chet8757

THE DISMAL SCIENCE

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Capital in the Twenty-First Century

By: Thomas Piketty

Narrated by L. J. Ganser

THOMAS PIKETTY (AUTHOR, FRENCH ECONOMIST)

What follows Thomas Piketty’s erudite introduction to Capital in the Twenty-First Century is a detailed history of capital formation and income inequality that nearly puts one in a coma.

In truth, Piketty’s peregrination is essential for credibility but only for the sake of economists that wish to challenge Piketty’s conclusions. To a non-economist, less traveling between economic histories would have offered more clarity and less boredom. I suspect, even this brief synopsis will make many eyes glaze over. That is unfortunate, because Piketty’s book is important.

Thomas Piketty’s hypothesis in Capital in the Twenty-First Century is that the wealth and income gap between economic classes is widening in modern, post-industrial nations.

He reaches back in history to note that at one time ninety percent of the wealth of nations was held by less than 1% of the population. This high water mark lessened with industrialization and the growth of a middle class. A major break in wealth and income disequilibrium came with the Great Depression, and World War I and II’s conflagrations. However, Piketty argues that the income gap widens once again, after World War II. He estimates 60% of 2010’s wealth is held by less than 1% of the population; with a lean toward the historical 90% threshold.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Piketty’s book could not have been written until the modern age. Analysis of economic data requires mathematical modeling on a scale only achievable with computers. He offers an interesting introduction to Capital in the Twenty-First Century. However, Piketty’s dense and lengthy forward requires listener’ concentration; and for some of us, a re-winding and re-hearing.

BREAD LINES IN NEW YORK 1933, The working middle and lower classes use income to live; not to invest. If they had jobs, they continue to receive income equal to or better than what they had before. The consequence of Depression and World Wars reduces income disparity between the super-rich and the middle class because capital investment income is lost by the wealthy; not the middle class and poor.

The dramatic collapse of the stock market, war’s destruction, and world debt obligations hit high income earners harder than the middle class. Piketty explains–the superrich lose wealth accumulation from capital investment when the Depression and two World Wars disrupt the economy. The working middle and lower classes use income to live; not to invest. If they had jobs, they continue to receive income equal to or better than what they had before. The consequence of Depression and World Wars reduces income disparity between the super-rich and the middle class because capital investment income is lost by the wealthy; not the middle class and poor.

Recovery from world economic Depression and two World Wars requires many years of positive economic growth. After 1983, Piketty argues that capital investment income began to widely outstrip labor income. Thus begins a return of the widening gap between the super-rich and everyone else.

As the economy recovers from Depression and War, capital investment’ income increases and wealth, once again, begets wealth. Until the 1980s, increases in income from capital investment fluctuated but productivity and higher wages helped workers incomes keep pace with the wealthy. It was still possible for the upper middle class to cross class barriers and become capital investors as well as workers. Pre-1980 economic growth mitigated a widening gap between social/economic’ classes.

LABOR VS. CAPITAL INVESTMENT: The wealthy have income from both labor and capital (passive investment); while the middle class and poor have income solely from labor. Income for the middle class and poor does not increase fast enough to allow capital investment; compounding the income gap between the rich and everyone else.

Piketty argues that political influences and economic power begin to coalesce after the 1980s; creating steadily disproportionate increases in income for capital versus labor. Tax shelters and inherited wealth, based on coalescing politics and economics, disproportionately raises income for the wealthy versus the middle class and everyone else. The rich get richer, a middle class becomes smaller, and low-income populations become bigger. Piketty explains that income from labor does not rise as fast as income from capital investment.

Piketty reports that the wealthy make more money from capital investment than they do from their labor.

At the same time, the middle class and poor have little or no capital investment income. Investment income widens the gap between economic classes because labor wages do not provide enough discretionary income for capital investment. The wealthy have enough discretionary income to increase capital investment while the middle class has less discretionary income because of the cost of living.

Piketty reaches into history to remind listeners of Ricardo, Marx, Kuznets and other famous economists. He notes that an economic theory offered after WWII suggests that “a rising tide lifts all boats”. (The Kennedy administration made the “…rising tide…” quote famous.)

In the 1940s, Kuznets argues that the income gap between rich and poor would eventually reach a level of stasis. His basis for that argument is statistical evidence showing a reduced gap between the rich and the general population after the Second World War. However, Piketty argues that stasis for an income gap is dependent on economic growth. Piketty explains that the economic shocks of Depression and World Wars are an anomaly that distorts Kuznets’ theory of eventual economic stasis.

Economic growth has not historically kept up with capital investment growth. Piketty argues that parity is not necessary but economic growth has been under 1% while capital investment growth averages over 5%.

This gap inures to the benefit of the wealthy; not to the middle class or poor. Over time, the gap guarantees increasing income to the wealthy and dwindling income to the middle class; a middle class slipping into poverty. A concentrated wealth bias and an increasing gap between the rich and everyone else is reinforced by inheritance.

Piketty infers that labor-income’ increases have not been big enough for middle class’ capital investment since the 1980s. Piketty argues that the depression and two world wars were the primary reasons for relative stasis of the income gap between 1939 and early 1980s. From 1980s onward, the income gap only widens.

Piketty explains–because the rate of economic growth in post industrial nations has not been big enough; and because income tax structure disproportionately benefits capital investment, the gap between the wealthy and the middle class is widening.

Piketty re-states the cause as increasing capital income for the wealthy and decreasing labor income for the middle class and poor. In the U.S., the income gap is magnified by the rise of CEO’ super salaries that exceed 400:1 in relation to average worker’s pay; this is also true in Europe with a 25:1 ratio.

The climax of Piketty’s argument is that without economic growth nearer the rate of capital investment, national’ economies will return to historic highs where 90% of the world’s wealth is held by less than 1% of the population.

In the fourth and final section of Piketty’s book, he offers a theoretical cure for today’s trend toward income inequality.

PIKETTY’S SOLUTION:

One, create a progressive tax on capital investment income.

Two, provide public financing for education and health services that levels the playing field for all economic classes.

Three, protect pension rights of the working class.

Four, increase the retirement age based on changes in life expectancy.

Five, revise the income tax code to make it genuinely progressive.

Six, regulate capitalism by legislating democratic and financial transparency.

Seven, reduce immigration restrictions to allow needed workers to fill open job opportunities.

Eight, reduce public debt through capital taxation, austerity, and managed inflation.

Piketty’s fundamental point is that the gap between the rich and everyone else must be understood in the context of real economic growth. As long as capital income disproportionately exceeds growth of labor income, the income gap between classes will continue to increase. That income gap militates against real economic growth because it reinforces expansion of either a welfare state or chaos.

Human nature is an unruly beast, it desires freedom but neither desires dependence on a welfare state nor seeks social isolation from chaos. Piketty does not have incontestable answers but he has credibly framed the problem of income inequality.

DECRIMINALIZATION

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Flowers in the Blood: The Story of Opium

By: Jeff Goldberg, Dean Latimer, William Burroughs (Introduction

Narrated by Stephen McLaughlin

JEFF GOLDBERG (AMERICAN JOURNALIST, STAFF WRITER FOR THE ATLANTIC) — JEFF GOLDBERG (AMERICAN JOURNALIST, STAFF WRITER FOR THE ATLANTIC, & POLITICAL PUNDIT)

Published in 1981, “Flowers in the Blood” argues for decriminalization of opiates. The idea remains controversial in 2018, and 2022. Written by Jeff Goldberg and Dean Latimer, a listener feels misdirected by historical information.

DEAN LATIMER (WRITER FOR THE EVO, AKA EAST VILLAGE OTHER-WENT ON TO EDIT HIGH TIMES)

The feeling of misdirection is reinforced by a languid, seemingly opiated, performance of the narrator, Stephen McLaughlin. It is not that one is seduced by Goldberg and Latimer’s writing, but a listener feels cornered in a room of opium eaters. Goldberg and Latimer reveal how opium is extracted from a flower to offer a tranquil escape from life’s stresses, with a tantalizing peek at world clarity. Opiate extraction seems simple; the consequence of use, not.

OPIUM POPPY — Goldberg and Latimer reveal how opium is extracted from a flower to offer a tranquil escape from life’s stresses, with a tantalizing peek at world clarity. Opiate extraction seems simple; the consequence of use, not.

brave new world — Goldberg and Latimer argue that opiates enhance natural neurotransmitters, like endorphins, to reduce stress and depression caused by living life. This argument reminds one of a “Brave New World” where every stress in life is characterized as negative.

Goldberg and Latimer argue that opiates enhance natural neurotransmitters, like endorphins, to reduce stress and depression caused by living life. This argument reminds one of a “Brave New World” where every stress in life is characterized as negative.

Goldberg and Latimer note that refinement of opium into morphine and heroin increases its addictive power. They extol the pleasure of opiates while cataloging its history of addiction. Goldberg and Latimer reflect on opium’s effect in altering cerebral states of being. Their argument seems counter intuitive.

They note its use by artists ranging from Charles Dickens to Elizabeth Barrett Browning. They infer opiates enhance artist’s abilities. They realistically identify opiates’ medical benefit, while exposing its potential for addiction. Goldberg and Latimer suggest opiates enhance artistic sensibility, and temper sociopathic homicidal acts. They begin an argument for legalizing opiates.

OPIATE LEGALIZATION — Goldberg and Latimer extol the pleasure of opiates while cataloging its history of addiction. Their argument is counter intuitive. They begin a defense for legalizing opiates.

Goldberg and Latimer argue that there are three options. One, continue jailing narcotic purveyors and users. Two, legalize opiates and let the free market determine use. Three, decriminalize opiates and offer treatment to those who become addicted.

Their argument is for number three; they suggest number one (the American standard) is ineffective, and number two would be a disaster in the making. Goldberg and Latimer argue that America should legalize and regulate opiates and treat those who become addicted.

DRUG TREATMENT AND COUNCILING — America regulates alcohol and tobacco, both proven addictions. Alcohol and tobacco are regulated by the market, with education on their harmful effects and government taxation to increase prices that affects consumption. Goldberg and Latimer argue that America should legalize and regulate opiates and treat those who become addicted.

America regulates alcohol and tobacco, both proven addictions. Alcohol and tobacco are regulated by the market, with education on their harmful effects and government taxation to increase prices that affects consumption. These regulations have had some success, but people still have the right to drink and smoke to excess.

The option of opiate legalization is troubling because it infers substituting inner-direction of human beings for other-direction by government. It increases the potential of a “Brave New World” where human choice is no longer individual but collective.

DRUG USERS — Goldberg and Latimer point out that punishing the addicted with prison is a mistake. Those who succumb to addiction need help; not punishment.

Goldberg and Latimer point out that punishing the addicted with prison is a mistake. Those who succumb to addiction need help; not punishment. One can readily accept that argument but opiate regulation by the government is a step too far. This may be a distinction without a difference but Alcohol and cigarettes are still a private sector choice with government intervention (principally tax increases and education) based on political input.

PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN (1967-2014) — The loss of Seymour Hoffman in February 2014 was a tragic loss. Hoffman dies at the age of 46, John Belushi at 33, Kurt Cobain at 27, Billie Holiday at 44, River Phoenix at 23; all from opiate overdoses. If opiates were legalized, would these artists have been saved—who knows?

The loss of Seymour Hoffman in February 2014 comes to mind. Hoffman dies at the age of 46, John Belushi at 33, Kurt Cobain at 27, Billie Holiday at 44, River Phoenix at 23; all from opiate overdoses. If opiates were legalized, would these artists have been saved—who knows? They chose addiction to escape the insecurity and stress of life. Their choice is their choice. Insecurity and stress are facts in every human’s life. America’s failure is related to treatment, not government control of human choice.

WAR ON DRUGS — With treatment programs, the government will make the objective of addicting users a waste of manufacturer’s and seller’s time. It may not eliminate illegal drug activity but it will make it less financially viable.

America needs to continue their fight against illegal opiate manufacturers and sellers. Threat of punishment is not the key but reduction in profitability will drive illegal manufactures out of the market. With treatment programs, the government will make the objective of addicting users a waste of manufacturer’s and seller’s time. It may not eliminate illegal drug activity but it will make it less financially viable. Addiction treatment programs and substance abuse’ education are legitimate roles for state governments. Opiates should be subject to the same laws that presently govern drug research and development.

Unfortunately, “Flowers in the Blood” fails to nuance legalization of opiates. It leans more toward influencing uneducated poor, educated middle class, and idle rich to experiment with addictive drugs. Goldman and Latimer are on the right track with regulation and treatment of addiction, but their book encourages drug experimentation in a culture that needs no encouragement. Stress is a part of life and being drugged into obliviousness diminishes humanity.

NUCLEAR POWER

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Atomic Accidents: A History of Nuclear Meltdowns and Disasters

By James Mahaffey

Narrated by: Tom Weiner

Listening to Atomic Accidents, the first thing that comes to mind is point-of-view, second the author’s qualification, and third writing skill. Mahaffey’s book is historically fascinating, and enlightening. And happily, Mahaffey writes well.

Doctor James Mahaffey’s professional career is founded on the nuclear industry. Educated at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Mahaffey holds a bachelor’s degree in physics, a master’s in science, and doctoral in nuclear engineering.

Mahaffey is well versed in the science, engineering, and mechanics of nuclear energy. Because of education, one presumes Mahaffey is a proponent of the nuclear power industry. After dissection of several atomic accidents, a listener becomes unsure of Mahaffey’s point of view. By the end, his point of view is clear.

nagasaki bombing aftermath — The best known nukes, Big Boy and Little Boy, were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WWII.

America has dropped and lost nuclear bombs around the world. The best known nukes, Big Boy and Little Boy, were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WWII.

Less known bomb drops were in peace time. Nukes were accidentally released on remote military bases, in sparsely populated residential areas, and in the sea. Some of those dropped in the sea remain unrecoverable. None of the peace time bombs exploded.

America chose to keep nuclear secrets from Great Britain after WWII because of concern over nuclear bomb proliferation. Because of America’s secrecy and lack of cooperation, Mahaffey suggests design mistakes were made.

In reviewing the history of nuclear energy, Mahaffey notes English scientists and engineers designed graphite nuclear power plants that were inherently dangerous. Graphite catches fire at high temperatures and is notoriously hard to extinguish. However, graphite nuclear plants became widely copied throughout the world.

Mahaffey’s stories of nuclear mishaps range from dumb to dumber; i.e. from wind fans that feed graphite nuclear plant fires to technicians that ignore rules of reactor management. Nuclear accidents seem inevitable and insurmountable.

CHERNOBYL NUCLEAR REACTOR (e.g. A FAMOUS GRAPHITE REACTOR ACCIDENT.) — CHERNOBYL NUCLEAR REACTOR ( Chernobyl is an example of a major graphite nuclear reactor failure.)

Mahaffey explains that the former U.S.S.R. ignored environment in their nuclear bombs race with America. They dumped plutonium in Russian waters and blew up a graphite nuclear plant that killed Russian workers in a steam explosion. The explosion contaminated miles of Russian homeland with radioactive fallout.

Later, the U.S.S.R. mismanaged Chernobyl’s nuclear facilities and created a nuclear meltdown that reportedly killed over 60 people from radiation and left an area of Russia uninhabitable for generations to come.

FRANCIS GARY POWERS (1929-1977, CAPTAIN IN THE US AIR FORCE, SHOT DOWN OVER RUSSIA IN 1960 AND HELD PRISONER FOR 2 YEARS) — FRANCIS GARY POWERS (1929-1977)

Mahaffey tells the story of the American, Gary Powers, the pilot shot down by the Russians in the 1950s. Powers is taking aerial pictures of plutonium manufacturing facilities in the U.S.S.R. Eisenhower is compelled to lie and then apologize to Russia for the clandestine operation. Mahaffey makes the story interesting by revealing the monumental effort made by the U.S.S.R. to shoot down Powers’ airplane and reassemble plane parts to prove Powers was spying.

FRANCIS GARY POWERS (DIES IN HELECOPTER CRASH WORKING AS KNBC WEATHER PILOT) — FRANCIS GARY POWERS (DIES IN A 1977 HELECOPTER CRASH WORKING AS KNBC WEATHER PILOT)

In the end, Mahaffey discounts the many nuclear accidents and incidents he examines. His conclusion is that nuclear power can be made probabilistically safe. Mahaffey argues for the design of nuclear energy facilities that are small and simple to operate. He suggests that small nuclear power plants be designed and manufactured for specific industrial facilities.

Rolls Royce is entering the nuclear facilities market in Great Britain. Small nuclear plants could meet industrial energy demands while limiting environmental carbon emission from other sources of energy Rolls Royce Small Nuclear Plant Production

With small nuclear energy plants, the potential for catastrophic Chernobyl-like’ events would not happen. The massive underwater earthquake and tsunami would not have decimated Japan’s nuclear energy capability if the power plants had not been so massive and concentrated on the coast.

Mahaffey implies proper design and training for small, simple nuclear energy facilities will mitigate the world energy crises. Mahaffey infers nuclear accidents are unavoidable, but human and environmental damage is minimized with smaller nuclear energy plants.

Rolls-Royce recently (in November 2021) announced they are getting into the small nuclear reactor business.

Mahaffey explains that radiation is a naturally occurring phenomenon. He argues that shutting down nuclear waste disposal facilities like Yucca Mountain in Nevada are a mistake. Many in Las Vegas oppose President Trump’s resurrection of the Yucca Mountain waste site.

Mahaffey’s point of view is that nuclear power accidents will happen but their consequences can be minimized with smaller plants and better planning for treatment of victims when accidents occur. He believes nuclear energy benefits far out weigh their risks.

The 2020 Presidential election is over. President Biden’s campaign speaks to America’s gradual transition from fossil fuels to wind, water, and solar power. That transition is a potential source for thousands of new American jobs. Mahaffey persuasively argues there should be a place for nuclear energy in that transition.

UNWINDING EXTREMES

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

By George Packer

Narrated by Robert Fass

GEORGE PACKER (AUTHOR) George Parker drives a stake into America’s heart in “The Unwinding”.

George Parker drives a stake into America’s heart in “The Unwinding”. One listening to “The Unwinding” comes away in anger, fear, and frustration—whether a Republican, Democrat, Tea Partyer, or Libertarian.

Whether a believer in unfettered free enterprise or limited government, Packer offers stories that show America is a troubled land of opportunity. It has become a land of greed; not of the free but of the shackled—a risk noted by Thomas Hobbes in the “Leviathan”.

America is changing Presidents in 2021. Will anything change? Joe Biden represents a history of government organization and regulation. Donald Trump represents destruction of government organization and regulation. It seems a choice between compromise and anarchy.

The shackles come from society’s failure to protect individuals from the tyranny of special interests. One side argues–free enterprise is shackled by too much government; the other side argues–not enough government protects the general public.

America’s initial response to the coronaviris illustrates how far America has fallen. “Dollars and cents” government supplanted “common sense” government in President Trump’s initial preparation for the covid 19 pandemic.

Parker’s stories of people with great wealth, like Sam Walton, or poverty, like Tammy Thomas, or escape from poverty, like Jay-Z and Oprah Winfrey, or invention, like Peter Thiel, Max Levchin, and Elon Musk, or political success, like Colin Powell and Barack Obama, or entrepreneurial ambition, like Dean Price, or political ambition like Jeff Connaguhton–all seem failures, either in morals or self-fulfillment.

ENTREPRENEUR, START-UP MAVEN FOR ELECTRIC CARS AND SPACE CRAFTS

PETER THIEL (COFOUNDED PAYPAL WITH MAX LEVCHIN) — ENTREPRENEUR, START-UP MAVEN FOR ELECTRIC CARS AND SPACE CRAFTS

Sam Walton becomes one of the wealthiest people in the world by creating a marketing behemoth that offers low consumer prices but drives small business entrepreneurs out of business. Walton offers great prices by buying in bulk and selling in volume with lower margins, partly produced by low wage workers. On the one hand it is a bargain for the consumer; on the other hand it destroys competition and reduces family incomes.

AMERICAN MANUFACTURING JOBS (Many lose their jobs when companies are purchased by conglomerates that dismantle the business, out-source product development, and reduce employment by offering buyouts to higher paid long-term employees–all to provide profits to investors.)

Tammy Thomas, born and raised in Youngstown, Ohio, worked in one industry for the majority of her life. She lost her job when the company she worked for was purchased by a conglomerate that dismantled the business, out-sourced product development, and reduced employment by offering buyouts to higher paid long-term employees–all to provide profits to conglomerate’ investors.

JAY-Z (BUSINESS MOGUL, ENTERTAINER)

Jay-Z and Oprah Winfrey overcame poverty and the degradation of living in squalid slums by capitalizing on their unique abilities and life stories, stories that reflect on the huge disparity between rich and poor. Born into poverty; they unquestionably achieved success for themselves, but left behind a population with poorer and poorer prospects of escape.

OPRAH WINFREY (AMERICAN MEDIA MOGUL)

Peter Thiel and Max Levchin capitalize on the tech boom. Peter Thiel becomes a billionaire through entrepreneurial skill. However, the consequence of market collapse from financial derivatives affects even Thiel’s wealth. Thiel remains in the privileged 1% but Parker infers Thiel turns his attention to dismantling American government with greater reliance on free enterprise.

Senator Jeff Connaughton experiences both sides of America’s schizophrenia. Connaughton began as a political operative, left government to become a millionaire lobbyist, and returned to government when the derivative crises reduced his net worth.

(US SENATOR, FORMER LOBBYIST, FORMER WHITE HOUSE LAWYER, AND SENATE AIDE FOR JOE BIDEN BEFORE 2009)

Connaughton’s reaction to the financial crisis differs from Theil’s, in part because of the monumental wealth difference, but also because of their different journeys to wealth. They equally revile the influence of money in government but Connaughton believes government regulation can be effective while Theil, a Libertarian, believes government regulation is the bane of democratic society.

Parker tells the story of Dean Price. Price, a young Republican turned Libertarian (though he voted for Obama) believes America is the land of opportunity. He struggles, works hard, achieves success, fails, starts over, seems on the road to recovery, and fails again. Price buys into the American Dream by reading Napoleon Hill’s book “Think and Grow Rich”. He believes–if he can dream it, it can happen.

DEAN PRICE (HALF OWNER OF RED BIRCH ENERGY)

Life choices get into Price’s way. His financial problems mount to the point of losing his ownership interest in Red Birch Energy. Price files for bankruptcy and is faced with starting over.

Price experiences rising gasoline prices and buys into the bio fuel movement of the 21^st century. He starts a company called Red Birch Energy after selling a small fast food chain that he began from nothing. As a part of his original start-up, Price built a fuel discount truck stop on his family farm with one of his restaurants as an anchor. He takes on partners for engineering and additional financing for bio fuel equipment and farmed canola grain for the production of bio fuel. With rising oil prices, turmoil in the Middle East, and Obama’s election, it appears Price is on the road to great success.

Price takes advantage of his partners by not fully explaining his conflicts of interest in using bio fuels in his own truck stop to stave off collapse of his personal business. His financial problems mount to the point of losing his ownership interest in Red Birch Energy. Price files for bankruptcy and is faced with starting over.

COLIN POWELL (AMERICAN STATESMAN-RETIRED FOUR-STAR GENERAL) Powell became the poster child of black Republicans, only to have his reputation destroyed by endorsement of false reports about WMD that compelled the United States to invade Iraq.

Obama’s reputation for change appears a lie as much as a truth. Government decisions to let bank’ decision-makers escape prosecution galls every American damaged by the financial crises of 2007-2008. Obama’s unwinding of the financial crises ultimately succeeded but greed remains an alloyed characteristic of American democracy.

President Barack Obama (2009-2017)

Price brings his stories together in the “tea party” and “occupy wall street” movements. The growing distrust of government and burgeoning anti-government beliefs raises hackles and stokes fires of two political extremes. The “tea party” movement wants less government regulation. The “occupy wall street” demonstrators infer they want more government regulation. The extremes are exhibited as Libertarian on one side and Marxist on the other.

Libertarians like Theil want to minimize government intervention in the private sector, including government control of education. “Occupy wall street” followers want government intervention, subsidization of education, and universal health coverage to equalize opportunity for lower and middle class Americans.

“Tea party” followers want less government while “occupy wall street” factions what more effective and protective government.

American democracy is the politics of extremes with each extreme using whatever means necessary to deny success of prudent legislation. The consequence is a “do-nothing” congress and an ineffectual President.

The unwinding of the financial crises in the dot-com bubble of 2000-2001 and the 2007-08 subprime mortgage crises unfolds in the many stories told by Packer in this disturbing narrative. (America’s early response to the coronavirus is similarly disturbing.)

Rand Paul (Kentucky Senator)

A professed Libertarian delays emergency funds to fight the Covid-19 pandemic by demanding an amendment. The amendment is widely understood to be be voted down, but will delay approval.

America is a nation of extremes with each extreme using whatever means necessary to thwart or delay prudent action. The initial consequence of these extremes is a “do-nothing” congress and an ineffectual President.

One is left with fear, anger, and frustration after completing “The Unwinding”. The only consolation is in America’s history of (somehow) overcoming crises. America has been in crises before–in 1776, 1789, 1865, 1929, 1941, 1951, 1967-68, 2001, and 2008. We will survive the 2020 pandemic.

APARTHEID

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Cry, the Beloved Country

By Alan Paton

Narrated by Michael York

ALAN PATON (1903-1988, SOUTH AFRICAN AUTHOR) “Cry, the Beloved Country” is less brutal than Wright’s “Native Son” or Morrison’s “Beloved” but it strikes at the heart of apartheid and the insidious nature of discrimination and slavery.

In reading “Cry, the Beloved Country”, one should remember it was published in 1948. Alan Paton’s book updates Stowe’s “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. It is less brutal than Wright’s “Native Son” or Morrison’s “Beloved” but it strikes at the heart of apartheid and the insidious nature of discrimination and slavery.

Paton was a South African white man who lived the life he wrote about. Paton, among other things, managed a black reform school in South Africa in the early 40s. One is reminded, in some ways, of Nelson Mandela’s life in Paton’s main character, Stephen Kumalo. In other ways, Mandela moves way beyond Kumalo.

Contrary to one’s belief about Mandela, Kumalo is like Uncle Tom in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s book. He is a good man; a wise man, but he fails to understand the terrible truths of discrimination and its insidious effect on society–both on the discriminated and the discriminator. One doubts that Mandela ever had any misunderstanding of discrimination’s effect on society.

One can argue Kumalo deserves the pejorative meaning of a modern “Uncle Tom” definition. But Paton makes the reader or listener walk in Kumalo’s shoes. Maybe Kumalo is “a black man considered to be excessively obedient or servile”; on the other hand, Kumalo is a hero—the best of what human beings can be in the circumstance of history. Therein lays a comparison with Mandela and his decision to invite a suppressive white government into his administration. The goal of Paton, his character Kumalo, and Mandela was to preserve a beloved country.

The execution of Kumalo’s son, the prostitution of his sister, the corruption of his brother are consequent behaviors of discrimination; Kumalo sees but fails to act because he is seduced by faith and constrained by white suppression.

SOUTH AFRICAN APARTHIED — Apartheid (Discrimination is shown by Paton to be a complex evil.)

Life is full of compromise; full of good and evil. The fictional Kumalo and real Mandela did the best they could in the circumstance of their lives; which seems better than can be said of 99% of the human race.

“Cry, the Beloved Country” begs the question of what is right by inferring much of South Africa’s suppression was driven by white’ fear. More succinctly, discrimination is shown by Paton to be a complex evil.

Paton creates characters with a growing white understanding of the damage caused by discrimination while subtly injecting a more militant black movement. Again, one is reminded of Mandela’s early life which led to imprisonment.

“Cry the Beloved Country” gives one some sense of what life must have been like for Nelson Mandela.

A PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Complete Essays of Montaigne

By: Michel Eyquem de Montaigne, Donald M. Frame (translator)

Narrated by Christopher Lane

Michel Eyquem de Montaigne, a sixteenth century philosopher and writer, wrote and re-wrote “Essays”, originally published in the 1580s. Essay was a new form of writing. Montaigne’s subject is the philosophy of life and death.

Montaigne writes his collection of essays while cloistered in a château in southwest France. Donald Frame translates and compiles three volumes of Montaigne’ essays into one book–“The Complete Essays of Montaigne”, first published in 1957.

Montaigne, born into a family of wealth, affords the luxury of time for personal reflection and contemplation. Not surprisingly, Aristotle wrote that life depends upon awareness and the power of contemplation. In one respect, this quiet life is a contradiction in Montaigne’s philosophy. Montaigne reflects on history and ancient times to explain how life should be lived when his life seems a shadow of most people’s reality, the reality of a day-to-day fight for survival. There is reader skepticism about the 1% life of Montaigne versus the 99% life of most people.

Montaigne, with great family wealth and a storied education, becomes a Mayor of Bordeaux. He draws on a privileged life and recorded lives of great philosophers and leaders to create insight about lives of those that “do”, and have little time, or no time, to contemplate.

ELITISM — Montaigne is modest about his erudition but there is an elitist odor that clings to his self-effacing commentary.

Montaigne suggests the appeal of his essays lies in the middle of the human population. Montaigne suggests the in-between are those who are not highly intelligent, who are abysmally ignorant; preferentially plebeian, and ordinary. In other words, people of course nature and manner, like this critic. In spite of this elitist leaning, the wisdom noted in Monsieur Montaigne’s essays is enlightening.

This is a one thousand page journey with something for everyone. Montaigne suggests humans need to embrace life and eschew tragic interpretations of death. Life and death are only stories of being. Death is inevitable and should not be feared. Death should be embraced like life; it is merely a final act, a denouement of life; well or poorly lived. In Montaigne’s opinion there are justifications for ending one’s life volitionally but only for valued reason.

LIFE AND DEATH — Montaigne suggests humans need to embrace life and eschew tragic interpretations of death. Death should be embraced like life; it is merely a final act, a denouement of life; well or poorly lived.

euthanasia — The interpretation of justification and value are lines un-clearly drawn by Montaigne.

Montaigne suggests women may choose to kill themselves rather than be raped. Men may choose to kill themselves and murder their families to avoid enslavement by an enemy. The defeated may kill themselves if mortally ill or wounded. To Montaigne, euthanasia is permissible at death’s door. Today, the lines are only slightly more clearly drawn and only in a few of the American States (like Washington, Oregon, Montana, Vermont, and California).

EPICURUS (341 BCE-270BCE).jpg died at age 72 — EPICURUS (341 BCE-270BCE). Founder of one who believes living life is meant to be the pursuit of pleasure.

Montaigne is Epicurean in the sense that he believes living life is meant to be a pursuit of pleasure. However, the pursuit of pleasure is not defined by money, power, or prestige. Those pleasures are diminished by their attainment because they are insatiable human desires.

HUMAN NATURE HANDCUFFS — “Not-needed” things become human’ handcuffs. Life becomes an unending accumulation of things that fail to satiate desire.

When one makes more money than needed to sustain life, he/she buys more of what is not needed. Those “not-needed” things become human’ handcuffs. Owners worry about losing things; worry about replacing things; worry about keeping up with neighbors. Life becomes an unending accumulation of things that fail to satiate desire.

Power never rests. Power is always moving like an electron around a nucleus of followers. Leaders are enslaved by followers.

Leaders worry about followers, worry about competition for position, worry about their place in history; they die alone just like every human being. Power is an ephemeral pleasure that never rests in one place.

LEADERSHIP — Leaders with power are targets for support or destruction. Power is an ephemeral pleasure that never rests in one place.

Prestige comes from respect of fellow human beings. It is outside the control of the seekers or the chosen; it is limited by the opinion of others; it changes like the direction of the wind or the habits of the culture within which one lives.

PRESIDENTS 4 — Life is not an either/or proposition despite Kierkegaard’s philosophy. Humans are good and bad; no one is totally one or the other–not even America’s challenged leaders.

Montaigne disdains habit because it contains un-grounded reason that distorts nature.

Montaigne attacks cultural shibboleths that are based on unfounded reason. Because one says the earth is the center of the universe does not make it so but a universe of fiction may grow around a culture of mysticism that defies the natural state of being. Montaigne insists on skepticism when confronted with culturally reinforced habit that is not bound by nature.

MirrorWhoAmIWoman — To Montaigne, pleasure lies in self-understanding; doing what one is best at; and letting go of life when it fails to improve self-understanding or keeps one from valuing existence.

Pleasure lies in self-understanding; doing what one is best at; and letting go of life when it fails to improve self-understanding or keeps one from valuing existence. Montaigne cites many ancient philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Lucretius that reinforce his arguments.

Plato drives the point of virtue as the human characteristic of doing what one is best at doing. Montaigne notes that both Plato and Aristotle emphasize the importance of education for self-understanding. Self-understanding inures to the benefit of humankind by revealing to each what they are best at and giving them tools (through education) to be the best they can be. Montaigne insists on learning; not rote memorization, but clear understanding. Montaigne argues that it is not reciting what someone has said but understanding what is meant by what is said. This is a somewhat ironic statement in view of Montaigne’s voluminous quotes from dead philosophers.

EDUCATION — Montaigne infers education opens all doors to self-understanding and the pleasures of a good life and honorable death.

Montaigne reflects on his upbringing and his Father’s drive to educate his son by making Latin Montaigne’s first language, the language of scholarship in the 16^th century. Montaigne did not only live the life of a scholar. He was elected mayor of Bordeaux before retiring to his cloistered existence as a writer of the “…Essays…” Montaigne applauds his father for providing him an education and infers that every family is obligated to support education of their children.

Montaigne died from complications of tonsillitis at the age of 59. Frame’s translation of Montaigne’s essays offers a philosophy of life in a horse-size pill. It encourages the old but escapes the young because life happens too fast.

As George Bernard Shaw notes, youth is wasted on the young; probably because they are too busy for contemplation. “The Complete Essays of Montaigne” is an insightful guide for the conduct of life and the acceptance of death.

SOVEREIGNTY

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution

Written by: Francis Fukuyama

Narrated by: Jonathan Davis

FRANCIS FUKUYAMA (AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENTIST, POLITCAL ECONOMIST, AND AUTHOR) — FRANCIS FUKUYAMA (AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENTIST, POLITICAL ECONOMIST, AND AUTHOR)

Francis Fukuyama’s analysis of state and government formation is both insightful and politically actionable. In “The Origins of Political Order” and “Political Order and Political Decay” Fukuyama provides a basis for understanding politics and its contribution to society.

THOMAS HOBBES (1588-1679) Hobbes generally considered humankind to be both good and evil with a need for regulation of his/her evil instincts through government.

In previous book reviews, references have been made to Thomas Hobbes’ theory of the nature of man. Hobbes generally considered humankind to be both good and evil with a need for regulation of his/her evil instincts through government. He identifies government as “The Leviathan”. Hobbes suggests “The condition of man…is a condition of war of everyone against everyone”.

PREHISTORIC HUMAN KIND — Fukuyama finds a singular and significant flaw in Hobbes’ observation. From the beginning of time, humans associated with other humans to survive the brutish nature of life. He suggests humans are by nature violent with that violence becoming ingrained as a societal meme to cope with the exigencies of life. Fukuyama goes on to suggest violence and change are intertwined.

Fukuyama finds a singular and significant flaw in Hobbes’ observation. Though Fukuyama may agree with Hobbes’ view of individual humans, he tempers it by noting humans have always been social beings. From the beginning of time, humans associated with other humans to survive the brutish nature of life. He suggests humans are by nature violent with that violence becoming ingrained as a societal meme to cope with the exigencies of life. Fukuyama goes on to suggest violence and change are intertwined.

The significance of humans as societal creatures is that governments are formed by dominant tribes. Politics is the language of tribes negotiating with each other to preserve status. However, Fukuyama notes that cultural norms are dramatically different in governments that evolve over time. These cultural differences play out in the history of Russia, China, France, Great Britain, Italy, America, the countries of Africa, and the Middle East.

world map — Fukuyama notes cultural differences play out in the history of Russia, China, France, Great Britain, Italy, America, the countries of Africa, and the Middle East.

RELIGIOUS BELIEF — A counter-intuitive note by Fukuyama is that religion plays a significant role in civilizing, rationalizing, and establishing state governments.

A counter-intuitive note by Fukuyama is that religion plays a significant role in civilizing, rationalizing, and establishing state governments. It is counter-intuitive because it seems in the present-day religion is tearing the world apart. However, in the context of history, the size of tribes within countries hugely increases with the spread of religion. Religion becomes a cultural phenomenon that ameliorates (but does not eliminate) violence among different tribes within wider territories that evolve into nation-states.

Fukuyama implies nation-state development is a living organism that evolves in the manner of natural selection identified by Darwin in the “Origin of Species”. Characteristics of effective governments perpetuate themselves through adaptation to respective societal norms. In other words, every society grows via its own cultural norms which suggests sovereignty should be inviolable.

Fukuyama is saying that American democracy, Chinese socialism, Russian federation, India democracy or any other system of government will be different because of their social history. In other words, India may be classified as the world’s largest democracy but not as an American democracy because of its different societal norms.

WORLD WIDE WEB — Can the World Wide Web, the growth of science, and recognition of environmental interdependence overcome the nationalist stupidity of government leaders?

In one sense, the complexity of Fukuyama’s theory makes one less optimistic about the future of the world. What can take the place of religion to meld societies into a common tribe? Can the World Wide Web, the growth of science, and recognition of environmental interdependence overcome the nationalist stupidity of government leaders?

If Trump, Putin, al-Baghdadi, and Kim Jong-un represent the future, the answer is no. On the other hand, one may argue survival of humans is dependent on experimentation by governments, enhanced by nation-state societal differences.

Just as one species evolves into an improved human, one species of government may evolve into an improved government (presuming humans survive an interregnum).

PEELED ONION

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Human Stain

By Phillip Roth

Narrated by: Dennis Boutsikaris

PHILLIP ROTH (WINNER OF THE PULITZER PRIZE FOR FICTION, MAN BOOKER INTERNATIONAL PRIZE AND MORE)

Figuratively, Phillip Roth skins an onion in his book, The Human Stain. He exposes the invidious nature of discrimination and truth’s distortion in a story about a college professor’s life.

In an ironic Buddhist’ way, Roth’s writing stings the eyes of wisdom and the material world; i.e. The Human Stain offers a nuanced explanation of human nature.

Roth exposes layers of who we are by recounting President Clinton’s contretemps with Monica Lewinski; stories of a “free” but tainted press, the many forms of discrimination, and incidents of sexual exploitation. Each peel of the onion reveals a stinging criticism of human beings and the material world.

Roth’s story is about Coleman Silk, a tenured professor, nearing the end of his career at a small university. He is seventy-one years old. His career is ended in disgrace. The disgrace is caused by the use of words, taken out of context, and given dishonest meaning by others.

Today appears no different from yesterday. Humans lie through conscious and subconscious selection of facts. People looking at the same event view that event differently. Each person creates their own story based on their life experience.

Silk resigns from the university. His wife dies. In general, he blames the world; more specifically the press and university, for his wife’s death. He has an affair with a 35-year-old woman; they die in a mysterious accident that is inaccurately reported by newspapers reporting rumor and colleague’ distortion rather than fact.

Phillip Roth implies objective truth is an oxymoron. Are good and evil in the world only defined by society’s acceptance? Is the same true for morality and amorality?

That is the basic outline of The Human Stain but Roth peels layers of life off twentieth century history with fictional characters who illustrate and argue that stains are an inevitable consequence of living any life. His hero, Silk, tells a white lie near the beginning of adulthood and is pilloried for a Black accusation near the end of his life. Roth’s story infers every lie leaves a stain and every human being is a liar.

PTSD -The veteran husband, now ex-husband, is stained as a soldier trained to kill by the military. He is expected to return from Vietnam as though the past is past. However, the past is never past; it lives in memory and acts on the future. It is his stain.

Silk’s lover, in Roth’s depiction, is a woman stained by abuse of a stepfather, and later in life, by a husband. The abused child, and wife, carries her stains and spirals down to a dark place filled with despair. The veteran husband, now ex-husband, is stained as a soldier trained to kill by the military. He is expected to return from Vietnam as though the past is past. However, the past is never past; it lives in memory and acts on the future. It is his stain. He is diagnosed with PTSD.

A colleague of Silk’s is stained by a failure to come to his aid when Silk is unjustly vilified by the University. Monica Lewinski’s stain is literal and figurative with a soiled dress and the public’s vilification. President Clinton’s stain is weakness of character, lying about an affair, cheating on a wife. Every human being in Roth’s story is stained by life and must choose to live with it or die from it.

By the end of The Human Stain, one is reminded of the biblical phrase, “he who is without sin can cast the first stone”. How ridiculous was it to impeach President Clinton? How stupid is it to believe returning from a war is like turning off a light? Roth’s story infers every lie, and we are all liars, leaves a stain; every human experience leaves an imprint, some of which are stains.

POLITICS AND ECONOMICS

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Wealth of Nations

By Adam Smith

Narrated by Gildart Jackson

ADAM SMITH (1723-1790, AUTHOR OF -THE WEALTH OF NATIONS)

“The Wealth of Nations” is often referred to but rarely read or listened to in the 21^st century. Thirty Six hours of an audio book is punishing. However, one is surprised by Adam Smith’s prescient understanding of the value of freedom and his appreciation of the American and British conflict over American’ colonization.

“The Wealth of Nations” is not only about economics. It is about politics as an essential ingredient of economics.

Britain was among the mercantile leaders of the world when his book was published in 1776, the year of American Independence.

Dutch dominance had receded; Spain and France were vying for monarchical rule of Western Europe while Napoleon was soon to dominate the east and west European continent. British imperialism was on the rise. Britain became the dominant moral and economic power of the 19^th century.

Adam Smith’s publication defined and codified economics while recognizing the economic limitation of imperialist expansion. Long before Britain’s ascension to the moral and economic leader of the world, Smith noted the error of denying self-determination to distant colonies.

Contrary to President Trump’s “America First”, Smith believed that whatever is produced at the cheapest price and best quality for the consumer is the guiding principle of “The Wealth of Nations”.

Smith argued that business regulation should begin with the best interest of the consumer at the forefront of legislation.

In general, Smith argues that trade monopolies are bad and competition is good. Governments that restrict trade hurt the consumer; therefore, tariffs on foreign goods should be abolished. To Smith, anything that restricts free trade is bad.

Former Secretary of the Treasury, Jacob Lew agrees with the father of economics–eliminating tariffs imposed on goods…would help ease inflation (Nov 3o, 2021 CNBC article). Concern over job loss in America if trade tariffs are eliminated is absurd when looked at through the eyes of an economy transitioning from industrialization to technology.

Freedom was a big deal to Adam Smith. The essence of Smith’s view of economics is that the consumer should be the beginning and end point of all economic decisions and actions. In some respect, this narrow interpretation of “The Wealth of Nations” suffers from the same nearsightedness of a more contemporary author, Ayn Rand.

Rand argues that competition, without government interference, is essential to progress. Both authors ignore weaknesses inherent in human nature that demand some level of government regulation.

On the other hand, government regulation is subject to the same human frailties as business. Laws of “unintended consequence” play out in both political and business decisions. The consumer is an employee as well as an employer.

The economic consequences of wages that do not meet the basic needs of family survival because of foreign competition, technology, industrial obsolescence, etc. have real consequence to employers as well as employees. Bankruptcies occur, unemployment rises, the rich become less rich and the poor starve. Just as Smith’s reviled monopolies, free markets have consequences.

Smith is right. Rand is right. But, both are idealistic rather than realistic because of the nature of humankind. They both infer everything works out in the long run when humankind is left alone.

JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES (1883-1946)

John Maynard Keynes noted, we are all dead in the long run. (In fairness, Smith does acknowledge limited circumstances in which government regulation is justified.)

What is fascinating about Smith’s work is its historical context. He infers that American colonies have reason for discontent because of British taxation without representation. He also suggests Britain’s imperialist decisions and actions should be tempered by a cost benefit analysis of what British subjects receive in respect to costs of managing economies thousands of miles away.

Smith effectively introduced rationality to economics. Capitalism became a marriage between politics and economics.

One can argue that Britain followed Smith’s advice about imperialism through the 18^th and 19^th centuries to become the most powerful nation in the world. But Britain’s grasp of the cost of imperialism began to slip in the 20^th century and a decline in economic strength began. The cost of imperialist policy exceeded the benefit; not to mention, the inherent immorality and unfairness of cultural subjugation.

Visiting “The Wealth of Nations” is a worthwhile journey into history. Is there a 21^st century Adam Smith in America’s future or is he/she pottering around Asia, Europe, the Middle East or Africa and not yet recognized?

POLITICAL LOSERS/WINNERS

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

On the Brink
By Henry M. Paulson, Jr.

Narrated by Dan Woren

HENRY PAULSON (U.S. SEC. OF THE TREASURY 2006-2009)

Crisis reveals human strength and weakness. Perception is not reality, but Henry Paulson, the former Treasurer of the United States, names names and paints pictures of (mostly) men in the 2007/2008 financial crisis. In his analysis, there are political losers and winners.

How will America’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic be recalled?

This close political race will have a winner and loser. With such a close political race, the loser will be America. Divisiveness and ideological difference will remain a major obstacle in formulating foreign and domestic policy. Covid 19 will run its course. The concern is in not having a pragmatic or politically articulate President who can lead America over the next four years.

GEORGE WALKER BUSH (43RD PRES. OF THE UNITED STATES) Paulson characterizes Bush as a pragmatist who acts on recommendations from people he trusts.

Paulson reveals himself as a Christian Scientist, a pragmatist, and enigmatically, a somewhat left-of-center, presumably Republican, liberal. Paulson suggests a Republican left-of-center lean when writing about his mother and wife’s reluctance for him to take the Department of the Treasury position in the Bush administration. (Paulson’s mother strongly supported Hillary Clinton for President.)

Interestingly, Paulson characterizes George Bush as an equally pragmatic, non-ideological decision maker. Differences between the two are in the details; i.e. Paulson analyzes his own and other experts’ details and presents informed alternatives and recommendations while Bush acts on recommendations from people he trusts.

BEN BERNANKE (CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE 2006-2014) Paulson characterizes Ben Bernanke as a brilliant financial advisor, participant, and ally in supporting and executing complex rescue plans for a financial system nearing default.

TIMOTHY GEITHNER (U.S. SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY 2009-2013) Tim Geitner is shown as a team player that bridges the divide between political and administrative decision-making when plans are formed to rescue Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, and AIG.

Rahm Emanuel is described as an effective political organization man who is able to get things done in a highly political environment.

Jaimie Dimon (CEO of JPMorgan Chase.)

Dimon is characterized as a rationale business man who is willing to take a risk for the benefit of more than his own aggrandizement.

John Thain seems a competent manager in crisis that makes the best of a terrible situation by moving rapidly to sell Merrill Lynch to B of A before total collapse.

SARAH PALIN (FORMER V.P. NOMINEE, FORMER GOVERNOR OF ALASKA)

Some crisis profiles shown by Paulson are less complementary. Sarah Palin comes across as a decision maker driven by politics rather than pragmatic results.

John McCain (1936-2018, Former U.S. Senator for Arizona.)

John McCain seems to gravitate to Palin’s perception of reality by political posturing for election results rather than pragmatic solutions for the financial crisis. Jim Bunning, the former baseball player and House of Representative’s Republican, is shown to be an ideologically driven populist extremist.

RICHARD FULD (FORMER CEO LEHMAN BROTHERS)

Richard Fuld seems arrogantly delusional about Lehman Brothers’ assets and an ineffective manager in crises.

Ken Lewis (Former CEO of Bank of America)

Lewis appears Machiavellian in grabbing what he thinks are the best and rejecting what he thinks are the worst financial risks in America’s near economic collapse.

Paulson reinforces perceptions of Barack Obama as a smart guy that grasps the big picture; ditto for Barney Frank, and Lindsey Graham but less so for Christopher Dodd.

Paulson reinforces perceptions of Barack Obama as a smart guy that grasps the big picture; ditto for Barney Frank, and Lindsey Graham but less so for Christopher Dodd.

Paulson suggests that Republican Senator Shelby can drive his point and take control when pushed to act but ideological belief seems to constrain proactive action in the financial crises. Senator Reid is shown to be a consummate, seasoned political manager in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi an equally dynamic oldster in the House of Representatives.

JOHN BOEHNER (FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE) Paulson suggests Boehner is unable to lead his Republican constituency and seems awkwardly suited for either a minority or majority Speaker of the House position.

In contrast, Representative Boehner is unable to lead his Republican constituency and seems awkwardly suited for either a minority or majority Speaker of the House position.

It seems today the decisions made by Bush, Paulson, Bernanke, Geitner, and Congress were correct. After listening to Paulson’s book, one appreciates these civil servants hard work in doing the right thing. Today is too soon to tell but Paulson gives outsiders a fascinating glimpse of people making a difference when a nation is in crisis.

One wonders who the political losers and winners will be in today’s immigration, world trade, Covid-19 pandemic, and budget deficit crises.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: