Scan barcode
jdgray's review
2.0
Ok, but way too heavy handed and the author makes no distinction between his opinion and facts.
krichardson's review
3.0
A nice recap of what's happened economically since 1945 and some ideas for the future, but nothing particularly actionable unless you run communications for a Democratic politician.
kwheeles's review
5.0
Highly recommend. Uses the 'Shared Prosperity' of the post-World War II years as a standard against which to compare (known as the 'Trente Glorieuses' in France - the glorious thirty years of unusually high and stable economic growth). The postwar period was characterized by an increase in the spirit of collectivism and equality that, while not strictly economic factors, were key to economy's performance. A rising tide raises all ships, but the lifting the fortunes of robber barons (or 'market disrupting innovators', as monopolists are known today) lifts the canal lock containing their mega-yachts by draining the water from the rest of society. And the rest of society does the spending that is the lifeblood of the economy, while the robber barons throw their excess into high-altitude joy rides, shaky financial bubbles (cryptocurrency), and outsize campaign contributions to politicians advocating for their interests (lower taxes for the rich, less regulation of the costs they impose on society, abdication of government's anti-trust responsibilities, elimination of any limitations to their anti-democratic power over government).
The field of economics has few areas of strong consensus, but almost all can agree that Keynesian policies work - and not much else does. (Keynesian policies being those that argue for countervailing government fiscal intervention in the economy - increasing government spending during downturns to manage 'aggregate demand'.). Even Richard Nixon, no darling of the left, said in 1971 'we are all Keynesians now' (slight paraphrase).
Monetarism is an another approach to economic policy, championed by Milton Friedman, which emphasizes the importance of managing the amount of money in circulation. In my younger days I placed much stock in monetarism as a key part of economic policy, supplemented by Keynesian fiscal policy. But monetarism relies on a somewhat stable velocity of money, as well as being able to define what we mean by money. The definition of money has certainly gotten squishier over time, and the velocity of money has become more variable - breaking down completely in Federal Reserve System response to the 2008 financial crisis.
Of the two major political parties in the US, the Democratic Party promotes Keynesian policies - the one proven economic tool of the government. The opposing party has no use for economic tools for the government, as it has little use for government. There have been some attempts at justifying the opposition's approach - the laughable 'Laffer Curve' (suggesting lower tax rates could lead to higher tax revenue; surprise - they don't) and the inane 'trickle down' theory impressively promoted by Ronald Reagan (but demonstrably disastrous in practice). (Full disclosure: I was a registered Republican from 1975 to 2016. I understand and respect the policy differences of the parties.)
My favorite quotes from this book are the following:
"Jobs created during the sixteen years of Democratic presidencies versus Republican presidencies: 33.8 million versus 1.9 million. That is not a typo. Job creation per month: under Democrats, 176,093; under Republicans, 9,687. Average GDP growth: Democrats, 3.1 percent; Republicans, 1.62 percent. Dow Jones Industrial Average increase: Democrats, 185.5 percent; Republicans, 26 percent."
One could substitute "Keynesian" for Democratic and "Non-Keynesian" for Republican. But these are the facts. It is not close. The economy performs MUCH better under Democratic/Keynesian leadership.
Further, this improvement has not been accomplished via fiscal recklessness by Democrats/Keynesians:
"As for impact on the budget deficit, it’s not remotely close. Clinton took the country from a $290 billion deficit to a $236 billion surplus, for a $526 improvement. The deficit did increase under Obama by $126 billion (though he cut it by more than half in his second term). Combined, they left the country $400 billion better off. The Bushes and Trump combined to add nearly $3.5 trillion to the deficit."
Decimating taxes on the rich takes a tremendous toll on government finances - but, hey, it does make for great space rides and plenty of big money for political contributions.
As to the impact across the breadth of our society:
"Finally, median household income increase: Democrats, 9.5 percent; Republicans, 0.6 percent. Yes, that’s 0.6 percent, as in less than 1. It went up under Trump by 9.2 percent, which is very good, but it went down under both Bushes. It went up 5 percent under Obama and around 14 percent under Clinton."
You won't hear this on Fox News (how would they have time to cover people wanting to specify their personal pronouns, or transgender bathroom issues, or the next Mexican caravan). In fact, you won't hear it expressed this clearly or dispassionately from actual news organizations either.
Wonderful book. Thought provoking. Challenging.
The field of economics has few areas of strong consensus, but almost all can agree that Keynesian policies work - and not much else does. (Keynesian policies being those that argue for countervailing government fiscal intervention in the economy - increasing government spending during downturns to manage 'aggregate demand'.). Even Richard Nixon, no darling of the left, said in 1971 'we are all Keynesians now' (slight paraphrase).
Monetarism is an another approach to economic policy, championed by Milton Friedman, which emphasizes the importance of managing the amount of money in circulation. In my younger days I placed much stock in monetarism as a key part of economic policy, supplemented by Keynesian fiscal policy. But monetarism relies on a somewhat stable velocity of money, as well as being able to define what we mean by money. The definition of money has certainly gotten squishier over time, and the velocity of money has become more variable - breaking down completely in Federal Reserve System response to the 2008 financial crisis.
Of the two major political parties in the US, the Democratic Party promotes Keynesian policies - the one proven economic tool of the government. The opposing party has no use for economic tools for the government, as it has little use for government. There have been some attempts at justifying the opposition's approach - the laughable 'Laffer Curve' (suggesting lower tax rates could lead to higher tax revenue; surprise - they don't) and the inane 'trickle down' theory impressively promoted by Ronald Reagan (but demonstrably disastrous in practice). (Full disclosure: I was a registered Republican from 1975 to 2016. I understand and respect the policy differences of the parties.)
My favorite quotes from this book are the following:
"Jobs created during the sixteen years of Democratic presidencies versus Republican presidencies: 33.8 million versus 1.9 million. That is not a typo. Job creation per month: under Democrats, 176,093; under Republicans, 9,687. Average GDP growth: Democrats, 3.1 percent; Republicans, 1.62 percent. Dow Jones Industrial Average increase: Democrats, 185.5 percent; Republicans, 26 percent."
One could substitute "Keynesian" for Democratic and "Non-Keynesian" for Republican. But these are the facts. It is not close. The economy performs MUCH better under Democratic/Keynesian leadership.
Further, this improvement has not been accomplished via fiscal recklessness by Democrats/Keynesians:
"As for impact on the budget deficit, it’s not remotely close. Clinton took the country from a $290 billion deficit to a $236 billion surplus, for a $526 improvement. The deficit did increase under Obama by $126 billion (though he cut it by more than half in his second term). Combined, they left the country $400 billion better off. The Bushes and Trump combined to add nearly $3.5 trillion to the deficit."
Decimating taxes on the rich takes a tremendous toll on government finances - but, hey, it does make for great space rides and plenty of big money for political contributions.
As to the impact across the breadth of our society:
"Finally, median household income increase: Democrats, 9.5 percent; Republicans, 0.6 percent. Yes, that’s 0.6 percent, as in less than 1. It went up under Trump by 9.2 percent, which is very good, but it went down under both Bushes. It went up 5 percent under Obama and around 14 percent under Clinton."
You won't hear this on Fox News (how would they have time to cover people wanting to specify their personal pronouns, or transgender bathroom issues, or the next Mexican caravan). In fact, you won't hear it expressed this clearly or dispassionately from actual news organizations either.
Wonderful book. Thought provoking. Challenging.