Rating: 
Summary: An Imperfect World
Review: "Government doesn't solve problems; government IS the problem!" With this characteristically succint rhetorical flourish Ronald Reagan crystallized the socio-econonmic debate which has defined the modern world. The struggle between the advocates of centralized economic control and those of market fundamentalism has underpinned every geo-political event since the 19th century. Recently, with the fall of Soviet Communism and the discrediting of socialist regimes worldwide, the concensus has built that the march of free markets is both inevitable and desirable. But Brink Lindsey, in this remarkably thoughtful and shaded analysis of globalization and its discontents, argues effectively that the struggle continues; the seductive inertia of central planning dies very hard in a culturally and economically disparate world.Most surprisingly Lindsey reveals himself to be anything but an idealogue. Though his thinking emerges from the premise that competition and free markets provide the best promise for growing worldwide prosperity and general human advancement(he is, after all, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute), "Against the Dead Hand" argues forcefully for a strong government role in economic affairs. While paying all due respect to the venerable Mr. Reagan and other free-market icons, he offers the view that government itself is not the problem. Specifically, government interference in the functioning of capital markets is the problem. Societies find trouble, Lindsey argues with forceful anecdotal evidence, when governments over-regulate, over-tax, impose trade sanctions like import quotas and subisidies, institute price controls, nationalize industries, any activity which distorts the market price mechanism. In one of the book's most interesting early chapters he discusses how decisions are made in human interaction, and how those decisions are signalled throughout large populations. In short, he makes a compelling case that the market mechanism works best in situations in which economic knowledge is limited. In these cases the sum of all economic decisions will provide optimum solutions. In situations where the production mechanisms and outcomes are known, centralized planning works best. The world we need to strive for, according to Lindsey, is one in which free markets can flourish in an environment in which civil and property rights are fiercely protected by a democratic government. Government's role is no more and no less than to provide the ground rules for playing the free market game. But without such a framework, the game can't be played with any economic relevance. In the course of his analysis Lindsey draws on empirical evidence spanning the past two centuries, and looks in on every corner of the globe. He exmamines economic development (and regression) in the former communist bloc, the Asian tigers, Latin America, and of course that imperfect ideal, the United States. He never misses an opportunity to pound the table for free trade, and argues that the dead hand of government (i.e., protectionism) is the very thing impeding the economic progress of the developing nations anti-globalists claim to be protecting. There's one area of murkiness, and perhaps it's only because it veers away from the always involving story of evolving world economic experience. In his discussion of where the ideas of market fundamentalism and centralization emerged from, he sometimes grabs conclusions out of the air. When times are unstable, he says, people harken back to the past, and hence when industrialisation happened, society collectively decided to find safety in a new form of feudalism (i.e., socialism) Maybe, but it's just conjecture. Didn't events influence things more than collective thinking? Do people really think en masse in defiance of all things practical? But as a whole the book is a noble attempt to piece together the myriad pieces of the global historical economic puzzle. Lindsey's conclusions on society's fate are tentative but hopeful. And his ideas are a search for the best in humanity.
Rating: 
Summary: A Great Read!
Review: "Against The Dead Hand" is an amazing read that explains the past, present, and probable future of globalization. It deepened my understanding of globalization by placing the phenomenon in a broader historical perspective. Compared to other books on this subject, "Against The Dead Hand" is much more analytically sophisticated and broader in historical sweep. Definitely worth the buy for anyone interested in global and economic issues and current events!!
Rating:
Summary: An Imperfect World
Review: "Government doesn't solve problems; government IS the problem!" With this characteristically succint rhetorical flourish Ronald Reagan crystallized the socio-econonmic debate which has defined the modern world. The struggle between the advocates of centralized economic control and those of market fundamentalism has underpinned every geo-political event since the 19th century. Recently, with the fall of Soviet Communism and the discrediting of socialist regimes worldwide, the concensus has built that the march of free markets is both inevitable and desirable. But Brink Lindsey, in this remarkably thoughtful and shaded analysis of globalization and its discontents, argues effectively that the struggle continues; the seductive inertia of central planning dies very hard in a culturally and economically disparate world. Most surprisingly Lindsey reveals himself to be anything but an idealogue. Though his thinking emerges from the premise that competition and free markets provide the best promise for growing worldwide prosperity and general human advancement(he is, after all, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute), "Against the Dead Hand" argues forcefully for a strong government role in economic affairs. While paying all due respect to the venerable Mr. Reagan and other free-market icons, he offers the view that government itself is not the problem. Specifically, government interference in the functioning of capital markets is the problem. Societies find trouble, Lindsey argues with forceful anecdotal evidence, when governments over-regulate, over-tax, impose trade sanctions like import quotas and subisidies, institute price controls, nationalize industries, any activity which distorts the market price mechanism. In one of the book's most interesting early chapters he discusses how decisions are made in human interaction, and how those decisions are signalled throughout large populations. In short, he makes a compelling case that the market mechanism works best in situations in which economic knowledge is limited. In these cases the sum of all economic decisions will provide optimum solutions. In situations where the production mechanisms and outcomes are known, centralized planning works best. The world we need to strive for, according to Lindsey, is one in which free markets can flourish in an environment in which civil and property rights are fiercely protected by a democratic government. Government's role is no more and no less than to provide the ground rules for playing the free market game. But without such a framework, the game can't be played with any economic relevance. In the course of his analysis Lindsey draws on empirical evidence spanning the past two centuries, and looks in on every corner of the globe. He exmamines economic development (and regression) in the former communist bloc, the Asian tigers, Latin America, and of course that imperfect ideal, the United States. He never misses an opportunity to pound the table for free trade, and argues that the dead hand of government (i.e., protectionism) is the very thing impeding the economic progress of the developing nations anti-globalists claim to be protecting. There's one area of murkiness, and perhaps it's only because it veers away from the always involving story of evolving world economic experience. In his discussion of where the ideas of market fundamentalism and centralization emerged from, he sometimes grabs conclusions out of the air. When times are unstable, he says, people harken back to the past, and hence when industrialisation happened, society collectively decided to find safety in a new form of feudalism (i.e., socialism) Maybe, but it's just conjecture. Didn't events influence things more than collective thinking? Do people really think en masse in defiance of all things practical? But as a whole the book is a noble attempt to piece together the myriad pieces of the global historical economic puzzle. Lindsey's conclusions on society's fate are tentative but hopeful. And his ideas are a search for the best in humanity.
Rating:
Summary: Nonfiction Does Not Get Any Better Than This Book.
Review: An extremely good discussion of the historical passion for centralized government from about 1880 to current times. Since the madness for large national governments was preceded by centuries of global free trade, the author labels the century plus long period that may now be ending the era of "Counter-industrialization". The subtitle "The Uncertain Struggle for Global Capitalism" clearly establishes the author's view that the reversal of the delirium for centralized government is far from over. The impediment of dictatorships, socialism and even the USA's form of centralized government have constrained and penalized the world's economy. The considerable damage was from tariffs, quotas and subsidies. It is not about the fall of Communism as one reviewer contends. The book is about a global hysteria for centralized government that grew out of the dramatic technology changes in the 18th century and the related sudden rise of successful large companies. While the success of these large organizations came from new technologies, massive numbers of citizens and leaders falsely leapt to the conclusion that success came from huge centralized organizations. His review of Germany, France, United Kingdom, help one understand how so many around the world, particularly underdeveloped countries and even the USA had a sympathetic hope and belief that Russia's communism or some form of socialism may be an alternative. Government leaders, even in the democratic countries, did great damage to many nations by building government regimentation into public services, business regulation and particularly international trade roll backs and constraints. Each individual nation developed the desire to strengthen war making advantages by increasing self sufficiency that seriously reversed economic benefits of trade. Nationalism in trade by tariffs and quotas slowed worldwide economic growth, contributed significantly to the Great Depression and was a horrible contributor to the many major wars not just WW I and WW II. His insights into false economic thinking that struggles to mislead leaders and citizens to this very day is very instructive. The book's title "Against the Dead Hand" indicates his conviction that while these views did not die with communism and other left wing passions they are nonetheless the remnants of failed governmental systems and views. USA government leadership, the press and business would be well served by reading this book. This book is about history and politics with a very small amount of basic economics. The vast majority of underdeveloped countries are intellectually trapped in the thinking patterns of the counter-industrialization according to Lindsey. This leaves then with little near-term hope. It, also, helps one understand how the United Nations majority can remain so misguided on where the global society is headed. The great leap forward is available to any nation that embraces the rule of law, property rights and a stable democracy according to Lindsey. Their thought is currently so poisoned by counter industrialization that little near term hope can be divined at this time. Lindsay makes his arguments in clumsy ways. Perhaps it his legal training. Frequently, he sends no signals as to the contention that he is going to make. The book is damaged by his presumption that readers must struggle with his desire to not be promptly understood. He is not using complex concepts rather using language in complex ways. Their is little in this book that will be hard to understand. There is not a lot of deep thought in the book. There is a lot of first class research and evaluation. The book suffers from discussing economic issues with a seeming utter fear that if the discussion is assisted by economic reasoning something bad is going to happen. He assumes that readers should know the details of why international trade is so powerfully good for the world economy and is a win win situation for all sides. Lindsey avoids economic analysis like the plague. Having read some of his biting reviews of other books on globalization, it seems only fair that he is assisted by similar directness in ones review. Cato would have been better served by seeking a more readable book for this extremely important topic from this author. He was the man for the job. He just blew it when it comes to readability and completeness on the economic analysis. If you don't have much economic knowledge you will probably resist the main thrust of this book. To distrust the conclusions of this book would be a tragedy. That risk to the reader exists since the author avoids the appropriate economic analysis. Like very few other authors Lindsey has a firm grasp on the importance in understanding that we do not have much ability at forecasting the future. Governments fail profoundly. Free markets persistently lead us in the right general direction. I very much believe his assertions are correct, but there is no book that I can point to that would help you understand how right Lindsey is on this point. The bottom line remains that the historical review of how the hysteria for vast centralized governments developed and evolved makes this a fantastic book. One of the best I have ever read.
Rating:
Summary: An unflinching look at globalization
Review: Books on "globalization" are common these days, but most don't contribute much to one's understanding of the overall phenomenon. Critics present laundry lists of problems that still exist in the world and then fault globalization either for causing them or for not solving them, ignoring the obvious gains achieved in recent decades. Proponents tell us where globalization is changing life for the better, but often fail to deal with the uneven nature of progress in the world. Why do some places flourish and some falter? Few books offer a complete and convincing picture of what globalization is, where it comes from, and what its limitations are. Against the Dead Hand does all of those things, and in an extremely readable format. It weaves history, economics, and politics together with interesting first-hand reporting from several of the world's economic quagmires. A thoughtful analysis that's suitable for both layman and academic alike. One of this book's great virtues is its broad sense of historical perspective. Lindsey describes the current trend of globalization not simply as an affirmative triumph of market ideology, but as an outgrowth of the collapse of the great collectivist ideologies of the past century: communism, fascism, and even FDR-style managed capitalism. In other words, free markets advanced primarily because the state receded -- not because political leaders had converted to some capitalist orthodoxy. Yet the collapse of state economic controls was far from total. Even though faith in central planning and top-down economic control has waned in recent years, the "dead hand" of the collectivist past -- the "accumulated institutions, mindsets, and vested interests of state-dominated economic development" -- still exerts a powerful influence on world affairs. Burdened as it is by the dead hand of the state, Lindsey shows how globalization is neither as widespread as its critics claim nor as firmly entrenched as its champions believe. The book concludes with a discussion of the events of 9/11 that draws connections between the current terrorist threat and the broader themes explored in the book. Specifically, Lindsey explores the ideological camaraderie evidenced by the more radical elements of the anti-globalization movement -- remnants of what he terms the "Industrial Counterrevolution" -- and the anti-modernist thought embodied in radical Islam. He convincingly argues that while many of globalization's critics sell themselves as friends of the poor, they are in fact enemies of prosperity. Feeling insecure and left behind by the modern world, they seek to stop it -- a goal they must not be allowed to achieve. Whether you're a fan of free markets or not, this book is worth your time. It's not a sugar-coated view of globalization, nor does it reject the critical role that governments have to play as the world grows closer together. It is, rather, an unflinchingly clear description of where we've been on the road to modernity and the perils that yet lie before us. I highly recommend it.
Rating: 
Summary: Painfully ignorant and simplistic--an embarrasment to Cato
Review: Brink Lindsey is a fundamentalist. He believes that "free trade" will cure every problem in the world. And he believes that a lack of "free trade" is to blame for wars, poverty, and all other ills of humankind. Unfortunately, Lindsey seems to possess a childish understanding of "free trade," of world history, and of economics. To take just one flaw, in a book filled with flaws... Rather than carefully examine the wholesale gutting of Russia, when free trade fanatics took over (in the early 1990s), and when the Russian economic nearly collapsed, industrial output plunged, corruption and crime roared, prostitution exploded, AIDS and drug epidemics devoured the nation, poverty is up exponentially--and Lindsey can only say that they didn't go far enough! Three billion humans live on less than a dollar a day--and while 45 million human beings face death from AIDS, Lindsey offers them only the market. Most of them will die, while free marketeers talk of future salvation. One need only read Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz's Globalization and its Discontents for a far more intelligent overview of capitalism today. Stiglitz, who is an ardent fan of capitalism, carefully disects the ways in which "free trade" is often anything but. The problem with free market lunatics like Lindsey is that they fail to see the ways in which powerful nations and corporations bully the marketplace, control politics, and stack the deck in their favor. Just look at the cartels which control oil, fruit, cocoa, diamonds, automobiles, etc. They control prices, laws, wages, and politics around the globe. They profit from wars and from child labor. It takes either a fool or a free market fantasy to miss these basic problems with unregulated "free trade." Like all fundamentalists, Lindsey needs less faith and fervor and more critical analysis.
Rating:
Summary: Painfully ignorant and simplistic--an embarrasment to Cato
Review: Brink Lindsey is a fundamentalist. He believes that "free trade" will cure every problem in the world. And he believes that a lack of "free trade" is to blame for wars, poverty, and all other ills of humankind. Unfortunately, Lindsey seems to possess a childish understanding of "free trade," of world history, and of economics. To take just one flaw, in a book filled with flaws... Rather than carefully examine the wholesale gutting of Russia, when free trade fanatics took over (in the early 1990s), and when the Russian economic nearly collapsed, industrial output plunged, corruption and crime roared, prostitution exploded, AIDS and drug epidemics devoured the nation, poverty is up exponentially--and Lindsey can only say that they didn't go far enough! Three billion humans live on less than a dollar a day--and while 45 million human beings face death from AIDS, Lindsey offers them only the market. Most of them will die, while free marketeers talk of future salvation. One need only read Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz's Globalization and its Discontents for a far more intelligent overview of capitalism today. Stiglitz, who is an ardent fan of capitalism, carefully disects the ways in which "free trade" is often anything but. The problem with free market lunatics like Lindsey is that they fail to see the ways in which powerful nations and corporations bully the marketplace, control politics, and stack the deck in their favor. Just look at the cartels which control oil, fruit, cocoa, diamonds, automobiles, etc. They control prices, laws, wages, and politics around the globe. They profit from wars and from child labor. It takes either a fool or a free market fantasy to miss these basic problems with unregulated "free trade." Like all fundamentalists, Lindsey needs less faith and fervor and more critical analysis.
Rating:
Summary: The Hand That Won't Die
Review: Brink Lindsey's thesis is that there is really nothing inevitable about the modern thrust toward open markets on a global scale and that opposition to the market still reonates despite the obvious failures of the "dead hand" alternative, defined roughly as the era of the state as economic planner, the tendency toward centralization with all its inevitable rigidity. Lindsey seeks "to bring globalization to terms with its past" by examining "the rise and fall of the old order, whose collapsed clearned the way for our current era of worldwide commerce." This is not, however, a tired historical recitation of how Fredrich Hayek was right and all others were wrong. Lindsey tackles a range of current issues, including banking failures, the need to reformulate safety nets, and the real motivation behind the anti-globalization forces that converged on Seattle (and have since brought their madness to Washington and European cities). An epilogue places September 11th in the context of the dead hand (though here I think Lindsey is stuffing too much in what the Italian political scientist, Giovanni Sartori, was called the "concept bucket"). Lindsey's book is essential reading in one of the most provacative debates in modern history. Juxtaposed against his views are, among others, those of Will Hutton (The World We're In). Mr. Hutton, ostensibly doesn't seek a return to central planning, but very much worries about the American variety of capitalism, urging Europe to go its own way as a counter-weight to America. (A tough read, Hutton, who grates on my proud American nerves). What makes "against the dead hand" worth reading is precisely the fact that the hand won't die. Central planning on an epic scale is likely dead, but vestiges of it are alive and well, not because people want to throw away the market's upside, but because they want to cushion its volatility. This is an excellent text to learn the philosophical underpinnings of this debate, to grasp the empirical record of the "dead hand," and to confront some of the pressing, current issues that are shaping policy thought and action as the struggle enters a new century.
Rating:
Summary: A Fresh and Well-Argued Discussion of Globalization
Review: Challenging the new consensus on globalization in this book, Brink Lindsey "portrays globalization as a kind of wholesome vacuum filler, the vacuum having been created by the loss of credibility and authority of statism and collectivism, the regnant economic and political doctrines in the world for most of the twentieth century. Near-universal statism, he maintains, choked off the naturally expansive impulses of capital, the precedent for which was the explosion of the world economy in the half-century or so before World War I. He claims that blame for the interwar implosion of the world economy lies with statism and collectivism. He sees the future as a struggle between forces of globalization -- a liberal world order, that is -- and the remnants of statism, giving the nod to liberalism in this contest because of its successful record in promoting economic welfare, in contrast to the proven failure of statism and collectivism." "This book is a qualified success because of its fresh and carefully argued perspective on economic globalization," yet "certain aspects of Lindsey's economic history may not stand up to scrutiny." "A methodological point of considerable significance is Lindsey's use of qualitative evidence to show that statism refuses to die and is defended everywhere by vested interests and laws that are difficult to change, making the struggle between the dead hand and the invisible one a momentous issue of our time. Although Lindsey is correct to assert that the dead hand remains with us, it is nonetheless difficult to form a clear picture of the extent, strength, or influence of the past from his discussion." Thus, it would be helpful if Lindsey showed "more carefully than he does that free-market forces have the stronger hand to play. His argument in one brief -- indeed, cursory -- chapter is merely that no viable alternative to markets exists as a macroeconomic organizing principle, so that the triumph of liberalism sooner or later must arrive despite stubborn and effective resistance from the forces of the dead hand. This conclusion assumes a certain degree of rationality and pragmatism on the part of the world body politic that some...might not yet be willing to grant." -From "The Independent Review," Spring 2003
Rating:
Summary: "Dead Hand" is Dead On
Review: I highly recommend this book. Lindsey achieves what many of his contemporaries have tried, and failed, to do: to write an insightful and unbiased account of the past, present, and future of the global economy that is not only dead-on, but also actually ENTERTAINING. Lindsey expertly weaves the history and philosophy underlying the struggle between collectivism and capitalism with interesting first-person analogies and easily identifiable current events. The result is a must-read book that clearly explains the present state of the global economy and globalization's role therein. Lindsey's analysis shows us that globalization and the free-market movement is not the culture-destroying, poverty-exploiting Frankenstein monster as portrayed by the anti-trade globalphobes. However, it also isn't, as many pro-market idealists optimistically assert, a new and inevitable force that will effortlessly carry us all to the "Promised Land" of wealth and prosperity. The reality is much less rosy and clear, for as Lindsey deftly demonstrates, the current state of the world's economy is a crazy mixture of new, pro-market reforms and remnants of collectivist policies clinging desperately to a failed past. And when these policies clash, as the economic collapses in Mexico, Asia, and most recently Argentina indicate, the results are anything but nice and neat. The "solution" for these nations and others is not the abolition of free-market policies or the maintenance of the status quo, but rather the slow, careful, and sometimes painful movement away from the failed anti-market past to the proven results of the free market and rule of law. The world hasn't arrived in the Promised Land, and, really, a lot of it isn't even close. But at least now we have a good map.
|
