. Regards, Keith Renick, Peachtree City, Ga.

2 comments about International Business Law and Its Environment.

1. This book contains a concise explanation of every day problems regarding foreign transactions, together with an explanation of the Common law system specially in United States, this book concentrates pertinent cases for each of the subjects explained in it.



2. Despite that the book is very expensive and a required text book for college, I think it is an excellent book. It is informative and easy to read. The author made the information interesting and kept me engaged. If I didn't need the money (from reselling it), I would keep it as a reference guide.