Rating: 
Summary: America Under Fiscal Occupation
Review: In this intelligent and extremely accessible book, prize-winning economist and New York Times business columnist, Paul Krugman accomplishes two important things. First, Krugman provides what is probably the most important and accurate assessment of the Bush Regime in public discourse to date. Second, Krugman uses a combination of basic arithmetic and reading comprehension with a modest amount of economic theory to examine how the economic policies of the Bush Regime impact the majority of Americans. Although Krugman is hardly an ideologue, his findings produce dismal and frankly frightening conclusions about the Bush Regime. Krugman argues that Bush and his crony capitalist power base are out for themselves no matter how destructive an impact their policies have on American lives and on the very foundation of the nation itself. Drawing on the early writings of Henry Kissinger, Krugman characterizes the Bush Regime as a revolutionary power whose leaders refuse to accept the legitimacy of the current American political system and who are taking radical steps to change it. Seen in this context, the inexplicable fiscal and economic disasters of the Bush Regime begin to make sense. The Bush Regime does not really believe that it can provide social services to the majority of Americans along with a massive tax giveaway to the rich, but it publicly makes this claim knowing that the press and the majority of Americans will never examine whether or not it is possible. According to Krugman, we have inherited a political climate in which leadership is judged exclusively by the appeal of its appearance and speech acts, and never by the ramifications of its policies. As a result, Krugman argues, the Bush Regime can make endless promises to the electorate without fearing the results of failing to deliver. Krugman argues that when radical extremists such as the Bush Regime come to power, they generally encounter little resistance even when they implement dreadful and unpopular policies such as the gradual dismantling of social security and medicare. This takes place, according to Krugman because people either take the radical extremists' policies at face value instead of examining their actual impact, or worse yet, once they realize how disastrous these policies are, they sit back and hope that the radical extremists will eventually moderate their behavior. But this will never happen, as Krugman correctly points out, because radical extremists remain bound to their ideological convictions no matter what the result. Krugman warns readers that the findings in his book are quite depressing. The majority of Americans are funding the Bush Regime's tax giveaway to the super rich and they will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Under the Bush Regime's current fiscal policies, the elimination of social security, medicare, and other social services that most of us have paid for with payroll taxes is inevitable. The massive deficits generated by the Bush Regime's runaway spending will eventually result in large interest rate hikes whose consequences will include astronomical mortgage and credit card bills, and of course personal bankruptcy for many. These policies, in other words will break the back of the middle class financially, politically, and socially. Seen from that context they may be cruel and ruthless but they are not the product of stupidity. Ultimately, Krugman argues, the only beneficiaries of the Bush Regime's economic policies will be a tiny minority of crony capitalists in very specific industries included but not limited to energy companies, auditing firms, and of course defense contractors. The rest of American businesses however can look forward to the flight of foreign investment capital in a manner that is comparable to the Asian economic crisis in the late 90s. Corporate scandals, according to Krugman, required an immediate push for justice and reform on the part of the executive branch of government not for moral reasons but to assure foreign investors that they could trust American companies with their money. But the Bush Regime is bound too tightly to known corporate criminals, according to Krugman and cannot implement the necessary punishments, checks and balances to make the system safe for investment again. This portends disastrous consequences for the American economy for years to come. Some may object to the format of this book that consists of a few introductory essays and a series of the author's New York Times columns arranged chronologically according to specific categories. I found this format particularly useful however, because many of the most important arguments are repeated in several different contexts over an extended period of time. As a result, difficult concepts, such as the relationship between deficit spending and rising interest rates, are presented to the reader and gradually refined through a series of different arguments. By the end of the book, even readers such as myself who are ignorant of economic theory will easily grasp the implications of payroll taxes, deficit spending, supply side economics, and transparent standards for reporting corporate profits. I urge all Americans, regardless of their political convictions to read this book. Conservatives will quickly discover that there is nothing conservative about the Bush Regime's fiscal policies, which are in fact radical. Similarly, this book may help liberals to realize that the most critical issue in American politics today is actually conservative in nature. Do we want a government that disrupts and dismantles the time honored political and economic foundations of America to pursue its own radical agenda, or do we want to honor the conservative tradition of keeping our nation and our way of life intact? Of course ideologues on the right and the left will never agree on anything, but moderate conservatives and progressives should realize that the very fabric of their nation is being altered against their will-and often in their name.
Rating: 
Summary: He should have written a book rather then a collection
Review: Krugman, eminent columnist and economist, has compiled many of his great essays and many lesser works into this single volume that he says chronicles the 'unraveling' of America under the Bush administration. The sad part here is not that his points are well made or that his essays are not good writing, the tragedy is he should have written a book and combined the ideas from his essays to form chapter outlines. As a collection this is a weak read where much fat is included with the meat. Not impressive, its almost as if he wanted to get it published before the election so he choose not to edit or expand on his central ideas. Badly presented material which otherwise is interesting, not the correct format.
Rating:
Summary: Well-written, but a bit liberal for my blood.
Review: This book is a collection of the author's editorials previously published in none other than The New York Times. While the book is well-written, the author's ideas are a bit too liberal for my blood.
Rating:
Summary: Prescient!!!
Review: I stumbled onto Krugman's column in the NY Times after several years of closely following this country's politics and economy on or about 1993. After reading this book I am seriously considering moving out of USA to perhaps Canada or somewhere else until America's love story with the Republican right and the Christian coalition comes to an end. Krugman has been right in the past and I think he is on the dot concerning the future. I am skeptical about any optimistic numbers that come out of this White House given their propensity to simply lie and prevaricate about anything. Remember, these are the people of God who maintain that lying in a good cause is not a sin. Its a good thing that we have people like Krugman and Kevin Phillips around who constantly keep talking and keeping the facts of the politics and economy in this country out there in the public eye. Oh, by the way, I am an evangelical Christian.
Rating: 
Summary: Some Great Columns Add Up to Less-Than-Great Book
Review: Of course a book like this is going to polarize people whose feet are already firmly planted on the "left" or the "right." But since most of the political pundits have stopped listening to each other, who cares? The pundits have their quotes ready (i.e., both in praise and in opposition) before the book even goes to print. The ammo flying back and forth is what makes me cynical about American politics, because it is so blatantly obvious that many in the political process don't give a hoot about the truth or making the country better, they just want to win at any cost. Krugman's book should be judged by its ability to persuade open-minded, independent-thinking people. Against this standard, the book is thought provoking and important but flawed. The flaw arises because this is simply a collection of columns over a three-year period, organized thematically rather than chronologically. As such, Krugman's tendency is to repeat serious accusations rather than build a solid, fact-based and logically progressive argument. Let me be specific. Krugman is a serious economist with a serious concern about Bush's fiscal policy, and-if he is right-there is potentially a serious consequence. To boil it down and oversimplify, his argument on fiscal policy: 1. The Bush team cooked up its tax cut plan (which favors the wealthy) as a political maneuver largely to fend off Steve Forbes ahead of the 2000 election. 2. Then the Bush team remained inflexibly attached to the plan and it became the centerpiece of Bush's economic policy. 3. The tax cut was flawed especially on two counts: it could have better spurred consumer spending by giving more relief to ordinary Americans and it turned a surplus into a permanent deficit. 4. Bush then blamed the ensuing deficit on the war, but that was a scapegoat, because the tax cut had a much larger effect than the war (in any case, Krugman says that many of the war dollars are misdirected toward conventional weapons). 5. The ensuing fiscal squeeze will especially hurt Medicare (in particular, its extension to prescription drugs) and Social Security, which will have serious funding problems in the future as the ratio of workers-to-retirees decreases. So, these are indeed serious charges. (And there are lots of related charges along the way. For example, the most serious may be that cronyism runs rampant in the Bush administration. In particular, he blames cronyism on inappropriate defense contracts, favoritism and permissiveness in dealing with the energy companies, and loose corporate governance oversight. He could surely benefit from some balance along the way, even if for rhetorical purposes. In matters of corporate governance, he forgets to put some of the blame on shareholders and pension funds, you know, the people with fiduciary responsibilities.) But returning to the fiscal argument. The flaw is that, given this is a collection of newspaper columns, the accusations tend to get repeated rather than carefully constructed in a fact-based progression. So, I know he says that the tax cut idea was created to fend off Steve Forbes because it shows up in three or four (or more?) columns, but I don't know how to evaluate the veracity of this assertion. I read the book carefully and I still don't understand the basic mechanics of the Bush tax cut. Surely, in book format, Krugman missed a chance to first explain the basic mechanics of the plan before condemning it. But in this format instead, you are driven right to the accusations and you have to sort of piece together the underlying facts. Further, in book format, he could have better explained the Medicare issue (almost all coverage of Medicare is contained in a single column) and he could have better elaborated on the consequences of a structural deficit. As standalone pieces, however, some of the columns are definitely helpful. In particular, in "Slicing the Salami," he does a good job of explaining why you need to look at the total tax picture including payroll taxes. Another slight weakness is, I suppose, the price of academic detachment. You sometimes get the feeling his ideas are not weathered by real-world experience. For example, he does a good job illustrating why executive stock options can be dangerous. But his solution-to simply use options indexed to a benchmark-is typically academic. A little boardroom exposure would make him (a) realize these vehicles are notoriously difficult to implement and (b) they are likely to promote, even amplify, the same short-sided, stock-price-obsessed behavior as regular stock options. But all in, I tend to find the benefit of his detachment more valuable than the cost of his academic perspective. So, does the book make you think about terribly important issues? Absolutely. Does it conclusively persuade? Not really. For me, I couldn't put it down. He is a fantastic conversational writer, even as he's getting really mad and making you mad along with him, at times. So I was left thinking "Ohmygosh, if he's right, this is truly distressing, but is he right...?" Like I've suggested, I think a little balance would actually make him more persuasive and it wouldn't detract for the seriousness of the matter. How about throwing in a single good thing to say about Bush, are we beyond that? Nevertheless, there are some real gems in here (in particular, "7 Habits of Highly Defective Investors" explains exactly why you need to be careful with your investment dollars better than anywhere I have seen; his ice cream store analogy cleverly summarizes various accounting gimmicks, the "flavors of fraud" without ever using numbers!) and he is very handy with metaphors (e.g., "the US government is a big insurance company that also happens to have an army.").
Rating:
Summary: Time to get Mad
Review: As Molly Ivins said on the back cover its time to get mad AND fight back. Paul Krugman gives you plenty of ammo do it with too. This book is a devastating critique of the Bush administration and all of the shenanigans that they have foisted upon this great country of ours. Because his op-ed peices deal primarily with economic issues he is on especially firm ground as this is his field of expertise. Where it really gets frightening is how he ably ties in current events like the Iraq war with the economic policies that are rapidly strangling the life out of this country.
For anyone who wonders how its possible to manipulate events to suit a flawed and destructive policy, the section on the
California energy crisis is a must read. Bush, Cheny and thier cronies really pulled the wool over everyones eyes with this one. It was a sign of things to come. Wrapping themselves and thier intents in the Flag, they intimidated and cowed those who would object to what they were and still are going to do.
As Krugman points out it doesn't have to be this way, we CAN take this country back and restore sanity and reason to our policies both within and outside our Country.
For those like myself who are opposed to what is happening and want to see a change next year via the ballot, you must prepare and fortify youself with the facts. This book is a good place to start.
Rating: 
Summary: If you want to know what happened . . .
Review: If you haven't read Krugman's columns in the Times, buy this book. Then buy "Bull! A History of the Boom 1982-1999." (Maggie Mahar) Together, these books explain how Washington and WAll Street shaped our economy--and why we're headed for trouble. Krugman provides the numbers, Mahar fleshes out the characters.
Like some other readers, I wish that Krugman had provided more fresh material and expanded on some of his columns. Nevertheless the book is well worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: If you want to understand what happened . . . .
Review: If you haven't read Krugman's columns in the Times, buy this book. And then buy Bull! A History of the Boom, 1982-1999 (Maggie Mahar). Together, they explain how Washington and WAll Street shaped our economy in the 90s--and why we're headed for trouble. Krugman gives you the numbers, Mahar fleshes out the characters.
Like other readers, I wish Krugman had added more new material, and expanded on many of his columns. Nevertheless, they are well worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: The Enron Presidency
Review: Krugman's own evolution over the pages of this book -- a collection of his Times pieces with a wrap-around of his recent conclusions -- is a fascinating reflection on the country's own changes since George Bush was made president. He begins as a simple critic of economic policy. Nothing unusual in this: we need solid critics to help us focus our decisions and Krugman's work is thoughtful. Before long though, Krugman's understanding unfolds until, like a great whodunit, he grasps that the nation is being defrauded by 1990s-style corporate management: the Enron Presidency. The magnitude of the theft is astonishing -- not millions or billions, but trillions. He, and we, are left with a dark conclusion. The Cons are running the prison. The Enron Presidency has moved the government and all its policing agencies to redirect trillions of our national treasure into the hands of a few through an interlocking set of well-designed frauds. Having been in the fraud detection business myself, I am in awe.
Rating:
Summary: An answer to "Why the negative reviews?"
Review: To the reader whose plaint, "Why the negative reviews?" reveals a trusting soul who assumes the honesty of others, let me answer you: the negative reviews, on the whole, are from people who haven't even read this book. As another reader pointed out in discussing the all-too-typical "critique" by "a reader from Alaska," (whose review is rife with misspellings and utterly lacking in any substantive discussion of the book), these people are, largely, members of the "Freepers" or the "Limbaugh lunatic league," to sum them up: they spread the word among themselves to flood sites such as this with negative reviews of books--which they haven't read--which are critical of persons or ideas which champion their crabbed, hateful worldview. As with the reader from Alaska, misspellings are exceedingly common in the brute-minded screeds typed out by these people, making their almost-as-common insults about the intelligence, literacy or college educations of their targets all the more hysterical. Helpful hint: before you insult Al Franken, say, for his "poor schooling," (Harvard, by the way), make sure you've at least spelled your four-letter words correctly. William Butler Yeats wrote, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." This sums up the situation all too sadly: the more stupid you are, the more likely you are to hold to a simplistic, dogmatic point of view, and to be hostile to any suggestion of a difference of opinion, while the smarter you are, the more nuanced will be your worldview, with a commensurately greater tendency to see all sides and to allow for differences of opinion, but with, perhaps, a concomitant lesser tendency to fight passionately against those who represent the forces of mendacity, violence, and intolerance.
|
