Rating: 
Summary: How to Fix Capitalism's Flaws (without replacing it)
Review: William Greider has written a well informed, sharp critique of capitalism. In this book, he devotes individual chapters to analyzing the dysfunctional ways that capitalism impacts us as workers, consumers, investors, citizens and as human beings. In each chapter, he gives some suggestions about how we can leverage the many strengths of capitalism improve it from within.
Although Greider *does* acknowledge that capitalism has improved our standard of living significantly and lengthened our lives, this acknowledgement is merely a nod; he definitely leans to the left in this book and suggest many interesting ideas for reform. Some of those ideas seem impractical, but he also gives many examples of how some are working successfully today.
Although he is well informed and a fluid writer, some of Greider's arguments and examples seemed one-sided, and this is one weakness of the book. I had wished he could have anticipated obvious counter-arguments and refuted them, instead of leaving them lingering in the readers mind. Nevertheless, his ideas will provide food for thought and an easy, enlightening read.
Some of his main points are as follows. In the chapter on consumerism, Greider notes that despite our material wealth, we're still consumed with the relentless pursuit of "more" - working more hours for more material goods, status goods, or entertainment. Furthermore, companies produce the products we demand in low-cost ways that degrade the environment. To counter this, Greider notes several examples about how organized consumer boycotts have changed corporate behavior more effectively than government regulation.
As workers, our fortunes are tied to the corporations we work for, yet we have little or no say in the big decisions. Democracy stops at the company's door. Vast hierarchies of workers maintain the uneven distribution of money we see in the rest of a capitalistic society. Workers - or "human resources" - are rented by the hour, and those labor costs are often trimmed by reducing healthcare and pension coverage for employees. To fix this, Greider argues for and gives examples of firms with more participatory decision making, employee ownership, and executive accountability.
In the chapter on capital, he notes that corporate investments are controlled by just a small group of executives, investment bankers, and large fund managers. Whether they are serving the stockholders, clients, or investors, this group makes decisions with a heavy emphasis on economic factors, and little or no emphasis on larger social issues or goals. Yet the soft qualities that are hard to put a price on - like dignity, freedom, a clean environment, democratic expression - aren't a byproduct of a strong economy; they are necessary for it, and the fact that they're "priceless does not mean worthless." Thus, Greider believes that when the quest for profits and productivity trumps social responsibility, the economy will suffer. He'd encourage huge pension funds to invest for the long term in socially responsible companies, and cites those that do.
In the chapter on government, Greider highlights the subsidies & other "corporate welfare" doled out by governments. Large corporations on the verge of bankruptcy are rescued by the federal governement (think Chrysler, Savings & Loans, airlines, etc). States compete to draw in new corporations by giving them special tax breaks. Rather than just occasionally intervening in the economy whose direction is set by corporations, Greider believes government should lead more via grand public works projects (Erie canal, the highway system, airports, parks, etc.) or through sweeping social programs (New Deal, etc.) Also, companies that are funded or rescued using tax dollars should spell out exactly what they will deliver to the public in return, or else their corporate charters must be amended to include a social mission.
In a final chapter, Greider notes that we should come up with a collective vision of what kind of society we want, one in which we are more than just consumers and workers striving individually; one in which we are citizens building the society we want.
Overall, I thought some of Greiders ideas were food for thought, some weren't, and some seemed well-intentioned but unworkable. Nevertheless, I found it enjoyable to read, since Greider is a fluid writer since he is a journalist. However, there are other books in a similar vein by economists that argue some of Greider's points slightly better --- in particular, "The Future of Success" by Robert Reich on the work/spend cycle, or "The Affluent Society" by John Kenneth Galbraith on increasing government investment in infrastructure.
Rating: 
Summary: Worth a skeptical look
Review: William Greider is a gifted critic of the downside of capitalism, although his proposed changes are somewhat wanting. To his credit he attempts to be realistic in both his analysis and his suggested alternatives although he has excessive confidence in the efficacy of the state to rectify wrongs.Greider actually has little confidence in the national government to make the changes he deems necessary, however, this lack of faith owes to what he sees as the unwillingness of leaders rather than the inability of government to reorder the economy by fiat. If inertia could be overcome, Greider would have the government be the employer of last resort and a co-owner of many businesses where it would exercise its wisdom to re-order priorities of the modern corporation. This already happens elsewhere (i.e. Europe and Japan) and the results are decidedly mixed. Greider has an almost patriotic fervor for American innovation but much of what he advocates would tend to stifle the same innovation he lauds. His faith in the virtues of unions tends to ignore their side-effects: arcane work rules and excessive protection for unproductive employees, neither of which are a net benefit. For all his critiques of American corporations and government he saves his fiercest vitriol for the profession of economics. While he is familiar with the theories of neoclassical economics, one wonders if he only views them as clever propoganda. Its hard to see how Joseph Schumpeter's "creative destruction" could occur in William Greider's ideal economy. While his criticism sometimes is over the top, he touches on real concerns, particularly in the area of environmental degradation. Contrary to his accusations, neoclassical economics does recognize this as a problem, but they don't offer much in the way of solutions. At least this aspect of his book offers useful, if not fully viable, ideas for change.
|
