5 comments about Irrational Exuberance.

1. This book has good info in it but man, does it get long. I read lots of analytical info with interest, but this book was very very slow for me, especially in the middle and later chapters.
   
   The good news is that the first couple of chapters make it worthwhile. It does present some very important and valid concepts. The easily-bored reader could read the first few chapters and the last chapter, learn a lot of good info, and not miss much in the long middle chapters.
   
   JD



2. If you have Invested more than ten dollars in the share market or real estate than you should read this book.



3. Last year in my country you can see some commercials in the TV inviting to invest in Mutual Funds, and I believe lots of people turned to that. The problem is that the very next year, beginning in January, the housing bubble burst and we know the rest of the story. Although this book was written before that, the book remain valid at explaining the particular behavior of the markets in these moments of furor, the "irrational exuberance", and the panic that follows it. In my opinion the book is a good investigation of the markets, you can see the author analyzing all the factors involved, including sociological and psicological (this make the book a little slow). Is good to invest in the financial system, but in awareness of its possible behavior.



4. not much food in the book overall..a very shallow and general talk, but i found it interesting to see his comments (p220) on the interest rate and other potential risks in the mortgage market back in 2005. some of the points he mentioned are indeed drivers of the recent subprime meltdown



5. Great book based on the phrase spoken by Greenspan to try and slow down the economy.

5 comments about SPIN-FREE ECONOMICS.

1. I was shocked by how much I liked this book. I think of it as a kind of contemporary *Capitalism and Freedom* (Milton Friedman), although it comes across as less partisan and the coverage is much more global. I agreed with almost everything the author said and I thought the framing was effective and spot on just about all the time.
   
   Many economists may already know too much to be the appropriate audience here (but many still need this book), but if you wish to give someone an economics book as a gift, or as an introduction to thinking about economic policy, here you go. I'm still astonished at how remarkably good this book is and yes I did read it all the way through. Greg Mankiw wrote a very nice blurb for it.
   
   Tyler Cowen



2. SPIN-FREE ECONOMICSTHIS BOOK ONLY SPINS WITH BUSH AND THE NO RULES CAPITALIST'S. IT BLAMES THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY CRISIS ON THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND SAYS ENRON HAD VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH IT. IT USES PENNSYLVANIA AS A ELECTRICITY DEREGULATION SUCCESS. I LIVE IN PENNSYLVANIA AND ELECTRICITY DEREGULATION IS A FAILURE. THIS BOOK IS ABOUT PROTECTING THE RICH. IT SAYS TRUST THEM AND NO REGULATION IS NEEDED



3. There are some nice write ups here but this is not spin free. This is mostly free market economics that is fairly blind to most of its shortcomings. If you like free market capitalism then you'll like this book. If you believe in a mixed economy, with some progressive leanings, then you won't.



4. This book is NOT spin free; it has a quite obvious classic liberal/conservative bias. That would be fine, was it not advertised as "spin-free" and were the author willing to admit that he is not representing a majority of economists on all issues. For instance he argues that taxing consumption is better than income, yet most economists agree that a progressive personal income tax is the best possible system (See Alan S. Blinder & James Baumol's economics textbook).
   
   Furthermore, many of his claims are lightly supported. In one chapter he backs up the grandiose assertion that smaller government is conducive to growth and higher Human Development Index (HDI) scores by showing a casual correlation between lower taxes (as a percentage of GDP), and higher GDP growth, lower unemployment and higher HDI scores. He completely ignores that the social democratic welfare states of Scandinavia have unemployment as low, and growth as high, as the US. It is only the corporatists welfare states of continental Europe (whose welfare states constitute a smaller share of GDP than in the Nordic countries) that have higher unemployment and less growth than we do. The same goes for HDI scores, all Scandinavian countries outrank us; only the corporatist continental European countries do not. Not to mention that he just assumes this correlation to be a causation - something anyone with an interest in a scientific fields knows to be a grave mistake.
   
   Like a pundit, but unlike a scholar, he ignores arguments, or mere pieces of evidence, that contradict his claims. For instance, he claims that publically produced education should be replaced by vouchers, and (intentionally?) neglects to mention the opposing argument, that this experiment was tried and failed. In Texas, Edison education inc. took over public schools, educating the same students the government did before. The company was unable to improve preforamcne and only turned a modest profit after 8 in business, finally going bancrupt. But he doesn't pay attention to these arguments.
   
   There are, of course, things in the book most economists would agree with (e.g. that globalization isn't to blame for stagnant wages), but they're thrown in with claims far to the right of most economists. This book is definitely a center-right economic manifesto.
   
   If you want a balanced, spin-free approach to economics, please go for the more scholarly, but far more objective "Economics of the Welfare State" by Nicholas Barr (Oxford University Press, 2004). Please do not mistake punditry for scholarship - even it comes from a professor.



5. I'm disappointed to write a negative review of this book. If the book was advertised differently, I would probably review it very positively actually.
   
   First, let's get something out of the way: I have a very pro-market orientation and am very conservative on most economic issues. And I agreed with 90% of what was presented in this book--a little too moderate, but fairly in line with my worldview. Greg Mankiw and Tyler Cowen have been the book's most enthusiastic reviewers and they are, guess what, fairly conservative economists.
   
   Now if the book was advertised as a center-right manifesto that wouldn't bother me. The arguments here, in the vast majority of cases, should be familiar to anyone whose taken an introductory economics class or two. That being said: the book comprehensively and clearly explains the basic foundations of a Greg Mankiw/Tyler Cowen/center-right Keynesian view of the world.
   
   Unfortunately, the book presents itself as a presentation of the consensus in economics. The first few chapters of the book actually try to demonstrate that the economics profession has a monolithic view of the world which will be presented in the remainder of the book. The remainder of the book seems to completely forget the whole "spin free consensus" aspect of its thesis. The final 200+ pages of the book don't make a single reference to "spin free economics" or tables showing what other economists besides the author actually believe.
   
   The reason the author doesn't give us such tables is probably because the author knows that many economists wouldn't agree him. That being said, the vast majority of economists are more comfortable with market outcomes than the general population. Whereas most people would blame "corporate greed" for high gas prices during a hurricane, economists would point to a supply curve shift. Whereas most people rail against "Benedict Arnold" outsourcing corporations, economists overwhelmingly defend the gains from trade, international and domestic. For these reasons, the vast majority of economists vigorously oppose price/wage controls and protectionism (whether they come in the form of export subsidies, import quotas, farm subsidies, tariffs, "Benedict Arnold" tax penalties, or international labor and environmental standards).
   
   However, despite that free market/anti-price control consensus, economists have a number of differences. For one thing, they greatly disagree over the extent to which taxes on labor and capital distort behavior. This is why there's vigorous debate in the economics community over whether marginal tax rates on capital/labor the wealthy should be increased/reduced. The author presents his argument as if there's an anti-tax consensus (at least for labor and capital taxation). However, that's far from the case.
   
   Moreover, he presents the health care debate as a non-debate. His policy proposals for health savings accounts, Medicare reform, allowing interstate purchases of health insurance, the end of the tax preference for employer based health care are presented as consensus. There's vigorous debate over each of those policy prescriptions (except for maybe the tax deductibility for employer health insurance--even Obama's advisers publicly called for an end to the regressive subsidy; but that didn't stop Obama from shameless attacking McCain as a "tax hiker" on the issue.) Many economists on the left would attack the author's center-right health care proposals on the grounds that adverse selection in private markets would leave a very sick pool that's too expensive to insure. It pains me to say it because I think the author's proposals (for the most part) are the right ones, but there is a debate over his health care panacea rather than a consensus over it.

5 comments about Long Tail, The, Revised and Updated Edition: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More.

1. This book was recommended to me by a business friend. I am interested in starting an internet business and operate within what Chris Anderson describe as "The Long Tail" of my business sector. Armed with the knowledge and insight from this book, I feel that I am better prepared to launch my business. The best thing about this book is that it is linked to a blog that is constantly updated as well. So, and remaining questions that I had regarding the book were either answered on Chris Anderson's blog (www.thelongtail.com) or I could ask it then and there.
   
   This book will quickly become one of the mandatory pieces of literature for anyone wanting to operate a business or grow an idea on the internet.



2. I purchased this book and was expecting a much better read. This is just another bunch of self proclaimed babble from someone trying to promote himself as an expert.
   
   You can keep my money, I just want the time back I spent reading this book.
   
   There are too many technology "experts" out there anymore.



3. The book was pretty informative however a lot of the information that was in it I found a duplication from what was posted on the author's blog. There is a lot of fuel for thought in deciding what kind of business or product to sell considering that there is a niche market for probably anything that anybody can think of. Recommended.



4. Although I try to keep up with hot business books, I missed this one when it was climbing the NY Times Bestseller ranks in 2006. I heard about it in a Q&A session on LinkedIn and decided to read it. Chris Anderson has soundly articulated how the democratization of production and distribution has changed the rules of the game. If you're a creative type trying to produce and sell your own stuff, this book will encourage you to forge ahead. There's a niche out there somewhere that is looking for you.



5. I guess I picked up this book too late as most of what is written seemd fait accompli and some parts seemed to try to make the facts fit the model.

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

1. Until reading this book, it was difficult to see how bad home loans could bring down Wall Street. In an entertaining read, Muolo and Padilla tell the story.



2. This book was an easy read. I like the way the authors tried to keep it simple, which must've been a challenge. This whole crisis and why it happened, is not that simple to explain, so the average person, who's not in the world of high finance can understand. Muolo and Padilla did a good job breaking it down for us; exposing the culrpits involved and tried to give us an idea of what these guys were thinking. Obviously, they all swallowed that line from the movie Wall Street, "Greed is good", and paid a hefty price with other people's money.



3. This book clearly spells out what went wrong to precipitate the mortgage crisis that catapulted the financial markets into a global meltdown. The book uses simple language to describe complex concepts, which is very helpful to the financial novice like myself. In this sense, this book is wonderful.
   
   However, the book is way too long. Some whole paragraphs are repeated almost verbatim in different chapters. Each paragraph chronicles the life and times of another major mortgage company. While this concept is ok for telling stories about the individuals involved in the business, it makes for highly repetitive reading, as the mistakes made by one company are often made by others. The first 150 pages is a tough slog of similar people and similar stories, but the book picks up steam in the final 150.
   
   Finally, while this book does a great job of explaining the mortgage industry and their role in the financial crisis, the authors make a cursory explanation of what truly happened on the Wall Street side of things. (This isn't too unexpected because the authors are mortgage experts.) For example, there is basically no mention of the subsequent credit crunch that was precipitated by the sub-prime mortgage disaster.
   
   For a good explanation of what went wrong on the Wall Street side of things, I recommend 'The Trillion Dollar Meltdown: Easy Money, High Rollers, and the Great Credit Crash'. That book is not an easy read, because the author expects the reader to have a solid understanding in Wall Street lingo. But 'Chain of Blame' is a useful primer.



4. This book tells it like it is. It's clear, well ordered, and very readable. But it's a little scary to realize how greed can control a country like ours.



5. I've been in the real estate and financial planning field for almost 30 years and even though I like to think I'm an insider, much of the past lending mess was happening while I wasn't watching closely. Sure we saw the direction of where it was headed back in '05 and after, but what happened prior to that was eye opening. This book almost reads like a "whodunit" and the villains are many.
   
   As a radio talk show host since 2002 we cautioned many of our listeners and clients of the pitfalls of these easy doc loans and warned against 100% financing, but greed and optimism are very compelling. And this book exposes many of the people behind the scenes who were guilty of the EXACT same mentality. How the "Big Boys" could say they didn't see what was going to happen is frightening and Matt & Paul pull all the skeletons out of the closet and expose them for what they are/ were.
   
   Will we ever get out of this mess? Yes indeed. Will this Chain of Blame develop again? Probably.

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

1. I agree with most people who read this book in saying that Barbara only gave us a glimpse into the world of minimum wage and trying to *live* on it. Skimmed the surface, so to speak. Even though, I enjoyed the book and thought it was well put together.
   
   Was there a lot left out that should have been included, YES. Did that make this a horrible book, NO. But delving deeper would have made it a much better book and possibly more respected in the community.
   
   We get to see Barb take on 3 minimum wage jobs in 3 towns in the US. Technically it was more jobs because most times she had to take a second job to live. We get to meet her co-workers, but not very indepth. She makes a strong case that I think we all know anyway, which is that it's impossible to live on minimum wage in this country and that often these jobs are the hardest working jobs you may ever hold...
   
   Overall I'd recommend it. I'm sure there are some people, who like me, it might open your eyes a little wider and you might judge others less, or have more compassion/understanding for people in these situations. We read it in my book group and I thought it provided EXCELLENT discussion!



2. I had heard of this book for several years prior to finding it the thrift store. I'm very glad I didn't pay full price and I'm happy to see lots of cheap copies here so that you can read the book and get your curiosity satisfied.
   
   Basically a woman with a PhD sets out to see if and how she could earn a living and maintain herself with minimum wage jobs. Unfortunately, no matter what she did, she could never bypass the fact that she always had her 'real' life and bank account to fall back on. Unless you are truly in the position of having to make ends meet on minimum wage without any Plan B can you understand what it is like to live on minimum wage. I know as I have done it. It is possible to live on minimum wage, and actually enjoy your life. At the end of the month, she would pick up and head off to another part of the country and set herself up in another minimum wage job. Most people in these circumstance don't pull up stakes and move every month. They can't afford to. Moving is an expensive endeavor even for those with a 'normal' sized paycheck. She would complain in the book about not having adequate cooking facilities and so she was buying food at fast food joints on a daily basis instead of going to a grocery store and stocking up on items that could be used with an ice chest for refridgeration for sandwich supplies. Peanut butter and jelly are a whole lot cheaper and better for you than fried chicken every day. She even continued to smoke which of course was just burning up her money.
   
   Yes, it is extremely hard to live on minimum wage and even more so when the economy is in a nose dive like now, but it has always been hard for the very lowest of wage earners and always will be. But jumping into and out of jobs at will doesn't really give you an accurate view of these people's lives and that is where her experience and book failed.



3. I'm glad this book was written and has been so widely read. People need to know this stuff. However, I didn't find it an enjoyable read, and not because of the depressing subject matter. Ehrenreich's attitude bugged me. The moment that disgusted me most? When she mentions casually how she allowed herself a handful of tapes, then lists the artists - just so we all admire her musical tastes. I bet if she listened to Celine Dion and Hanson, she wouldn't feel it was germane.



4. aPPEEARS TO BE A GREAT BOOK WHIHCH MY WIFE IS USING FOR HER MSW STUDIES.



5. Barbara Ehrenreich decided to see what it was like to see the underside of the American Dream by working a number of lower paying jobs in America. I read this book about two years ago and it is still with me, I have started leaving money for the people who clean my hotel rooms, and otherwise trying to help solve the inequities of the system that we work under in society. With what is happening now in the economy, this book is even more important today given that as the money system fails, we need to understand the ways that people have to live.
   
   What is interesting are the jobs that were taken, a house cleaning person, Wal-Mart, and being a waitress. It was impossible for her to make ends meet on those incomes. Not that she did not try, but the numbers did not work out, they cannot work out, they will never work out until we as a society work out the cost of living here. Probably the most stunning was the housekeeper story, that one has the most impact of all the stories. That alone makes you realize how hard it can be for people to empathize with each other, you can just see the look on the person's face who is complaining about the service, when the service was excellent.
   
   What was also striking about the house cleaner story was the camaraderie of the women involved in the job. They helped each other despite all the things that were thrown at them. They showed an exemplary example of teamwork and caring for each other knowing that few else would care. In all this is a powerful testament to people, the people who work in the hidden jobs who we do our best to ignore but rely on. After reading this book, you will find that you tip better, that you care a bit more, and you will understand that the lowest price is not always something you want to go for. Compelling and readable, this is one of those stories that will change your life. Give it five of five stars, it is an eye opening story.

5 comments about Greenspan's Bubbles: The Age of Ignorance at the Federal Reserve.

1. The author attacks Alan Greenspan for setting interest rates too low and thus causing all out economic problems. Why did Greenspan do this? He did not see the bubbles (that he himself created) because he was blinded by the "concept of technological driven productivity miracles." The author repeats this idea many many times. But from reading the first five pages you might wonder if Mr. Fleckenstein is the best person to launch a bubble attack like this. On page 3 the author leads you to note 2 (page 189) where he writes: "Determining that a bubble exists is somewhat subjective, though not terribly difficult." A couple of pages later on page 5, the author admits: "I saw the stock market bubble building and concluded it would end in disaster -- about four years too soon!" Should Fleckenstein not have disqualified himself from documenting forecasting failures at the Fed at this point? Taking strong action to stop a bubble based on the author's forecast could have driven us into a deep recession. In these first pages Fleckenstein proves with personal experience the validity of Greenspan's statement on page 99: "I don't think we can know there's a bubble until after the fact. To assume we know it presupposes that we have the capacity to forecast a imminent decline in prices." On page 162 in a confusing paragraph Fleckenstein seems to agree with this by writing: "What would be correct to say is that one can't exactly know what action might be required to stop a bubble." This not say that Mr. Greenspan is blameless.
   The author quotes his column from 1999 to judge Greenspan without the benefit of hindsight. In this column he writes that the increases in stock prices are "breathtaking" but never uses the word, bubble, before it burst. He uses the word, bubble, in column on September 17, 2001 after it is bust. Even I did better than that. In my book, "How to Invest in Condominiums" I use bubble twice and tell my readers how to to avoid them (I finished writing the book in 1999). Yet Fleckenstein is the one who has the nerve to attack the FOMC for not using the word often enough. This book is all about criticism with the benefit of hindsight. There are no lessons learned. We have to take it on faith that tighter money applied here and there would have been better. He does not attempt to demonstrate his forecasting ability and help Chairman Ben Bernanke by telling him how big the bursting real estate bubble is and when it will hit bottom, so that the Fed can set the "correct" rate. But no, on page 184 the author indicates that Ben Bernanke would make the same decisions as Greenspan. When we finally know how big and bad the real estate bubble was, say in 2013, Ben Bernanke (if he is still there) and the FOMC are sure to get flack from Fleckenstein for allowing the bubble to end so badly. The FOMC will be unaware of this incoming flack or wisely ignore it. This negative evaluvation (or well documented rant) deserves three stars for providing an insight into how difficult the task the FOMC has is and why in the long run the value of our paper money will always erode.
   
   
   



2. In this fascinating book, financial journalist William Fleckenstein studies the record of Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006.
   
   Between 1937 and 1987 there were no bubbles, but Greenspan helped to create two bubbles in ten years - in stocks and then in real estate - by holding interest rates too low, punishing savers. He helped to make the American people worse off by redistributing wealth to the rich, the bubbles' boosters and sponsors.
   
   Greenspan viewed new technology expenses as assets. So he thought that productivity and profits were higher than they really were, that inflation was overstated and that stocks were understated. In 1998 firms spent $95 billion on computers. After Greenspan's `hedonic adjustment', this came out as $352 billion, adding 2% to US GDP.
   
   Governments want to understate inflation and overstate growth, productivity and incomes. So now, most price rises seem to be way above the rate of inflation.
   
   Greenspan's rate cut of 15 October 1998 triggered the stock market bubble. By 1999 the stock market was valued at 180% of US GDP. (In the last bubble, in 1929, it was 85% of GDP.) In 2000-01 this bubble burst - the new technology miracle proved to be a mirage. In 1992-99 there was zero productivity growth in 99% of the US economy, and growth only in 1%, computer hardware.
   
   In 2001-03, housing `saved' the US economy from the aftershock of the stock bubble. De-regulation led to lower lending standards with more `creative' financial instruments, like the $500 trillion worth of derivatives, which Warren Buffett described as `financial instruments of mass destruction'.
   
   So from 2003 to 2007 there was a real estate bubble, based on huge debts. Mortgage-equity withdrawals created half US GDP growth between 2001 and 2007. By 2006, household debt was 97% of GDP: mortgage debt was $13.3 trillion. Total US debt in 2007 was 325% of GDP.
   
   This ocean of debts rested on a falling real estate market, a sinking economy and a weak currency. Where could the next economic rebound come from? Capitalism has destroyed production and destroyed the housing market: it is running out of options.



3. Greenspan will be forever linked to the global financial meltdown of 2008. History will not be kind to the Bubble Boy.



4. This is a truly invaluable book. Fleckenstein shows,beyond any doubt, that Alan Greenspan has been a disaster for the country and the economy. Even before becoming Fed chairman, Greenspan had demonstrated his incompetence (Read the beginning where Greenspan's predictions as one of President Ford's advisers would drastically miss the mark). Unfortunately, Greenspan would be confirmed as Fed chairman and begin a nearly twenty year career of gross mismanagement.
   
   Fleckenstein quotes Greenspan repeatedly, demonstrating the Fed Chairman's inability to predict the stock market or housing bubble (or anything else for that matter). Greenspan comes off as completely incompetent in Greenspan's Bubbles. Perhaps some day the Federal Reserve will be abolished and the economy will not be subject to the whims of mediocre men like Greenspan and Bernanke. If that day comes, it will be because of thoughtful experts like this book's author. I also recommend Ron Paul's analysis of Greenspan in his recent book--Paul points out that Greenspan once supported sound money but changed his views as the lure of great power as a central planner seduced him.



5. This book is a disappointment. For the happy few it might be an interesting read, but for someone intereted in the general ramifications of the Greenspan era it is a huge dissappointment.
   The book seems to be a blow-by-blow vendetta of the author against Alan Greenspan. And while the author clearly has an authority on the whole subject, he fails to engage his reader by not clarifying the details on why he rants againts Greenspan. Sometimes too much knowledge can be a hindrance.

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

1. 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.



2. 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



3. I read. A lot. That said, only half this book is worth the time and energy it took me to read it. The middle half, to be specific. The first few chapters are dedicated to Sachs detailing to us that, no, he's not an idiot writing about something he's had no experience with and that, yes, he can help to solve macroeconomic problems. The end chapters are all Sachs recapping what he said in the rest of the book with charts and graphs that start to become meaningless if you're not a economist or a student with a couple econ classes under your belt. The middle, in my opinion, is the only redeeming part of this book that mentions far too often big-names Sachs has met and important jobs he's held. The middle actually talks about his plan for ending extreme poverty by 2015 and how we can do it. The rest of the book is just padding. So read chapters 8 - 15 if you want to "read" the book. Donate money to an NGO if you want to do something towards ending poverty with your time.



4. What do Bono, and countless other celebrities have in common with the author? A: They've always wanted to be celebrities. What is different? A: The celebs actually think that the world can be rid of poverty and misery and vice.
   
   Are you honestly going to tell me that one of the world's most influential economists ACTUALLY believes that poverty can be banished or even meaningfully reduced? Not a chance. Not with Africa's population growth rate. Sachs is selling panic again to promote himself and it's really beginning to grate my nerves.
   
   The entire book is a formula to get people "involved" i.e.: spending money a happy percentage of which Sachs and others like him will collect. The truth is that despite all the self-important boo-hooing about how a child dies every 3 seconds in Africa, no one ever mentions that 12 were just born and 8 survived which is why the continent has a growth rate of 3% and will harbor 1.2 billion starving souls in next 23 years. People who, when China and India become as rich as Japan, will be happy to stitch together our soccer balls.



5. If you are like me, you may often worry about the poor and the underprivileged across the world. You may wonder what it would take to help them achieve sustainable livelihoods which is the first step to ending poverty for them. You may even be wondering what role you could play in ending poverty in this world. Well, look no further because here is the book that is a must-read for anyone concerned about global poverty and how to overcome it - "The End of Poverty" by Dr. Jeffery Sachs. Dr. Sachs, one of the leading economists of our times makes this book comprehensible for everyone even if you are not an economist. And what is even more wonderful is that he backs up most of his claims with well-grounded research and reasoning.
   The book mainly talks about overcoming extreme poverty. Dr. Sachs defines a person as extremely poor if he/she cannot meet basic needs required for survival. He says that the extremely poor "are chronically hungry, unable to access health care, lack the amenities of safe drinking water, and sanitation, cannot afford education for some or all of the children and perhaps lack rudimentary shelter [..] and basic articles of clothing such as shoes. Unlike moderate and relative poverty, extreme poverty occurs only in developing countries." And 93% of the world's extremely poor live in East Asia, South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
   Of course, when a country grows economically, it has a direct effect on reducing the extremely poor in that country. But the reason, that many of the countries have not been able to achieve the expected economic growth, as many statistical studies have shown, is due to a multiplicity of factors including fertility rates, education levels, diseases, trade policies and even climate and proximity to markets, some of which are not under the control of the governments of these countries .
   As part of the U.N initiated Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the developed countries committed to contributing 0.7 percent of GNP every year to help the developing countries eradicate extreme poverty by the year 2025 through investments that contribute to sustained economic growth. By presenting a thorough analysis, Dr. Sachs shows that this is adequate money to reach the goal of ending extreme poverty by 2025. So, you may now be wondering where is the problem.
   As Dr. Sachs skillfully presents in the book, the problem lies in the fact that the developed world has not kept it's promise although they make it sound that they are doing their best. So, the book is dedicated to making the case to convince the developed world, as to why they should keep their promise, why helping the developing countries eradicate extreme poverty is not just the right thing to do morally but also why it would benefit the developed world in the long term much more than many of the current foreign policies that are on the table. In the process, Dr. Sachs takes institutions like IMF, WorldBank and even the US federal government head-on. He even answers many questions and criticisms about his ideas and theories. On the whole, he makes the book a very engrossing, intriguing and inspiring read. At the end of it, you may even walk away with ideas on how you could help combat global poverty.

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. 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.



3. 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.



4. Barak Obama is a muslim and this is his way of taking over america with communism .....slavery is commensurate with islam and this book is his means to the end of moving ever faster towards an american islamic caliphate



5. This brilliantly written book neatly explains communism in brief, cogent, powerful language. All societies except for primitive tribal ones are built on class struggle. The struggle involves the few exploiting the many for their labor. The social phases of society are scientifically determined and unvarying: first tribal, then feudal, then bourgeois, then proletarian.
   
   The feudal society, ruled by kings and aristocrats, exploits the masses as slaves, serfs, and craftsmen. The bourgeois society overthrows the aristocracy and continues the exploitation of the masses, who are now workers rather than slaves. The workers finally revolt against their bourgeois masters, abolish private property, and put the means of production into the hands of the state.
   
   Marx's simple theory is compelling, sustained by countless historical examples and by his analysis of the relationship between capital and labor. He drives home the point by analyzing the pernicious effects of capital when work becomes a commodity that drives workers into subsistence existence. The world is filled with sweatshops and factories every bit as horrific as the ones Marx described in early 19th Century England, and the common denominator certainly seems to be the limitless desire to concentrate capital in the hands of those individuals and shareholders who control the means of production.
   
   The Kindle introduction to this book points out that it's unfair and impossible to criticize Marx since no society has ever truly implemented his vision of communism. On the other hand, Marx's argument that the proletarian revolution and abolition of private property is inexorable in the developed bourgeois state has not been borne out.
   
   The Communist Manifesto is a quick and compelling read, and a masterful exposition of the principles of communism. It's a shame I waited this long to finally read it.

5 comments about Financial Armageddon: Protecting Your Future from Four Impending Catastrophes, Revised and Updated Edition.

1. 1. Hedge funds are structured around a performance-based compensation system. Hedge fund advisors are paid an incentive fee based on how well they do. Hedge fund advisors get a 20 percent cut above a preset benchmark, in addition to a 2 percent fee, of the total funds under management. Many hedge funds have become comfortable using large amounts of debt to boot returns. Many on Wall Street switch sides and became a hedge fund. The goal is too generate the highest possible returns in the shortest period of time, ignoring any long-term consequences.
   
   2. The pricing of options is dependant on time remaining until maturity, interest rates, and investor expectations on market volatility.
   
   3. According to Towergroup, US brokerage firms expected to generate $33.2 billion from derivatives-related revenue in 2006.
   
   4. Credit Default swaps make up the fastest growing segment of the $415 trillion derivatives market. "The credit derivative has one party making periodic payments to other and receives the promise of a payoff if a third party defaults. The former party receives credit protection." (Wikipedia)
   
   5. Credit Default Swaps can be used to manage risk without selling the corporate bond or government bond. Credit Default Swaps are a form of insurance for banks, pensions, and hedge funds (Party A) too protect themselves against the companies they invest in against debt default.
   
   6. Insurance is bought to protect against loss. Without insurance, if company X defaults on debt, the bond value is lost. For example, a pension fund (Party A) buys a CDS and pays a 2% premium per year broke up over four quarterly payments, payable too a derivative bank; on the books, the risk of default is eliminated by the insurance; and CDS coverage lasts 5 years.
   
   7. Since the CDS is not tie to a physical asset it can be bought and sold. Speculation on the credit-spread works drives buying and selling of CDS contracts. Without a CDS, a third party profits by identifying, a company with weak financial performance and offers to pay $900k for a $1 million bond from party B and profits $100k, if the company paid its debt. With CDS, party B profits: "Alternatively, one could enter into a credit default swap with the Party B, by selling credit protection and receiving a premium of $100,00. If the company does not default, one would make a profit of $100k without investing anything." Speculation profits are on the margin. Swap prices decline as credit quality increases and rise when quality worsens. "Some who believes that a company's credit quality will change could potentially profit more from investing in swaps than in the underlying bonds."
   
   8. Problem: Party A buys the CDS from Party B, Party B can assign the insurance contract to another party; the final party may or may not be in a position to pay the bond's full value in the case of Party A default. If companies default on their obligations, buyers of credit default swaps would lose money, banks would tighten credit, and interest rates would rise.
   
   9. In 2006, at least $200 billion of General Motor's CDS were estimated to exist, covering $30 billion of bonds. There is a risk that major financial operators are in over their heads leading to dangerous systematic pressures. The danger occurred in 2005 when 100,000 CDS had been verbally agreed to but not settled.
   
   10. According to the US comptroller, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, Wachovia, and HSBC accounted for 96 percent of the $100 trillion of derivatives controls outstanding among the 836 US banks. JPMorgan being the largest derivate player. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had $1.5 trillion of derivates to hedge against risk in their portfolios.
   
   11. "Credit derivatives have never been tested in times of acute market stress, such as a collapse of the real estate market, a cratering economy, or a 1987 type stock crash."



2. If you care about your family's future financial well being, this book is a must read. This is the second edition of the work, but Panzer made some predictions in the first edition, written a few years ago, that have come to pass alrady. While, I hope we never see the "armageddon" that Paznzer lays out, I do believe that we are poised for a massive recession or depression due to the recent credit and houing bubbles. Panzer lays out a series of events led by a weakening dollar, national trade budget shortfalls, and credit derivative misuse that could ultimately change the face of America and our current way of life. I would also recommend "The Demise of the Dollar" as a follow on read to this work.



3. I seldom buy financial books because most of them are simply print "scams". I bought this one because of the reviews and a recommendation by someone, and Mr Panzner's credentials. He certainly has the background to write a meaningful book on the subject. However, I was stunned at how extraordinarily superficial the book was, and thus felt compelled to write a review. The book takes some similar events in history and paints a potentially very scary future. And that future may come to pass, but you've got almost 200 pages of extrapolating those historical events into the future and very little else. Seems little more than an attempt to sensationalize and commercialize what "can" and possibly will happen. There is little digging into what precipated some of the events, and the "advice" offered is really pathetic. The fact that this got such high ratings is either a testimony to how many friends he has in the industry or how ill informed and poorly read our society is. The one thing for sure is that there was indeed a wealth transfer that occured here: my wallet to his. But other than that, there is absolutely no reason to purchase this book. Given his credentials, I would have thought he would have been mildly embarrassed to pen this. He could undoubtedly do better.



4. We are in perilous times. Now (i.e., late September 2008), we all realize it. Several years ago, virtually alone, Panzner predicted (in great detail) exactly what has now actually come to pass over the last few years, and---perhaps much more importantly, he warned us exactly what is coming in the near future.
   
   Several years ago, he was regarded as being "an alarmist"; now, we recognize that he was (and is) a PROPHET!
   
   I believe we all should read this book very carefully, and use it to plan for our families' futures. Buy copies of this for your friends---they'll soon be very grateful that you did.



5. If you think that the perfect storm is total collapse of the economic system, this is your book. Probability of everything outlined in this book actually happening? Not very likely - but one should be cautious with how one structures one's affairs... So it was for me more of a checklist - not necessarily one of impending doom.

5 comments about Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life (Vintage).

1. Reich breaks up the US economy, since the end of World War II, into two eras:
   
   The first is the 'Not Quite Golden Age', which ended in 1975. This era was marked by a shared gains across nearly all participants and stability. The problems were built in inefficiency and a stagnant mindset.
   
   The second era is 'Supercapitalism' and encompasses everything after 1975. This era was marked by extremely efficient markets, creative business and many options for investors. The problem is that while investors and consumers have benefited immensely under this system, workers have suffered, and Washington has wholly sold out.
   
   That's a very rough summary of what Reich details in perfectly concise and clear English. The argument he makes is one a great prosecutor makes on an open and shut case. Point by point he builds up to the conclusion, and it's nearly nearly indisputable when he arrives.
   
   The base Reich builds is my favorite part of this book. It gives the best explanation of the modern (and recently modern) economy that I've ever read.
   
   The base Reich builds is so solid, that the conclusions and summary just fall into place. If anything in the book is vague, it is in the conclusions and the author's recommendations.
   
   It could also be said that the recommendations are prescient given the market collapse since this was published. This book is essentially an argument for sensible regulation, even before the collapse over the last few months that made 'deregulation' a four letter word.



2. Lucid and compelling arguments are made. However, I would argue with the assumptions that anchor the arguments for Corporations.
   
   Corporations are supposedly only contracts, not real people. But if you take away the people, there is no corporation, because there is no agent who operates the said corporation within the real world with real actions. OK, first argument negated.
   
   He wants me to believe his thesis that Corporations have no moral duties or social responsibility. But if real people are carrying out the real actions in the name of a Corporation, then real people are dispensing with actions that are either moral or immoral behavior.
   
   Look, if the Nazi Party was only a corporate political organization that has no moral or social responsibility, then the individuals inside that organization, who gassed 6 million people, are not responsible for their actions. Right?
   
   I would rethink my idea of what a corporation is. A corporation is an organizational group of individuals which makes decisions and whose actions are carried out collectively as a group. It is still a real person, only now a group of them to be more precise.



3. Supercapitalism, written by Robert Reich, is an amazing book and should be read by every single American citizen.
   
   The book is a historical look at American Capitalism and Democracy and how they've been intertwined and even how they've diverged in recent years. This divergence, Reich argues, is due to Supercapitalism.
   
   What does this mean? It means that this country has moved past a mixture of democracy and capitalism into a new era of greed. Consumers love the cheap prices we find online and in discount stores but we get angry when jobs are sent overseas. Investors love the high returns that stocks have provided to us but we get upset when the companies we invest in cut costs be laying off there staff.
   
   Has anyone stopped to realize that the reason these jobs are going overseas is because we (as consumers) demand cheaper prices and we (as investors) are demanding higher returns?
   
   There is a lot of information in this book and much of it has opened my eyes to what Capitalism and Democracy in America used to mean....and what it means today.
   
   This is a great book that everyone should read.



4. Robert Reich blends the ideas that not only are companies but also citizens of America are to blame for the current economic crisis. He details the rise and ultimate fall of deregulation, the increased availability of resources and the somewhat new idea of fierce competition between deeply rooted and fledgling companies. Mr. Reich shows that corporations looking to increase their stock prices are hurting the economy by the ways they go about doing so.
   
   But the most telling aspect of the story is how we, as citizens of America, are allowing these corporations to continue their greedy ways and how we are almost of the same mindset.
   
   Definitely pick this item up if you want to understand how we can get out of the current mess and the history of it all.



5. Robert Reich's book is refreshing from a variety of perspectives. It is refreshing because he doesn't settle for cheap criticism or partisan sniping. It is refreshingly honest; he establishes a clear line of responsbility between citizen behavior and economic or social consequences, whether intended or unintended. His grasp of history and personal observations in government service are clearly stated and will, hopefully, serve as the basis for authentic dialogue. More important, Robert Reich challenges us to recognize that we are unlikely to evolve as individuals or as a nation unless we reclaim our role as citizen in a republic dedicated to the proposition that we are capable of governing ourselves.