5 comments about Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age (Russell Sage Foundation Co-Pub).

1. Democrats are better for the economy, says Larry Bartels, and they're better for the poor. He backs this up with an arsenal of data on rates and causes of inequality over the last 50 years under Republican and Democratic presidents. Inequality systematically increases under Republicans and decreases under Democrats. Bartels doesn't linger much over the mechanism which might make this true; he hypothesizes that Republicans emphasize inflation-lowering policies that help mostly businessmen, while Democrats fight unemployment that largely afflicts the poor.
   
   So if Republicans are bad for the majority of us, why do they win elections? A good part of the answer, says Bartels, is that Americans have short memories: they respond much more intensely to economic gain in the year right before an election than they do to economic loss in the preceding three. And American political opinion suffers from an unfortunate inconsistency: people claim to be in favor of reducing inequality at the same time that they support policies which further it. No matter how you frame it, for instance, Americans have overwhelmingly supported ending the estate tax since the 1930's, even though it demonstrably only affects the wealthiest 1% or 2% of the population. And this inconsistency doesn't go away with education: virtually every way you cut the data, clear majorities support doing away with the tax on inherited estates.
   
   "Unequal Democracy" is, unfortunately, a highly academic book: it seems very concerned to establish ideas rigorously that the rest of the world has long since taken for granted, out of the sheer analytical joy of doing so. Thus we wait 250 pages to see Bartels announce: "I find that senators in this period were vastly more responsive to affluent consistuents than to constituents of modest means." This is why we pay political scientists the big bucks. And yet to read Bartels, political science as a discipline only understands democracies as a collection of autonomous equals. So "Unequal Democracy" constitutes an *advance*. So much the worse for political science. I have my doubts that anyone outside of political science will get much from the book.
   
   In particular -- once again, assuming Bartels has summarized the literature propertly -- political science seems to have missed out on the collective-action problem in economics. As Mancur Olson noted in "The Logic of Collective Action" in 1965 (and I don't think he was the first), there's a problem when policies stand to benefit one group while they spread their harms across the whole population: the group will lobby intensely for the policy, while the rest of the population stands mute. Compact interest groups are really important, if only for this reason. Yet Bartels doesn't even start to discuss their effect on policy. He also never stops to touch on the disfranchisement of the poor. This was a large part of "The Conscience of a Liberal": Krugman asserts that our nation's growing inequality stems in large part from weakened labor unions, which used to help bring the poor to the polls.
   
   In short, Bartels is looking at the American political scene from a high statistical level, never descending to the foundations. And his book will not help us change the situation.
   
   In a world where "The Conscience of a Liberal" and Paul Farmer exist, I can't recommend "Unequal Democracy".



2. This is a quite amazing book for its wealth of fascinating and often counter intuitive information, particularly income distribution stats and political survey information. There is definitely a form of political delusion at work in the USA, based on voters so consistently voting against their own interests. For example voters favoring abolition of the estate tax when it only affects the top 2% of tax payers or favoring the Bush 2001 tax cuts without knowing anything much about them. More interestingly he shows how, while increasing political knowledge (measured by simple questions on who is what position in US politics) increases Democrats awareness of economic inequality; the same increasing political knowledge makes Republicans LESS knowledgeable or more in denial that inequality has increased, let alone whether it is a problem. He also nails the idea that the blue collar have shifted against their interests. Republican voting is still largely a matter of the better off supporting them, especially the less well educated and religious better off The Democrats lost power because of the defection of the South that now merely reflects the national picture (rather than hugely Democratic as before Civil Rights circa 1964) and the growth of reasonably well off, non college educated, religious voters who vote on economic AND values grounds, though still against their economic interests. Since 1948 economic growth has been on average significantly higher and unemployment lower for all social groups under Democrat presidents; inflation has been only slightly higher. And income equality much better under Democrats. Ultimately I suppose a worrying and somewhat pessimistic book, but a necessary tough tonic before thinking of solutions. Voters tend to vote on the economy in election year and the Republicans have done better in election years and voters don't seem to remember the other years when things were much worse. I hope both Presidential Candidates read it but doubt it will have the necessary impact. That will take a gutsy new FDR to put the country back together again after a collapse like the 1930s. Interestingly my conservative friends go into huge denial about this book: they can't even consider it; it is so threatening to their world view. I am open to doubt about its data and arguments, but the author provides plentiful source and precise survey question detail so intelligent engagement with the book is really easy, whether you agree or not with his fundamental premises. The author hasn't voted since 1984 he says and then voted Reagan, so this is not another move on.org book for the choir. The evidence drove him to his conclusions rather than the other way round. I wish there were more books this insightful.



3. Larry Bartels's book is one of the most important written works on economic inequality issues over the last 25 years. Anyone discussing economic inequality in the U.S. will have to deal with Bartels's arguments and evidence, even if you disagree with his findings and how he interprets those findings.
   
   Among the evidence and arguments of Bartels's books are the following:
   
   *** Since World War II, Democratic Presidents have been associated with modestly progressive patterns of real per family income growth, that is the income growth during Democratic Presidents' terms has been somewhat higher for lower income families than for upper income families. Republican Presidents have been associated with highly regressive patterns of real per family income growth, that is income growth has been much higher for upper income families than for other families. However, all income groups have on average gained more under Democratic Presidents.
   
   *** The Democratic Presidents' better performance has been concentrated during the second year of Presidential terms. Republican Presidents have done better during the 4th year of Presidential terms, that is the election year. This may help explain Presidential election results, as voters appear to respond more to election year economic performance than the economic performance of prior years.
   
   *** Economic issues still are key for working class voters in the U.S.
   
   *** Political leaders appear to be much more responsive to upper class and middle class voters in their state than to lower class voters. However, even more of voting behavior is explained by the ideology of a politician's political party. This is true both for the Democrats, who have ignored most voters' opposition to estate taxes, and for Republicans, who have ignored most voters' support for higher minimum wages.
   
   Bartels's work is only a start. He really does not have even close to a complete theory about WHY economic growth for different income families has the correlations he finds with Presidential political party. We would need to know more about this to more completely judge the relative economic performance under different political parties.
   
   In addition, his book raises the issue of how we can improve the quality of the political debate in the U.S. over issues of economic inequality. There is considerable resistance in the U.S. to openly discussing these issues. Politicians who discuss these issues risk being accused of promoting "class warfare". As Bartels points out, there is some tendency to want to assume that somehow the income distribution is determined by unchanging economic laws that are impervious to political influence. Bartels presents new evidence that in fact the income distribution can be influenced by public policy to a very large extent. But the question is, how do we make this understanding part of the mainstream political debate?



4. This book is yet another socialist tome from the 1960's hippie, university mono-culture. The entire point: democracy should produce equal economic results, is wholly anti-American. If the Constitution had said that the goal of democracy was to affect equal economic outcomes throughout our society the theme of the book would have been perfectly compatible with America. But, for some reason, our founders, who created the greatest, wealthiest country in the history of humanity, forgot that little detail in the Constitution. In fact, it seems not to have occurred to anybody until Karl Marx conjured it up out of a deranged mind that eventually could be held directly responsible for impoverishing 100's of millions and killing 100-200 million people. Despite the deadly failure of every socialist gov't since Marx, the university mono-culture still imagines that its' wisdom can perfect the socialist formula in America even as the billions in Russia, China, and India turn toward the capitalism that our founders miraculously gave us, and away from the socialism that Marx gave them.
   
   One can only wonder how liberals are so blind to what is happening so obviously right under their own noses. Recently, I had dinner with a friend who suggested a Republican understanding of America different from the one commonly suggested by university liberals. She teaches elementary school in the South Bronx. She told me about how some of her students had recently immigrated from Bangladesh where just 2 weeks before the start of the semester they had lived, literally, outside; with no modern conveniences including electricity, toilets, or running water. But somehow, she said, those students were performing better than native Americans who were born in the South Bronx. How could this be? The answer is simple: the South Bronx is the most liberal place on earth. Native American kids bring that culture with them to school. They feel the liberal, Marxist, Democratic entitlement attitude in their souls. In their souls they are victims or the children of victims who are entitled to have their needs met by their victimizers. Why should they work hard in school when Marx instructed them long ago: "to each according to his needs".
   
   Conversely, the Bangladeshi kids have the American, colonialist, capitalist attitude. They and their families are thrilled to be free in a capitalist country where they can create and enjoy their own lives based on what they can provide for themselves, not based on what they are "entitled" to from more productive people. Serendipitously, in a capitalist system, to provide for oneself one has to, firstly, provide more for other people. Hence, capitalism has produced the greatest wealth for all, although not the same quantity of wealth for all at any given time. After all, some have just arrived from Bangladesh, and some who arrived a long ago are just liberals.
   
   Additionally, the author bemoans the loss of union jobs in America. To the author, it is intuitively obvious that unions jobs are good jobs because they are higher paying jobs that, accordingly, result in more equal democracy. Completely and wholly lost is the idea that in a free,wealthy, capitalist society one should get wages or prices that other free people agree to pay for one's goods and services since other people provide an impartial point of view about what goods and services, at what prices, actually constitute a standard of living improvement for the purchaser. When liberal professors or socialist gov't bureaucrats makes those choices they choose wrong and standards of living go down, rather than up, as history has repeatedly shown us.
   
   The liberal, union principle is that one gets whatever one can by blackmailing one's employer for higher wages. Forgotten is that, 1) everyone, including union members, must then pay more for expensive union made goods, thereby eliminating any net gain, 2) blackmail, rather than greater productivity, as a means to get ahead, diminishes an individual's, company's, and economy's focus on productivity, competitiveness, and wealth creation, 3) non-union companies and countries will have lower prices and more competitive products so that unionized companies will ultimately go bankrupt and cost the blackmailing union members their jobs.
   
   For example, American liberals now seems poised to lose GM, Ford, and Chrysler and the millions of jobs that they directly and indirectly provide, in large part because of unions. So why on earth do university liberals still imagine that unions and socialism are a good thing? The answer is that it is only way for them to participate in a free capitalist society that functions very precisely and well without their irrelevant academic disportment. They can come up with childlike and absurd new theories and arguments to promote old fashioned socialism, and try to foist them upon us, but in the end they can't educate one child in the South Bronx or produce one competitive automobile.
   
   If equality is the real issue, why do the top 1%, under Bush, now have to pay 40% (up from 32% prior to Bush) of all Federal Taxes? Why do the poor get free health care and education through high-school, in addition to numerous other entitlements, without which their lives would not be sustainable? Why did Bush introduce the first $2 Trillion budget and then the first $3 Trillion budget if not to help the poor in America? Why did Bush introduce the Prescription Drug Bill - the costliest entitlement since the 1960's - if not to help the poor? The issue isn't that the poor need more economic democracy, it's that liberals (some of whom are truckling or confused Republicans) have declared war on the poor with their caring, preposterous, and counterproductive programs. The liberal attitude toward education and unions constitute two of the many battles in the liberal war against the poor.
   
   At another time one might mention how liberal, hip hop, feminist, welfare culture destroyed the idea of love and family in poor America by replacing June Cleaver with Britney Spears and Madonna so that most kids are now born to single impoverished mothers, but that's another battle in the liberal war on the poor that, again, would only be exacerbated by "economic democracy." When the most sucessful black leader of the last 35 years, Rev. Jesse Jackson, looks at this and then wants to castrate Barak Obama for advocating responsible paternity, we don't need "economic democracy," we, sadly, need liberals who can think above the retarded level. bje1000@aol.com



5. Regardless of the political party you identify with, this is a great informative read if you are interested in US politics, especially in this day and age with our failing economy.

5 comments about The Way We'll Be: The Zogby Report on the Transformation of the American Dream.

1. John Zogby is by far one of the most respected and prolific pollsters and chroniclers of social changes and sensibilities of our time.
   
   In his new book "The Way We'll Be" he says that people want more than ever to be treated as individuals. He says they also want variety in the products they purchase. "They want choice, not imposition, and they are demanding to be treated as individuals," he says. I'm not sure this in and of itself is real news. But if you market to other people, it's certainly something you should know and understand. Only when you understand what people want can you successfully sell to them.
   
   He also says that people are willing to settle for less. "Narrowing limits", he calls this attitude.
   
   The one problem I found with the book was that the author seems to deal mostly about the current state of things and not as much about the future as you would expect. Of course, one call tell a lot about the future by the past.
   
   What I found useful about the book is that it tells us about the consumer and the people we deal with daily. As a marketer, this information is valuable. Indeed, it is priceless. Just as politicians needs to know what motivates people, those who sell to people need to know their motivations as well.
   
   While the book fails to tell us exactly what we might expect in the future (if that were even possible) in the way Alvin Toffler did, it is certainly a worthwhile book and one that I highly recommend.
   
   - Susanna K. Hutcheson



2. I've been trying to help a recent college grad nephew find a direction to go in the world. I thought this book would be useful. Statistically it is, I suppose. But Zogby's purple prose to describe the things and people he doesn't like, and his flights of glorification for those he does diminish its value to a mere compilation of data. There are perhaps 20 useful pages in the book for someone not trying to figure out how to pitch products or candidates. I've told my nephew about the book, but I have suggested he look elsewhere for insight without the zeitgeist.



3. 
   I liked two things about this book. The first was the way Zogby explained how pollsters do their job. I've never really understood things like "margin of error" and what they mean for a poll's signficance. But more importantly, I liked the way he distilled the many polls into main trends, as the felt intuitively accurate. In particular his discussion of the younger generation whom he calls "The First Globals." I have nephews in this group, and I'm struck by how much more cosmopolitan and worldly they are than even gen x or y kids were.
   
   I think this is a great book to read if you want to get a big picture view of where our society is headed.



4. I have to say this, and not just because John Zogby is from my hometown, but his new book The Way We'll Be made me feel better about Americans and their native resourcefulness than almost anything I've read, watched, or listened to lately. There's no Armageddon waiting in the wings here, and all other aspects of Irwin Allen-style narrative are shockingly absent.
   
   Nor will we become a vast gulag of mind-controlled robots. Through an analysis of his unique (and sometimes seemingly counter-intuitive) polls, Zogby cheerfully reports that Americans are not being led by the nose by marketers and the other "experts" on molding public opinion. When something doesn't smell right under all that Bernays sauce, we say, "To Hell with it!"
   
   The kids? According to John Zogby, they're all right. What to us middle-agers might appear knee-jerk political correctness will to them increasingly be simple common decency, made less absurd through constant use. They also have a different idea of privacy than we do--though in this case Big Brother is their internet community, and it's no big deal for them to appear semi-clothed in a YouTube video or visibly loaded on MySpace. The main thing is, they'll navigate much more fluently in the world than we ever could.
   
   What I think is the most optimistic aspect of Zogby's book is that we'll find a way to make it through whatever crises may occur, and that our behavior and treatment of one another will change out of necessity and through common sense and not by dint of any dictatorial promptings. We'll find spiritual comforts when mere possessions pall. We'll do with less and enjoy what we have (and those with whom our lot is cast) more.
   
   There may be trouble ahead, as the song says, but thanks to our inner resources (dormant but not atrophied) we'll face the music and dance. This may not be a dance you or I now recognize, but all the kids will manage to learn it just fine.



5. This is the second book I have read in the past month by a political pollster. The first, "Words that Work," by Frank Luntz, was a cynical look at how polling can help corporations and politicians paint themselves in the most flattering light and bamboozle a helpless public. John Zogby's book could not be more different. It is a deep, exhaustive look at some of the insights he has gained through decades of polling about the state of the American psyche, what people value, want they hope for and where they would like the country and their own lives to go.
   Full disclosure: I worked with the author of this book for many years on political polls he conducted when I was chief political correspondent for Reuters. Obviously, I valued that partnership -- but this book is not primarily about politics. It is a kind of "State of the Union Address" and is by turns amusing, revealing and often surprising.
   Zogby's deepest insight is his proposition that there exists in our nation a vast group of Americans he calls "secular spiritualists" -- people craving meaning in their lives. Some find it through religion, but many look for spiritual sustenanance outside of organized churches. They want material comfort and security for themselves and their families, of course, but they also want to leave the world a better place than they found it; they crave emotional fulfillment and they are remarkably tolerant of ther races, religions and cultures. Unfortunately, politicians have completely failed to address these desires, preferring to fall back on unbridled negativity (as seen in this year's presidential campaign).
   Americans, Zogby says, want an ethical government, ethical corporations and ethical leaders. Young Americans, who Zogby calls "First Globals," see themselves as citizens of the world as well of their own country, and are deeply committed to preserving its future.
   I recommend this book for its fascinating insights into where our country may be heading in the next 10 or 20 years.
   For more on me and my books including The Nazi Hunter: A Novelgo to www.alanelsner.com.

No comments about I.O.U.S.A.: One Nation. Under Stress. In Debt..

5 comments about Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America.

1. I was expecting this book to make us 'understand' ,not 'know', what it is like to be in a low wage job and more or less at the bottom of the economic chain. This book left a lot to be desired. The author never really 'lets go' and immerse herself in her situation. Rather, she stays high up on her perch, and passes judgment on everything that moves. How do we interpret her musings and thoughts and humor? Was it just to alleviate her pain arising from a situation (she makes fun of the 'rich' folks who employ 'poor' house-maids. While the humor was nice to read, what was she trying to convey in the page after page of sarcastic comments about the boss of the maid service? Wasn't he a product of the economic system as well?)
   What I was looking forward to was someone who stood back and simply 'described', with the astute observational-eye of a Somerset Maugham or an R.K.Narayan - and let the reader interpret and judge. Instead the author fills the book with pages and pages of sarcasm and humor poked at someone or the other - management, the hotel owner (she even goes to describe problems with an East Indian marriage system !), the rich and even at the English language in Walmart's video material! The author behaves like a 'tourist' having a trip on her expensive car through 'poor town' and thinking that she is experiencing poverty. Poverty is more of a state of mind - of how the mind, in desperation, breaks down and accepts its surroundings without question. For some reason, the author simply finds this hard to understand and keeps questioning 'why the employees at Walmart don't form a union'.
   Go ahead and the read the book - I do commend the author's courage in leaving her safe surroundings and living in poor conditions. But do not get swept away by the glowing reviews on the cover - they are by affluent reviewers who just want a vicarious peek at poverty.



2. Gave the book as a gift...didn't read it but the reviews on it are great. I'm reviewing the bookseller. The book was here very quickly in excellent condition.



3. This was me! For those who reviewed the book and said that Ehrenreich was "unrealistic", I'm going to share my story. Several years ago my ex-boyfriend and I could have been in the book; we were each working a full-time job and he also had TWO part-time jobs at the same time (one after his full-time job and another on the weekends). Our jobs were in electronic sales at a big chain store and telemarketing which at the time paid $7.50 an hour. Yet we were still unable to make ends meet. After rent on our shoebox-efficieny apartment and utility bills, quarters for laundry and bus fare (we couldn't even afford a car! And even if we could have, we would not have been able to afford insurance AND gas.), we had hardly any money leftover for groceries and certainly NO money leftover for luxuries such as new clothes and new shoes (we did shop at thrift stores, but only when we really needed more outfits). After we ran out of selling our CDs, books, and magazines, which we sold for bus fare to be able to get to and from jobs, we resorted to selling plasma which paid $20 at the time and was enough for two weeks worth of groceries. Everything else that we owned, a mattress on the floor, linen, and kitchen supplies (which we deemed were the necessities) had all been purchased at a Goodwill also with the help of a friend of mine who worked there and used his employee discount for us.
   I'm sure people would have thought my ex-boyfriend and I were lazy and "slackers" but we were working so HARD and pinching pennies and we couldn't understand why we still couldn't afford a nicer apartment, a car, decent clothes and to eat well. I shudder to think how much more of a hell our lives would have been if we had had children to boot!
   Unfortunately the strain of our financial situation did our relatonship in. He moved back in with his single mother and I moved back in with my grandparents as we went our seperate ways. Sadly, living with my grandparents rent-free didn't really make my life easier. I was still working a minimum wage job and trying to save money while also helping them with expenses. Then the worst thing happened, I got another job in telemarketing and lost my voice completely two weeks into training which was followed by strep throat; this latest for a month! Needless to say I lost my job because I couldn't even make it through training. Of course I had no health insurance either. I realized there was no way I could ever afford a car to get a better job off the bus route or to move out into my own apartment anytime soon. Finally, I made the desperate decison to enlist in the Army.
   My life is completely different now that I am out of the Army and a civilian again. From the Army I gained skills and knowledge in a specific field which are marketable and thanks to the Army College Fund and Montgomery G.I. Bill I am currently enrolled in a graduate program. Finanically I am better off now then I ever was in my life, but I never forget for a minute that I can end up again where I was before the Army, (selling plasma for food)...even with a Master's degree. Unfortunately there are countless reasons why some people would not be able to make the same decisions to join the military. For many people that is not an option. So where does that leave them?
   I LOVE this book because I think it IS realistic and dead-on and I should know, I have lived it!



4. I heard about this book through my reading teacher and a student a few months ago. Out of curiosity I decided to buy the book.
   I really enjoyed it. I loved how it was written in a diary format and how the author was so real and blunt about everyone and everything she came in contact with.
   
   Hopefully this book will wake up the country.



5. I have to admit, I grew up as person of privilege. I am from a large home in suburbia and drove a Mercedes SUV to high school every day. I was always taught to appreciate the things you have, and how lucky I am. Being born into wealth doesn't take talent, it takes luck. Even being born in the United States alone takes luck, you only had a 5% chance of being born here.
   
   This book reaffirmed my core belief that while hard work and brains can get you places, the effect of the starting hand your dealt cannot be denied. I have to admit I am pretty embarassed to read some of these reviews that blame the poor for their lot in life. Just because hard work can lead to success in this country, doesn't mean it happens 100% of the time.
   
   Here's a big lesson I learned: tip everyone. One dollar to you might mean almost nothing, but for the working poor it means a whole lot more. Treat employees with compassion and respect. A lot of the poor conditions Dr. Ehrenreich experiences is because people are too self-absorbed to think of others. For example, when she's working as a maid in Maine, dripping sweat and the woman whose house she is cleaning doesn't even offer a glass of water. Instead, she commands Dr. Ehrenreich to clean floors on her hands and knees.
   
   I did find the book to be a bit preachy at times, but really the overarching lessons here I think transcend politics. It's about human decency and compassion for your fellow man. Much of where you end up in life depends on the hand your dealt with from the start. The hand your dealt is all luck. Out of 6 billion people, why did I get to be born to wealthy parents in a great school district while another person of equal intelligence and integrity does not?
   
   Anyway, this book is a must read for people of privilege in my opinion because it forces you to take a step back, count your blessings, and become more generous to fellow men and women.

5 comments about The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time.

1. What a wonderful book. I won't go into detail, as I think the first few reviews do a fine job, but this book is definitely worth reading.



2. You, being a smart person who is up on contemporary debates in economics and development and/or are a reader of Vanity Fair, probably already know all about Sachs and this book.
   
   Sachs made his name giving "shock therapy" to various third world economies. He recommended they jack up interest rates, and pushed them towards neo-liberal free market structures. His career hit a bit of a bad patch when he was associated with the economic meltdown of the former Soviet Socialist Republic. This book is his recommendations for development in Africa.
   
   Sach's ideas at base are pretty simple - Sub Saharan Africa needs lots and lots more aid. This aid should be put to use curing easily defeatable diseases and establishing local agrarian and, eventually, manufacturing economies. Oh, and right wing type who say that more aid won't fix the problem are wrong. That's about it.
   
   I think Sach's has this all about half right. More aid is a good idea, but alone, and in the style he suggests, I doubt it will lead to an end to poverty. Paul Collier's more nuanced book The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It, which I just finished, and will review soon, gives a better battle plan for dealing with seriously troubled countries. Sach's plan is a little too throw-money-at-the-problem for me.
   
   Still, this book is worth a read. If you're going to talk about world poverty now a days (and I tend to talk about world poverty a lot), you going to have to know what Sach is up to. He is by far the biggest name in the field. He may not always be right, but he's the player that you need to know about.



3. The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Out Time by Jeffery Sachs, is an optimistic, forceful argument for the economic potential of developing countries and the necessity of increased in aid from rich countries to realize it.
   
   Jeffrey Sachs is an accomplished macro-economist, currently at Columbia University, who has experience helping poor countries get on track to development. While, often described as left-leaning, he makes strong cases in favor of free-trade, market forces, and the role of the private sector in achieving economic development. He does often tout his own success regarding recommendations for economic reforms that enhanced development in impoverished. However, given the overall pessimistic attitude that many have towards real, subtantial economic development in these difficult places, I am not so sure it was out of place.
   
   While, I have a certain amount of skepticism towards Official Development Assistance, ODA, that Sachs makes a case for. His argument is compelling, especially in areas like health and education, that do not have a history of being served well by market forces alone. Even in infrastructure development, while rich countries now rely on significant private sector involvement, during their initial development stage, it was entirely a public endeavor.
   
   In the end, I am more willing to accept Sachs' argument that ODA is an essential part of what poor countries need to achieve sustainable economic development. I am in entire agreement that promises we make as a nation need to be fulfilled, and not given lip service. The other option is to not make those kinds of promises, but the current situation is dishonorable with regard to the gap Sachs illuminates between the United States' promised aid and the United States' actual aid to developing countries. I do think we need to hear more about technological innovation and technology transfer, that Sachs seems to assume will happen if the proper economic conditions are established. I am not yet convinved of that. Also, I still believe that the devil will be in the details as far as ODA is concerned, and if not executed properly we could easily establish incentives for those participating on both sides of the divide that work against our real objectives.
   
   And lastly, I should add, I found the foreword by Bono of U2 to be very thoughtful and eloquent on the subject. I was more suprised than I should have been, I suspect.



4. Jeffrey Sachs uses his broad knowledge to frame the context of a call for action to end extreme poverty in our generation. He demonstrates through detailed statistical comparisons the evolution of the widening gap of economic opportunity between the world's regions, and provides interesting narrative examples to support his conclusions.
   
   Although the statistics sometimes are mind-numbing, Sachs does a good job of creating graphical representations in the form of world maps, which serve to educate the reader and demonstrate the often overlooked connections between health, education and economic development. He has "done his homework" in providing a wealth of historic perspectives on the problems we observe in today's economy.
   
   Sachs uses his groundwork effectively as a springboard to inspire our thinking about how we can help create a better world by doing relatively simple things. Again, he uses the narrative to demonstrate how small amounts of money, medicine or appropriate technologies, delivered to the point of need, can make a huge difference in the outcomes for people living in or near extreme poverty.



5. the man who has brought destruction to the Russian economy through the "shock therapy" and preparing the ground for his zionist jewish friends in Russia to own all the key national assets, now goes on to tell us what to do with the rest of the world...his books should be prohibited

5 comments about Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism.

1. Kevin Phillips' latest book - Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism - is not an easy read and not an easy book to review. To properly review it would take more space than is practical in this format. What I truly want to do with this review, then, is to convince people how very important this book is and, as other reviewers have noted, how important it is for anyone willing to tackle its complex subject matter to read it _now_. It will truly change your perception of what is happening in the US economy and in the US political scene. And, also as other reviewers have noted, it is in the end quite depressing as to how bad our current situation and how bad our prospects for the immediate future are.
   
   Reading Phillips' books, I often get the feeling that I have walked
   into a classroom where the professor is delivering his third lecture on
   the subject and I must scramble to follow what he is saying. Bad Money is
   no exception. I wish his editor(s) had pushed him to put in a few well
   laid out examples that would endable the reader to properly understand
   just what a CDO or an SIV actually consist of, how they function, how
   they're handled in the marketplace and so on. Again, this is not an
   easy read.
   
   That said, however, the points Phillips makes are well backed up in
   economic analysis and facts, and in historical relevance, both of which
   areas Phillips is intimately familiar with. He is sounding an alarm to
   anyone willing to listen, and what he lays out in this book is very
   disturbing to anyone who has noticed the growing chaos in our financial
   markets, the rising insecurity of our economic situation, and the
   seeming inability and unwillingness of our political leadership to deal
   with these growing problems.
   
   The preface, with its subtitle "The Political Economics of Deception",
   starts with these paragraphs that lay out in startling clarity the
   central concern of the book:
   
   "The most worrisome thing about the vulnerability of the U.S economy
   circa 2008 is the extent of official understatement and misstatement --
   the preference for minimizing how many problems there are and how
   interconnected they are... Whether the U.S. government and the
   Republican and Democratic parties can remedy the debt and oil-related
   transformations of the last two or three decades is dubious enough. Far
   more worrisome is the possibility that neither Washington nor Wall
   Street is willing to confront the deeper problem -- the ascendancy of
   finance in national policymaking (as well as in the gross domestic
   product), and the complicity of politicians who really don't want to
   talk about it."
   
   One important point Phillips makes is one people can instinctively
   relate to: the debasement of government statistics. People know from
   their daily lives that the economy is not good, that prices of almost
   everything are on the rise, that jobs are harder to come by, and that
   overall, things just aren't as good as they once were. But at the same
   time, the government keeps insisting that unemployment and inflation
   are low and that the economy is growing, citing figures that people
   can't reconcile with what they're experiencing every day. The reason is
   because the numbers have been cooked to support the government's claims
   and no longer represent any meaningful measure of the things they are
   supposed to relate to. And the numbers they can't cook, they suppress.
   For example:
   
   "Beginning in March 2006, the new Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke, ordered
   that the government cease publishing data on changes in the broadest
   measurement of the U.S. money supply, the so-called M3. It was
   expanding at a 10-12 percent annual rate in 2006; outsiders calculated
   that as of August 2007, that growth had accelerated to a high-powered
   14 percent.... Continued publication of M3 reports would have undercut
   the assertion of Bernanke... that the inflationary expectations of the
   public had been safely 'anchored' at a low level by the tame core
   CPI... For 2007, the U.S. M3 numbers show runaway inflation in the
   annual range of 14 percent."
   
   Another point Phillips makes in the book is that our growing financial
   problems are compounded by our energy and political problems:
   
   "the prior eminence of the United states in global petroleum matters
   has left not only an outdated infrasturcture but a spectrum of
   disabilities, unwarranted smugness, vested interests, and booby traps.
   These range from currency vulnerabilities and lack of a serious
   national energy strategy to apparent policy inertia in Washgton, where
   many officeholders seem unable to understand how much has changed for
   the United States over the last decade."
   
   Other warnings include the rise of oil consumption by countries like
   China and India and the extent to which oil-producing countries are
   already re-directing their output towards those markets.
   
   "In the wake of the unpopular U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Saudis showed
   their displeasure... continuing to reduce oil sales to the United
   States... after peaking at the equivalent of 1.7 million barrels per
   day in 2002, Saudi sales to the United States fell to 1.1 million
   barrels per day in May 2004... China soon jumped ahead of the United
   States in oil exports from the Saudi kingdom... the demand for oil in
   China alone will, before long, equal the entire production of Saudi
   Arabia... China stands to be the world's largest oil market of the
   2030's, possibly replacing the United States in that capacity by 2025."
   
   Phillips also touches on why the political leadership seems both unable
   and unwilling to deal with the array of problems the country is facing
   and shows how this same deadly political inertia has afflicted other
   great powers in history, citing examples from the Spanish, Dutch and
   British economic empires that preceded our American economic empire.
   The comparisons are fascinating and disturbing at the same time.
   
   Again, in looking at what I have written, I know that I have barely
   scratched the surface of all there is in this book that merits being
   read. All I can do is urge anyone who wants to understand why the
   economy seems to be in such bad shape, why the government figures seem
   to be so contradictory with what is happening, and why our political
   leaders seem neither willing nor able to deal with the problems, this
   is the best book you can possibly read and the time to read it is
   _now_, before the election, so you can see through the utterly
   meaningless drivel that politicians are putting out instead of talking about the very real problems we're facing, about what our options - however painful - are, and about what the consequences to us as as nation are if we continue to do nothing.



2. Since there are so many long reviews of this book that pretty much cover most of the salient points, I'll keep mine fairly short. This book is interesting if you are one of those people that suspect there is something wrong with the way our country has been doing things, and there are a number of important ideas you may not have heard about or thought about in the way they are presented. I have only a couple of small complaints. As others have pointed out, the style is often extremely dense, especially when dealing with economic issues, and sometimes he seems repetitive. A layperson will feel like he or she pretty much has to trust the author because he uses so much jargon and brings in so many complex examples that there is no way a non-expert can evaluate his arguments. The book is mostly a rehashing and updating of his earlier book American Theocracy which might make more interesting and easier reading. The book is quite recent, yet it seems quite out of date because it pretty much assumes Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee in 2008 and barely even mentions the actual nominee in an aside. Finally, as others point out, the author doesn't really give any hints of where he thinks it will all lead or what we should do about the problems we face. Part of this is by design and he gives an explanation of why he doesn't do it, but in my opinion, this leaves the book open to many interpretations, and it is easy to jump to severe conclusions. On the positive side, the author does briefly point out, without dwelling on it, that the US does enjoy some potential advantages in geography that previous empires did not, and he also mentions that many of those previous empires now enjoy a relatively successful existence as a non-empire.
   
   This book is relatively short so it's woth checking it out if you are interested in the topic. You might want to read his book American Theocracy first.



3. I read this book after hearing the author, Kevin Phillips, give a radio presentation to the Cambridge Forum. Phillips was familiar to me as a spokesman for conservative perspectives over a span of decades, a perspective that I never shared. Thus, I was a bit skeptical when I first heard his presentation on this topic. However, I was quickly impressed by his careful, scholarly analysis, and have come to agree that he is exactly right. Phillips' central point is that the United States has abrogated its leadership position in the world by virtue of having stopped being a nation that produces goods and services of real value and becoming a nation who's primary business is the manipulation of financial markets and debt. He cites earlier examples of the Maritime Dutch republic of the 1700s, Great Britain around the time of WWI, and even Rome. The sobering point is that once a nation has gone this route, the course is irretrievable. He finds lots of blame for this situation, and it is not all deposited on any single political party...there is plenty to go around! He discusses our biggest product, Credit Debt, the root causes of the rise in oil prices, and the impact of right-wing evangelicals on the administration's feeble approach to dealing with our major challenges. This is not a feel-good book, but it is an important contribution to helping Americans understand our current situation. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED



4. "Guns don't hurt people. People hurt people." It's the same in shadow finance. If you invest for yourself, or if you want to invest for yourself, but you don't trust a system that keeps the middle class investors in the dark, that over-extends its borrowing to crisis levels, that sells questionable contracts & mortgages not only to naive Americans but to unsuspecting foreign institutions (buyer beware), then you will find the root causes of our 2007 financial lock-up in BAD MONEY useful. Like Roger Lowenstein's books describing earlier lock-ups, Kevin Phillips' book outlines how people we trust repeatedly let us down. Notice that I use the phrase "lock-up" & not "sell-off". From the early 1990s to the present, Lieberman, Greenspan, Paulson, Gramm, etc., all have fought against transparency in the financial markets by turning the discussion towards the fear of more regulations. Buyer beware!



5. Does the mortgage credit crisis bother you? Are you concerned about high oil prices? Do you get the feeling that Wall Street is largely a high-stakes casino, where insiders collect billions on winning bets, and also collect billions on losing bets, payed off with taxpayer bailouts? Do you want to understand why this is happening and how the game works? Then go find a different book. The author of this book is a "big idea guy", and he does nothing to elucidate his major points, all of which I was painfully aware before reading page one.
   
   The writing is in a churning stream of consciousness style, looping back over the same topics several times, in no particular sequence, as if hoping that some meaningful connections would appear just from the proximity of the paragraphs. Most annoying, is the habit of introducing an interesting topic, promising, "more on this in a later chapter", then repeating the introductory comments without pushing further when the later chapter arrives.
   
   There is no way to deny that the problems outlined in the book are important and deserve attention. Most of the positive reviews here award 4 or 5 stars based on that alone. But not only are no solutions offered, the problems themselves are not broken down and explained in any meaningful way. The comparisons of recent American history to the declines of previous empires is interesting, but superficial. If the thesis is that an over-emphasis on financial services leads to decline, I want to know why. I believe it could be true, but I don't understand why. No help here.
   
   I do know that when the government takes the downside out of risky behavior, by promising taxpayer bailouts for failed lenders, that it's a recipe for disastrously risky behavior. That's obvious. Why is it allowed to happen? Who can stop it? Somebody please give me the name of a book that can help.

5 comments about Chain of Blame: How Wall Street Caused the Mortgage and Credit Crisis.

1. This book points fingers and names names and it is high time someone did that. The authors know their subject and the book is well researched and readable. I recommend this, even to someone who is new to the topic.



2. Well written, well researched and has the juicy stuff too. A broker standing on his desk yelling at the loan reviewers to go faster, faster, faster in approving loans (so he can get his commission). Great background on Angelo Mozila, the king of subprime, and a fun story about Lewie Ranieri, whose Texas employees thought they were getting a mob boss instead of a banker.
   
   It will make you laugh, and make you cry because government has given away the bank to the crooks again. These crooks are in suits and rob all of us with a pen. U.S. taxpayers, investors, and pension funds will be trying to choke down these bad loans and ABSs for a long time.



3. I really liked this book - it is well written and describes the main actors of the mortgage market meltdown in a very engaging way. Back in the mid-90s I was working as an analyst for a bank that participated in syndicates that underwrote warehousing lines of credit for - among others, for Countrywide - and provided other services for mortgage companies. The authors explain very well how the how the mortgage markets work: from the homebuyer to the (far removed) overseas investor. They point out where the system may (and did) brake and how the unrealistic assumption about ever appreciating real estate market made many quite smart people lose their wits.
   
   So, what we see in the course of the book are a lot of "greedy" business people. However, they did not operate in a vacuum and what is missing in the book is the "greedy" consumer. I'm not taking away any responsibility from unscrupulous mortgage brokers, but they dealt with the consumer that threw caution through the window, too. The "ticking bomb", i.e. ARM resets were described in the loan documents - many just chose to ignore them, basing their "hopes" on the same assumptions as the "savvy" business executives - growing real estate values and low interest rates...Ultimately, shouldn't we all be responsible for prudently managing our finances?
   
   The authors bring an example of foreclosure raved Slavic Village in Cleveland. It is a sad part of the book - but the question comes to mind: why do we need to approach mortgage borrowers like we would easily deceived children?
   
   I think, the book would be more valuable if it addressed this link of the chain, as well.



4. An easy & engaging read. It connected most, if not all, of
   the financial dots for me.



5. Do your eyes glaze over when commentators try to describe the financial products that were at the heart of the recent real estate boom? The mortgage boom? This book described the instruments clearly--and gives the reader a great sense of what was fundamentally wrong with the whole process. The title is "Chain of Blame," but there is plenty of blame to go around.
   
   The book is well written and lucid. Nonspecialists can understand it well. I heard talking heads on TV and radio described tranches, REITs, "liar loans," "warehouse line of credit," and so on. The authors describe these terms--and others--clearly and in such a way that the reader can begin to see what had happened--and why the meltdown in the mortgage world should not be seen as so surprising.
   
   It is also the story of clever businessmen and women, who could develop new tools for investment from subprime loans. Subprime loans, simply, are (Page 325): "A loan originated by a lender that is A- to D in quality. Consumers with the best credit ratings. . .are considered 'A' credit quality." In short, loans are being made to purchasers who carry some to a lot of risk. If they can't keep paying their mortgages, the house of cards can fall down. And that is, in short, what happened (although the story is quite a bit more complex than that).
   
   Among the innovators were pioneers such as Roland Arnall (of Ameriquest and Argent) and Bill Dallas (of Ownit Mortgage Solutions). Then, those who adopted practices of the innovators, such as Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide.
   
   The book makes pretty clear that a number of factors contributed to the mortgage problem. Regulators didn't get involved; Wall Street firms ignored the volatile nature of subprime loans in a desire to realize enormous profits; banks bought into the profitable business.
   
   Anyway, if the reader wants a well written, if not overly deep, analysis of the mortgage crisis, this is not a bad place to start.

5 comments about The Communist Manifesto (Penguin Classics).

1. ...and PLEASE read beyond the Manifesto! Ignore the anti-Marx ideologues who do not actually read him, and give him a shot. Forget, for a minute, all preconceived notions of communism, and take his writings as though they are fresh and brand new. Only then should you proceed on to reading criticism of him, history of Marxism, etc. The reader who is willing to undertake an actual study of Marx will find him infinitely valuable, and very astute on many things.
   
   First, I'd like to (try to) clear up a few misconceptions about Marx that linger implacably in the minds of almost all Americans.
   
   1) The Soviet Union, China, etc. were not Communist societies.
   They were brutal dictatorships under the guise of communism, using it as an ideological blanket to mask their terrible atrocities. Moreover, Marx intended for Communism to evolve out of Capitalist societies (i.e., Britain and America during his time), not out of the feudalistic Russia/China. The argument that Communism killed 100 million is just wrong--dictators corrupting the ideas of communism (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc.) did so. So yes, Marx caused the deaths of 100 million in the same way Adam Smith caused the deaths of the Chinese and Irish immigrants who toiled on the railroad--in other words, not at all.
   
   2.) Marxism =/= violence.
   In certain places, especially the Manifesto, Marx does permit violence, and, indeed, advocate it. But Marx does not think it NECESSARY--that's the key point. Good Marxist thinkers, and I believe Marx himself, would say that communistic reforms could come just as easily and likely more efficiently from peaceful processes, as we have seen them for the most part in the United States.
   
   3.) Communism is not welfare statism.
   In fact, in a, actually realized communist society (unlikely to ever happen, I'll admit) there would be no government. Marx advocated the PEOPLE owning the means of production, not the state. This is a HUGE error that many make when reading Marx. I suspect he was just as distrusting of the state as your average libertarian, he just thought it necessary to rectify some of the wrongs of capitalism and a necessary step toward communism. Note the use of step there: Marx, taking from his predecessor Hegel, believes everything must proceed in steps!!
   
   4.) The Communist Manifesto is not the end-all of communism.
   Honestly, the Manifesto is a rather juvenile work compared to many of Marx's other writings, like DAS KAPITAL or GRUNDRISSE. It was intended as a sort of primer to communism, accessible to the common, sparsely-educated worker of Marx's time, and is a better demonstration of Marx/Engel's (everyone forgets about poor Engels!) rhetorical ability than of their thought proper.
   
   I also believe that the Manifesto isn't really the best place to start. It breeds far too many misconceptions about communist thought, partly due to its theatricality, partly due to the way it has been misconstrued throughout the decades. If you do start with the Manifesto, as most people do, PLEASE continue on and read more about Marx! Trust me, it's worth it, and you learn the extreme depth of his theory.
   
   One need only look at their time to understand why Marx and Engels were so infuriated at the capitalist system. Those years of the Industrial Revolution were an exciting and terrifying time. New wealth and new commodities were springing up constantly, but they tended to be concentrated in the hands of very few, while created at the expense of millions of common, downtrodden labourers. Those who attack government regulation of corporations should study the Gilded Age of America, and the Industrial Revolution in England. Child labourer, no safety laws whatsoever, no minimum wage, no work-week, no fair bargaining between workers and employees, government subsidizing of wealthy corporations, union-busters, etc. Is there any wonder Marx and Engels, who were essentially exiled to England during this time, were filled with such anger at the system that caused so much human suffering?
   
   Marx's critique of capitalism is in my estimate the strongest part of his theory, and it is likely that his witnessing the above exploitations of workers is why it is so strong, and why the Manifesto seems so... angry. I strongly recommend that anyone interested in Marxist theory pick up a copy of the Marx-Engels Reader (also available on Amazon) and read through the "Critique of Capitalism" section, which offers selections from his writings under this topic.
   
   How right Marx was is for the reader to decide. Again, I find his critique of capitalism VERY accurate, and believe the only reason his predictions haven't come to fruition to be because we implemented some of his recommended policies (we now live in a blended economy, somewhere on the spectrum between pure capitalism and communism). Communism itself is a bit silly, but not so much as the anti-Marxists make it out to be. The real take-away point here is that you should study (not read, STUDY) Marx for yourself, and not accept what I, or the anti-Marxists, tell you.



2. Communism is dead as a doornail. Those who think otherwise are simply brainwashed by propaganda and completely ignorant of world history. The Soviet Union collapsed after decades of backwardness and Marxism, not that its economic failure was ever in doubt. Their pseudo-"industrialization" caused huge famines that killed tens of millions, and did not reduce the technological lag that persisted for decades - they were in the stone ages technologically. They were only saved in World War II by American lend-lease shipments, and then donations of grain and wheat. The Soviet Union was a failure, and was lagging behind the West in industrial production, agriculture, military strength, applied science, everything. Their physical indices and statistics (along with the alleged achievements of the military and space program) were proven to be bungled lies and propaganda. Their Marxist economists were incompetent, and failed to solve any planning problems. Those who deny these historical facts are just as pathetic and ignorant as Holocaust deniers or flat-Earthers. Cuba hardly fared any better - it was ruled by a brutal dictatorship, and it is lost to history how many millions were also killed by famines and harebrained government schemes. Those who still doubt this need to WAKE UP, get some sunlight and stop reading pseudo-intellectual tracts like this.



3. Kinda a pointless book now that communism has been proven ineffective. I guess if you still want to live in this type of society you can move to Russa, China, Cuba etc. Lucky for them they have the US to give them foreign aid. Communism would be dead within a few decades without a capitolistic nation to support it.



4. This edition presents the standard translation of the Communist Manifesto, in use for 120 years, introduced by a long essay exploring the European intellectual ferment that produced the work in 1848. Given the importance of the Manifesto in history, I would have appreciated a different introductory essay, one written with the general reader in mind. By the time I finally reached the text, I still felt ill equipped to understand its unique language and message. I needed a better basic commentary and perhaps a more contemporary translation of the work itself.



5. The idea of this book is simple enough: it's Marx's and Engels' concept and plan for a totally fair society where everything is shared and everyone is (supposedly) equal.
   
   The problem is, "...absolute power corrupts absolutely," and when authoritarian dictators implement these ideas it always results in two percent of the people having everything and the remaining ninety-eight percent having nothing.
   
   The core focus of this political persuasion is on "the worker". It evolved from a prior eternity of monarchs dominating the poor and a response to the scourge of serfdom. Ultimately, Lenin used "The Communist Manifesto" as a means of promoting the Russian Revolution which ultimately became the cultural horror which the rest of us came to know as The Soviet Union. In other words, it provided the basis for a ploy on the part of the Bolsheviks (Communist Party).
   
   During the years of Communism, the Soviet workers used to convey a covertly-spoken credo: "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us". That pretty much sums up how Marx's and Engels' plan played out in actual practice.
   
   Strangely, few people ever make the observation that the ideas of Marx and Engels were not at all original. Thomas More (1478-1535) conveyed almost the same concept when he scribed his famous work: Thomas More's Utopia. In fact, people who have obviously never read "Utopia" would clearly not cite it as "the ideal society" if they were even slightly apprised of the numerous horrors of that fictional society. And so goes "The Communist Manifesto" in actual practice.
   
   Still, this is an incredible, eye-opening read and we SHOULD read it if for no other reason than to see how mans' best-laid plans can easily go awry. Highly recommended.

5 comments about Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America.

1. I mean really now. Who sees any sort of humor at all in this book?
   
   I actually find the author's tone to be completely indignant and arrogant, she is ungracious, unkind, even cruel in her tone towards her "friends" and co-workers while she is playing poor.
   
   She even goes so far as to compare her plight to that of a princess being punished by being forced to hand feed all her subjects... this lady is a real piece of work. She is absolutely deplorable and such a snobbish, egotistical (well a not so very nice person)! Her "insights" and her surprising realizations scare me, I mean if real people actually find shock and awe at the same everyday DUH she makes a big fuss over, then this country is way past salvageable!!!
   
   She is a career essayist who lowers herself to play poor for a little while, and tries to maintain a decent quality of life while getting by on minimum wage, something which is definitely not her area of expertise. She describes looking for places to live, jobs, working conditions and overall environments of the places she goes.
   
   She alienated, humiliated, and demeaned almost everyone she met, though not in any sort of dialog to their face, just her thoughts about them...
   
   This is definitely a must read, but not for the reasons by which I kept being mislead. For people like myself, this is at times hard to read, however it is definitely a book you will not soon forget, and definitely an author you will not soon forget either.



2. I thought the concept of this book would be very interesting. However, the Author's delivery, not so much. I would have liked more details about her co-workers, friendships and follow ups on where are they now or simply more of a personal insite to the people. She was very "on the surface" with alot of descriptions. The Author was a bit arrogant by constantly reminding us about her eduation and background. I hope once she published this book that she gave something back to the hard working people that "helped" in her research. Or at least gave them a (free) copy of the book! The Author ends with some very strong and thought provoking points. All in all it's an ok book if you're not into details.



3. I think the premise was a good idea as a whole, but I don't believe Barbara Ehrenreich was the one to present it.
   She tends to have a victim attitude in life, and a contempt for people who are successful, which I find ironic since I am sure she is not standing on a street corner giving away her profits from the book.
   
   She opens fine and the footnotes are somewhat interesting but then she goes off on tangents that have nothing to do with the book. She claims to have this disdain for others who she feels are elitists but then she turns around and does the same thing herself. One example, which has no place in this story, in my opinion is when she, as an avid atheist, decided to attend a revival for fun, then not only proceeded to mock the people who went but called Jesus a socialist among other things I would rather not repeat. My opinion of her formed very quickly from that point.
   
   She also points out that management in one of the companies she works for were simply jerks. Granted we all know the types but she didn't even try to see it from a balanced point of view. The Maid Company she worked for had some hard rules, like no water on the job, etc., which I found to be unreasonable, however she ended up blaming the homeowners, some that she never met. She had disdain for a Buddhists home who had spiritual messages throughout his house, once again she never met this person, yet felt free to judge.
   
   Also as far as management is concerned, as a business owner I realize how some people are in this position but there are also two sides to a coin. She mentions how much she dislikes the people she works for with the "rules" yet in the next breath she talks about her and the "maids" in the company car driving through a nice area with the radio blarring and yelling "F*** YOU" out the car window to moms with stollers. When they cringed she mentions how she finds this behavior hysterically funny. Gee and you wonder why they have to set up rules. I wouldn't want her representing my company.
   
   The book is not balanced. Last but not least, she claims so many of these people are in poverty, yet I can't help notice how many of them have no "lunch " money yet have plenty of funds for smoking and having kid after kid. Just an observation. It's too bad really the subject matter would have been good had it not been so tainted by attitude.
   
   I have no doubt there are a great deal of working poor who are making ends meet and having a hard time. Those are the people she should have sought out. I believe she was too blinded by her anger or perhaps guilt over her own success to see it clearly.



4. If you'd like to hear the voices of the real working poor, get a copy of Without A Net: the female experience of growing up working class, edited by Michelle Tea. It is more poignant than a journalist's game of dress up.



5. Another book explaining how we as a superpower are continuing to do a disservice to our own people. We can spend Billions on other countries to insure they have high-speed internet, but fight when it comes to guarnteeing medical for our children. It is not just that the system is not working... it is so far broken that it has been forgotten. How do we fix this? My grandma suggested an atmoic bomb, and although I thought this was ludicrious at first, I am begining to come around.

5 comments about The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.

1. Well the book is written by an anti-American Marxist Canadian author with a long history of capitalism bashing. She's married to the newly hired anchor of Al-Jazeera terrorist network Avi Lewis. Scratch these guys and they bleed hatred for the western civilization. Marxism has influenced the author so much that she is blind to the miseries of marxism and communism. The book has no serious theory. It's all about contempt for what Capitalism has done. Though she is biased. She fails to mention the terrible result of Communism and socialism. She's a Canadian and one can't expect these jealous guys to do better. They hate America out of jealousy. I give this book a zero and its author should be ashamed of herself. Go live in Cuba or North Korea if you don't like capitalist system.



2. Although this is a significant read, both in length and subject matter, it is actually written so it is an easy read. The words flowed and I have learned so much. I recommend this book to everyone. This is important stuff if you want to be a critical thinker when considering the news of U.S. and world events.



3. 
   Milton Friedman, the diminutive alpha male of the University of Chicago economics department for decades, called himself a "neoliberal." You can be sure his heart wasn't bleeding, however, for civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, abortion rights, or any rights at all except the rights of corporations to operate without government regulation or public scrutiny. None of those liberal causes had any meaning for Friedman or his disciples, who used the word in its 19th C British sense of laissez-faire and free trade. What Naomi Klein and other British journalists call "neoliberal" is identical with what Americans call "neo-conservatism." Milton Friedman was the Apostle Paul of neo-conservatism.
   
   Klein describes neo-conservatism as an absolutist sort of ideology - a militant religion of unfettered capitalism, if you will - which is markedly unable to recognize any sense at all in any other religion, and equally unable to admit or learn from mistakes. The central credos of neo-conservatism are: 1) no government regulation of private enterprise, 2) no socialistic government ownership of any enterprise that can possibly be privatized, even police and defense powers, 3) no redistributive taxes; sales taxes being the preferred form if any, 4) withering of the state to what they call, in their own manifestos, a "hollow government" existing only to collect public revenue and redistribute it to private entrepreneurs, 5) above all, no labor laws, no welfare, no "nanny" state, no public education, no environmental restrictions!
   
   The central thesis of Klein's book is that such neoconservative unfettered capitalism has proven to be incompatible with effective democracy, since no population of voters, given honest information and not subjected to such sort of Shock Therapy, would ever vote or elect representatives to foist something so inimical to the interests upon themselves. Beginning with the historical experiences of the Southern Cone nations - Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil - in the 1970s, Klein shows in great detail how coups and putsches, with their subsequent terror, have been perceived as opportunities for radical economic takeover and restructuring by the Chicago Boys. From Latin America, Klein takes us to Indonesia and South Korea, to South Africa, to Poland, Russia, and eventually to Iraq, depicting the violence, corruption, repression and misery which accompanied every one of those "opportunities." In fact, Klein suggests, neoconservative restructuring can ONLY occur in a situation of disaster, whether self-imposed by military traitors, by hyper-inflation cultivated by the IMF and World Bank, or by natural catastrophes such as Hurricane Katrina.
   
   If even half of what Klein reports is accurate, compatriots, we've been sold a bill of sordid goods! Klein is a journalist, not a historian. For that reason, I read her book with caution and resistance, checking her quotes and data whenever I felt the least doubt. Thus it took me weeks to get ready to write this review. For what it's worth, I have found her quotes verifiable in every case, and her data subject only to a few quibbles of omission.
   
   Don't suppose that Klein is delivering a party-line polemic. The Clinton Democrats are excoriated equally with the Republicans of the "Washington Consensus." NAFTA Bill was at best an impure neoconservative, though for Friedmanites the slightest impurity is anathema. Madeleine Albright was as much a globalizing neo-con as Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld, though a lot less unscrupulous and with far less personal greed at stake. Essentially, since the unregretted collapse of Soviet Communism, neoconservative capitalism has been, as Klein puts it, "the only game in town." What Klein achieves in this book, even for those who disagree with her analyses, is to reveal the abuses and the terrible social costs of Friedmanite world dominion.
   
   You out there! You who proudly proclaim your conservatism and/or libertarianism! You need to read this book! If you're too smug, or too cowardly, in your convictions, how are you to be taken seriously ever again!



4. Naomi Klein has written a vitally important book for anyone who wants to understand recent US history - it gets behind the clutter of propaganda and the hot air of government briefings to reveal the important thrust of US policy at home and abroad - she deserves a pulitzer for this!



5. Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" weaves together the systematic oppression of South American countries, the "help" given to Poland, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the current war in Iraq. Spotting the common threads in each instance, she then holds up the tsunami victims alongside the city of New Orleans to show the same benificiaries of government spending getting rich again. In every case, the parallel is drawn between the attempt to shape the client country's future and the medical technique of "shock therapy".
   This is s a thick book but the reader intersted in trying to understand the rise of BLACKWATER, the peculiar hype around avian flu, and countless other quirks of disaster capitalism needs to read "The Shock Doctrine".