What do you think?
Rate this book
Capitalism, Democracy, and Ralph's Pretty Good Grocery
Democracy is overrated. Capitalism, on the other hand, doesn't get enough credit. In this provocative and engaging book, John Mueller argues that these mismatches between image and reality create significant political and economic problems--inspiring instability, inefficiency, and widespread cynicism. We would be far better off, he writes, if we recognized that neither system is ideal or disastrous and accepted instead the humdrum truth that both are "pretty good." And, to Mueller, that means good enough. He declares that what is true of Garrison Keillor's fictional store "Ralph's Pretty Good Grocery" is also true of democracy and capitalism: if you can't get what you want there, "you can probably get along without it."
Mueller begins by noting that capitalism is commonly thought to celebrate greed and to require discourtesy, deceit, and callousness. However, with examples that range from car dealerships and corporate boardrooms to the shop of an eighteenth-century silk merchant, Mueller shows that capitalism in fact tends to reward behavior that is honest, fair, civil, and compassionate. He argues that this gap between image and reality hampers economic development by encouraging people to behave dishonestly, unfairly, and discourteously to try to get ahead and to neglect the virtuous behavior that is an important source of efficiency and gain.
The problem with democracy's image, by contrast, is that our expectations are too high. We are too often led by theorists, reformers, and romantics to believe that democracy should consist of egalitarianism and avid civic participation. In fact, democracy will always be chaotic, unequal, and marked by apathy. It offers reasonable freedom and security, but not political paradise. To idealize democracy, Mueller writes, is to undermine it, since the inevitable contrast with reality creates public cynicism and can hamper democracy's growth and development.
Mueller presents these arguments with sophistication, wit, and erudition. He combines mastery of current political and economic literature with references to figures ranging from Plato to P. T. Barnum, from Immanuel Kant to Ronald Reagan, from Shakespeare to Frank Capra. Broad in scope and rich in detail, the book will provoke debate among economists, political scientists, and anyone interested in the problems (or non-problems) of modern democracy and capitalism.
Mueller begins by noting that capitalism is commonly thought to celebrate greed and to require discourtesy, deceit, and callousness. However, with examples that range from car dealerships and corporate boardrooms to the shop of an eighteenth-century silk merchant, Mueller shows that capitalism in fact tends to reward behavior that is honest, fair, civil, and compassionate. He argues that this gap between image and reality hampers economic development by encouraging people to behave dishonestly, unfairly, and discourteously to try to get ahead and to neglect the virtuous behavior that is an important source of efficiency and gain.
The problem with democracy's image, by contrast, is that our expectations are too high. We are too often led by theorists, reformers, and romantics to believe that democracy should consist of egalitarianism and avid civic participation. In fact, democracy will always be chaotic, unequal, and marked by apathy. It offers reasonable freedom and security, but not political paradise. To idealize democracy, Mueller writes, is to undermine it, since the inevitable contrast with reality creates public cynicism and can hamper democracy's growth and development.
Mueller presents these arguments with sophistication, wit, and erudition. He combines mastery of current political and economic literature with references to figures ranging from Plato to P. T. Barnum, from Immanuel Kant to Ronald Reagan, from Shakespeare to Frank Capra. Broad in scope and rich in detail, the book will provoke debate among economists, political scientists, and anyone interested in the problems (or non-problems) of modern democracy and capitalism.
352 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1999
10 people are currently reading
260 people want to read
About the author
John E. Mueller
28 books12 followersJohn E. Mueller (born June 21, 1937) is an American political scientist in the field of international relations as well as a scholar of the history of dance. [Wikipedia]
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 4, 2018
I really wanted this book to make its case well because I think it has an important thesis. The central idea of this book is that capitalism tends to have a worse reputation than it deserves and democracy had a better. In particular, "capitalism actually tends, all other things being equal, systematically, thought not uniformly, to reward business behavior that is honest, fair, civil, and compassionate" and "actual democracy, [is] notable chiefly for discord, inequality, apathy, hasty compromise, political and policy ignorance, and manipulative scrambling by 'special interests'". Yet despite capitalism's negative perception and democracy's less-than-ideal implementation, Mueller argues that they are still the best system we've found for maximizing good outcomes, and they both do this by emphasizing individual freedom for people to act in their own broadly defined interests.
Mueller also makes an important psychological claim. That both of these systems do pretty well despite a lack of the ideal citizen (for democracy) and in spite of acquisitional greed (for capitalism) is a good thing: "It seems to me that an institution is likely to be fundamentally sound if it can function adequately when people are rarely, if ever, asked to rise above the ignorance and selfishness which with they have been so richly endowed by their creator. Or, putting it a bit more gently, since human beings are a flawed bunch, an institution will be more successful if it can if it can work with human imperfections rather than requiring first that the race be reformed to impossible perfection."
If these arguments could be made well, this would be an excellent work. The problem is that Mueller's arguments were not even bad. They were laughable. A small part of this is because the book was published in 1999[1] and some of the points are dated. Much more importantly, the argument was not substantial. Mueller's main evidence for the positive outcomes of capitalism rely mainly on business advice, not on an analysis of real company outcomes and whether or not they're correlated with moral behavior (à la Good to Great ). It is certainly compelling that the advice the business leaders give to each other points toward moral behavior being a competitive advantage, but it's hardly evidence that the whole system leans toward moral behavior.
His argument for the imperfections of democracy are even more muddled. He mixes up an argument that democracy is the best possible system (via cherry picked examples) with an argument that focusing on how democracy falls short of the ideal is harmful. His argument borders on Panglossian: democracy has lasted for a couple hundred years now, so how we are doing it must be pretty close to the best it can be and trying to improve things will just make people cynical and so it's bad.
Overall, Mueller shows a lack of robust historical or business analysis. Thus, in the end, he has an interesting thesis -- one that I agree with much of -- but he argues it so badly that I found myself arguing against points I agreed with.
[1] This is, in fact, why I read the book without doing too much background research. In general, I've found that if someone I trust (in this case a newsletter) recommends a book that is a decade or more old, it's probably pretty good. My heuristic was wrong in this case.
Mueller also makes an important psychological claim. That both of these systems do pretty well despite a lack of the ideal citizen (for democracy) and in spite of acquisitional greed (for capitalism) is a good thing: "It seems to me that an institution is likely to be fundamentally sound if it can function adequately when people are rarely, if ever, asked to rise above the ignorance and selfishness which with they have been so richly endowed by their creator. Or, putting it a bit more gently, since human beings are a flawed bunch, an institution will be more successful if it can if it can work with human imperfections rather than requiring first that the race be reformed to impossible perfection."
If these arguments could be made well, this would be an excellent work. The problem is that Mueller's arguments were not even bad. They were laughable. A small part of this is because the book was published in 1999[1] and some of the points are dated. Much more importantly, the argument was not substantial. Mueller's main evidence for the positive outcomes of capitalism rely mainly on business advice, not on an analysis of real company outcomes and whether or not they're correlated with moral behavior (à la Good to Great ). It is certainly compelling that the advice the business leaders give to each other points toward moral behavior being a competitive advantage, but it's hardly evidence that the whole system leans toward moral behavior.
His argument for the imperfections of democracy are even more muddled. He mixes up an argument that democracy is the best possible system (via cherry picked examples) with an argument that focusing on how democracy falls short of the ideal is harmful. His argument borders on Panglossian: democracy has lasted for a couple hundred years now, so how we are doing it must be pretty close to the best it can be and trying to improve things will just make people cynical and so it's bad.
Overall, Mueller shows a lack of robust historical or business analysis. Thus, in the end, he has an interesting thesis -- one that I agree with much of -- but he argues it so badly that I found myself arguing against points I agreed with.
[1] This is, in fact, why I read the book without doing too much background research. In general, I've found that if someone I trust (in this case a newsletter) recommends a book that is a decade or more old, it's probably pretty good. My heuristic was wrong in this case.
May 13, 2017
I came to this book by way of Mueller's partial use of circus history to illustrate his points about capitalism. It's an approach in which I see a lot of potential and hope to use in my own writing. The problem with it in this case is that the author appears to be a lousy historian. He leans heavily on examples from poor and biased sources, most notably the outdated and exalting book _Those Amazing Ringlings and their Circus_ by Gene Plowden (published by Caxton Printers of Caldwell, Idaho in 1967, hardly a reputable source) and P.T. Barnum's own braggadocio-laden writings. Elsewhere, he makes bold statements with no citation at all. For example, he claims that "honest" showmen like the Ringlings grew "far richer than the cheats who had preceded them" (25). Oh yeah? Please prove that, sir. Particularly since it is central to your argument.
Mueller also seems to have but little grasp on Gilded Age and Progressive Era cultural history, assuming that word of mouth or personal experience were enough to keep patrons away from the "dishonest" circuses. Again, the author offers no source for the proclamation that before Barnum (whose role in deciding the content or business practices of "his" circus was probably minimal) "the entire industry was on the verge of extinction because its customers, through experience, no longer were foolish enough to attend" (25). But it was the circus itself that controlled its publicity in a society of disconnected urban centers, which is why glowing, personal accounts of even the worst circuses are easy to find. With an entire country to account for, the idea that 'everyone had already been to that circus and got cheated' is preposterous. In short (I'm writing this on my phone), there is much more underlying history to Mueller's anecdotes than perhaps a political scientist like him would like to admit.
Even though this is but a small part of the book overall, the author's free use of anecdotal history to make a bold and, in my view, outlandish argument, does not bode well for the book's core thesis.
Mueller also seems to have but little grasp on Gilded Age and Progressive Era cultural history, assuming that word of mouth or personal experience were enough to keep patrons away from the "dishonest" circuses. Again, the author offers no source for the proclamation that before Barnum (whose role in deciding the content or business practices of "his" circus was probably minimal) "the entire industry was on the verge of extinction because its customers, through experience, no longer were foolish enough to attend" (25). But it was the circus itself that controlled its publicity in a society of disconnected urban centers, which is why glowing, personal accounts of even the worst circuses are easy to find. With an entire country to account for, the idea that 'everyone had already been to that circus and got cheated' is preposterous. In short (I'm writing this on my phone), there is much more underlying history to Mueller's anecdotes than perhaps a political scientist like him would like to admit.
Even though this is but a small part of the book overall, the author's free use of anecdotal history to make a bold and, in my view, outlandish argument, does not bode well for the book's core thesis.
July 21, 2019
An interesting theory, but poorly proved by self-serving platitudes, homilies and bromides. The farther I read, the more trouble I had avoiding the conclusion that I was just wasting my time.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews