Customer Reviews


15 Reviews
5 star:
 (11)
4 star:
 (3)
3 star:    (0)
2 star:    (0)
1 star:
 (1)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favorable review
The most helpful critical review


57 of 62 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars A Modern Distributist Manifesto
This book is one you have to read to learn about the Distributive solution to modern economic problems. My previous readings on this subject consisted merely of attacks on the present system, rather than a exposition of solutions in the modern economy. That being said, I do have a few areas of disagreement:

Medaille states that money is NOT a commodity, and...
Published on August 21, 2010 by Philip Dinanzio

versus
3 of 4 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Evil pretending to be just...
I do not have much time to devote to this book so I will keep it brief and make my points in no particular order. Please note that many readers will like what Mr. Medaille has to say and I suspect that the book will be popular among many individuals. But let me caution you that while the message may seem good there is a serious problem with the principles that are being...
Published 1 month ago by Vangel Vesovski


‹ Previous | 1 2 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

57 of 62 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars A Modern Distributist Manifesto, August 21, 2010
By 
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Toward a Truly Free Market: A Distributist Perspective on the Role of Government, Taxes, Health Care, Deficits, and More (Culture of Enterprise) (Hardcover)
This book is one you have to read to learn about the Distributive solution to modern economic problems. My previous readings on this subject consisted merely of attacks on the present system, rather than a exposition of solutions in the modern economy. That being said, I do have a few areas of disagreement:

Medaille states that money is NOT a commodity, and does not have to be based on a commodity. I think this is historically inaccurate. He correctly states that fractional reserve banking enables bankers to create money (in the form of credit) out of nothing, and lend it at interest. Rather than just abolishing this practice as fraudulent, and establishing a free banking system with a commodity backed money, he advocates that the government just print money and lend it without interest for capital projects. As long as the increase in money supply keeps pace with the increase in production, inflation will be minor. This is not a power I would want in government. Even if prices don't rise, malinvestment will still occur due to wrong saving/consumption signals. Better to have private banknotes, with government ensuring value and prosecuting fraud. (eg. One dollar= 1/32 ounce of gold/silver/etc.) This will ensure that prices reflect a real savings/consumption ratio.

He also believes that all (or most) taxation should be a 100% tax on ground rents.
In this he follows Henry George. However, a tax that appropriates all ground rent would drive the capital value of land to zero, and not produce any revenue. The separation of the value of ground rent from the capital improvements would be extremely difficult to calculate. He also ignores the fact that landlords produce a useful function of allocating land to the most efficient user. Keeping land idle produces no revenue!

The main economic problem to be solved is the "just wage" for labor. He states that wage rates have nothing to do with productivity or supply and demand, but rather with bargaining power. For this he recommends unions or "guilds" to represent workers and increase their bargaining power. All you have to do is compare the wages of a laborer in India with one in the U.S. to dispel that notion. A long range comparison will show that increases in the return to labor have kept pace with the increases in productive capacity. The present day stagnant wages are attributable to other factors (inflation, malinvestment, etc.) Does he not think the the increase in supply of labor provided by illegal immigrants has not depressed wages? Do all they need is union representation? I think the answer is self evident.

He also states that an indication of monopoly is the rate of profit. The higher the rate of profit, the more it is evidence of monopoly. His solution is to have progressivly higher taxes on profits,with a 97% tax on high profits.
He even states that this should not have a negative effect on investment since monopolies want to keep supplies low anyway. But this assumes that they are monopolies in the first place.

I don't want to seem too negative, so here are the points I agree with:
He states that the huge conglomerates often achieve their status and power through political influence, subsidies and unpaid externalities. If we stop the subsidies, eliminate the monopoly grants and patent laws, if we charge user fees,then the large corporations will have to break up to smaller units, and a greater share of wealth given to labor. He correctly states that if a corporation grows too large, it will face the same calculation problems of allocating resources that a socialist economy faces. This natural limit to corporations was first described by Austrian economists, and is another reason that monopolies cannot occur naturally without government aid.

His call for the abolition of the Federal Reserve is well taken (but not his call for tranferring its powers to Congress). His recommendation for more co-ops and worker owned industries is commendable, since it all done without State coercion.
However, despite his examples, in co-ops everyone is an equal owner so there is a disincentive to invest more than any one else; this could hamper investment in a competitive market against other corporations.

I really like his proposal of having all taxation collected by local governments which then distributes it up to higher levels of government (State and Federal). Imagine the Federal government having to justify in Constitutional terms its request for funds! This returns us to the way it was in the original Articles of Confederation!

As he says, economic considerations have to be subordinated to moral considerations and institutions should be developed to give a meaningful life to all families. Bishop Sheen once advocated a fund be set up by businesses or local government to bring low wage workers up to a family wage. A moderate social safety net is perfectly compatible with a free market.

I cannot go into all the useful insights presented in this book, from taxation to health care, and proposals for de-monopolizing and freeing the economy. It is written in a readable and non-technical manner that makes it hard to put down. Whether you agree with the author or not, you will be enlightened and give serious consideration and thought to his proposals.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


13 of 15 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The 3rd way - against big Gov. AND Big Business, August 17, 2011
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This is an outstanding work clearly laying out a system that neither relies on the almighty state to solve problems, nor lets giant corporations take over. It favors local economies,small businesses, and empowering communities to solve their own problems. Instead of having the state take over all property (socialism) or have a situation where only the top 5% actually own anything (present day capitalism) it puts the family in the center and supports using the market not just to make money, but to distribute ownership, property, and social goods more evenly. Of course there'd still be rich and poor. Sometimes called the ownership solution, in England Red Toryism, it is most commonly associated with Catholic social teaching called Distributism, altho one needn't be Catholic or even Christian to be a distributist. Odd it hasn't been more wide spread, especially on, say, the Colbert Report; Stephen being Catholic. Actually I believe face book has a Get-distributism-on-Colbert page to spread the word. No heavy jargon, clear, realistic solutions, down to earth, a real eye opener! Lets face it - our system ain't working, its time to try something else. Highly recommended.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5 of 6 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Delivers a (Mostly) Fresh Perspective, November 22, 2011
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
Overall, I was impressed by the author's ability to put very complicated ideas into simple terms. Without diving into moral arguments, he illustrated why Big Business and Big Government have an interdependent relationship and explained the practical dysfunction of a boom-bust business cycle. Insofar as he was able to illustrate that, he was successful in presenting the need for subsidiarity and solidarity: essential components of Distributism.

However, there were more than a handful of off-the-cuff recommendations that weren't very well thought out. He rightfully recommended taxing "economic rent" and getting rid of a model that pits capital against labor, but he doesn't fully explain how it would be sufficient, nor does he explore the differences in mobility between capital and labor and how that relationship affects business. The real world isn't as simple as he tried to make it.

In the end, if he wasn't completely successful in illustrating alternative solutions (even if they were a breath a fresh air), he certainly opened the door to understand why our current models are broken. He certainly gave me--someone with little education in economics--a fundamental grasp on these heavy-handed topics as I engage conservatives and liberals alike.
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
5.0 out of 5 stars Distributism 101, June 29, 2014
You can spot what values political types favor by what words they use frequently. Conservative capitalists make “freedom” their mantra, while progressives have recently harped on “inequality.” John Médaille insists both dominant positions get it wrong, that our magic watchword should be “justice.” Médaille’s concise, plain-English introduction to Distributism, a morally motivated economics, upends facile college bromides and forces us to ask what purpose economics serves.

Distributist economic theory begins with a deceptively simple premise: if citizens are nominally free, but lack the means of living independently, that freedom is an illusion. Systems which concentrate land, labor, and money in a scant few bureaucrats’ hands rip life’s means from citizens’ control, moving power up the political pyramid. Importantly, every “mainstream” economic system does this; capitalism and socialism make taxpayers choose which servitude system we prefer.

Médaille spends his first hundred pages examining dominant economic theories, explaining what leading thinkers systemically overlook. Political leaders pitch today’s post-collapse economic debate as between capitalism and socialism (they misuse that latter term). But Médaille insists both strip ordinary workers of agency. “Socialism,” Médaille writes, “forms sort of a natural terminus for a capitalistic system, as the interests of the state bureaucrats and the corporate bureaucrats tend to converge.”

If your undergraduate economics course resembled mine, you spent countless hours graphing the supply-demand arc or mimicking the NYSE with monopoly money. Médaille demonstrates how these exercises represent ideals, measurable only in retrospect, seldom actually representing minute-by-minute decisions in constantly shifting circumstances. Real economics rarely behaves like textbook exercises, because we make decisions in conditions of incomplete knowledge. Thus we allocate our resources based on values, not mathematics.

These values include a belief that all commodities are equal; that economic forces are self-correcting and ultimately tend toward equilibrium; and that economics has objective scientific weight, like physics. These values all assume individuals exist separately and make wise decisions. Distributist theory, however, holds that individuals are sterile: I may make money, but cannot leave any posterity separate from others. For distributists, the fundamental economic unit is the family.

Distributism, Médaille writes in his second half, makes those values transparent. The illusion of market absolutism obscures the fact that markets arise from laws, traditions, and decisions made long before we had any choice. We make choices daily, unaware how prior actions circumscribe our options. If we privilege individuals over families, economics becomes a mere algebraic representation of our consumption, reducing humans to Pac-Man-like instruments of appetite.

Médaille pinches words familiar to both conservative and progressive readers, but repurposes them to serve his justice-based principles. For instance, he discusses “the ownership society,” a key libertarian precept. But libertarianism, Médaille writes, makes little sense in today’s concentrated wealth conditions. Distributed property ownership authorizes citizens to make wise decisions in consumption, employment, and investment. People without property cannot make free decisions, because they lack means to say no.

Likewise, Medaille lambastes Big Government. But he asserts that Big Industry requires government to stabilize market forces; Médaille’s foe isn’t government, but bigness. Before the New Deal, concentrated capital made economic instability and crippling recession violently commonplace. “Those who wish to scale back the extent of government involvement in the economy,” he writes, “must first analyze the failures in the economy that make heavy government involvement necessary.”

Perhaps most shocking, Médaille demonstrates how concentrated capital creates conditions exactly like notorious Communist systems. By keeping labor divided, but capital connected, workers will accept any work, however meaningless. But without meaning, workers require constant goading. Viewed from within, transnational mega-corporations resemble Soviet labor camps, where good work isn’t rewarded, nor bad work punished, so little work gets done. I can verify this from personal experience.

Dedicated readers will find inevitably find something to hate, especially when Médaille makes proactive suggestions for Distributist reform. He’ll recommend cutting some program you cherish, or shifting tax burdens in ways that bother you, or belittle some public figure you admire. His characterization of federal education policy as “useless” bugged this ex-teacher. But he forced me to examine why I hold that position, refining my position and removing the chaff.

Where capitalists and Marxists maunder over hypothetical ideals, Médaille describes actual distributed economics that could model real-world goals. His favorites, the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation and the regional economy in Emilia-Romagna, show actual distributist precepts in action. Médaille’s vision isn’t some abstract system of goals we might achieve, under mathematically precise conditions. He describes economics that currently exist, that we could apply here and now. And that makes his ideas exciting.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


3 of 4 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Evil pretending to be just..., August 8, 2014
By 
Vangel Vesovski (Mississauga, ON Canada) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
I do not have much time to devote to this book so I will keep it brief and make my points in no particular order. Please note that many readers will like what Mr. Medaille has to say and I suspect that the book will be popular among many individuals. But let me caution you that while the message may seem good there is a serious problem with the principles that are being discussed.

Let us start with a brief overview. The author is a distributionist, a follower of an economic ideology that is based on some of the principles of Catholic social teaching that were developed in the 19th and 20th century. When you listen to the distributists the message seems sound. After all they believe that property ownership is a fundamental right and support the idea of decentralization of the means of production in opposition to Marxism, which would have the state control the means of production via a form of central planning under central control. The idea is that people will cooperate and trade with each other and the system will be both equitable and just. The introduction to distributism, an overview of general economics, trade, supply and demand, equilibrium, economic justice, and the alleged failures of free market capitalism are covered in the first six chapters of the book. The style of writing is fine but only if one is willing to ignore the problems with the logic and some of the premises that the argument is based on.

While the book starts off well, as the author points out that economics is not a hard science like physics or chemistry. This is a theme he repeats throughout the book and a pretty good argument against positivists who think that they can determine general economic laws by looking at some empirical data. The book ends badly as the author advocates price controls, a fiat money system, a national bank, managed trade, and redistribution of wealth and income. In the pages between the introduction and the conclusion he mischaracterizes capitalism, shows that he does not understand the gold standard and the stability that it created, argues in favour of government controlled schooling, supports subsidies, bailouts, price fixing, and stimulus spending. Worst of all, he misrepresents the Austrian school of economics, which makes many of the same attacks on positivist economic methodology, socialism, and crony capitalism as it argues for individual rights, and free market capitalism. It is clear that Mr. Medaille does not support the idea of consumers rewarding a great producer by giving that producer a large market share because that would mean having a world in which wealth is not distributed equally by some group of philosopher kings directing a body of well meaning central planners who suffer from none of the corrupting effects of having great power over others. Mr. Medalle sees a man who has built a large company by constantly driving waste out of the production process and cutting prices to consumers as inherently evil and would deal with such a person through subsidies for his competitors, price fixing, and the redistribution of capital to less capable producers. If Pickety comes to mind, it should.

For someone who has based his argument on Catholic social doctrine, Mr. Médaille has little regard for the moral principles of a free economy. For him, free trade between two countries can only be legitimate if “there is full employment in both countries,” which makes international trade illegitimate at all times. He rejects free trade among nations and argues in support of a planned economy where well meaning men call the shots and the rest of us dance to their tune. He has no problem with price fixing, subsidies, and managed trade. He clearly has little concern about the potential abuse of political power by those that wield it. he actually writes that command and control economies have worked well in the past and points to the great monuments like the pyramids in Egypt. The fact that Egypt's Pharaohs used slave labour to build funeral crypts for themselves and taxed their subjects heavily does not seem to concern him whatsoever. That seems hard to understand in an author claiming to care about equality and morality.

I think that what bothers me the most is the absolutely illogical claim that distributionism is, "a true 'free market' system." How a large state, central planning and price fixing can be considered to be "a true 'free market' system" is beyond speculation to someone like me. I may be wrong because English is not my first language but I cannot see how the words fit together to form a true logical statement. And for an individual who writes about the primacy of ethics, Mr. Médaille supports the claim made by a ruling elite that it is entitled to rule the rest in society and live off the tax revenues and redistribution funds. We note that this is very different than what Hilaire Belloc who writes a bit about distributism in his book, The Servile State, which is mentioned by Mr. Médaille argues. Beloc thinks of a good society as one that has many of the characteristics of the decentralized order found in the medieval state. Médaille rejects this decentralization and argues for the One Ring to power, the Modern State and the central planning bureaucracy that will rule us all. No matter how he spins the rhetoric, Médaille is not conservative thinker because he is rejects social differences and uses the same type of arguments that are favoured among Marxists.

This book may be worth a look because Pope Francis has recently argued in favour of distributism and, like any good socialist, has attacked free market capitalism in the name of equality.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


6 of 8 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent non-sectarian non-historical economics book, June 14, 2012
By 
One thing that has frustrated me in the past about some books on Distributism and other alternate economic theories is their endless review of historical figures of whom I have never heard, and also endless reference to Catholic social teaching. Well, I am not 100 years old and I'm not Catholic either -- so tell me why I should care about Distributism?

This is where Medaille solidly hits the nail on the head. He explains Distributism in clear and easily understood terms from the ground up. He explains why Distributism would lead to truly free markets in a fashion where finance capitalism does not. He further expands on the details of how distributism works, its history (without sounding like a member of some secret club) and more.

I am not sure I personally agree with everything written in this book, but my agreement or disagreement is not the issue for me. What is important is whether or not the author explains his thesis clearly, supports it well and most importantly makes it relevant to me. He does, and he does so in a way that shows him to be an excellent teacher.

I like this book. The author does a great job. Many of the ideas are, I believe, very worthwhile and they are expressed in a fashion the makes sense even to people who weren't hanging around Catholic or Fabian Socialist circles back before my father was born. He makes a convincing case as to why Distributist solutions would be applicable and even effective today, and how Distributism may be an idea whose time has come.

I do not care where you come from economically. You could be a fan of Ludwig von Mises, Keynes, or Marx and unless you are one of those people who only reads material that supports what he already believes, you WILL find seriously thought provoking material in this book.

If you are someone who is willing to think outside of the left-right paradigm and consider new ideas, I highly recommend this book and believe you'll be glad you read it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


2 of 3 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars An Amazing Book!, November 17, 2011
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This book is a great read. John Medaille contrasts the current capitalist/socialist hybrid systems of the world today with a system in which property is more widely distributed. He sets out in this book to approach the issue from a practical standpoint, referencing real-world successes and real world progress toward an economy that has at its heart the sovereignty of man. If your looking for real solutions to the current economic, moral, and political failures, this is the book for you.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5.0 out of 5 stars The answer to income inequality, May 23, 2014
By 
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
So, Thomas Piketty has created a firestorm of debate over income inequality. But the flaw of
capitalism was foreseen a century ago by GK Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc. John Medaille
presents his modern take on distributism in "Toward a Truly Free Market". Mr Medaille lays out
the fatal flaw in capitalism, that capital is overcompensated compared to labor. This was the great "discovery" by Thomas Piketty and modern progressives, but common sense and observation informs us that this is the case without needing 700 pages of statistics (though there is value in analysis, which I praised Piketty for providing). In addition, the
increased concentration of capital leads to an alliance with big government, the opposite of what
one would expect from capitalist theory, but exactly what we see in practice. The problem is that
the concentration of capital leads to periodic imbalances, creating recessions. Over the past
70-80 years governments responded by increased spending to prop up and "clear" the markets. As Mr Medaille demonstrates this has helped to smooth out the imbalances inherent in capitalism.
Unfortunately, central governments never have the political will to cut spending in good times,
leading to ever enlarging debts. We may have reached the natural extent of this Keynsian
policy as we have seen in the recent "Great Recession" which has been the slowest recovery
since the Great Depression.
The answer to the problem of increased inequality and enlarging debts (public and private) is
distributism. Unlike re-distribution which puts the power into the hands if the central government
to manage the economy, distributism seeks wider ownership of capital, so that employees are
also the owners of capital, and take part in the profits due to capital. Another key concept is the
"just wage" which means that individuals should earn a sufficient wage to live in dignity without
reliance on government transfers or credit.
The good news is that distributism has been tried successfully, and Medaille spends some time
detailing these experiences. He also lays out some explicit ideas about government, basically
shrinking the size and power of the central government, and shifting more control locally or to
end users. Some of his ideas on taxation are unlikely to happen because they are so revolutionary and the entrenched interests would certainly be against them. However, I think there are politicians who would be amenable to the small government arguments, and I think government could certainly play a role in making distributist enterprises the preferred way of organizing businesses.
I think everyone interested in the economy and inequalities of income and capital should read this book, and hopefully these ideas can become part of the debate, rather than just the spiral of increased power in the hands of the oligarchy.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


4.0 out of 5 stars Interesting synthesis., May 12, 2014
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
Fascinating introduction to a unique synthesis of G.K. Chesterton, Henry George, Karl Polanyi, and MMT (Modern Monetary Theory). This book has been helpful to me, although I don't subscribe to its entire content unreservedly.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5.0 out of 5 stars Interesting look at our economic system, March 18, 2014
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
I really enjoyed this book. It contained insightful criticism of the US economy and went over several just as insightful ways to make it better.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 2 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

Details

Search these reviews only
Rate and Discover Movies
Send us feedback How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you? Let us know here.