I agree with the proposals in this book, yet I found it a real chore to read. I think the issue ties to the dichotomy between the good sense and necesI agree with the proposals in this book, yet I found it a real chore to read. I think the issue ties to the dichotomy between the good sense and necessity of the actions it describes, and the vanishing small possibility that even one of them could be implemented. Example: imagine the likelihood of a trump presidency agreeing to restore a sensible level of inheritance tax. Not on you, who may inherit a house worth a million, and some $ assets; no, on people who are inheriting hundreds of millions in assets. Reasonable? Maybe. Possible? Ha. Never gonna happen. How about limiting the record-high profits of fossil fuel companies, requiring annual reparations for the vast damage their products cause? When a company like BP has to be sued to be held responsible for a specific disaster they created (remember Deepwater Horizon?), I think general remuneration is not forthcoming. How about taxation to support a universal basic income? Reflexive no on that, since people think they'd be working hard to support lazy people (read:minorities)? Even though that's not how it would work and EVERYONE would benefit. That's why it's called "universal." How about something even simpler: we stop idolizing rich people just because they're rich? That doesn't mean they're capable of being political leaders, or "thought leaders," or even basically decent human beings. It means they have a lot of money, full stop. No other decent qualities are guaranteed, which I think many many of our crop of manboy billionaires amply demonstrate. I could go on, but you get my point. We are deeply fucked, and because money rules the world and looks out for itself, very likely to remain so. ...more
Even though I agree with most of what Saito is talking about in this book, I nevertheless found it extremely trying to finish. It’s less a manifesto tEven though I agree with most of what Saito is talking about in this book, I nevertheless found it extremely trying to finish. It’s less a manifesto than it is a harangue, and no one responds well to being badgered about what they ought to do, even if they think you’re right. It’s also woefully repetitive, and the writing can be clumsy enough that you feel like you reading a student essay — “Assignment: write a persuasive essay arguing that capitalism is bad.”
But here’s the thing: unfettered capitalism IS bad. It sucks, unless you’re one of the bros who has made - literally - billions from it, and then I imagine it probably seems pretty great. But if you are not one of those fortunate souls, you’re likely stuck working extremely hard to afford less and less. You’re watching the public realm deteriorate around you while private individuals amass more money than they could ever use in multiple lifetimes. You’re living through a slow-motion climate disaster, and no one is doing much about it besides talk. What’s there to love about this state of affairs?
And while Saito makes those points (again and again) he also undermines his own credibility, with bizarre exaggerations like the one where, before capitalism, “we worked for a few hours a day… and spent the rest of the day at leisure. We napped, played, talked to each other.” Huh, what magical pre-capitalist era was this? Feudalism, when people were vassals or peasants? Is that when they had ample playtime and naptime? Or maybe it was earlier than that, when the Romans had slaves? I do imagine the slavery of some probably facilitated lots of the naps for others. Possibly he harks back to when we were hunter-gatherers, because everyone knows we had nothing but free time for wandering throughout the forest back then.
Returning to reality, Saito does realize that it is extremely hard to imagine how to accomplish what he is advocating. He is right about that, and given the vagueness of his own proposals, I am not so sure he can imagine it himself. So while I agree that a change in social and economic structure is desperately needed, I doubt it will be the one proposed here. I think I’ll give Thomas Piketty’s writings on socialism a try, hoping they are more realistic, and dear god please, less repetitive.
As an aside, this probably deserves 3 stars rather than 2, but I was just that irritated with it by the time I finally dragged myself through to the end, so. ...more
It has been startling to hear the media begin discussing China as though it is some sort of neo-Soviet Union threat, not to mention the nonsense our fIt has been startling to hear the media begin discussing China as though it is some sort of neo-Soviet Union threat, not to mention the nonsense our former idiot savant (heavy on the idiot part) president spewed on the topic. This book refutes the notion that China is a threat to the West: as a developing nation, its primary interests are economic, not colonial. Let's hope the dudes stirring up a new Cold War panic can pause in their McCarthyite fear-mongering long enough to pay attention to that message.
As a related aside, I am curious why some readers have summarily dismissed this as propaganda. Li seems pretty moderate to me. He doesn't exactly sing the government's praises, and does refer to some of the more unsavory practices. The man lives under an authoritarian regime - what did people expect him to say? It's a horror, so he can lose his livelihood? Or, it's all great, which really would be propaganda about it? Did these people actually read the book, or is this a knee-jerk reaction they'd toss at anything written that diminishes the threat?
Regardless, this is interesting and informative, and I learned a good bit from it. I know it's not gonna be a bestseller, but I do wish it would be more widely read than it likely will be. ...more
This is good! It's a clear and concise look at the last 120 years of political orders in the US, in less than 300 pages. Gerstle traces the evolution This is good! It's a clear and concise look at the last 120 years of political orders in the US, in less than 300 pages. Gerstle traces the evolution from New Deal "big government" era through what we should all hope is the dying gasps of neoliberal hegemony. One chapter on the history of liberalism nearly dragged me under, but aside from that, this book provides an interesting new framework for thinking about familiar concepts. I also like that Gerstle is British, so he writes with a degree of remove that enables him to be observer rather than participant, which provides a nice reprieve from the fevered tone of most political commentary these days. If you're interested in this kind of thing, this is a worthwhile read. ...more
Joseph Stiglitz for President. Seriously, because I am sick to death of these lying, selfish, greedy republican bullshit monsters. Also, Stiglitz is lJoseph Stiglitz for President. Seriously, because I am sick to death of these lying, selfish, greedy republican bullshit monsters. Also, Stiglitz is literate, so added bonus there too. ...more
I found it hard to get past the cutesy-ness of the whole "ph" thing, which appears in the book roughly a million times. If you can overlook it, there I found it hard to get past the cutesy-ness of the whole "ph" thing, which appears in the book roughly a million times. If you can overlook it, there are some interesting ideas in here about how the nature of free and competitive markets encourages duplicity and the efforts to take advantage of those with "imperfect information." That, they claim, is the real economic equilibrium, and not whatever that Pareto guy was on about. ...more
(Disclaimer: I didn't intend to write such an angry review. But you watch a nation elect Donald Trump as president in contravention to their own obvio(Disclaimer: I didn't intend to write such an angry review. But you watch a nation elect Donald Trump as president in contravention to their own obvious self interest, and um, see how you feel. Anyway, maybe I should go back to reading novels for a while.)
I took a lot of time with this book, and it was hard to read. That is not because of the abstruse or incomprehensible economic concepts it covers -- in fact, Stiglitz does a really wonderful job of rendering complicated ideas with clarity and accessibility, making them easy for a lay reader to grasp. Instead it took a long time because it is so depressing -- there's only so much you can take in before you feel overwhelmed with hopelessness at the misguided path America unswervingly pursues.
Written in 2012, when the Recession still loomed large, it talks about how our political system now fails to represent you and me, and is mostly beholden to money. Big Money, that is, and not just a couple hundred K a year. We are talking big banks money, where bailouts for failures comes from taxpayers, and add up to the trillions. We are talking corporate money, where the punishment for malfeasance is nothing, and that for incompetence is sailing off into the sunset with a severance package in the millions to soften the blow. We are talking hedge fund money, pharmaceutical money, insurance company money, military contractor money, and oil industry money. We are not, in short, talking about the kind of money earned by you and me.
All this money come from somewhere, and as Stiglitz demonstrates, the source is usually the hollowing middle class in America, and the ever-expanding underclass. As resources migrate up the economic ladder in ever growing amounts, through policies orchestrated by and to the benefit of the monied class, inequality inevitably balloons, leaving America with an inequality index similar to Brazil, and worse than Turkey and Mexico. How about that, America? Those Mexicans you were so interested in keeping out with a wall actually have a more equal distribution of income than you do. Maybe Mexico should pay for a wall, in anticipation of the flood of ever more disenfranchised Americans seeking better opportunity elsewhere.
Rest assured that between publication in 2012 and our most recent election, where we ordinary mortals had the privilege to choose between a millionaire and a billionaire (soi-disant, anyway) to understand our concerns and represent our interests, inequality did not diminish, and access to education and opportunity did not improve. And what do you think our filthy rich Cheeto in Chief will do when he takes office? Do you think he'll turn against his rich friends and enact policies to make it all better for those marginalized white folk who voted him in? Do you think he'll make sure you have access to universal health care, affordable education not financed by student loans designed to create an indentured class, and an adequate safety net to catch you when you fall? Those poor misguided souls just voted to perpetuate and exacerbate the very system that created their plight. Ignorance and gullibility just ensured that the price of inequality, over the coming four years, will grow ever more dear, perhaps to the point that we will never again be able to afford to reverse it....more
This one's for economics geeks -- it's not for the faint of enthusiasm. However, if you are one of those odd birds who really digs econ and trade poliThis one's for economics geeks -- it's not for the faint of enthusiasm. However, if you are one of those odd birds who really digs econ and trade policy, you'll enjoy this. For the most part, I did. I thought the beginning, which describes how the US cotton industry has maintained market dominance for hundreds of years while its pre-eminence has evaporated in numerous other areas, was really interesting. The middle section, in which trade policy is addressed rather at length (ahem) drags a bit, and the author doesn't exactly demonize China, but her focus on its rising prominence is ... pronounced. The last section describes what happens to the title-referenced T-shirts when we rich American superconsumers cast them off, and this section is very interesting as well. I read this for a class, but I might as well have read it on my own. Overall, informative and readable, if not always 100% enjoyable. But seriously, let me repeat: you'd better really like economics if you are going to wade into this one. ...more
A thought provoking and well written examination of some of my favorite topics: economics and consumerism. A short summary: you get what you pay for, A thought provoking and well written examination of some of my favorite topics: economics and consumerism. A short summary: you get what you pay for, especially if you buy cheap junk from Wal-Mart. But if the book ended there, it would hardly be worth it, since we all know that already. Shell goes one step further and takes a look at how "cheap" is somewhat of a self-reinforcing vicious circle: wages have stagnated or declined for the middle class in America for a couple of decades now, so they need items that are cheaper. But items that are cheaper are also the CAUSE of a decline in wages, which necessitates the need for this junk to start with. She also shows that, just as there is a huge and growing income disparity in this country, there is also a disparity in the quality of goods available to consumers: if you aren't going to buy cheap crap from mass producers and discounters, what are your other options? Not many, unless you can afford quality-crafted items, which suddenly have moved into the luxury class of goods. Few of our favorite retailers escape unscathed: IKEA, Wal-Mart, Whole Foods and outlet malls are but a few of the companies whose business practices come in for scrutiny here. I understand that these are not topics that everyone finds riveting, but I do think they are important, and this is one of the more readable books on the subject that I have come across. I only wish its readership would be much wider than it is likely to be. ...more
Let me start by saying I love Jeffrey Sachs, and if he ran for President, he would have my vote. Common Wealth is one of the best books I have ever reLet me start by saying I love Jeffrey Sachs, and if he ran for President, he would have my vote. Common Wealth is one of the best books I have ever read, so I was desperately excited about the prospect of Mr. Sachs focusing his considerable intellect more narrowly on US-centric matters in The Price of Civilization. This indeed he does in the book, but it was not as satisfying as I anticipated. There are a few reasons for that. The first is just the prevailing deplorable state of affairs in this country – the corruption big money and special interests have wrought in politics, the shrill unreasonable tone that public discourse has assumed, the focus on short term palliatives that allow long term issues to fester. If you can read about all of this, and NOT be depressed, you must be Dick Cheney. Another thing is the sense of cynicism and futility I feel when I read about possible solutions and remedies: however well intentioned Sachs’ prescriptions for change, I cannot imagine any of them actually coming to pass. I mean, can you really envision the broad mass of US society becoming “more mindful”? Give me a break. There are very few of those striving for more, better, newer, shinier who see any problem whatsoever with those aspirations, and if you try to explain otherwise, they look at you like you’re a two-headed filthy communist hippie. Pinning one’s hope for change on the so-called Millennial Generation also strikes me as dicey – they may not be the inveterate racists that prior generations were, but they are also the ones who don’t find any deep societal failings when watching Jersey Shore. Finally, I get the sense that researching and writing this book was a little rushed. It lacks the comprehensive, detailed appraisal, the thoroughly considered gravitas, that made Common Wealth so compelling. This is not to say that Sachs is wrong – he isn’t – it’s just that his gloss-over treatment of serious issues comes across to me as superficial, and actually a little preachy at times. So, in sum, I agree with The Price of Civilization. I wish it were a little more substantial in content, and a little less depressing in prospect, but Sachs isn’t wrong. In this case, it’s just too bad that his being right doesn’t make it all right....more
This book is not "on hold" so much as I realize I do not ever intend to finish it. It's isn't bad, although Friedman's writing style can get on your nThis book is not "on hold" so much as I realize I do not ever intend to finish it. It's isn't bad, although Friedman's writing style can get on your nerves. It's just that, after 3/4 of it, I get the idea. There is a lot of good information here, and I learned a good bit from what I read. Friedman's assertion that we in the US are the ones ultimately responsible for funding the 9/11 terrorist attacks is startling, and will stay with me. His reasoning, which seems correct to me, is that our persistent reliance on oil and refusal to really invest in alternative energy technologies has had the result of funneling money to the people who funneled money to the terrorists. He asserts this repeatedly, along with many other claims. In fact, based on the annoying repetition throughout the book, I can only conclude that Friedman is a real believer in the notion that if you want someone to remember something, you have to tell it to them three times. That repetitive tendency is one of the reasons I don't intend to finish Hot, Flat and Crowded, but would nevertheless recommend it as a worthwhile read to others interested in the topic of sustainability. ...more
Loading...
