Wealth and Democracy : A Political History of the American Rich

Rating:
Summary: Phillips' usual thorough analysis
Review: It is hard to imagine someone who has a better grasp of the issues related to the implications of economic policy and overall economic health than Kevin Phillips. From "The Politics of Rich and Poor" onwards, Phillips continues to distinguish himself both with regard to the breadth of his knowledge and his ability to avoid falling into either "right wing" or "left wing" ideologies. "Wealth and Democracy" is thoroughly researched, carefully presented, and the implications of the trends he analyzes are "musts" for anyone who wants to get their "arms around" this complex of issues. The main thesis of this book is that repeated economic cycles have demonstrated that as wealth concentrations grow (the amount of wealth held by few families/persons), democracy suffers as the political landscape becomes increasingly skewed by those concentrations of wealth. (To suggest, for example, that Phillips is "anti-well-to-do" would be a gross over-exaggeration that largely misses the point.) One could easily expect a book with so many charts, graphes, and other analytic tools to be boring or hard to follow, but Phillips keeps one's attention from beginning to end with a serious, yet entertaining style. Frankly, one can only wish our contemporary policy makers had half Phillips' grasp of economic policy implications. Whatever criticisms one might have of Phillips' work in general, his works are always remarkably well researched, and "Wealth and Democracy" is no exception to that general observation. It will take some concentration to follow all the details of "Wealth and Democracy," but the time necessary to avoid a "thin" understanding of the material will be well worth the effort. While, say, a book of anecdotes (perhaps like "The Lexus and the Olive Branch"), or books about "get rich quick" schemes might be easier to follow, they do not begin to compare to the analytical nature of Phillips' work, and the rewards would be nowhere near as great. If one is determined to bring "laissez faire" presuppositions to the reading of this book, one might prefer to avoid "Wealth and Democracy" as it will be difficult to maintain both those presuppositions and one's integrity in light of Phillips' thorough analysis.

Rating:
Summary: Waste of time and money
Review: Wealth & Democracy is a very mistitled book. It should be called 2nd rate authors attacking the wealthy. Subtitled: Using Democracy as a ploy to attack the wealthy.

Phillips presents a very old and stale message here that somehow the rich should take care of the poor (hint: they already are - the rich provide jobs and create opportunities) or that "you should not take away one of the only options left to slow down the wealthy." "Slow down!" Why should anyone want to slow down the rich? Slow down Bill Gates, Micheal Dell, Larry Ellison etc and you slow down the economy and job growth.

Clearly the author and his shill are presenting a very biased opinion. Phillips is the reason that I turned democrat. Remember, Phillips is a republican.

Caveat emptor.

Rating:
Summary: Informative and clear-eyed
Review: Kevin Phillips book, for all the wrath it seems to inspire in these reader reviews, is actually a tremendously sensible and well-supported book, without any alarmism, or any of the bitterness or class-warfare that might hurt his argument. In fact, Phillips gives one of the best explanations for why class warfare has never worked in America--beyond the simplistic Horatio Alger myths. In short, Phillips is not attacking the system, so much as showing its current predicament, and describing how America has faced such challenges before. If anything, much of his information is comforting, in that it shows seasonal shifts in America's distribution of wealth.

True, Phillips does suggest that the current plutocracy in America is similar to that which occurred in England, Holland, and the Spanish Hapsburg Empire during their eras of decline, but he stops well short of predicting the same fall from exceptionalism for America. Rather, WEALTH AND DEMOCRACY is a cautionary tale, one written with admiration and affection for the American system, not with scorn. He is a Republican who dislikes Republican free-market utopianism as much as the Democrats' social-program utopianism; and this is a refreshing approach.

Phillips is just the sort of social and economic critic America needs in a time when most books of this kind seem polarized--either with Howard Zinn and Michael Moore, or Catherine Coulter and Bill O'Reilly. What results is a wonderfully sober book--a political history of America that seems virtually untainted by politics.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting Information, Disappointing Analysis,
Review: In Wealth and Democracy, Kevin Phillips does provide a lot of interesting information culled from a range of primary and seconday sources but overall the book is disjointed and repetitious, thin on analysis and somewhat baffling as to conclusions and recommendations.

The author covers the economic history of, mostly, Holland, England and the United States, primarily (I think) to make the point that wealth concentrates into the top 1% of the population that then becomes too politically powerful and corrupt and prone to rampant speculation in the stock markets, excessive rent-seeking behavior and overseas investment, while the middle class stagnates (at best) and the bottom quintile sinks ever lower into misery. Fair enough and hardly a revelation but the actual causality i.e. wealth concentration=excessive power, corruption and speculation=suffering for everyone else=economic decline is hardly original. Okay, its not fair for so few to have so much - but what is his recommendation to change this? Income redistribution? Fine, but how and to what likely effect? Okay, rampant and manic stock speculation is stupid and certainly creates serious problems when bust follows boom and late (often middle class) investors take a beating. But what is the point and what does he recommend we do about it? Okay, tax cuts that favor the top 1% are a bad idea, but again what is the point? And, since he appears to be saying that all wealth concentration results from technology booms (canals, railroads, electricity, computers) does he mean we shouldn't have had any new technologies?

Although he doesn't explicity state it, it would appear he advocates income and wealth redistribution and strong regulation of everything but without stating how or why this would have stopped the ultimate loss of economic power by Holland and Britain or why it would stave off the same loss in the U.S. which he asserts is following suit.

And, not to be too nitpicky, but the editor should be spanked real hard for producing, or allowing the author to produce, one of the most user unfriendly books of all time. The 'notes' section is by chapter but notes are not numbered so it is difficult to follow from text to notes and a lot of the text seems to be inadequately referenced. The 'bibliography' is also by chapter but not alphabetized nor listed in any order I can divine and thus utterly incoherent. For example, a book is referenced in chapter 9 but does not appear in the chapter 9 bibliography, rather it appears in the chapter 3 bibliograpy but it is not referenced in the chapter 3 text. The only book I've seen produced this way and I hope the last. There is also an appendix of data that is never referenced so why is it included? And, the section, chapter and sub-section titles are toooo long and often confusingly repetitous as well. And why does every chapter have to open with several pages telling me what he's going to tell me and how it all fits together?

Despite the above rant, I read the entire book and learned several things from the data and information provided but can only give it a luke warm recommendation overall. It should have been only half as long.

Rating:
Summary: Follow the money....
Review: I figure that 95% of the readers of this book will think "We're really getting used." The remaining 5% - the wealthiest 5% of Americans - will no doubt think "We've got it made!" In short, Phillips thoroughly documents the ways that the wealthiest interests in this country pretty much get all they want, often at the expense of the rest of us.

Despite the subtitle of the book, this book is really only nominally a history. After the first couple of chapters, history takes a back seat as Phillips gets more involved with economics and political science. The book's organization is a limited success and there is more than a little redundancy. In addition, the book's principal ideas have a certain hopelessness about them as he puts forth the problem and poses no real solution (other than to ride out things until we get to a more progressive era). To have this same message repeated over and over again from different angles makes this a downbeat book.

Phillips does deserve credit for presenting a good case, backed by a lot of supporting evidence and even if his organization isn't the greatest, he can write well in his limits. And despite the depresssing nature of his book, it is information that needs to get out.

Rating:
Summary: Wealth against Commonwealth
Review: This is a clear exposition of political economics. The general thesis is not new. The widening gap in financial strength between the wealthy and the middle and lower classes interferes with the healthy functioning of democratic institutions. Wealth versus Commonwealth. Class warfare. It seems to be the natural order of things for there to be periodic accumulations of massive wealth and power in the hands of a few (particularly around times of booms associated with new technology) which leads to an inevitable bust and governmental policies to redistribute the wealth more widely. Kevin Phillips does a masterful job of showing these historic cycles. He uses Hapsburg Spain in the 1500s and early 1600s and the accumulation of wealth from the exploitation of the new world as the first modern example. The Dutch were the immediate successors to the Spanish with textiles and shipbuilding in the 1600s and 1700s in the waves of boom and bust cycles. The English followed with railroads in the 1800s and early 1900s.The most recent boom-bust cycle was associated with the current Americans infatuation with high technology. His thesis tends to minimize the notion that those who take great risks might deserve great reward.

These massive accumulations of wealth in the hands of a few lead to control of democratic institutions as a means of preserving and increasing wealth. Or in the words of mark Twain "I think I can say, and say with pride that we have legislatures that bring higher prices than any in the world." Also the influence of non elected officials such as the Federal Reserve and Federal Judges increases during periods of disproportionate wealth accumulation. In addition schemes to increase markets and drive down labor costs i.e. globalization result. After the bust more socialistic policies prevail. Examples from American history include the aftermath of the Civil War with the rise of the Republicans through the gilded age and the roaring twenties until the start of the great depression. Subsequent Democratic control with FDR saying "I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it, the forces of selfishness and lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master" achieved the first great realignment of wealth since the Civil War. The Republicans later gained control in the late 1960s and have held control through the speculative mania associated with the technology boom. Bill Clinton is described as glorying in stock market gains as much or more than any Republican predecessor.
Wealth and Democracy makes the case that the current grossly disproportionate share of wealth in the hands of the few built up under predominately Republican policies calls for a return of Democratic policies of wealth realignment for the common good. And this is from Kevin Phillips who was the chief political analyst for the 1968 Republican presidential campaign, and in 1969 published The Emerging Republican Majority.

Rating:
Summary: Don't attack W&D untill you have read it.
Review: 1 star reviewers, at least do Mr. Phllips the dignity of reading the book before you bash it. Keep in mind that Phillips is a republican and as an American, has the virtue of freedom of speech. Read the book and then come back and state your "opinions."Or----are your minds so frozen that you cannot accept any other viewpoints than whay you percieve to be true?Read it first!

Rating:
Summary: The Atrocity Continues: Tax Cuts for the Plutocracy
Review: I have read the insipid and thoughtless reviews of the various constituents of greed. They neither attack Phillip's statistics nor his conclusions. They simply state that the Constitution does not guarantee wealth. Are these persons Americans? I would revise that term; instead, I would describe them as Social Darwinists.(A n apology to Mr. Darwin who never endorsed that philosophy.) American individualism is an important trait of the national character, yet civil-mindedness and social beneficience are also important values. Even if you are a member of the Right, pick up this book -- at the library if you are parsimonious as well as unsure as to its value. It is well-researched and his conclusions are based on hard data. Kevin Phillips is not a raving socailist. Thus, ad hominum attacks are unfounded since Mr. Phillips is a Republican.

Rating:
Summary: Moderately interesting - Ignore 1 star bashers
Review: Pay no heeed to those mindless 1 star reviewers who hastily write
negative reviews on this book. Phillips is shaking things up and working for democracy. He is moderate and a republican from the old school working for democracy.

This book should be read by anyone who truly loves this country.

Rating:
Summary: Informative Economic History
Review: This book is informative and well-argued. Phillips supports his claims with compelling historical and contemporary evidence. He appears to be a political moderate. Certainly he is no alarmist. Don't be fooled by hastily-written reviews: Phillips' views are not socialist. This book is a must-read for anyone interested in the state of our economic union.