Where America Went Wrong: And How To Regain Her ...

John Talbott knows what America needs to do!:
John Talbott utilized a commanding understanding of economics and politics to come up with the best solution I have yet to hear or read on how to restore the American democratic ideal, as well as the economy. He explains, in no uncertain terms, how the economy is connected to democracy, and how democracy has been diminished by political leaders, with more than a little push from corporate America. He cites corporations, the affluent wealthy, some interest groups, some academics and a good portion of the media for contributing to the demise of democracy, with their short-sightedness. And they dragged the economy down along with it. This book blows so many whistles, that Talbott is having difficulty promoting it. It's reminds me of when Dr. W. Edwards Deming went to Japan to teach the Japanese about statistical quality control, because nobody in America was interested. His direction shifted the perception of Japanese products from shoddy imitations to one of quality products in only four years. Talbott is up against a similar apathy in America today, nobody wants to take one step back in order get two steps ahead. Yet he has been invited to advise several developing countries. If Americans don't wake up, someone else might pass us by democracy-wise, the way the Japanese did quality-wise, at least for a time. But Talbott's advise comes at a price. Americans have to exercise their constitutional responsibilities! I think it's worth it. But you should read the book and decide for yourself. Let him convince you, as he convinced me! Then let's go save our democracy!

Democratic Demagogues:
The real problem with America is such sophomoric analyses made by people who have so little understanding, coupled with such huge compulsions to compose and impose the results of their lack of thought, into rules for the rest of us to follow. I usually don't respond to these imbecilities, since it takes too much time to formulate a proper response... but I figure since Talbott didn't spend much time researching & thinking about his "thesis", why should I bother, especially when he's provided such easy pickings to skim off the top? " It has long been understood that democracy, at least theoretically, provides a country's citizens with tremendous individual freedom. " Democracy?! That may have been the loudest assertion going for the last century, but it's one that has never been understood. First of all, because the Founding Fathers were students of History, not social studies, they went out of their way to insure that we would NOT be a democracy. Have a drink with Socrates and ask him why. We are a Constitutional Representative Republic, with Representatives who are democratically elected. We can blame our campaign finance woes, and many others, on the one latter-day Democratic reform to our Constitution, pushed through by Talbot's equally sophomoric progressive forbears in 1913, the 17th amendment, that changed what was intended to be the cool deliberative body of the Senate, from being selected by vote of their state legislatures, into campaign crazy, pandering vote getters, just as blown by the winds of the Demos, as the house of representatives. As for the " scare word "terrorists" " being used to endanger our civil liberties; it is people with bombs, planes and knives, who attack the lives and liberties of our civilization, in order to cow and terrorize us - hence the word "terrorists". They need to be hunted down and killed. The government that doesn't make that a priority, should not, and I think will not, stand for long. " Many Americans feel that their government is terribly out of touch with their immediate needs "? Personally I want government out of touch with my needs, the problem is that it isn't!; re: health care, soc security, education - they are not only in touch with my needs, but nudging, shoving and forcing me into handling my needs not as I see fit, but as they insist I must, because government bureaucrats feel they know my needs best. " A third-party perspective might be helpful for understanding the depth of this problem, and polling people from other countries can provide that perspective "! A third party perspective might be helpful? Any perspective representative of Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, some of the most backward and repressive regimes in the world, is a viewpoint we don't need - and anyone using them as a guide to gaining a perspective, has a vision so obscured by blinders, as to be dangerous in the extreme. " ...move forward and institute real democratic reform " inevitably means setting up unaccountable bureaucracies (ie: EPA, IRS, FTC, SEC, FDA, EIEIO) who will then dictate how the rest of us will be allowed to live, and who we can support, and how much we will be allowed to support the ideas we most fervently value and believe in. Keep in mind, if they can take the most basic rights away from the Rich, it'll be Childs play to take them away from the rest of us. " Until we look past the immediate gains from narrowly crafted legislation written to benefit our special interest, we must ask the more fundamental question, "Is it good for America?" And once we learn to ask this question, we can ask the next: "Is it good for humanity? "" Perhaps before asking whether something is good for America, Talbot should take a little time, read a little history (that means the dead white guys all the way back to the Greeks, as well as the non western hells that they managed to rise above) to discover just what (and how rare and precious) America is , or even better, what humanity is. Those of you who credit this nonsense should do some research as well, and decide whether you, and we, are Individuals with Individual Rights and Individual dreams and desires we'd like to be free to pursue as best we can (ala the pursuit of Happiness), or are we to be but mindless masses to be democratically manipulated and prodded into acting as the Krugman & Talbott elites condescends to allow us to act?

a terrible disappointment:
This is an awful book. Talbott's central thesis - that American politics at present are controlled by special interests and corporate greed - may be accurate in substance if not in degree. Unfortunately, what could have been a very illuminating and useful work about an issue of critical importance to American voters is ruined by misrepresentation and incomplete analysis. Early in the book, in chapter 2, Talbott begins by establishing the basic tenets of two positions. The first he dubs "the libertarian," a classical liberal, free-market oriented viewpoint (for transparency's sake, a position I agree with on most points). The second he dubs "the anti-globalist," a position that sees a need for increased government control of public goods and the regulation of an economy to best serve all citizens. His description, particularly of the libertarian viewpoint, is complete and accurate if not of great depth. This makes his failure to render the viewpoint accurately through the rest of the book upsetting. After his solid beginning, Talbott proceeds to attack a strawman. "What is interesting is that libertarians do not like to admit that the free market could not function without government regulation and interference. Who enforces private contracts? The government. Who tries and sentences (...) company exectutives? The government. Who maintains the system of title and property records that the entire private property system is based on? The government." (p. 28) Of course, libertarians actually do believe that government is necessary for exactly the reasons Talbott cites, among others - to protect citizens' rights, including property rights, and to prevent the use of force or (...) in business. That belief in a limited government is what distinguishes libertarians from anarchists. To give another example, in a discussion of the idea of privatizing education, Talbott suggests that on the one hand this could be beneficial due to the effects of market competition on price and quality. On the other, he says, "Given corporate America's track record, however, it may not be advisable to entrust this group with the education of our youth. As part of their education, schoolchildren might be initiated into a corporate world of marketing, advertising, brand names, promotion, and encouraged dumbed-down consumption. Would corporate America put much value in teaching our children the classics in literature, music theory, foreign languages, economic history, or any of the fine arts?" (p. 105) A market approach would of course let parents choose exactly what subjects they want their kids to learn - after all, their demand would drive what commercial educators supply - and would provide instant financial accountability because parents could choose another educator at any time. Whether or not one agrees with privatizing education, the failure to discuss these points is unforgiveable, particularly in a book that is allegedly about empowering American voters. An author who writes about economics full-time, as the jacket says Talbott does, should know enough to cover the basics. The repeated omission of basic economic analysis, and the frequent misstatement of libertarian positions and philosophy, raise the question of whether Talbott makes these mistakes out of ignorance or for the sake of pushing an agenda. In addition to the issues above, there are some minor problems with poor editing. In some cases it becomes unclear whether the author is attempting to represent an alternative viewpoint or his own; he shifts perspective frequently without cluing the reader in. There are numerous minor typographical errors. There is also Talbott's tendency to cite his own and his brother's previous work as a reference, although in fairness he does also refer to numerous other authors and studies. It is very unfortunate that a book that could have addressed a very real, serious problem ends up a badly written piece of propaganda.

Time For A Little Class Warfare:
A book that talks about providing more rights and power to the average person and taking it away from the very intuitions that so many of us feel control our lives, surly is a book that would have wide appeal. After all the book starts off by talking about the desire of all peoples in the world to be free and wasn't that one of the much repeated positive outcomes of the recent war? This book talks to these issues and has a main theme, which is that more democracy in American and across the world, will raise the standard of living for all people. The author believes that more Americans need to get involved in the working of the government. The author suggests that if there was more public involvement in government, there would be a dramatic reduction in the influence of the special interest groups (big business) that have taken hold in America. He tries to tie in the overall heath of the American economy by arguing that the more democratic we are, the more prosperous we will all be. His argument got close to a bit of redistribution of wealth plan with some of his views on taxation, but his examples and comments gave credence to his overall claims. I do not know if the author is correct in his view of America today and its significant pitfalls that lie ahead, but who does not want to read a book that tells you that you need more individual power. The book feeds into the somewhat common view that the special interests i.e. business leaders, rich and elected officials have taken control in one large power play designed to give them all the riches. For someone having difficultly making a house payment, this view is right on the money. Overall I found the book interesting and well written. The author had a spark about his writing style that made you want to take action, on what I do not know, but take action none the less. If you are not happy with the current state of politics in America then grab this book and be outraged all over again.

Passion: A+, Statistics: A+, Logic: F-:
I am libertarian (little "l" - not the political party). However, I enjoy reading and listening to the statist and collectivist viewpoints, and am always on the lookout for well-reasoned statements of such. This is not one of them. Example 1 - "How can people claim their laws are moral unless those laws have been determined by a majority of the citizens?" (Ch. 3) The text presents many of its points as rhetorical questions--sometimes several in a row comprise an entire paragraph. The author claims here that morality is based on the whim of the majority. Example 2 - "The world headquarters of the World Bank is chock-full of very well-dressed men and women who appear to spend more time on their wardrobe than on their policy development statements. How could these wealthy elites possibly be effective in solving world poverty?" Regardless of my view on the role of World Bank, this is the silliest syllogism I've ever seen: A-World bank staff wear expensive clothes B-It seems to me they spend a lot of time picking out clothes C-Therefore, wealthy people should have no say in helping the poor. Example 3 - "Any developing country would be wise to also delineate in constitutional form the specific rights enjoyed by every one of its citizens. And what rights will you give these participants? The right to bear arms? The right to peacefully assemble? To choose their religion? To protest? (...) To exclude corporations from the political process?" (Ch. 9, Step 8) The author states several ideas he has for fashioning a new constition (or re-fashioning the US' constitution--he claims: "Give me one hour in Washington, and I could change the rules by which the economic game is played..."). Here he suggests that a bill of rights include the right "to exclude corporations from the political process". That's an individual liberty? Example 4 -(arguing for government regulation over 'collective goods') "These free riders come in many forms, including polluters, law breakers, property thieves, embezzlers, and even corrupt government officials. Here is the strongest argument that government must be allowed to allocate collective goods, why some government regulation is a good thing, and why businesses and individuals must abide by the law in a civilized society" (Ch. 2) Early in the book, the author reveals his "strongest argument", and all of his examples are those who violate property--he includes the government. Example 5 - "I am not interested in making a broad attack on the rich or in questioning their morality. (...) I am also not interested in starting a class war, which is often the charge raised whenever this issue surfaces." (Ch. 5) Not interested? Hm ... "Americans are much more compassionate, generous, and sympathetic than their television shows exhibit. But their target audience, the wealthiest Americans, may not be." "the self-interest of the rich does not always align perfectly with the broader population" " in pursuit of their narrow self-interests the wealthy, if given the chance, have an opportunity to destroy our economy and our democracy" "Should the most self-centered and richest people in our country be given the responsibility to run the government?" "Wall Street tells a story about the insatiable greed of the wealthy: (a rumor of a 'screaming match' over $50,000 in a $7,000,000 deal, then a couple paragraphs later:) As discussed earlier, that last dollar of earnings is awfully important to them, and it is not easy to get it away from them. They dislike all taxes." "There are other important differences between rich folk and poor and middle-class folks." Example 6 - "The philosophical problem with the libertarian movement is that it is hard to find a poor libertarian. It is a philosophy that appeals mostly to the haves and not the have-nots." I suppose he means it is hard a wealthy person to find a poor libertarian. Of all my libertarian-leaning friends, none of them are wealthy. Example 7 - "Only 50% of eligible voters typically vote in an American presidential election. ... (It is hard to differentiate by voting turnout numbers alone a truly apathetic electorate from one that is intentionally withdrawing its support of the regime because it recognizes that government by the people has been modified to mean government by the wealthiest people.)" The intimation is that these are the only two reasons why people would not vote: they are either truly apathetic, or protesting the influence of the wealthy.