History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)

Book Description

Recorded history is a finely-woven magic fabric of intricate lies about events predating the sixteenth century. There is not a single piece of evidence that can be reliably and independently traced back earlier than the eleventh century. This book details events that are substantiated by hard facts and logic, and validated by new astronomical research and statistical analysis of ancient sources.

Customer Reviews:

Has history been tampered with?.......2007-10-23

Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/RAZQNMXM4M9CL Has history been tampered with? Yes, it has! Did events and eras such as the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the Roman Empire , the Dark Ages, and the Renaissance, actually occur within a very different chronology from what we've been told? Yes, they certainly did!

The history of humankind is both drastically shorter and dramatically different than generally presumed.

Why is it so? On one hand, it was usual custom to justify the claims to title and land by age and ancestry, and on the other the court historians knew only too well how to please their masters. The so called universal classic world history is a pack of intricate lies for all events prior to the 16th century. World history as we learn it today was entirely fabricated in the 16th-18th centuries. It's likely that nobody told you before, but

there is not a single piece of firm written evidence or artefact that is reliably and independently dated prior to the 11th century.

Naturally, after what you've learned in school and university, you will not easily believe that the classical history of ancient Rome, Greece, Asia, Egypt, China, Japan, India, etc., is manifestly false.

You will point accusing finger to the pyramids in Egypt, to the Coliseum in Rome and Great Wall of China etc., and claim, aren't they really ancient, thousands of years ancient? Well, there is no valid scientific proof that they are older than 1000 years!

The oldest original written document that can be reliably dated belongs to the 11th century!

New research asserts that Homo sapiens invented writing (including hieroglyphics) only 1000 years ago. Once invented, writing skills were immediately and irreversibly put to the use of ruling powers and science.

The consensual chronology we live with was essentially crafted in the 16th century by the Jesuits.

The world history was compiled from contradictory mix of innumerable copies of ancient Latin and Greek manuscripts and other irrefutable proofs delivered by late mediaeval astronomers that were cemented by the authority of writings of the Church Fathers.

Early in life, we learn about ancient history. Children love the magical lessons of history - they are like fairy tales. Teachers recite breathtaking stories; very soon We learn by heart the names and deeds of brave warriors, wise philosophers, fabulous pharaohs, cunning high priests and greedy scribes.

We learn of gigantic pyramids and sinister castles, kings and queens, dukes and barons, powerful heroes and beautiful ladies, emaciated saints and low-life traitors.

Ancient history is based documents, manuscripts, printed books, paintings, monuments and artefacts - called primary sources.

The problem is that neither these ancient documents, nor events described therein can be irrefutably dated, moreover they contradict each other for the most part.

When a school textbook tells us that Genghis Khan in year X or Alexander in year Y, have each conquered half of the world, it means only that it is so said in some of the written sources.

There are no answers to simple questions:

When were these primary sources written?

Where and by whom were these sources found?

It is wrongly presumed that ancient and medieval chronicles, written by Genghis Khan's or Alexander the Great contemporaries and eyewitnesses, are readily available. Actually, only sources written hundreds or even thousands of years after the events are there, compiled mostly in the 16th 18th centuries, or even later.

As a rule, these sources suffered considerable multiple manipulations, falsifications and distortions by editing. At the same time,

innumerable originals of ancient documents under various pretexts were destroyed in Europe under various pretexts.

The names of persons and geographical sites often changed meaning and location during the course of the centuries.

Geographical locations became clearly defined on maps only with the advent of printing.

This made possible the circulation of identical copies of the same map for purposes of the military, navigation, education and governance tasks.

Historians from Oxford say: "hey, everybody knows that Julius Caesar lived in the first century B.C.

`Julius Caesar' statement is only a point of view as

there is simply no irrefutable documentary proof that Julius Caesar or any other great name of antiquity ever existed.

Better than that - extremely rare sources that can be reliably dated back to the 10th-14th centuries A D, do not show the polished picture of classical history.

They show a picture both contradictory and confusing.

All methods of dating of ancient sources and artefacts are erroneous:

Radio-carbon C14 method produces dating with exactitude of plus minus 1500 years, therefore it is too crude for dating of events in historical timeframe!

The Almagest tractate, which lies as corner stone contemporary chronology, compiled in the 2nd century A D by Ptolemy, the founding father of astronomy, contains astronomical data of 9th to 16th century!

The Bronze Age,that has supposedly began 5000 years ago. Bronze is made of 90% copper and 10% tin, but the technology for tin extraction dates back to 14th century A D!.

All eclipses contained in manuscripts, like Thucydides one, relating 'ancient' events have exclusively medieval dating. All horoscopes cut in stone or painted in Egyptian temples, like Dendera have exclusively early medieval dating solutions.

Not quite what you have learned in school? Open your eyes, and, you will find sufficient proof to reach step by step the inevitable conclusion that the classical chronology is false and therefore, that the history of ancient and medieval world universally accepted today, is also false. Have a fresh outlook on everything said or printed about "ancient" and "enigmatic" Roman, Greek and Egyptian, medieval as well as all other "lost and found" civilizations.

Antiquity and Dark Ages are phantoms invented in the 16th 18th and polished in 19th 20thcenturies. Human civilization is in fact barely 1000 years old!

This book will change your perception of History forever!
What if Ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt were invented during Renaissance?
What if The Old Testament was a rendition of events of the Middle Ages?
What if Jesus Christ was born in 1053 and crucified in 1086 AD?
Sounds Unbelievable?
Not after you've read "History: Fiction or Science?" by Anatoly Fomenko, the genius mathematician.
Armed with astronomy and computers Anatoly Fomenko turns History into a rocket science.

Calculations are only as good as your numbers.......2007-08-03

Yes, we can all agree that mainstream history is nearly 100% BS due to politics, economics, ego, problems with dating techniques, and various conspiracies. Agreed. But, I've been researching the distinct possibility that human history (in terms of civilizations) are much more ancient than we've been told, so coming across this book was very interesting to me. I wondered how Fomenko could be wrong (if at all) because he is very persuasive in his presentations. Then it dawned on me. If at previous times in prehistory, due to the various catastrophies that are well documented (comets, asteroids, planetary disruptions, plasma discharge, pole reversals, etc) the Earth was in a different position in relation to the sun, different tilt on its axis, different orbit, different rotation (in terms of velocity and DIRECTION), and the continents were in different positions, then would this not cause the ancients to see the sky (constellations) differently? In other words, is Fomenko making erronious assumptions about the physics of the Earth in pre-history, which then corrupt his data with regards to dating the relevant astrology? The last event to seriously disrupt our planet occured roughly 3500 years ago, according to other good researchers, so is it possible Fomenko has been confused by this? The vastly different physics of our planet in the not so distant past may explain this confusion, which is not to say the "mainstream" version of history is correct; on the contrary. I am not an expert in these fields, but wanted to see if this idea could spark discussion.

Pants on fire?.......2007-07-19

Will people ever read before spamming? Yes, Jesuits could not rewrite world history alone, they had help. Anyway, Dr Prof Acad A.Fomenko does not point to jesuits as the driving force of world wide history manipulation in published volumes 1,2,3;, actually he barely mentions the poor devils. Check it with 'Search inside' feature, please. China is rarely mentioned either, in fact, Dr Fomenko is completely eurocentric. Right, his theory contradicts all mainstream schools of history, because in their actual state they are all built on blatantly erroneus chronology. You don't need a mysterious cabal (conspiracy) to falsify history, the falsification is its modus operandi. It is inherent to history(ians) to falsify (distort) events, as it is inherent to humans to boast as it is inherent to power (authority) to legimize itself by referrring to glorious past made to its own order. Dr Prof Fomenko and team have identified scores of instances of such manipulation in Russian, European, etc.. history, and delivered valid statistical proof thereof. His own 'reconstruction' is completely another story. Forget c14 as a valid method of dating. W.Libby has initially discovered a brilliant method of INDEPENDENT dating. Too bad, c14 method has become a joke after a forced marrige with dendrochronology with consensual chronological scale inbuilt. Radiocarbon method can't stand blind tests, but is so very productive as a rubberstamp.

Accepted History & Chronology Must Be Changed. .......2007-04-09

There is no doubt that history as most know it is a sham, & institution's version of History both University & Church is fradulent & inaccurate. Everything was established with an agenda, The real "Dark Ages" are now when we have access to incredible amounts of information past authorities & more important 'common folk' didn't have but our institutions & educators are slow to evolve because of what has ignorantly & arrogantly been taught for too long. This is on many subjects not just Chronology.

For anyone to question "Why would a Mathematician have anything credible to say of History?" The answer is from Dr. Fomenko's preface in the book: "It would be worthwhile to remind the reader that in the XVI-XVII century Chronology was considered to be a subdivision of Mathematics." These volumes could possibly be some of the most important works to date & should be read by everyone with an interest in History, especially professors & educators who have a duty to the public. I have read both books & must say that 'Chronology 1' has some very eye opening & revolutionary information. Even if these volumes are part true the implications are profound & opens the doors to further investigations & questions which must be done. I speak several different lanquages & must say the logic Dr. Fomenko uses with "inflection" of words & words being read from left to right in one region & right to left in another then written backwards, the removal of vowels & get down to basics of words, or different cities & locations having the same name etc. is correct. Vowel usage has always been optional & varied, actually complicating linquistics & study. The first thing one has to understand is that words never had a fixed spelling in history like we do now, the spelling of words was mutable & regional, as well as names & titles of people were vast, varied & changed, NOTHING WAS FIXED or understood linear. Matters of Life & Death as well as financial profiteering yesterday & today were & are made with ignorant, illogical & conspiratorial views of history & reality, it's time people get closer to the Truth & society collectively grow up.

Very Interesting.......2007-03-07

It is a good proposal and I believe it will mature into something even better in the future. I think it deserves to be read.

Poisoned Wells: The Dirty Politics of African Oil

Average customer rating:

Poisoned Wells

Poisoned Wells: The Dirty Politics of African Oil
Nicholas Shaxson
Manufacturer: Palgrave Macmillan
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Popular Economics | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

General | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

General | Industries & Professions | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

Oil & Energy | Industries & Professions | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

Public Affairs & Administration | Government | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Ethics & Morality | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Southern Africa | Africa | History | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 1403971943
Release Date: 2007-03-20

Book Description

Each week the oil and gas fields of sub-Saharan Africa produce well over a billion dollars' worth of oil, an amount that far exceeds development aid to the entire African continent. Yet the rising tide of oil money is not promoting stability and development, but is instead causing violence, poverty, and stagnation. It is also generating vast corruption that reaches deep into American and European economies. In Poisoned Wells, Nicholas Shaxson exposes the root causes of this paradox of poverty from plenty, and explores the mechanisms by which oil causes grave instabilities and corruption around the globe. Shaxson is the only journalist who has had access to the key players in African oil, and is willing to make the connections between the problems of the developing world and the involvement of leading global corporations and governments.

Customer Reviews:

Poisoned Wells.......2007-06-11

Of the current crop of "what is wrong with Africa" books including "The Shackled Continent", "The White Man's Burden" and "The Trouble with Africa", Nicholas Shaxson's analysis and prescriptions for change are the most radical and on-the-money. Shaxson's book should be widely read and discussed. Unfortunately, too much invested in the status quo by all concerned to see much likelihood of change within the next few decades.

The Moral Economy of AIDS in South Africa (Cambridge Africa Collections)

Average customer rating:

The Moral Economy of AIDS in South Africa (Cambridge Africa Collections)
Nicoli Nattrass
Manufacturer: Cambridge University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

AIDS | Disorders & Diseases | Health, Mind & Body | Subjects | Books

Social Policy | Government | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Dentistry | Medicine | Subjects | Books

General | Medicine | Subjects | Books

All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books

Medicine | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books

Nonfiction | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books

Professional | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0521548640

Book Description

Relatively few people have access to antiretroviral treatment in South Africa. The government justifies this on grounds of affordability, a view that Nicoli Nattrass argues is insulating AIDS policy from social discussion and the possibilities of financing a large scale intervention. Nattrass addresses South Africa's contentious AIDS policy from both an economic and ethical perspective. This relevant and accessible work is a valuable resource for readers with an interest in AIDS policy and the social and economic implications of the pandemic.

Profit with Honor: The New Stage of Market Capitalism (The Future of American Democracy Series)

Average customer rating:

Lots of Stimulating Thought in a Small Book
Must Reading For Any Current Or Future CEO And Business Leader
Should Be In Every Boardroom

Profit with Honor: The New Stage of Market Capitalism (The Future of American Democracy Series)
Daniel Yankelovich
Manufacturer: Yale University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

Social Science | Nonfiction | Bargain Books | Stores | Books

General | Nonfiction | Bargain Books | Stores | Books

General | Business & Investing | Bargain Books | Stores | Books

All Deals | Blowout Books | Stores | Books

Business & Investing | Blowout Books | Stores | Books

Nonfiction | Blowout Books | Stores | Books

Policy & Current Events | Popular Economics | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

General | Popular Economics | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

Economic Conditions | Economics | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

Free Enterprise | Economics | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

General | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

Economic Conditions | International | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

Ethics | Business Life | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

General | Current Events | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

ASIN: 0300108583

Book Description

This wise and optimistic book examines the rampant scandals that plague American corporations today and shows how companies can reverse the resulting climate of mistrust. By seizing the opportunity to address some of the nation’s—and the world’s—most serious problems, business can strengthen its reputation for integrity and service and advance to a new stage of ethical legitimacy. Daniel Yankelovich, a social scientist and an experienced member of the corporate boardroom, describes the toxic convergence of cultural and business trends that has led inexorably to corporate scandals. Yet he offers reassurance that opportunity exists for positive change. Creative business leaders can advance market capitalism to its next stage of evolution, building upon business norms that simultaneously emphasize the legitimacy of profit making and the importance of the care that companies give to employees, customers, and the larger society.

The book asserts that American culture has abandoned its old tradition of enlightened self-interest, of “doing well by doing good.” A narrow legalism has taken over (“I didn’t break the law; therefore I didn’t do anything wrong”). Yankelovich argues that attempts to deal with such flawed ethical norms by means of more laws and regulations cannot succeed. He offers a series of case histories to show how and why stewardship ethics can strengthen individuals, corporations, the nation, and the world economy.

Customer Reviews:

Lots of Stimulating Thought in a Small Book.......2007-08-09

Daniel Yankelovich is a social scientist who has also served on several corporate boards. That gives him a unique perspective on the ethical challenges that face board members.

Yankelovich, to use his term, is a "privileged witness," who sees business from the outside, but has seen its inner workings up close. Even more important in some ways is the fact that he and his company have been among the firms tracking changes in society over several decades.

Here is why he wrote this book: "The purpose of this short book is to suggest that the business community can turn the scandals of recent years to good use, both for business itself and for the larger society."

Yankelovich sees three causes for these scandals. They are: 1) deregulation; 2) linking the biggest part of CEO compensation to stock price; and, 3) the importing of wider social norms into business, resulting in what he calls "unenlightened self-interest."

In the first half of the book he outlines changes in social norms in both business in society over several decades. Business, according to Yankelovich is more likely establish the norms he desires than society as a whole. And, he thinks, if business does so it will "help dispel moral confusion in the culture at large."

He says: "My main argument in the book is that the time has come for market capitalism in the United States to advance to a new stage of enlightened self-interest."

To do that he advocates something he calls "Stewardship Ethics," which he defines as "commitment to care for one's institution and those it serves in a manner that responds to a higher level of expectations." He devotes the second half of the book to describing what a set of norms based on "stewardship ethics" might look like and how they might come about.

In one of the most helpful sections of the book, Yankelovich spends time outlining the difference between his Stewardship Ethics and the bundle of beliefs and positions that come under the heading of "Corporate Social Responsibility."

If you're like me, you'll find Yankelovich's position a refreshing change from the "profit is evil" approach of most CSR types. If you are someone who sees the pursuit of profit by companies as, at best, a necessary evil, you will be very uncomfortable with this book and its ideas.

This book has two key strengths. First, Yankelovich himself is both knowledgeable and logical. Second, the book is short, only around 170 pages of text. Those are also the book's weaknesses.

Because Yankelovich himself is knowledgeable, he often leaves terms undefined. I could not find a definition, for example, of one of his key terms, "market capitalism." It may be that everyone indeed defines that term the same way, but I doubt it.

The shortness of the book means that some arguments are made without adequate support. For example, on page 96, Yankelovich says, "How well a company conceives and executes stewardship ethics as a community has a direct bearing on its long term profitability." He then offers the example of Wegman's as proof. Alas, a single example without supporting evidence is not proof.

This brings us to the key question: "Should you buy and read this book?"

If you are a senior executive, a member of a corporate board, or a faculty member at a business school, this should be on your "must-read" list. Yankelovich has crammed a lot of good stuff and cogent analysis in here about the business climate and corporate responses.

This book is also a good read if you're interested in the ethical challenges of contemporary business, but you don't make it your primary focus. If you're a professional ethicist or philosopher, you'll find the book a little light on both reasoning and support, but that's exactly why it's a good read for the rest of us. The book is filled with provocative ideas and well written.

But if you're looking for a "how to" book, this would be a poor choice. It's a great book for stimulating thought and discussion, but the "how to" will be up to you.

Must Reading For Any Current Or Future CEO And Business Leader.......2007-07-09

This is a book I wish I had written. I have talked at length over the past few years about what is wrong with today's capitalist economy and particularly so since the Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, and other corporate scandals. However, I am and always have been a committed supporter of a free-market economy with minimal government interference. In the late 1950s (while very young!) I embraced Ayn Rand's "laissez-faire" theory of business, only to be later disturbed by some of the unwarranted and seriously problematic assumptions one had to make in order to completely buy into her "doctrine" of extreme individualism and "caveat emptor" economics. While I recognized that neither Communism (ala Marx) nor state socialism could bring about a dynamic market economy combined with political liberty, there was, I thought, definitely something missing in the theory and practice of a free-market economy as Rand and her coterie envisioned and promoted it. Moreover, the so-called "mixed economy" (which is what the U.S. pretty much has now -- a mixture of free-market and "socialist" elements) has not prevented the scandals recently experienced.

Enter Daniel Yankelovich with his new book "Profit With Honor: The New Stage of Market Capitalism." In my opinion, on the Aristotelian scale of ethical virtue, his book represents the "mean" between the extremes of a dog-eat-dog capitalism with profit as the "only" consideration and the position that profit is evil, private enterprise is antisocial and, therefore, a centrally-planned government-run economy is the only acceptable solution. Economic activity is, of course, not fundamentally different from any other human activity, whether it be individual, social, political, or whatever. There has to be some moral foundation, some ethical framework, which justifies and provides a rational structure for the activity. Neither of the aforementioned extremes can provide the necessary theoretical support nor the practical guidelines for an economic system which must take into consideration human nature and the human condition.

In his book, Yankelovich states that his "main argument . . . is that the time has come for market capitalism . . . to advance to a new stage of enlightened self-interest. American business needs to develop a new ethic -- a coherent set of social norms -- both to counteract the forces leading to the scandals and to meet the challenges of the global economy that call upon business to take on many new responsibilities." He calls his program (if that is the appropriate term) a "stewardship ethics," a set of cultural norms for business which involves social responsibility without rejecting the concepts of profit and self-interest. This is, for the most part, my position on the issue. The philosophical enemies of market capitalism have had plenty of ammunition provided to them in recent years by some of those -- dare I say "crooks"? -- who are involved in market capitalism itself. Without a solid and rational moral foundation, market capitalism becomes its own worst enemy. Yankelovich appears to be confronting this challenge and, I think, points the way to a good resolution of the problem.

There is no question now, in my view, that capitalism as it has been practiced in the past is just that -- a thing of the past. Capitalism must now advance to the "next stage of evolution," as Yankelovich envisions it. While it is vital that profit-making remain a central concern and goal of any economic enterprise, companies must also give due consideration to customers, employees, and society at large. There is really no essential conflict between making a profit (which any business must do to survive) and social responsibility. This notion of conflicting objectives was, I suspect, a matter of philosophical immaturity during the developmental growth of the capitalist system. It should be recalled that many of the so-called "robber barons" of the past did participate in philanthropic activities and contribute generously to the "social good." (Think Carnegie libraries, Ford and Rockefeller foundations.)

But, of course, the problem remains regarding the future of market capitalism, especially amid all the recent scandals. This is where I think Yankelovich makes his most noteworthy contribution. Abstract principles of ethics -- which is what many of us were primarily concerned with when I taught classes in ethical theory in years past -- is one thing. Important as that is, however, the application of ethical principles to practical situations, institutions, and social realities is, after all, of immediate concern. What Yankelovich provides is an extension of rational ethical principles into the marketplace, that is, where the action is and where they are most useful. There is no justification now for schools of business and departments of economics to ignore the moral and social ramifications of market activities; courses in business ethics, and I suggest maybe the "stewardship ethics" recommended in this book, ought to be a core part of the curriculum -- not just an elective, but a requirement.

"Profit With Honor" is, of course, not a full-blown treatise on business ethics. It is a short book, a mere 169 pages of actual text. It is, however, concise and to the point. Yankelovich's suggestion that market capitalism should adopt the idea of "doing well by doing good" comes across throughout the book and this idea needs to be internalized by anyone considering a future in business leadership. He concludes: "In our culture . . . the transformation to stewardship ethics may take place without even being widely noticed. But its effects will register in enhanced trust in the business sector, in improved long-term profitability, and in significant advances in global well-being." One can only hope what he says proves prophetic. This book is an excellent introduction to the problem at hand and, for many of us I suspect, a framework within which the practical solution to the problem can be realized. Must reading for any contemporary or future CEO. Highly recommended.

Should Be In Every Boardroom.......2007-07-07

This book is about ethics and integrity in corporate America. The author discusses the various scandals of the past decade or so, looks at root causes, and proposes a solution.

This book could easily have been a statist prescription for yet more regulation by that whacko entity we call the federal government (which doesn't actually govern), but fortunately it was not. Just as easily, it could have been yet another book used by the author to push the leftist agenda in the rosiest of terms, despite the fact that agenda has always failed and always will. Fortunately, we were spared that reality-challenged view as well. Nor is it another effort to push the "conservative" agenda (basically, a way of diverting money to special interests). In fact, Yankelovich stresses the need to move beyond political "solutions" to problems.

People change careers, and I am one of those people. In my former life as an engineer (in a galaxy far, far away or something to that effect), one of the skills I learned was root cause analysis. This kind of analysis is demonstrably absent in public policy, as is evident from the demonstrable failure of federal policies, federal agencies, federal programs, and just about anything else spewing forth from Washington, DC. I notice that most "experts" have pretty logical-sounding solutions to what ails us, but almost none of them first determines what problem needs solving. They have a hammer (their area of expertise), and the whole world is their nail.

Yankelovich takes a humbler and more rational approach. This book talks about what CEOs and other leaders should do to restore integrity in our corporations, yet in the preface he says he's neither a celebrated CEO nor an expert on the subject. Upon reading the book, I found this worked to his advantage. He's not an armchair general type, either, though. He was on many boards over many years and has seen the workings of the inner sanctum firsthand. His background as a social scientist and researcher is also a critical qualification, because he has an excellent lens through which to observe and analyze.

At 169 pages in paperback format, this book is short. It's not a highly detailed academic treatise on case histories. Yankelovich is certainly capable of producing such an opus. But it would be read by academics rather than CEOs. This book is the perfect size for its primary target audience--the high level corporate executive. It can fit into a briefcase for reading during a return flight or two.

Profit with Honor has ten chapters. The first two give us a clear picture of the problem. In those chapters, Yankelovich also discusses why legal remedies don't work. For example, if you have a law barring a certain behavior, people who believe it's OK to game the system will find and exploit a loophole. To see how this pans out, look no further than our insane, and counterproductive, federal income tax code. He also talks about what happens when a company promises to play nice and then doesn't.

The next two chapters explain why "What's good for GM is good for America" isn't so (not to pick on GM--that was the actual statement, but the sentiment was quickly adopted by other companies). Yankelovich also provides comparisons between the ethics of today (or lack thereof) to the ethics of previous times. This isn't a "sure was great in the good old days" fantasy. Yankelovich bases his analysis on actual research, including a study of the Harvard Business School Class of 1949.

What he has to say about "civil society" in Chapter Five is right on target, and should be required reading for everyone over the age of six. Unfortunately, we have too few adults with the proper training in civility, and we gag on that aftertaste of that every day.

Chapter Six and Chapter Seven provide a good discussion of stewardship ethics, which Yankelovich proposes as the means of getting our corporations back on track.

In Chapter Eight, Yankelovich exposes the fallacy of the "Shareholder Value" philosophy, leaving no doubt for the reader that it has proven to be costly and destructive. Chapter Nine explores the concept of gatekeeper integrity. Our gatekeepers include institutional investors, auditors, business lawyers, investment bankers, business journalists, and educators--and they have profoundly failed us.

The final chapter, Titled "Hummer vs. Hybrid" nicely ties the book's concepts together. What better way to make things clear than to use a common example and figuratively turn it over in your hand so that each edge, nook, and cranny is exposed to sunlight? This example concerns the attitudes of two companies. The first one is GM, which I loathe. The second is Toyota, of which I am a customer and a huge fan.

GM chased short-term profits by producing gas-guzzling Hummers. Thanks to GM lobbyists, the CONgress (which sells legislation to the highest bidder) introduced more distortions into that abomination called "the federal income tax code" to make it advantageous for people to own Hummers rather than a vehicle that makes sense. Hummers tear up our roads (causing us to pay higher road taxes) and consume four times the fuel that a sensible vehicle does (causing gas prices to be higher). So, we all pay for some insecure person to drive around in a Hummer dominating the road while GM managers soak up their bonuses for short-term profits and Middle East terrorists enjoy the funding provided by the additional oil revenue. All perfectly legal.

Toyota, on the other hand, behaved responsibly by producing the fuel-efficient Prius hybrid. It's important to note that this isn't their only fuel-efficient vehicle. My Camry gets nearly 40 MPG on the highway (5-speed manual transmission, good driving habits, synthetic oil, and other things boost its fuel economy past the EPA rating). Some other models of conventially-powered Toyotas, such as the Corolla, do even better.

If we replaced every GM vehicle with a Toyota Camry, America would no longer have an energy problem.

Toyota's venture into the hybrid market came at the cost of short-term losses. This car isn't a cash cow for them, and it isn't causing their executives to go home with multi-million dollar bonuses. It's part of the their long-term strategy to build cars that serve people and society. It's the result of their "continual improvement" ethic.

Yankelovich follows this same ethic in his writing. He isn't proposing a quick fix. He's proposing a change in underlying attitudes and beliefs, and it takes time for those things to produce effects. It's like eating right vs. taking medications. Eating right won't instantly make you healthy, if you are presently not eating right. But it's the only way to be healthy and correcting the effects of wrong behavior takes time.

It's also a monumental task to get all the players on board with such a change. If this book makes its way into boardrooms and executive suites across the country, and if individuals in those boardrooms and executive suites decide to make personal integrity a top priority ala the Class of 1949, that change can and will happen.

If you like the idea of a nation in which corporations are run in an ethical fashion (providing a model the federal "government" might learn from), read this book and then recommend it to others.

The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy (Studies in Ethics and Economics)

Average customer rating:

Beware!
The Unhistorical Historian
Very effective
Catholics for Freedom
an austrian primer

The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy (Studies in Ethics and Economics)
Thomas E. Woods Jr.
Manufacturer: Lexington Books
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Ethics | Religious Studies | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books

General | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0739110365

Book Description

Filling a lapse in the debate on the role of religious thought in economic theory, The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy, informed by the history of Catholic economic thought, shows that the long-seen contradiction between Catholic faith and support for the market economy does not exist.

Customer Reviews:

Beware!.......2007-10-15

As a Roman Catholic, I must point out that this book is NOT representative of the Catholic social teaching. Traditionalists (with whom the author sympathizes) are a minority group within Roman Catholicism (some groups don't even enjoy the favor of the Holy See) just like the Austrian school is a fringe school of thought in economics. Traditionalists do not like the Church's emphasis on social justice whereas Austrian economists would get rid of the central banks and social spending (in fact, they seriously contemplate privatizing oceans and sidewalks). If someone sympathizes with anarcho-capitalism and does not care about those who are hurt by the unfettered market, maybe they are not Catholic in the first place. Once again: this book does NOT express the Catholic view.

The Unhistorical Historian.......2006-03-26

Woods accepts uncritically the rather paradoxical view that there is an arena of human action (economics)exmempt from the moral order. This implies that it is also exempt from Church teachings. Thus, for Woods, it is the Church and not the market that is problematic. The market, for Woods, moves according to its own logic, just as the stars do; it is a pure science on the order of physcis or astronomy. However, the view that men are moved in the same way as are the stars is more akin to astrology than astronomy.

The traditional view that prevailed from Aristotle to Smith was that all human relationships, including economic ones, were regulated by justice. Justice, for Aristotle and St. Thomas, was not merely a "Part of virtue, but virtue entire." Hence there can be no human relationships outside its realm. To posit an order of relationships beyond justice is to subscribe, consciously or not, to the doctrine of the double truth. Just as in the 13th century, those who subscribe to this doctrine reject the authority of the Church, or indeed any authority at all.

Woods is truly unprepared for his task, with only a rudimentary knowledge of economics, mainly gleaned from the pretensions of "praxeology," a philosophy so flawed that only an economist could take it seriously. (Economists are generally the most poorly trained and least well-read of all the academics.) But Woods is an historian, and should have used his training in this area to examine the question. Had he done so, he would have discovered that the system he longs for existed in the 19th and early 20th century. The economy was, during that period, very nearly laissez-faire, with the government not even 1/10th as involved as it is today. The system was also highly unstable and inequitable, subject to ever increasing cycles of economic euphoria and depression, culminating in the Great Depression that very nearly brought the system down. Only massive government redistribution, starting after World War II, could given the system any stability. Now this intervention itself has become problematic, resulting in debts that cannot be sustained.

We have been where Woods would have us go; we did not like it. The truth of the matter is that economic Austria and social chaos share a border, and you cannot draw near to the one without coming close to the other. If justice is one thing and economics another, then there can be no just systems, and society is condemened to being a war of all against all. A little history would have saved the historian from great errors. And a little humility would not have hurt, either; if one is going to be a dissenter, it would be a good idea to have a better idea of the teaching one is dissenting from. Woods has neither history, nor humility, nor economics, nor justice. Without justice, there can be no stable social order.

Very effective.......2006-01-29

Let me note from the outset that I've gotten to know Professor Woods by means of emails we've exchanged after I've read some of his articles; I have reviewed a couple of his other books for Amazon as well.

I read The Church and the Market late last year and loved it. Woods has a gift for explaining complicated things in ways that can easily be understood. Woods anticipates more arguments against the free market than I could have come up with in 20 years and demolishes them all, without invective or a sneer.

This is an extremely learned book, and written in clear and engaging prose. Woods takes a consistently pro-freedom position in his discussion of wages, antitrust, the welfare state, banking, foreign aid, etc.

At the same time, he addresses some of the Catholic hostility to the market, and poses some interesting questions. His argument goes something like this: certain papal statements call for a "living wage" (for example) because they believe such recommendations will make workers better off. But what if such a policy (whether enforced by law or by ecclesiastical urging is irrelevant) will make workers worse off? (Woods gives many reasons that this would be the case, including the fact that fewer workers would be employed.)

Leave aside your objection that Woods' economic analysis is wrong, and that, say, a $50 minimum wage would actually be a great thing. The question is this. Let's say Woods is right, which is certainly possible. Let's say this approach would indeed make workers worse off. Is a Catholic free to say so? If not, why not?

Note that Woods isn't saying the Church is not allowed to speak on economic matters. He is saying that some of the economic assumptions behind the bishops' statements on the economy are faulty, and that the resulting moral analysis is necessarily faulty as well.

It would be something else if Church leaders were to admit that the policies they recommend would surely make people worse off, but that justice requires that they be instituted anyway. That would be one thing. But these policies are being recommended on the express assumption that they will help people. But what if they won't? What then?

That is an interesting and good question, though many Catholics are embarrassing themselves by claiming Woods has no right to ask it. Playing right into the Protestant caricature of Catholicism, they insist that free discussion on such matters is not allowed (a fact that would have been very interesting to medieval scholars, who wrote about and debated just about every philosophical and theological issue you can name). They acknowledge none of the careful distinctions Woods makes, and some of the dafter ones go so far as to say he's dissenting from official teaching simply in pointing out reality. What a nightmare.

As for N. Ravitch, below, he's Professor Norman Ravitch, who 1) hates the Catholic Church (do a Google search on him) and 2) makes a habit of reviewing books he hasn't read. (Check out his review of George Weigel's book God's Choice, for example.) The point of Woods's book is to ADDRESS anti-market statements by Church figures; Ravitch, apparently going only on the brief description above, assumes Woods' book just ignores them. No one who even owned a copy, much less actually read it, could have mischaracterized it so completely.

Catholics for Freedom.......2005-03-12

Professor Thomas Woods is an interesting author: a traditionalist Catholic who is also a supporter of the free market economy. In this book, he presents a Catholic case for the free enterprise system, employing the economics of Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard (neither of whom was religious, much less Catholic.)

It's well known that the Roman Catholic Church has never been a particularly strong supporter of capitalism. Many popes have stressed the benefits of private property and opposed extreme versions of socialism, but have not realized the positive benefits of Capitalism. In the past, teachers in the Catholic Church haven't understood the functioning of economic laws. The always-paradoxical John Paul II, while having a better understanding of the markets processes, supports large-scale government intervention in the economy. In addition, many Catholics believe that the church's advocacy of the mixed economy is dogma, thus putting Catholic supporters of free enterprise on the same level as those who advocate women priests and the like.

Prof. Woods thus has a lot of work to do. He first shows the autonomous nature of economic reasoning. Churchmen are entitled to instruct the faithful on their duties to their fellow man, but lay Catholics are free to make an independent appraisal of the effectiveness of any given plan. For example, if a churchman tells his flock to help the needy, that's all well and good; if he tells them that the only way to improve the lot of the poor is through minimum wage laws, labor unions, foreign aid and the like, he is making a judgment about how economic laws work. Woods argues that, from the Catholic perspective, there is no reason to believe that the pope is infallible in his economic prescriptions. Prof. Woods discusses a large number of subjects, including usury, wages, prices, banking and foreign aid.

My one concern is whether all of Catholic economic teaching fits neatly into Prof. Woods' approach. Many popes taught in a rather dogmatic way about the need for various interventions in the economy. One example is the support for laws mandating the closing of stores on Sunday (as well as giving workers the day off). If popes who advocated these things had been Misesian praxeologists, I doubt they would have come to different conclusions.

The book ends with a strong critique of distributism, which seeks a larger distribution of private property in the hands of workers. Chesteron and Belloc, among others, advocated distributism. Many traditionally minded Catholics see distributism as a "third way" between capitalism and socialism. But as Prof. Woods points out, the only institution which has the power to redistribute property on a massive scale is the state.

an austrian primer.......2005-03-05

This book's title is deceptive in that it suggests the author is going to examine the place of capitalism within formal Catholic social thought. Sadly, Dr. Woods foregos the opportunity to examine the teachings of the social magisterium in favor of the standard bromides of the Austrian school. Admitting at the outset that he's no intention of bringing up the pronouncements of the popes throughout the ages, he instead nitpicks about the sorts of things which have traditionally annoyed Austrians. In most things, Woods follows the lead of others, contributing nothing himself in the way of original analysis. He acknowledges his intellectual debt to Murray Rothbard in the introduction and, later on, draws on Rothbard's arguments concerning the 16th century scholastics, some of whom wrote opinions in accord with Austrianism. Unfortunately, a few 16th century theologians does not the Church make and it's of course silly to even think that these men, grounded as they were in the thought of the Angelic Doctor, would in any way endorse the bastard children of the Enlightenment. It would be the equivalent of saying that the popes are Austrian because they view private property as a pillar of society.

According to Rothbard, the error of Thomists and all classical natural-law theorists is that they viewed the state as a "major locus of virtuous action". Elsewhere, Rothbard defines the state as a monopolistic criminal enterprise. Each of these views is well outside of the social magisterium; no where will you find a pope who rejects the validity of the state since it holds authority by the will of God. St. Paul addresses the state in Romans 13, not the all-powerful market, and he does not fall on the side of Murray Rothbard. The errors of the non-Catholic Rothbard on political issues are not enough to persuade Woods that he's suspect as an authority in economics. He clings instead all the more tightly to the luminaries of Austrianism in a book ostensibly dedicated to Catholic social teaching on economic concerns. Modern Catholic intellectuals and popes have always recognized the interdependence between the economic and political frameworks. What one holds regarding the proper constitution of a society has ramifications in the economic sphere. Rothbard's political views are inseparable from his economic theory since the state exists solely to destroy the fruits of the market (cf. Man, Economy & State).
The irony is that Dr. Woods continues to defend the compatibility of Austrianism and Catholicism, despite the repeated condemnations of economic liberalism by popes like Pius XI, to whom Woods appeals against the errors and confusion which have plagued the post-conciliar Church (cf. The Great Façade; the phrase "cafeteria Catholic" comes to mind). Here, Pius XI addresses Woods and his ilk in his encyclical letter Ubi Arcano Dei:
"Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV. There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism."

Liberalism takes many forms. In our own day, most faithful Catholics assume it is primarily concerned with corruptions of human sexuality. In fact, the popes remind the faithful that liberalism appears under varied guises.

Dr. Woods evinces a poor philosophical foundation and he is easily taken in by all sorts of Austrian assumptions. For example, Ludwig von Mises, critical inspiration to Rothbard and other Austrians, claims in his work Human Action that praxeology "is the science of every kind of human action," rejecting any claim that his new science, heretofore unknown to the doctors of the Church, is not limited to those actions which lead to an improvement in man's material well-being. This claim of course is fundamentally at odds with St. Thomas and Catholicism at both a natural and theological level. From a Thomistic perspective, one wonders how anyone can have a perfect science of all human action that does not weigh good or bad actions. This is true whether it's philosophical ethics or evangelical precepts. The error of the past, says Mises, is that philosophers like Aristotle sought to explain human action by notions of good or bad, just or unjust, or even worse, the miraculous "interference" of a Deity. Instead, human actions are not ordered by objective valuations, but rather by the dictates of the market. Virtue and vice are subjective notions which have no place in economics. If a man is to "succeed" says Mises, he must adjust his actions to economic law. In his intro to Human Action, he uses the example of a man who wants frequent sexual intercourse: if he's going to get it, he's going to have to know economics. Austrian economics, not Chicago-style. Elsewhere, he quips that "simple faith and economic rationalism cannot dwell together. It is unthinkable that priests should govern entrepreneurs." Meaning, the Church has no business at all talking about the market. The social magisterium is just so many opinions which may or may not be the correct way to establish a just and felicitous social order. Rothbardians would go further and say that the Church can be ignored without moral peril whenever She posits the notion of a common good that the state is obligated to safeguard.

Woods argues that economics is not a species of ethics but is instead a pure science studied in the same way that physics is by physicists. As St. Thomas says in his commentary on Aristotle's Ethics, "external goods that are used purposively by men have a moral consideration." It's precisely this ethical cast that Mises and other Austrians have sought to remove from the discipline of economics. The Church has claimed the right to decide the moral lights which should guide Christians in formulating a just economic order. The author does not meditate upon the question of whether there is a moral calculus in the laws which the state passes to regulate the exchange of goods or in relations between labor and capital. How can he? His mentor Rothbard had already taught that the state was criminal by nature, so it follows that its decrees are only the threats of violence made by a monopolistic crime syndicate. Rothbard took Mises to his logical conclusion, deciding that the market would necessarily find the most humane and efficient way to secure corporate goods with the state tagging along as an unwanted parasite. The author uses the same line of thought in his discussion on safety regulations. The market will always do a better job of implementing safety in the workplace than any public regulation because it is rational. If an objective moral evil exists in the social order, it cannot be addressed by the state. The market is infallible and will eventually solve any problem, whether it takes days or decades. Positive laws to remedy or palliate a condition are by definition always worse than doing nothing. It's kind of like a doctor telling his patient to fore go any treatment since death will eventually cure his illness.

Woods wants us to accept that economics is a value-free science, a set of observations about the way things work in a world marred by scarcity. At the same time, he can't help dipping into moral considerations (e.g, p. 47), predicating moral or immoral of certain economic choices. In addition, he favorably quotes the Jesuit Mariana, who calls any ruler "wicked" who sets a price by edict. Mises and Rothbard of course also resorted to various moral arguments when discoursing on economics; their gift for moralistic psychologizing has been picked up by anarchists like Hans Hoppe at UNLV. The question is then: whose morals guide the discussion? Are they Catholic? Do they reflect the mind of the Church in her magisterium and liturgy (cf. The Feast of Christ the King)? The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, used by Byzantine Catholics, is very un-Rothbardian: the priest prays for the good of the civil authorities and the armed forces. It's hard to be a Greek Catholic and a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist. Biblical passages like 1 Peter 2:13 become problematic at best, candidates for expunging at worst. To be deep in Austrianism is to cease to be Catholic.

At the very least, we can dispense with the pretension that economics is just a pure science about the way things are. This claim can also be found in fields like sociology and psychology. It's foolish to predicate pure value-neutrality of the political science, but the Economic Man is a powerful myth, so it happens that the whole science of economics gets a pass when it does this very thing. The Austrian School is a marginal school at best (no pun intended), with Noble Laureates and scholars coming from other schools like Chicago. The variety of theories would suggest that economics is a science in an equivocal sense only.

Woods has repeatedly shown that he's out of his depth in tackling the question of the Church and the market. For those who accept his thesis, think more carefully about it after reading Rothbard and Mises. Both authors have good insights and much of what they write is reasonable when they discuss the minutiae, but this book is nothing more than an Austrian primer. Woods limits much of his effort to sniping at individuals like Belloc. Heinrich Pesch gets two whole pages even though he's hugely influential in 20th century Catholic social thought. One senses that Woods is really only interested in regurgitating standard Austrian fare. We don't need this book for that purpose since many others have already been written.

A concise but potent antidote to Austrian ideology is the recently released Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Unlike this book, it actually delves into the heart of the Church's teaching on economic, political and cultural issues. Citations are copious and far ranging and, alas, authoritative.

On Justification: Economies of Worth (Princeton Studies in Cultural Sociology)

Average customer rating:

On Justification: Economies of Worth (Princeton Studies in Cultural Sociology)
Luc Boltanski , and Laurent Thevenot
Manufacturer: Princeton University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Economic Conditions | Economics | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

General | Social Sciences | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books

Business & Investing | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books

Nonfiction | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0691125163

Book Description

A vital and underappreciated dimension of social interaction is the way individuals justify their actions to others, instinctively drawing on their experience to appeal to principles they hope will command respect. Individuals, however, often misread situations, and many disagreements can be explained by people appealing, knowingly and unknowingly, to different principles. On Justification is the first English translation of Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot's ambitious theoretical examination of these phenomena, a book that has already had a huge impact on French sociology and is likely to have a similar influence in the English-speaking world.

In this foundational work of post-Bourdieu sociology, the authors examine a wide range of situations where people justify their actions. The authors argue that justifications fall into six main logics exemplified by six authors: civic (Rousseau), market (Adam Smith), industrial (Saint-Simon), domestic (Bossuet), inspiration (Augustine), and fame (Hobbes). The authors show how these justifications conflict, as people compete to legitimize their views of a situation.

On Justification is likely to spark important debates across the social sciences.

The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia

Average customer rating:

The Problem of Subsistence in a Capitalist Economy
Here's a review that'll never be read....

The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia
James C. Scott
Manufacturer: Yale University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Popular Economics | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

General | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

ASIN: 0300021909

Customer Reviews:

The Problem of Subsistence in a Capitalist Economy.......2007-04-26

Traditionally, Marxist analyses have taken `exploitation' as a uniform relationship, mostly referring to an unjust transfer of `surpluses' from the lower strata to the upper ones, which creates resentments among the former and eventually results in mass rebellions. Contrary to the conventional Marxist thinking, James Scott believes that the "nature of exploitation" is as important as the exploitation itself (p. 4). In his The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia, Scott sets out to solve the puzzle why some types of exploitative relations give way to grassroots revolutions and others not.

Scott complains that approaches to exploitation hitherto have been "too one-sidedly materialistic," (p.165). Accordingly, his goal is to shed light to the moral/psychological aspects of rebellions and thus fill an important gap in the analyses of exploitation and rebellions, for "the problem of rebellion is not just a problem of calories and income but is a question of peasant conceptions of social justice, of rights and obligations, of reciprocity," (p. vii).

The key elements in Scott's analysis are norms of reciprocity in a society and right to subsistence of the members of that society. Scott argues that traditional (pre-capitalist) societies differ substantially from modern (capitalist) societies with respect to these two elements. Traditional societies in general maintain a "subsistence ethic" that prefers safety and reliability to long-run profits (p. 13). This "safety-first" principle leads peasants to favor those institutions that "minimize the risks to subsistence", although they may claim much of the surplus (p. 55). On the other side, informal relations between the members of traditional societies provide means to secure the survival of individuals. Collaborative family and kinship ties as well as tacit tenancy and citizenship rights and obligations set up "safety valves" that rescue individuals at times of adversity: "a family that is hard-pressed will expect help from others who have fared better and will expect to reciprocate when the situation is reversed," (p.168). The relationship between the landlord and his tenant are quite paternalistic in traditional societies. The landlord undertakes the risks of cultivation and gives financial assistance to his tenants. The tenant is considered "an inferior member of the extended family" of landlords in these societies (p.186). Thus, tenants under the traditional system "seem willing to put up with its injustices for the compensating security," (p. 37).

By contrast, Scott argues that commercialization of agriculture and agrarian class relationships in capitalist societies strip the individual from the "security valves" of the traditional ones. In his in-depth analysis of the Burma and Cochinchina cases, Scott demonstrates that the intrusion of capitalist economic system into, and the integration with the world economy of, these regions throughout their colonial administration undermined the subsistence security of the peasantry in five ways: introduction of market-based insecurities which increased the variability of peasants' income, erosion of the village protection, elimination of the traditional safety-valves, imposition of a fixed charge on tenants' income, and stabilization of the taxes at the expense of the cultivating class (p. 57). On the one side, elimination of the norms of reciprocity results in the growth of permanent disparities and increases the polarization within the society; on the others side, disregard to peasants' right to subsistence causes to the marginalization of masses and creates massive penury and hunger. While the new system creates small and privileged labor force, "it eliminates the main source of food for e greater number of landless Javanese. The potential for class polarization and conflict here is ominous," (p. 211). It is these negative changes in peasants' lives that undermine the legitimacy of the system in the eyes of the peasants, for a peasant whose subsistence hangs on a balance faces not a personal but a "social" failure (p. 189).

Scott's analysis of the moral economy of the peasants in Asia portrays that the underdevelopment and poverty of today's less developed countries is not simply a result of their failure to develop; yet it is an active process of impoverishment and social destruction which results from "the way in which they are joined to the international system." In Scott's words, "It is possible to speak of peasants in both Cochinchina and Lower Burma in virtually the same breath, this is precisely because the integration of these two areas into the world market had, even before the 1930s, produced a convergence in their social histories," (p.90).

An implication of Scott's arguments is that "stabilization of real income for those close to subsistence may be a more powerful goal than achieving a higher average income," (p.34). Yet the current global economy completely disregards this point. While financial liberalization increases the insecurity of the masses in less developed countries, the general `laisses-faire' economics widens the income distribution gap both within and between countries, thereby marginalizing the majority of the world population. The `survival of individual' is not a concern of a capitalist economy, and this is what makes it "the most efficient expression of organized crime" for some.

Here's a review that'll never be read...........2000-08-11

Honestly, I am enthralled by the work of this man. Writing against the premise that profit maximization is (or should be) the goal of individuals in developing countries, Scott's thesis is that peasant social order is predicated on the fact that the worst-case scenario is starvation. Peasants seek to minimize the risk of this, and as such, to not maximize profits.... which is what the 'West' has tried to force them to do.... (and failed...)

I do not know who you are who is reading this review. I am a student of political economy specializing in South Asia.... for my studies into the rise of Sinhalese nationalism in Ceylon, this book was invaluable. I'd read this book just for fun, too....

Book Description

As new medical technologies are developed, more and more human tissuesâsuch as skin, bones, heart valves, embryos, and stem cell linesâare stored and distributed for therapeutic and research purposes. The accelerating circulation of human tissue fragments raises profound social and ethical concerns related to who donates or sells bodily tissue, who receives it, and who profitsâor does notâfrom the transaction. Catherine Waldby and Robert Mitchell survey the rapidly expanding economies of exchange in human tissue, explaining the complex questions raised and suggesting likely developments. Comparing contemporary tissue economies in the United Kingdom and United States, they explore and complicate the distinction that has dominated practice and policy for several decades: the distinction between tissue as a gift to be exchanged in a transaction separate from the commercial market and tissue as a commodity to be traded for profit.

Waldby and Mitchell pull together a prodigious amount of researchâinvolving policy reports and scientific papers, operating manuals, legal decisions, interviews, journalism, and Congressional testimonyâto offer a series of case studies based on particular forms of tissue exchange. They examine the effect of threats of contaminationâfrom HIV and other pathogensâon blood banks’ understandings of the gift/commodity relationship; the growth of autologous economies, in which individuals bank their tissues for their own use; the creation of the United Kingdom’s Stem Cell bank, which facilitates the donation of embryos for stem cell development; and the legal and financial repercussions of designating some tissues âhospital waste.â They also consider the impact of different models of biotechnology patents on tissue economies and the relationship between experimental therapies to regenerate damaged or degenerated tissues and calls for a legal, for-profit market in organs. Ultimately, Waldby and Mitchell conclude that scientific technologies, the globalization of tissue exchange, and recent anthropological, sociological, and legal thinking have blurred any strict line separating donations from the incursion of market values into tissue economies.

Customer Reviews:

Tissue Economies.......2007-01-04

This book offers a highly interesting presentation and analysis of the ways tissues are handled, sold, used and conceptualized. For example blood, umbilical cord blood, cell lines and organs are discussed. Tissue Economies does not only describe the use of these tissues, but has also analytical discussions of biovalue, waste and information. Also the meaning of gift is discussed.
The economies of tissues are global questions that are intertwined in many different phenomena. Even nationality and selfhood are at stakes in these interactions.
I recommend this book to students of biosciences, women's studies and sociology. Reading Tissue Economies requires some background knowledge, but is not a difficult read.

Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists: Unleashing the Power of Financial Markets to Create Wealth and Spread Opportunity

Average customer rating:

THOUGHT PROVOKING BOOK ON THE SOUL OF CAPITALISM AND HOW TO KEEP IT ALIVE
Right Idea -- Wrong Bad Guys
Save Me From My Friends - I Can Protect Myself From My Enemies
Simply wow
A must read

Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists: Unleashing the Power of Financial Markets to Create Wealth and Spread Opportunity
Raghuram G. Rajan , and Luigi Zingales
Manufacturer: Princeton University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Popular Economics | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

Theory | Economics | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

General | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books

Business & Investing | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books

Professional | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0691121281

Book Description

Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists is a groundbreaking book that will radically change our understanding of the capitalist system, particularly the role of financial markets. They are the catalyst for inspiring human ingenuity and spreading prosperity. The perception of many, especially in the wake of never-ending corporate scandals, is that financial markets are parasitic institutions that feed off the blood, sweat, and tears of the rest of us. The reality is far different.

This book breaks free of traditional ideological arguments of the Right and Left and points to a new way of understanding and spreading the extraordinary wealth-generating capabilities of capitalism.

Customer Reviews:

THOUGHT PROVOKING BOOK ON THE SOUL OF CAPITALISM AND HOW TO KEEP IT ALIVE.......2006-07-24

"Saving Capitalism" is a book with a simple and even intuitive thesis -- that capitalists don't like competition. Since competition is the heart of capitalism, then capitalists don't really like true capitalism. Though simple, it is innovative because no one thinks of capitalisms biggest enemies as the capitalists themselves.

The book goes to great lenghts to demonstrate the truth in this thesis, drawing examples from different countries and showing what rational behavior by capitalists leads to such a negative situation. The thesis is well defended and makes a reader -- especially an economist as myself -- question the very foundations of economics.

However, the authors also expose the reasons why capitalism has survived, especially in the West, despite such threats. It leads to the conclusion that one must fight for freedom in a wide sense, including economic freedom, meaning well oiled financial markets, open trade barriers, and low regulation to increase competition in as many markets as possible. Competition, whatever the source -- for capital, for labor, for markets, for foreign exchange --, is the heart of capitalism and should be defended by all.

Right Idea -- Wrong Bad Guys.......2006-06-07

Unlike the other reviewers, I think this book is of, literally, only academic interest. The author's premise: capitalism will only be "safe" when protected by (Ta Da!!) -- more government regulation! Only an academic (or a socialist) could come to this conclusion! The fundamental premise of this book is that the danger to Capitalism is exclusively from "crony" Capitalists. This is surely tantamount to blaming the victim for the crime. The authors take tremendous pains to footnote a variety of statements, and then make a totally unsubstantiated claim of price-fixing against modern business by dredging up an ancient Adam Smith quote! They point to the correlation between market regulations and higher stock valuations, mistaking it for causation. Not one single time do they even mention the danger posed to capitalism by the MSM, socialist NGO's, lawyers, or the tangle of local, state, and federal regulations. Only twice do they mention, in passing, the arguments of libertarians. We are not a politically powerful party, but our opinions on capitalism surely must deserve, at the least, a vigorous rebuttal. And finally, the recommendations are ad-hoc -- there is no flow of evidence or argument to support them. Indeed, the conclusions are, in typical academic fashion, sadly naive. An example is their belief that property taxes are somehow less onerous than income taxes. This is a position in opposition to the authors' defense of property rights. Indeed, Texas just passed a law to begin taxing business income because the previous system, based solely on business property, imposed no tax burden on doctors, lawyers, accountants, actors, authors, college professors engaged in sideline businesses, etc. Little wonder that "old line" businesses were moving overseas or dying out -- they were supporting the parasites, doubly. The reader is engaged only on the occasions (and by accident?) when the authors reveal insights derived from their experiences with other cultures, or when they review certain lesser-known historical facts. In conclusion, I was disappointed in this "apology" for capitalism. To give the authors credit, I would say that it must be very difficult to write a book espousing capitalism and still expect to get or keep tenure at a private, U. S. university, even one with Hayek and Friedman in the pedigree.

Save Me From My Friends - I Can Protect Myself From My Enemies.......2005-12-29

This book will be many things to many people at the same time. Economists can use it as a primer in empirical finance that will provide an overview of the field by two scholars who greatly contributed to its expansion. B