Raising children is the responsibility of all, i.e., both mothers and fathers, and the society in which they live. The future depends on our children.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Lessons in Chemistry (A Novel)
Author: Bonnie Garmus
Narration by: Miranda Raison & 2 more
Bonnie Garmus (American author and former copywriter.)
Bonnie Garmus’s main character represents the truth of gender inequality in society. The author’s main character, Elisabeth Zott, is an example of a woman who achieves success despite gender discrimination. As an idealized character, Zott represents a brilliant woman who is smarter, more self-motivated, and confident than any other character in “Lessons in Chemistry”. Zott is a self-educated woman who overcomes the ignorance of personal and social inequality. She is an aspiring scientist who is derailed in her career by male associates who steal her research and claim it as their own. It is presumed by the research firm for which she works that her science papers come from association with her male partner’s accomplishments rather than her own work. Zott’s value is believed to be her attractive appearance rather than her intellect, personal work, and ambition.
Equal opportunity in society is a fiction.
Zott’s male partner is a renowned scientist in the same scientific research firm for which Zott is employed. They become an intimate couple with marriage on the mind of the man, but independence insisted upon by Zott. Her companion dies in an accident and Zott is left with what is an unexpected pregnancy. Alone with a child, Zott presumes she will continue to work at the research firm but is fired by the male director of the enterprise because of her having a baby out of wedlock. Zott uses what financial savings she has to create a research lab in her house, raise her child, and find another source of employment. The author illustrates how motherhood, particularly for a single woman, limit women’s opportunity in society. The responsibilities of life for a woman with child and no partner often trap women in poverty.
How Zott escapes a life of poverty is a meaningful fairy tale in Garmus’s story.
Zott is hired by a TV production manager to host a cooking show. Zott’s intelligence and experience as a chemist combine with her drive for independence to make the show a success. What Bonnie Garmus shows is the mountain for success one climbs as a single woman is steeper and more difficult than it is for men. The “Lessons in Chemistry” are that a woman’s right to think, work, and live independently are denied because equal opportunity and equal pay is thwarted by gender-related discrimination.
All in society, both male and female, need to step up to their responsibility for raising children.
The “Lessons in Chemistry” suggest men need to step up in society and take responsibility for gender inequality by providing an environment that allows women to achieve the same level of success as men–whatever that success may be to the individual. Raising children is the responsibility of all, i.e., both mothers and fathers, and the society in which they live. The future depends on our children.
Both America and China need to change. Both are making authoritarian errors that are unnecessarily threatening world comity, human progress, and the potential for peaceful coexistence. This seems simple on its face but hard in reality.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
THE THIRD REVOLUTION (Xi Jinping and the New Chinese State)
BREAKNECK (China’s Quest to Engineer the Future)
Authors: Elizabeth C. Economy, Dan Wang
Narration by: Anna Perrin, Jonathan Yen
Elizabeth EconomyDan Wang
These two authors were listened to because of their similarities and differences about America’s and China’s political/economic systems. They show some similarity that reinforces their arguments about America’s and China’s economies. Ms. Economy was born in America while Wang was born in Canada. Wang’s parents fled China just before he was born. Ms. Economy is an American political scientist, foreign policy analyst, and noted expert on China’s politics and foreign policy. Wang, as a son of Chinese parents, is a Canadian technology analyst and writer. Ms. Economy is a co-chair of a program on the US, China economic/political studies at the Hoover Institution. Wang is a visiting scholar and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution.
America/China-Worlds Apart?
These authors analytic approach to the political economy of America and China are viewed from different perspectives. Ms. Economy approaches the Chinese economy from a governance and global strategy perspective, while Mr. Wang views America’s and China’s economies from a technological and manufacturing perspective.
Ms. Economy explains how Xi has centralized power that is reshaping China’s institutions and extending China’s global influence. Xi recognizes a level of greed and corruption that infected communist functionaries and began firing many of the party leaders to restore his vision of the ideals of communism. In contrast, Wang focuses on an engineering mentality of Chinese governance and its strategy to make China the most powerful nation in the world.
Example of China’s largest production automobile, the BYD.
Ms. Economy shows strategy is not enough to make China, or for that matter, America great. She notes great advances China has made but criticizes the quality of China’s industrial production, i.e., particularly an auto industry that has become the largest in the world but with many product features that fail its buyers. There are safety, quality, durability, and reliability criticisms of China’s cars. BYD is one of China’s strongest brands. As an example, China recalled an estimated 110,000 electric vehicles due to battery defects. In 2024, 32 million vehicles have been produced in China. Its closest competitor is America which only produced an estimated 10.5 million vehicles.
Both authors agree that China is a deeply state-driven economy. However, Ms. Economy suggests China’s strengths and weaknesses are based on political ideology while Wang argues it is because of China’s focus on engineering and technology. This seems a “Potato-Pototo” argument that leaves a reader feeling there is little difference, i.e., China’s power and growth is limited by its system of governance with technology being only a part of its strength and weakness. The same is true of all forms of government, including democracy.
Ms. Economy notes the fragility of China’s authoritarian political power that refuses to allow openness to citizen opinion about new projects or ideas that change their lives. In contrast, Wang notes America’s failure to capitalize on engineering and the capitalist capabilities of America’s economy because of too many lawyers. Wang explains America’s resistance to economic growth is constrained by a lawyer mentality of “not in my backyard”. In contrast China’s economic growth ignores human impact of projects (like dams) that displace millions of Chinese citizens without political voice. Both authors seem correct with the implication of a solution that is within the capabilities of both systems of government, i.e., China should become more concerned about its citizens welfare and America should invest in public works that benefit all Americans.
The two authors see different solutions for America’s and China’s quest for world influence. Ms. Economy argues America needs to compete with China’s global ambitions by using some of the same financial and political investments that demonstrate the value of capitalism over authoritarianism. Wang agues engineering, manufacturing, and industrial capacity must be reinvented in the U.S. Some may argue that is what Trump is trying to do but many would argue he fails to make a distinction between technological growth and polluting industrialization. Both America and China need to change. Both are making authoritarian errors that are unnecessarily threatening world comity, human progress, and the potential for peaceful coexistence. This seems simple on its face but hard in reality.
Richard Connolly (British author, Associate fellow at the Centre for New American Security (CNAS) in Washington D.C., former director of the Centre for Russian, European and Eurasian Studies at the University of Birmingham.)
Richard Connolly offers a brief and informative overview of Russia’s economic growth from the days of Stalin through today. He explains Russia’s economy has grown into a blend of state control and market demand that became the 20th century’s USSR. The common objective of every Russian leader since the 1917 revolution is stabilization of the country and any territory they rule. From the early days of Lenin and Stalin there is the goal of transitioning Russia from an agrarian lifestyle to an industrial power that could compete with other nations. In the process of that decision and from the spoils of WWII Russia became the USSR.
The goal of industrializing Russia for what became the U.S.S.R. is to create a powerful nation-state, by any means necessary, to compete with and/or dominate other nations. The shortest road for an agrarian nation to become an industrial power is dictatorship which fit the personality of Lenin’s successor, Joseph Stalin.
Joseph Stalin (1878-1953, General Secretary of the Communist Party 1922-1952.)
Stalin is a born martinet. He views Russia’s agrarian workers without concern for human or economic cost to turn their labor to industry with the intent of creating a military/industrial power. He redirects Russia’s people to work for the betterment of the state. At the same time, Stalin transitions farm laborers to industrial workers managed by government apparatchiks. Five-year plans are created by the government. Those who fail to achieve five-year plan goals are punished. Agriculture is forcibly collectivized and controlled by the government. The methodology Stalin uses to industrialize Russia is repeated in countries Russia claims after World War II.
Russia’s WWII Victory.Hardship of those dominated by Russia after WWII.Murder Room in the BalticsRussian Jail in the BalticsBaltics JailJail toilet
The hardship one hears in traveling to Poland and the Baltics opens one’s eyes to the terrible experience their citizens endure from Stalin’s rule. The revenue from agricultural and mineral production goes to the State for purchase of machinery to industrialize Russia and newly acquired territories after the defeat of Nazi Germany in WWII. Thousands die of starvation because of Stalin’s ambition. Economic independence is not tolerated, either in agriculture or industry. Stalin focuses on steel, coal, and machinery to transform the economy. Living standards of workers is of no concern with goals that must be met. Profitability, consumer needs, and human life are sacrificed with the singular goal of maximizing industrial production.
The Soviet economy advanced because of Stalin’s political goals. Stalin’s goals are state security and survival. Human cost is no concern. Those who opposed Stalin’s goals were either suppressed, tortured, or killed as enemies of the State. Stalin rules for 29 years, from 1924 until his death in 1953. Stalin achieves enormous strategic economic gains by building a heavy-industrial, militarized economy that gave Russia, then the USSR, great-power status. Despite his methodology and the duplicity of Stalin’s early support of Hitler in WWII, Russia became a critical world power with the defeat of Nazi Germany. For that success, the world owes some measure of gratitude for an amoral and inhumane tyrant.
Nikita Khrushchev (1894-1971, Secy. of the communist party 1953-1964)
When Khrushchev came to power after Stalin’s death, he shifts Stalin’s model of governance to a more sustainable, technologically oriented system for Russia to remain a superpower. Khrushchev rebalances the Soviet economy in a way that keeps Russia militarily competitive and capable of global engagement. He shifted the economy toward science, technology, and space exploration. One is reminded of Russia’s Sputnik moment. Technology became a core component of economic power. Khrushchev moves Russia toward consumer welfare to illustrate his belief in the superiority of socialism. Connolly suggests Khrushchev began raising the living standards of the Russian people. The Soviet Union became more of an international partner by aiding other countries, selling arms to other countries, and using trade and technical assistance as a geopolitical influencer. Brezhnev solidified the vision of socialism as a stable and predictive governmental system. However, the Russia economy became less dynamic in the modernizing world. In the 1980s, the Russian economy falters.
Yuri Andropov (1982-1984 General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, born in 1914-died in 1984.)
When Brezhnev dies in 1982, Yuri Andropov becomes the General Secretary of the Communist Party. In his short tenure, he revives discipline in governance of Russia by fighting corruption and trying to improve Russia’s economy. Andropov’s tenure is short, approximately 15 months. Andropov wished Mikhail Gorbachev to succeed him, but the Politburo chose Chernenko who only served for 13 months.
Konstantin Chernenko (General Secretary of the Communist Party 1984-1984, born in 1911-died in 1985.)
Chernenko’s successor is Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev transformed the USSR. He ended the Cold War and reduced hostility toward the West. He received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990. On the one hand he democratized Soviet politics but on the other he unintentionally triggered the collapse of the U.S.S.R. Gorbachev’s replacement is Boris Yeltsin who effectively dismantled Russia’s planned economy and opens Russia to global markets. His short tenure is chaotic, but it creates a foundation that leads to Putin’s reign.
“The Russian Economy” is written before Putin invades Ukraine. Putin reasserts the Russian government’s control over the economy.
Energy, defense, and finance are state controlled. In a sense, Putin returns to something like the rule of Stalin. Putin chooses to reorient Russia toward Asia rather than the United States. Putin rebuilt Russia’s wartime military capabilities. However, Connolly argues Putin fails to diversify or modernize Russia’s economy. He has successfully created a durable, state-centered model of government with geopolitical power, but economic prosperity seems, at best, a faltering work in progress. Connolly believes Russia will be able to withstand pressure from the West with its nuclear capability and economic power. Connolly believes Russia will survive its present semi-isolation. Connolly believes the State will remain the central actor in Russia’s future with (at least a near term) orientation toward Asia rather than the West.
The essence of Rickard’s book is that the use of GPT is a threat to the financial world and to world peace. If the war on Iran continues, there is increased risk of wider conflict, further financial stress, reduced human judgement, and greater potential for world conflagration in a nuclear war.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
MONEY GPT (AI and the Threat to the Global Economy)
Author: James Rickards
Narration by: James Rickards
James G. Rickards (Author, American lawyer, investment banker, media commentator.)
Though Mr. Rickards has something valuable to tell his audience, his writing leaves room for improvement. The initials “GPT” stand for “Generative Pre-trained Transformer”. They are an abbreviation for massive datasets gathered by artificial intelligence to aid one’s understanding of complex predictions about finance and military conflict based on collected language used to explain the world.
Languages of the world.
What Rickards intellectually recognizes is that collected language about the real world lacks human judgement which can accelerate human actions, weaponize misinformation, and increase conflict because AI lacks human reasoning. Without judgement, facts imparted by language collection may as quickly make wrong as right decisions. Optimum answers to complex problems require human judgement. Optimum answers may be aided by AI collated language, but human judgement is key to appropriate action. Rickards notes how stock market investors who rely on AI for decisions about what to do with their investments can as easily be misled when the market is in crisis because collected language is as likely to lead one further into crisis as toward a reasoned investment response.
Rickard explains a financial decision based on GPT carries the same threat in regard to war. One wonders whether President Trump’s escalation of the war on Iran is not based on GPT that compresses decisions and amplifies the volatility of America’s actions. Is the war escalating because of GPT and inadequate human judgement? America is faced with incomplete information on a purpose for bombing Iran and what goals are intended for ending the conflict. What GPT predicts is more U.S. strikes, further Iranian retaliation, and prolonged conflict that will continue to roil the economies and citizens of the world. Regional war, let alone a World War, is increasingly likely to cause a global shock to financial markets.
Uses of GTP aka GPT.
The essence of Rickard’s book is that the use of GPT is a threat to the financial world and to world peace. If the war on Iran continues, there is increased risk of wider conflict, further financial stress, reduced human judgement, and greater potential for world conflagration in a nuclear war.
Capitalism, communism, and socialism are flawed in different ways. Most Americans believe Capitalism is the best of the three. “Bonfire of the Murdochs” reveals the flaws of capitalism.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Bonfire of the Murdochs (How the Epic Fight to Control the Last Great Media Dynasty Broke a Family)
Author: Gabriel Sherman
Narration by: Cassandra Medcalf
Gabriel Sherman (Author, American journalist, screenwriter for The Apprentice, and biographer of Roger Ailes.)
The positive face of capitalism offers economic and political freedom to pursue economic well-being through personal effort. There is also a negative face. “Bonfire of the Murdochs” seems to show that face.
Gabriel Sherman explains how Rupert Murdoch and his family are scarred by capitalism which makes them immensely rich but morally bankrupt.
Keith Rupert Murdoch (Australian American business mogul.)
The patriarch of the Murdoch family is Rupert whose family founded two media conglomerates, i.e., News Corp and Fox Corporation. News Corp combines The Wall Street Journal, The Times, and The Australian newspapers. Fox Corporation is made of Fox News, Fox Sports, and Fox TV network. Rupert is the principal creator of these conglomerates, but his children were integral parts of the management and administration of their success.
Patricia BookerAnna de PeysterWendi DengJerry HallElena Zhukova
Rupert Murdoch married five times and had 6 children. He was married for 11 years to Patricia Booker. Their only child was Prudence, born in 1958. Murdoch married his second wife Anna de Peyster in 1967 (the same year of his divorce from Patricia). His second marriage results in the birth of Elisabeth, Lachlan, and James. Anna de Peyster and Rupert Murdoch were married for over 30 years. His third wife, Wendi Deng added two more children for a total of six from his first three wives. His last two marriages were to Jerry Hall and his present wife, Elena Zhukova. The story of Rupert Murdoch’s treatment of his six children is the core of the harm that may come from capitalism’s singular focus on wealth.
PrudenceElizabethLachlanJamesGraceChloe
Rupert remains alive at 94 years of age. Lachlan Murdoch, took over Fox and News Corp in 2023 with Prudence, Elisabeth, and James taking over one billion dollars each to withdraw from Murdoch holdings without voting rights in its operations. Lachlan becomes the sole manager of the remaining media conglomerate. The author explains how Lachlan is the chosen heir apparent. Lachlan’s conservative views and willingness to distort news’ objectivity are purported reasons for Rupert’s choice of Lachlan as his heir. James and his siblings are characterized as critics of the political leanings and news distortions of Rupert’s empire. All but Lachlan leave the news combine with a billion-plus dollar buyout with no voting shares in the future of Rupert Murdoch’s holdings.
Sherman’s inference is that Lachian is the best choice to continue Rupert Murdoch’ version of capitalism.
Whether one believes Rupert Murdoch’s children are politically different from their father or not is a question one may have in listening to Sherman’s book. It appears the first four Rupert children have a desire for wealth more than capitalist probity. Murdoch and his oldest children seem primarily motivated by individual power, and the socio/political benefit of wealth. The four children, at least those before Grace and Chloe, appear to sacrifice capitalism’s ideals for wealth. Wealth is a lure offered by capitalism for good or ill as members of a capitalist society.
One may come away from “Bonfire of the Murdochs” with a bad opinion of Rupert Murdoch and his children but to the non-judgmental, the book only shows a side of capitalism that has made America Great for Americans like Trump and societally flawed for the poor. Capitalism, communism, and socialism are flawed in different ways. Most Americans believe Capitalism is the best of the three. “Bonfire of the Murdochs” reveals the flaws of capitalism.
As a reviewer of “The Great Deformation”, I am personally repelled by Stockman’s analysis but choose to rely on professional economists’ opinion, more than a politician/businessman who had a role in tanking the American economy.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
The Great Deformation (The Corruption of Capitalism in America)
Author: David Stockman
Narration by: Willaim Hughes
David Stockman (Author, American politician, businessman, and former Director of the Office of Management and Budget for the Reagan Administration.)
David Stockman has written a troubling book about the American economy. Despite his having been an elected representative of Congress and a former Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the Reagan administration, he argues the fiscal responsibility of America’s government has corrupted “…Capitalism in America”. This is a surprising comment from a former Republican congressman with Republican ties who is a graduate of theological studies, not economics, from Harvard.
Stockton is not educated as an economist. He derides Reagan for profligate spending while having been Reagan’s OMB Director. He feels qualified to argue the crises of 2008 was badly managed because it did not allow the market to allow bankruptcy of major corporations in America. Stockton suggests AIG (American International Group) and the major banking conglomerates of America that have bad debt on their books should file for bankruptcy if they cannot meet their financial obligations without a government bailout. Of course, this is the road not taken so no one can know whether Stockton is right or wrong.
GEORGE W. BUSH (43RD PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.)BARACK OBAMA (44TH PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.)
Though the harm done to many Americans by the solution of the Bush’ and Obama’ administrations is fresh in most American’s minds, one cannot help but be skeptical of Stockton’s opinion. If bankruptcy had been allowed by those companies that could not meet their debt obligations, would American capitalism and its economy have been any better? How many Americans would have been harmed by those bankruptcies? The loss of jobs from bankruptcy would have been immense. Consider the number of people with no income who would be unable to pay their bills. What would happen to their ways of life? Would America’s government stand by and allow them to become homeless and hungry? Today’s homelessness suggests America’s government might stand by and do nothing.
Franklin Roosevelt shows America’s government can finance a solution for crisis through public works that would bring America back to prosperity. Is that different than bailing out employers of the American public to sustain family incomes from a potential financial melt-down. Are the ideals of capitalist greed worth continued impoverishment of the poor?
Stockton’s solution is to cut the defense budget, reduce Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and let the public fend for itself. Stockton argues to have corporate subsidies and tax expenditures reduced with deep cuts in domestic discretionary spending. He goes on to support binding spending caps, no new tax cuts without an equal offset in expenditures, no bail outs with a belief that nothing is too big to fail, a reversal of Trumps 2017 tax cuts, a balanced budget, no long-term deficit financing, no permanent emergency spending, and a smaller federal footprint on the economy. These seem easy solutions for one who is financially secure but draconian for those who have been unable to grasp the economic opportunities of American capitalism.
More people will die from inability to receive medical care, more will go hungry and suffer from malnutrition, and homelessness. Stockman believes the current system is unsustainable. Let’s accept that point but victimizing and creating more homeless and poorer Americans only cheapens democratic capitalism.
Stockman is right in explaining the U.S. debt increase is unsustainable.
Interest costs are creating extraordinary pressure as a line-item cost for America’s budget. Reform is immensely difficult because of political differences of opinion. According to most economists with education as economists, Stockman’s observations are true, but most economists do not believe that truth will lead to a sudden market collapse. The majority of economist suggest Stockman’s explanation of long-term fiscal challenges can be ameliorated to avoid a wide market collapse. Though Kenneth Rogoff, Carmen Reinhart, and Olivier Blanchard agree with Stockman’s diagnosis, they do not think his doom scenario is likely. Jason Furman, Douglas Elmendorf, and Ben Bernanke do not believe a bond-market revolt will crater government financing. Though all agree government debt is unsustainable, interest costs are rising too fast, and political discord is a problem. These “educated economists” believe entitlements can be gradually reformed, and a sudden collapse of the economy will be abated.
Carmen ReinhartBen BernankeDoug ElmendorfKenneth Rogoff
In general, most economists recognize America cannot continue to increase its debt but most economist believe the U.S. will adjust its economic policy to avoid collapse. As a reviewer of “The Great Deformation”, I am personally repelled by Stockman’s analysis but choose to rely on professional economists’ opinion, more than a politician/businessman who had a role in tanking the American economy.
A surveillance society is a choice that can be made with careful deliberation or by helter-skelter judgement to return manufacturing to America without clearly understanding its impact on American society. That is the underlying importance of Beckert’s history of capitalism.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Capitalism (A Global History)
Author: Sven Beckert
Narration by: Soneela Nankani & 3 more
Sven Beckert (Author, Professor of History at Harvard, graduated from Columbia with a PhD in History.)
Professor Beckert defines capitalism as an economic form of privately owned capital reinvested in an effort to produce more capital. In defining capitalism in that way, Beckert suggests capitalism reaches back to 1000 CE, long before some who argue it came into being in 18th century England. Beckert argues the Italian city-states, like Venice, Genoa, and Florence, are the origin of capitalism. That is when accumulated wealth is invested in long-distance trade networks, early banks, and trade by wealthy Italian families. Beckert’s point is that England simply expanded what had begun hundreds of years earlier with trade investment by wealthy Italian families.
Economic theories.
Becker briefly compares many economic theories like capitalism, Marxism, Keynesianism, and Polanyian theories which he calls institutional economics. All bare the flaws of human nature. His economic history is about the addition of slavery to capitalism in the late 15th through 18th centuries. Beckert notes Portugal, Spain, Britain, France, and the Netherlands strengthened their capitalist economies. They were able to secure cheap, controllable labor, expand production, and increase profits with slavery.
Beckert explains the monumental changes and expansion that occurs with England’s adoption of early capitalism. As early as the 17th century, Beckert notes England revolutionizes capitalism in good and morally corrupt ways. Nation-state power combines with private capital to create a massive capitalist influencer around the world. With the dominance of British naval power, colonialism expands, slavery becomes part of international trade, and capitalist monopolies grow to dominate economies. England’s industrial revolution with mechanized production, factory labor, and capital accumulation is able to expand market influence and hugely improve their countries infrastructure and legal protections. Creating patent laws raises potential for monopolization of some market goods.
For several reasons, slavery declines during the later years of industrialization. However, Beckert notes its immorality is not the primary reason.
Free labor became more efficient for capital accumulation. The enslaved became discontented with their role as cheap labor. By the 19th century, slavery became politically and legally incompatible with capitalism. Capitalists began to understand how they could gain more wealth by indenturing rather than enslaving workers, offering sharecropping, or leasing convicts. Capitalists found they could get cheaper labor through contracts with prisons, or sharing of income than slave ownership by being more flexible with the political and physical environment in which labor worked. Slavery faded because capitalists found new ways to reduce costs of labor. At the same time, slave revolts were escalating, the U.S. Civil War is being fought, policing of slavery became too expensive, and investors felt their investments would be at risk in company’s dependent on slave labor. Morality had little to do with abolishing slavery in Beckert’s opinion.
Beckert shows how capitalism systematically expands investment of private capital. Capital is put to work rather than hoarded and consumed by a singular family, political entity, or economic system. Capitalism provides a potential for moving beyond slave-based economies, though racial discrimination remains a work in progress. Beckert notes capitalism is different from other economic systems because it invests private capital that theoretically moderates the need for nation-state’ capital investment in the health, and welfare of a nation’s citizens.
The interesting judgement made by Beckert is that capitalism’s foundation was initially based on slavery, colonialism, and state violence.
The violence of which he writes is based on several factors, i.e., historical slavery, territorial seizure, nation-backed monopolies, worker mistreatment or suppression, and global coercion with military backing. Beckert seems to admit no major historical economic system is free of violence. It seems every economic system is imperfect. Violence appears a fundamental part of human nature in all presently known economic systems.
In the mid to late twentieth century, Beckert notes how manufacturing becomes a global rather than local capitalist activity.
This reorganization creates global inequalities that America is late to understand and adjust to in their capitalist economy. The financial and investment industry of America benefited by becoming world investors, but the local economy fails to remain competitive with the production capabilities of other countries. To become competitive seems an unreasonable expectation for America because of the cost of labor. Trump’s belief appears to be that the solution is to force a return of manufacturing to America. To do that, the rich seem to ignore the fact that to be competitive manufacturing has to have its costs reduced. Where will that reduction come from? Reducing labor costs creates a downward spiral in the families dependent on income from labor. Can America capture a larger part of raw materials for manufacturing to offset higher costs of labor? That is conceivable but it will require a more focused American investment in raw materials that other nations are equally interested in capturing.
AI is a tool of human beings and will be misused by some leaders in the same way atom bombs, starvation, disease, climate, and other maladies have harmed the sentient world.
A capitalist’ economy’s violence has multiple drivers but A.I. has the potential of early detection of conflict hotspots, better predictive policing, more efficient allocation of material resources, and improved mental-health triage and intervention. A.I. is not a perfect answer to human nature’s flaws or the reestablishment of manufacturing in America. There is the downside of the surveillance society pictured by George Orwell.
A surveillance society is a choice that can be made with careful deliberation or by helter-skelter judgement to return manufacturing to America without clearly understanding its impact on American society. That is the underlying importance of Beckert’s history of capitalism.
One can appreciate Vuong’s picture of two immigrant Americans lives but his story is too maudlin for this listener.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
The Emperor of Gladness
Author: Ocean Vuong
Narration by: James Aaron Oh
Vương Quốc Vinh (Author, poet, professor at NYU and the University of Massachusetts, born and raised in rural Vietnam who is now an American citizen.)
“The Emperor of Gladness” is like “Alice in Wonderland”. The author’s story draws one down into a rabbit hole of personal experience and imagination. It tells what life is like for people who become lost to themselves because of advanced age or youthful experiment with drugs and addiction. It begins with a young addict who is teetering on suicide and is rescued by an old woman nearing senile dementia. It is largely the backstory of two immigrants and their lives in America.
American immigrants.
The old woman is from Lithuania. The young boy is a Vietnam immigrant brought to the United States by his family near the end of America’s misbegotten war. Both live in poverty in America. Their stories tell how they survive the grief and trauma of their lives. The elderly woman has lost her husband, lives alone, and had a social services person visit her for a time but is never replaced. Some of the trauma that occurs in the boys and aged mother of a daughter is brought on by themselves, particularly with the young boy. For the elderly woman, it seems brought on by living in poverty in a country that has great wealth but is unable to offer adequate care for the elderly poor.
One who has traveled to Lithuania has some understanding of the tragedy of Stalin’s dictatorial control and displacement of the Lithuanian people. That is partly what draws one to stay in the story. However, it is not enough to maintain this listener’s interest in the story. The young boy is raised in poverty and succumbs to addiction which is hard for some to understand because they have not fallen into that addictive trap. The author does a fine job of showing how these two characters meet each other and become a family that cares for each other. The growing dementia of the old woman is managed by the young boy in a way that is endearing and insightful for those who do not have the patience to deal with infirmity and elderly dementia.
There are lessons about being poor in America in Vuong’s story.
Vuong notes immigrants who have reached a certain age in their native countries are faced with learning a new language and culture when they arrive in a foreign country. All human beings gain understanding from the experience of living, but post-infancy immigrants are faced with translating language and experience understood in their home countries that are different in American culture. That by itself is a struggle.
Immigrants often grow up in silence because they are unsure of unaccustomed experiences that native-born children take for granted. Translation seems a matter of survival for an immigrant whereas a native feels experience is just part of living life that one runs from or towards.
The details of being a poor immigrant in America seem the same as a natives’ views of life but Vuong explains why they are not. To those who have been born and raised in a white privileged but economically challenged society, discrimination associated with being an immigrant minority or drug user is too unrelatable. The underlying message by the author is that in the age of “Make America Great Again”, being an immigrant makes one feel even more of an outsider.
Without a competent Chief of Staff, democracies are subject to authoritarian tyranny.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
The Gatekeepers (How the White House Chiefs of Staff Define Every Presidency)
Author: Chris Whipple
Narration by: Mark Bramhall
Chris Whipple (Author, political analyst, documentary film maker, journalist.)
Democratic government is complicated and messy, but decisions are made based on an understanding of the interests of many as opposed to the dictate and judgement of one.
“The Gatekeepers” may be viewed by most as an historical account of White House Chiefs of Staff based on many interviews of former government officials. However, one is inclined to see this history as a chronical of American government effectiveness. The facts and incidents reported give reader/listeners a view of America’s government function. Whipple details a series of relatively prudent and sometimes bad decisions made by late twentieth and twenty-first century presidents. Whipple’s history suggests the decision-maker for pursuit of government policy is America’s elected President. However, the road to policy approval or rejection is paved by White House’ Chiefs of Staff.
Whipple covers Nixon’s, Ford’s, Carter’s, Reagan’s, both Bush’s, Clinton’s, Obama’s, and Trump’s first administration. It does not address Biden’s Presidency or the Chief of Staff for Trump’s second term. The many interviews Whipple bases his history on offer a credible and enlightening history of American government. It is H. R. Haldeman, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Baker, Panetta, Card, and Rahm Emanuel that are the most prominent examples of effective and consequential Chiefs of Staff in Nixon’s, Ford’s, Reagan’s, Clinton’s, first and second Bush’s, and Obama’s administrations. The definition of effective is their ability to achieve a desired result whether good or bad for America. This is where one’s personal political beliefs come into question. It is always easy to see the errors of the past retrospectively. Whipple is careful to report facts and results without much judgement about their consequences.
H.R. Halderman (1926-1993, former Chief of Staff for President Nixon.)
Haldeman was Nixon’s Chief of Staff. There is no evidence that he had anything to do with the planned or ordered Watergate break-in, but Whipple shows he participated in a Watergate cover-up. Though Haldeman’s actions after the Watergate scandal are reprehensible, the point made by Whipple is that Haldeman set the table for what an effective Chief of Staff should be for a President. Haldeman acts as a consummate gatekeeper. One can criticize Haldeman’s bad decision to try and coverup Watergate, but he defined the role of a President’s Chief of Staff. Whipple shows Haldeman manages access to the President, understands where the power of government lies, has a good understanding of staff members surrounding the President, protects the President’s time, and balances a President’s policies with the politics of his party.
Donald Rumsfeld (1932-2021, Secretary of Defense and former Chief of Staff for President Ford.)
President Ford’s Chief of Staff is Donald Rumsfeld with Dick Cheney as Deputy Chief of Staff. Rumsfeld is characterized as a mentor to Cheney. They had a close relationship according to Whipple. Ford’s political decision to give a full pardon to Nixon and clemency for Vietnam draft dodgers were hot potato issues that were abetted (if not endorsed) by Rumsfeld and Cheney. Most significantly Ford ended America’s war in Vietnam. Ford endorses tax increases to reduce inflation while supporting tax cuts to stimulate the economy. Ford increases congress’s role in foreign policy.
Dick Cheney (1921-2025, second Chief of Staff for President Ford.)
In a cabinet reorganization Cheney becomes the Chief of Staff and Rumsfeld switches to Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld and Cheney, in their roles as Chiefs of Staff, control access to President Ford, coordinate policy actions, shape internal decision-making, and advise Ford on strategy to influence people who accomplish these acts. The two Chiefs influenced Ford to replace Kissinger as National Security Advisor, promote George Bush as CIA Director, and prepare Ford for the next election which is ultimately lost to Jimmy Carter.
Hamilton Jordan (1944-2008, Chief of Staff of President Carter.)
When elected, President Carter felt he did not need a Chief of Staff. However, he relented in 1979, when he found the job was needed. Carter hired Hamilton Jordan who had been his campaign strategist when he ran for President. Whipple notes that appointment became a mistake because of Jordan’s lack of discipline. Though the Ford administration fought the idea of promoting Reagan for President, the public felt otherwise.
James Baker (1930-, Chief of Staff for President George H.W. Bush.)
After Carter, when Reagan is elected, he chooses James Baker as his Chief of Staff. Whipple suggests Baker is the quintessential model of a great Chief of Staff which all could be measured against. Baker is characterized by Whipple as an expert at managing the White House, the press, and Capitol Hill. Baker understood the process, the politics, communication, and presidential management requirements of the job. He never confused himself with the power of the President. He became manager of what is called the Reagan Revolution. The political and social movement revolves around ideas of smaller government, deregulation, cutting taxes, and endorsement of free enterprise. Whipple infers the success of the Reagan Revolution is largely due to the skill of James Baker.
Leon Panetta (1938-, Chief of Staff for President Clinton.)
One may argue Reagan caused America’s 1990-91 recession. Unemployment had risen to 7.8%. This set the table for a Democratic President named Bill Clinton. The initial Chief of Staff for Clinton is John Podesta who served from 1998-2001 and is replaced by Leon Panetta who, in the author’s opinion, rivals James Baker as a great Chief of Staff. Whipple infers that, without Panetta, Clinton would not have been reelected after the Monica Lewinsky affair. Panetta brought discipline and structure to the Clinton White House. Panetta could say “no” to the President, at least, in private. Panetta gained a reputation for being an honest broker as a negotiator for the President.
Andrew Card on the left. Joshua Bolten on the right.
George W. Bush, the next President, is noted to have two Chief’s of Staff during his two terms as President. It appears both Andrew Card and Joshua Bolten were more soldiers than Chiefs of Staff for George W. Bush. The policy decider is certainly George W. Bush but the influence of Dick Cheney as Bush’s V.P. seem a major influence on George W.’s decisions. Bush’s two Chief’s of Staff may have been effective as screeners but not as Chiefs of Staff that could say no to a President influenced by his cabinet and personal opinions. The entry to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq suggests Card and Bolten were unduly influenced by others in the administration.
No one seems inclined to say no to President Bush in private. In retrospect, President Bush seems let down by his Chief’s of Staff and the research and judgement of his Department Heads. Both Afghanistan’s and Iraq’s invasions by the American military are retrospectively shown by most (if not all) histories as American mistakes, if not tragedies.
Rahm Emanuel (1959-, Chief of Staff for President Obama.)
The final chapters address Chief’s of Staff for Obama and Trump. Obama became President when the American economy is in an economic crisis that threatens the financial industry, the general economy, and the mortgage market for many American homeowners. He asks Rahm Emanuel to become his Chief of Staff. Emanuel is a tough Chicago politician who recognizes the pressure of the office and has some level of fear about the future of the American economy. He understood the gravity of the job he is being asked to take. However, his reputation as a tart tongued fighter for what he believed as right made him the best Chief of Staff that could be found. His role as gatekeeper gave Obama the support needed to pass the Obama Health Care plan and work through the economic crisis that nearly bankrupted America.
Reince Priebus (1972-, Chief of Staff for President Trump.)
Trump’s choice of Reince Priebus as his first Chief of Staff is short lived and lasts for less than 8 months. His short tenure is not evaluated, and history shows he is replaced three times in the remaining years of Trump’s first term. A pro-Trump person will have one opinion about those facts while an anti-Trump person will have another.
Whipple convinces reader/listeners that a competent Chief of Staff is critically important for any organization that approaches the complexity of a nation-state government. Without a competent Chief of Staff, democracies are subject to authoritarian tyranny.
Sorkin’s “1929” makes one think about 20th and 21st century American Presidents who may have set a table for a second economic crisis. As the Turkish proverb says “…fish stinks first at the head.”
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
1929 (Inside the Greatest Crash in Wall Street History–and How It Shattered a Nation)
Author: Andrew Ross Sorkin
Narration by: Andrew Ross Sorkin
Andrew Sorkin (American author, journalist, and columnist for The New York Times.)
“1929” is a history of the build-up to the stock market crash and the advent of the depression with opinions about how today’s economy compares and what should be done to keep it from happening again. Though Sorkin is not an economist, he has written an interesting history of the build-up to the 1929 depression.
Faltering economies.
There is a sense of danger being felt by some today when reading/listening to Sorkin’s history of the 1920s. Few seem to have a clear understanding of world market forces and whether we are heading for an economic catastrophe or a mere hiccup in the growth of the economy. Neither bankers, regulators, nor politicians in the 1920s (or for that matter now) seem to have a clue about the economy’s trouble and what can be done to ameliorate risks. Like 1929, today’s insiders, power brokers, and rich have more options to protect themselves than most of the world’s population.
Increasing homelessness in America.
In America, it seems those in power have no concern about the rising gap between rich and poor or the immense increase in homelessness. Without a plan by those in power, there seems little concern about reducing inequality, the common denominator for the wealth gap and homelessness. Sorkin’s book outlines the reality of 1929 that gives reader/listeners a feel of history that may repeat itself.
Sorkin’s history seems credible as he notes human nature does not change.
Today’s leaders are like yesterday’s leaders. Not because they are venal but, like most if not all human beings, leaders in power are concerned about themselves and what there is in life that serves their personal needs and wants. Of course, the difference is that leaders that are power brokers affect others that do not have the same influence or options to protect themselves. We all have blinders that keep us from seeing the world as it is because human nature is to ask what is in it for me, i.e., whatever “it” is. The 1920s had a merger bubble in manufacturing and communication that is fed by the industrial revolution. Today, we have a merger bubble with mega-corporations like Tesla, Apple, Amazon and others that are mega-corporations capitalizing on a new revolution coming with A.I., the equivalent of the Industrial Revolution. Some critics argue mega-corporations, like what happened with the oil industry could be broken up to increase competition which is the hallmark of improved production, cost reduction, and lower consumer prices.
Charles E. Mitchell (American banker, led the First Nation City Bank which became Citibank.)
What makes this history interesting is Sorkin’s identification of the most responsible power brokers who bore responsibility for the stock market crash. Charles Mitchell of Nation City Bank is identified as the central driver of the stock market bubble. Mitchell denied the reality of the financial systems fragility. His ambition and unfounded optimism magnified the systemic risk of the financial crises. He openly defied the Federal Reserve’s warning to curb margin lending that risked other people’s money and their financial stability. He continued to promote purchase of stocks on credit that were fueling the stock market bubble. Mitchell appears to have misled the public in order to increase his power and protect his personal wealth by creating the illusion of market stability and his bank’s profitability. Though Mitchell is not the sole villain, he became the most powerful banker in the nation while breaking the financial backs of many Americans. In general, it is the self-interest of those who listened to him that have responsibility for their financial collapse, but it is always hard to know who is lying to you. Part of the blame is the hesitation of the Federal Reserve Board to act because the people in charge could not agree but that was more a matter of omission than commission which Mitchell was charged with but not convicted. Of course, the political leaders of that time also failed but hindsight is a lot easier than foresight.
Artificial Intelligence is today’s equivalent of the Industrial Revolution of the twentieth century.
Similar to the corporate mergers and investment from growing industrialization of the 1920s, today’s mania is mega corporation’ investment in Artificial Intelligence. Sorkin notes the ease of trading stocks, expectations of crypto investments, and A.I. hype may well move the market beyond its value. He argues for stronger guardrails on speculative investments, more limits on margin lending, and transparency on high-risk investments. He cautions easier credit as seen this Christmas season with buying based on delayed payment incentives and increasing credit card availability, card balance increases, and more liberal repayment terms. In general, Sorkin wants to see more, and better government oversight and regulation of credit offers. He believes too many lenders are overly optimistic about the future with the gap between rich and poor widening and trending to get worse. That inequality threatens the success of capitalism as a driver for shared prosperity, and economic growth.
Herbert Hoover (President 1929-1933, though characterized as the primary villain for the depression, Sorkin identifies his role as one of omission rather than commission.)
The Presidents shown below carry some responsibility for where the American economy is today but that would be another book.
Sorkin’s “1929” makes one think about 20th and 21st century American Presidents who may have set a table for a second economic crisis. As the Turkish proverb says “…fish stinks first at the head.”
REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE 