Customer Reviews

The Tyranny of Dead Ideas: Letting Go of the Old Ways of Thinking to Unleash a New Prosperity

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

If you are interested in government policy --- the role the government can play in improving society, or even in preventing decline --- this is one book that must be on your reading list. And you will enjoy it.

Miller has experience and training as a lawyer and as a business consultant and has worked in the federal government and as an opinion columnist and radio host. These varied skills and experience are all on display as Miller takes readers on a pithy, informative and entertaining journey through the major challenges facing the country and practical, viable ways of addressing them, if we are willing to release ourselves from "dead ideas" --- the political orthodoxies that constrain action. Miller is a pragmatist with a heart of gold, and all readers will be challenged and engaged by his suggestions, and this book's relevance could not be greater at this time.

This is a great book that spells out how the parameters of our debate on current policy needs to be expanded. Right now we are playing a game of chicken where policy makers are only interested in a game of "Gotcha". These same people, however, are willing to admit in private that certain actions are absolutely needed but are fearful of the repercussions if they were to utter them in public. However, without the political courage of politicians to frame our situation adequately we all run the real risk of driving our economic machine right off the cliff.
Left, Right, Center....economic reality is coming whether we like it or not. We all better get used to some old/new unsettling news.

Matt Miller would portray himself as an unapologetic centrist, non-partisan, unencumbered by the burdens of ideology. An eminently reasonable policy wonk, if you will. But he does adopt the ideology of the technocrat. The technocrat believes in the power of science and reason to mediate political compromise and find out "what works." Voters demand competence and this the technocrat promises. By now we should know this is the ultimate "dead idea."

Mr. Miller numbers six Dead Ideas: 1) each generation can expect a rising standard of living; 2) free trade is always good; 3) employer-provided healthcare benefits; 4) tax rates are too high; 5) local school finance; and 6) free market outcomes are just and fair.

Of these, his technocratic arguments can possibly affirm only two (local school finance and employer provided health care), with a fair philosophical argument for a third (free market outcomes are just and fair). On the other three he plays victim to his own dead ideas.

The technocratic approach is based on the social sciences, principally economics, political science, and sociology, which in turn are based on rudimentary psychology. Unfortunately, the behavioral assumptions of these pseudo-sciences provide a foundation of quicksand. We have discovered this to our own dismay with our current worldwide economic and financial crisis. Does anybody get a queasy feeling these `experts' have no idea what they're doing? This is the world of the technocrat: hubris based on self-delusion. For a more sober assessment of the limits of economics and finance I suggest reading Nicholas Taleb or Benoit Mandelbrot.

Whether future generations will experience a rising standard of living will depend on the policies we adopt and the way we define our standard of living. In other words, it's not a dead idea until and unless we kill it. Malthus claimed the same dead idea regarding population growth and look how wrong he was. Anyway, do we think this idea is dead for all classes across society? Does this mean poor youth have no hope of rising above their parents' station? I would hope not. If the poor of the world have better prospects for the future, why not the middle and upper classes? In fact, if we really think government is going to provide universal healthcare, we better hope the quality of care will be progressive rather than regressive. Advancing medical technologies almost assure it will be. The only question is will we be able to pay for it?

On free trade, no Ricardian ever claimed the benefits of free trade are distributed evenly. The adjustment costs must be managed politically and this is how free trade blossomed in the 20th century. Ricardo's trade theory shows how comparative advantage makes trade a win-win proposition in terms of national welfare. But the winners still have to compensate the losers. This is not a dead idea, it's a misspecified one.

On taxes, it seems disingenuous to make general statements about whether taxes must go up or down without specifying what taxes and how. Taxes are a favorite of the technocratic class because public revenues are needed to fund technocratic solutions. Mr. Miller is a fair-minded centrist here, shooting for the middle ground to define the pro-market, pro-government agenda, but it comes back again to how taxes affect incentives to create wealth and how well government spending fulfills the demands of voters that cannot be met by markets. From where we stand now I'd have to say markets could and do provide most of the public benefits that technocrats insist must be provided by government. Most retirement funding and healthcare has historically been provided by the private sector. And historically we have done very well until we decided to put macroeconomic management into the hands of the technocrats (re: The Fed, Treasury and Congress). Taking a wrong turn on entitlements now will not enhance our future quality of life, but detract from it.

I would most agree in supporting Mr. Miller's argument on the fairness of market outcomes. Like Machiavelli claimed 500 years ago, at least half of man's fate in life is due to Fortune and the other half to Virtu. Especially with our current version of casino capitalism, many of the superrich owe their outsized wealth to pure luck and influence, not intelligence, talent or hard work. But this is a philosophical and moral argument as much as an empirical one. It won't be resolved by technocratic claims.

Mr. Miller is a good writer and thinker, an honest, intelligent technocrat. Most readers will find his arguments reasonable and appealing. Unfortunately, that doesn't make them right. The school of technocrats should have been closed after Robert S. McNamara, the ultimate technocratic wunderkind who left behind a wake of destruction wherever he went. Technocrats are functionaries, they do not have the right tools to be designing the edifice for society.

With a title like The Tyranny of Dead Ideas, obviously chosen to be provocative, there is an expectation that this book will contain something about which everyone will be irritated. In that, Mr. Miller does not disappoint. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. Though I find some of his ideas a bit over-the-top, I appreciate his willingness to think beyond.

Certainly, most of the ideas Miller identifies as "dead" should be given consideration. As a longtime educator, I agree that there needs to be some set of national standards to guide our school systems. And he's right on target when he spells out something we all know viscerally but don't want to admit: that money follows money, not merit. I also think he's got some good things to say about corporate life, taxes, and free trade.

On the other hand, I think he's quick to abandon some things that we would be better off trying to maintain. For example, though Miller is correct in his analysis of the falling standard of living of the current generation, I think that working towards having our kids do better than ourselves is an idea worth supporting, even if what that looks like in the future is somehow different. I also think there is a balance to find in concepts like free trade, what our companies should be doing for us, and even what local control school boards keep. Handing everything over to the federal government is not the solution either.

In many ways, Miller is fundamentally correct: too many "dead" ideas, entrenched so long in our culture that we can conceive of no other path, are stifling our future. He also seems fairly balanced in his approach, though that is sometimes lost in his desire to shake us from our complacency. Without a doubt, much of what he has to say will get passed over in the strictly drawn lines of what passes for public dialogue in America today; however, Mr. Miller puts a lot of things in front of us in this book that are worth discussing. Hopefully, the conversation will continue.

When I took up this book it was because of the title which intrigued me. On the face of it, I assumed it would be one of the usual diatribes against market ideas which have particularly come to prominence in the aftermath of the financial crisis which currently grips the world. As I got into it though I found a thoughtful book which challenges a number of basic assumprtions which lie at the heart of the current version of American Democracy and economic policymaking and which will probably generate a lot of opposition.

Ideas are fundamental to the way which we view the world throughout all levels of our existence and however we interact whether we know it or not.Waging the War of Ideas (Occasional Paper, 119) John Maynard Keynes famously said of ideas that the world is ruled through little elseThe General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money and he may have been right.

Matt Miller sets out his basic premises of how Americans view their world and the book establishes what those premises are and how they came to be established in the American psyche. They essentially fill out the conceptual notions of the American dream being implemented in today's society and cultural identity. Furthermore, he goes on to challenge those notions in the face of the economic reality which has faced most of the industrialised countries over recent years and which is finally engulfing the United States which hitherto has withstood the gales of creative destruction.

Miller's analysis is important particularly because he has been an insider in the previous Democrat administration and clearly knows his way around and also because he does not appear to be an ideologue in the sense of being wedded to any particular political or economic philosophy, but especially because he does not appear to be anti-market. This last qualification is one which I particularly stress because whilst the financial mess has generated a lot of bluster about market failures, the truth of the matter is that there are no alternatives to market provision which have been found to be sustainable.

Whereas I feel that view he puts forward about globalisation is somewhat hysterical, I also respect that he has genuine concerns about it's impact and the requirement for amelioration of it's worst effects, especially in the United States which has hidden behind protectionist measures for so long that it will be adversely affected.

My main points about this book are twofold. Firstly, whilst I see much within the analysis I have some strong disagreements with the conclusions but given my very strong beliefs in the free market and with free trade, that is only to be expected and i respect his well argued views. The second point is one where the book has considerable strength but which I feel will be very contentious for most Americans and I suspect that there will be very strong knee jerk reactions to the central message. That central point is right at the heart of how America views itself in the world. Essentially Miller is saying that it is wrong and will require a major rethink. His attack is on the notion that the way which America has done things in the past is wrong, it came about for good reasons but nevertheless is wrong and does not make sense. He sets out his own view of what needs to be done but that view will jar with both sides of the aisle. His plan lays itself open to attack from all of the vested interests (and there are many) which have ossified like barnacles all of the years they have been in place. Jim Callaghan, Labour Prime Minister said in 1976 "We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists, and in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion since the war by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step.". It marked a turning point in British thinking which led to led to the drastic steps which put the British economy back on a sounder footing than it had been for decades.

Matt Miller's excellent book, I believe will be very controversial, but I also believe that his conclusions, if followed, will mark a major step forward in bringing America's economy kicking, screaming and revitalised into the 21st century where it truly belongs.

Don't read The Tyranny of Dead Ideas: Letting Go of the Old Ways of Thinking to Unleash a New Prosperity if you're seriously entrenched or otherwise fully invested in the "way things work". You won't like what Matt Miller has to say. It's revolutionary.

The Tyranny of Dead Ideas: Letting Go of the Old Ways of Thinking to Unleash a New Prosperity proposes that not only does this set of ideas way past their prime hold us back from experiencing prosperity and indeed, happiness - but by holding on to them, giving them endless mouth-to-mouth in a vain attempt at resuscitating them, we are creating an extremely dangerous financial, social and psychological situation for America.

On the other hand, if you're tired of "staying the course" as our mothership, the U.S.A., sinks deeper and deeper beneath the waves of conventional wisdom, than this book is a MUST read for you.

The most frightening messages The Tyranny of Dead Ideas imparts are the simple truths - you know the ones our political and business leaders shield us po' citizens from, on the basis that little old us "can't handle the truth". In actuality it is our "leaders" who can't handle the truth, heck the rest of us are primed for a healthy dose of CHANGE aren't we? The truths are basically this - the world is a vastly different place than it was in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. And its about time we stop trying to live in the past, touting Miller's dead ideas and praying for a miracle - it ain't coming.

Miller deftly explains the origins of each dead idea - how it came to be written in stone, why it is no longer viable, and also how it needs to change in order to ensure the future of this country and its citizens. He also proposes a series of "Tomorrow's Destined Ideas" which reads like a useful, do-able instruction manual that every elected politician ought to have a copy of.

But its not just the politicos that have to start to rearrange their thinking - it is all of us. This just isn't the post WWII boom time anymore. We have to look at the world differently. Technology, globalization, the world is shrinking fast and our - at times - overfed American egos are running out of room.

I recommend reading The Tyranny of Dead Ideas: Letting Go of the Old Ways of Thinking to Unleash a New Prosperity - in fact, I recommend everyone over 20 years old read this book. It will help to understand why as a nation we are suffocating under our own weight, what we can - all of us - do about it, and why we have to start doing things differently right now. Read it to know why this set of dead ideas - some of which define us as Americans - must be put to rest in order to save our country. You may not like what you read, but it will arguably be the cold, hard truth.

The Author asserts that our country is clinging to outdated ideas that, at best, will hold us back and at worst may bring about our demise as a world power. He asserts that entrenched political support of these ideas makes it difficult to change and move forward with new programs that will work in the 21st century. Among them is the presupposition that local control of schools works fine. He reminds us that every state, every district has there own take on what children should be taught and what they should be tested for. A child that tests for reading at a certain percentile would be found to be a marginal student in one state while another state would consider him to be an exceptional student? Which state is right, what ciriculuum works best. It's hard to know. Our incoherent educational policies and fractured goals do not help us compete against other countries. The Author compares us (unfavorably)with countries like Finland which provides a challenging and standardized education for it's children while at the same time giving educators some flexibility so they are not tecahing students only how to pass tests.

He also challenges the widely held belief that each generation will earn more and enjoy a higher standard of living than their parents. The Author challenges the notion that this will automatically happen, that it is some kind of American destiny. Sadly, today there are many external factors that are proving his assertions right. After reading this book I have come to the conclusion that America is at a point where we going to have to develop some comprehensive policies for education, the environment and future economic development. We really do not have a true education or energy policy - what we have is an uneven patch of rules and regulations that are applied differently all over the country. And which are primarily based on what party is in political power. All we seem capable of is inactivity due to constant political bickering.

The left and right surely must have some common goals for America's future. The needed reform of these dead ideas comes at a glacial pace, if at all. When one party comes into power the other party, rather than find ways to work together cohesively, commits itself to undoing the works of the party in power. Then 4 years later there is a change of power and it starts all over. The 21st century has barely begun. If our political and economic stagnation continues to 2025 or beyond we may find that many other countries will have surpassed our standard of living(and will own a great deal of America to boot)and we will have relinquished our role of world prominence. This book is a wake up call for uninformed Americans and poignantly discusses how we have lost our way and how we can get it back.

I really enjoyed this look at the "Dead Ideas" we as a nation cling to, even as we see the economy spiral out of control, our schools failing, affordable health care becoming a disappearing dream for millions of Americans, Social Security looming on the horizon as millions of Baby Boomers reach that magical age of 62 . . . AAAGGGH!!!

I know, sounds depressing and scary, but I actually found it really refreshing and cautiously optimistic; his style reminds me of another favorite "smart guy" I enjoy reading/watching, Fareed Zakaria. They take an unflinching look at tough issues, but their intelligence and underlying faith in America come through and leave you feeling like maybe we can get through all of this mess, if only . . . That's the tough part! I wonder how long all of his potential solutions to the "Dead Ideas" will take to catch on and hopefully become reality!?!

A very interesting read I would recommend to ANYONE who wonders what's next, how will we get out of this, and does anyone really have any fresh ideas to resolve the classic divide between the Democrats ("spend") and the Republicans ("just say NO - to EVERYTHING!!")and get us all moving forward.

Excellent Read. I read the original on Kindle and so had not read the paperback introduction. If I had I would not have purchased the book. I am a Libertarian and this is not a lefty book, although you gather the author has such leanings as he excoriates the premise behind each Dead Idea. This is an in-depth analysis of common sense observations on beliefs formed over generations. Lewis' insight allows easy parallels with today's economic problems. Globaization has not benefited the entire economy. The children will generally not surpass their parents economically and we may all have to settle for a lower standard of living. Yet Wall Street continues to pay out huge bonuses. Through several examples, Lewis shows us why money does not follow merit - but underneath, we already knew this, didn't we?

I expected a lot from Miller, who is a smart guy and an independent thinker, and he delivers an effective rebuttal to six common myths. His viewpoint is neither left-wing or right-wing; for lack of a better word I'll call him a pragmatist. The 6 myths he takes on are:
1. Our kids will earn more than we do
2. Free Trade is always good
3. Businesses should take care of their employees' health and wealthfor life (Miller calls for the government to take over more of that role)
4. Taxes destroy growth
5. Local control of schools is a positive thing
6. Money follows Merit

I found Miller's evaluation of all these ideas very persuasive. My only criticism of the book is that it's somewhat repetitive--Part 2 often repeats the same arguments found in Part 1. Buy the book anyway; it's well worth reading.