5 comments about The Price of Government: Getting the Results We Need in an Age of Permanent Fiscal Crisis.

1. The timing for this book couldn't be better - an era of skyrocketing deficits, an aging population (boosting pension outlays), inexorable increases in healthcare costs (fewer workers with health insurance, aging population), and businesses increasingly threatening to move elsewhere unless they receive tax relief.
   
   Simply cutting budgets accomplishes little - as Osborne points out, it does nothing to improve areas retained. In addition, service recipients or proponents (usually providers) simply complain ad naseum until an opportunity to restore funding occurs (eg. tax increase or economic upturn) presents itself - thus setting the stage for the next crisis.
   
   Osborne is also correct in pointing out that the most common budget "cures" are simply illusions - accounting gimmicks (timing "games" regarding outlays and receipts, fudging estimates, temporarily ignoring voter mandates), borrowing, and delaying maintenance.
   
   At this point, however, Osborne goes off the track by proposing some intelligent-sounding changes in approach (eg. identify the results wanted), and proceeds to go through a lot of razzle-dazzle that simply ends up with "business as usual."
   
   Using Washington state as an example, Osborne cites how a citizens group decided to focus on providing more early-childhood-education and implementing skill-based pay for teachers - neither a "REAL" result. During the last 30+ years innumerable education "improvement" programs have been funded, while progress has been non-existent - eg. scores by 17-year-olds on the National Assessment of Education Progress (the only unchanged large-scale test in the nation) have remained unchanged, as have drop-out rates. This, despite a more than doubling of inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending in the last 30 or so years. As for "skill-based" teacher pay, study after study has found that - after taking into account pupil differences - payment for EXISTING "skill-set" programs (teacher experience or degree levels) contribute little (only the first few years of experience) or nothing to pupil achievement. So why add another dubious dimension? If one needs any more evidence, consider the fact that most private schools only cost about half that of public schools.
   
   Universities are another major State-level expenditure; like K-12 education, MAJOR overhaul (not rethinking budgets)is required. Since the early 1990's, professors' teaching workloads have been reduced from three classes per semester to two. Nationally, and undoubtedly in Washington also, the length of the academic year shrunk from 191 days in 1964 to only 156 in 1993. Meanwhile, only 21 cents of every funding dollar goes into the classroom - the number of non-teaching professionals (eg. counselors) has increased from 3 per instructor in 1976 to 6 in 2001. Returning to those recent productivity levels, substantially reducing admissions of the roughly half unable or unmotivated to graduate, and shortening the average 5+ years required to graduate would allow savings of about $500+ million/year in Arizona and it is assumed that similar opportunities exist in Washington.
   
   As for healthcare, Osborne's Washington process suggested dropping coverage for low-income workers - an ACCOUNTING GIMMICK that simply transfers the costs to providers, and adding more clinics. However, what is really required is a review of incentives and other care drivers - eg. the highest-spending areas in the U.S. spend about 60% more on Medicare recipients than the lowest, despite access to care and patient outcomes being better in the low-income areas. A second problem is that healthcare providers are REWARDED for their errors - payors need to insist on adherence to quality standards. A third major problem is that care recipients have no incentives to conserve - Health Savings Accounts (allowing cashing out of any funds remaining from a set amount) do so.
   
   Clearly Osborne's work would be more useful if it focused on outcomes - both good and bad. Associated with that should also be a discussion of benchmarking (staffing levels, compensation for staff, and benefit levels), and continuous improvement goal-setting that emphasize reducing waste and improving quality "Toyota-style" - keys to success in the private sector.
   
   The "bottom-line" is that the focus should not be on the budget process, but on permanent reform of the biggest consumers of government funds - education and healthcare.



2. Great ideas if anyone can find government workers or teachers who know anything or care about ...budgets.
   Focus on getting workers engaged in the planning process first before introducing even the word BUDGET or PRICE of Government.
   Also, using the terms PERMANENT and CRISIS in the same sentence does absolutely nothing except cause eyes to glaze over.



3. The PRICE of GOVERNMENT:
   Getting the Results We Need in an Age of Permanent Fiscal Crisis
   
   
   There is no doubt that money needs to be well-spent, especially when discussing money managers such as our state and national government officials. As a "customer" of this government, I'm looking for solutions, yet finding more problems. The Price of Government not only identifies those problems, but offers solutions. The premise remains the same- what are Americans willing to pay for the services that we need?
   
   The authors review not only America's history of taxation, but introduce components from other sources. Such sources are countries where governmental systems are more effective than ours, and sometimes also citing an example of ineffectiveness followed by review and suggestion. Overall, this book is a valuable source for those who have an interest as to where their tax dollars are being spent. The authors suggest that all Americans should be more well-informed before they vote. After reading many reviews of this text, I believe the authors may wish to re-visit this idea. America wants results. There is a great deal of practical suggestions about moving toward a practical performance-based system. I believe that we are beginning to see this and use of the internet helps average citizens gain information we would not have had access to a decade ago.
   
   What I especially enjoyed about this book was that it wasn't just shock and awe... we're going downhill heading for doom, etc. The authors state the obvious- that we've spent more than we have and there needs to be accountability for the money customers provide. I refrained from overusing the word taxpayer because the book does address ways to use these concepts in other arenas, making it a valuable tool not only for elected officials, health care and educational employees, but to business as a whole. The introduction jumps right in and offers a "prescription" to help save this sinking ship. In short, the authors compel government to "get a grip" on the problem, figure out how much taxpayers are willing to help with the problem, determine priorities and then allocate funds for those priorities until money is gone. Being in the middle of an educational administration program has exposed me to several similar texts. Often, reorganization is the focus to solve existing problems. These authors drew me in from the get-go, but the following quote sums up their philosophy well!
   
   Native Americans have many sayings, and one of the wisest is this: "When you're riding a dead horse, the best strategy is t dismount. You don't change riders. You don't reorganize the herd. You don't put blue-ribbon commission on veterinarians. And you don't spend more money on feed. You get off and find yourself a new horse. "(Page 19)
   
   To begin identification of the problem they look at demographics- an aging population with longer longevity and decreased population growth. In short, healthcare and social security problems have caused a deficit in the budget on a huge scale. The authors suggest budgeting for outcomes- determine what is really important, and then figure out how much it will cost and then buy it. I liked how they state to "use indicators that make sense to citizens". (Page 72) Often, schools report test scores but do not explain how they are interpreted. The authors suggest planning for outcome goals and including indicators of that success. They identify the difference between budgeting for Outcomes and performance management. The example of the child welfare agency being rewarded or punished based on child abuse cases solidifies the definite difference of the two. (Page 89)
   
   In the consolidation chapter, the authors remind us that historically, American government reacts to a crisis through reorganization. Two examples sited are the loss of a child causing the child welfare system reform and Homeland security being developed after September 11th 2001. Reorganization is not always bad, but it not always what the organization needs either. I like how the book relates well to the educational system. Suggesting that schools be held accountable to achieve these goals set by the system would increase motivation to ensure child success. We are beginning to see this in charter school enrollment rising and some states having the option to voucher tax dollars toward private schools. The concept of "rightsizing" looks at whether or not the service is still needed, how efficiently those working in that area are doing their work and what can be done about it. If the service is still needed but time is wasted, for example completing tedious paperwork or signing time cards that the supervisor doesn't manage suggests looking at technology to streamline the work to be done.
   
   Too often with new elected officials we saw their friends, companies and associates hired under their administration. The result was usually less than optimum effectiveness. Osborne and Hutchinson suggest competition to save the price of government from rising. Competition keeps prices low. To further stimulate effectiveness and efficiency, the authors suggest rewarding those involved. If the contractor winning the bid completes a job early and under budget, then a portion of the surplus goes back to the taxpayers while a portion goes to the workers as well. The authors claim that not only does this reward workers, but it improves morale of the workers and boosts the public faith in their government. I especially liked the suggestion they based from evidence of forgeign countries. "Shift public workers into private firms taking over the work... Require that contractors pay comparable wages and benefits..." (Page 161) These are but two examples, showing us that this could work. We could move public jobs into the private sector, without losing the quality of life they had established.
   
   "Smarter customer service" is a chapter most of us could benefit from. It brings to light the things we too often do without question. In turn, wasting the company's money and driving costs up for customers. The example of signing time cards of people you don't personally watch was a perfect example. Yet, government needed to respond to a situation years ago in order to save money. Re-evaluate the needs of the organization. The 311 system empowered citizens while holding officials responsible for their departments. The quality must improve to improve the processes. The 311 telephone system brought performance data to a new front while keeping costs low through consolidation. By being more effective, costs are cut for departments, onto governments and maintaining if not lowering the price of government for citizens
   
   They offer insight to many different aspects, focused on the key programs. They also offer practical suggestions and offer ways to deepen what they present, citing very good websites such as www.FirstGov.gov and www.irs.gov/efile. Systems working together will better align the system. The authors suggest in education of current employees for better efficiency as well. The focus should be on the results of the objectives, not solely the money, claiming the authors. They remind us to stay focused on the core objectives, as to not get lost in the activity. They suggest moving power into the hands of the employees, in essence creating "an organization of leaders" (page 322).
   
   All in all, this book is not only very useful, but easy to read as well.



4. This is a another great book written by David Osborne, with practical, yet out of the box ideas on balancing government budgets. A great process that can be emulated by public administrators to focus taxpayer dollars on the most important programs and services. It challenges administrators to go beyond hacking away at every program budget until all the programs are barely running on a shoestring and no one is getting the results that taxpayers want.



5. This book offers a different approach for governments to prioritize their spending. It may not work for every body, but will provide a new way to decide where to put tax dollars to match tax payers priorities.

5 comments about The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge To China's Future (Council on Foreign Relations Book).

1. Not an easy read, but one that many Americans probably should...it demonstrates well how our life styles here in the US increases demand for cheap consumer goods, resulting in corporations poisoning other parts of the planet to supply them quickly and without major expense to us.
   
   Incredibly sickening injury to the planet is well documented and presented in a professional way, and the book is very readable.
   
   Recommended for all of those who need a greater repetoire of evidence that we are rather quickly destroying the planet, and as a means of strengthening arguments against "globalization" and consumerism.



2. "The River Runs Black" by Elizabeth C. Economy is an intelligent analysis of contemporary China and its burgeoning environmental crisis. This engaging book helps us understand how globalization is reshaping China and issues an urgent plea for international cooperation to help monitor and rectify an increasingly worrysome situation.
   
   Ms. Economy tells us how China's environment has been steadily deteriorating over the past centuries due to wars, political power struggles and overpopulation. However, today's problems
   are attributable to specific policy decisions by China's government that has favored rapid economic development through engagement with the international business community. Unfortunately, the particular kinds of economic development favored by China's rulers has led to myriad environmental problems including deforestation, desertification, and air and water pollution. The collusion of local government and business interests has made it difficult to obtain reliable data or to implement solutions where it is feared that plant shutdowns might
   result in mass unemployment and social unrest, making difficult problems seem untractable.
   
   Environmental consciousness in China has increased as the problems have become more visible and as the country has engaged with the world economy. Ms. Economy profiles some of the courageous and inspirational individuals who have struggled for conservation, urban renewal and grass-roots democracy such as Tang Xiyang, He Bochuan, Dai Qing and others. While environmentalists have achieved some successes (such as protecting endangered species of monkeys and antelopes), the author believes that the government's championing of highly destructive projects such as the Three Gorges Dam proves that much more needs to be done.
   
   Ms. Economy recounts the experiences of the former Communist nations of Eastern Europe to gain insight into how China might resolve its environmental problems. The Chernobyl disaster catalyzed local environmental groups into pushing for political reforms that brought down the Communists in the USSR and elsewhere. Recognizing that China's Communist Party is a "patronage machine committed to rapid economic development" and devoid of any ideological purpose other than self-perpetuation, Ms. Economy believes that increasing democratization in China could easily undermine the country's single Party system. Of course, China's leaders are keenly aware of this threat and consequently have tightly circumscribed the activities of environmental organizations, but the author is hopeful that the contradictions between increasing environmental degradation and the lack of a meaningful democracy will eventually force China's political system to change.
   
   In the last section, Ms. Economy speculates about the manner in which China may develop in the future. The author envisions three possible scenarios: China goes green; inertia sets in; and environmental meltdown. Ms. Economy thinks that the U.S. should take the lead in encouraging China to develop its regulatory system and implement green technologies so that the country can embark on an environmentally sustainable path. Indeed, the unpredictable consequences of a Chinese environmental meltdown should give the international community pause to consider how it might help China -- and by extension all of us -- to avoid a worse case scenario.
   
   I highly recommend this superbly written book to everyone.



3. Previous reviewers have said good things about this book, and I can only agree. It is notably superior to other recent books about the Chinese environment, which (though often scholarly) are long on polemics and short on comprehensive vision.
   Dr. Economy focuses on politics and policies. These have been notoriously awful under Communism, but there is now a realization of the damage being done, and thus some hope. Dr. Economy is as optimistic as one could reasonably be. Incidentally, interested readers should also look up her very fine chapter in Kristen Day's worthy edited volume CHINA'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.
   I am not so optimistic. One reason is that my training is more in biology, and I am aware that the devastating damage China has done to its environment will not be clear for 50 to 100 years. It takes that long for pollution and environmental degradation to show themselves fully.
   As Dr. Economy says, China wanted to be "first rich, then clean" (that's the literal Chinese; she actually phrases it more academically). They thought that the west had done this. No, the west started conservation and scientific management long ago. The United States' golden age of conservation was under Theodore Roosevelt, when the US was still poor and rural. The US and western Europe never allowed anything close to what China has done. There was much degradation, but reaction always came eventually. China, like all Communist-led countries, missed this lesson. Marx had spoken: production is all, and top-down control is the way to do it. This has led, everywhere, to dismal environmental records, though much good has come from distributing food, health care, housing, etc., more evenly (this may no longer be the case). It is now too late. The white-flag dolphin, once common and resilient, is extinct, the Three Gorges are dammed, and much else has gone beyond possibility of repair.
   Dr. Economy does not draw as sharp a contrast as I would between traditional management and Communist excess. Traditional China had major Malthusian problems, but they were caused more by imperial policy than by environmental mismanagement at the riceroots level. The peasants and workers created a system based on harmony and balance. The system was full of problems, and never got as harmonious as we would now wish, but it worked; it kept hundreds of millions of people alive in spite of a premodern technology, and it managed the key resources--topsoil, water, forests, and so on--sustainably enough that there was quite a bit left by 1950. Recent books trashing the old system have titles significantly featuring elephants and tigers instead of people. Even if you prefer the charismatic megafauna, note that China had some elephants and a lot of tigers in 1950.
   So a flawed, antiquated, underproductive, but still well-designed and eminently functional system was sacrificed, and the result has been a royal mess. Yields of food are way up, thanks to modern technology (some of it developed in China by the Communists--to their credit), but the future is cloudy indeed.
   If you want the best account of what can be done and what is being done, look no further than this book.



4. Excellent book, it's helping me a lot with my Thesis at School.... I love it



5. incredibly depressing and negative, leaves one with a sick feeling in the stomach. but its happening in China every day.
   
   This is an astounding book, but very difficult to read. I still shake my head in disbelief.

5 comments about Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective.

1. This is a book I intend to reread a year from now. I believe it has changed my perspective regarding international politics and developmental issues, so from now on I'll try and interpret facts through the perspective Chang provided. Meanwhile, I'll try and follow some of the bibliography he suggests to see if I can mitigate some of my doubts.
   
   If you believe you're a neoliberal, this book is for you. It will challenge some of your most basic beliefs - and what could be better? You might be able to disagree with him entirely, but I'm sure that reading this book will sophisticate your thoughts in the matter and throw some doubts where there was none. Too bad this is not the best-seller it could have been.



2. This book is a must read for all Ministers of finance and economic development in the third world. Policy makers in the third world should read this book over and over. Also all libraries in the research department of central banks in third world countries should have this book. Third world policy makers can definitely use this book as the starting antidote for the `developmental advice' that emanates form teams of economists who descend from the IFIs.
   
   This book would be required reading for my students (at New College of Florida) in development economics.



3. The author does an excellent job in showing that ,historically, the role of government spending(on infrastructure,public goods,public works,education and public health),import restrictions,tariffs,quotas,etc., has played a major role in the economic development of every single first world country over the last two hundred years.This fact directly refutes the claims of many,if not all,economists,especially those making policy decisions at the World Bank,International Monetary Fund,and World Trade Organization, who claim that free trade is the way a country reaches prosperity.Free Trade is interpreted in a neoliberal(libertarian anarchist)manner to mean that there is minimal government spending and no tariffs whatsoever.The author demonstrates that the historical record provides zero support for this approach.The author is certainly correct.
   My major criticism of the book is the author's apparent belief that Adam Smith supported the ideas of Laissez faire and free markets.This is simply incorrect.Adam Smith was a major SUPPORTER of both revenue tariffs and retaliatory tariffs if there was any chance greater than 0 that the retaliatory tariff would lead to the repeal of the original protective tariff that had been instituted by the offending country.This is all covered on pp.434-439 of the Modern Library(Cannan)edition of Smith's Wealth of Nations(1776).



4. Ha-Joon Chang argues that free trade and the principle of comparative advantage were used by advanced industrial countries to keep undeveloped countries on agriculture instead of developing their own manufactures (which would have made them competition for the industrialized nations). Similar to the way that those individuals who have accumulated much capital support a "free" contract between themselves and wage-laborers, in order to employ them for labor and then sell the products of their labor back to them after taking a profit, those countries which have already industrialized prefer "free" trade between nations, in order to maintain a similar type of dependence of the undeveloped world upon the already developed world: with developed world capital employing the labor of citizens of undeveloped nations, then selling the products of their labor back to them through international trade (after taking a profit).
   
   If you are not already familiar with the early history of free trade (I'm referring to the pre-WWI period, when there was a push toward international economic integration that mirrored today's globalization but was shattered by the advent of the war), and of the intellectual arguments marshaled in support of it (by the economic theorists of *developed* nations, don't forget), such as David Ricardo's principle of comparative advantage or Adam Smith's theories about the supposedly even benefits of the division of labor, then as background to Kicking Away the Ladder I would suggest you read Global Capitalism: Its Fall and Rise in the 20th Century by Jeffry Frieden. That was my only background to these issues, but it was enough. Just the right amount in fact.
   
   Or alternatively you might just wiki a few concepts:
   -Comparative advantage
   -Primitive accumulation
   
   If you check out the Comparative Advantage wiki page and some of it looks familiar, I didn't plagiarize this review. I wrote that section of the wiki page. :)



5. In this pioneering book, Ha-Joon Chang, Assistant Director of Development Studies at Cambridge University, explores development strategies in theory and practice. First, he studies how the developed countries became developed using active industrial, trade and technological (ITT) policies. Then he looks at the role that social institutions play in economic development. Finally, he proposes some lessons for the present.
   
   He shows how Britain was the first country to perfect the art of infant industry promotion. Then he looks at the USA, which still has subsidies for its farmers, quotas for textiles, huge state spending on military R&D, trade sanctions against many other nations, and state funding for R&D in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries - all protectionist measures.
   
   All the developed economies used active ITT policies, yet they now promote free trade for all, claiming that it will benefit all. Renato Ruggiero, the first Director of the World Trade Organisation [WTO], said in 1998 that this world order has `the potential for eradicating global poverty in the early part of the next century'.
   
   But free trade policies have failed: they haven't delivered the promised growth. Free trade harms the less developed countries' national manufacturers and thus their prosperity in the long run.
   
   A study of 116 countries showed that their GDP per head grew 3.1% a year with 1960-80's interventionist policies, but only 1.4% with the post-1979 Thatcherite policies. This study also proved that the quality of a society's institutions is not the key to growth; so does the similar slowdown in the developed countries since 1979. The World Bank and the IMF impose conditions that they say will ensure that `good governance' aids economic growth, but good institutions are the result, not the cause, of economic development.
   
   Chang shows how the developed countries' states have vested interests in keeping poor countries as providers of cheap raw material and labour, in preventing them from emerging as rivals. The WTO restricts developing countries' ability to pursue active ITT policies. The WTO is a modern version of the unequal treaties that Britain and others imposed on China and other semi-independent countries in the 19th century.
   
   The developed countries' states are indeed kicking away the ladder to stop others climbing up after them. They say, `Do as I say, not do as I did'. But today we too need active ITT policies to get us out of the slump.

3 comments about Is Reality Optional?: And Other Essays (Hoover Institution Press Publication).

1. A must for anyone who follows the brilliant Dr. Sowell, this book collects a series of his essays and thoughts on politics, race, and common sense. As a special treat he has a section of quotes at the end with gems like "To me, the fact that I have never killed an editor is proof enough that the death penalty deters" and "There are only two types of food- Southern fried chicken and everything else". A reader would be hard pressed to ask for more.



2. I'm a conservative and I have good friends and family memebers who are liberals. The conservatives and liberals I know are all intelligent and concerned people. I could never figure out why there were such differing views on so many topics.
   
   This book nails it. It is from a conservative view, but will be enlightening to all. One of my favorites.



3. Thomas Sowell hits it out of the park on this one. He's thought provoking, succinct, and ideologically on the button. This is a series of 2-3 page writings on a variety of topics that we all think about, but can never articulate in the fresh and clear way that Thomas Sowell does. He just makes sense, period.

5 comments about Drug Crazy : How We Got into This Mess and How We Can Get Out.

1. Author Mike Gray tackles the failed drug war in this book and effectively shows how the present war has many similarities to alcohol prohibition in early part of the twentieth century. Gray begins his discussion of the subject of drugs by taking the reader back to 1925, in the city of Chicago, during the height of the nightmare of prohibition. Gangs ruled the streets. The air was filled with the smell of cheap booze and the sound of gunfire. Police were defenseless to the total chaos going on all around them. They simply could not stop the manufacture and consumption of alcohol. There was too much money to be made by selling this "forbidden fruit". There was no possible way that this "war" on alcohol could ever be won.
   
   Does this sound familiar? It should, because the same thing is going on right now. The government's failed attempt to eliminate alcohol is now being attempted a second time with the war on drugs. These laws are discussed in the book with a history lesson on the various court rulings and congressional decisions that led to the present prohibitions on drugs. These laws have some of their roots in the U.S. Congress. According to the book, marijuana itself became illegal as the result of a lie told to congress by Fred Vinson, a man who would later become the U.S. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Vinson was sitting in a congressional hearing one day, just before congress was about to vote on whether or not marijuana should be made illegal. The American Medical Association knew of the benefits of marijuana in medical treatments, and was strongly against such a law. But when Vinson was questioned by congress, he lied and said that the AMA backed the proposed law 100 percent to make marijuana illegal. This was enough to help push the law through congress. Vinson's lie, coupled with the onslaught of government propaganda against marijuana, marked the beginning of America's second nightmare with prohibition.
   
   The lying and deception by government cooled off a bit during the 1940 to 1960 period. But then, the lying and deception continued when President Nixon decided to revive the anti- drug crusade, in part to cover- up his own problems with Vietnam and Watergate. George Bush then escalated the damage even more by scaring the public into backing his anti- drug package and his "get tough" policies against drug dealers and drug users. Gray talks about these and other political maneuvers; why they happened and the true motives behind these so- called "moral" crusaders.
   
   The present- day situation looks pretty bleak. Gray points out that the United States is now the largest jailer in the world with roughly half of all prisoners being non- violent drug offenders. We have also corrupted our police officers, with many of them actively taking part in the drug trade; cutting special deals, accepting bribes, etc, because of the allure of easy money. Respect for law enforcement is low, and violent criminals have been allowed early release to make way for non- violent drug offenders, thanks to mandatory minimum sentences.
   
   This book is an easily manageable length: about 198 pages and fairly easy to read. There are a total of eleven chapters and two appendices. Appendix "A" details the changes in the U.S. murder rate, showing how it peaked during alcohol prohibition and during the present- day drug prohibition. It also shows graphs depicting the U.S. prison population and the Federal Drug budget. And to give the book some balance, Appendix "B" contains a listing of activist organizations, both pro- drug war and anti- drug war, along with a brief description of each and their respective websites.
   
   As Mike Gray points out, the War on Drugs is one of America's greatest failures. Gray never specifically condemns the war. He wrote this book as a means to educate the reader on the motives behind drug prohibition and the reasons that politicians continue to fight a losing battle when they know that the war is not winnable. Gray never resorts to name calling or any form of moral persuasion. He really doesn't need to. He lets the facts speak for themselves, illustrating the endless problems created by a war of prohibition and why it is so important to stop this insanity once and for all.



2. This is one of the best books I've read on the drug war to date (and I've read a bunch). The book carefully went through the origins, history, and effects of the drug war in a captivating and easy to follow manner. When finished, the reader will be left with an iron-clad indictment of the drug war which has covered all angles. This really is one of the most comprehensive and well written books on the drug war, and I highly recommend it.



3. When it became clear that the medicines called opiates were highly addictive and caused health problems, they were dealt with as nicotine and alcohol are dealt with today. There were honest and realistic public service messages warning of the dangers of opiates, and there was medical help that greatly limited the damage they did to the individual and which had a chance of eliminating his or her addiction. These methods worked, and where they are applied they work today. Then in the second decade of the twentieth century the country took a nose-dive into authoritarian attitudes and corruption, and people got the strange idea that you could eliminate a practice you didn't like simply by passing a law against it. Alcohol, and the opiates were completely banned, as was marijuana which was now designated a "drug" because of its association with minority groups. Alcohol use, which had always hovered between widespread and universal, had been declining but now became more common than ever before. Worse, the alcoholic drinks that were taken became much harder and not being regulated they might contain enough alcohol to be dangerous. Worse still, an untold number of criminals were created, crime of all kinds increased radically, organized crime came to control whole districts and corruption reached heights never seen before. "Public service messages" regarding what were now illegal "drugs" became simple expressions of hatred having very little to do with the "drugs" they were about, and everyone actually familiar with those "drugs" knew it. Medical treatment by doctors who were actually trying to help their paitents was declared illegal, and a number of doctors went to prison. The lives of opiate addicts had usually been no worse than the lives of nicotine addicts, but now those lives became impossible. Addicts could no longer hold jobs raise children or do anything else but concentrate on their addiction. Current "rehabilitation" for opiate addicts is an expression of hatred for those addicts and makes no attempt to help them. It mostly consists of telling them they are evil it they don't break their habits, and for those addicted to opiates or nicotine, breaking the habit altogether is usually not possible. Opiate use had always been an insignificant phenomenon nationwide, and in the early part of the century when it was being dealt with intelligently, it was declining. But then the hate laws were passed, and now a measurable percentage of the population is addicted and condemed to ruined, useless lives, organized crime is more powerful now than at any time in history, and whole countries like Columbia are completely dominated by corruption-- as are large sections of others like the United States and Mexico. None of this needed to happen. The things we call "drugs" were handled intelligently at the beginning of the twentieth century or were never a problem in the first place. If realistic laws were passed, the worst of the damage would be fixed very quickly since it is directly caused by bad laws. The rest of the damage would take a decade to undo, but if we begin treating the opiates as we treat nicotine and alcohol we will gradually undo it.
   I think that is a pretty good thumbnail of what Mike Grey had to say, and he is completely right. Everyone in the country should read this book. Our real addiction is to hatred.



4. Q: What is the difference between the Prohibition and America's war on drugs? Mike Gray's overall answer is "very little," but the one glaring difference is that when Prohibition failed, the country repealed the Constitutional Amendment which had created it. Alcohol use remained at about the same level before, during and after the Prohibition years, but the murder, official corruption and gang battles that accompanied official proscription came and went. DRUG CRAZY analyzes the upshot of that distinction and its enormous worldwide effects. The U.S. led anti-drug effort has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars in enforcement efforts alone, not to mention the cost of prisons, imprisonment and court proceedings and has succeeded in creating an international drug consortium with an annual income higher than the U.S. defense budget. Thousands of innocent bystanders have died in sprays of automatic fire and bomb blasts. It has made pot easier to get than alcohol for most American teens and brought Colombian, Bolivian and Mexican democracy to the brink of collapse. Damningly, Gray reports that every refereed study since the 1890s has suggested that marijuana is harmless and that the opiates and cocaine are no more dangerous than alcohol (perhaps less). Even the infamous "crack babies" we heard about for a few years turned out to be an unsubstantiated myth. In every country where legalization and controlled prescriptive availability of harder drugs has been tried, addiction rates remained stable or fell, crime decreased and most addicts proceeded to live normal workaday lives. The U.S. has forced other countries to quit such programs through fiscal pressure and outright lies, insisting that all adopt our abolitionist stance. We have managed to export violence, crack cocaine, corruption and other benefits to numerous other nations along with our failed policy. At the same time, and to make matters worse, the nature of enforcement has become a defacto racist effort. Cocaine in Wall Street boardrooms is harder to see than crack runners on Main Street and while whites are the disproportionate users of illegal drugs, blacks are the disproportionate arrestees. In this country, one in four black males is either in prison, under probation or on parole, mostly as a result of drug or drug related crimes. Small wonder, as the author points out, that blacks think O.J. Simpson was framed: it is their daily experience. Police routinely lie in court to make drug charges stick. (Since private deals between consenting parties are very hard to actually witness, when police claim that a perpetrator dropped a bag or in some other way made evidence visible it is understood by judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and defendants that it is "acceptable" false testimony to cover an illegal search. So perjury is permitted in the name of enforcement.) Amazingly, the whole morass of current drug problems and policies could be eliminated with the stroke of a pen. Minus prohibition the drug cartels would be defunded. If prices fell, many farmers would find other crops more appealing. If currently illegal substances were distributed by prescription or through state-licensed stores, kids would be infrequently exposed. (How many pushers are selling beer in front of your local elementary school these days?) Mike Gray has brought his story telling skill (The China Syndrome and other screenplays) and his investigative/documentary bent (American Revolution and The Murder of Fred Hampton) to bear on an urgent national and international problem. His recommendations and observations are difficult to refute and his is a well considered voice in a growing debate which affects us all. Even now, the genie released when California and Arizona approved medical marijuana use is being clumsily stuffed back in the bottle by Federal mandate, disenfranchising voters and creating a rising uproar. As former U.S. Attorney General Elliott Richardson observes: "Anyone who thinks the war on drugs is succeeding should read this book. It shifts the burden of proof from the critics of existing policy to its defenders."



5. I read this book last semester for a Criminal Justice class and it is amazing. It opened my eyes to exactly how wrong the war on drugs is. This book is my #1 recommended book. If more people would read it I think we'd finally be able to find our way out of this fruitless war.

5 comments about Do the Right Thing: The People's Economist Speaks (Hoover Institution Press Publication).

1. Everything Walter Williams writes is worth reading. His amazing capacity to convey economic truths combines with his wisdom, humor, eloquence, and keen powers of observation to make him one of America's top pundits. Williams is that rare bird: a truly courageous pundit who is also a genuine scholar.



2. Over the past 15 years I have read numerous works by many libertarian writers. Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Ayn Rand, Charles Murray, P.J. O'Rourke, Dave Barry, Henry Hazlitt, F.A. Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises, Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Julian Simon, and many others. Walter Williams is my definite favorite libertarian writer. He tells the plain, simple truth in a way that is very easy to understand. He presents the facts in such a way that only a fool could read him and then walk away without becoming a libertarian. This book is pretty much on par with his others. Which is to say, it is excellent. Mr Williams is a true supporter of individual liberty, freedom, private property rights, and strict limits on the size of government. Good for him!



3. This is a collection of Prof. Walter Williams's newspaper columns. It's in his usual plainspoken, tough minded style. A must for the Prof. Williams fan.



4. This book is a compilation of columns by America's strongest voice of liberty, Dr. Walter E. Williams. In this book Dr. Williams offers his common sense, freedom-loving take on the vital issues of the day. He fearlessly confronts the many liberal fallacies responsible for eroding our precious liberties. A must read for anyone wanting to expand their base of knowledge and unafraid to confront stark truths. A great antidote to the toxic political propaganda many of our universities dispense. And, a great book for Blacks brave enough to challenge the ethnic grievance industry (Jackson-Sharpton).



5. Awesome book is a must read if more people in DC thought this way we would still be a republic instead of on our way of being a socialist government like the old USSR

5 comments about The Roaring Nineties: A New History of the World's Most Prosperous Decade.

1. All together an absolutely riveting book put together by someone who's seen it all and been there. Few academics, indeed very few, have had the ringside view as Joseph Stiglitz had, first as the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers from 1993 to 1997 and then Sr. Vice President and Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1997 to 200. And all this on top of a sterling academic career at places like Stanford, Princeton and Columbia which earned him a Nobel in 2001-all in all, an absolutely sterling set of credentials.
   
   The book in itself is completely riveting. I started reading it at about 9 p.m. on a lazy January evening during the holidays and could not put it down till 3 a.m. when I was finally finished. The book is structured into several different chapters, 12 in total, the first 11 of which talk about the ills that plagued the free market system in the decade of the 1990s. In the final chapter, to round it all up, he proposes a set of alternative ways and means labeling it as the "New Democratic Idealism." All the usual suspects that you would expect to find in a book critical of free markets are there such as Enron, the accounting scandals, the stock market bubble and capital account liberalization. But then there are things which you would not expect in a typical book, for instance, a fairly critical stance on the role played by the Fed, including its venerable chairman, Alan Greenspan as also a harsh scrutiny of several practices at Wall Street which involved serious conflicts of interest.
   
   Unlike his book titled "Globalization and its discontents" which for the most part, is a rant against the IMF and relates to his experiences with international economies at the World Bank, the present volume relates more to domestic politics and policies and was shaped largely by the role he played in the Clinton administration and the debates that he had with other arms of the government such as the Treasury and the Fed. Only one chapter in the book is exclusively devoted to the topic of globalization in developing economies, the heightened level of insecurity globalization breeds in these nations and how the process of globalization has to better take into account the aspirations of the disadvantaged.
   
   The book, as I have said above, is good. Not just the content, but the way it is structured, the overall readability (including but not limited to the font size) is great. However it suffers from a set of problems like his earlier book "Globalization and Its Discontents." In some ways, it mentions all the ills of the free market system without mentioning any of the redeeming features of the system which have led to a huge improvement in living standards around the world, particularly in those countries which have embraced free markets with zeal. Beyond the general criticism, some specifics would be as follows:
   
   a) Professor Stiglitz mentions that the 2001 recession was among the worst seen in the post-war period-Incorrect! The fact remains that the recession, (if it can be called that since we did not have actual negative GDP growth), lasted for only 2 quarters from March 2001 to November 2001 and was among the shortest recessions in the post war period.
   b) With regard to social security, he presents a far too rosy scenario focusing on the system today and not on its potential insolvency in the not too distant future. Again he does an injustice by not mentioning the actual state of affairs.
   c) Also with respect to his love for European version of social democracy, especially the Scandinavian style, it needs to be tempered with the stories of the pathetic growth rates of these economies in the recent past.
   
   Overall a great book but one you need to balance out by keeping in mind the ideological sympathies of the author and taking some of his comments with a pinch, just a pinch of salt.



2. Stiglitz's book is delighful and easy reading. He has a boyish, if not at times a child-like, self-absorbed style which entertains but also becomes too often repetitive. For the general public, it is highly beneficial to become familiarized with the inside story of the Clinton administration's successes and failures. The book is almost a psychocatharsis and written with commendable moral outrage over the most massive corporate and Wall Street corruption in all of modern economic history. Hundreds of billions were stolen from millions of Americans in a stock market mania worse than tulip mania in Holland 350 years ago. At least, the buyer of the tulip had a nice flower at a price of the most expensive mansion in all of Amsterdam while the millions who bought shares of corporations which did not produce anything and would never produce anything had nothing.
   
   Stiglitz deserves commendation for describing the institutionalized theft on part of Enron, WorldCom et al. and Wall Street. He makes the case that the recovery under Clinton was not the result of deficit reduction, describes the massive accounting frauds, deals with globalizations and informs us of the various improvements under Clinton as well as its failures and the many causes of the stock market bubble of the roaring nineties. He attempts a balanced and fair approach, yet misses one of the major causes of the economic expansion of the nineties, namely the massive reallocation of resources away from military spending to non-military spending in the form of tax reduction allowing more consumer spending and in the form of redirecting gov't spending to refurbishing infrastructure. This involved hundreds of billions of dollars and fueled the roaring nineties. In other words, the Clinton adminstration, as a result of the collapse of communism, was able to put the priority on domestic development while the Bush II administration again put the priority on foreign policy over domestic policy which will continue and accelerate the relative economic decline of America.
   
   Even Ireland's GDP is now 20 percent above the U.S. and Norway's is close to 60 percent wealthier than the U.S. Stiglitz misses this major element that the U.S. economy never has been anywhere as wealthy nor as capitalistic as we all assume it to have been. The private sector has always been heavily socialistic-collectivistic in the U.S. while the European public sector, though more socialistic-collectivistic, has nevertheless allowed more truly capitalistic processes to make the masses wealthier and allow them to live in far nicer human habitation than those who live in slumerica in hovels, shacks, trailer homes and decayed towns and cities. And this is achieved with far fewer resources in the advanced economies of Europe and Japan. Any cursory examination of comparative family/household net worth, which has not been growing at all in the U.S. for many decades, will show that EU net worth outmatches America's by far and has been growing in spite of lower GDP growth and far fewer resources.
   
   Essentially, Stiglitz missed the important fact that wealth in the U.S. has shifted from family/individual control to bureaucratic control as is in evidence to anyone traveling from coast to coast and from the Canadian to Mexican borders. Moreover, Stiglitz, while he touches upon educational shortcomings, needs to stress the fact that bureaucracies in the U.S. do not institutionalize excellence on a level comparable to foreign economies, and most of them have divorced themselves from economic realities and have become a burden for society, viz. the military, educational, medical, political, even religious bureaucracies all, more or less, are culpable of this. Essentially, the U.S. has not done a lot with a lot of resources while Japan, Singapore, most advanced economies of the EU, etc. all have done a lot with few resources and have a state of human habitation far outmatching the filth and squalor that characterizes most of the U.S. Moreover, and this is part of advanced economic comparative analysis, those who are wealthy in the U.S. ever more retreat to securitized and gated communities which have increased from 2000 to 20,000 in 50 years or so. Those who retreat to them exercise a vote of no confidence to the overall economic evolution and, what is worse, they tend to produce products that do not pull the masses out of their squalor but rather abet their worsening economic fate, unlike what this frequent traveler to Europe sees over there. In Austria, Germany, and Switzerland, many towns match, are close to or exceed the wealth and beauty of Vail, Colorado, one of the premier resorts of the U.S. Moreover, the average EU worker works more than two months less each year than the average U.S. worker, though the latter has little or no upward mobility and no growing net worth for decades. A growing and worsening spatial-organizational pattern also prevents improvement for the masses since transportation costs are growing and now consume 23 percent of take-home pay. Essentially, a massive economic tragedy has unfolded in the U.S. which Stiglitz, unfortunately, completely missed. Lastly, the book would have benefited from better editorial proofreading which could have eliminated repetition and irrelevant editorializing and some mistakes such as citing, in a footnote, Senator Dole as being from Nebraska instead of Kansas.
   
   Stiglitz quite correctly focuses on two major elements throughout his book: l. the asymmetry of knowledge in various markets and 2. the search for a proper balance between government and markets which he views to have gone too far in de-regulations. Both deserve the attention he gives them.



3. Joseph Stiglitz's analysis of the national and international social and economic policies of the Bush II governments is devastating.
   
   Nationally, the state of the union is far from brilliant with its huge wealth inequality, a large number of people in prison, anxiety and insecurity (millions without health insurance), high infant mortality rates, unconcern about the deterioration of the environment and health care provisions below those of far poorer countries.
   In the `roaring nineties', Stiglitz sees the fundamentalist free market ideology of the Bush II governments as a façade for a political agenda: crony capitalism (Enron, Worldcom), downsizing of government, favouring the wealthy. Overwhelming private interests and corporate greed lead to misguided and biased deregulation, bad tax policies, misguided accounting policies, too little investment in vital public needs, education, infrastructure and basic research. Tax cuts were hypocritically sold as good for everyone (trickle-down economy), while the result was frugality for the poor and generosity for the well-off.
   
   Internationally, the US speaks of the rule of law, but it rejects this rule time and again (UN, International Criminal Court, Kyoto Agreements, strategic arms treaty).
   Dr. Sam delivered misguided economic prescriptions to the rest of the world via the US controlled IMF. Its free trade rhetoric conceals the fact that the US lives year after year beyond its means, while it lectures others not to do it. In fact, the poor countries are subsidizing the richest: the total value of the benefits that the US gets out of the current system exceeds by a considerable amount the total foreign aid the US provides.
   
   Stiglitz own precepts, called `Democratic Idealism', are based on 3 cornerstones: social justice, political values (democracy and freedom) and the relationship between individuals and communities. It is a vision with a balanced role for government (investments in education and technology, social protection), an attempt to achieve social justice at local and global level, and based on individual and national responsibility.
   
   This book is superbly sarcastic: the conglomerate discount instead of the conglomerate premium (the synergies didn't work out). Or, the 3 Golden Rules of corporate capitalism: first, oppose subsidies except for your own sector; secondly, favour competition except for your own business; thirdly, favour openness and transparency except for your own books.
   
   With his superb free mind, Professor Stiglitz's book served perfectly his adage that `information is more important than ever': a well-informed public is the basis of a well-functioning democracy.
   
   A must read.
   
   I also highly recommend Walden Bello's `Dilemmas of Domination' (a voice from the South) and Robert Heilbroner's `Behind the Veil of Economics `.



4. That is what the 90's was all about according to this book; specifically easy money that came about due to speculation, easy credit laws, and loosened federal regulations of the financial sector. The end of the Cold War and the resulting "peace dividend" brought about an era of optimism. Added to this was the takeover of Congress and many state governments by Republicans bent on loosening rules on businesses and making a more investment - friendly environment. Together, this created a bull market across the financial markets of the world, which in turn helped pushed up property prices. The target of this new money, the Internet and businesses involved with it. Hence the dot.com bubble. This story of greed, speculation, and risk-taking is laid out by this Nobel-Prize winner of Economics and Clinton advisor; Joseph Stiglitz. The book flows well and provides insider insight into what was going on in business and government circles both here and around the world. Overall, a good read.



5. A nice critique of Rubinomics from the worlds best liberal economist. A little dated now, but as a history of Bill Clinton's economic policy, it works well. Recommended if you want to see how things will shake out if HRC wins the nomination and general election. Pick up "Making Globalization Work" while you're at it for an insightful commentary on where we need to go from here.

5 comments about Democracy: The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order.

1. I liked this clearly writtten book with its novel viewpoint and analysis about the perils of government which is not limited in its scope and is firmly believed to be acting for the good by way of democracy. It occurred to me after reading chapter 1 that the current situation in Burma is simply the Junta exercising its high time preference to leapfrog the democratic process and go straight to the logical consequences of contemporary democracy. This would be a valuable book for the Burmese pro-democracy leadership to read, so that they might not repeat the mistakes of the world's most recently liberated states.
   
   The conclusion that the state should be replaced by insurance companies and contracts is reasonable, and does currently work in certain classes of international business activity to circumvent the complications and delays of inter-state law, but I suspect--if computer security is anything to judge by--security and sophisticated scare-mongering would become a dominant preoccupation and divert capital from more productive activity.
   
   The state as a monopoly is democratically granted its temporary monopoly, and although any constitution is simply a piece of paper which may be capable of abuse by interpretation and manipulation, it is up to the electorate to exercise good judgement in their electoral choices. Which is another good reason for many to read this book at this juncture in time. Furthermore--as a crude metaphor--just because a metal ladder doesn't specify hat it should not be leaned against overhead electricity cables, sufficient 'a priori' knowledge should avoid this from happening instead of having to legislate for the banning of metal ladders and pursue claims for damage or death through the courts and seek compensation by way of insurance.



2. As one reviewer puts it, this book can be summarized as "Natural Order > Monarchy > Democracy". Utopia is always great, the only problem is we just can't get there. Time preference is not enough as a proof for the superiority of Monarchy, there is a huge "commitment problem" that Mr. Hoppe failed to address. A Monarch has the incentive to take care of his own property doesn't necessarily mean that he wouldn't break his own promises or wouldn't abuse his power or doesn't have conflicting preferences. In democracies, the key is also about the durability and efficiency of the system, not just the time horizons of leaders who are limited by terms of office.
   
   The best part of this book is probably the part about democracy. For those who see democracy as a universal ideal, Mr. Hoppe's critiques are like a wake-up call. It is unfortunate that this book simply failed to prove that Monarchy is actually better than democracy, or privately-owned state is any better than publicly-owned state. Private good, public good, but how about "club good"? This is what I try to argue in my new book "China Fever", which is for those who don't want to be a "prisoner of one culture".



3. Democracy: The God that Failed. Such a captivating title for what is ultimately a rather shallow treatise. Those that find this book interesting have apparently neither thought or read about stateless systems before, while those who consider its statements and conclusions valid demonstrate little historical knowledge or the ability to recall it. Indeed, the only reason to recommend this title is if one wants some exercise in critical thinking to debunk Hoppe's various theories. Hoppe occasionally states something both interesting and likely to be true. For example, "the smaller the country, the greater will be the pressure to opt for free trade rather than protectionism." Such sentences are sparsely scattered, however, and not there is no reason to trudge through 300-odd pages of otherwise poor material to find them.
   
   Reducing Hoppe's thesis to a superficial core, democracy is to blame for everything. It fosters low time preference in people (that is, a hand-to-mouth mentality), moral bankruptcy, intellectual stultification, general malaise, the decline of "family values" and traditional hierarchy, and the general the degeneration of "civilization." Hoppe also posits that governments tend to expand, rather than remain constant in size, which is thoroughly more difficult to dispute due to its historical accuracy.
   
   Opening the book with a discussion about World War 1 and how it marked the end of monarchical order, Hoppe blames the massive amount of death and destruction evidenced in this war on the United States' entry, claiming that in doing so, the US turned the battle into "ideological warfare," which made monarchical powers fight all the harder to prove their legitimacy. Hoppe seems to re-vision his own history here, forgetting that World War 1 was started by monarchies, that the US joined the battle very late, and had a marginal impact on its outcome. Additionally, the Great War was extremely brutal and ideologically-driven long before the United States entered the theatre. If Hoppe had read any of Karl Kraus' work (oddly left out of the list of Austrian "geniuses" he places in the book), he would have realized the high level of animosity between European powers, even in the early years of the war. The development of new technological weaponry, such as the machine gun, tanks, aircraft, allowed for new levels of violence and bloodshed to be reached, with or without the US's help.
   
   Such revisionism or forgetting is common throughout the text. Hoppe never bothers to mention the countless examples of monarchs trampling over individual rights, taking formerly public lands, and generally ignoring the needs of the people. The threat of punishment always exists, after all.
   
   For those libertarians who think "anarcho-capitalism" is the preferred and less abusive form of self-governance, Hoppe acknowledges that libertarian "order" is maintained via violence, just like order in any other hierarchical, statist enterprise:
   "...in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They - the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism - will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order."
   
   Moving to economics, Hoppe criticizes democratic government in its production of goods that no one buys. Thus, he says, it is impossible to attach any sort of value to them. What Hoppe neglects, though, is that people are not unaware they are paying taxes for various public goods, and their inaction (as most people do not contact their representatives to voice their opinions), effectively acts as a consent, of getting strung along in the government's sales pitch. He further states that the subsidizing of government encourages production "with little or no regard for the well-being of one's alleged consumers, and with much or sole regard instead for the well-being of the 'producers'." One could easily rank any number of examples in the capitalist business world as well. Many resource-extractive or producing industries, particularly coal, oil, and chemicals, have poisoned and/or killed any number of their supposed customers with little to no concern other than their own profit-taking.
   
   The general understanding of labor is poor and rooted in non-historical thinking. Hoppe treats the problem of labor as if people had only ever been working under industrial conditions, when in reality historical behavior of laborers is quite different from their industrial brethren, as evidenced in Hugh Cunningham's _Leisure in the Industrial Revolution_. Before industrialism, the development of the factory and the threat of permanent layoff if one did not continue working, people worked as much or as little as they needed to. An individual typically worked to earn enough money to meet current needs, and then used his or her savings until depletion. The distinction between "leisure" and "work" was virtually nonexistent. One must also not forget that through the middle ages the concept of usury (and thus interest) was considered irreligious and immoral, and thus earning a return on hoarded capital was anathema. Hoppe chooses to ignore all this and instead glorify the capitalist-traditionalist-hoarder above all else.
   
   Claiming that all those in government are "rogues and loafers," Hoppe never seems to have spent any time in a company of any particular size and noted the various character structures within it. In government, as in business, you will find a mixture of lazy, unintelligent, active, and knowledgeable people, the first two adjectives usually describing those who are at the top of the hierarchy. Regardless of what Hoppe thinks, it is not particularly difficult for a company to get rid of an unwanted employee. There are any number of daily infractions that can be used to justify one's termination (using the internet for non-business purposes being a simple one) regardless of the actual reason.
   
   Politically, Hoppe's thinking is also incorrect as he continually considers democracy to only be a function of the executive branch and always claims that democracy pursues short-term interests due to the limited nature of any politician's reign. Such thinking is incorrect, as while the politician may leave its office, it still has to reside in the country that it formerly governed. Unless the politician suffers from a desire to live in an impoverished, declining "civlization" (as Hoppe calls it), it would be in its best interest to at least maintain the current level of affairs, would it not?
   
   Having finished the so-called general political and economic "intellectual destruction" of democracy, Hoppe generally abandons that intellectual line of thinking and concerns himself in the latter half of the book discussing how the libertarian movement has partly been co-opted by "immature leftists," how classical liberalism necessarily evolves into allowing an overbearing state to occur, and a libertarian notion of how domestic defense would be handled. There is little I can say regarding the correctness of Hoppe's account of the infiltration of the libertarian movement by supposed poseurs; I haven't cared to read on the topic at all.
   More humorous is Hoppe's belief that insurance companies can move in and provide, in the absence of the state, an effective means of large-scale defense. As if defense technology was instantaneously hot-swappable like a drive from a computer, such that if I wanted to change my defense provider, I could expect new service to begin the next morning, or even next week.
   Contradicting himself, Hoppe criticizes the idea of a single world government, but finds it quite agreeable that there could be a single or few large international insurance agencies that have massive amounts of capital to support themselves and vast quantities of information to base their premiums off of. I wonder who will be making global policies in such a world. The individuals? no, they will do as their insurers tell them, lest a higher rate be imposed.
   
   Hoppe adds that under a privatized insurance scheme, aggressors will be selective in their targets as one never knows which of a vast number of powerful insurance agencies is supporting a property, if any at all. What Hoppe doesn't mention is that there will always be one sure group not to have insurance: the poor or otherwise troubled. What Hoppe is asking us to do, essentially, is to secure ourselves while damning those who, for whatever reason, aren't able to afford their defense insurance. It would be nice if all poor people were as subhuman as Hoppe paints them to be, then we could easily forget about and condemn them without worry. However, all of us are not the bigots and racists that Hoppe is (a cursory read through the text will reveal this, as will an examination of some of his sources) and not willing to simply condemn our fellow men to their arbitrarily poor lots in life.
   
   The book ends with the continuing refrain to secede wherever and whenever possible and to do as little with any government as necessary. This is, perhaps, sound advice for those who distrust government (and after examining the events of Hurricane Katrina, we should all know to expect nothing from our government); unfortunately, the poorly reasoned and intellectually suspect pages between Hoppe's thesis and conclusion reveal little reason to feel his anarcho-capitalist "natural order" will provide a better way of life.



4. Hans-Hermann Hoppe's "Democracy: The God That Failed" is a unique assessment of modern Western history based on the most radical strain of the Australian School. The Austrian School believes firmly that private property rights are the most essential component of a civilised society. In fact, from the Austrian perspective public ownership is the most extreme violation of natural rights.
   
   In "Democracy: The God that Failed", Hoppe applies the theories of Murray Rothbard to government itself - something not done by previous Austrians. Hoppe analogises absolute monarchy to a privately owned government and a democracy to a public-owned government. He then uses classic Austrian theory to show a monarchy has an interest in maintaining the long-term welfare of its subjects because it expects to rule the country it rules forever via hereditary descent. A democratically elected ruler, on the other hand, does not own the country it rules and thus has no interest except immediate enrichment of politicians or those who elect them. As an illustration, Hoppe shows that taxes were always extremely low (under ten percent) under absolute monarchy, but have risen to around forty to fifty percent under democracy. Similarly, savings rates, which should naturally rise with economic growth, have fallen as people under democracy desire instant gratification. Fertility rates have drastically fallen as public welfare eats up the high taxes of democracies (and Stalinist or fascist dictatorships) and children lose their value. Interest rates, which Hoppe says will tend to zero with increasing "civilisation", have also risen since democratisation, whilst prices, which actually fell during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, have risen almost exponentially as democracies build up huge public debts to gratify the masses.
   
   After considering the effect of democratisation as "decivilising", Hoppe then goes on to look at the reason why he views any form of public welfare state as unsustainable, thus utterly dismissing attempts at welfare reform. Instead he looks at the possibility of total privatisation of public assets and believes that could have caused a massive economic boom in the former Stalinist nations and undone the Western European welfare states as they aim to compete.
   
   The last half of "Democracy: The God that Failed" is devoted to various aspects of "natural order" or "private property anarchy", which Hoppe believes to be an alternative to both democracy and absolute monarchy. He shows how "private property anarchy" with much more prosperity and higher civilisation than democracy allows would actually be an extremely exclusive society with little tolerance for dissent - because the owners decide what ideas are allowed and what are not. I can relate Hoppe very well to one highly critical analysis of the Catholic Church's doctrinal control system. Moreover, having become more sympathetic to that institution than ten years ago, I can understand the sort of society he would like without definitively being able to say it would work well.
   
   Hoppe also has a good look at the failures of the nihilist anarchism so popular in the 1960s and 1970s. As I already know from my experience with student radicals, he shows that, for all its opposition to government, "left libertarianism" has exactly the short-sightedness of socialism. Hoppe also attacks praise by other Austrians of the original interpretation of the US Constitution, claiming it possesses the same problems all constitutions do, and in a related article showing that "limited government" as many believers in absolute monarchy theorised is quite impossible. The last chapter, rather less direct than most in "Democracy: The God that Failed", looks at private provision of defence and security. Hoppe shows that public provision of them - just like any service according to Austrian theory - means their value is not paid for and service is poor. In practice, I imagine this as literally user-pays security, which logically might means many victims of crime would not be able to compensate themselves.
   
   Assessing this work, despite it not being unusual in size, is not easy. His illustration of the changes in social behaviour that have taken place since the democratisation of Europe is remarkably clear and consistent, but he completely ignores the relation of charitable giving to time preference. This I see as critical to understanding society's time preference. Arthur C. Brooks shows declining charity correlating much, much better with fertility reduction than declining savings, yet Hoppe does not write a word about changes in charitable giving.
   
   Hoppe's perspective has the plus of being very clear and detailed. In some ways it is also persuasive, for instance in the way it suggests direct socialist democracy as advocated by the likes of Sandra Bloodworth and Tess Lee Ack is impossible because a nation's entire wealth would be destroyed and productivity eliminated. Although Hoppe does admit some democratisation was taking place beforehand "Democracy: The God that Failed" also contradicts popular viewpoints that democratisation was a necessary consequence of development by showing how the war contributed to it. His view of how an absolute monarch has interest in preservation and conservation of his kingdom echoes Jared Diamond's showing many monarchies much more effective at environmental protection than democracies. Oddly, Hoppe quite clearly contradicts Pat Buchanan's claim that European working classes were "socially conservative", and indeed shows Buchanan's whole program as utterly impossible. The theory that any form if big government inevitably leads to social liberalism is quite reasonable given the experience of not only Europe, but also Latin America and much of Asia.
   
   Another point which I can agree with is the way in which warfare has changed as a result of democratisation to allow free attacks on civilians - though other sources say this began with the Russian Civil War rather than World War I and attribute this (either in a positive or negative way depending on ideology) to the threat of socialism and the response of fascism. However, Hoppe does not realise that few democracies have ever actually started a war and that governments or organisations who start modern wars are generally either Marxist, fascist or Muslim (e.g. September 11, 2001). Even if they are democratic, they are more often than not responses to organisation of the above three types.
   
   Hoppe is oddly limited in his perspective. He discusses the US and its decline since the Civil War, but not Canada, which has become the epitome of a modern democracy since Quebec's "Quiet Revolution" - arguably the final triumph of "big government". He similarly ignores the democratisation of Japan after World War II, or the collapse of other Asian absolute monarchies in the twentieth century. Hoppe's godfather Mises apparently understood there to be essential differences between Asian and European absolute monarchies, creating a very worthy topic for further expansion.
   
   From my own experience, I also wonder if it is not possible to expand Hoppe's three tiers of natural law - absolute monarchy - democracy to a greater number. Knowing with my experience in environmental science the effects of industrialisation on the value of Eurasia's main natural resource (fertile soils) I wonder why Hoppe did not compare theocratic nonhereditary monarchies (who as shown by Gregory XVI's ineffective ban on railways in the Papal States recognised industrialisation as devaluing their own property) with hereditary nontheocratic monarchs who never understood this. There is also the question of modern dictatorships, about which Hoppe makes no analogy as he does with absolute monarchy versus democracy.
   
   Crucial here is the fact that Hoppe literally wastes the second chapter with a near-repetition of another - space that could have been used to look at any of the unanswered questions mentioned above. There is also a bit of repetition of other parts of the book in later chapters. One really does wonder why Hoppe was so unwilling to edit his essays to give room for unanswered questions that would have made "Democracy: The God that Failed" far more watertight in its theses.
   
   Some critics have also pointed out that large-scale warfare did not being with democratisation and that World War I really was more than a territorial war before Wilson entered. This does not contradict Hoppe entirely, though - it merely questions him.
   
   All in all, this is hard book to get over and has many interesting arguments. However, its repetitiveness and limited focus make me feel generous giving it three stars even with enough plausible ideas to be a wonderful book.



5. What happened to the Republic? STOP THE IDOLATRY-STOP THE MADNESS!
   
   (from Plato)
   "All men are by nature equal, made all of the same earth by one Workman; and however we deceive ourselves, as dear unto God is the poor peasant as the mighty prince."
   "Excess of liberty, whether it lies in State or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery."
   "Democracy leads to anarchy, which is mob rule."
   "Democracy...is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike."
   
   Praise to Herr Hoppe, for helping to smash the legitimacy of the State. He philosophizes with a hammer and then some.
   
   In sum-If this author founded a city state, I would move there immediately.
   
   And as for charges of racism ect.--that label (libel) is devoid of content: in any case, it can only represent a badge of intellectual integrity (the courage to state the obvious) in today's hyper emasculated pussyfooted 'intellectual' climate.
   
   And now a joke from the man himself:
   Q: Who are the two most important figures in Western History?
   A: Jesus and Socrates.
   Q: Who Killed Jesus and Socrates?
   A: Democracy killed Jesus and Socrates.
   
   "The outstanding personalities of history are criminals" --Robert Musil, "The Man Without Qualities."

5 comments about In Spite of the Gods: The Strange 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 The Big Con: The True Story of How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics.

1. The events described in this book are so bizzare as to almost defy belief. Unfortunaly, it's all true. This book is a devestating expose of the crackpot movement known as supply side economics. REad it and weep.



2. George W. Bush's economic plan can be summed up with to two words... cut taxes. In a 2008 interview Bush mentioned that his administration had a `strong-dollar' policy. One commentator added that Bush's ASSERTION of a strong-dollar policy was the full extent of the policy. Tax cuts really are the entire philosophy of the cult of supply-side economics. Sure, they talk about pro-growth, trickle-down and starving the beast but lowering taxes is not an end to a means it is the end. For supply-siders lowering taxes is a good idea when the government is running a surplus, running a deficit, fighting inflation, entering a recession, in a war, at peace. Lowing taxes will increase government revenue, help poor waitresses and probably walk your dog on a snowy day.
   
   A perfect example of how powerful the supply-siders have become in the current GOP one only needs to look at the 2008 election campaign. All the major candidates ran as supply-siders including John McCain who was famously against Bush's absurdly tilted tax cuts. Now McCain has totally reinvented himself as a born again supply-sider calling for the exact tax cuts on corporations and wealth that he used to stand against. Ironically this is just about the opposite of what polls show the electorate would prefer which is a reduction in the deficit and more money for government services. The GOP has a stunning track record of winning elections while running on an economic platform that's completely non-representative of the wishes of voters.
   
   The interesting thing is that supply-side economics was developed by non-economists and the reason it has flourished has nothing to do with its effectiveness. The author writes, `The lesson for cranks everywhere is that your theory stands a stronger chance of success if it directly benefits a rich and powerful block" In addition, the author points out, "Crackpot economic theories... enjoy an inherent advantage over other sorts of crackpot theories because it's harder for ordinary people (or even elites) to recognize the lunacy" The economic policy of the modern Republican Party is neither Conservative nor Liberal in fact it doesn't adhere to any ideology. In reference to the Medicare debacle the author states that, "Essentially nobody except their direct beneficiaries, and the politicians whose loyalty they reward, supports these measures" What politics needs is a term for an ideology that describes slavishly showering rewards on lobbyists. Crony capitalism is probably the most applicable label.
   
   My big problem with the `Big Con' was that it didn't really deliver as advertised. The subtitle, `...How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics' is highly misleading. The first couple chapters focus on supply-side economics but then the book veers off into basically a recap of the books `Off Center' by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson and `The Conscience of a Liberal' by Paul Krugman. In fact the author directly quotes Hacker and Pierson several times. The meat of the book is about how politicians, who are increasingly divorced from the desires of the electorate, can continue to get elected. He talks about how Republicans vigorously push personality over policy and habitually lie to the electorate in order to mask their true aims. Unfortunately after well over 7 years of the Bush administration this has sort of reached the level of a dog bites man news story. `Big Con' is a decent book with a lot of important information but a large portion of the center of the book is just a rehash of other, better books.



3. I actually put this book aside after having gotten about 75% of the way through it, something I rarely do.
   
   "The Big Con" starts off interesting and informative, but after a few chapters devolves into a rambling series of observations on why our current president is a big dumb jerk. It was at this point I put it down.
   
   The reason I picked it up was because I wanted to know more about the Laffer curve and supply-side economics, the foundation of many GOP positions these days. Those who espouse these ideas are the "crackpots" that Chait attacks.
   
   I'm very interested in supply-side economics and wanted to know more about the idea and where it came from, even if it had to be in the context of an attack on the idea.
   
   I do believe there's something to supply-side thinking, as I observe that I myself behave in a supply-side fashion: I work less than I otherwise would, since I view the marginal tax rate on my "overtime" as greater than my opportunity cost: the pleasure of sitting around. Meaning that, in economics terms, I substitute leisure for work, and the government collects NO tax money, whereas it could have at least collected SOMETHING off my extra hours had it lowered my marginal tax rate. Now I can't be the only one in this situation.
   
   So . . . how much more tax revenue could be collected by the government were use this idea to tinker with existing tax rates? In other words, how far can you take this point? Can you base an entire economic philosophy on it? This seems dubious.
   
   Well, Chapter 1 is a well-written, informative, and blistering attack on this idea, called the Laffer curve. As Chait explains how this perfectly reasonably observation has been abused and overused in Washington (beginning about the time of Reagan), I found myself elucidated and instructed. Chait is right in asserting that politicians have taken this point way too far.
   
   Unfortunately, I think Chait really had just a Washington Post essay here, not an entire book. The rest of the book is pretty much nothing more than a series of whiny observations on the political scene, until you find the author actually complaining (pp. 171-173) about how the media overlooked George Bush's peanut butter & jelly sandwich incident, but savaged John Kerry over his Swiss cheese incident. It was shortly after reading this that I decided the rest of the book wasn't worth my time.
   
   Uh, Mr. Chait, I thought this was supposed to be a book on the viability of supply-side economics?
   
   In short, Chapter One is all you need to read. In fact, I found it so informative I read it twice: it certainly helped dampen my enthusiasm for supply-side thinking.
   
   But as for the rest of the book, it's nothing more than a poorly organized attack on Republicans in general.



4. This book is a good place to start to understand the late 20th century's emergence of the conservative movement and it's fortunate partnership with social conservatives and "Reagan Democrats." Chait spells out that the movement's flaws in logic as a radical logic. That means lying is OK because in the conservative universe it's not lying but serving a higher purpose. His exploration is extremely readable, especially of the asymmetric relationship between conservatives who toe the line and liberals who naturally try to compromise.



5. I have just one minor criticism of this book: the subtitle, "The True Story of How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics." Strange to say this somewhat misrepresents the content of the book. The real con was played on the American public not just Washington, and it was more of a political con than an economic one.
   
   It is true that the Reagan and especially the George W. Bush administrations systematically stole money from the middle class and gave it to the rich, but that is only part of the story. The real con, as Jonathan Chait makes clear, is in their attempted destruction of the checks and balances of our democratic/republican form of government as established by the founding fathers. The Republicans have simply made Congress irrelevant in many respects. Chait shows how the Bush administration was able to stifle opposing views by intimidating a cowardly press, and with a near dictatorial level of executive privilege in the White House and a storm trooper like control of committees and procedures in the Congress, was able to empty the treasury and fatten the pockets of cronies in big corporations.
   
   In their zeal to make government smaller, the voodoo economists, the neocons, and their clueless allies, the evangelical social conservatives, have eviscerated the machinery of government to the point that all the appointed posts are filled with Bush buddies, party hacks and corporate henchmen, many of whom are incompetent and loyal not to the American people but to the very institutions and corporations that they are supposed to oversee and regulate. Furthermore Bush has greatly weakened America abroad with his wasteful and immoral war in Iraq while at the same time has strengthened both Al Qaeda and the theocracy in Iran. Additionally, Bush's personal incompetence and immorality in international affairs has made the US not just the butt of jokes but has brought shame upon the US, once arguably the moral leader of the world.
   
   As Chait chronicles it, this thievery and desecration of America was tried before during the reign of the robber barons and continued until the power structure realized that if they kept stealing from the masses they might invite the specter that was haunting Europe into the heartland of American--that specter being communism. Now with communism nearly dead, the new robber barons are again emboldened. The thievery began again in earnest during the Reagan administration with the laughable economics of the Laffer Curve. The idea is that--miracle of miracles!--you can increase government revenues by lowering taxes. Yes! If governments tax at too high a rate people will lose the initiative to work or invest because of diminishing returns from their labor and capital. But if you lower taxes allowing people to keep a higher percentage of what they have earned, low and behold they work harder and invest more and this stimulates the economy!
   
   This idea, as Chait acknowledges, contains a germ of truth. There probably IS a point on the Laffer Curve at which the optimum amount of revenue can be collected from any given economy. Of course knowing exactly where this point lies would involving understanding much more about the American economy than can really be known. And of course the locus of that point would be constantly changing with changing circumstances. No matter. If, through high toned pronouncements from think tanks and control by intimidation of the media, the idea of lowering taxes for the investing class can be sold to a gullible public as good for the hungry masses, then we are home free! Call it all part of the dumbing down of America on the way to creating a huge and permanent underclass.
   
   And so it came (partly) to pass. And then in the George W. Bush administration they went--how shall I phrase it?--ape sh-t! However nobody in Washington seemed to notice that across the Atlantic Ocean where the corporate and income tax rates were much higher than in the US, the dollar was getting clobbered. The average American's net worth vis-à-vis the average Chablis-swilling Frenchy was in free fall, not to mention how the burghers in Deutschland were making out. Whereas Tokyo used to be the most expensive city on earth for Americans, now it was London where the dollar bought only a fraction of the Euro.
   
   The rhetoric from the right intones: "You earned it. You ought to be able to keep it!" But this simplistic slogan ignores the fact that even the road you drive on was built and paid for by somebody else. All the riches that can be created today out of the economy cannot be considered riches that you or I earned alone. Without the vast infrastructure already in place we would be as poor as African Bushmen. And yes the rich should pay more in taxes since they have more to conserve and protect, and therefore benefit disproportionately from the military, the police, and all the other institutions of government aimed at insuring domestic tranquility and safety--and that includes social welfare services which help keep the masses from the ramparts.
   
   What Chait demonstrates only too well in this very readable tome is that of late the greed has gotten out of control. I suspect that those with half a brain on the right who are in positions of power will recognize that there is a limit to how much you can steal and get away with it. No communist menace is at hand, but an incompetent government and an internationally weak America may bring about some unwelcome changes, such as the US becoming a gigantic banana republic ripe for revolution.
   
   A good companion volume to this excellent work, covering much of the same ground from a similar point of view, is John W. Dean's "Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches" (2007).