The Conscience of a Liberal - Dark Publications

Location: Home » body art - tattoo » United States » The Conscience of a Liberal

Similar Items:

•	The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism
•	The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot
•	Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life (Vintage)
•	Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches
•	Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and StickYou with the Bill)

Editorial Reviews:

Product Description
This wholly original new work by the best-selling author of The Great Unraveling challenges America to reclaim the values that made it great.

With this major new volume, Paul Krugman, today's most widely read economist, studies the past eighty years of American history, from the reforms that tamed the harsh inequality of the Gilded Age to the unraveling of that achievement and the reemergence of immense economic and political inequality since the 1970s. Seeking to understand both what happened to middle-class America and what it will take to achieve a "new New Deal," Krugman has created his finest book to date, a work that weaves together a nuanced account of three generations of history with sharp political, social, and economic analysis. This book, written with Krugman's trademark ability to explain complex issues simply, will transform the debate about American social policy in much the same way as did John Kenneth Galbraith's deeply influential book, The Affluent Society.

Customer Reviews: Read 79 more reviews...

2 out of 5 stars

Preaching to the Choir November 9, 2007
207 out of 328 found this review helpful

"Being progressive,'' says Paul Krugman in the concluding pages of The Conscience of a Liberal, "means being partisan." Like Krugman, my training lies in economics, but unlike Krugman, I am not partisan. Rather, I take a policy orientation to social issues: there are problems to be solved in order to enhance the lives of citizens, and it is our job to discover and publicize solutions to these problems. Krugman's partisan stance only clouds the issues. For Krugman there is a "union movement" rather than a "bureaucratic labor aristocracy," critics of the welfare states want to "turn back the clock," rather than streamline and curb the inequities of the welfare state, conservatives have won by "exploiting cultural backlash" rather than by mounting a principled opposition to the explosion of crime, drug abuse, and single-headed households in a manner that resonates with the voting public. Critics of the wealth tax are "financed by a handful of [super-rich] families," with the public being ignorant dupes of the slick politicians.
This book epitomizes what is wrong with American liberalism. Krugman was a fine, perceptive international trade theorist, but he is a political hack, with nothing new to offer. There is one problem as far as Krugman is concerned: inequality. But inequality is an intellectual abstraction, not a politically motivating issue. People hated the Robber Barons because they were robbers and barons, not because they were rich. Oprah Winfrey and Bill Gates do not send the Pinkerton men out to protect their ill-gotten gains; nor to the other super-rich. Socialists' ringing political slogans dealt with fairness, social progress, and power to the people, not "inequality." Moreover, a truly progressive movement must built on technical progress that is impeded by the reigning powers that be (Sam Bowles and I call this efficiency-enhancing egalitarian redistribution), not the beggar-thy-neighbor, zero-sum-game sort of redistribution favored by Krugman.
I suspect Krugman is correct in saying that the degree of inequality in the USA today is the product of politics, not economic necessity. This is because some advanced industrial countries have more equal distributions of income and wealth that the USA (e.g., France, Germany). But, these countries are plagued by bureaucratic inefficiency and deeply threatened by the "lean and mean" up-and-coming countries like Poland, the Baltic States, Romania, India, et al. The USA has purchased a thriving economy and full employment at the cost of having a bunch of super-rich families. Not a bad deal, after all.
Krugman's vision for the future has three key premises, all wrong.
First, he believes progressives can win on a platform of redistributing from the rich. However, no one cares about inequality. People care about injustice, unfairness, poverty, sexual predators, family values, gay marriage, terrorism, and many other problems of everyday life. People don't care about Gini distributions and other abstractions. Moreover, Krugman should know that if the wealth were redistributed to the middle class, the US investment rate would fall, since the rich save their money and it is translated into investment, whereas the middle classes would spend their gains on consumption, thus driving out investment. A "soak the rich" policy simply cannot work to the advantage of the middle classes.
Second, Krugman would strengthen the labor unions, which he credits for their egalitarian effects. However, unions were strong only when industry was highly non-competitive in such areas as automobiles and steel. The oligopolistic character of mid-twentieth century industry, with a few countries in the lead, made fighting over the excess profits highly rewarding. With globalization, there are no excess profits to be fought over. Thus, it is not surprising that most successful unions in the USA are public service, not private (e.g., teachers, government employees). There is no future in unionism, period.
Third, Krugman believes that liberalism can be restored to its 1950's health without the need for any new policies. However, 1950's liberalism was based on southern white racism and solid support from the unions, neither of which exists any more. There is no future in pure redistributional policies in the USA for this reason. Indeed, if one looks at other social democratic countries, almost all are moving from corporate liberalism to embrace new options, such as Sarkozy in France (French socialists have the same pathetic political sense as American liberals, and will share the same fate).
I am sorry that we can't do better than Krugman. There are very serious social problems to be addressed, but the poor, pathetic, liberals simply haven't a clue. Conservatives, on the other, are political sophisticated and hold clear visions of what they want. It is too bad that what they want does not include caring about the poor and the otherwise afflicted, or dealing with our natural environment. Politics in the USA is no longer Elephants and Donkeys; it is now conservative Pigs and liberal Bonobos. The pigs are smart but only care about what's in their trough. The Bonobos are polymorphous perverse and great lovers, but will be extinct in short order.

I am adding the following remarks on December 19, 2007 in response to some of the personal and public comments on my remarks. These should be seen as clarifications.

Many commentators consider my remarks on Krugman's partisanship as unwarranted because Krugman has always spoken his own mind, and has never toed the (ever-changing) Democratic "party line". For instance, it is widely thought that Krugman was passed over by Bill Clinton for heading the Council of Economic Advisors (in favor of Laura Tyson) because of Krugman's opposition to "industrial policy." Now, thankfully Clinton did not follow the "industrial policy" suggestions of Robert Reich, Robert Kuttner and others, but we must thank the forceful interventions of Krugman (and others) for exposing "industrial policy" for what it is---mainly an unsupported set of statements that would likely have weakened the American economy considerably.

Partially because of the adament opposition of key Democratic economists, including Krugman, Clinton opted for a sound economic policy---one of the strongest points of his adminstration. But now, industrial policy is not fashionable, and protectionism has not been a major part of Democratic political philosophy, pace Robert Kuttner. Indeed, as far as I can tell there are no issues of fact that separate Republic and Democratic policy thinkers concerning the running of the economy. More broadly, burning political issues of domenstic social policy today revolve around values and not facts, and around the personal characteristics of politicians rather than the economic models that they embrace to deal with setting a policy agenda for the country. In this setting, it is not surprising that Krugman would become a partisan political actor, as I have suggested has happened. At any rate, I am virtually certain that should really stupid economic ideas pop up as the Presidential race heats up, Krugman would come out fighting, at the cost of his credibility with some Democrats, in favor of economic realities.

Some have asked me what Krugman should be stressing, if not redistribution of wealth and income. Here are some suggestions. First, a vision of national health insurance that answers the (legitimate) objections of its critics. For instance, instead of single-payer, perhaps state-by-state regulation of universal care, much as current welfare and automobile insurance. Second, he should come out in favor of school vouchers and charters, and otherwise suggest how to make the educational system more competitive. Third, he should embrace faith-based interventions into community service, especially as concerns the urban poor. Fourth, he should propose a national system of apprenticeship skill acquisition, whereby firms are subsidized when they train their workers (government intervention is needed here because once trained, the worker can simply leave the firm for higher wages). Fifth, he should propose a plan for promoting minority entrepreneurship. This is of course a land mine, because it is so subject to corruption and unfairness. However, there are some degrees of freedom in this area, such as promoting minority business networks, specialized vocational training for minority entrepreneurs, and the like. Sixth, he should propose a precise way forward in dealing with environmental issues (nuclear, solar, coal, oil, endagered species, etc.) There are many people working hard on these issues whose ideas never get beyond the scientific conference and the pages of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and their ideas are often very sound. Seventh, promote the labor market and educational policies of Nobel prize winner James Heckman and others who have a good take on the numbers and what forms of intervention are likely to be fruitful.

But most of all, Progressives need a vision of what real contributions we can make to improving the lives of Americans and the citizens of the world. Income redistribution away from the very rich may (or may not) necessary to achieve this vision, but Krugman's beggar thy neighbor ideas are insipid and counterproductive.

5 out of 5 stars

The Politcal/Economics Book of the Decade October 14, 2007
198 out of 225 found this review helpful

Krugman does it again with an impeccably reasoned history of the interaction between US politics and economics. I wasn't expecting much new, but Krugman repeatedly opened my eyes by putting our current political conflicts in the context of 140 years worth of economic and political history. He documents how the distribution of economic resources are guided not only by Adam Smith's invisible hand but also by politics. He describes how we achieved relative equality with high productivity growth during the 1940-60s, analyzes how political decisions led to our current moderate growth with most of the benefits accruing to a small fraction of the population, and discusses the way movement conservatives have achieved and maintained political power while furthering the economic interests of a small minority. The second half of the book suggests a modest plan for liberals to achieve when they regain political power--beginning with universal health insurance.

I've often found it hard to understand what motivates conservatives. I now understand their history and ideas much better. Compromising with them isn't going to work. It will be interesting to see how conservatives respond to this book. They will clearly quibble, attack, and distract, but it is hard to see how they could counteract Krugman's carefully documented main points.

This book is a must read for everybody concerned about the direction our country is moving. The timing is propitious as it arrives just as the radical conservative movement is beginning to falter. It refutes essentially every argument radical conservatives use to advance their cause and distort discussions. And it will be the book of the decade if it does begin the process of getting our political discussions about the undoing our social safety nets back to where they were in the 1950s. Krugman quotes Eisenhower as writing of those who would "attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs...." that "Their number is negligible and they are stupid." Radical conservatives will always be with us, but they do not need to remain in political power.

5 out of 5 stars

GREAT KRUGMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! October 13, 2007
125 out of 143 found this review helpful

I've been waiting for this book. I read through 1/2 of it last evening. It is a well-thought out book that well-written and more tightly argued than his weekly columns. The books even exercises some retraint in dealing with the Republicans, probably because he has to differentiate between the Republican economic ideology and the current Republican fiasco that is George W. Bush.

He makes a cogent argument that the government solutions to the Depression and to managing W.W. 2 created both a thriving economy and a thriving middle class that was sustained until 1970. He makes it clear that the middle-class hasn't done nearly as well since.

In his NY TIMES columns, Krugman holds the view that the Bush admin is a rogue government, working against the interest of the majority of it citizens, putting forth policies that the majority of Americans object to. The sense of contempt, of outrage that is present in the columns is missing here. As I said, the book is restrained: I would have liked a thoughtful attack on the Hooverites and their designs on the future of this country: some critical venom for these bizarre people would have been very entertaining.

It is telling when Krugman mentions that his collegues at the Times encouraged him to soften his attacks on Bush after the election in 2004. The conformism of the New York Times has not always been helpful to this country. That is why it took the Washington Post to pursue Watergate: it was a story that that needed to be pursued, not managed.

5 out of 5 stars

Complex stuff in simple prose!!! October 3, 2007
111 out of 127 found this review helpful

With his uniquely stylish prose( which is a rarity for an economist) and hard hitting facts, Paul Krugman has come out with an excellent book in defense of liberalism.

Krugman examines the past 80 years of American history, focusing on economic reforms and achievements and what he sees as increased inequality in our society. He argues that America's post-war middle-class society was not a product of a free-market economy, but was created by the policies like strengthening labor unions and taxing the rich to fund Social Security and Medicare, which as a result, narrowed the income gap and moved the working class upwards out of poverty.

Bill O'Reilly once called Krugman a quasi-socialist. Not sure if he would have the time to read this book. Call Krugman whatever you may, but I am pretty sure even O'Reilly would agree that "The Conscience of a Liberal" is a delightful and easy read, just like Krugman's blog.

N.Sivakumar
Author of:
America Misunderstood: What a Second Bush Victory Meant to the Rest of the World

5 out of 5 stars

Truth clearly told October 16, 2007
56 out of 62 found this review helpful

As a southerner (transplanted from Michigan), retired engineer, and a citizen very worried about my country under the conservatives, I welcome with a full heart Krugman's lucid, so truthful expose of the conservatives' motives and methods. Having perused most of the sources he names, I welcome the beautiful analysis and synthesis of the US predicament. He gives hope that we can shake off the traps and enlighten the people about their mistaken voting habits, especially those dictated by racism, which I daily see here in the southern states. Thank you so much, Paul.

Powered by Associate-O-Matic

T-shirts, Posters

Pentagram T-shirts, bags, etc...

Gothic Posters