Rating: 
Summary: Facts but no analysis.
Review: It's hard to learn anything from Wealth and Democracy because it's chocked full of historical facts without any meaningful analysis. The author seems to start with a set of conclusions and then fills a book full of facts; without tying those facts to his conclusions. For instance, he continually represents inequality in wealth in a negative light as if the inequality itself was somehow unjust. He seems to make no distinction between the man who has earned the wealth .vs. the man who has attained it via government favors. In my opinion, these are glaring oversights. The author realizes there is an incompatibility between wealth and democracy, but attributes the problem to wealth while holding democracy as the ideal. This is a very common, but incorrect, view. Wealth is not the problem, nor is the loss of democracy. Democracy is a vital part of our political system, but should not be used to resolve all problems. In particular, it should not used at the expense of individual rights. In fact, democracy can not exist without the concept of individual rights. Consider a society where there are no rights, only pure democracy. What would happen if the majority could vote your money or life away from you? What would happen if the majority could elect people who have the power to determine who can start a business and how it's operated? It's easy to see that groups of people would band together and form political allegiances against each other. In fact, their very survival would depend on it. Certain groups would obtain more power than other groups and use that power to further restrict the less powerful groups. It wouldn't be long before democracy was completely eliminated. This has been the progression during the 20th century. From New Deal proponents to the current Bush Administration, Democrat or Republican, the consistent trend has been to increase the powers of the government and limit individual rights. Democracy has suffered as a result. Every time we attempt to reign-in wealth by increasing government control over the production of wealth, we bring the production of wealth and the use of force (i.e. government) closer together. Even though many argue these controls are needed to protect democracy, they actually move us away from democracy and toward aristocracy. Wealth and democracy ARE incompatible, not because they can not exist together, but because democracy can not be used to control wealth; and wealth can not be used to control democracy. Attempting either will result in some sort of dictatorship. The protection against this is NOT an allegiance to democracy, but to rights. Rights (or the limit of government powers) are the key ingredient. It would be nice if authors like Kevin Phillips would do more than present a grab-bag of facts that show an existance of a relationship between wealth and democracy and actually address the causes and effects of these relationships.
Rating: 
Summary: Is it just me???
Review: Check out these five star reviews. Don't they all appear to be written by the same person and/or by a publicity agency? I mean, perfect grammar, spelling and syntax. No errors. All say the same thing. I am starting to wonder how many of those five star reviewers actually read the book. Or if that one person who reposts the same thing really read the book. It's not that good. I know, I've read it. All reviewers do their best not to make mistakes. But C'mon these are just too good. Especially if you actually read the book and a bonifide reviewer, not just someone who is being paid to promote it. I read it and don't recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: Pure Garbage!
Review: If you have a fire place, this book would make great firewood. Keep in mind, this is the guy that helped get Nixon elected. Need I say more?
Rating: 
Summary: Not a light read, but the serious reader will be rewarded.
Review: The reviews below by Viberg and figvine are excellent synopses of the content of Phillips's book. I would just like to add a little logistical information for the prospective buyer. This book is 422 pages long (hardcover edition, first printing 2002), not counting appendices, endnotes, bibliography, and index. I'm guessing a word count of around 400,000. There are dozens of tables and charts. In other words, this is not an easy read. (Probably this is pretty obvious, granted.) A second issue to be aware of, which may not be as clear, is that above all else, this is a history. (Yes, the subtitle is "A Political History of the American Rich"; here is a case of accurate titling.) It has the spice of politics and business-government relationships throughout, but in each of the three major parts the text is divided among, the reader will visit the Spanish, Dutch, and British empires, as well as three centuries of America's rise as an economic and political power. Such a broad coverage makes this book substantive and lends weight to Phillips's thesis, but...it requires a commitment of some studiousness on the part of the reader. With that proviso, I recommend this book highly. The conclusions Phillips makes are powerful, clarifying, and at a very deep level disconcerting.
Rating:
Summary: One mans opinion.
Review: Kevin Phillips is very opinionated and not very accurate. If this sort of thing interests you, by all means buy it and enjoy.
Rating:
Summary: The best use of this book would be as a....
Review: paperweight or door stopper. Highly opinionated. Very biased. Read it at the library, if at all.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting argument, suspect conclusions
Review: This is definitely a worthwhile read for anyone interested in economics and politics, I'll say that and get it out of the way right now. That said, I don't agree with all of Phillips' conclusions. Phillips goes to great lengths to compare the US to Great Britain and Holland during their peaks, claiming that America will fall for the same reasons that brought down these empires. Yet neither Holland nor Britain ever had the contiguous geographic breadth of the United States and command of such vast natural resources. I think this matters. Secondly, I believe that much of the ills of capitalism that Phillips describes apply not just to the US but the entire first world. Much of the "overfinancialization" of the market can be traced to European firms in recent years. Credit Suisse and Deutsch Bank were huge players in recent US bubble economics. As was Daimler. Yet Phillips holds up Germany and Switzerland as virtuous. As an aside, this book is often hopelessly repeatative. That said, you should still read it.
Rating: 
Summary: Powerful, Prescient, and Persuasive
Review: I'll keep my review very short. Kevin Phillips predicted the United States was due for a major financial and economic correction. Anyone reading the headlines in the past week (July 15th, 2002) can see how right he was -- and continues to be. We haven't yet begun to realize the downstream implications of the Dow's meltdown, but I'd wager they'll be traumatic. You can agree or disagree with his politics, his historical interpretations, or his chartology, but his predictive powers are impressive. Want to understand what's behind the bad news coming out of Wall Street? Want to know why the Bush II crowd is impotent to deal with the issues? Read Kevin Phillips.
Rating:
Summary: Skip this---Read Millionaire Next Door instead
Review: I didn't buy this book, but browsed it at our local Borders so perhaps I missed a few points, perhaps not.To me, Phillips makes it appear that there is an imbalance in wealth solely because the rich have some sort of control over the government. Really?How did these billionaires and the rich acquire their wealth? I assure you that it wasn't from the government.The problem with this book is that it preys to the rich should take care of the poor mentality. That the rich should pay more in taxes and reduce what the poor have to pay. Actually, anyone who is financially savvy, knows how to reduce their taxes without the rich paying the tab.I can't argue with Phillips historical data but I believe that Phillips sends out the wrong message (deliberately??)to attract people who would prefer to rationalize for their lack of wealth and blame it on politics and supposed opportunities that the rich have and are unavailable to them. BULL!Poeple need to get off their duffs. Read empowering books like The Millionaire Next Door which Phillips takes a poke at and leave excuse filled books like this one alone. Get to work.Someone once said that you can make money or make excuses. I contend that this book is attempting to make excuses just like Profits and Politics did back in 1990. Interesting is that the stock market and the economy grew dramaticly right after Profits & Power was released. Deju Vu????My recommendtion is to buy good books like Millionaire Next Door and leave this one for the intellectual excuse makers.The same kind of people that watch the evening news, read newsweek and polute their minds with garbage love this sort of junk.
Rating:
Summary: An Educated Middle Class Are The Foundations Of Freedom!
Review: The book is a dichotomy of truth and fiction with prejudice opinions ending up with the appearance of seemingly correct conclusion that is in reality pseudo in substance. Yet, the kind of debate this causes is necessary for the good of all now and I commend the book on its timing. For example, I found some major errors in the book such as the origins of Terrorism. Today's terrorism was a 19th Century Russian invention based on any scholarly interpretation and not started in France! Yes, the word terrorism was first used in 1795, a grim spawn of the Reign of Terror by the French revolutionaries to consolidate their regime by killing their enemies and intimidating the potential opposition but not just the ruling elite. However, it was the 19th century when terrorists became more political with the idea of attacking governments by Anarchists who do not like government, corporations, or authority. It was the Russian terrorists who first attacked members of the elite ruling class for the sole purpose to take down the system. This is a fine example how the author misuses some facts, intertwine with the correct history of the definitions of words but creates erroneous opinions and claims them as correct conclusions when they are not in foundation of facts. Consequently, calling America an aristocracy or plutocracy is truthful, but is it because we let the plutocracy rule us or is it because we choose not to rule ourselves? What I am saying is the book is unclear on many answers it thinks are real but are not in reality. A very difficult fine line whereby some misguided person will no doubt quote as gospel leaving us with poor policies not on facts but fake opinions. On the other hand, the author deserves great admiration for focusing on the coming debates to decide our future. Unless we are to conclude that our fates like the book tries to explain are already decided by the ruling elite? I mean if we are controlled by a plutocracy do they not control publications and ideas such as this book. Another wonderful example of why the reader must be forewarned before jumping to thinking he found the Holy Grail of Political Economic policies here! I did find delightful how conservatives and liberals benefit each other by governmental regulations being place upon the masses for the good of all in the end. For instance, John Heinz of Heinz Ketchup fame was the leader in passing the Food & Drug Act. He did so because some producers of food products due to filthy food practices actually ended up poisoning people. When someone heard someone died from a bottle of bad ketchup it hurt Heinz as much as others. Thus, because Heinz's was already practicing healthy food preparation it was no burden to him. In the end, the creation of the FDA and Public Health Inspectors and regulations eliminated many of his competitors for the good of the public and especially Heinz pocketbook at the same time. Heinz did so in his own interest but it was not a bad thing in the end for all. There is no question that big corporations by way of political contributions appoint who is selected to be part of the FDA or Agriculture. So do you think they foster competition or stop it is what the book makes you think about, but the author opinion is not the sole conclusion is what I am asking you to think about? There is no question FDR Reforms were passed to save our nation from a major revolution. But it was World War II that created an economic boom and few of FDR's policies worked as expected in the end. Even Conservative Baron von Bismark's policies of social security promoted by Al Smith and adopted by FDR are now endangered. When the many retire and the few working cannot support them, the program collapses like a ponzy scheme. Public governmental investments of 2% return will no longer be the sole solution and private market investments are needed. Yet, Democrats will use this issue to confuse us as Republicans stand silently by in political fear. Today you richest and most powerful senators and congressman are Democrats who benefit from planned economies over free market policies that would provide competition. The book correctly points out how the Middle Class investors are the lasts in any economic boom and left holding the bag of debt. In my flawing opinion, the rich and poor are alike, neither pay much taxes, do not care how they dress, do not work, and benefit from governmental policies far more than the middle class. The book is an outstanding start of where we need to change things for the Third World because it will not benefit from economic aid until they build a middle class. Freidrich von Hayek's in "The Constitution of Liberty," said that Laissez-faire economics is not enough. Government does have a clear role to ensure the development and maintenance of a competitive economy. Hayek's philosophical opposite was John Maynard Keyes who said, "Sooner Or Later It Is Ideas, Not Vested Interests, Which Are Dangerous For Good Or Evil," The book is just the start of a debate of values but in the end each of our own values will dictate our future.
| 
