1 comments about Ideologies of Globalization: Contending Visions of a New World Order (Routledge/Ripe Studies in Global Political Economy).

1. So your interested in globalization? Well, this book takes a look at it through the lenses of the American far-left (Cavanagh, Wallach)AND the far-right (Buchanan, Perot).

   How do these ideologies merge? Well, they don't, but the book does examine how they arise from American ideologies of yesteryear. And that is really the book's strong point. How are American cultural beliefs exceptionalism, Fordism, Keynesianism, nationalism, racism, and conservatism coping with the "New World Order."

   And if your interested the left or right's critiques of globalization, check the 'net. globalexchange and public citizen maintain fine sights, and I bet there are some from the right's perspective as well.

   looking for a text on globalization? check out held et al's "Global Transformations"

No comments about The Economic Diplomacy of the Suez Crisis.

5 comments about The Economic Consequences of the Peace (Twentieth-Century Classics).

1. This book achieved instant fame when it was published in 1919, not only for its scathing criticism of the Versailles Treaty but also for its personal attacks against leading signatories (especially Clemenceau and Wilson). For a book focused primarily on economic concerns, the text is surprisingly easy to read. However, the book's poor organization vitally detracts from its effectiveness. The principle reason the book is still famous today lies in the fact that it was written by none other than John Maynard Keynes, the founder of 20th century style, gov't & debt driven economics.
   
   The book is organized into chapters on pre-war Europe, Allied statesmen, summary of key treaty points, reparations, post-war Europe predictions, and Keynes' suggestion of remedies to provide a practical treaty settlement. Unfortunately, within each chapter things are jumbled together without clear rhyme or reason. (Is this indicative of Keynes' own personal organization and logical thinking?)
   
   Within the book, he makes a very practical (but politically infeasible) argument for a non-vindictive treaty. He basically suggests that the Allies should forget both about reparations and repayment of wartime debts from the other Allies, and instead they should settle (though not ideally) for frontier adjustments and confiscation of only German gov't property. (Did the German gov't sponsor Keynes' work in writing this book?)
   
   Keynes argues that a crushing reparations burden on the German people would disincent them to produce anything beyond a mere subsistence minimum and discourage entrepreneurial enterprise. There is some logic in this point; however, later on he goes on to state that the US should forgive its $10 billion debt to its wartime allies ($5 billion of which was owed by the UK). Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't such a move disincent American entreprises from entrepreneurship as well. It's extremely hypocritical that the Allied gov'ts desperately sought loans from the US during the war and then once it was over to claim that they couldn't pay them. If they didn't want to repay, then they shouldn't have borrowed the money - period. (If I borrow money to buy a home, the bank won't ever agree to forgive my debt - regardless of whether I'm out of work, injured, or the house burns down. I don't see why gov'ts should get any exceptional treatment.)
   
   Notwithstanding his problems with disorganization and inconsistent logic, Keynes does produce a reasonable, brief list of treaty rememdies, especially in his efforts to restore economic life throughout Central and Eastern Europe. Not until the advent of the Cold War and the interests of extending American political influence would Keynes' policies largely succeed (albeit yet again to the detriment of American taxpayers).
   
   Overall, I felt the book was ok. I would only recommend it if you have an interest in reading all of Keynes' work. Don't expect to find any theoretical economic insights in the book, though. Based on the high ratings on this page, I think the other reviewers here might have some pro-Keynesian bias.



2. John Maynard Keynes describes in sufficient detail, and in the flowing language of his day, the terms of the Treaty of Versailles - particularly how they laid the groundwork for future conflict in Europe. It is easy to view his ideas as commonsense in light of the benefits of hindsight, yet this book is remarkably insightful in its predictions that eventually manifested themselves during the Second World War. Above all, this work should be valued as a classic example that the Carthaginian terms of the Paris Peace Conference did not go unnoticed during their time. They were then, as now, seen as a dangerous effort in retribution that would only rub salt in the wounds of Europe.



3. The Economic Consequences of the Peace always feels like it's going to get dragged down by statistics, but it rarely does. Indeed it's one of the best presentations of a heavily numerical argument in plain English that I've seen.
   
   Keynes wants to convince us, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Germany will never be able to pay the reparations demanded of it. Accordingly, the middle 70% of the book is a detailed accounting of Germany's exports, imports, and internal health. Among many other findings, Keynes shows that Germany couldn't possibly pay the reparations without giving up most every creature comfort -- down to coffee and tobacco. And as for its exports, allowing Germany to wither economically would drag down the rest of Europe with it.
   
   Keynes dispenses with that middle 70% as clearly and briskly as he can, as support for the moral argument. In large part, Germany cannot pull itself out of the hell it's in until its people have some confidence in the future -- until, in effect, they stop hoarding their bread under the mattress and start eating it instead.
   
   Keynes explores this from an angle I hadn't thought of before. In essence, his point is that fears about the future change the world as it is today: why would you sign a long-term contract denominated in marks if you believed the marks would be valueless in a year? Under the circumstances, the honorable thing would be to refuse to do business with anything but German businesses. Before you can conduct foreign trade, you need currency stability. And, in turn, how can you expect currency stability when reparations force Germany to hand over nearly all of its gold and silver?
   
   This book is an excellent blend of the moral and the statistical, the practical and the hopeful. And it also happens to be a terrific ground-level view of the world immediately after 1919.



4. This is the first book by economist John Maynard Keynes, and one of his most important. Controversial when it was released, and probably still a little controversial today, this book is an interesting view into the mind of one of the most influential economical minds.



5. Though I don't condone the behavior of the Nazis I can now understand how it became possible - by the overpunishment of the Germans by the Versailles Treaty.
   Keynes style may be a little awkward today, 40 years later, but I found it much more lively than expected. His description of Wilson is withering.
   Complaint - my copy of this printing cuts off the footnotes on the bottom of any page that extends to the next page. Very amateurish!

3 comments about Looking Forward: Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century.

1. If you want to learn how an anarchist economy would work, and this even for the best of us all, then Alberts and Hahnels book is definitely for you. encouraging, pragmatic, plausible, convincing after all. It offers an interesting alternative model for a world where capitalism is the ruling fundamentalism of the elites. many people have lost their intellectual weapons against this. here is a possible refill.



2. Looking Forward is the introductory manifesto of the participatory economics movement. The book is meant to give anarchists, socialist-libertarians, and idealists in general a positive alternative to capitalism, centralized economies, and market socialism.

   It is always interesting how one can draw comparisons between the far right and the far left. Milton Friedman, in Capitalism and Freedom, told us that the way to preserve freedom is to centralize information and disperse power. This is the essence of participatory economics.

   Power is dispersed among all citizens, even to the extent that all have equally empowering job complexs (referring to the amount of authority and conceptual work). This way there is a double check against the libertarian fear of power players-- equal access to resources and equal empowerment.

   And, the more novel feature of this system, information is centralized and avaliable to all. This is for the purpose of planning one's consumption bundle and work proposal. If, for example, I discover that there is a shortage of steel, I might postpone the purchase of a car, in order to get a better (artificially determined) price next year and also to relieve the strain on the workers in the industry.

   But why would anyone care about the workers? This is one of the key contrasts between PE and capitalism. Hahnel and Albert argue that if people have the information and the power to help and consider others, then it will be done. In capitalism, we need know nothing about the conditions under which most of what we consume is made. Under PE, we would. By removing the disincentives to human compassion, our social nature is allowed to flourish.

   While Looking Forward gives a clear outline of PE, it is too ambiguous at points. Hahnel and ALbert seem to respond to difficulties with generalizations. They do, however, refer the reader to other works meant to fill the gaps-- The Political Economy of Participatory Economics, Liberating Theory, and The Quiet Revolution in Welfare Economics.

   If you want to know what the modern anarchist ideal looks like, in which poverty is no longer "necessary" and human sociality is cultivated, read this book.




3. Yet another great book from Robin and Michael decribing a post-capitalist economic system which avoids the pitfalls of market socialism and is more in-depth and coherent than other post-capitalist economic visions (guild socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc.).

   I highly recommend this book, along with all of Albert and Hahnel's other works.

   Also, I'd like to respond to the previous reviewer's horrified proclamation that "this study involves the author's absolute ignorance regarding the freedom of musicians and artists." In actuality, both Albert and Hahnel have written extensively about this particular problem. Both authors have differing viewpoints in regard to the role of artists in a participatory economy.

   Albert says, basically, that the work of an artist should be treated like any other kind of work. And they should have balanced job complexes just like everyone else (gasp!). They must, in the previous reviewer's words, "participate in menial, rote labour in an effort to further enrich society as a whole and close the gaps between [classes]."

   Yeah? And? Doesn't that just make sense? If we want an egalitarian society, we can't have certain individuals doing all the meaningless, rote tasks and others living lives filled with enriching and empowering work.

   Albert replies to the question of whether "parecon would limit individual artistic creativity by what art to produce by referendum or committee"...

   "Do you think this because artists, like producers of vehicles, get resources to work with (outputs of other people's efforts) or are allotted income for their work (and a claim on the social product) only insofar as their work, overall, is respected in the economy? I don't see why.In fact, quite the contrary. By (1) elevating diversity and self management parecon greatly promotes exploration and attitudes conducive to it, and (2) by allocating resources and tools and time self-consciously, it removes the impact of power or misdistribution of (voting rights) on the allocations, reducing the built-in tendency for "popularity" to outweigh "innovation" without any real assessment being made of the value of innovation.If you mean to point out that it would be within the purview of society to decree that some type innovation is unwanted or unlikely to be successful and that resources shouldn't be given over to it - yes, that is true - for art as for innovation in, say, how to electrocute people better, or for that matter, how to make better ladders, say, or whatever. But the assumption that in a parecon the population would not want musical and artistic innovation pursued by those with talents and creativity, in their own manner as they evolve their dispositions and talents, seems to me very very dubious. I should think the opposite would be true, overwhelmingly. What people currently like would be part of the issue in parecon - for sure. But it isn't the whole of it, as you are about to indicate, I bet. For one thing, smaller groups can like things a lot, making them very worthwhile even though not widely appreciated. But also, at a moment in time, much of what is pursued - not only in art, but in many dimensions of life, say science, engineering experimentation, etc. - is not yet appreciated beyond those who are trying to explore it (maybe not even entirely by them). Art is not special in this respect, in fact. So there is need for exploration and elaboration of art, music, and ideas and information and innovation more generally, that moves out beyond where taste currently is. Sure. But there is nothing about parecon that precludes or even impedes this relative to any other model I am aware of, much less capitalism...quite the contrary. Imagine a workplace for musicians. Society respects this workplace and includes it as part of the economy because it values music, including innovation. To work at this institution (and in different parecons we can imagine different instances, etc.) one has to be hired which likely entails demonstrating certain knowledge, talent, etc. The institution's budget is allocated internally to various activities, by its members, and therefore certainly not only to what a mass audience outside already likes. It really isn't much different in that respect than a workplace investigating new products, if you think about it."

   So, I don't think they are ignorant of this problem. I think their solution simply makes sense, in a better economy. By the way, you don't submit your art to "the masses" but, instead, to committees of your fellow artists (whereas, in capitalism, you have to submit it to publishers, record labels, etc... who are generally only concerned with making a profit).

   Anyway, buy the book.

3 comments about The International Origins of the Federal Reserve System.

1. You can't find a more accessible text for this topic. I have scoured the librarys of academia and find that this text is not only readable and enjoyable, but it is superior in its treatment of subject matter. A look at the index will tell any reader that Mr. Broz's volume is the compleat guide.

   Don't miss your chance to read this welcoming introductory text.




2. Broz's "The International Origins of the Federal Reserve System" is a excellent example of how single-case qualitative empirical research should be done. By providing a detailed formal theory framework, Broz is able to derive specific hypothesis about the development of the Federal Reserve in a manner that is both scientifically rigorous and historically detailed. While comparison with other cases would have been helpful (and neccessary if the model is to be generalized), this book is one of the best qualitative works in political science in general and political economy in particular in years.



3. Broz provides an easy to read text. His premises are clear, leading to true understanding. I've read much on this subject, but never such a complete work. It is as economical as can be expected; and I would argue more general than others have claimed. I highly suggest this book, and thank Dr. Broz for his contribution.

No comments about International Economics.

3 comments about The Lugano Report: On Preserving Capitalism in the Twenty-First Century.

1. Susan George uses her impressize knowledge of global capitalism to and its effects on the many to look at the picture from the side of the few. The report presents a frightening look at what would be required to preserve the current capitalist order in the face of the increasing impoveritization of an increasingly populous and ecologically strained world.

   The report was originally written as a hoax (she was not going to claim authorship), however, for reasons she declines to elaborate on she chose not go through with it. I actually wish she had released it as real, to see the reaction of the elite pundits and media who will now feel secure in ignoring the book.

   Even so, it is a worthwile read, primarily as it helps us see what kind of reforms of the global economy would simply tame the excesses of capitalism and thereby make the system only stronger, and what reforms would truely challenge the powers that be.




2. This document, more that a "report" is a cold blood, cynical guide to enslave, decimate and exterminate the surplus or the human population using methods as birth control, contagious diseases, political, religious and ethnic conflicts and wars, famines, low salaries, etc. This "report" that may be see for many people as a science fiction novel or a Malthus write is a nowaday reality. If we pay attention to everyday news, we could see that most of the formulas mentioned in this "report" have being applied around the world in a systematic way as isolated cases successfully with none or few opposition by the victims. I strongly recommend this book to those people that in some way or another can do something to stop this systematic plan already running.



3. Richard Morgan's booklist at the end of his SF romance, "Market Forces", got me reading this. To him, thanks for the goto. To you, I recommend both works.
   
   Although the original edition of "Lugano Report" is six years old, I've not read anything this year that is more relevant to the situation in the USA in 2005. Nor could I have voiced my own opinion of that situation any better than George does in her introduction to the 2003 edition:
   
   "I can think of only one historical parallel to the demented band of entrepreneurial thugs who have taken over in Washington, which is, of course, Hitler and the Nazis. In this book, distinctions are made between their kind of fascism and the 'Lugano'-type scenario now unfolding. If the latter succeeds, it will be a fascist regime minus the concentration camps and gas chambers but including the rule of mega-corporations; a pseudo-religious, all-embracing ideology drummed into the populace by a compliant media; mass surveillance; and a master race disposing as it pleases, through military force, economic coercion or cultural bribery, of the lesser, darker-skinned and infidel breeds, as well as the dissidents within its own ranks."
   
   If you want some background on how we got here, and a preview of our Singapore-Model future, this is the place to start.

5 comments about The Weightless Society.

1. This book is written from an amazingly human perspective. It provides a view of how as a society, we are on a rocket ship ride with knowledge as our fuel. We and our children will not have to toil in coal mines or risk life and limb on factory floors. We will thrive on creativity, ingenuity and imagination. But instead of feeling more in control, we are feeling a collective anxiety, less control, more uncertain. We feel ludicrously certain (about scientific advances in the mapping of our genetic structure) and beset by doubt (about a welfare system that cannot ensure housing and healthcare for our citizens). Much of this has to do with a lack of self reliance and a need to trust (that computers will work, that brands will keep their promises, that doctors will be healers and not business moguls...)

   Consider this passage for just a moment...

   "Collaboration is the driving force behind creativity. Learning, one of the most basic activities in the knowledge economy, is an essentially social activity: we learn with others and through others. Social capital is vital to generate trust and to allow people to take risks. It is through the networks of relationship that underlie social capital that people learn of new ideas and make new contacts. Social capital is not a socially conscious add-on to the market-driven economy; social capital is essential to its working."

   Charles Leadbeater has given us a thoughtful and considered look at how the rules of our economy have radically shifted and so therefore too must the rules of our social and ecological infrastrucuture. The economy cannot sustain this rocket-like pace without careful consideration of how we will support the people, all people, in our society.




2. In a world where too many business books suggest that there are 12 rules or 5 steps to the solution for every problem, it is refreshing to read a book that actually expects the reader to do some of the work. This book is provocative. It challenges conventional wisdom. It asks the reader to think rather than memorize.

   If you are the least bit predisposed to thinking that our current social and economic systems require massive overhaul rather than minor revisions, this book will allow you to argue that belief far more eloquently.




3. It could only have come from the Nanny State. Don't understand the global financial markets? We'd best regulate them back to the days of Bretton Woods. Crowded cities? Invest in public transportation. Education in disarray? More public funds to the decaying public education machine. Afraid of private industry being granted patents on genetic sequences? Public ownership is the obvious answer.

   The difference here is only one of accent. The author begrudgingly and with apparent difficulty admits that the private sector does play a leading role in economic growth and technological innovation. Words like "greed" and phrases like "filthy rich" abound. It's clear that the author is uncomfortable with the private sector's victory over the Left. He does his best to use the word entrepreneur without gritting his teeth. He is simply ideologically unable to recognize that the real engine of growth and innovation is the motive of individual gain. I got the distinct impression that the author learned just enough about business and technology from his work as a business journalist to obtain the jargon without really understanding what he's talking about. Perhaps this is why journalists shouldn't hurt themselves attempting to explain economics.

   This book was about five years out of date at the time it was published. If you've read any of the recent work of the leading futurists, this book will be entirely rudimentary to you. The author is still filled with wonder that he can work from home with a laptop and free-lance his skills on the open market. This has been a way of life for some of us for years.

   When dealing with world-changing technologies in genetics and information processing, the author really didn't have a grasp of what he was writing about. It read more like regurgitated columns from a Sunday newspaper than like a serious student's musings on technology's impact on the global economy.

   As an apology for the failures of the public sector in the new economy and as re-assurance to the defeated Left that there remains a role for the Nanny State, this book will be a success. Anyone who is already living and working in the new economy needn't waste their time reading what they already know.

   If Tony Blair really is taking advice from this guy, heaven help Britain. It's a day late and a Euro short.




4. One thing you can believe is that this book represents a clear,
   crisp high view of how the knowledge economy has social implications.
   I found the book to be a useful addition to my collection. The book
   is not a nitty-gritty knowledge management or knowledge capital book.
   For that go to Stewart's "Intellectual Capital" or Nonaka
   & Takeuchi's "Knowledge Creating Company." But for a
   solid overview of the Knowledge Economy this is a great book. Part 1
   & 2 succeeds in overviewing the shift to a knowledge perspective
   at the company level giving some rich and original metaphors and
   examples. Part three has some excellent new perspectives on networks
   & intelligent regions. Part four on the Societial implications of
   a knowledge economy also plow some new ground, tho some of his
   arguments are pretty thin and a tad to US conservative for my
   political bent. Overall, I would recommend this book to anyone
   wanting a big picture, especially those who have grown tired of the
   trite "10 steps" approach to knowledge management and
   retreaded announcements that "we are in a new Knowledge era"
   that seems common to this genre.



5. Recently I overheard a clueless manager of a local enterprise say that the reason the United States is losing jobs is that services don't create wealth, only manufacturing does. Wrong, our current economy (at least in developed countries) is very much knowledge driven.
   
   According to Leadbeater, "most developed countries make money out of thin air: We produce nothing that can be weighed, touched, or easily measured." Think about that for a minute and it'll be as bright as day. Internet services, telephone calls, accounting and legal advice are all examples of modern economic products that are weightless. According to the author, many products are weightless because they're comprised of service, judgment, information, and analysis. As an example, think about something as simple as cell phone ring tones on which consumers worldwide spent $3.5 billion in 2003.
   
   Charles Leadbeater has given us a thoughtful and considered look at how the rules of our economy have radically shifted. Consider that the knowledge-creating company of the future will need to embrace eight principles:
   
   1) Cellular Structure
   2) Self-Management (especially important to motivated, educated, and ambitious professionals)
   3) Entrepreneurship
   4) Equity Pay and Membership
   5) Deep Knowledge Reservoirs
   6) Integration
   7) The Holistic Company
   8) Collaborative Leadership
   
   "Collaboration is the driving force behind creativity. Learning, one of the most basic activities in the knowledge economy, is an essentially social activity: we learn with others and through others..."
   
   All in all, The Weightless Society will certainly stimulate your thinking. For technology entrepreneurs, pay special attention to the information throughout the book on dematerialization because the new economy is driven by information. Ultimately we will continue to create more and more with less energy and material.
   
   Michael Davis - Editor, Byvation

1 comments about Exchange Rate Economics: Theories and Evidence.

1. The book, from one of the experts on the subject, nicely covers the key theories on exchange rate determination. Strictly for academics or experts. Topics include: PPP and its variants (in depth), real exchange rate determination, new open macroeconomics, economics of fixed exchange rates, the microstructure approach, and UIP. The focus is sometimes more on providing the theory rather than the results and implications. Relative to "The economics of exchange rates" by Sarno and Taylor this book is more mathematical (but not excessively so) but while they cover some similar ground they should be seen as a supplements rather than an alternatives.

No comments about North Africa: Politics, Region, and the Limits of Transformation.