|
at the same time, income per capita rose 13 percent, after adjusting for inflation. 133 when discussing the impact of free trade on jobs and wages during the 90's: "the economy generated about 22 million net new jobs. This means that the new jobs were typically higher-paying ones." There is no way he can make that statement from the data he provides - if he quoted median income, maybe - but per capita income could all be going to the upper end and not the folks in the newly created jobs.Too bad because the book is well laid out and is enjoyable/easy to read; maybe a bit too easy. Behravesh is way too quick to make his points - not that I necessarily disagree with many of his arguments, but I found myself questioning many of the conclusions and ultimately couldn't even finish the book as he lost too much credibility in my eyes. Typically he'll throw out one statistic and then make his conclusion - and many times he shows no direct cause and effect link for the statistic he uses.An example is on p.
I didn't agree with everything in this book (especially the cheerleading for the federal reserve). Behravesh also explores many claims by both parties around the 2008 election cycle which are at odds with the views of economists. However it is fantastic as a resource for better understanding the current economic consensus on many popular issues. Behravesh covers the general consensus of economists on many hot button issues including health care, energy policy, immigration, tax levels, education, minimum wage, monopolies, social security, and many others. The book is written in an interesting and readable way.
It is no wonder that market economies did not arise until very recently, nor is it any wonder that the formed Eastern bloc countries have had a devil of a time setting up efficient markets.Moreover, there is nothing either natural or magical about prices. It is not because they are immoral or greedy but because they are doing what competition has trained them to do.
It is only one form of cooperation among many we use daily to meet our needs. And of course their eagerness undermines the integrity of the very games that make them successful competitors.None of this means that we should abandon markets as efficiency-enhancing mechanisms, but it does mean that "spin-free" economics means dropping the fantasy of the market as panacea.
This book is "spin-free" in the same sense that Fox News is "fair and balanced." In other words, it is pure right-wing spin in favor of "free" markets. Ever wonder why professional athletes use steroids.
Each has its own advantages and limits, and leaving spin behind means soberly recognizing both in each case. Anyone who knows the first thing about such economic complexities as, say, living with roommates realizes that there is nothing hard-wired about market behavior; on the contrary, functional competitive markets are incredibly hard to set up and maintain.
The digital economy clearly demonstrates the severe limits of the price system, which requires construing often ephemeral phenomena as commodities and to quantify their "supply" and "demand."Nor is there anything magical about competition, which is highly corrosive of the very social foundations on which it rests.
These include:1)Attempts to slow or stop globalization hurt the public, especially the poor. cannot absorb the uneducated unemployed masses from Central and South America).Behravesh then goes on to make an unsatisfactory attempt to explain Japan's "lost decade," and provide a brief explanation of Africa's inability to match Asia's recent economic miracle (political instability, corruption, low education).Not all of Behravesh's claims are superficial, however. However, his "Spin-Free Economics" fails to diverge from this pattern, and is loaded with right-wing nostrums. (Ignores the contrary opinions of almost all experts on the topic).4)(Illegal) immigration is not hurting America. Behravesh contends that the subject of economics has been taken over by opportunists whose answers to questions invariably fall along partisan lines.
However, Behravesh's recommendations are patently silly - reduce malpractice awards (credible assessments have concluded that this would have limited financial impact, while harming quality), and diminish the market power of providers and insurers. 9% for the OECD average, while having a lower life expectancy at birth. (Again, ignores the studies of other respected economists, and common sense - the U.S. Behravesh also makes the point that American primary and secondary education achieves poor results because of a general lack of competition, while our colleges and universities are world-class because they face competition.Similarly, American health care expenditures in 2005 averaged 15% of GNP, vs. Saudi Arabia has 70+ years' supply, and Alberta's tar sands and Venezuela's clay fields hold another 100+ years' worth. In addition, American per-pupil inflation-adjusted expenditures have more than doubled since 1970, with little or nothing to show for it. (Ignores the fact that every financial crisis since 1985 has been caused by financial bubbles or miscalculations - the 1987 crash, the LTCM crash, the dot.com crash, and now the residential real-estate crash).3)We will never run out of oil and other scarce commodities - eg. South Korea spends 60% less per pupil, and its average 15-year-olds score 10-15% higher.
I agree. American education wastes enormous amounts of money, spending about 40% more per-pupil than most other OECD countries, while scoring less on math, reading, and science, and having a higher dropout rate. (The latter ignores both the high administrative costs added by health care insurers, and the mountains of evidence that about half the health care provided has no demonstrable benefit). (Never mind the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs, health care and pension benefits to overseas outsourcing).2)Central banks should mostly focus on keeping inflation low. Ingenuity will also provide new techniques to pump more oil from abandoned fields.
For anyone who liked this book, I would say you definitely need to understand there is a different side to the story that has equal amounts of spin. There is a new revolution that happened in 2008. What do you expect from someone who consults with big business.
This book mostly re-iterates the conservative political view of economics that we've been hearing since the Reagan and Gingrich "revolutions". I didn't expect this book to take an academic approach. This book is not spin-free.
It definitely subscribes to a certain (Friedman) view of economics. Just check out Krugman's new book for example. For an example of the conservative-spin, just see the 3 pages devoted to healthcare.
Plenty of generalizations, myths, legends, leaps of faith, and not near enough substance.
|
