The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too | 
 enlarge | Author: James Galbraith
Publisher: Free Press
Category: Book
List Price: $25.00
Buy New: $12.50
You Save: $12.50 (50%)
New (27) Used (7) from $12.49
Avg. Customer Rating:  6 reviews
Sales Rank: 1787
Media: Hardcover
Edition: 1st Free Press Hardcover Ed
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 240
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.9
Dimensions (in): 9.1 x 6 x 1.1
ISBN: 141656683X
Dewey Decimal Number: 330.973
EAN: 9781416566830
ASIN: 141656683X
Publication Date: August 5, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Brand New. 100% money back guarantee. All books shipped from Strand Bookstore, New York City, USA.
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
The cult of the free market has dominated economic policy-talk since the Reagan revolution of nearly thirty years ago. Tax cuts and small government, monetarism, balanced budgets, deregulation, and free trade are the core elements of this dogma, a dogma so successful that even many liberals accept it. But a funny thing happened on the bridge to the twenty-first century. While liberals continue to bow before the free-market altar, conservatives in the style of George W. Bush have abandoned it altogether. That is why principled conservatives -- the Reagan true believers -- long ago abandoned Bush.Enter James K. Galbraith, the iconoclastic economist. In this riveting book, Galbraith first dissects the stale remains of Reaganism and shows how Bush and company had no choice except to dump them into the trash. He then explores the true nature of the Bush regime: a "corporate republic," bringing the methods and mentality of big business to public life; a coalition of lobbies, doing the bidding of clients in the oil, mining, military, pharmaceutical, agribusiness, insurance, and media industries; and a predator state, intent not on reducing government but rather on diverting public cash into private hands. In plain English, the Republican Party has been hijacked by political leaders who long since stopped caring if reality conformed to their message. Galbraith follows with an impertinent question: if conservatives no longer take free markets seriously, why should liberals? Why keep liberal thought in the straitjacket of pay-as-you-go, of assigning inflation control to the Federal Reserve, of attempting to "make markets work"? Why not build a new economic policy based on what is really happening in this country? The real economy is not a free-market economy. It is a complex combination of private and public institutions, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, higher education, the housing finance system, and a vast federal research establishment. The real problems and challenges -- inequality, climate change, the infrastructure deficit, the subprime crisis, and the future of the dollar -- are problems that cannot be solved by incantations about the market. They will be solved only with planning, with standards and other policies that transcend and even transform markets. A timely, provocative work whose message will endure beyond this election season, The Predator State will appeal to the broad audience of thoughtful Americans who wish to understand the forces at work in our economy and culture and who seek to live in a nation that is both prosperous and progressive.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 1 more reviews...
 Interesting and Educational! October 6, 2008
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
Galbraith began the book after Hurricane Katrina, which he called the "Chernobyl of the American System" - a disaster that exposed and laid bare the fallacies of an entire governing creed.
Galbraith's first objective is to describe the Republican myth and its consequent set of rules for policy. Katrina exposed first an erosion of capability, and more seriously, predation (the systematic abuse of public institutions for private profit, turning regulatory agencies over to business lobbies, privatization of Social Security, and creating initiatives in Medicare to benefit drug companies and trade agreements to benefit corporate agriculture at the expense of subsistence farmers in the Third World).
Reaganites offered a reduction of taxes on wealth to increase savings and investment, tight money to end inflation, and an assault on government, regulation, and unions to let market forces (private capitalists) rule. They promised an end to redistribution and catering to the needs of minorities and the poor - compassion would be redundant.
Free market devotees prefer to avoid discussions of the fate of airlines, and the S&L industry under deregulation. They have no realistic alternative to our oil addiction, imperial commitment, global warming, New Orleans recovery, fall in confidence in the dollar, or health care - merely opposition to others.
"Freedom" has become "freedom to shop" (cheap goods from China, cheap fuel), "freedom of election" (those who have money are free to buy them), "market freedom" is for business alone to command labor, price products, manage the environment.
Practically all gross investment is accounted for by depreciation and retained earnings of corporations, and by the savings of those who sell to us from overseas. Ergo, personal tax rate cuts don't matter. The main effect of tax cuts on capital income encourages firms to pay out a larger share of net income.
On Free Trade, Galbraith takes a mixed position - recognizing that great technological industries such as aviation and telecommunications require global markets for efficient operation (internal markets are too small and insufficiently demanding); however, he also sees the potential for damage from too much free trade, and offers no guidelines on where to draw the line.
required reading September 19, 2008
4 out of 4 found this review helpful
This is one of clearest explanations of the fallacies of right-wing economics. Most importantly Galbraith shows the empirical evidence that most of theories of neoclassical economics have not actually worked in real life. The predator capitalism that currently runs our country needs to be destroyed. Some things are not best left to the market. Markets do not exists for all types of commodities and services.
 Supply side,public choice,and University of Chicago economists are libertarians,not conservatives August 27, 2008
16 out of 33 found this review helpful
There is a fundamental problem with this book.The problem is that Galbraith is unable to correctly categorize the political and economic affiliations of the numeroous economists and politicians mentioned in his book.For instance, Galbraith confuses two different Ronald Reagans(RR).The first RR was the conservative governor of the state of California from 1966-1974.He implemented fundamental conservative economic policies that can be traced directly back to Adam Smith(see below).The first RR always attained a balanced budget for California on time ,even if it required the largest percentage increase in income and sales taxes at the state level in American history through 1968.The first RR recognized the importance of education.He made sure that it was properly funded so that it could continue to generate the positive spillover and externality effects that result from a well educated work force.The second RR dated from 1976.Unfortunately,due to his great desire to become President,the second RR,as did George H W Bush, turned to the dark side libertarianism of A Laffer ,J Wanniski,G Gilder,etc. These libertarians camouflaged their libertarian ideas by calling themselves " supply side economists ".The second RR attempted to take the Republican nomination away from a solid,true conservative president named Gerald Ford in 1976.The second RR worked to sabotage Gerald Ford's 1976 election campaign against Carter so that he could run in 1980.He succeeded.The second RR was no longer a conservative but had changed into a libertarian opportunist promising supply side nostrums that were based on fanciful claims that one could cut taxes,increase spending ,and balance the budget by 1984.David Stockman demonstrated that this was a fairy tale policy that could only lead to 300 billion dollar deficits per fiscal year .
This example is repeated again and again by Galbraith in this book.The strange notion that conservatives believe in free trade is another unsupported claim made by Galbraith.The Federalist founders of the American Republic(Hamilton,Washington,Franklin,Madison,Monroe,Jay,and the Adams Brothers) defeated the intellectual balderdash of the libertarian, Anti -Federalists supporters of a weak central government,as was exemplified by the Articles of Confederation,and created a strong Federal government and central bank,as well as instituting the highest revenue tariffs in world history .Hamilton broke the record for implementing the largest revenue tariff in world history.The record he broke had been held by a Customs official of Scotland.This individual,a real conservative like his father and grandfather of the same name ,was called Adam Smith.
Smith gave the following summary of the conservative position on trade on pp.437-438 of the Wealth of Nations,after having given an excellent argument for the resort to retaliatory tariffs if the probability was greater than 0 that the retaliatory tariff would result in the elimination or modification of the original tariff.Smith's exposition(see pp.434-439 of the Modern Library(Cannan) edition of WN) represents the first explicit application of an intuitive approach to mixed strategies game theory in history.Smith states : " To expect,indeed,that the freedom of trade should be entirely restored in Great Britain,is as absurd as to expect that an Oceana or Utopia should ever be established in it.Not only the prejudice of the public,but what is more unconquerable,the private interests of many individuals,irresistibly oppose it ".(Smith,1776,pp.437-438).The Invisible Hand of the Market does not lead to " free trade ".
Galbraith,as do all of the previous reviewers of this book,demonstrate an appalling lack of knowledge of basic economic history and thought.The United States of America was build on the revenue and retaliatory tariffs first implemented by Alexander Hamilton in 1794.These highly successful,growth creating tariffs were what American import export policy was built on from 1794-1946.Hamilton,as did Washington,had cut copies of WN in their libraries.Washington and Hamilton read the wisdom of Adam Smith and applied it .It was a resounding success.My advice to Galbraith,and other assorted economists who claim that they are economic historians, is to actually read Smith's book.Galbraith should seriously consider revising his book accordingly.
Approved Contradiction August 19, 2008
18 out of 22 found this review helpful
With The Predator State James K. Galbraith brings the insightful analysis of The New Industrial State and The Affluent Society to bear on the shambles of the 21st century US economy. In part one Galbraith demolishes the standard arguments about deficits, free trade, shopping, interest rates, tax cuts, and inflation.The rest of the book builds an alternative ... a long needed alternative. I called this review The Approved Contradiction in homage to the classic The New Industrial State; in the 21st century economic freedom (the freedom to shop) is actually it's opposite. It is unfreedom. But no one dares admit it. Great book Jamie!
 Wrong Again... August 19, 2008
16 out of 54 found this review helpful
Galbraith alleges that his intellectual opponents are naive proponents of the religion of free markets, and claims that privatization and deregulation have failed in the West. What does work? The most absurd claim by Galbraith is that "China reproduces the theoretical dynamics and public welfare implications of the perfectly competitive market" (p85). America is supposedly hobbled by the pursuit of profit, because "markets cannot and do not think ahead". But China thrives because it has an economy based on production rather than profit. Galbraith blames Wall Street for the state of the American economy, and praises China for its lack of well developed financial markets.
In reality the development of financial markets is crucial for economic efficiency. Poverty remains widespread in China precisely because they lack the financial discipline to shut down factories that run losses. The empty and unsupported assertions of Galbraith stand in contrast to real research by Paul Henry, Levine and Servos, and Hernando De Soto- all of which shows the importance of well functioning financial markets to economic development. Another absurd claim in this book is that private investment either does nothing do benefit workers, or it fails. Galbraith claims that if investment is efficient, then there are no "external benefits" for workers, capitalist retain all private gains from trade. So markets must fail to work for workers. If Professor Galbraith went back to school and took ECON 101, he would find that under normal conditions capital accumulation increases labor demand, which raises wages at the margin and generates a surplus to workers off the margin EVEN IF THERE ARE NO EXTERNALITIES. If Professor Galbraith wants call his intellectual opponents naive proponents of the religion of free markets, he should first learn basic economics (in this case elasticity of labor supply). Or rather he should unlearn the religion of big government, which he no doubt learned from his father. Galbraith claims on one page that the experience of past decades proves that supply side tax cut of 1981 failed. but then a few pages latter he notes that the 1981 tax cut was undone with the tax reform acts of 1982, 1984, and 1986. Did it fail to work or was it undone? This is not the only instance where Galbraith contradicts himself.
As to his claim that deregulation failed, one should read: Dawson, John W. (2007) "Regulation and the Macroeconomy." Kyklos, pages 15-36, 02. Galbraith praises FDR for his handling of the Great Depression, but read Cole and Lee E. Ohanian "New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression August 2004 Journal of Political Economy, for the real story. Also see Jerry Hausman and Ephraim Leibtag Consumer Benefits from Increased Competition in Shopping Outlets: Measuring the Effect of Wal-Mart (online), Haan, J. and Siermann, C. (1998) "Further Evidence on the Relationship Between Economic Freedom and Economic Growth." Public Choice 95: 363-380. Pitlik, H. (2002) "The Path of Liberalization and Economic Growth." Kyklos 55: 57-80,Gwartney, J., Holcombe, R., and Lawson, R. (1999) "Economic Freedom and the Environment for Economic Growth." Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics pp 643-663, Rabushka, A. (1979) Hong Kong: a Study in Economic Freedom. University of Chicago Press, "Social Security and Saving: New time Series Evidence," by Martin Feldstein, National Tax Journal, 1996,
Galbraith asks a legitimate question: if conservatives no longer take free markets seriously, why should liberals? Now that Republicans are in power it is personally advantageous for them to work the Federal system to their own benefit. So everyone should take the free market seriously precisely because Republican experience has demonstrated the corrupting nature of big government. Republicans did not give up on the free market, they sold out to the highest bidder, and this is why big government must be done away with. Democracy is baised towards special interests, so nobody can be trusted with discretionary power. Galbraith would not find this result too surprising, if had had sufficient knowledge of Public Choice Theory (i.e. the application of economic reasoning to politics). If Galbraith understood Public Choice economics, he would realize that it is an inherent defect of big government that it favors special interests, especially big business (and also big labor). This is a hard concept for Galbraith to fathom, because it suggests that his dream of an activist state that works for "the common good" instead of special interests is nothing but a pipedream, a utopian fantasy. Yet he has the nerve to call ohters naive.
Galbraith ignores the strongest arguments and evidence in favor of free markets, and against government planning. Galbraith does mention a few cases where government planning went wrong (i.e. a Chinese dam project that failed miserably). But he jumps to strong conclusions about the need for government planning in many areas without proving his case. In the end this book presents `feel good' arguments that might assure committed leftists that their case for government planning is proven. Critical readers will find this books arguments unsupported, poorly reasoned, and at times self contradictory. Well informed readers will find this book absurd to the point of being laughable. The use of faulty arguments and misleading or invalid evidence in support of an ideologically driven agenda is nothing new for Galbraith. On the contrary, such appallingly bad scholarship by a Galbraith is a family tradition.
|
|
|
News 
