Rating: 
Summary: His conclusions drive the narrative
Review: "The Storm Upon Us ... everything seems new and strange ... nothing seems certain ... masses of people are tangibly deprived of their claims to self-sufficiency ... this revolution is steadily creating the predicate for its own collapse ... the prospect of an economic or political cataclysm of unknown dimension ... ." These and similar claims are found on just the first two pages of the book. To be fair, Mr. Greider also references the "great fortunes" thrown off by globalization and the fact that millions escape poverty, but right from the start you get the feeling that he is working backwards from his conclusions and choosing his rhetoric and his examples to sell his point of view. It's almost as if Mr. Greider is suggesting that, now that the West has gone through the very sort of radical transformation he describes with shock and dismay, the rest of humanity should just stay where they are at while we in the industrialized world figure out if and how they should reach for the security and the lifestyle that we take for granted. If you are looking to validate an anti-globalization bias you already hold then this may be the book for you, but I think it's fair to say that most readers would like to benefit from Mr. Greider's considerable experience and expertise without having to interpret his selective or overly cynical presentation. In a nutshell, my problem with the book is not that it argues against globalization and is wrong, but that it is as committed to persuasion as it is to education. I chose not to finish the book and will look for a more neutral resource.
Rating: 
Summary: His conclusions drive the narrative
Review: ?The Storm Upon Us ? everything seems new and strange ? nothing seems certain ? masses of people are tangibly deprived of their claims to self-sufficiency ? this revolution is steadily creating the predicate for its own collapse ? the prospect of an economic or political cataclysm of unknown dimension ? .? These and similar claims are found on just the first two pages of the book. To be fair, Mr. Greider also references the ?great fortunes? thrown off by globalization and the fact that millions escape poverty, but right from the start you get the feeling that he is working backwards from his conclusions and choosing his rhetoric and his examples to sell his point of view. It?s almost as if Mr. Greider is suggesting that, now that the West has gone through the very sort of radical transformation he describes with shock and dismay, the rest of humanity should just stay where they are at while we in the industrialized world figure out if and how they should reach for the security and the lifestyle that we take for granted. If you are looking to validate an anti-globalization bias you already hold then this may be the book for you, but I think it?s fair to say that most readers would like to benefit from Mr. Greider?s considerable experience and expertise without having to interpret his selective or overly cynical presentation. In a nutshell, my problem with the book is not that it argues against globalization and is wrong, but that it is as committed to persuasion as it is to education. I chose not to finish the book and will look for a more neutral resource.
Rating: 
Summary: problems of economic globalization are daunting
Review: Greider is clearly one of the very top liberal\populist economic analysts who writes for laypeople today. Greider proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that economic globalization as it is practiced today is fraught with contradictions and the potential for disaster. His book is simultaneously alarming and hopeful; the prospects for implementing his common sense reform proposals seem poor in the current conservative political atmosphere, meaning that global deregulation is sure to move even quicker now, causing new and frequent financial crises. The fundamental point in his book are sound: that an unequal income distribution, reinforced by the relocation of capital to low-wage areas, exacerbates a problem of inadequate aggregate demand, making recessions more likely. Greider is quite clear in his belief that a deflation of incomes, economies, and prices is the ultimate consequence of this fundamentally unjust new world economic order. To support his thesis, he takes the reader on a tour of a variety of places all over the globe, showing how, for example, the repression of labor rights in a place as far away as Indonesia contributes to a worsening of the wage-earning potential of first-world middle income workers. Greider is one of the few writers today who offers a genuinely humane and efficient economic vision that the world would be wise to follow. He suggests worker ownership of capital as a middle road between the inequities of capitalism and the disincentives of communism. He points out how transaction taxes on international capital flows would return stability to foreign exchange markets and, more importantly, national economies. He makes clear that the rule of finance capital, as manifest in high real interest rates, is only exacerbating the fundamental capitalist problems. (inadequate demand and excess capacity) Above all else, he makes apparent that economies, like all social institutions, are fundamentally human contrivances, and thus can be favorably altered by a populace with enough imagination to envision a more prosperous, equitable, and environmentally sustainable future. Greider is way left of almost anyone in D.C. today, but he is no communist, as is apparent from a reading of this book. All progressives should read this book, (though it is somewhat complex for those without prior exposure to economics) and use Greider's policy suggestions to pressure the political class to legislate real changes in our global economy so that we can create a more stable, equitable, sustainable, and democratic global community. As a final point, it is very heartening to see someone provide such plentiful evidence for what to me is a self-evident proposition: widely-shared prosperity requires genuine political democratization, everyone and anywhere in this tightly bound global economy.
Rating:
Summary: the laws
Review: Greider reviewI don't know where to start. Saving the world. The only world we'll ever have. Greider has some suggestions, which will be hard to implement, but as he says we've solved harder problems before. The system is a huge robotic monster tearing its way across the earth, consuming human life, nature, and its own excrement. It is out of control. No one can control it unless we organize ourselves into a more potent political scheme. And this we must do, else face a race to hell. The system has no needs, only wants. While we within it have both. Humans are not disposable machines, useful for what you can force them to do. But how else can the robot see us? Half of the people live on two dollars a day. And there's no reason why that stat can't become most of the people wage enslaved. Why pay a programmer $50,000 here when you can get one in India for a tenth of that? Indians can program just as well as Americans. To be fair, Americans don't deserve that much, while Indians deserve more. Maybe. Who says with intelligence, technology, and an entire world, we can't all be rich. Or at least have none of us starving. There are geniuses starving to death. Not that this isn't more of a tragedy than people eating chickens' eggs, which is the equivalent of directly torturing the birds yourself. Consciousness is consciousness. If a creature has it, this creature should be valued by us, and helped if possible. But how can we change things? That's like changing the laws of nature. But it's not impossible that we can learn how to do that, and give birth to god.
Rating:
Summary: Faulkner could only be so lucky.
Review: Greider, thought by many to be the Tommy Lee of the economics world, has rocked us with this lively and subversive text. Sure, life may ...for two-thirds of the world's population, but with such brilliant writing, who cares? I gladly knocked Ulysses off my favorites list when I finished this behemoth. That's right: BEHEMOTH.
Rating:
Summary: Amateur Opinions in Print
Review: Grieder likes playing the role of a public intellectual- one who cuts through it all to see what is really going on. One who sees all that escapes supposed experts, particularly economists. What he sees is a destructive machine that is out of control. There is no one at the wheel of global capitalism, it is wreaking havoc, and will undo itself. To prove this point he describes capitalism and `free market theory' with disparaging adjectives. To make his case he needs do explain why these theories are wrong and provide valid evidence. He does neither. His evidence is at best, anecdotal. At worst it is from questionable or unnamed sources. Discussion of the free market concepts he opposes is almost totally lacking. The author claims that free market economics is unscientific and derides it as `dogma' and `a value laden form of prophecy' (p48). But, he tells his audience little about these supposedly false ideas. In fact, he admits (p53) that he does not argue much with this `dogma'. So he admits to evading a serious discussion of the concepts he slanders. He speaks in terms of absurdly simplistic supply and demand type reasoning, and mentions arbitrage, but he ignores the real issues that pertain to his subject matter. His chapter on wages and work ignores the issue of labor productivity- he barely mentions it (p67+76). The economic arguments that he dismisses hinge on marginal productivity, but it is not clear that knows anything about this supposed dogma. Instead, he focuses on income distribution between capital and labor. He sees international competition in labor markets as benefiting capital- consumers seem not to benefit from this at all. Later in this book (p122), he stumbles into the notion that competition benefits consumers, but fails to realize that he has damaged his own argument. Greider claims that the most successful Asian economies rejected Laissez Faire and free markets (p87). But, the most successful postwar Asian economies (including Japan) have some of the freest markets. They have some governmental intervention, but far less than other nations. This is not Laissez Faire in the strictest sense, but who would deny that Hong Kong has a high degree of Laissez Faire? Successful Asian nations developed after considerable (not complete) privatization and deregulation. He writes that the general claim by economists that free trade benefits people generally and causes only temporary and narrowly focused dislocation (p73) is wrong. His condemnation of trade theory is strong, yet he fails to demonstrate an understanding of important concepts, like the principle of comparative advantage. If he wants to engage in idle conjecture that is fine. But if he is going to claim that the experts are generally wrong, he could at least demonstrate a basic understanding of what the experts actually say. Greider is fond of labor unions. He employs a simplistic high wages=prosperity argument to argue that labor competition benefits capital only and is per see bad for workers (p59). Efforts to restrict competition do raise wages for some workers. It also renders other workers unemployable (productivity matters) Greider provides an example of this principle in action with his Thailand example of job losses following higher minimum wages (p 70). This contradicts his dismissal of economic theory. Greider also writes much about things like social cohesion, shared responsibility, and collective identity. These are catchy phases, but indicate little more than his own dissatisfaction with current trends. He claims that people are helpless in the face of global capitalism, but voluntary consumer spending drives it. There is `someone' at the wheel of global capitalism- global consumers. Greider also has nice things to say about Veblen and Keynes (p51-2). In Veblen's case, there is some reason to show some admiration. Veblen was an interesting, though mistaken thinker. Keynes is a different matter. Greider tries to substitute discredited Keynesian ideas regarding overproduction for sound economic theory. He explains neither theory, provides no relevant evidence, and instead assumes the superiority of the demand-side economics of Keynes. This is mere conjecture rather than argument. Greider complains that America is the worlds `buyer of last resort' that absorbs surplus production. We supposedly buy imported VCR's, TV's, cars, beer, and clothing not because we derive consumer satisfaction from these goods. We are desperately trying to prop up global Capitalism by spending beyond our means! This, of course, is doomed to failure because we cannot accumulate debt forever. So he accepts Keynesian theory, which promotes deficit spending, but complains about he practice of deficit spending. Greider admires Keynes' optimism about the supposed possibility of abundance (p440). Once having solved the economic problem, we can `become social beings on a larger scale, discarding barbarism' and so on. Instead of private property in capital, we should have universal capital ownership- in other words, socialism. Greider dodges all the economic objections concerning socialism, all the incentive and knowledge problems. Instead he whines about how Capitalism induces `infantile responses'- the pursuit of self interest and evasion of responsibility for collateral consequences of actions. This all reveals that Greider is merely a utopian dreamer. Limited life spans and physical resources put abundance permanently out of reach. Self interest is a part of human nature. As for evading responsibility, that is what socialism does. It socializes costs. Property rights enforcement under Capitalism forces people to bear responsibility for their actions. Some try to avoid this, but that is a violation of Capitalist ethics, not a consequence of them. Perhaps his most obvious error is in blaming industrial capitalism for the rise of Nazism (p38). Everybody knows that the treaty of Versailles and hyperinflation wrecked German economy and led to Hitler's rise to power- everybody but Greider. Grieder derides professional opinion rather than criticizing it. Of course, there is no reason why amateurs cannot criticize professional opinion. But Greider does not do this. He offers conjecture, derision, and utopian fantasies, but no substantive analysis. This book should not be taken seriously.
Rating:
Summary: There is a clear and present danger to Globalism.
Review: I believe that globalism at its core tries to look good but the very same argument could have been said about Marx 100 years ago.Globalism is based on the ideas that somehow al nations should trade everything with each other: no matter what item or what place or (more importantly) what price.
This book proves that free trade can only work if countries are actually free on all sides.There is no point in trying to pretend that all countries are in the same situation economically.Commodities such as oil, coal, gas, labor, wood, electricity etc are different across the board.I'd like to paraphrase an old World war 2 quote that dealt with the situation that occured in German. When NAFTA took away auto union jobs, I did not care because I wasn't in a union. When GATT took away industrial jobs, I did not care because I didn't work in a factory. When the Fed kept a strong dollar I did not care because I wroked with imports. When FTA took away our soverignty I cared because I am an American. Globalism unilaterally takes power away from countries and people, giving it to corporations and NGO's (non governmental organizations) that have little being on the concerns of people. If you think what occured in the 80's to the UAW can't happen in the tech industry, you're wrong.Why would anyone pay $50,000 a year for a web developer when you can get one in India for a third to almost a tenth of that.The issue of place is irrelavent when we have computers as small as a person's hand and electricity from the sun. The only ways I can logically see in fighting globalism is boycotting major companies, buying from smaller more local ones, unionizing works (more particually in the 3rd world) and of course buying domestic.
Rating:
Summary: Truly an eye opener
Review: I don't know where to start. Saving the world. The only world we'll ever have. Greider has some suggestions, which will be hard to implement, but as he says we've solved harder problems before. The system is a huge robotic monster tearing its way across the earth, consuming human life, nature, and its own excrement. It is out of control. No one can control it unless we organize ourselves into a more potent political scheme. And this we must do, else face a race to hell. The system has no needs, only wants. While we within it have both. Humans are not disposable machines, useful for what you can force them to do. But how else can the robot see us? Half of the people live on two dollars a day. And there's no reason why that stat can't become most of the people wage enslaved. Why pay a programmer $50,000 here when you can get one in India for a tenth of that? Indians can program just as well as Americans. To be fair, Americans don't deserve that much, while Indians deserve more. Maybe. Who says with intelligence, technology, and an entire world, we can't all be rich. Or at least have none of us starving. There are geniuses starving to death. Not that this isn't more of a tragedy than people eating chickens' eggs, which is the equivalent of directly torturing the birds yourself. Consciousness is consciousness. If a creature has it, this creature should be valued by us, and helped if possible. But how can we change things? That's like changing the laws of nature. But it's not impossible that we can learn how to do that, and give birth to god.
Rating:
Summary: Poor logic or economics
Review: I would like to begin by saying that I did not finish this book (read about 3/4). This is a sensationalist book for non-economists who wish to sound like they know economics. The premisse is that the world will be in trouble because productivity is rising too fast (faster than demand) and so prices will plummet, so will earnings, and so will standards of living. This is the old argument that leads to the conclusion that one day robots will do it all and there will be nothing for humans to do. It is an argument that has been refuted, as it is clear that, as soon as we are able to produce more of something than we can consume, we move on to produce other things that are needed. The author assumes there is a limit to things and services that can be produced, which has not been the case and there is no reason to believe that it will be. This is inane economics for the populist mind at its best.
Rating:
Summary: A Close Look At Globalism
Review: I've been meaning to write about One World, Ready Or Not (1997) by William Greider for some time since I finished reading it a few weeks ago, but it is a difficult book to describe in detail given it's scope and content. I first encountered Greider in the pages of Rolling Stone magazine where he writes about politics and economics and was impressed by his intelligence and rational thinking. Needless to say, he is somewhat liberal and progressive. This book is an excellent look at globalism, especially how economic systems and policies affect the world. Some of these sections are bit difficult to follow, but I found his case studies of different companies and labor movements quite fascinating, especially the section about the airplane industry and Boeing in particular. He explained how Boeing parcels out parts contracts to countries that order airplanes as a sort of kickback for countries doing business with them. The section about the negative impact of free trade zones on the poor people who work in them is very telling. (For a more comprehensive look at the exploitation of third world workers see Naomi Klein's excellent No Logo, which is a good companion text to this). It is something that has troubled me since I saw a large group of peasant girls lining up at the gates of a textile factory in Cambodia, they looked like they were twelve, it was very Dickensian. The fact that they make around $20 a month for shoes that cost over $100, is absurd to me. I'd like to present some of the suggestions he has for reforming the global economic system, which has been spiraling out of control. All of them seem quite reasonable to me. 1. Tax capital instead of labor. 2. Reform the terms of trade to ensue more balanced flows of commerce, compelling export nations to become larger consumers of the global production. 3. Bring the bottom up-raising wages on the low end as rapidly as possible-by requiring trading nations to honor labor rights. 4. Forgive the debtor-that is, initiate a general write-off of bad debts accumulated by poorer nations. 5. Reform the objectives of central banks so they will support a pro- growth regime instead of thwarting it. 6. Refocus national economic agendas on the priority of work and wages rather than trade or multinational competitiveness, as the defining issue for domestic prosperity. As Greider mentions, none of the propositions I have suggested is especially radical or even new in historical terms, since they all have been actively employed at one time or another. Nonetheless, I don't really expect to see any of these reforms adopted given the fact that there's no real economic motivation to do so. The problem as Greider states it, is that there is no governing body with the best interests of workers overseeing economic policies. As a result the gap between the haves and have-nots will continue to extend. All in all, a very thought provoking look at global economics.
|
