5 comments about Development, Geography, and Economic Theory (Ohlin Lectures).

1. Trade theory and economic geography are two subjects that are as interesting as they are tough to lay out. This book would probably be an utter disaster in anyone but Krugman's hands. This book is not really for anyone unfamiliar with economics, but the majority of it could probably by understood by a reasonably bright high school student with some familiarity in the area. Krugman has a breezy style which runs over all the intriging upshots without becoming bogged down in fetishistic details. Admirably his clear rhetoric is supplemented by by many examples, analogies and "intuition pumps."

   As far as an introduction to geography and trade go, it is less than thorough, but these are mostly props for Professor Krugman's views on economic theory, which are sensible and unpretentious. He deflates and delineates the worse practices of his profession without resulting to the stock complaints (i.e. that Economists generally think they are physicists -- nonsense!). A good quick book on how to do economics.




2. This is an excellent critique of high development theory. Although good economists will know the main faults of their disapline, this text elegantly explains why development theory lost its direction. I will not divulge the main ideas, they are well worth the money to find out. - Economists consist of two groups, those that don't know, and those who don't know that they don't know.



3. It's a wonderful little piece, but a teeny little book for $40 bucks?! What's more, most of contents are/were actualy available at Krugman's own web site. Someone's sure making a lot of unearned money here off..... If money were no object, though, I'd surely rate this book much higher.



4. Paul Krugman is one of the few economists at home both in `high theory' and in public economic discourse. He thinks deeply, and he thinks brilliant thoughts. This little book - based on the Olin Lectures he gave in Stockholm - is proof of what his mind can yield, when it sets out to clarify issues.

   Development and economic geography, he argues, failed because they did not submit themselves to the discipline of model-building - what might look or even be at first sight downright silly in the end is preferable to the unconscious metaphors of the narrative economic discourse.

   For all its clarity, Krugman's argument is deeply flawed. Development and economic geography - together with income distribution - belong to the derelict class of economic problems that addresses the question of historical disparities of wealth in the economic tissue. Why have some countries or regions developed and others have staid behind, why are there poor and rich? Was it done by better use of the available resources, or by impoverishment of other nations or persons? A corollary to this question would be: does our quest for efficiency worsen or reduce disparities? Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx addressed this question, but their observations have been largely forgotten. Pareto and welfare economics picked up the thread, only to conclude platidinuously that the only `good' policies are those that benefit all.

   Should the model-building solutions that Krugman suggests be used in development and geography be any good, they might imply that a `big push' applies not just to economic growth, but also to concentration of income - consumer surplus playing the role of `economies of scale'. Interesting. Just as interesting as the metaphor that - as in the `big bang' theory of star formation - the smallest of initial income irregularities (e.g. first predatory capital accumulation) lead to the agglutination of wealth around capitalists. Which, of course, also implies that it is the 90% of dark (workers) matter that keeps the shiny capitalist `stars' in place in a well-ordered and expanding economy.

   Toys are useful provided they teach a child the `real thing'. Toy models are not useful when they fail to recognise (let alone address) fundamental issues like that of economic disparity. Models are downright bad when their incautious use leads to blind-sighting in economic policy. Every economist should be made to ponder Kenneth Arrow's Theory of Second Best. Partial optima are bad solutions in the search for an overall optimum.
   Can we expect models of income disparity soon? Paul Krugman might devote some of his intellectual powers to construct the simplest of models of income disparity and attempt to integrate it into a growth model - just to disprove (or prove) the widespread intuition that when governments pursue efficiency single-mindedly, the rich get rich and the poor poorer.

   Can we further expect a `grand unified theory of everything economic' that would bring together both concerns of efficiency and income distribution into a unified model for development? Don't hold your breath. As Koopmans famously proved, one cannot kill two birds with one stone. Until then, however, efficiency models should either be denied the Warrant Of Fitness for circulation in political circles, and/or carry the label: Efficiency may be harmful to income distribution.




5. Summarizing this book as '"The Self-Organizing Economy", only a bit more technical, filled with more citations to other economists, more navel-gazey, slightly more philosophical and with less of a focus on complex systems' gets you at least 95% of what you need when deciding whether to read this book. As the next step after "The Self-Organizing Economy", it leaves something to be desired: it overlaps too much to be really satisfying. In fact I think Krugman cut and pasted a lot from "Development, Geography, and Economic Theory" into "The Self-Organizing Economy", including particular graphs and particular lines (e.g., one about his love of "Micromotives and Macrobehavior", and Gertrude Stein's quote about L.A. that "there's no there there"). Which is fine: these are good ideas, and they deserve to be explored in some depth.
   
   In "The Self-Organizing Economy", Krugman explained why he thought that economic geography had died out sometime in the 1960's. Partly, he said, it was that the discipline lacked "microfoundations": it didn't explain high-level behaviors (in this case the existence of cities) from the unguided actions of individual economic actors. Instead it took the existence of cities as given, then derived conclusions about where people and businesses would locate. "The Self-Organizing Economy" painted some cute little models to try to build these microfoundations. Widely dispersed populations turned out in that book to be an unstable equilibrium: we get the microfoundations by assuming a "state of nature" in which everyone is spread out, then show that the state doesn't last. Krugman actually comes to a stronger conclusion from his toy model: cities end up being evenly spaced around the circular landscape. Any closer together and they start eating into each other's markets. Any further apart and they lose the benefits of closeness to customers and suppliers. This unifies a number of traditions in economics that have tried, over the years, to explain why cities exist in the shapes and sizes they do.
   
   "Development" assumes more economic knowledge than did "The Self-Organized Economy", though I could fumble along and get most of what he was saying. Understanding why cities concentrate at all, says Krugman, inevitably means understanding increasing returns to scale. My intuition is ill-formed here at the moment, but I think the idea is that with constant returns to scale, doubling the number of employees in a given factory only doubles your output -- so there's no reason to prefer one large factory to two small ones at two different locations.
   
   Hence understanding cities at all means understanding increasing returns to scale. But, says Krugman, increasing returns to scale is precisely what neoclassical economics doesn't know how to handle. My intuition here is even hazier. Krugman refers a few times to "unexploited economies of scale" causing problems for neoclassical economists, which suggests to me that there's some kind of arbitrage principle at work: in a perfectly competitive economy, the theory probably says somehow that factories would eventually scale up to the point that they're working in a constant-returns regime. Again, my intuition on this is hazy, but that's what the context of Krugman's writing suggests.
   
   So if you're going to model city development, you need to model increasing returns. And if you're going to model increasing returns, you can't be talking about a perfectly competitive market. Apparently you're forced into a monopolistic competition model. These are just the sort of models that economics has always had a hard time understanding, says Krugman.
   
   Krugman spends a good fraction of the book explaining this economic issue, so in a lot of ways "Development" turns into meta-economics: a study of why economics as a discipline behaves the way it does. Economics, says Krugman, ignored city development for so long because it didn't know how to model it; a certain standard of rigor has prevailed in economics since the 1960's, such that anyone who had nice ideas in prose but couldn't express them in mathematics was the proud owner of a dead letter.
   
   So "Development, Geography and Economic Theory" is three things: a collection of toy models, a unification and deepening of some earlier work in economic geography, and a meditation on the value of those very models.

5 comments about Freedom From Oil: How the Next President Can End the United States' Oil Addiction.

1. First off, if the US implemented an energy plan EXACTLY as described in this book, I think we'd be 1000% (yes, a thousand percent) better off than we are today in 10-20 years. If we'd implemented something like this 10 years ago, I hate to think how many fewer problems we'd have regarding oil consumption and the need to import foreign oil, "defending" the oil supply in the Middle East, etc.
   
   NOTE -- I'd add global warming to the list, but after reading the book "The Chilling Stars" (recommended reading) I'm willing to take it out of the equation for now, though CO2 does far more harm than just warm the planet.
   
   My only issue with the book is that it doesn't go far enough, suggests specific incentives to the big 3 auto companies that strike me as a bailout (rather than providing incentives for ANY company building cars of the future), and misses entirely in some areas (there's no suggestion of helping fund development of biodiesel from algae, as one example).



2. Imagine that you are the next president and you want to make a major address about oil. You have all your advisors give you briefing papers and suggestions. That is the way "Freedom From Oil" reads. It has lots of good information, but it does get a bit repetitive at times. Overall, I found it very useful.



3. I tend to steer clear and far away from any type of political book. My disinterest stems from the obvious bias and propaganda that these types of political figures tend to bring into their views and writing. The viewpoint and rambling on and on bores my racing mind. "Freedom From Oil" was written from a completely different perspective and point of view that it took me by surprise. I was fully engrossed throughout the entire book and often referenced previous views and opinions as I read through Sandalow's ideas.
   
   The format of this book was written as fairly short, but highly detailed documents written to the next President of the United States by the various Directors and Secretaries within the President's office. Each perspective detailed the pros and cons of how to eliminate the United States' addiction to oil. The forward thinking approach brings in thinking from all factors which would affect the people and corporations of the US.
   
   These views facing the problem of oil addiction include memorandums from the President, his Counselor, the Secretary of Energy, the National Security Advisor, the Council on Environmental Quality, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Economic Council, with several articles profiling American viewpoints.
   
   Solutions to the oil addition problems are presented by the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Agriculture, the US Trade Representative, the Council of Economic Advisors, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Secretary of State. Additional viewpoints include profiles and ideas presented by American citizens. The range of solutions presented include Biofuels, Plug-in Cars, Fuel Efficiency, Coal, Hydrogen, Smart Growth, Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and Diplomatic Strategy.
   
   Finally, a compilation of all the problems, solutions and discussion is provided via a press release and "The President's Speech to the Nation." The format presented in this book not only held my attention but strengthened my belief that all Americans should work toward finding solutions to our current energy crisis and work toward using cleaner fuels and be willing to sacrifice convenience for what is best for not only the United States, but also the world.



4. ALL THESE BOOKS ON OIL AND GAS ARE SAME STORY TOLD OVER AND OVER AGAIN. GOOD TO TALK ABOUT IT I GUESS. BUT...
   
   FIRST, THE USA IS, ERR, COMMITTED TO THE DEFENSE OF ISRAEL. THE OIL IS THERE OR RIGHT NEXT DOOR. THE OWNERS OF THE OIL AND GAS DON'T LIKE JEWS.
   
   SECOND, MOST OF THE OIL AND GAS DEPOSITS ON EARTH ARE CONTROLLED BY GOOFY RELIGIONS AND PEOPLE LIKE HUGO CHAVEZ.
   
   THIRD, TO GET FREE OF OIL AND GAS YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE CHANGE THE WAY YOU LIVE. A LOT.
   
   FOURTH, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO RE-DESIGN YOUR CITIES SO THEY ARE NOT CAR AND TRUCK DEPENDENT.
   
   FIFTH, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO KICK THE OIL AND GAS INTERESTS OUT OF YOUR GOVERNMENT. THEY RUN THE CIRCUS...
   
   SIXTH, TO DO ALL THESE THINGS YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGHT FOR YOUR LIFE. LITERALLY. NONE THESE THINGS WILL CHANGE OR GO AWAY VOLUNTARILY.
   
   SEVENTH, YOU HAVE TO START TODAY. YOU ARE ALREADY VERY VERY LATE...



5. This book is a must read for the right the left and everyone in between. It covers all bases, clearly explaining what will work and what won't. It show's why it won't be easy and will not happen within the next president's (first) term at the least.
   This is a big problem for the world at large and is going to take a serious effort by everyone from the top on down to solve it.
   Should be required reading for all entering government!!

1 comments about Carbon-Free And Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy.

1. Arjun Makhijani has a way for this country to truly become energy independent. In 37 years Arjun has never had any of his work questioned; he is the top in his field. This book is quite technical in places but almost everyone will be able to understand and comprehend where he is taking this. We must do something and we must do it now - waiting 10 years for new nuclear power plants (even if all the problems of cost, waste, health and safety were to be solved) makes no sense whatsoever. Read this book then share it with your congresspeople, local people involved in energy policy, anyone that can implement this great roadmap that needs to be followed.

3 comments about Encountering Development.

1. Arturo Escobar critics the whole concept of development in theory and practice from an extremely unusual and original perspective. He steps back and views development as something exotic and almost non-sense. Inspired on the work of Foucault, the author examines the evolution of the discourse about development as a form of how the West keeps exerting power and influence on the Third World. The ethnocentric views of development and interventions that come with them - propagated by Western governments, multinational companies, development institutions and academia - puts Third World cultures and traditional populations as something that should be significantly changed to achieve the so-dreamed "development." Although the results of these western-driven interventions over decades have usually been catastrophic for Third World's populations and cultures, Western "experts" keep coming to the Third World and elaborating new forms of discourses on development, now addressing objects like sustainable development, women and development and poverty erradication - all ethnocentric and based on western values. This book should be read by anyone who wants to reunderstand development in the Third World (and reflect if it is needed at all!).



2. Arturo Escobar critics the whole concept of development in theory and practice from an extremely unusual and original perspective. He steps back and views development as something exotic and almost non-sense. Inspired on the work of Foucault, the author examines the evolution of the discourse about development as a form of how the West keeps exerting power and influence on the Third World. The ethnocentric views of development and interventions that come with them - propagated by Western governments, multinational companies, development institutions and academia - puts Third World cultures and traditional populations as something that should be significantly changed to achieve the so-dreamed "development." Although the results of these western-driven interventions over decades have usually been catastrophic for Third World's populations and cultures, Western "experts" keep coming to the Third World and elaborating new forms of discourses on development, now addressing objects like sustainable development, women and development and poverty erradication - all ethnocentric and based on western values. This book should be read by anyone who wants to reunderstand development in the Third World (and reflect if it is needed at all!).



3. This is a tract, not a thoughtful piece of scholarship. It is in the Latin American school of angry social science, but is little informed by fact. Much of what it says is correct, but is also well known. But the analysis is weak, based on incorrect or outdated data, and simply a regurgitation of stereotypes instead of a deductive grounded analysis based upon good ethnographic work. It is therefore often simply wrong. But anger sells books.....

4 comments about Alternatives to Economic Globalization: A Better World Is Possible.

1. Globalisation is one of the most complex and influential movements of our time. Driven by major corporations in the West, it seeks to operate financial and commercial transactions to the benefit of all humans. In practice, there are few winners except the transnational corporations themselves. Having monopolised markets and financial institutions, corporations have also drawn up legal procedures whereby they can bypass even the nation state itself. The effects on poorer countries of the planet are devastating.
   
   The impact of globalisation touches the lives of everybody on planet earth today. We need to be aware of how it works;only then do we stand any real chance of challenging and redirecting its movements. Among the many books on the subject, few are as simply but comprehensively written as the present volume. It provides an excellent overview with some valuable suggestions on how we can work together to create alternative startegies for a more just and equitable world order.



2. This book addresses many significant problems in the world today (2003-to present) from the vantage point of the capitalist critic. It preaches localization of centralized governments in third world countries as alternatives to the dominating presence of the WTO and ICC. Although these organizations allow impoverished countries to create jobs, in many instances the respective jobs come at the expense of the entire communities' well-being (water privatization). The text ties pollution problems to the need to maintain the economic machine. If you see anything on your TV news source (CNN, FOX News) about WTO protests in large cities, and seem troubled, then read this book. It will explain why the people marching on your TV screen are so angry.



3. We live in a world dominated by corporate superpowers that have no regard for the long-term welfare of the people, the economy, or the environment. These large transnational firms are reshaping the world and perpetuating a mass homogenization of cultures around the world. Many of the largest conglomerates in the world are American-owned. They export products and images that promote their bottom lines, not the welfare of individual countries or people. They covertly shift billions of dollars between different countries overnight or build retail chains that desecrate local economies. The sheer size and power of these organizations leaves many of us paralyzed with a lingering sense of disempowerment and an inability to imagine effective solutions.
   
   This book offers us concrete answers and a list of actions we can take. The topical chapters allow you to go straight to the information you want and discover both grassroots and legislative solutions. As an additional bonus, a panel of experts in the various fields back up their perspectives with solid facts and figures. This is a indispensable book for any concerned citizen and an engaging read from cover to cover.



4. An excellent cast of authors and leading thinkers cover many aspects of how current forms of market fundamentalist oligarchic corporate interests shape a form of globalisation that limits the benefits and exascerbate the challenges posed by the changes brought on by globalisation. In stark contrast to the media's portrayal of knee jerk reactions to modern realities this book presents a very deep understanding of the challenges and the opportunities before us. It offers alternatives at a time when prevailing dogma has it that there are no alternatives and that the ills we see around us are inevitable and for the better good. It also points out the tremendous cummulative danger of the current direction many international developments are taking. It is not a book about going backwards but about moving into new territory beyond the deadlocks of the past.

5 comments about Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences.

1. For people, like me, who had almost given up entirely on the academic field of Economics because of ridiculous theories and poor teaching, there is fortunately still Steve Keen. In this book, the Australian Keen shows the errors of the standard views of neoclassical (orthodox) economics.
   
   Not just some side aspects of the theory, but the actual core views of economics as it is taught in universities everywhere unravels before your eyes. Keen masterfully applies both economic models and historical analysis to show that orthodox economists not only do not know what theories exist in their own field, but they also have no inkling of the history of economics and what this means for their approach. This, combined with a possibly even poorer understanding of the philosophy of science (Keen uses Milton Friedman as the main example, but more could have been named), leads to a series of ridiculous assumptions and even more ridiculous results. That the economists consistently ignore the way industrial managers and market analysts etc. do NOT apply their pet theories is just the icing on the cake.
   
   The book is heavy reading for those with no knowledge of economics or maths, but certainly not impossible. A basic understanding of economics and mathematics as taught at high school level (at least in The Netherlands) goes a long way, and Keen fortunately writes well and attempts to avoid long mathematical proofs as much as possible.
   
   The only downside to the book is that his treatment of alternative theories, especially the quite closely linked Austrian school of economics, is very short and vague. This leads to the impression that Keen knows what's wrong with neoclassics, but not what is to be done instead. Therefore, start by reading this book, but don't end there.



2. Ever suspected that economists are full of it? Ever had an argument with an economist friend and been frustrated by the combination of condescension and cluelessness?
   
   If so, this book is for you. Keen, an economist himself, argues that economists are lousy mathematicians. Try that argument on your economists friends and watch their faces turn red. Keen maintains that most economists (adherents of the neo-classical school) have not kept up with the latest developments in non-linear mathematics. Keen then goes right to the heart of neo-classical economics by taking aim at supply and demand curves and the whole concept of equilibrium in economics.
   
   Keen's attack on neo-classical economics is more than an academic exercise. The world has been run by neo-classicists for the past generation. Keen shows how their central tenet, that free markets unhindered by regulation provide the greatest good for the greatest number, is simply wrong.
   
   I do wish Keen had spent more time in analyzing what neo-liberalism is good for: concentrating great wealth in the hands of the few. But that has been done well by others.
   
   The book is surprisingly easy to read for non-specialists (like myself). For specialists, Keen points to his website where there are many more charts and formulae.



3. The headings of the book are strange but the real content deals with: aggregate demand, aggregate supply, perfect competition versus monopolies, labour market, role of capital, how time should be included in economics, Keynes is relevant, stock market instability, importance of mathematics and alternative approaches to economics.
   Book takes at least three days to read because the topics are explained in new fashion and intellectually challenging way.



4. "Debunking Economics" is a critique of neoclassical economics by a Post Keynesian who likes Sraffa, math and dynamics as much as he dislikes neoclassical economics, equilibrium and statics.
   
   The book has three main parts: Foundations, Complexities, and Alternatives. Foundations includes discussions of neoclassical supply, demand, perfect competition and monopoly, as well as the labour market. Complexities covers capital, assumptions, time, macroeconomics and financial markets. Finally, Alternatives part presents alternative financial theories and heterodox schools of economics, argues against Marxian economics and discusses the use and abuse of mathematics.
   
   The idea behind the book is great. The execution itself, unfortunately, is a mixed bag. I found two chapters - Chapter 6 on capital and Chapter 13 on Marxian economics - to be almost unbearable. All the other chapters are more accessible and have promising arguments, albeit delivered in a mostly tedious manner. In this regard, Chapter 2 is quite representative of the whole book. It points out that in order to derive a smooth downward sloping market demand curve, economists assume homogeneous preferences, which amounts to having only one consumer in the market. Heterogeneous preferences would yield an unpredictable, messy curve with possibly more than one equilibrium. This interesting point is arrived at through a series of boring utility hills and indifference curves. Likewise, Chapter 8 presents a nice discussion of Walras and general equilibrium, but ends with a confused exposition of what temporal analysis in economics should be. Above all, in certain cases when the lay reader (who is supposedly the author's primary audience) might need some easing in (e.g. when Hicks and IS-LM are being discussed), Keen does that very little if at all. Without doubt, the delivery of the arguments could have been much better - much more focused, more accessible. Furthermore, some interesting points are left to be developed on the author's website. Why not use increasing returns to scale (which are otherwise taken so seriously by Keen) possible in this book and develop those issues here as well? I would argue that because of this lacking delivery, many otherwise solid arguments and points will be forgotten soon after being read by the lay reader.
   
   Long story short: this book is a good idea executed in a sloppy manner.



5. This is an excellent critique of neo-classical economics. The author identifies himself as a "post-Keynesian." However, he has strong sympathies with the Complexity Theory and Evolutionary Economics schools of thought. If I read him correctly, he believes that ideas from these various alternative economic schools of thought will eventually be blended into a triumphant 21rst century truly "scientific" predominant school of thought. Or so he and I hope.... Maggie Thatcher's declaration that, "There is NO ALTERNATIVE!!!", to neo-classical monetarism is decidedly contradicted by the author.
   
   His evaluation of neo-classical economics and its devotees is substantially unsympathetic. He believes that much of what passes for "modern" neo-classical economic thought is mired in outdated 19th century thought. The underlying neo-classical foundations of Bentham's hedonistic calculus, static market equilibrium points, Say's Law, increasing marginal costs of production, etc. are all examined critically. In my view, he does a very thorough autopsy of the ideological corpse.
   
   He also covers Marx and modern Marxism in one of the chapters in the book. He effectively debunks Marx's theory of labor surplus value, falling profits for capitalists, increasing misery of the workers, and the "inevitability" of scientific socialism. However, he also credits Marx with coming up with some of the most insightful critiques of capitalism.
   
   This is a very good book--in my opinion. It is a very hard read for the uninitiated. However, if you've taken some traditional economics courses and have a bit of facility with math, I think you will find the case he makes interesting. I found it very compelling. I'd recommend that you buy the book (or check it out from the library) and see which of the pro and con book critics are correct.
   
   As I sit here at my PC on Sept. 28, 2008 with Congress debating the "bailout" of Wall Street, some of Keen's ominous predictions that he made back in 2001 when he wrote the book about large scale market failures appear to be coming to fruition. He really understood the danger of market excesses and warned against the dismantlement of government's protective market regulations. Unlike the neoclasical "Mr. Market" adherents who were cheering the Titantic on its full speed ahead course....
   
   His view of inevitable economic disaster given the late 20th and early 21rst western market excesses appears to be prophetic at this time.

1 comments about Subprime Mortgages: America's Latest Boom and Bust.

1. "Subprime Mortgages" is a short, balanced, academic review of a major current topic. Gramlich points out that subprime mortgages have increased home ownership from about 64% to 69%, particularly benefiting minorities and those with lower incomes. They have also led to improved loan application processing.
   
   The bad side includes bringing potential abuses from new, largely unregulated mortgage sources, a 10X increase in default rates (some believe their default rate will reach 20X that of "regular" mortgages), and enormous losses in financial markets around the world. (Gramlich failed to mention the likely damage to American financial market credibility.)
   
   Gramlich also points out that 45% of low-income home owners and 57% of renters are now spending over half their disposable income on housing - a too great load by most standards.

5 comments about Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression.

1. This book is one of the best statements of and arguments for libertarianism that I have ever seen. It is also very logical: everything follows from the "Good Neighbor Policy", which, in a nutshell is: 1) refrain from first strike use of force, fraud or theft, and 2) repairing any damage done from violating 1).
   
   I don't agree with everything she suggests, but this book should open your eyes to solutions never proposed by the left or the right.



2. I agree with the other viewer who said that this book is an overrall better introduction to libertarianism than all the others, even Murray N. Rothbard's "For A New Liberty". Many of the great libertarian writers started from some central axiom. Ludwig Von Mises said that "Man acts to achieve some goal subjectively desired by themself". Rothbard said "self-ownership." And Robert Higgs points out how "Crisis is the Health of the State." The cool thing about Mary J. Ruwart's book is that it essentially starts from the most universal and timeless of moral principles, the Golden Rule. You know that, don't you. Almost any culture that is worth their weight believes in it and many religions even teach it. Mary J. Ruwart eventually constructs an entire anarchist argument upon it though. Or an anarcho-capitalist argument anyways. She covers everything from schooling to welfare to the environment to the destruction wrought by minimum wage laws and licensing laws. All from the perspective of the Golden Rule in a thorough and exhaustive combination of deductive reasoning and inductive historical studies (are you aware for instance of the fact that during the 1920's, the average income of African-Americans was the same of the average income of white-Americans before minimum wage laws and licensing laws). She also covers foreign policy, drug laws, etc. She constructs all of this up from the Golden Rule and points out how government is the enemy of the Golden Rule. It is organized aggression and so long as we support it, taxation, and regulations while not respective private property, then we can't truly claim to believe in the Golden Rule.



3. This is an amazing book with an incredible amount of research put into just about every paragraph. This book takes the reader through step by step explanations to how libertarian solutions exactly work, giving a variety and good volume of examples and texts with which to work from.
   
   For those not familiar with libertarian philosophy, this is a wonderful place to begin; and even for well-read libertarians, this is an excellent place to increase your knowledge.
   
   This should be required reading for any student of or person interested in economics, government, and/or government policy in general.



4. This is by far the best introduction to Libertarianism I have ever read. People that are put off by the Economics-based approach of other writers will find this interesting. This book is all about practical applications and is very compassionate. But the simple theoretical underpinning is sound Libertarian thinking: No one may initiate aggression. From this everything else follows. Dr. Ruwart is suprising because her approach seems very hippy-dippy-trippy but her arguments are quite cogent. I wish everyone could read this book.



5. Dr. Ruwart's book is an amazing introduction to the principles of the libertarian philosophy. Throughout the book, she covers many of today's hottest issues, from environmental conservation, poverty, health care and foreign policy. Her approach centers around honoring our neighbor's choices and eschewing the violence of a coercive state.
   
   Her book offers a rare yet hard-hitting glimpse of libertarian from the often-ignored "left" side of the spectrum. As many libertarian books are written from the "conservative" side, Mary Ruwart's book addresses it from the social and human side, showing real world examples of how the free market can solve problems much more effectively than government can. This would be a great primer for a liberal friend or family member who desperately needs a dose of liberty and freedom!

1 comments about Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s.

1. This is an exceptionally well constructed collection of essays by moderate liberals about the development of the modern conservative movement through the 1970's. It's a great supplement to classroom texts.

5 comments about The End Of Reform: New Deal Liberalism in Recession and War.

1. From the changes in assumptions of economists to the conception of today's miltary-industrial complex, Alan Brinkley explains in this one volume clearly and concisely what so many other authors of multi-volume tomes try but never quite put their thumb on.



2. Too often the New Deal is portrayed as one coherent plan FDR and his administration had for getting the United States out of the depression. The End of Reform is a wonderful correction of this historical myth. Not only did FDR and his advisors have no set plan going in, much of what was accomplished reprisented compromises and backroom political dealing. Brinkley most interestingly details the indecision and political rangling in the FDR White House and with Congress after the beginning of the 1937 recession. Brinkley proves that really FDR didn't know what to do after the beginning of the recession and also after his National Industrial Recovery Act was declared unconstitutional. He also conclusively proves that much of the 1937 recession can be attributed to FDR's agreement with conservative Democrats to balance the budget which resulted in many cuts in social spending.
   Also an interesting aspect not discussed in many other books concerns FDR's response to domestic issues after Pearl Harbor. After the beginning of WW II FDR all but ignored domestic issues, largely sitting silent as Congress rolled back many pre-war New Deal reforms. His discussion of the attitude of many people inside the adminsitration wanting to turn to more of a socialist economy with Federal intervention is also quite good.
   With so many high school history courses and textbooks portraying the New Deal as a coherent plan that FDR and his advisors knew would bring the US out of the depression.



3. Brinkley successfully blends away the mask of a liberalist approach to the New Deal in this work. He chronicles in insightful detail the various alphabet soup programs and their roles in the Roosevelt administration. Yet, his main focus is the continued deintensification of liberalism in subsequent administrations and the nature of liberals and their movement from anti-big business and pro-worker to less hostile to big business as many liberals moved from one side to the other. Brinkley follows his discussion of New Deal liberalism with a discussion of the progressive degeneration of liberalism in the age of Truman and Eisenhower and subsequent efforts to foster some kind of rebirth in that time period. In sum, Brinkley's work is rather exceptional. He covers the material without tipping the reader off as to his liberal nature.



4. This book is really fundamental for understanding both the New Deal and the Liberal tradition it engendered. The book's title evokes two prior famous books; Hofstader's The Age of Reform and Lowi's End of Liberalism. Brinkley positioned this book as a bridge between Hofstader's description and analysis of the Progressive movement and Lowi's analysis of the disintegration of Liberalism. Brinkley begins by emphasizing the Progressive heritage of the New Deal. After the conservative reaction accompanying the First World War and the 20s, the election of Roosevelt and the crisis of the Depression brought Progressive influenced Democrats (some former Progressive Republicans)to power at a time when the American electorate was willing to try more radical and statist measures. The New Deal, however, was an improvisation and what evolved was a gradual diminution of Progressive skepticism about the institutions of capitalism. The interest in somehow reforming capitalism in any fundamental way gave way to an essentially meliorist framework with (by European standards at any rate) a modest social welfare system, Keynesian macroeconomic management, some regulation of important markets such as the activities of the SEC, an empahsis on civil rights in the legal and political sense, and a basic acceptance of the importance of consumerism and large corporations. This book is written unusually well and documented superbly. As commented by a prior reviewer, this book is a worthy successor to Hofstader's Age of Reform and that is high praise indeed.



5. Professor Brinkley attempts to answer this question in this excellent recapitulation of liberalism's development from the late 1930s to the end of World War II. That period began with the so-called "Roosevelt Recession," an unwelcome development for liberals and progressives who had, despite other differences, put their unwavering faith in the political and economic leadership of President Roosevelt.
   
   Brinkley borrows from Ellis Hawley's The New Deal and the Problem of Monopoly and other first-rate treatments of the New Deal to show how previous splits in liberal thought were further aggravated by Roosevelt's recession. Liberals wanting statist control of the economy; liberals wanting governmental-corporate-labor "associational" agreements on production and pricing; liberals stressing anti-monopoly governmental efforts as a way to increase consumption --- all these guys fought for Roosevelt's ear as the President vacillated maddingly on the proper response. The upshot was a decision by FDR to mix anti-monopoly policy with modest Keynsian fiscal pump-priming as a hopeful solution to the recession.
   
   Keynsianism represented the triumph in liberal thought of concerns over the consumer (governmental spending increases jobs and wages, which fattens the wallet and pocketbook) over systemic changes in capitalistic production. The latter, Professor Brinkley argues, would represent a true attempt to reform the economy. Brinkley shows that during and after World War II, with a booming economy and the defeat (or proved moral bankruptcy) of threats to our capitalistic way of life, the consumer ethic established further beachheads in liberal thought. Also, conservatism in Congress, the business community, and the American public further limited the chance for real reform and the attractiveness of capitalism as a way to stuff our refrigators and garages.
   
   By the end of World War II all the components of liberalism more or less bought into the consumerist gambit to keep the economy booming. All that was o.k. so long as the boom continued. Mainstream liberalism, Brinkley argues, proved its inability substantively to help its constituencies, however, when economic tough times returned in the mid-1970s.
   
   Brinkley's book represents a great critique of American liberalism from the left. He shortchanges the constraints under which Roosevelt worked in World War II -- after all, he wanted to win it -- but this is still good stuff. Oh yeah, he needed more analysis of the Supreme Court -- after all one cannot understand post World War II liberalism without grappling with the role of the federal judiciary. How did FDR and his liberal advisors contribute to that when they put "liberal" judges in the federal judiciary?
   
   Still, buy this book if you want an understanding of how liberalism got to where it is today. Kudos Professor Brinkley.