Customer Reviews

How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of Our Country, from the Pilgrims to the Present

5 star:		(44)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

It is quite obvious that many posting reviews on this book have not actually read it. This may seem fantastic, but one should not be terribly shocked at human irrationality (it's all around us). In fact, the author of the book in question wrote in some length of the anti-capitalistic mentality that contributes to this kind of behavior.

I comment specifically on the "review" by A. Epstein as his protests are typical. However, it is clear that "Arwin Ascendi", "Panopticonman", "Sgt. Rock", "Steven S.", and "F Hayek" also have not read the book (at least, their "reviews" contain no information to suggest so). Epstein wrote:

"25,000 children die every day around the world from hunger. 1 in 4 American children go starving every day. And this is the proud economic system that the author talks about? Capitalism has shown to be nothing but a smoke screen to make the rich richer. Unfortunately, the rest of the world hasn't figured out the trick just yet."

1. Societies of the world are not organized under capitalism. Therefore, the reference to the number of child deaths in this world is irrelevant.
2. The use of the word "starving" in this case is a dysphemism. Compare the "hunger" experienced by the thousands of dead children invoked by Epstein with the "starving" experienced by 1 in 4 Americans. The words of a Russian immigrant who fled soviet Russia during the 1980's illustrate my position well. When asked why he decided to leave the Soviet Union for the United States, this immigrant replied "Why would anyone not want to live in a country where the poorest members of society are also the fattest!"
3. The statistics cited in this book (compiled by the U.S. government) illustrate nicely that not only are the "rich" getting richer, but the poor are getting richer faster than the rich. If Epstein had actually read the book, then perhaps he would have decided to attack these figures and/or the author's reasoning and conclusions directly. Personally, I believe Epstein to be motivated by envy of those who are more intelligent, industrious, talented, vigorous, and lucky than himself and others. He does not want equality of opportunity, but equality of results... for himself and every other envious and mindless sloth. Many fail to understand that the less gifted and even the lazy see greater and greater return on their efforts under capitalism. In fact, everyone sees a greater return. Epstein is merely upset that there exist some individuals who will always be more efficacious than others. Epstein's position is in opposition to human nature... to reality itself. Murray Rothbard expressed this truth well when he wrote: "On the free market, every man gains; one man's gain, in fact, is precisely the consequence of his bringing about the gain of others. When an exchange is coerced, on the other hand - when criminals or governments intervene - one group gains at the expense of others."
4. A good proportion of this book is devoted to the argument that America's economic organization has been becoming less and less capitalistic over the last 150 years, and that we have never had a purely capitalistic system. All of the legitimate complaints that Epstein may have about our current economic organization should be redirected to the system known as mercantilism which the author painstakingly compares and contrasts with a free market (i.e. capitalism). If Epstein had read the book, then he would know this and any argument that he has would reflect this.

Epstein also wrote:

"They're too busy working all their lives just to put food on the table to realize the capitalistic system would collapse if more than 1% of the people owned wealth. They don't realize the Federal Reserve, the World Bank, IMF, et al, does the dirty work of the wealthy by making sure recessions take place about once every 10 years and all poor countries are taken advantage of. To fight inflation, or a better word is "to fight more people trying to make a living."

1. Under capitalism there would be separation of government and economics, and the wealthiest members of society would also be those individuals who are the most efficient at providing for the "common man". Capitalism would allow the common man to make poor people rich and rich people poor. Under capitalism, the consumers (actually, the producers spending their earned dollars... i.e. "certificates of performance") are sovereign. Our centrally controlled and manipulated economy today entrenches the power of the largest corporations and mingles their power with that of government. This is not capitalism. This, as the author emphasizes, is mercantilism. Epstein does not seem to know that the author emphasized time and again in his book that WE HAVE MUCH LESS CAPITALISM IN AMERICA THAN EVER... and that this trend continues.
2. Epstein's diatribes against the Fed, World Bank, IMF, et al are actually right on point... however, he demonstrates his lack of understanding by subtly associating these organizations with capitalism. Capitalism, once again, is the separation of economics and government... i.e. economic freedom. Epstein truly shows his ignorance by associating with capitalism these government-sanctioned organizations designed to manipulate our economy.
3. Epstein's brief description of the business cycle (periodic recessions), and its cause being rooted in the actions of these government-sanctioned institutions are right on target... no doubt more than he understands. Once again, under capitalism there is no place for such institutions and their insane monetary policies. These policies and institutions are more suited to (and necessitated by) mercantilism and other forms of central planning like socialism. They don't fight inflation as they claim... they literally cause it... robbing the common man in the process and rewarding political pressure groups at our expense. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CAPITALISM.

Epstein also writes:

"I await the future when people sit back and figure out it's better to work together and make sure everybody has a great life, rather than this constant competition where you grab what you can and don't think twice about that poor person over there."

1. The only way to organize society such that everyone has "a great life" is to give individuals the freedom to pursue their own values... that is, they're OWN LIVES. In other words, economic freedom... i.e. CAPITALISM.
2. Capitalism also provides the same freedom to assist those in need. It used to be, during the most capitalistic period of U.S. history (the early to mid 1800's) that when a farmer experienced a series of unfortunate events he was actually wealthier than before his misfortune... due to good will from neighbors.
3. Under capitalism it is every businessman's purpose to enhance the lives of the common man. The capitalist entrepreneur accomplishes this by taking resources at a given market value (that is, valued by members of society) and transforms this capital using intelligence, labor, and additional capital (tools, mechanization, etc.) to create something of increased value. The entrepreneur literally creates value in the world... HE IS AN ARTIST IN EVERY RESPECT. The collective results of the actions taken by the many entrepreneurs who have been fostered and rewarded by capitalism has ensured our increased standard of living. The profits GIVEN to these men of ability BY THE MASSES has not only rewarded them and provided to them the incentive to continue their great acts, it has given to them the means to continue and improve upon their production. Hence today the common man can purchase his food and housing, indeed all of his values, at a tiny fraction of what was once required. The entrepreneurs have along the way also eradicated child labor, long work weeks, poor working conditions, and horrid back-breaking labor. Capitalists have done far more to enhance the welfare of human beings than have all the humanitarians to have ever lived.

There is one silly argument being made among these reviews that conservatism and capitalism are unrelated. Actually, DiLorenzo, a superb colleague of mine, is more of a libertarian and true free-market thinker than a Tory conservative of the George Will mode. Understand this, and you will have a better appreciation for DiLorenzo's approach to capitalism and its cleansing powers.

People and markets proposer because we act in our own self-interest. Adam Smith was right and some label him 'liberal'. 'Liberal' means something quite different outside the United States. Those who equate Oliver Stone's "greed is good" mantra for capitalism are missing the point. "Greed" is "reprehensible acquisitiveness" and the beauty of capitalism is that the market speaks louder than government dictates or "greedy capitalists". When the government says, "I'm here to help you," it's time to hold onto your wallets. With capitalism, it's your choice. Greed doesn't work; markets do.

DiLorenzo writes with a clear, accessible style. While he is an accomplished researcher and academic, he discovers and disseminates knowledge for a much larger public than other academics. And he is brave enough to take on well-entrenched conventional wisdom, be it the nanny state or worshipful devotees of Abraham Lincoln.

We have a problem with unchallenged soft-headed, bleeding heart, liberal thought on many college campuses. DiLorenzo is part of the solution to the excessive political correctness rampant on many college campuses. Read this and open your eyes and mind. This is a nice companion piece to David Landes' "The wealth and poverty of nations: Why some nations are so rich and others so poor." And it fits with the recent studies of the differences between English and French law, and the impact of their respective legal systems on economic success.

Thomas DiLorenzo has a marvelous analytical talent-a knack for drawing the reader's attention to the material that matters-and his new book employs this talent in defense of the whole history of free enterprise in America. How long have we waited for a book like this? A very long time.

Having just read it, I'm confident in predicting continued success and sales. It seems like just the right book to give a market skeptic. "You have doubts about capitalism? Read this."

After years of interacting with students in an urban business-school environment, DiLorenzo knows precisely what are the main points of contention. The chapters are short but careful in choosing just the right episodes to highlight and arguments to present to make his case. His main points are drawn from the Austrian tradition: the classic texts by Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Reisman, but also the public choice school, and also the best economic historians of our time.

He begins with a definition and sweeping defense of capitalism, along with an eye-opening illustration of why such a defense in necessary, citing an egregious history of intellectual defenses of communism. Who remembers that John Dewey called Soviet communism "intrinsically religious" with the "moving spirit and force of primitive Christianity"?

The text never slows, as he marches through the history of the pilgrims, the American Revolution, the 19th century debate over internal improvements, the advancement of workers amidst capitalist advance, the myths of the Robber Barrons, the great depression, the New Deal, the energy crisis, and the modern debate on the environment, social regulation, and the war on vice.

It occurred to me while reading this that this whole book is a kind of guerilla manual for beating back the most common economic myths one is likely to encounter on campus or in public debate. Master this book and you have overcome most of the bad economic thinking of our time.

What this reviewer appreciated most about this book is the way in which the author debunks popular myths. What is more intrinsic to being American than having the opportunity with which to better one's lot? Di Lorenzo illustrates that even the poorest of the poor continue to have the chance to rise through our capitalist system, and they frequently make use of this opportunity.

Readers would be wise to remember the next time they are challenged with the mantra, "social justice," to retort that the only way to achieve it is through, "capitalism."

Capitalism, through its cheaper goods and higher wages, has distinctly benefited the working class. A hundred years ago, the fattest of the fat cats could not purchase the same type of goods that your average retail worker can purchase today, and the fact that such unbelievable wares are available is strictly due to the incentives created by a capitalist system. In a socialist economy, they would never have been invented or discovered in the first place.

We find as well that those dubbed "robber barons" were not as they enriched far more often than they robbed. Men like James J. Hill, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and John D. Rockefeller were brilliant entrepreneurs who employed thousands and gave stability to countless American families. The charitable organizations and nonprofits they bequeathed remain viable today and many of their innovations benefited all Americans-not just those they directly employed.

This review would not be complete if it did not mention the non-partisan nature of How Capitalism Saved America. Di Lorenzo attacks all interventionists regardless of their political orientation. He excoriates the Republican Hoover Administration for its part in causing the Great Depression and then turns to examine the ways in which the Democratic Roosevelt Administration exacerbated the problems inherited from Hoover. The period appears to be an age where the temptations of state intrusion into the economy appealed to a majority of our legislators. The author views Roosevelt's New Deal as being merely a continuation, and logical outcome, of the policies enacted by the previous administration.

I'm quite encouraged by the fact that as I write this review, this book's sales rank on Amazon.com is above 3,500. That's because this accessible and informative book is a powerful antidote to many of the lies about the free market that we Americans have been suckered into believing. If this title gets as wide a distribution as it deserves, maybe Americans will once again be a nation where capitalism -- and capitalists -- are honored and anti-market demagogues from Michael Moore to Hillary Clinton receive the ignominy they deserve.

Thomas DiLorenzo has his facts behind him, but he also writes in an engaging and easy-to-follow style that doesn't get weighed down by abstruse statistics or heavy jargon. In fact, "How Capitalism Saved America" could well be, and *should* well be, an economics or history textbook for high schools everywhere. From the myth of FDR ending the Depression to the lies still being told about Microsoft and the "robber barons," from antitrust and energy "deregulation" to the illegitimate powers of labor unions and government regulators ... DiLorenzo covers it all.

Perhaps most timely, DiLorenzo rescues the term "capitalism" from those who try to use it to describe sweetheart deals between government and industry like those allegedly involving the Bush administration (and family) and corporations like Haliburton. Massive corporate welfare schemes are *mercantilism* (or neo-mercantilism, if you prefer), not capitalism or "the free market." Restoring true economic liberty starts with getting your terms straight. That's one more reason this book is so useful.

The people who most need to read this are probably the ones least likely to actually do so. However, if it's pro-market readers who have pushed this title's sales rank up so high, more power to them (us). Here's hoping we all use the ammunition DiLorenzo has given us to mount the spirited intellectual defense of capitalism that our nation, and our liberty, so deserve.

A contrarian point of view is very much needed because the media has reached a conclusion about the role of government or entrepreneurial activity and the economy. I am always concerned about what I read in the media. Few if any journalists understand the topics of business, finance, or economics, let alone what the free market is. Yet the media commonly presents as facts things of which they have little understanding or practical knowledge. The media in America would have the average American convinced that Rockefeller or Gates are robber barons, the Great Depression was caused by too free of a market, too much competition is somehow bad, and the energy crisis of the 1970s was real.

When compared to our popular notions of the free market and the role of capitalism, DiLorenzo's arguments cut cleanly across the grain of conventional economic wisdom. He deftly explains that what most Americans understand as the free market is hardly that at all. Having worked on Capital Hill, his explanation of how our `trusted' politicians in Washington (or elsewhere) distort, even while claiming to deregulate, the market place for their own gain is spot on. The American economy has becoming increasing mercantilist as a consequence.

Even if you are of a liberal political strip, I recommend this book if just to get a different perspective. Emotion free, the book is not written with technical jargon. It is a very accessible read.

I finished with this book a few days ago and I had to sit and think about for a bit. I came to the Amazon site to write what I thought would be a fair review. Instead of the original review I had planned to write analyzing the chapters and the authors contentions I decided instead to address an editorial review at the top of the listing. I just finished reading the review from the Reed Business Information who accuse the author of writing a philosphical attack piece and not a historal analysis.

The reviewer claims: "...the author's notes and bibliography give the game away. There are scarcely any references to works of history."

I view this book as an original work looking at history without merely parroting the more mainstream historians. I think contempory history writers overly rely on others work for example DiLorenzos book on Lincoln certianly did not just re-hash the same old St Abraham diatribes. DiLorienzo produced a truly original work or scholarship. This book is the same, it is truly original and ground breaking in many ways. There may be little new material here, but the author puts the information together to for what really is "The Untold History of our Country."

It looks at US History from an Austrian economics perspective. I think he presents his case strongly even if he may not agree with many of the mainstream traditional historians who in my opinion are incapable of truly original scholarship.

DiLorenzo is breath of fresh air in the market of history and his talent is sorely needed today in academia to stir the pot a little. Academia today seems mainly to consist of a small of group of "authorities" who all seem to write the same things and laud each others works and never wish to challenge the status quo.

I will always look forward to more works from this excellent writer.

As its title indicates, this book makes no pretense of being an objective history. It is history as advocacy, and a good job of that considering its brevity, which is both an asset and a liability - an asset because it is very readable for a general audience; a liability because it makes many of its points too quickly to convince the skeptical.

Extremely important to understand is his early distinction between what he calls "true capitalism" - some would call it "free market" or "laissez faire" capitalism - versus "state capitalism" or "mercantilism" in which governments intervene in the markets to protect (e.g., with high tariffs against foreign competitors or even with grants of monopoly, as NY State granted to Fulton's steamship company) and to favor certain businesses (e.g., with subsidies or restrictive laws and regulations). As he correctly emphasizes, there is not much free market capitalism remaining in the U.S. today. He makes the same distinction between "market" entrepreneurs, who are his heroes (e.g., James J. Hill, John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Bill Gates ...), and "political" entrepreneurs (e.g., Leland Stanford, Jay Cooke, Edward Collins ...), who relied on government favors ("corporate welfare"), leading to corruption and sometimes bankruptcy, and who - together with the politicians who favored them - are his villains. Ignorant anti-capitalists who rail against all "big business" do not understand this distinction.

This book is valuable because it attempts to correct so many myths with which almost all of us have been brainwashed to believe by our anti-capitalist textbooks, teachers and media. Some examples of what DiLorenzo claims are MYTHS:

1. Pure capitalism would not supply enough capital for the infrastructure our economy needs (roads, canals, railroads ...) - the "free rider" myth.
2. Capitalists "exploit" the working class.
3. Labor unions are responsible for the long-term rise in wages and living standards.
4. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
5. Capitalism became monopolistic in the late 19th century, gouging consumers, so consumers had to be protected by anti-trust legislation.
6. The Great Depression of the 1930's was caused by the inherent instability of free market capitalism, and it required massive government intervention in the economy by FDR to recover from it.
7. California's recent electric power crisis was caused by deregulation.

My main criticism is that DiLorenzo oversimplifies his presentation of many controversial topics and omits important facts (e.g., he correctly blames Senator Henry Clay for successfully promoting high tariffs, but he gives no credit to Clay for the compromise he engineered to peacefully solve the crisis of 1832, when South Carolina nullified the high federal tariffs and President Andrew Jackson prepared to send the military to suppress South Carolina's rebellion). I also feel that his position on private property is too extreme (thank goodness for conservation). He is too cavalier in dismissing responsible environmentalism (though I agree that so many "greens" are irresponsible). DiLorenzo does not adequately treat the thorny issue of land ownership (e.g., what did John Jacob Astor and other big land speculators contribute to the general welfare?). See the critique by Edward J. Dodson at www.cooperativeindividualism.org. Also, DiLorenzo had many innaccuracies in his earlier book THE REAL LINCOLN, so I would not automatically trust everything he wrote here.

As with DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln", "How Capitalism Saved America" is not your father's history book.

It's refreshing to read a book that doesn't parrot and rehash the same old predigested "history" that we've been fed through 12 years of government schools. No, this book is truly "The Untold History of Our Country" - just as the author promises.

DiLorenzo gives us a scholarly history of capitalism in America that spits in the eye of the social engineers and big-government butt-kissing "academics" that write what they're told if they want to stay in the good graces of their government benefactors.

You may not agree with all you read in this book - but I hope that will prompt you to look into the author's footnotes and references to discover who is telling the truth, and who has been distorting history to protect the not-so-innocent.

The bottom line is that Liberty Works. It has since the earliest days of our country. It can work again - but only if we give up the socialist bill of goods that we've sold by people who feel they can make decisions for us.

DiLorenzo's book is easy to read while challenging your beliefs. It's written in everyday English with enough facts and figures to convince without overwhelming. Whether you're already a believer in true free markets and capitalism, or just beginning to discover that socialism and central planning has failed us, this book is worth your time.

Prepare to have your cage rattled and step into the light. It's worth the trip.

Austrian economist and Lincoln scholar Thomas DiLorenzo has given us yet another pro free-market, anti-merchantilist rendition of American history. The work has much to commend it, not the least of which is its eminent readability and lack of the usual economic jargon that often characterize works of economic history. An average reader unfamiliar with economic science will have no difficulty understanding or enjoying this book.

DiLorenzo exposes and explodes the many pro-interventionist myths fomented by generations of court economists and historians who have sought to justify the growth of the American Leviathan, from the starvation of Jamestown to the present and unjustified hysteria over "obesity".

According to DiLorenzo, and contrary to the mainstream academic treatment of the subject, government abrogation of property rights and interference in regular market processes has in some cases caused and in other cases exacerbated economic problems all throughout American history. The book is replete with specific historical references and examples of where and how pro-interventionist academics have wrongly attributed economic crises to failures in market processes, when in fact such failures and crises were the direct and predictable result of an ongoing and concerted effort by self-interested politicians to gain economic advantage through government coercion.

I commend this book to anyone who has attended American high schools and universities and has studied the predominant, statist, pro-interventionist rendition of American economic history. The truth contained in DiLorenzo's work will be refreshing and new, to say the least.