20 of 28 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Marx at the mall to save capitalism?!, November 30, 2011
Now that reading books before talking and writing about them is no longer fashionable, I feel out of place offering my own opinion on Livingston's latest. Still, I think some kind of clarification is in order before this page is overrun by either our keeper's-of-the-faith in rational/instrumental/universal economic theory, or worse, just plain (patriotic) insanity. I have read the book, by the way, and it's a terrific achievement. It's not only the best available on the current economic dilemmas of our time, it considers these crises as moral and cultural revolutions of the long 20th century; they are still in the making, whose meanings and outcomes haven't been decided. This kind of formidable task requires, among other things, an intricate understanding of the history, thoughtful and nuanced arguments, and clarity. All of which, to be sure, Livingston possesses in abundance. As such, this book can be put into any number of categories, and this is its strength. The author's command of the subject is staggering as he moves easily among Left and Right arguments against an economy based on consumer culture (treating all with respect-"fair and balanced"), and navigates a passage of his own that locates an optimistic based on the democratizing and socializing possibilities consumer spending/culture.
Let's correct something: The author DOES NOT say that if you're under a mountain of debt you should keep swiping that card of yours. He DOES NOT say we need a giant state apparatus to direct all our economic decisions. And he IS NOT anti-capitalist. In fact, he says that markets and functioning democracy are conditions of each other. Look, individuals already "redistribute" their wealth in this country through taxes. The point is that to stop the Great Recession, and prevent future ones, we need to socialize, or "redistribute," the redundant profits of corporations which have no real productive outlet except into speculative, crisis-creating bubbles. In the hands of consumers--of "we the people"--that money can be spent to achieve real growth and equality.
But don't listen to me, get the book and decide for yourself.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Rather disappointing -- I didn't bother to finish it., December 31, 2011
I caught the tail end of a radio interview with the author, and was quite intrigued by the little bit that I heard. As another reviewer wrote, I am generally intrigued by contrarian perspectives--from what I heard on the radio, Livingston was not merely contrarian but also arguing sensibly, and as a bonus, entertainingly.
Sadly, I am rather disappointed in the book, so disappointed that I am not bothering to read past the first few chapters. I take Livingston at his word in his opening that to convince us of his perspective in the second half of the book, he first must convince us of the flaws in other, more conventional, perspectives. If that structure is necessary, as he says it is, then he is utterly failing in his first-half effort so I'm not bothering to read on to his second half.
The main flaw in his first-half effort is that he conflates the arguments of others, and replaces their actual arguments with similar-sounding straw-man arguments. For example, in arguing against the idea that failure-to-act by regulators was a leading contributor to the current economic crisis, Livingston quotes Dean Baker's assertion of regulatory failure, but then ignores the details of Baker's full argument (e.g., exactly which regulators failed in what ways at what times, and why those in/actions constituted failure). Instead, Livingston glosses over Baker's extensive arguments and, in the space of a few short paragraphs, pseudo-paraphrases them in such a way that he (Livingston) can then seem to easily rebut them.
Another disappointing feature for me has to do with Livingston's tone in the portion of the book that I read. He casts himself as having effectively an utterly unique perspective on the economic situation, as though no one else has written about "surplus capital" as the underlying problem with the economy. In fact, a number of other writers and economists/economic commentators have argued this way, for example Les Leopold in "The Looting of America." It's possible that later in the book Livingston takes on a more humble attitude, but in the first portion as he "rebuts" the arguments of others he treats the world of economic commentary as one totally blind to the new truth he aims to reveal.
All of this is disappointing at another level, because I do indeed think that "surplus capital" is a driving force for our contemporary economic woes, and a better, more convincing book on Livingston's part would help explain that situation to the public at large. However, more nuanced writers, writers who treat their intellectual adversaries with more respect, such as Les Leopold, are able to weave together more of reality's complexity in their conclusions: rather than say "surplus capital is the sole problem and all the other economic commentators have it wrong when they point to things like regulatory failure," these writers point out that "in a world suffering from surplus capital, the dangers of regulatory failure are greatly increased because the financial bubbles that regulators are supposed to prevent or address can quickly grow to disastrous size." (This is not to say that Leopold doesn't sometimes "go for the kill" when arguing against other perspectives, rather that he respects his adversaries--and trusts his own arguments--enough to present them as they really are when constructing his counter-arguments.) Because Livingston fails to respect his intellectual adversaries, and by extension his readers, his book will not be useful in decently educating the public.
I'll add that much of this criticism on my part goes toward Livingston's editors at Basic Books. Whatever Livingston's original manuscript looked like, a good editor should have ensured that Livingston's final version dealt with these complex issues better than it does. His editors may have demanded that he dumb the book down, or they may have failed to demand that he smarten it up: either way, they share the blame for the second-rate result.
All that said, while my strict feeling is that the book deserves 2 stars, I am giving it 3 as benefit-of-the-doubt for the portion of the book that I have not read.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
