[.ca] Wealth and Poverty (ISBN 0465091059)

I was so much older then I'm younger than that now:
This book which most of us, who read books like this, read 20 years ago should be reread again today. The prescience and accuracy of its viewpoints are worth prolonged cogitation for members on either side of the aisle. Perhaps it could be recommended reading along with the cliff notes of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations"? Okay, at least for Graduate students in the social sciences? Gilder points out that we have been misled by popular economics as it relates to how we increase wealth and curtail poverty. He then introduces the concept of Supply-Side Economics to the general reader. He fulminates about how misguided policy has undermined the true source of wealth that is to be found in such nonmaterial forces as creativity, technological adventure, and the motivation to strike out for new territory in economic enterprise. He talks about how the blunting of incentives and the efforts to redistribute the wealth, in a just fashion, only serve to keep the poor in poverty. He contrasts this with his description of the true capitalist as one who invests energy and money today for a return he may or may not receive in the future. Is this not the model for describing the difference between children and adults? Is it not a model for delayed gratification one which most of the world eschews? They instead opt for a metaphorical traffic jam at the waterhole of natural resources with the alpha chimp and his cohorts ripping off the biggest piece. When Gilder talks about the LEFT getting it exactly backwards it reminds me of what Balint Vazsonyi writes about in his book "America's 30 Years War: Who's winning?" He says, "contrary to the prevailing (classic Marxist-Leninist) thinking that economic conditions provide the foundations and everything else is "superstructure", the truth is the other way around. Our spectacular economic success is the result of a unique legal-moral foundation upon which a successful political system has been built". To show how deep the roots of misguided economic thinking go consider that even Christianity is built on a communistic notion of sharing, and an abhorrence for profit that is seemingly earned on the backs of the laborers. This results in men of the cloth, all to often economically illiterate ones, preaching the wrong formulae to the poor. Basically, "you're poor because they're rich". This Liberation theology is echoed in Marx's backward reading of human nature and the economic consequences of risk and reward. Gilder sets us straight. Amazing isn't it? We still have academics teaching this LEFT-wing nonsense in respected universities across America while their acolytes storm the barriers in Seattle, Washington, Genoa, etc; all in an attempt to wipe out a system that has brought greater wealth to more people than any other in human history, something even Marx himself acknowledged. Too me, it's about a pursuit of power and money at the top that is coupled with a reliance that those further down the pyramid of man will continue to engage in blocking and denial. Thus the proles can act as enablers of the "Priests" of the LEFT, those who commit the worst sorts of human crimes (see "the Black Book of Communism"), their zeal inversely proportionate to the laws of unintended consequence which they continue to violate with reckless abandon. Perhaps a futuristic pill will be uncovered that will allay the LEFT's fevered assessment of mankind's ills and grant them the ability to reason while providing them with much needed relief from their pervasive envy. Read this book along with Myron Magnet's "the Dream and the Nightmare" to get a feel for the intellectual firmament of the Bush II administration, and pray for another cable network.

Excellent in all ways but ...:
When I was a young woman, just starting out, I read this book. I learned much about the nature of wealth and the role that government policy has in creating and diminishing wealth for all ("Tax something, you get less of it, subsidize something, you get more of it"). Time and opportunity costs are also considered in this first-rate, eminently readable primer on macroeconomics. Finally, his message to minorities who have been injured by past discrimination -- which is basically, "Get over it!" -- is probably the most useful, however unsympathetic (who needs sympathy -- we want wealth, right?) However, I was and am disappointed in Gilder's treatment of women. He should read Ayn Rand. As a woman and a technician, I don't see possessing the same no-excuses, ability-driven love of achievement as unfeminine. Nor is my schoolteacher-husband's gentleness and quiet intuition unmasculine. We are FREE to do and be what we want! What I see in Gilder is a whining demand that women stop putting so much competitive pressure on men so that they can feed their egos at our expense. What would he say to a (male) CEO who demanded his corporate competition give him a "break?" Doesn't he get the basic fact that a free market must be free for all, or it is not really free? Stick to free-market economics, George!

To one-sided ....:
whose review is below. I cant believe that this reviewer believes that corporate "welfare" disproves the thesis of this book. How moronic can one be? The difference dear child is that corporations still are in business and trying to produce a profit. An individual on welfare does nothing to earn an income, or very little at most. Thus the incintive not to work. Corporate welfare is just as incidious in my book, but at least the corporation is trying to profit from as many revenue centers as it can.

Is it economics and morals? (Pat Padley's review):
Even though I have had to read this book for an Economic class, I actually got something out of it. From what I understand this has become an aditional way of learning about supply side economics, which is still very confusing. I have also read many of the other reviews and I agree that this could very well become a bible for Reaganomics. I guess the one question I would ask is if George Gilder also took an Adam Smith view to some things. It seemed like he kept focusing on the individual view point of things. The way he proposed ideas is that it sounded like he wanted us to look over not just the mathematics, but the whole human spectrum. This includes faith, history, technology, etc. This book actually suprised me. I really didn't think I would enjoy it at all. Even though I was forced to read it for Econ, I'm glad I got to read this book. Gilder's as if moral views kept me interested.

Economics 101:
I've read the reviews, but not the book. I acknowledge that capitalist economies produce more goods than centrally planned economies. I respect the accomplishments of entrepreneurs and hard workers and believe that they should receive more goods than the less able. However, I believe unregulated capitalism results in a distribution curve that is way too steep. To accomplish less steepness the elite rich should be taxed progressively, i.e. disproportionately. Morality is not essential to the argument. There are no truths in economics, only tendencies which change over time. I believe the following is the tightest, most logical that you will ever see in economics: 1. To be most efficient, an economy must rely on mass production. Mass production minimizes the marginal effects of fixed costs. 2. To obtain mass production, there must be mass consumption. 3. To obtain mass consumption, there must be widespread purchasing power. How widespread that purchasing power should be is problematical. Trial and error works best because you can't re-run an economy at a different tax rate. Sometimes an economy needs more savings, in which case the elite rich should be taxed less. Money runs uphill because, a la Malthus, expenses increase arithmetically and income, due to compound interest, increases geometrically. Even Mrs. Nardelli can't spend $200 million. To quote from "The Barefoot Contessa": It is hard to turn $100 into $110, but to turn $100 million into $110 million is almost inevitable. Share-cropping occurred throughout the world. The farmer always got screwed. To declare that greed is good and charity is bad, as Ayn Rand did, is absolutely evil. The foundation of the conservative movement is a small group of capitalists who wanted more power and money and less taxes and regulation. It's amazing that such a narrow desire appealed to so many people, most of whom have no clue as to the whereabouts of their own self-interest.