5 comments about In Spite of the Gods: The Rise of Modern India.

1. Luce is very candid and honest about the good & bad of India. Good book to read for an "outsiders" (non-Indian) viewpoint.



2. This is a terrific, highly readable book on the many facets of political, cultural and economic systems in India and how they effect the well being of its people and India's international relations. I knew very little about India and this book was the perfect way to start learning. I highly recommend it. It is extremely interesting and a needed primer considering the growth of India's economy and potential world influence. The comparisions with China are particularly good.



3. I am halfway through the book as of now but I do see an overall bias in the book highlighting the negatives. For example the author spends a huge amount of time describing UP & Bihar the northern states and how corruption is common then just a couple of pages on the south progressing.
   
   When talking of the BJP rule the concentration remains on the right wing attitude and the development that happened during that time is completely ignored.
   
   If you ignore the negative bias that the author has against India and it's governance the book is very well written and has a lot of interesting facts. Definetely a good read.



4. ­­­­Wondering About India: Palimpsest or Pentimento?
   
   RAJESH C. OZA, Jun 12, 2007
   
   In Spite of the Gods: The Strange Rise of Modern India by Edward Luce. Doubleday, January, 2007. 383 pages. $[...].
   
   Decades ago A.L. Basham wrote an academic tome titled The Wonder That Was India. I happened across a pristine copy in a second-hand bookshop near the University of Chicago, where Indologists were doing first-class scholarship about the Indian subcontinent. My way of belonging to that community was to acquire the books that those scholars wrote and read. While I have read most of the books that I've purchased, Basham's book has remained pristinely unread on my bookshelf. In part, I was intimidated by its size (568 pages). And then there was the weighty title written in the past tense. Every time that I have lifted the book off of its shelf, I've groaned at its heft and silently complained, "But my India is a wonder."
   
   Edward Luce's In Spite of the Gods: The Strange Rise of Modern India is an antidote to books that suggest that the vitality of Indian civilization expired sometime between the Mughal Period and British Imperialism. Luce shares the following anecdotal gem to support his case that Indian culture has an unparalleled thread of continuity: "When A.L. Basham, the British classical historian, wrote his still widely admired book The Wonder That Was India in 1954, he tried to persuade his American publishers to make a minor alteration in the title .... Professor Basham said that in India's case the `was' should be changed to `is,' since the country's civilizational story was unbroken." The publishers were unmoved by the professor's argument.
   
   Happily, Luce's readers will be moved by the lively writing and provocative arguments in In Spite of the Gods . Page after page is filled with quote-worthy insight. The careful reader is rewarded by questions that these insights raise. For example, Luce notes that "in India the modern lifestyle is just another layer on the country's ancient palimpsest ... Most Europeans tend to think of modernity as the triumph of a secular way of life: church attendance gradually dwindles and religion becomes a minority pastime confined to worshipers' private lives ... In Europe the past is the past. But in India, the past is in many ways also the future."
   
   But is India a palimpsest, a layering of old, religious ways onto the new? Do tradition and modernity coexist like a grandparent and grandchild in an extended family? How far below the hip-hop-happening surface of agnostic call centers does one need to scratch to discover Aryans galloping on horseback to their Hindu homeland? Or witness Ashoka's conversion to Buddhism? Or experience Akbar's ecumenical Islam?
   
   If the metaphor of palimpsest hides more than it illuminates, is India instead a pentimento? Is it like those layered canvases where earlier images show through as the top layer of the painting becomes transparent with age? Simply put, is India's post-Independence democracy vanishing into some imagined Hindutva past? Isn't this what the Hindu fundamentalists rally around when they wave their saffron flags and their Shiva-inspired tridents? India as pentimento has Bal Thackeray, the Shiv Sena supremo, menacing minorities with dreams of a "Hindustan of Hindus" that would bring "Islam in this country down to its knees."
   
   Luce rejects Thackeray's sectarian vision. A scan of his chapter titles suggests that modern India is an aggregation of its diverse, multi-layered past: "Global and Medieval," "The Burra Sahibs," "Battles of the Righteous," "Long Live the Sycophants," "Many Crescents," and "A Triangular Dance." The most forceful argument for the past living in the present is made in the penultimate chapter--"New India, Old India: The Many-Layered Character of Indian Modernity." This is the only chapter where the now commonplace observations of call centers and software sectors are discussed. However, they are presented in the context of the book's overall premise that India is a wonder because of her many religions, her dozen-plus languages, her thousands of dialects which merge as a kind of dialectic within and between cities and villages. Echoing V.S. Naipaul's prescient observation that India has a "million mutinies now," Luce forcefully raises the palimpsest argument for pluralism.
   
   But as hinted at in the book's title and discussed in detail in a chapter titled "The Imaginary Horse: The Continuing Threat of Hindu Nationalism," Luce is anxious that the pentimento theory is gaining currency. He takes issue with powerful Hindu politicians who seek to maintain the centuries-old status quo and remain in control by manipulating the illiterate masses (quite often low-caste Hindus or Muslims). Luce supports his arguments with a mix of meticulous journalistic reporting, personal anecdote, and reference to well-accepted (at least in the West) scholarship.
   
   The closing chapter illustrates how this book of advocacy journalism works. Luce, who is a reporter for the Financial Times, is unabashedly a future-oriented Indophile; he makes clear that he would like to see India's trajectory toward superpower status continue. He asserts that if India is to achieve this desired state, the following four constraints must be overcome: (1) 300 million impoverished citizens, (2) environmental degradation, (3) HIV-AIDS epidemic, and (4) challenges to liberal democracy.
   
   Luce's recommendations to overcome these problems are specific and helpful, if at times a bit overbearing. He does not mince words. At first the prescriptive approach is refreshingly candid and concrete. But page after page of statistically supported prescription begins to take on the feel of a hectoring doctor who doesn't appreciate that the patient is in control of her own destiny. Those in the Indian government (and especially those members of the BJP party out of government) might consider In Spite of the Gods a harangue. Indeed, Luce repeatedly compares India unfavorably to China, repeating the following mantra: "The problem is neither money nor technology. It is about the inefficiency of government .... Corruption is the only possible explanation ..."
   
   The harangue is spiced with pithy quotes: "In Africa poverty is a tragedy, in India it is a scandal;" "It is time for India's VIPs to follow the people who get no pay for no work;" "India never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity;" "The 21st century is India's to lose."
   
   But just as the reader tires of the smart statistics and the smart-aleck quotes, Luce delivers a brilliantly personal closing story. He relates a night journey in the first-class cabin of an Indian train. One of his fellow passengers is a 10-year-old Sikh boy who cheerfully and sleeplessly implores Luce, "Tell me some interesting things." This is a good frame of mind for all of Luce's readers-cum-companions on his journey through modern India. He does tell us some interesting things. In Spite of the Gods stirs the reader out of sleepy indifference about the dreams and nightmares of the palimpsest that is India--living at once in the past, present, and future.



5. One of the books about India that I've really enjoyed reading is Edward Luce's "In Spite of the Gods: The Rise of Modern India." One point Luce, a foreign correspondent in India for the Financial Times, makes very clear is that India has bypassed the industrial revolution by advancing directly from an agriculture economy to technology.
   
   Luce also correctly points out that one of India's greatest challenges is that it is governed by a multi-party coalition which breeds both inefficiency and corruption. Luce does a good job of telling you where India is today and how it got there but he does not choose to speculate on India's future.
   
   Luce's contribution is a holistic view of India that is insightful, well informed, and investigative. In this volume the reader gets a good look at India's untapped potential and what India needs to do to insure its future growth.
   
   And Luce, an Oxford scholar, makes the argument that it is in America's interest to promote better ties with India as a way of counterbalancing China's emerging dominance in the global economy. Luce stresses, even if change continues to move at its current slow pace, India still will become an extremely important player in the 21st Century -- in spite of the gods!
   
   By Gunjan Bagla
   Author of Doing Business in 21st Century India

5 comments about Redefining Health Care: Creating Value-Based Competition on Results.

1. Book Review
   Redefining Health Care by Michael Porter
   
   I am writing this review to help share some excellent ideas on the availability and quality of medical treatment in the United States and on the U.S. economy which is being dragged down by ever-increasing medical costs. The economic impact is not just on corporate profits and stock prices but also on U.S. employment because everything that raises costs makes it harder for U.S. manufacturers to compete with foreign suppliers and makes it harder for U.S. manufacturers to sell in foreign markets.
   Unfortunately, the book is long, turgid, and full of details, which help to substantiate his conclusions and also provide guidance on implementing improved policies. I am afraid the book does not appeal to executives, politicians, or doctors. It also proposes radical changes in all aspects of the medical system and its financing and operation. Dr. Porter proposes major changes on the part of all parties involved in delivering and paying for health care.
   The book begins with a review of health indexes and health care throughout the world and shows, while the U.S. has the greatest expenditures by any set of measurements, it does not have the best results.
   Then, Dr. Porter introduces his most important concept: that any medical treatment should be measured by its results; how much lost time and discomfort did the patient have, is he or she completely cured, or how much disability measured over the entire span of the illness or even the life of the patient. We tend to think of an operation as being successful if the patient left the hospital in good condition. But how much additional recovery time, disability, or reoccurrence was there? If the patient doesn't come back to see him, a doctor doesn't know whether he was cured by the treatment or if the patient was so dissatisfied he went to another doctor or simply gave up on a series of treatments. The goal is to develop a scoring system for each group of illnesses that can be compared with the cost of each individual's treatment and their results to determine what is the best set of procedures and the best doctor or group of doctors to do the work can be used to guide providers and treatments. Porter has some reason to believe that the best treatments are generally less costly even though the individual item costs may be more, the greater effectiveness and the less chance of complications reduces overall cost. Included in the overall cost should be lost wages, which is a reasonable proxy for the patient's time.
   The goal is to develop a health plan that pays for results not for treatments. In many cases, that would be a single payment to the provider for a whole series of treatments from diagnosis on through operations, post-operative care, and follow ups which could extend over a long period of time. This is a radical change from the present system which pays for treatments and tends to produce more treatments and does not have any effective means for either the insurers, or the employers, or the patients even to compare one treatment option with another. This is an extreme, radical change and would take a long time to implement, but there are pieces of the program in operation. A number of these are explained at length. Health insurance companies could hire these firms for their specialized expertise and would not have to do the work on their own. An example of what is done is how the firm studies the history of heart transplant patients and will give an insurance company a single payment for the entire course of treatment providing it is done in the manner and by people they specify. They would particularly focus on caregivers who have an outstanding record of success. It appears that for most illnesses, there are organizations that are substantially better than others and this program could be extended broadly.
   Another area of development would be to have counselors which would be part of the function of the insurer to advise a company's employees with a list of particularly well qualified doctors and suggest treatment elements.
   Government would seem to be poorly adapted to facilitating these changes because they are radically different from Medicare. Medicare seems to promote cheap, but not necessarily effective treatments and set arbitrary pay scales which do not allow the better providers to charge more for their services and thus encourage more providers to be in the high performance category. Companies that pay for the insurance are the ones that have to put pressure on the insurers to implement the above changes. This could not be done over a short period of time but would eliminate a lot of the wasted time that is now involved in the payments for each little step of the process and for each treatment step.
   Chapter 8 is a detailed discussion of how to implement the aforementioned concepts using modifications of Medicare and other laws. This is too complex to summarize here but it appears doable if Congress and the Executive are sufficiently motivated. It is likely that few people would understand what is happening, but the benefits to cost ratio is sufficiently great that the changes would probably be supported and accepted. On the other hand, the situation is so complex, it is questionable whether lawmakers and administrators would be willing to undertake the many complex tasks required. On the other hand, the downside risk appears quite small.
   Porter approaches the whole subject from the points of view of business strategy and the problems of decisions with very imperfect information. While the government frequently acts with very imperfect information, its strategy for doing so is not well developed and poorly applied.
   
   Redefining Health Care: Creating Value-Based Competition on Results



2. This book has received probably disproportionate attention due to Prof. Porter's notoriety as a strategic thinking theorist. There are better overall books on healthcare policy available. In particular I recommend the Bodenheimer/Grumbach books, one on healthcare policy and one on primary care, Dr. Arnold Relman's book, A Second Opinion, Strained Mercy, an outstanding and thorough analysis of healthcare economics with particular regard to Canada's healthcare system and Pricing the Priceless a more technically-oriented economic analysis by Prof. Joseph Newhouse, among other books.
   
   I find the analysis of the USA healthcare system by Profs. Porter and Teisberg to generally be excellent, although I find it wanting in regard to their disparagement of a single-payer/single-insurer system and to their description and analysis of healthcare systems outside the USA. From my perspective private health plans play only a net negative role in the system. The authors' analysis of how the health insurance market works is quite good. However their recommendation that a system of private insurers should persist is refuted by their own analysis! A single payer/insurer system will not cure many problems of the USA system, as they clearly point out, but it does remove the inherently dysfunctional characteristics of private insurance, not least of which is its failure to meet the needs of the uninsured - a very large number - and its inherent propensity to exclude the very people who need coverage and care. The authors rightly point out that mandatory health insurance along with risk-pooling among insurers to spread the costs of those insured individuals who generate the highest costs is a "solution" to the current non-functioning system, but the same result, at lower cost and with much greater simplicity, can be achieved through a single payer/insurer.
   
   The other key aspect of healthcare - how it is delivered - is ultimately more important than the financing/insurance side. The authors provide excellent analysis and recommendations in this regard. They correctly address the aspects of the healthcare market that prevent its functioning as a "competitive" market, specifically the abysmal lack of patient information on prices for services, on outcomes of actions by providers, comparative statistics on provider performance and similar. They also provide an interesting report by the Cleveland Clinic on outcomes, i.e. results, of the Clinic's heart surgery activity. They appropriately use this as an example of the kind of reporting that is needed.
   
   The authors' analysis of healthcare systems outside the USA is skimpy and inaccurate in my opinion. The authors underplay the demonstrated efficacy of government-funded systems that outperform the USA system almost across the board in gross measures of outcomes (infant mortality and longevity) and vastly outperform the US system in regard to cost. They gloss over the fact that per capita costs in the USA are 2.5 times! the average per capita costs in other OECD countries. It is not as though the costs are say 10% above the average with comparable outcomes. They are 150% higher with worse outcomes. Instead of noting this and analyzing it thoroughly, the authors assert that waiting times and rationing of care are significant problems in those countries, assertions which are simply not borne out by the facts. Also the fact that (mostly) single-payer/insurer systems function well universally does not fit the authors' main thesis, so rather than revise the thesis based on this evidence they choose to ignore the evidence.
   
   As a consequence of these limitations I rate the book with 4 stars rather than 5. Too bad, because most of the book is excellent.



3. Interesting view on the actual US healthcare and a challenging way to solve the mailaise



4. This a great book for physicians that likes strategic administration. Porter and Teisberg provides a major contribuition for the health care.This book will enable dramatic improvement in the efficacy and quality of patient care in the USA and other countries.



5. I am taking a Health Care Management Strategy class and this book was recommended by our professor.
   
   Very well thought and comprehensive book.
   
   Some comclusions can be challenged, but the book bringing a new look on Health Care and provide solutions for improvements.

5 comments about China Road: A Journey into the Future of a Rising Power.

1. This was an enjoyable read, great if you what a flavor of China but not if you want an in-depth reflection. A good travel diary. I liked it



2. Before and after my two trips to China, 1998 and 2000, I had read just about every relatively modern travel essay on China. Mark Salzman's "Iron and Silk" had always been my favorite. Unfortunately, it was written in 1982 and the China it described has changed over in many ways many times.
   
   I still love "Iron and Silk" but have looked and yearned for a more up to date travel essay that is more accurate regarding today's China. Until "China Road" I had never found it.
   
   I know a lot of people liked "Rivertown" but it just did not do it for me. The recent "American Shaolin" is a great read but unfortunately tells a story from the early 1990's. China has changed so much and so fast since the end of Mao and the modernization that started under Deng and continues as we speak.
   
   China Road nails it. This book gives you the most up to date look at China I have ever read. It is well written, the insights and commentary are fantastic, and most importantly it will give the reader a view of the China of now and not the China of 5 or 10 years ago...because the China of 1998 is not the China of 2008.
   
   I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in China or thinking of going there.



3. NPR reporter Robert Grifford travels the length of China overland meeting interesting people and seeing the sharp contrasts in this emerging power.
   
   From the ultra-modern skyscrapers of Shanghai to farms unchanged in centuries Grifford seeks out the state of modern China in each.
   
   Grifford's style is clear and patient, he explains the history and background of each destination and even a pronunciation guide for Chinese names. Both neophites and veteran China scholars will find things of interest.



4. Rob Gifford presents an insightful journey into the hearts of the hearts and minds of the Chinese citizens he interviews on his travels down Route 312. He also provides historical information on how China got where it is today, and his prediction on how the country will evolve in the future. His observations help outsiders understand the ever evolving mixture of loosening economical control with the maintenance of a communist political structure, and the risks it presents to China's future. Overall, an excellent and thought provoking book!



5. I read this book while teaching school in China Summer 2008. It was a very interesting depiction of the dichotomies in China today - on the one hand the official word and on the other the curiosity and interest of the people in everything western. It was a book that made me think a lot about what I was seeing and what my students were saying. Gifford very accurately and clearly points out the options that face China in the near future and manages to give what seemed to me an unbiased view of both sides of each option. Gifford travels to both known and little known places so it's a travelogue as well. The book is very well written and well worth reading if you have any interest in China at all. When I finished reading China Road, I passed it along to another teacher at the school who has travelled throughout China and has lived there as well. He could hardly put it down, he found it so interesting.

5 comments about Buy Gold Now: How a Real Estate Bust, our Bulging National Debt, and the Languishing Dollar Will Push Gold to Record Highs.

1. Bought this book because of all-5-star reviews. It turns out this book is not worth the money.
   
   The book is VERY dangerous, because it reaches right conclusion (buy gold) for all the wrong reasoning. Author either has no clear understanding of the processes that are going on around money, credit and debt, or believe what he's read in multiple economics schoolbooks on subject. He bases his analysis on Government-supplied economic numbers and NEVER QUESTIONS THEM (we all know there's lies, damn lies and Government statistics, especially since 1980th). He doesn't understand that the Federal Reserve is a privately owned enterprise, and that The Federal Reserve and Government together are responsible for inflation and other economic turmoil United States has found herself today.
   
   If you want to stay in the bubble media, economists and politicians have created for you, this is "your" book - lots of graphs and statistics based on false or fake economics. Ironically, author still reaches right conclusion - BUY GOLD. For the rest of us who want to REALLY UNDERSTAND what is going on behind the scenes - don't buy it, there are much better books out there.
   
   I would recommend starting with "The Revolution Manufesto" by Ron Paul and many other Gold books, for example "The Collapse of the Dollar and How to Profif from It"



2. I liked this book. The author is not too opinionated and not dogmatic. He acknowledges that historically gold has NOT been a good investment over the long run, but makes a compelling case why he thinks it is a good investment now. He is also not emotionally attached to gold, and in fact hopes to sell it someday; he proffers that it could peak at ten thousand an ounce, which would be ten times its current price or about a 90 percent devaluation of the dollar. I think he offers a balanced analysis from a backround as a professional money manager. There are a number of books like this currently for sale, however I think this one is particularly thoughtful and worth reading, even though I have read several others on the subject. However, one complaint I do have is that book would have been much better if it had been published 2 to 5 years ago. At this point, gold is already up to four fold in that period of time. Several of the other books on this subject were more prescient and timely in their release. If one already has had gold investments, this books reinforces your strategy, however recommending investing in sectors that have already risen substantially lends less credibility and profit not to mention risk. Had he written the book when gold was $300, that would be a 33 fold profit if it goes to ten thousand. Gold at $1,000 is a ten fold profit, considerably less.



3. I'm a mainstream investor who has a solid diversification of investments, including a little gold purchased in 2006. However, my understanding of economics and the global economy is sketchy and never quite fit together in my mind. At a minimum, this book will create an outstanding base of knowledge in this arena in an easy-to-read format, and give solid guidance towards investing in gold. I appreciate his balanced approach to the possible economic outcomes ahead, presented as possibilities for the reader to weigh and make a judgement on. This isn't "the world is falling", but you will take serious stock of the current trends in our economy as it fits into the global picture. Highly recommended for anyone wanting to see these aspects and grasp the value of gold investments in your portfolio.



4. It was a good, balanced book. Most of what I have read on gold is generally over-the-top doomsday type....more about dire predictions then about actual facts. This one was a refreshing change.
   
   The only slight negative about the book was the author's writing style...which was a little bit of drag at times. Long sentences, with more than one point stressed in them.
   
   But overall, I would recommend this book to everyone. Pls insure your future against the excesses of US paper currency. The situation is far worse than what we think it is, not only for US citizens, but for the entire world. This book will help you plan for your and your family's safety in such extreme times.



5. Whether you are interested in buying gold or not, this book is of value for its general explanation of the world economy. If you are interested in such things as the housing market crash, dollar devaluation, trade deficits and the role of the American consumer in the world economy, you will enjoy this book. It explains and ties all these things together in clear and easy to understand reading.

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

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



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



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



4. The book is excellent, providing charts and graphs to back up almost every statement. Excellent statement of the problem, and even what to do globally to fix. However, I wanted personal strategies I could apply to protect myself against loss, which are not covered in this book.
   
   You need to like numbers and charts to appreciate this book. It's a little slow in the middle, but if you just plow through it, by the end you have a very rewarding understanding of the problem.



5. Subsequent events have proven this book to be somewhat prophetic. Richard Duncan offers a very good, although somewhat dry, exposition of the international financial structures that emerged in the wake of the failure of the Bretton Woods system. The author is reasonably evenhanded in his assessment of these structures, noting that they made extremely rapid development possible, but at the great risk of economic crisis. In the wake of the subprime mortgage setbacks of 2007 and 2008, few well-informed people would argue with the author's indictment of excessive credit expansion. Still, many might argue with his conclusions, especially with his support of a global central bank and a global minimum wage. For those seeking a clear, informed exposition of the systemic vulnerabilities that culminated in the global credit crisis of 2008, getAbstract suggests this book as an excellent starting point.

5 comments about Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age.

1. "Unequal Democracy" presents the results of a six-year exploration of the political causes and consequences of economic inequality in America. It was inspired by the substantial escalation of this inequality in recent years. Total income going to the top 0.1% of income earners has more than tripled, from 3.2% in the late 1950s to 10.9% in 2005; that going to the top 1% rose from 10.2% to 21.8%. Further, this widening is accelerating. Despite this trend, 80% believe that though you may start out poor, if you work hard you can make lots of money - more than any other developed nation. This belief undermines motivation for change.
   
   Bartels believes that the most significant domestic policy initiative of the past decade has been a massive government-engineered transfer of additional wealth from the lower and middle classes to the rich via substantial reduction in federal income taxes for the rich.
   
   Economists have found little evidence that large disparities promote growth, or that progressive tax rates retard growth by discouraging economic effort.
   
   Meanwhile, political campaigns have become dramatically more expensive, increasing the reliance of elected officials on those who can afford to help finance their re-election bids. At the same time, membership in labor groups, a previously countervailing force, has substantially declined.
   
   On average over the past half century, real incomes of middle-class families grew 2X under Democrats vs. Republicans, and working poor families grew 6X faster under Democrats - even after allowing for differences in economic circumstances.
   
   So why do those with lower incomes vote for Republicans? Bartels tells us that contrary to the theme of "What Happened to Kansas," moral values do not trump economics as a basis for lower-income voting behavior. Bartels offers evidence that the contradiction is explained by confusion generated by mixing "working class" (defined often as those w/o a college education) with lower-income. The working class has a lot of relatively high earners that are influenced by the moral values issues.
   
   Bartels then contends that Republican success in presidential races is due to voters' overemphasis on election-year economic growth, vs. the superior longer-term performance of Democratic presidents, but lesser achievement during the last year of their terms.
   
   Finally, its on to the estate ("death") tax. Actions to reduce and eliminate it during the early Bush II years represent about 15% of the impact of the overall tax reduction package. Bartels asserts that there is enormous misunderstanding about this tax regarding the wideness of its applicability. As a result, it is a wonder that it still exists.
   
   Bottom Line: "Unequal Democracy" presents a carefully documented set of conclusions about an important and timely topic; its only drawback is that sometimes the statistics get too deep.



2. The facts stand for themselves outside the realm of Partisan politics. Idealists hate facts. Fanatics hate facts. I Love facts. Whose ideas work the best is what I want. Most Americans would Love to make more money and do better each and every year. Who can argue against that except a suicidal maniac.



3. It's no coincidence that Larry Bartels is a political scientist -- not an economist. His book purports to show that American economic performance under Democratic administrations has been superior to performance under Republicans, across all income categories.
   
   Apparently, this chart has a lot of liberals very excited. Too bad that it is complete nonsense.
   
   Bartels grossly oversimplifiwa how economic policy actually impacts economic performance. The root of its problem lies in the inane assumption that the effect of policy on economic growth manifests itself with a one year lag. In other words, Bartels gives a political party credit for economic performance starting the year following it takes over the Presidency.
   
   Let's explore this assumption. A president comes into power. By the time his first budget goes into effect, it is already October of that year. Does anyone really think that that initial budget has any signifiant impact on economic performance of the following year? And that only the budget is responsible for that economic performance?
   
   Just to show the arbitrary nature (and impact) of the one year lag assumption, I ran growth numbers for a *two* year lag based on Bureau of Economic Analysis data, from 1945 to 2007. In that time period, average economic growth (for all income categories, to keep it simple) resulting under Democratic adminstrations was 2.02%. From Republican administrations, 2.08%.
   
   The other major assumption that the study ignores is that it is Congress, not the Presidency, that holds the power of the budget. Asking who controlled Congress and what those policies were has just as much (or more) bearing on economic outcomes as who was in the White House. Similarly, the Fed controls monetary policy, which potentially has a greater economic impact that fiscal policy. Who has appointed the Federal Reserve Chairman and its Board of Governors? Are they employing a conservative or liberal ideological approach to monetary policy?
   
   Additionally, Bartels' "analysis" just completely ignores history, again by making foolish assumptions about the data lag. For example, it's pretty widely accepted that the economic downturn and stagflation of the early 1970s was proximately caused by the financial demands of the Great Society and the Vietnam War, coupled with exogenous shocks to oil prices. Both the Great Society and America's deep involvement in Vietnam came courtesy of LBJ. So you can'tgive Nixon credit for bad economic performanceon his watch - the causes of rampant inflation and low growth at the time weren't his fault.
   
   In the final analysis, the success of economic policy of respective Democratic and Republican administrations must be evaluated based on their long term impact. This is very difficult to measure because there are so many dfferent factors at work -- fiscla policy, monetary policy, technological innovation and impact on productivity, population and demographic change, commodities avilability, trade, etc.
   
   Behind this complexity, however, the fact remains that basic economics tells us smaller government, lower taxes, and less wealth redistribution results in a larger pie for everyone. Nothing in the Bartels' "analysis" as should cause a rational observer to doubt that simple fact. If there's any doubt of this, compare the long term growth rates of the US versus Europe. Freer markets, smaller government, and lower taxes inevitably produce higher growth, lower unemployment, and lower inflation in the long run. If there's any doubt, here's a fact from a recent speech from the President of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet:
   
   "Since 1996, the annual growth rate for the euro area has averaged 2.1% per year compared to 3.3% in the US."
   
   The speech goes on to propose structural reforms in Europe to increase competition and promote innovation (including tax reform and labor market reform) -- the fundamentals of conservative economic doctrine.
   
   http://americangerontocracy.wordpress.com/2008/04/05/better-economic-growth-under-the-democrats/



4. A couple of things jumped out for me:
   
   "comparing average annual real pre-tax (1) income growth (%) for families at various points in the income distribution" from 1948-2005:
   
   -- First, everyone made more money under Democratic presidents, although the difference was small for the wealthiest (95th percentile).
   
   -- Under Republicans, the wealthy do a lot better (2.12% increase per year for the 95th percentile) than those with less (0.43% increase for the 20th percentile).
   
   -- Under Democrats the middle class, working class, and poor do a little better than the rich (2.38-2.64% increase compared to 2.12% for the 95th percentile).
   Because these are percent per year, they compound. Over time Democratic presidents have narrowed the income gap whilst making everyone wealthier. Republican presidents have significantly widened the income gap and even the wealthy make less than under Democrats.
   
   Bartels spends many pages showing that this is not a statistical fluke or the product of other factors. He also explains why each party's tax and fiscal policies lead to what we observe. This is a real effect of the party in power.
   
   [...]



5. In this study Princeton professor Larry Bartels makes the argument that lower- and middle-income groups consistently do better under Democratic administrations than under Republican. During the last sixty years (1948-present) the average annual growth of real GNP was 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents and 2.78 percent under Democratic presidents. He shows further that income inequality has gone sharply upward during Republican administrations and slightly downward during Democratic. Inequality has gone up significantly since 1980, years in which Republicans have won all but two presidential elections. He calls this the "new gilded age" because the top 1 percent now controls 20 percent of the wealth, a percentage not seen since the 1920's. Perhaps another sign that the economy is out of balance and heading for greater turbulence.
   
   Republican economists will argue that this is merely a statistical aberration. They claim that presidents have little influence over the economy, and other forces such as monetary policy, oil prices, and technology are more determinative. Republicans view the market as a force of nature, whereas Democrats see it as a political construct. Bartels, being a Democrat, makes a strong case for government intervention to achieve greater balance and greater income equality.
   
   Bartels shows that Democratic presidents have consistently produced their best results during their second year in office. This is because the spending programs put in place the first year usually produce their benfits the second. Not suprisingly income growth was virtually the same for both parties the first, third, and fourth years. The second year surge seems to have given Democrats the edge.
   
   The question that comes to mind is that if Democrats are producing higher income growth and greater equality why did Republicans win 5 of the last 7 presidential elections? Bartels' answer is that the benefits of the second year are no longer part of the voter's consideration by the time elections roll around. Also by the fourth year Republican presidential candidates are making populist election year promises that make them indistinguishable for Democratic candidates. (Which party now is not in favor of bailouts and stimulus packages?)
   
   Bartles makes an interseting argument. He argues that for those looking out for their economic interests it is not only important for Democrats to vote Democratic but Republicans - other than the top 1 percent - should also be voting Democratic. (Joe the Plumber included.) The upcoming presidential elections will probably prove Bartels theory correct.

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

1. The most unsettling aspect of Barbara Ehrenreich's eye-opening foray into the world of the working poor is that the situation hasn't improved. In fact, it's gotten worse. The U.S. economy was booming in the late 1990s when she began her project, working anonymously in various minimum-wage jobs and reporting about the experience. Though she steps in and out of the lives of the minimum-wage workers who befriend her, she is a very powerful, effective advocate for them. In her book, she shows that living decently on about $7 an hour (still the minimum wage in most states) is impossible. However, Ehrenreich gives it a try in three cities, working as a waitress, housekeeper and Wal-Mart clerk. She reports from the front lines, where the working poor eat potato chips for dinner and sleep in fleabag motels, and she does the same. She finds that minimum-wage workers lead a dreary existence, toiling away in obscurity day after day with little hope, just getting by as long as they don't fall ill, need dental work or get in a car wreck. The terribly sad part is that many see no light at the end of the tunnel. getAbstract finds that Ehrenreich is a gifted writer with keen perceptions and a wry sense of humor. Her narrative flows effortlessly as she enlightens, educates and entertains. If only she had a magic wand.



2. I originally read this book when it was first published! I found it hard hitting, have quoted from it frequently and have recommended it to numerous indivduals.
   I feel her book does not go far enough, because; let us be honest, she knew she would "get out" of the circumstances. It was an experiment for her; and that kept her from sinking into despair. Total desperation, and fear that her children would never have full tummies. This is the plight of the working poor everywhere in America. To say it is not is to close ones eyes and live in ignorance.
   This book is best read without the snacks, without the liquid refreshment within arms reach. Let your stomach be a little empty, so you can permit your body to feel the book as well.



3. This book tells the reality for too many Americans, who don't qualify for the Bush/McCain tax cuts. Sad, and scary, reading.



4. There are no words that I could use to describe this woman's attitude that haven't already been sprinkled throughout Amazon reviews; whiny, preachy, arrogant, self-righteous, annoying...you get the point. She seems to be the worst kind of person: the kind that pretends to care about the plight of others in order to further her own career. I'd put her up there with Jesse and Reverend Al. Allow me to quote her actual words:
   
   "I originally sought what I assumed would be a relatively easy job in hotel housekeeping and found myself steered into waitressing, no doubt because of my ethnicity and English skills."
   
   "Unlike many low-wage workers, I have the further advantage of being white and a native English speaker."
   
   "I ruled out places like New York and L.A., for example, where the working class consists mainly of people of color and a white woman with unaccented English seeking entry-level jobs might only look desperate or weird."
   
   I'm sorry, is she white and privileged? I didn't happen to catch that part. Also, yeah, it would look desperate. That's what you get when you're actually poor. You know, desperate.
   
   She laces the book with many footnotes and statistics, which are actually interesting, but she clearly has no idea what to do when she becomes the statistic. This is the prime example of what happens when you study all the charts, and you see them all laid on in black and white, then try to actually claim them as your own life and look foolish. You know how many homeless people lived on the streets from `90-'95? Okay, good. They're going to shut your power off because you're late on the payments. What are you going to do with that statistic?
   
   "Ideally, at least if I were seeking to replicate the experience of a woman entering the workforce from welfare, I would have had a couple children in tow...In addition to being mobile and unencumbered, I am probably in a lot better health than most members of the long-term low-wage workforce. I had everything going for me."
   
   Wow. All that and a killer personality. You really do have everything. Way to go. You've successfully exploited and no doubt offended the people whose lives your book claims to showcase.
   
   In fairness, she is able to step outside of herself and note that "almost anyone could do what I did...In fact, millions of Americans do it everyday, with a lot less fanfare and dithering." Although, I can't help but feel like she decided to write a book about what it was like for her to be poor for a few months, instead of what it's like to actually be poor.
   
   All of the above quotes come from the first 10 pompous pages. I decided then that I did not care for this book, but made myself read until I couldn't take it anymore, which occurred on page 32. One of my favorite examples of her detachment is when she turns down a job that pays $7 an hour (in the mid-90s, mind you) because it "involves standing in one spot for eight hours a day."
   
   Here's another funny one: "About a third of a server's job is "side work" invisible to customers." I just think it's hilarious that she put the term "side work" in quotes like that, as if nobody had ever heard the term before.
   
   I am honestly offended by her ignorance of a subject she claims to have not only researched, but "lived". I know people who live this book. I live this book. I've never known anyone to turn down any job because they asked for a urine screen, unless they were going to undoubtedly fail. Actually, they'd take the test anyway, and cross their fingers. Not Barbara, though. It's beneath her. "If you want to stack Cheerios boxes or vacuum hotel rooms" she writes, "you have to be willing to squat down and pee in front of a health worker." This doesn't make any sense to her, stating that "$6 and a couple of dimes to start with are not enough, I decide, to compensate for this indignity."
   
   You know what's indignity? When they take your kids away because you can't feed them. That's indignity.
   
   I never made it to the second chapter, but the first few sentences of the opening paragraph are intriguing at the least:
   
   "I chose Maine for its whiteness." Very first words of the chapter. Believe me, it gets better: "This might not make Maine an ideal setting in which to hunker down for the long haul, but it made it the perfect place for a blue-eyed, English-speaking Caucasian to infiltrate the low-wage workforce, no questions asked."
   
   Caucasian? Who says that? This woman is very misguided. She did this "experiment" about ten years ago, but I think white people worked minimum wage jobs then, as they do now. Except in Maine, apparently.
   
   This is not a book about being poor. It is a book about a bored, middle-class woman who decides to go slumming, and she doesn't even follow her own rules that closely. She busts out her debit card when needed, she turns down jobs actual poor people would kill to have, and she does it all with the empathy and compassion of Adolf Hitler. There are people who think this book deserved its bestseller status. I'm not one of them. There are people who hail it as a classic, those who think that this woman has done the working-class a favor by writing this garbage. Those people are not working-class people. Those people are not my people.
   
   2 stars, simply because I had to keep reading in order to find out how she would insult me next.



5. Many of us have worked at jobs that barely paid the bills, and paid us much less than we considered we were worth. An increasing number of people live lives dependent on such jobs. How does one make it in a country where the rents, food costs, transportation costs and health care costs routinely outpace the rise of minimum wages? Barbara Ehrenreich tried an experiment - she took on the task of finding such jobs, one in cleaning, one in restaurant serving, and one in retail, to see if she could make it even for a month on such wages.
   
   Ehrenreich confesses to cheating - her transportation was always assured, she started with a comfortable sum, and really didn't have to worry about the longer-term issues of health care or saving for the unexpected. Still, the experiment was eye-opening. Despite the fact that the population served by places that cater to low-wage earners such as weekly residential hotels and food kitchens, it often costs more in time and money for people to take advantage of such things. The amount of time Ehrenreich spent trying to get free food amounted to a considerable sum, even if calculated at the minimum wage. Of course, this was also time that could not be spent in terms of education or job searching - how can one improve one's lot in life if basic survival needs take up so much time and energy?
   
   I work with people and teach in schools where people, even if they aren't living on absolute minimum wages, still exist in a state where an auto breakdown can make the difference between finishing the semester or not, or where a computer breakdown or inability to get to a free library computer can make the difference of getting through a degree program. Most low-wage earners are among the hardest working people in the country, as Ehrenreich discovers in her experiment, and many have family obligations on top of the job-and-a-half or two-job life (and, of course, many of those are single mothers). From big box stores to small businesses, the routine infringement of privacy and personal rights was intense, but something that apparently is treated as routine, both by those who invade and those invaded.
   
   Ehrenreich's book has been used as community reads and common reading projects at various schools and colleges. There are some critiques worth mentioning - Ehrenreich's politics are on the liberal side, and that turns off some readers (including, as it happens, many who fall in the low-wage category). Her message can be distorted to fit different political agendas, not always of her intention. The experiment also presents a few slices of life that are far from a statistical or scientific study; as an anecdotal piece, this is very fascinating, but one needs to look elsewhere for facts and figures. As Ehrenreich states, however, it is hard to calculate in this bracket - the official poverty levels bear little relationship to who really is or is not poor, and that can vary from one part of the country to another. Ehrenreich's experiment also doesn't fully capture the experience of much of the poor, who also tend to be minorities; a bit of this poked through as Ehrenreich found she was sometimes considered for certain roles and not others just because she was not a minority.
   
   On the whole, this is a fascinating book, well worth reading by those of us in the more comfortable classes to see just what many have to go through to survive in our generally affluent society.

5 comments about Development as Freedom.

1. Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen strikes a beautiful balance here between socialists, who have their hearts in the right place but refuse to accept that the market is the best way to help people, and libertarians who believe in freedom but don't acknowledge that being poor limits your freedom as well. Hailing from India, Sen's focus is on development economics with a view on helping the world's poorest.
   
   At the centerpiece of Sen's philosophy is freedom: He believe that freedom of action and life is the most fundamental human right. His philosophy comes very close to the "Four Freedoms" articulation of FDR in that he believes both in active freedoms (of labor and exchange, for example) as well as freedom from want, which can be brought about by state assistance. In addition, he also believes that giving people freedom is the best way to bring about progress: hence the title, development as freedom.
   
   Some sections of the book read as economics, some read as political philosophy, and some read as a modern history. Sen explains why there has never been a famine in any functioning democracy, even though some of them have been among the poorest nations on Earth. He also advocates convincingly for the education and emancipation of women.
   
   So far I have only good things to say about this book, but I didn't really enjoy reading it and only got through it because I was on a transatlantic flight. Why? Simply put, the writing in the book is painful. Not second-language painful: Sen clearly masters the English language, has an extensive vocabulary and is comfortable with his subject matter. The problem is that the writing is too obtuse: adverbs and obscure words abound, phrases drag on and it's sometimes difficult even for an absorbed reader to figure out what exactly is being said. One simple example: "But while the causal relation is indeed significant, the vindication of freedoms and rights provided by the causal linkage is over and above the directly constitutive role of these freedoms in development." Such sentences abound.
   
   No argumentative book is perfect, and I sometime disagreed with Sen's arguments such as when he attacked utilitarianism. Overall, however, Sen has put together a coherent economic philosophy that focuses on results and seems to be in line with what works in the real world. If you can get through the heavy, opaque writing, then there are great insights to be gleaned from this book.



2. This is a good book by great economist. But, if you are not an economist, like me, you may suffer a bit through the general discussion on economic philosophies through the first few chapters. Once into the later part of the book where modern case studies and data illustrate his point, I found his argument very deep and interesting.
   
   Amartya Sen chooses to describe poverty not as a lack of resources, but as a lack of freedoms. Those freedoms include choosing where to live and work, with whom to associate, freedom to choose our leaders and decide the rules we live by, and many others. This key point is useful in that it does not focus solely on maximization of wealth as a way out of poverty. The problem with poverty is not lack of money, but that lack of money means that people are not free to make their own way in life. They may be trapped being at the mercy of nature, an opressive government, or an economy cripled by bad policy. The conclusion therefore, is that money alone cannot fix the real problem. Government reform, economic liberalization, and the general increase of personal freedoms is the true end we are striving for. Increasing incomes is one of several necessary steps to be accomplished and not an end in and of itself.
   
   Sen's thesis in this work is often reduced by others to simple phrases like "democracies never have famines" or other simplistic phrases that are not entirely accurate with what Sen is actually arguing. You can find exceptions to some of these simple summaries, but the whole of Sen's argument remains very compelling describing the roles and responsibilities of individuals, institutions, and governments in achieving development and real progress.



3. If you only have a passing interest in development theory, you may find this book terribly boring and hard to read. Certainly, he doesn't go out of his way to be entertaining.
   
   But if you are looking for real innovation in thought and discussion on this issue, then this book is a must read. It really added a new voice to the discussion of international development, and is oft cited and referred to in papers on the topic.
   
   If you want to get up to speed on the modern debate on development theory, pick this up, read it, critique it in your own mind, really think about it, and move on.



4. Amartya Sen's book answers a question that current development practices beg: Development for the sake of what? He provides grounding for his claim that freedom is both the process to vibrant development, and the goal.
   
   Sen distinguishes his speculative new approach on economic development, from the most traditional:
   
   * Approaches that focus their attention in achieving some levels in development's proxy variables - per capita income; income distribution and poverty levels or health, education, and safety indexes-
   * Approaches based in levels of social satisfaction (levels of utility) based in individual/subjective "maps" of preferences.
   * And finally, others approaches focused in the capacity of a particular community to achieve what Sen calls substantive freedom -centralized welfare approach- or procedural freedom -libertarian approach-.
   
   
   Sen speculation seems to be relevant in many ways:
   
   1. First, there is no doubt we are in a moment of enormous changes and mayor crises. Our mass production, oil based civilization is coming to an end with all the resistance, violence and waste it implies. Our national democracies -and its institutions such as legislation, justice, presidency and other more decentralized as media, lobbyist networks, or intelligence- have showed significant weaknesses in addressing global issues, and a systematic tendency to favor elites' games. There are mayor power shift opening the space for extended cultural re-valuations of values based in the emerging preeminence of China and India.
   2. Second, there is an emerging new universe hold together by the internet and it capacity to sustain digital communities and digital worlds that have proved that is possible to create massive and sophisticated non-market value. These emerging universes embody a new culture of collaboration that is influencing and been influenced by the traditional forces of the molecular world. The technological force nurturing these changes has many resemblances with the historical opening produce by Gutenberg print press in 1450.
   3. Third, there is some resignation with the current technocratic approaches to development such as those represented by Jeffrey Sachs.
   4. Fourth, the collapse of the old order and the emergence of a new order may damage the possibilities to express the ethical ideals of the modern civilization -individual freedom- by enforcing control with new technologies and old institutions, or it may contribute to create a new Digital Renascence, or it may bring something new we are no able to see yet. A new understanding of freedom and human agency.
   5. Putting at the center of the economic development conversation -as Sen does- the notion of development as expanding freedom, the notion of freedom itself, and the expansion of freedom to non-human life it seems to be a powerful tribute from the best of the past to the emerging and unbirth future. Sen is bringing a new invigorating perspective to an old conversation.



5. Development as Freedom dives into the concept that both the result and mechanism of development is the growth of actual freedoms that people enjoy. It is no good to be rich slave.
   
   The book dives headfirst into various development theories that both support and oppose this idea and Amartya Sen navigates them all with ease. He does a great job explaining varying economic theories to someone like me who has no economic background. If you are interested in international development work this is a must-read.

5 comments about Who's Your City?: How the Creative Economy Is Making Where to Live the Most Important Decision of Your Life.

1. It's frustrating to read books like this. Florida's insightful observations are undermined by the number of errors in this book.
   
   Florida melds psychology, sociology, and economics to try to determine the importance of humanity's displacement from rural areas to cities and, now, megalopolises. Some of the ground he covers is well-trod, but he comes up with a number of ideas that I find insightful. I particularly liked his categorization of urban districts into such places as, e.g., strollervilles (wealthy neighborhoods full of two-year-olds being strolled around by nannies while Daddy is at the law firm and Mommy is either working or doing something else), designer digs (e.g., Aspen, La Jolla), ethnic enclaves (think Fremont, Calif.), preservation-burgs, and boho-burbs (chic neighborhoods, often on old streetcar lines, with lively shopping areas; e.g., the Sellwood district and N.W. 23rd Ave. in Portland, Ore.). The Rockridge neighborhood in Oakland, Calif., is both a strollerville and a boho-burb. Florida goes beyond the usual accolades one might expect to be conferred on such places to point out their drawbacks. It's very well done.
   
   If only Florida and his publisher had taken better care to vet the manuscript before publishing it! I'd read only a few pages before I started noticing typos: paarticular, New "Dehli" (must have excellent pastrami sandwiches), São "Paolo," Brazil (must have changed its official language to Italian). Then I started noticing factual oddities: Seoul, Korea, described in two different and seemingly mutually exclusive categories; San Francisco described as a place in which single women predominate when the accompanying map shows just the opposite. By the end of the book, the number of glitches had made me suspicious of every empirical datum Florida was presenting--so that when I read his statistic that only 1 in 20 U.S. households contains someone living alone, I couldn't trust it. It sounded too low. I went to the Internet and found an Associated Press report that "About 27.2 million Americans lived alone in 2000, accounting for about 26 percent of all households . . . ." That sounds right. A Population Reference Bureau web page confirms that Florida's statistic is highly inaccurate.
   
   In summary, the book is well worth reading for Florida's impressionistic observations, but I'd be careful about relying on any conclusion he draws that is based on empirical data.



2. Like all good things, there must be end; so goes this book; very relevant last year but with the real estate market as it stands, all bets are off. That being said, still very helpful and it does a great job at narrowing your options on where and why you would choose a particular place to live.



3. Read the charts of statistics in the back of the book, but skip the actual text. Unlike some other statisticians who employed co-writers ("Freakonomics" comes to mind), Richard Florida couldn't keep my mind on his prose. Statistics are recycled and explained over and over. Yes, every city has a personality...but where to live is hardly the "most important decision of your life," as the title implies. The statistics don't lie about such measures as happiness, but they also don't tell a compelling story worth reading.



4. I enjoyed some of "Who's Your City?". It's actually two books - one (Part 1 and 2) a fine discussion of economic localization and the second (Part 3) a ranking of various US places by a variety of usually not very interesting or persuasive metrics (that are supposed to help you decide where you want to live). The book would have been more interesting if Florida had just left off Part 3 and expanded Parts 1 and 2. For example, his Chapter 4 on the "Clustering Force" would have benefited by including the recent work by economists on the idea of 'increasing returns to scale'. Paul Krugman just won a Nobel Prize in Economics for his work in this area and his total absence from the book seems kind of embarassing. I would have loved a chapter comparing Jane Jacobs' work on cities and economic growth with Krugman's on 'economic geography'.



5. I placed order as new copy but found the product doesn't look like brand new one when I received it.
   Yet the content of the book is very interesting. It contains a lot of useful information.

5 comments about Obamanomics: How Bottom-Up Economic Prosperity Will Replace Trickle-Down Economics (Economics in the Obama Presidency).

1. As a non-economist there were many things about our current economic situation that are not explained in the press with any level of clarity. Talbert not only explains the current state of the economy but how we arrived at this point and how the Obama plan will return us to prosperity. Talbert offers an honest assessment of the Obama plan, including criticisms and insights for the return of our economy to health. He also identifies the consequences of not making dramatic changes now.



2. Quite simply the best explanation of our current financial crisis I have read. Especially if the markets confuse and frighten you. I wish the book was called something else. The subtitle perhaps would have been better. Anyway. READ THIS BOOK



3. I read this book with an open mind and a longing for the insights to Obama and while Talbott's writing was clear, it was a bit naive. His insistence on economic justice as the fix to our financial issues is nothing more than redistribution of wealth. His disdain for Americans who want a 12000 square foot house and a Hummer reveals a deep bias. Of course no one needs that much space, but in this country we value liberty and freedom to choose. It's not the governments place to decide what we need and/or want.
   One of Obamas campaign promises is to raise taxes on the wealthy, those making over $250K a year. Talbott says the current system 'gives money to top earners", when in fact the system allows top earners to keep more of the money they have earned. I think this basic difference in economic viewpoint is what irked me the most, being one of those 'lucky' few that Obama considers rich. He seems to know that the 'rich will not reinvest their extra money, they will put in a savings account. This is how it works. I have two kids in private college. They couldn't get into the UC system for their majors because they were impacted. I pay 40K a year, per student. I am too rich to qualify for any aid. So any and all extra money we get to keep is going to private colleges.
   Most people considered wealthy work just as hard as those who make less money, so it's very difficult to not see Obama's policies as nothing more than socialism wrapped in a pretty package and topped with a pinch of guilt.



4. This is perhaps the best summary of the issues facing America today - economic and political - that has ever been assembled in one place. The writing is concise, factual and well researched on a variety of topics - ranging from the current financial melt-down, to the cost and availability of healthcare, to the looming social security crunch. The analysis is crisp and logical, similar in style to "Freakonomics" by Levitt and Dubner. And while Obama's positions are indicated, the underlying text would stand on its own without it. To some extent, the "Obamanomics" title is a pretext for a work of much larger importance.
   While easy to digest, the simple fact that so many problems of immense proportions face the country is quite daunting and a little depressing.
   This book should be required reading for every student, politician and Republican. These problems have been addressed by other nations whose resources are far more limited - why not in America?



5. It sounds good, but if you really examine all the wonderful things Obama is going to do, it adds up to Socialism. All corporations are the bad guys and must be taxed and regulated, wealthy people demonized, economic justice that means taking away from one group to give to another. It's stealing--just like Obama and Talbott like to say that corporations are doing. If enough people are swayed by this pro-Obama propaganda, we will all have to live with the results. After he soaks the corporations and the so-called rich people and can't wring out any more blood, then he will come after you and soak you for the taxes he needs to fund his 'economic justice' and Socialist agenda.
   
   Seniors would do well to read this book and see what Talbott claims Obama's plan should include; withold medical care for people over 75 that may need end of life treatment. The reasoning? They are a drain on the "system" and productive people will have to pick up the tab. This goes beyond Socialism!
   
   A quote comes to mind:
   
   "The long road of history is lined with the ruins of nations which bought the souls of their people with the lure of a granted security, and then led them to ruin by that mirage. Security that is real and enduring is attained only by people who will accept their responsibility as duties to themselves and their fellow, and ask only that the State guard the avenues of freedom and keep them open."
   ~ Dr. Russell J. Clinchy