5 comments about 7 Winning Strategies for Trading Forex: Real and Actionable Techniques for Profiting from the Currency Markets.

1. I have read over 10 books on forex trading and this is quite possibly the best one I've purchased. I wish I would have found it before the other ones as then I would have saved a lot of money. 7 Winning Strategies is a very practical guide to improving your chances at success in the forex market. I think one of the primary reasons trading strategies don't work out is because the trader applied the wrong strategy during certain market conditions. Grace Cheng's book covers different strategies to use for different market dynamics. It details how a trader can apply these strategies and it tells you what sort of market conditions the different strategies work best in - and best of all, it does it clearly and concisely. You still need to think for yourself, but this makes it a whole lot easier to plan your trade and trade your plan! The groundwork that's been done is right on.
   
   Actually, I was aware of Grace Cheng before purchasing this book and just like another reviewer, I didn't have a very positive impression of her because her Web site looks kind of funky. Don't let that deter you from reading this outstanding book. This book literally taught me not to judge a book by its cover. If you read it and really apply your learnings to developing a strategy that is suited to your trading style, you'd understand just how valuable the strategies detailed in this book are.



2. I bought this book because I read the author's blog and thought it would teach me something new about trading. However, I found that topics were discussed "on the surface" without going into "how to do it". I get the feeling that she is saving the bulk of her information for her online course, which you have to pay US$700 for.



3. It is refreshing to see a book like this on the topic of forex trading, a book which is written concisely and straight to the point without wasting space. In this book "7 Winning Strategies For Trading Forex", the author Grace Cheng has done a great job of explaining the specific peculiarity of forex trading for the average individual, and how specific techniques can be applied to certain currency pairs. I am pleased that this book delivers what it was set out to do. She even emphasized that certain strategies are to be used under different market conditions. Realistic traders will find her information very useful and generous. As for those looking for the holy grail book, nothing is ever good for them. If you want a serious book on forex trading to be worth your money, this book will be it.
   
   I've read many books on currency trading and I find this book easy-to-understand and appreciate the author's written snippets of her own observations and experience. Trading knowledge wise, on a scale of 1-10, it has taken me from a level of 2 to 7. The rest will have to come from trading in the trenches myself I suppose. Her knowledge of trading and inner workings of currency trading belies her youth, but if that's the result of her trading since after her university graduation many years ago, that's commendable and deserves my respect.
   
   I first heard of Grace Cheng when I saw her on Chicago ABC News early this year and then went to her website. Since then I go to her site almost daily; her way of penning her opinions and observations is unlike those you see on most other broker sites.
   
   I highly recommend this book to anyone who wish to know more about forex trading and those who are wise enough to see beyond her age and gender. This book will be by my side as I trade.



4. This is a great book on forex trading, and has helped me progress into profitable trading after many months of trading. Grace Cheng does a good job explaining how the forex markets work before delving into trading strategies that made a lot of sense, something that is easily overlooked by even people who have already begun trading. For those who are trading and haven't read this book, get this book, pronto. Hands down, this is the best forex book I've ever read and I have read almost all of them. Excellent must-read!



5. Well, this book is certainly better edited than some other Forex books I've read, but is pretty basic. It is a great book for one who knows little about the currency market, but really does not reveal much strategically. I continue to search for a well-rounded, intellectually complex reference on Forex, but perhaps it doesn't exist yet. My favorite purely Forex reference so far is The Complete Guide to Currency Trading & Investing by Jamaine Burrell. It is not perfect either, but is certainly more detailed.

1 comments about Against Intellectual Monopoly.

1. First, I have not read the book in this form. I read a free version online. There might be some differences; I don't know.
   
   Anyway-
   I was pointed to this book while arguing that intellectual property is needed to overcome a public goods problem. After reading it, I've moved from confidently supporting minimal IP rights to tentatively advocating their abolition.
   
   The authors provide plenty of evidence and a few intriguing theoretical arguments to bolster their position.
   
   It definitely won't be the last word on this subject, but it will widen the debate and point it in new directions. Very much worth reading, if you're interested in IP issues.

1 comments about Sustainability by Design: A Subversive Strategy for Transforming Our Consumer Culture.

1. Mr. Ehrenfeld offers a broadly appealing and immediately accessible definition of sustainability: "sustainability is the possibility that humans and other life will flourish on the Earth forever."
   
   Now isn't that what we really want? And to address this higher view of things, don't you necessarily need to think more deeply about the issue than simply neutralizing a negative situation--which is what virtually every other book in this genre attempts to do?
   
   That's what I like about this book, that Ehrenfeld takes a systems look at a systemic issue. He looks at mindset -- the subtitle is "A Subversive Strategy for transforming Our Consumer Culture" -- and that's what is so attractive.
   
   Ehrenfeld, formerly of MIT (a noted breeding ground for systems thinkers), is executive director of the International Society for Industrial Ecology and senior research scholar at Yale's School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and you can tell he's been thinking about this for a long tim. It shows in how he approaches the challenge of sustainability. For example, he uses words and phrases that resonate will resonate with anyone who is interested in a more mindful approach to a complex issue. "Reflection" is the first threshold to cross, he says. And he talks about "structures," which appeals to my sense of the importance in properly framing problems. And he talks about "nurturing possibility."
   
   You see, we too often incorrectly ask the question "What are the alternatives" before we ask "What is possible?"
   
   If you're a fan of Peter Senge (who writes the Foreword) and The Fifth Discipline like I am, you'll enjoy the author's foray into single and double loop thinking. From there, he looks at root cause, that being an addiction to resources (a phrase I often use!) linked to the cultures of consumption in the modern, industrialized world. And then he offers his definition of sustainability, and the whole construct hangs together quite nicely.
   
   Woven throughout the book is a subtext of respect, of simply caring about others and the world we live in enough to wrap our designs around that thought in a very purposeful way. If only we could hold that core value tightly enough, hold on to the tension created between where we are and where we need to be, our designs -- our innovation processes and innovative outcomes -- would go far in moving the planet toward a sustainable vision of the future.
   
   And that future, the author says, does not have "a revolution waiting in the wings," because he does not believe "that such a revolution would necessarily be the best change mechanism."

2 comments about Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire: Bankers, Zionists and Militants.

1. This is the second book that I have read by James Petras- the first was 'The Power of Israel in the United States'. I enjoyed his first book as well as this one. He is quite an academic virtuoso providing a sociological, historical, organizational, and political perspective as to whom controls the world and its money, resources, and, of course, politicians. Mainly, he points the finger at MNC's (Multinational Corporations) that are quite effective at neutralizing any dissent, exploiting indigenous populations, and bribing politicians. He discusses somewhat the influence of Zionists in their quest to control the Middle East and the influence of money interests, i.e., hedge funds, equity firms, and investment banks, in capturing world industry and rsources. Moreover,Petras argues that China is simply a puppet of the Central Imperial Power- the United States given the amount of foreign investment in the country. I enjoyed this book very much - he is indeed thought provoking, challenging, and difficult read due to his complex and academic writing style. I think this book should be viewed as an academic reference- this is definitely not simple casual reading. The only few criticisms I had of the book was at times, he would have emotional outbursts against the Zionists and Capitalism in general- personally, I would refrain from this because I believe it leaves less room for credibility. Moreover, I do not agree with his idea that nationalizing industries is the way to go when it comes to foreign trade. Nevertheless, I recommend anybody read this book if your up for the challenge.



2. This title lingered for a long time on my Amazon.com "wish list". Somehow, with all of the reading I was doing, I couldn't find the time for this book. Perhaps I had some doubt as to its importance. If that was the case, the doubt was confirmed, having purchased and read this book. It was a very big disappointment.
   
   Given the title of the book, I had looked forward to an exposition of the role of international banking and Zionism in the American Empire. And there was some of this contained between the covers of this work. But, mostly the book consisted of Marxist rhetoric, which is long on volume and sadly short on cogent reasoning.
   
   The few sections of the book that actually dealt with Zionism and militarism were well done. But this was far less than half of the total contents. Most of the book had to do with a Marxist analysis of class struggle. And this is pretty much useless for those who honor sound reasoning.
   
   In summary, we cannot highly recommend this book of Dr. Petras. Those sections on Zionism and militarism are worthwhile. But the bulk of the book is not. God bless.

4 comments about Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy.

1. This substantial work provides a useful review of the relevant literature, and outlines the simple but powerful idea that the political impact of different types of assets [land, labor or capital] and the costs of repression rather than democratization are key influences on the process of democratization or political repression. This approach has however already been spelt out more succinctly by Carles Boix.
   
   But unfortunately much of the book's approach is fundamentally flawed when the authors then proceed to put their ideas into models based on game theory. They rapidly lose sight of the old reality check - 'garbage in, garbage out'. No model however neatly laid out will tell us much if the initial premise is flawed, and many of the theories here are too simplified to be anything beyond a classroom exercise. The whole book is based on Median Voter Theory [MVT} - but even many distinguished scholars in this field like Alberto Alesina have been pointing out for years that MVT has never been shown to hold true in real life complexities.
   
   Some other key ideas are simply not addressed - the importance of fiscal bargaining, usually to fund foreign wars, as the origins of democracy is dismissed in one sentence, and yet is the best documented source of democratization - see major works by Charles Tilly and Robert Bates.
   
   Other more specific technical detail - such as the ratio of voters to taxpayers, or the ratio of public employees to taxpayers, are not outlined let alone explained and yet clearly have great impact on the topic. Broad generalizations about elites are simply inadequate -- many elites are much more than the 'rich'; and even the authors admit they have no explanation for their argument on the likelihood of military coups that the military, presumably recruited from the broad mass of the population, would choose to side with either elites or taxpayers because of future tax rates. In real life complex bureaucratic incentive structures often turn the 'agents' into the 'principals' and they then doubly benefit from also being future pensioners of the state -- recent attention paid to intergenerational accounting implications of taxation do not figure here either.
   
   Even more distrurbing, the authors have nothing to say on the conflicts of interests between the 'elite sub-groups' of taxpayers and bondholders -- yet scholars such as Dornbusch & Draghi {Public Debt Management: Cambridge 1990] have shown that taxation to pay government debts to bondholders was profoundly regressive throughout the 19th century -- the very period of democratization outlined in this book: so how did that happen?
   
   Furthermore some of the history is also wrong - widening of the franchise in 1832 in Britain was intended as a way to give the vote to existing taxpayers, not vice versa.
   
   The authors have overlooked many stimulating classics in this field - e.g. Sydney Buxton's major work 'Finance and Politics' from 1888.
   
   Most irritatingly the book is littered with reference to the authors' claims to originality for their work in various 'important findings' -- but when did such conclusions cease to be the prerogative of the reader?



2. Economists are turning their focus of inquiry to subjects that were once the exclusive preserve of their colleagues in other social sciences--history, sociology, and political science. The title of this book, "Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy," appears to have been deliberately, even provocatively, chosen for contrast with its famous predecessor, "Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy," by the sociologist Barrington Moore. It is as if the economists are saying, "You've had your go. It is now our turn."
   
   One thing follows when economists have a go: Occam's razor is wielded ruthlessly. Occam's razor is the principle associated with a medieval Franciscan monk, William of Ockham, which extols simplicity over complexity: in his words, "plurality should not be posited without necessity." This has, over time, become an important principle in distinguishing good from less-good science, useful from less-useful descriptions of reality.
   
   Acemoglu and Robinson take this cut-the-chaff exhortation to heart. A few simple and sharp answers are provided even for the complex and difficult questions that are at the heart of the book: why and how does democracy arise? Why and how does democracy take root in some places at some times, while making only cameo appearances in others?
   
   Acemoglu and Robinson daringly reduce the determinants of democratization to three or perhaps four: the level of inequality in society; the structure of the economy (i.e. whether it is predominantly agrarian or otherwise); the kind of assets owned by the elites; and the extent of globalization.
   
   It is remarkable how many historical experiences-in Latin America, Europe, and Africa-- can be explained by the simple theory put forward by the authors. For example, Argentina's frequent lurching between various forms democracy and autocracy follow neatly from the high levels of inequality, which made the elites very resistant to democratization and the consequent redistribution of wealth away from them that political change would entail.
   
   To be sure, the fit between theory and the historical experience is not perfect, and the authors are candid about this. Some of the cases that the book does not discuss-India's ability to maintain democracy in the face of overwhelming odds, for example--have traditionally defied easy explanation, even for political scientists. And there are surely cases where non-economic factors such as ideology, individuals (leaders), randomness, and unintended consequence, have had a significant role in determining the path of political development. For example, if Sir Sewoosagur Ramgoolam, Mauritius' first Prime Minister, had responded to the referendum before independence by entrenching the majority Hindus rather than assuaging the minority by guaranteeing minimal political participation for the latter, Mauritius might well have been like the archetypal, strife-ridden, ethnically divided African country rather than a durable democracy.
   
   A quibble about the book's structure. While there are considerable rewards to reading the book, patience and deft maneuvering through the thicket of mathematics, are required to reap them. The authors could have demarcated more clearly the Greek from the English to allow the mathematically challenged to obtain the benefits in one continuous flow. That way, the book could have been more accessible to the curious generalist in addition to being a required reference for the specialist.
   
   But these minor shortcomings are ultimately swamped by, and are perhaps even the unavoidable consequence of, the sheer ambitiousness of the effort: nothing less than to provide a simple and unified explanation of democracy. And here's the additional bonus, the theory can be taken to the data, and even falsified. So, the skeptics and the naysayers can have their go, and refute or validate. Either way, inquiry will be furthered and the stock of knowledge enriched. The most memorable rendition of Occam's razor is due to Einstein: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." The book certainly meets that standard.



3. My opinion on this book lies some where between the two already presented. The application of economics and game theory to this problem is most definitely original and is the greatest achievement of the book. It is a tribute to the authors that such a simple model that so ruthless applies Occam's razor can explain so much, however the work is flawed it simply does not reflect reality. The reasons behind democratisations are more complex than this model, as powerful as it is, can reflect. This book and the model developed within should be viewed as beginning which other works can develop and expand upon. I have no doubt that economists will continue to contibute to this field with more advanced and better models. For this reason alone political scientists and historians should not ignore this text, but rather accept it for what it is a new way of looking at an old problem.



4. This book is fundamentally flawed because the theory does not match with reality.
   
   There are many important cases in the world that do not fit Acelmoglu and Robinson's (A&R's) simplified logic. One example is India, which became a democracy because Jawaharlal Nehru and other Congress members ensured a transition to democracy. India has remained democratic despite inequality and massive fissures with respect to religion, caste, and regionalism.
   
   A&R's logic also cannot explain modern Latin America, which has remained democratic despite the same equality that has always plagued the region. The work cannot explain the fact that democracy has remained remarkably resilient in modern Latin America despite the fact inequality has persisted (or has been exacerbated in many cases), wealth has not been redistributed, and inflation remains a great problem.
   
   A&R's work is also lacking in its inapplicability to Eastern Europe. I was disappointed to see scant mention of the Soviet Union and democratization in Eastern Europe. All of the nations in the Soviet bloc had high levels of equality and high levels of education. Yet the transition to democracy has been shaky. Considering the detailed discussion of the nineteenth century in chapter 3, I do not know why the authors did not even consider the fall of the USSR.
   
   The book is good because the theory is theoretically sound. But the sound theory does not explain much "on the ground."

5 comments about State of the World 2008: Toward a Sustainable Global Economy (State of the World).

1. Worldwatch Institute's annual State of the World books are always worth reading. I've read every single one since they first came out in 1984. This 2008 book gives insights into how our world economy needs to change in order to prepare for a viable future. People should be aware, however, that the founder of Worldwatch Institute, Lester Brown, quit the organization a few years ago and set up a new institute, the Earth Policy Institute. His new book Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, Third Edition has just come out. It is one of the most important books in recent years. Worldwatch also publishes Vital Signs 2007-2008: The Trends that Are Shaping Our Future (Vital Signs) Vital Signs is an annual set of statistics books in simple readable charts. I would recommend this too. Together, these three books could give a person some solid information about the environmental state of our planet and what needs to be done to create a viable future. On my profile I have a number of lists of some other very good books on the environment and future watch studies.



2. This 25th Anniversary Edition of State of the World focuses on problems and solutions for progress toward a sustainable society. It is a periodical and almanac worth owning. The writing promotes an easy read for sustained digestion of its resources.
   
   Fourteen Chapters by WorldWatch staffers, independent analysts, academics, and intellectual professionals arranged in 2-column newspaper format fill 281 pages, with dozens of boxes, tables, and figures plus endnotes. Each chapter contributes to other chapters and to the understanding of sustainable development as a path, not a panacea. Instead of competing with other writings, the State of the World series complements the contemplations of other writers on interdisciplinary economic, social, and environmental topics.
   
   Every chapter is true to its title. There are verbs of solution - seeding, rethinking, building, improving, engaging, mobilizing, investing, banking. There are nouns of challenge - sustainable economy, the commons, sustainable world, sustainable lifestyles, and sustainability. There are names of things to consider - water, carbon, meat, seafood, biodiversity, global diet, human energy, trade governance, new approaches, and new bottom line.
   
   Sustainability needs all the institutional ingenuity society can muster and harness to evolve into a broader, better focus for the good of humanity.
   
   "2008 State of the World, Innovations for a Sustainable Economy" will stay fresh well beyond next year's edition by the WorldWatch Institute.



3. This a superb edited work that melds chapters (with notes at the end) from world-class authors on a broad range of topics.
   
   I kept this at five stars until the end and then I could not stand it anymore. There are at least five reasons to reduce it to four. Here are the first two.
   
   1. As someone who grew up with Banks & Textor and have created four analytic models in my lifetime, I am growing increasing impatient with the continued fragmentation of research and writing. There is a model available: ten threats (from the UN High Level Threat Panel), twelve policies, eight challengers. We need to start fusing, analyzing, visualizing and discussing all ten threats in relation to all ten policies. I am no longer content to read about water in one chapter, meat in another, and so on. Stop putzing around and create the EarthGame with all information, all languages, all the time--geospatially grounded of course--and let's get on with the task of identifying with precision the global range of gifts table down to the household level, from $1 to $100 million.
   
   2. I am increasingly irritated by the little cabals that strive to cite only themselves, and furthermore, have their own language to distinguish them. "Get the price right" instead of "true cost"? Get over it. Enough already. I am also increasingly of the view that the Notes must be indexed. The notes are good, but when the lead chapter talks about "Adjust Economic Scale" and fails to cite Small Is Beautiful, 25th Anniversary Edition: Economics As If People Mattered: 25 Years Later . . . With Commentaries or Human Scale I growl.
   
   Together with Plan 3.0 and Vital Signs, both linked by another reviewer, this book represents a fine stand-alone study set if you want to limit yourself to the WorldWatch oracles and dismiss all others.
   
   Here is what grabbed me about this book:
   
   + Opens with utterly sensational four pages of "timeline" for 2007 with little blocks that are priceless. I really like this.
   
   + Chapter 1 does a fine job of listing:
   
   - Four flawed economic assumptions:
   
   - 1. Independence of economic activity from "infinite" nature
   
   - 2. Growth should be the primary economic objective
   
   - 3. Markets are always superior to governments at allocating resources
   
   - 4. Humans are economic maximizers and place no value on community
   
   This may sound simple but I admire it.
   
   - The seven big ideas for economic reform:
   
   - 1. Adjust economic scale
   
   - 2. Shift from growth to development
   
   - 3. Make prices tell the ecological truth [note: for World Index of Social and Environmental Responsibility--WISER--to not be in index irritates me so much I almost take the fifth star again).
   
   - 4. Account for nature's contributions [I am infuriated by a second hand citation. I am not familiar with more than a couple of books, but to not mention Ecological Economics: Principles And Applications or The Future of Life moves this book, as very good as it is--toward Classic Comics book shallowness.
   
   - 5. Apply the precautionary principle. [Cites a San Francisco Chronicle opinion piece, what happened to the real books on this subject, such as Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing The Precautionary Principle
   
   - 6. Revitalize commons management
   
   - 7. Value women [here I am irritated by the isolation of these authors and their citations from a broader understanding of why we should value women: because it is a proven fact that there is no better investment, dollar for development dollar, than a dollar spend educating women. That ripples through society and impacts on the men big time.]
   
   The second chapter has a prices Figure showing that computer diffusion is growing arithmetically while cell phone diffusion is growing logrithmically plus. My comment: Nokia is slowing beginning to grasp what I told their Chairman a year ago: give the cell phones to the poor free, sell the call, not the phone (and my other idea, educate the poor one cell call at a time, starting with call centers in India and China, and then monetize the transactions. Having six farmers call in asking about the same animal disease is PRICELESS! How governments cannot understand this simple logic is beyond my comprehension.
   
   Across the book the tables and figures are powerful but they are not integrated into a total model (e.g. you should not grow grain with water you cannot afford to create fuel instead of feeding a family when you could run 35 million cars a year on Cuban sugar cane sap).
   
   I was pleasantly surprised to see meat and seafood in its own chapter, but as an avid admirer of everything by Francis Moore Lappe
   , see for example Diet for a Small Planet and her most recentDemocracy's Edge: Choosing to Save Our Country by Bringing Democracy to Life.
   
   Toward the end are two very important chapters, one on the financial implications of sustainability (i.e. what alternative vehicles can be used to push back on predatory lending, absentee ownership, and wasteful food practices) and on harnessing human energy (e.g. to plant trees).
   
   I put the book down with irritation--Open Money, Collective Intelligence, even the word Citizen are not in this book--and I again harken to the need for an EarthGame in which all knowledge, all budgets, all citizens, can come together to game, understand, dialog, and decide.
   
   I've come to the conclusion that the fragmentation of the "academy" is now just as dangerous as the desperate failure of our political system in America (see Running On Empty: How The Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It for the simple reason that if the academy would get its act together and "make sense" to the public, the public will take care of the political fix.
   
   We knew most of this stuff in the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's--at the academic level--but the politicians were able to ignore us because a) the people were unwitting and b) low gas prices and high Exxon bribes were great for the smokey room crowd. That's over. It's time for the academy to start producing explicit recommendations and budgets, at the zip code level, that we can use to beat politicians into submission or out of office.
   
   Please have it online by 4 July 2008, and thank you for all the wonderful work up to this point. Time to bring this program home.
   
   Two more links that are action oriented:
   How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas, Updated Edition
   Collective Intelligence: Creating a Prosperous World at Peace



4. Excellent coverage of current economic and environmental that we are facing now and need to be acted upon!



5. These books are amazing, I get them every year and read the important data.
   
   Well explained and thorough, especially for analytical minds like me, you'll enjoy watching the progress (or regress) of the state of our planet.
   
   Highly recommended to anyone who loves to know what happens to our planet and why it changes in such ways.

5 comments about The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies.

1. This book covers the topic of how energy has been the most important factor in the evolution of civilization. And how civilization now, is threatened by the depletion of its main source of energy, oil.
   I got into Heinberg's work after watching The End of Suburbia, where he makes several appereances and quotes ideas from this book.
   My interest was mainly end of oil and energy alternatives, Party is Over goes all the way back to the beginnings, which is good, but sometimes you feel overwhelmed by so much information. Anyways the facts are good to know and definitely reinforce the concept and value of energy, mainly oil.
   If you are interested in having a strong fundamental understanding of energy and civilization this is definitely a book you should read. Heinberg really knows what he is talking about, all his arguments are supported with a lot of scientific evidence.
   I really admire Richard Heinberg's work, but Ive got to say I liked Power Down better, check it out after checking this one, or if you wanna save some money and time just get Power Down.



2. I like Mr. Heinberg's book very much. His knowledge of the oil business and the energy world is impressive. His insight and technical knowledge is also very good in the book. However, Mr. Heinberg is a liberal democrat and is to the far left on every issue. Mr. Heinberg lives in a very simple world. Liberals are good and virtuous and conservatives are neo-facist and anyone who disagrees with the far left must be a Nazi. Of course, this puts Mr. Heinberg in the camp of the good guys. Mr. Heinberg believes that Mr. Bush (one), started the first Gulf War just to help his Oil buddies get rich. I find this explanation too simple and childlike. I find Mr. Heinberg's understanding about Saudis and the Arab People as naive. Having said this, I can overlook Mr. Heinberg's political views and taste and look at the more important message. This is a great book about energy and the future. It is an important message. This is Mr. Heinberg's best work. Regards, Keith Renick, Project Materials Specialist, Central & Western Region, Project Management Team, Riyadh Refinery, Saudi Aramco Oil Co. Retired.



3. This book is one of the many that Heinberg has written on the topic of Peak Oil, in addition of course to numerous online articles that he has posted. Much like his other titles, he does not hesitate to call a spade a spade. Would that more writers and commentators would follow his lead in communicating so directly. This effort is among those texts that should be required reading on this topic. It is indispensable.
   
   Heinberg goes at great length into what has precipitated our predicament and he treats options and alternatives in a straightforward and easy to understand manner. He starts by laying a foundation for how the world as we know it has come to be, namely in relation to the enormously generous geological gift we call oil (and other carbon fuel sources). He lays out the trends in oil discovery and its acquisition and how the theorem (or fact) of Hubbert's Peak plays into our current conundrum.
   
   Alternative energy sources is given more than adequate treatment, ranging from natural gas (not entirely a true alternative) to nuclear power, biodiesel, and many others. Heinberg wraps it up by a treatment of the consequences on a global, national, local, and individual level. The afterword concludes this effort nicely by touching on current developments in the realm of related geopolitical events. All told, after having read this book, it is no surprise that Heinberg is considered one of the foremost authors and educators on this topic.
   
   For more Peak Oil reviews: http://www.peakoilresources.com



4. If you want to know what the near future holds for you, your family and society, Heinberg does a reasonably good job at describing it for the reader. There are, in my opinion, some limits to his content, as well as some "disinformation" about the field of economics, but these are minor issues that do not distract from the meat and potatoes of his message.
   
   The primary focus of this work is based on Peak Oil Theory that was presented by American geologist M. King Hubbert in the mid-1950's -- the fact that the production of available oil will peak, then run out. One of the major criticisms of Hubbert, by the way, is that he was a geologist and not an economist and therefore had limited understanding of the market forces in the decline phases after the peak is reached. This may be true, but I doubt anyone in the mid-1950's had a vision of the modern industrialization of countries like China and India, including their populations' thirst for our world's limited petroleum resources.
   
   I would agree with those, like T. Boone Pickens, who are of the opinion that we are now about a year or two down the road from peak oil with an economy that reflects the fact. Take a look at the stock markets... The markets have been going up when oil goes down in price, yet the reason that oil is going down is based on a U.S. and world-wide economic downturn. When the economic picture looks even a sliver brighter, oil rises eliminating even the small glimmer of a recovery. I heard it described best by an analyst on Bloomberg who described this as an "L-shaped recovery" (the economy will go down and there is no recovery as far as the eye can see) that just about summarizes life post peak oil.
   
   Just as important as peak oil is the concept of cheap oil; in other words, there may be a lot of oil under the ocean but it will be costly to recover. Sure, the Gulf of Mexico may have billions of gallons in deep water off-shore. Perhaps there is another Prudhoe Bay at the bottom of the Marianas Trench... Are you going to pay $25,000 per barrel of oil with current technology to recover it? Inexpensive energy peaked in the 1970's.
   
   Heinberg may have a skewed view of economist -- I don't know of a single student who has covered a micro or macro course in the 101's level that does not understand the ramifications of consuming a limit strategic product without finding alternative resources. It is not going to go well for the United States or any country in the world... Economist do practice a lot of theoreticals with charts, graphs and "what-if's," but they are absolutely cognizant of the world's realities and many of the consequences of price and demand on a finite resource like petroleum.
   
   Finally, I feel that Heinberg paints too positive of a picture of our society when things like power grids and our economic systems fail. Our country, like most other developed nations, keeps their populations compliant by giving citizens a relatively comfortable way of life; the "American way of life if you will." As most of us have seen after Hurricane Katrina, local, state and federal governments have a total inability to control civil unrest on limited scales. Just think if what it will look like when numerous banks fail, prices double overnight, there is no gasoline and the electricity is out. When the gas prices reached $3.75 it was almost impossible to find a policeman on the street and I'm sure this practice was duplicated throughout the country. The prospect gives one great pause that perhaps the "survivalist" may get to see their day come in the near future.
   
   We, in the United States, have lived at the expense of others too long. Our day of reckoning is just around the corner. I don't envy whoever becomes our next president. They'll have a full plate of problems our nation has never seen before.



5. One of the author's primary contentions is that "the earth is a closed system." A closed system is one in which all of the energy and forces are isolated from external influences; roughly speaking the system is in a tight box. The laws of thermodynamics say that total entropy, i.e. disorder, can only increase. Thus we are doomed, and only the details need be sorted out. The earth, of course, is not a closed system. The sun shines on the earth producing not only solar energy directly, but producing wind and growing plant life that can be used for fuel. This is so obvious, that the author's credibility is reduced to zero by his "closed system" claim.
   
   I don't doubt that oil production is in decline, but it is a slow decline because new technology makes it possible to economically extract more and more oil from oil fields. In the near term, what we mainly have is coal-to-oil conversion (the US has about 200 years worth at current oil consumption levels), oil shale conversion (much larger amounts), and nuclear energy (about 5000 years supply). On the near horizon (perhaps 25 years) are cellulosic ethanol (made from wood chips and inedible vegetation) and solar electric. Further out there is fusion power and solar energy from space transmitted to the ground by microwaves.
   
   The common thread of doomsayers is that they do not understand technology, and more importantly, how economics interacts with the development of technology. There will be interesting events as the world shifts away from oil to alternatives, a process likely to be played out over the next fifty years, but the end of the world scenario is nonsense.

5 comments about The Road to Serfdom Fiftieth Anniversary Edition.

1. Considering it my duty as an economics major, I took it upon myself to read this book, with little expectations as to its brilliance, and was completely swept away. Not only is Hayek extremely eloquent in articulating the case for free trade, he supports his arguments with facts (e.g. what was then going on in Nazi Germany) and with theory (e.g. why without even the historical evidence that we do have we must conclude that a centralized system cannot equally favor everyone).
   
   Since it is my tendency to look at the 1 star reviews before making a 5 star one, I recognize that some people don't like Hayek because he doesn't recognize the great things about socialized medicine (like how a guy in Canada signed up for a CAT scan under his dog's name because animals are not covered under their highly efficient centralized health care...true story by the way) or the kind thoughts of socialist thinkers (please don't make me choose my selection of Marx quotes). But what Hayek does is present a prima facie case against socialism; before anyone can advocate socialism, they MUST address Hayek's arguments.
   
   This is why I think before any socialist and libertarian face each other in a squabble, both must have read The Road to Serfdom so that they can hit on the applicable issues instead of babbling on about poverty statistics. Are you a socialist and disagree with Hayek? Fine, but read the book so that you know where your opponents stand. I really think that socialists think lovers of capitalism are greedy and have no ethics. But if you read our spokesman Hayek, you'll see why we think that the free market is actually BETTER for society.
   
   Let's change the scope of the argument. Socialists should stop arguing about how some people are poor...yes, some people are poor...and demonstrate how a centralized system can make people BETTER than they would be under the free market system. How planning the systems of production would be more efficient and prosperous than under the system of competition. How giving all our freedoms to one entity would guarantee them for all. If you can effectively address these issues and the many more that Hayek brings up, we will soon see a blessed change in the current headache of debates on socialism.



2. The only, effective way to reject socialism is by attacking it's fundamental philosophical ideas. That collectivism is good and the individual must be sacrificed for the "good of the people". Attacking a philosophy such as communism or socialism, because it is not "practical" is a contradiction and undercuts any argument against such a corrupt philosophy. These ideas are not good in theory but bad in practice. They are evil in theory and therefore evil in practice.
   
   I would like to also recommend Ayn Rand's, "The Virtue of Selfishness". This is THE work to understand Man's Individual Rights based on His Rational Nature. It is from these fundamental Truths that the ONLY proper function of a legitimate government is derived - The protection of Individual Rights.



3. Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom was written at a time when the Labour Party of Britain was openly socialist. Although modern social democrats renounce the 's' word, socialism is indeed the root of their thinking, and in this exposition, his magnus opus, Hayek unabashedly sends socialism to the gutter where it belongs. Hayek's thesis, that socialism and totalitarianism are two birds of the same feather, has stood the test of time, and it continues to show up today in the cases of Venezuela or Bolivia. Hayek was arguably responsible for Labour's (and the Democrats') turn to the right, set in stone by former PM Tony Blair (and former President Clinton). This book is, however, still very relevant, exemplified by the Democrats' plan to invade the health care sector, the countless bureaucracies located in Washington, and President Bush's reckless invasion of privacy (which is related to Hayek's arguments about war time and peace time). Although Hayek often comes off as soft on a number of issues, he could not be nearly as dedicated as Milton Friedman to absolute freedom because the intelligentsia was on the far-left in the 40's.
   
   For classical liberals, modern leftists, and conservatives alike, The Road to Serfdom is extraordinarily eye-opening.



4. Another book that Dr. L had us read. During the 2008 presidential debate I see one party is trying to buy votes even though the failures of socialism have been proven time and time again throughout history. This is the singular short work on the failures of socialism.



5. Friedrich Hayek, the Nobel prize winning economist, wrote this brilliant classic as a critique of government intervention and manipulation in markets. I am neither an economist nor a political scientist, but I was led to this book after watching with horror the recent outrages that are consciously being inflicted on us by our elected officials, most recently the bailout and socialization of the two giant mortgage lenders, Freddie and Fannie. I couldn't remember that I ever received any share of the loot when those companies were making huge profits and their CEOs were earning tens of millions per year, but now I find that our elected officials have written a blank check in my name, the taxpayer, to bail out these companies' losses and stupidity, and then handed the check to a group of unelected officials (and, surprise, surprise, those two companies spend hundreds of millions on congressional lobbying). Privatize the gains, socialize the losses: sounds like a win-win situation for somebody.
   
   This kind of disastrous socialism is exactly what Hayek critiques in devastating form in this book, specifically government control of the economy. Apparently, they say, this book has been very influential, but a layman could certainly never tell by looking around. Hayek was writing from the perspective of a central European who had recently witnessed first-hand the unfolding development of National Socialism (Nazism) in Germany, and he is warning that the exact same attitudes and policies that had been followed in Germany were uncritically being followed by the Allies, merely at a few years distance.
   
   He begins by recollecting the ideals of old, classic liberalism, "the forgotten road". Of course, in Hayek's context, "liberal" means the true, historic liberalism of limited government, free markets, and private property, not "liberal" in the bastardized sense somehow hijacked by Leftists to mean unlimited government, socialized markets and massive forced wealth redistribution. He looks at the rise of collectivist thinking versus individual (it's all for the greater good); the problems of central planning in a democracy (someone in power makes the economic decisions for everybody else); the downfall of the Rule of Law (government is no longer bound by fixed rules announced beforehand but instead possesses arbitrary power limited only by its own discretion); the inextricable link between centralized economic planning and totalitarian regimes (if we're going to follow a plan, someone's got to force everyone to follow it); the problem of deciding how the society's production will be distributed; a chapter showing that "nothing is more fatal than the present fashion among intellectual leaders of extolling security at the expense of freedom" (Republicans apparently didn't get the memo); how in a socialized economy the worst individuals inevitably rise to the top (Really? Can it be? Obama and McCain?); the necessity of manipulating truth in a socialized society; and the fact that Nazism was a direct outgrowth of socialism and socialist ideology.
   
   The relevance of the points enumerated above does not require comment. We are running madly down the road to serfdom, which is the road of socialism. Unfortunately for those of us who are being dragged along against our will, history is not neutral, and we will suffer the consequences of other peoples' decisions, just as the Jews in Germany did and the Russians in the Soviet Union did. Socialism has always led to poverty and oppression, and freedom, on the rare occasions it has been tried, has produced unparalleled prosperity. Hayek shows in detail why. We've decided to give socialism another try. God help us.

5 comments about The Accidental Theorist and Other Dispatches from the Dismal Science.

1. This book is essentially a collection of Krugman's short articles from various sources in 1996 and 1997. I read some of them online after the 97 Asian Crisis. Today is 24th Oct 2002. What, and simply all, he said are still true today. He's a genius and really deserves a Nobel prize. To me, he already has. I think it becomes more appropriate to quote the praise of a Nobel Laureate from the back cover of the book than to write more myself:-(I checked that it's not on the editorial review here on Amazon)
   
   "When it comes to popularized economic wisdom, there are a lot of balloons of ignorance out there, many of them reinforced by self interest and self confidence. Fortunately Paul Krugman is also out there, popping those balloons with intelligence, style and wit. You can learn a great deal, about economics and otherwise, by reading these delightful essays."
   
   Robert M. Solow, Nobel Laureate
   MIT



2. I've studied religion most of my life; since religion matters to almost everyone, almost everyone has an opinion about it, and I've seen first-hand that most popular opinions are poorly informed, at best. So I am prepared to believe that the same can be true of other intellectual fields.

   Like religion, economics matters to most people, and most of us don't know much about it. But I wanted to begin to understand economics, and one of my brilliant friends (a Yale guy who does math for a hedge fund) told me that this book was the place to start. His recommendation should mean more to you than mine!

   He was right. I now have some basic ideas about things like monetary policy (why what the Fed does matters), currency speculation, supply-side economics, and labor markets. Of course there is a lot more to economics; this book is only a beginning. But it is readable, and well-explained.

   Let me recommend reading the tutorials at Investopedia.com as well. They were helpful to me.

   Now I'm at least not a total financial ignoramus, and I look forward to exploring economics more!




3. Excellent book, super fast delivery



4. In the introduction to 'The Accidental Theorist', Paul Krugman states his ambition to do for Economics what Carl Sagan has done to Astronomy - to serve it to the intelligent public without the specialized vocabulary and the math - to popularize economics. In so far as this book is intelligent, enlightening, and most of all - fun, Krugman has hit home run.

   This is a book of essays, most published in Slate, but also including various speeches and pieces for other markets, such as the New York Times Magazine. In most of them, Krugman discusses the fallacies of prominent 'Accidental Theorists' - people who get economics wrong, either through ignorance of and contempt to economics - like the 'hero' of the title essay, Rolling Stone reporter William Greider who apparently thinks that economics is "not really a science so much as a value laden form of prophecy" even though he doesn't know the first thing about it (p.23) - or, for those who should know better, because they are blinded by their political agenda - like Conservative house leader and professor of economics Richard Armery, whose manipulation of data Krugman exposes (pp. 58-59).

   Krugman is celebrated as an independent scholar, deconstructing fallacies both from the left and from the right. Even though Krugman attacks leftists wrongs (as in the aforementioned 'accidental theorist' and in a series of attacks on the dismal economic policies of socialist France), it is clear where his heart is. Krugman is a free market Liberal, who supports active governments, both for the definition of property rights ('Taxes and Traffic Jams' pp.173-178), and for helping the poor, including funding Medicare by increasing taxation (pp. 189-190). Krugman also attacks Supply Side Economics (in a whole section of the book titles 'Right Wing Wrongs'), and argues that inequality in American is not, for the most part, the fault of the poor (p. 54).

   I basically share almost all of Krugman's views, and Krugman takes care to separate his ideology from his analysis, but he is not the unbiased source he sometimes appears to be (but then again, who is?).

   The greatest in the arsenal of weapons in Krugman's war against economic fallacies is his command of prose. Krugman tackles difficult subject with the immense clarity and wit, and the pure joy of reading it would make this book interesting even for those who are well acquainted with economics.

   The weakest aspects lie not in these essays themselves, but in the editing. Krugman essentially collected the essays, arranged them according to themes, and wrote introductions to each theme. The book suffers from several weaknesses which could have been avoided with a little more care.

   First, there is a complete lack of scholarly apparatus that will let the reader track Krugman's facts and statements. The book has neither footnotes nor a bibliography, and there's not even an index.

   Second, these essays were written in the middle 1990s, during the height of the Clinton years. They constantly refer to then current affairs. But what was the here and now in 1997 is now then and there, and the memory of events will not become fresher as the first Bush administration comes to an end. More background information about the situation when Krugman has written would have made this much easier to get into.

   Finally, Krugman misses the opportunity to update us on what has happened since he has written these essays. Several people criticized here, such as historian David Hackett Fischer, must have reacted to Krugman's and similar criticisms, but if they did, their voice here is silent. Nor does Krugman bother to tell us how he feels the realities (such as the European Monetary Union or the troubles in Latin America) measure up to his predictions about them. It feels like a lost opportunity - Krugman could have reconsidered these essays, instead of merely republishing them.

   Faults aside, Paul Krugman's book may just be the best written book about economics I've ever read. His prose and insights are well worth your time and money.




5. "Paul Krugman has been proclaimed the most celebrated economist of his generation..." proclaims the back cover add. Celebrated by who? Maybe the former economic minister of the Soviet Union. Kruger's attacks on supply-side economics, and general good-for-business economic policies reveal a guy who might be an accomplished academic but has absolutely no common sense. Despite the 80 years of failure data that communist/socialist economic models provide a wealth of information on, we still have people that cling to these ideals. Like blind rats who cannot desert the sinking hulk of failure that centralization and management stupidity that is socialism, they cast about wildly, squeeking to the other blind rats. It is a small book, which was a relief

5 comments about The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.

1. John Mearshieimer presents an excellent theory in the form of offensive realism that stands up to close scrutiny in his book the Tragedy of Great Power Politics. By clearly laying out his definitions of what state goals are and how he measures power he makes a compelling case for regional hegemony and the stopping power of water. By utilizing several case studies to prove his theory the points are well made. His analysis of military power is very interesting and well done.
   
   It is hard to find good realist IR theory these days as so many people doubt that such a system is relevant in a post cold war world. Mearshiemer makes one of the better cases for it existing today and for categorizing the state of anarchy that exists in the world. He rightly recognizes that the potential for great power conflict is not likely in Europe and the Russia is to weak to invade there. His characterization of Asia is very strong and the possible conflict between China and the US is clearly analyzed and presented.
   
   My only criticisms and they were not enough to drop the book down a star was that Africa and the Middle East was virtually ignored. Resource conflict is a major potential area of violence in the future and much of this focused on technological or military threats leaving out the recent prospects of resource conflict. By looking at a regional system these areas should have been included. Overall though excellent realist theory and a very enjoyable read.



2. Before getting this book I, being a professor of I.R., had thought rather highly of Mearsheimer since he's regarded as one of the leading Neo Realists along with Stephen Walt (with whom he recently wrote the Israely-Lobby - a good insightful book). So when I started reading I had rather high expectations that the author would add new insights into his new version of Neo Realist theory which he calls offensive Realism.
   However, I soon discovered that there would be hardly any new insights to be gained. This starts out, for example, with the authors concept of power, which is arguably one of the most important not only in I.R. but in all social science. So how does Mearsheimer present this important concept. Well, its basically what anyone would know from any undergraduate class in I.R. theory, namely, that power is primarily rooted in military capability or strenght. Yes, he does acknowledge that a nation does need a strong and robust economy as a prerequisite for establishing military power, but does not go beyond that in discussing the economic side of power, which is much more pervasive and interdependent than he wants us to believe. He spends a lot of time explaining that in modern history (with the exception of the Kosovo war 1999) that war are won by armies that fight to take over territory, something that an air force or navy can't do for obivious reasons.
   
   I agree with all of this, but the main problem with his analysis is that it is far too limited in focus and outlook and dosen't take a lot of relevant things into consideration. For example, the author doesn't seem to acknowledge even for a minute, the whole liberalist view of I.R. which states that war between democratic nations has virtually never happend (only possible exception being the 1812 Waw between G.B. & USA), furthermore, he dosen't even mention the liberalist contention that war between modern industralized or post-industrialized nations is highly unlikely and hasen't occured since the 2nd World War, since such wars would be totally disruptive to those nations economies and annihilate decades of economic progress. But what's even more important in my view is his utter neglect of Constructivism: A new social science theory that entered I.R. in the 1990s. Constructivism makes the (here somewhat simplified) claim that preceptions between invidual, groups and states is what really counts when it comes to explaining I.R. Hence, it is not so much the materialistic conditions (as also Marxists claim) that drive people, groups and nations to act or react in certain ways, far from this it is their perceptions of events and other people that is a key motivating factor in their behavior. Hence, when perceptions change international politics can also change and usually do change accordingly to the perceptions that leaders or influencial groups in societies or nations have. Simplified, this means when a general change in awareness of people (in high places of governments) occurs then their attitudes and eventually perhaps even belief systems change which then leads them to act or react accordingly with their new awareness. For example, after the 2nd World War the industralized nations learned that disaster struck them twice during the world wars, and so they decided to never again fight wars against each other. And this is precisely what happend afterwards, all the wars that were fought during the Cold War area where either war by 3rd world states or proxy wars that the Super or great powers fought through other "client" states on their behalf or in their interest.
   
   So where does this book leave one? Really having read it I sometimes felt like it could have been written in the 1950s, at least theoretically speaking since it hardly brings anythings new. Basically just a rehash of old power politics concepts that scholars like Morgenthau and Kissinger have been writing about for decades. Sure military power is still important in world politics but the world has changed alone through globalization, but this is something that Mearsheimer simply dismisses as missing the point. Fact of the matter, is nonetheless that globalization has made all nations more interdependent on each other. For example, as much as people like Mearsheimer believe that China will be the USA's next challenger and rival in the near future, the USA can't like back in the 1950 afford to attack China, this is not because China is militarily more powerful than the USA (its actually far from that and may never achieve such a position) but rather because without the massive trade that the US does with China it simply couldn't maintain the high living standard that it still enjoys. Since the American people and economy have been living beyond its means for decades now. Furthermore, China has become one of the main financers of US debts along with Japan and the E.U. A war would shatter this important financial dependency to the severe detriment of the USA. Hence, the USA can be virtually as powerful militarily as it wants regarding a nation like China, an attack on it would damage the US economy to such an extent that war would become irrational in economic terms. The same of course holds true for the E.U. or even Japan, which still has considerable economic power.
   Mearsheimers offensive Realism thus become plainly naive, in a globalized democratized world military power can only be used in a limited way. The last Iraq and Afghanistan wars have shown that (US) military power couldn't even solve the problems of post war occupation of those weak 3rd world states. Moreover, the balance of power concept that the author and all Realists place so much empahsis on is itself not as reliable of a concept as they are led to believe.
   
   So we are led to believe that I.R. is all about the balance of power, power politics, and anarchy which leads to the seemingly endless search for security for all states and wind up ultimately in the security dilemma. Once a state feels that it has secured a considerable amount of security its neighbors or rivals automatically feel less secure, and hence strive to reverse that situation (usually by building up their military forces).
   Like I said, this approach denies the validity and relevancy of more than half a century of theoretical as well as global changes in world politics. It is as if in Physics We were still in the mechanistic world of Newtonian physics and Albert Einstein had never made an impact! This analogy is actually a good one since the Realists believe that by primarily observing the concept of power they can prudently calculate how the balance of power functions to limited war and preserve a rather stable world order, while some of them (Kenneth Waltz) even claim that they can make good predictions about international relations.



3. Mearshimer makes a cogent definition of his version of realism and a strong argument for its value in explaining international relations. However, in the middle part of the book, he diverges into an excessively detailed discussion of the military aspects of power politics. One question: If the "stopping power of water" is so big a factor, how did tiny Western European countries manage to conquer huge tracts of the world's surface? In an effort to make his points, the author also indulges in a tremendous amount of redundancy.



4. While it is cunningly realistic to contend that trying to make China wealthy and democratic will only make it a stronger rival, it is yet utterly mistaken that a "electoral democratic" China can be strong both economically and politically. Focusing on human nature can easily assume away the true impact of "culture nature".



5. John Mearsheimer's Tragedy of Great Power Politics is a disappointing work and the title itself is somewhat anachronistic. It is easy to indulge in self prophesy and to see the wood (the already verifiable truth that nations understand the language of force) but it is not wise to miss the trees, that is, the recent challenges to realistic theories like globalization, growth of multilateral institutions and regimes, etc. Is it not a futile exercise at a time to rehash great power politics when there is no great power worth the name round the corner.
   
   No doubt much of what Dr. Mearsheimer says on offensive realism is as true as the fact that groups and individuals try to dominate others to enhance their powers which has ,paradoxically, a root in the survival issue. His theory is based on a long tried and popular school of thought, 'realism' which has proved right time and again. But one must look beyond. Human civilization has its history as much in force as in cooperation.
   
   Neither can one ignore the fact that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. So, self defense and cooperation act as s check on other aspiring powers. Just look at the Chinese 'Himalayan' patience at the sight of the US fleet roaming that region. This is another face of realism, that is, 'defensive realism'.
   
   Moreover, history might provide useful data and conclusions but one must remember history is era-specific and written by personalities belonging to a particular era. It is necessary to leave opinionated approaches in erecting theories because time and future constantly unfolds, not always, to the liking or prediction of any human being. That is the beauty and essence of human society and civilization.
   
   This is not to say that the era of great power politics is over. It is not. The weight of history is rather very much in favor of this. History has proved that wars are realities and peace illusive. But each time a war is fought the goal is peace. In the post cold war era is it not wise to increase the horizon of peace tools when we are having a long peace since the end of the Second world War?
   
   Gautam Maitra
   Author of 'Tracing the Eagle's Orbit: Illuminating Insights into Major US Foreign Policies since Independence'.