What do you think?
Rate this book
Marketcrafters: The 100-Year Struggle to Shape the American Economy
A revelatory and unexpected history of the rise of American capitalism—and an argument that entrepreneurial leaders in government, not the mythical “free market,” created the most dynamic economy the world has ever known.
For many decades, a sacred myth has ruled the minds of policymakers and business free markets, untouched by the soiled hands of government, bring us prosperity and stability. But it’s wrong. American policy makers, on the right and the left, have spent much of the past century actively shaping our markets for social and political goals. Their work behind the scenes and out of the headlines has served as a kind of “marketcraft,” mirroring the statecraft of international relations.
Economist and writer Chris Hughes takes us on a journey through the modern history of American capitalism, relating the captivating stories of the most effective marketcrafters and the ones who bungled the job. He reveals how both Republicans and Democrats have consistently attempted to organize markets for social and political reasons, like avoiding gasoline shortages, reducing inflation, fostering the American aviation and semiconductor industries, fighting climate change, and supporting financial innovation.
In recent decades, the art of marketcraft has been lost to history, replaced by the myth that markets work best when they are unfettered and free. Hughes argues that by rediscovering the triumphs and failures of past marketcrafters, we can shape future markets, such as those in artificial intelligence and clean power production, to be innovative, stable, and inclusive. Groundbreaking, timely, and illuminating, this is a must-read for anyone interested in economic policy, financial markets, and the future of the American economy.
For many decades, a sacred myth has ruled the minds of policymakers and business free markets, untouched by the soiled hands of government, bring us prosperity and stability. But it’s wrong. American policy makers, on the right and the left, have spent much of the past century actively shaping our markets for social and political goals. Their work behind the scenes and out of the headlines has served as a kind of “marketcraft,” mirroring the statecraft of international relations.
Economist and writer Chris Hughes takes us on a journey through the modern history of American capitalism, relating the captivating stories of the most effective marketcrafters and the ones who bungled the job. He reveals how both Republicans and Democrats have consistently attempted to organize markets for social and political reasons, like avoiding gasoline shortages, reducing inflation, fostering the American aviation and semiconductor industries, fighting climate change, and supporting financial innovation.
In recent decades, the art of marketcraft has been lost to history, replaced by the myth that markets work best when they are unfettered and free. Hughes argues that by rediscovering the triumphs and failures of past marketcrafters, we can shape future markets, such as those in artificial intelligence and clean power production, to be innovative, stable, and inclusive. Groundbreaking, timely, and illuminating, this is a must-read for anyone interested in economic policy, financial markets, and the future of the American economy.
480 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2025
156 people are currently reading
938 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
April 26, 2025
Worth it for the particular understanding of what role government can play in sustaining markets. A sort of alternative history of America, ripped away from neoliberals and free marketeers. The section on Jesse Jones is revelatory enough to make the whole book. I also enjoyed the fact that Alan Greenspan was labeled a marketcrafters, despite his laissez-faire orthodoxy. He was an evangelist for financial innovation as a market-discipline tool, and he worked affirmatively to craft that market. Marketcrafting is neutral; it can be put to good or bad ends. Hughes highlights both. Great book, I learned a lot.
May 31, 2025
Jon Stewart interviewed the author, so even though it is far outside my body of information. It’s good to be challenged! I would read it again but with a print copy, higher lighter and pen in hand!
December 20, 2025
A fascinating, informative read. Legitimately might have sent me down a different career path if it was around for me to read in high school.
It’s very opinionated, for sure, but gives a deep and broad review of around one hundred years of economic and political history. It gave me a lot to think about in terms of people’s capability to separate policy from politics, but did a good job of calling out good and bad (and incoherent) policy examples on both sides of the aisle.
It’s very opinionated, for sure, but gives a deep and broad review of around one hundred years of economic and political history. It gave me a lot to think about in terms of people’s capability to separate policy from politics, but did a good job of calling out good and bad (and incoherent) policy examples on both sides of the aisle.
July 3, 2025
Given the frequent inefficiencies of markets, government should retain the capacity to guide and manage them in pursuit of the common good. This is the central argument of Chris Hughes’s Marketcrafters, a collection of historical vignettes about individuals who have “shaped and crafted markets” over the past century. Hughes, an economist at a leading nonprofit, presents a vision in which entrepreneurial leaders within government harness the power of markets to advance political and social goals.
His examples are wide-ranging: FDR’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation, led by Jesse Jones, which extended emergency credit during the Great Depression and supported armament production during World War II; Federal Reserve chairmen from William Martin to Alan Greenspan, who—through differing philosophical orientations—expanded global liquidity and fostered financial innovation; the Nixon administration’s attempts to stabilize energy markets through the Federal Energy Office and price controls; and more recent figures like Brian Deese, who championed clean energy and semiconductor investments under the Obama and Biden administrations, and Lina Khan, whose tenure at the FTC marked a more assertive approach to antimonopoly enforcement.
While Hughes’s historical portraits are illuminating and diverse, the core concept of "marketcrafting" remains frustratingly vague. The term lacks a clearly defined framework, leaving readers unsure of its boundaries or theoretical coherence. Moreover, the narrative skews heavily toward liberal administrations—FDR, Obama, Biden—while giving insufficient attention to Republican examples of market-shaping. Notable omissions include Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System, George W. Bush’s Medicare Part D, Trump’s Opportunity Zones, Operation Warp Speed, and pandemic-era small business lending programs. Hughes also dismisses Trump’s use of tariffs and trade policy on the grounds that they lacked coherent political or social aims—an arbitrary exclusion that underscores the subjective application of his concept.
Additionally, while recent fiscal policy initiatives are acknowledged, a disproportionate share of the book focuses on the Federal Reserve and monetary policy. This imbalance gives the narrative a fragmented quality—perhaps a byproduct of the book’s origin as a history of the Fed before broadening its scope to include industrial policy.
In sum, Marketcrafters offers compelling case studies of public officials who productively engaged in market-shaping, but it suffers from conceptual vagueness, selective historical framing, and a progressive orientation that downplays conservative contributions. As a result, the book delivers an intriguing but ultimately incomplete account of the state’s role in crafting markets.
His examples are wide-ranging: FDR’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation, led by Jesse Jones, which extended emergency credit during the Great Depression and supported armament production during World War II; Federal Reserve chairmen from William Martin to Alan Greenspan, who—through differing philosophical orientations—expanded global liquidity and fostered financial innovation; the Nixon administration’s attempts to stabilize energy markets through the Federal Energy Office and price controls; and more recent figures like Brian Deese, who championed clean energy and semiconductor investments under the Obama and Biden administrations, and Lina Khan, whose tenure at the FTC marked a more assertive approach to antimonopoly enforcement.
While Hughes’s historical portraits are illuminating and diverse, the core concept of "marketcrafting" remains frustratingly vague. The term lacks a clearly defined framework, leaving readers unsure of its boundaries or theoretical coherence. Moreover, the narrative skews heavily toward liberal administrations—FDR, Obama, Biden—while giving insufficient attention to Republican examples of market-shaping. Notable omissions include Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System, George W. Bush’s Medicare Part D, Trump’s Opportunity Zones, Operation Warp Speed, and pandemic-era small business lending programs. Hughes also dismisses Trump’s use of tariffs and trade policy on the grounds that they lacked coherent political or social aims—an arbitrary exclusion that underscores the subjective application of his concept.
Additionally, while recent fiscal policy initiatives are acknowledged, a disproportionate share of the book focuses on the Federal Reserve and monetary policy. This imbalance gives the narrative a fragmented quality—perhaps a byproduct of the book’s origin as a history of the Fed before broadening its scope to include industrial policy.
In sum, Marketcrafters offers compelling case studies of public officials who productively engaged in market-shaping, but it suffers from conceptual vagueness, selective historical framing, and a progressive orientation that downplays conservative contributions. As a result, the book delivers an intriguing but ultimately incomplete account of the state’s role in crafting markets.
June 1, 2025
When I picked this up I was prepared for it to be a slog. But Hughes manages to make a history of monetary and industrial policy really engaging. I found myself looking forward to picking it up. I was hoping for a bit more argument, or policy prescription, which is why I didn’t rate this five stars. But that’s not a knock at all on what Hughes has produced here, which is a very important and timely book.
November 22, 2025
What a bundle of mixed feelings.
Let's start positive. The last few chapters are a really compelling insiders' account of Bidenomics and the RFC chapters are also really well done. Hughes writes in an interesting and accessible way. Easily the least evil of the Facebook founders. Kudos you beautiful tech-savy man.
BUT... everything Hughes presents is so sanitized. Most any bit of "marketcraft" (a frustratingly vague term he whips out from Vogel I imagine) is treated more or less uncritically. Kinda feels like he knows these people and can't shit on them even when they demand to be shat upon at least a little. Meanwhile, Hughes just ignores the primary tool of US marketcraft — military industrial policy — and its consequences: a history of Bidenomics without any reference to this is not fully honest, sorry. Insane that a book published mid-genocide portrays Jake Sullivan as some sort of hero.
Untapped potential. Feels more like a bit of propaganda for contemporary progressive economic advocacy (a movement which I do more or less support) rather than an accurate analysis of US economic history. Should've been better.
Let's start positive. The last few chapters are a really compelling insiders' account of Bidenomics and the RFC chapters are also really well done. Hughes writes in an interesting and accessible way. Easily the least evil of the Facebook founders. Kudos you beautiful tech-savy man.
BUT... everything Hughes presents is so sanitized. Most any bit of "marketcraft" (a frustratingly vague term he whips out from Vogel I imagine) is treated more or less uncritically. Kinda feels like he knows these people and can't shit on them even when they demand to be shat upon at least a little. Meanwhile, Hughes just ignores the primary tool of US marketcraft — military industrial policy — and its consequences: a history of Bidenomics without any reference to this is not fully honest, sorry. Insane that a book published mid-genocide portrays Jake Sullivan as some sort of hero.
Untapped potential. Feels more like a bit of propaganda for contemporary progressive economic advocacy (a movement which I do more or less support) rather than an accurate analysis of US economic history. Should've been better.
July 10, 2025
Marketcrafters by Chris Hughes and the market intervention policies of China and East Asian countries share a core belief in government’s role in shaping markets but differ in ideology, scope, and execution. The U.S. excels in pragmatic, accountable interventions but lacks the systemic ambition of East Asia. China and East Asian countries drive rapid growth through state-led strategies but risk distortions and ethical issues. Policymakers can draw from both: the U.S. for accountability and innovation, and East Asia for strategic vision and scale, to craft markets that are innovative, stable, and inclusive in the face of global challenges.
November 27, 2025
Overall interesting take on how government is more involved in markets than given credit for. being a left leaning person it definitely is up my alley.
May 3, 2025
Extraordinary piece of scholarship, history, and advocacy for the lost art of market interventions for policy purposes, not market correction so much as market creation. Hughes is a first-rate historian and policy analyst with a wide-ranging eye and vision for a world with smarter, better public policy.
September 20, 2025
A dry subject made fascinating
This book is about the market place and how Americans throughout our history have sought to stabilize and move our economy forward. It is written so well as to make what is for sure a very dry topic into a who done it of economic policy. How things were crafted and what the results were. Just fascinating.
This book is about the market place and how Americans throughout our history have sought to stabilize and move our economy forward. It is written so well as to make what is for sure a very dry topic into a who done it of economic policy. How things were crafted and what the results were. Just fascinating.
July 6, 2025
Some sections of this book wee compelling explanations of the interaction of private enterprise with the US government over history. However, for me, the narrative bogged down a little as it got into more modern times, possibly because I lived through a lot of the history. My age is showing.
November 25, 2025
For a deeper understanding of the American economic system, as well as a detailed historical foundation of how government influence in private markets has attempted to drive or influence market trends, this book is a good resource for understanding the ways policymakers and business leaders can work together to shape a stronger economy all the way down to the working people. It is unbiased as far as political scrutiny and relies on analysis and historical results of the ways our government has used its power and influence to either strengthen or collapse certain industrial sectors, competition, and innovation.
The essential theme concentrates on the economic effects between both political influence and market driven factors that make up the workings of capitalism and how particular drivers are able to shape markets to a particular benefit or outcome. It showcases the deeply American trait of thinking "outside the box" to create new processes or systems to resolve issues and using the current markets to manipulate end results into a positive direction through skill, strategic intervention, public support, and collaboration.
What I particularly enjoyed about the analysis includes the times that bipartisan support has achieved a positive outcome for a greater-good goal, as elected officials are essentially chosen to do. One example includes the rough era coming out of the Great Depression in the midst of a banking crisis, government workers had "forgotten to be Republicans or Democrats" and came together in resolution to save the banking system and restore the people's confidence in the industry through new government policy using such "marketcrafting" tools. Other examples included things that directly affect American consumers today, including the development of the RFC, FHA, the Federal Reserve, and SBA that assist with managing stability within the fluctuations in markets.
It busts the myth that our industries operate on "free market" systems by numerous examples over the last 100 years, and particularly in the last 30 years of globalization trends. Hughes takes great care to detail background information to such depth that I found it a bit dense at parts and difficult to follow in keeping up with the directions of each long chapter. However, I did find it immensely informative and hopeful that many of the new crop of policymakers have the determination to continue working positively with all parties to come up with innovative solutions to complex issues like managing fairness of antitrust, large mergers, and corporate takeovers of major businesses. It takes a hard look at where those efforts have both failed and succeeded in the past, and what ideas are proposed for future stability of American workers.
Overall, I was happy to finish this book, mostly because it felt intense and laborious to get through some of the lengthy chapters and legal deep dives. It is not "easy reading" however I feel more well-informed of the ongoing relationship between business and government, and what it takes for major shifts to happen on a grand scale.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Favorite Quotes:
"Today's US medical system is governed neither by 'market forces' nor by the public interest. It illustrates what happens when large-scale government investment is not fused with power and discretion to manage markets effectively. The long-standing fear of a centralized state power, the enduring legacy of racism, and the outsized power of doctors and hospitals stood in the way of the creation of a national scheme to provide affordable health care to all Americans. In the pursuit of less bureaucracy and waste, we got more of both."
"Presidents can talk about the virtue of small government as much as they like," Greenspan later wrote, but every President, including Republicans, still oversaw an increase in the size and scale of government as America's economy grew larger."
"The free market alone will not serve the public interest without checks against abuse, corruption, and unacceptable levels of inequality," Sullivan eventually wrote. The antidote was a more muscular state, prepared to make surgical investments in struggling regions, coordinate directly with businesses to support growth of new, globally competitive industries, and reinvigorate antimonopoly policy to tackle abusive companies and the concentration of wealth."
"The income share going to the top 1 percent rose from 10.7 percent in 1987 to over 17 percent in 2006. Meanwhile, the broader workforce saw stagnant wages and diminishing economic security. This inequality may not have been purposeful, but it was unmistakably the result of dedicated marketcraft to support finance with no similar age3nda for American workers."
"When policymakers successfully shape markets to serve the public good, they do so by empowering institutions with clear missions and the flexibility to achieve them. Building state capacity isn't about writing more detailed rules - it's about setting clear objectives and giving skilled people the tools to achieve them."
The essential theme concentrates on the economic effects between both political influence and market driven factors that make up the workings of capitalism and how particular drivers are able to shape markets to a particular benefit or outcome. It showcases the deeply American trait of thinking "outside the box" to create new processes or systems to resolve issues and using the current markets to manipulate end results into a positive direction through skill, strategic intervention, public support, and collaboration.
What I particularly enjoyed about the analysis includes the times that bipartisan support has achieved a positive outcome for a greater-good goal, as elected officials are essentially chosen to do. One example includes the rough era coming out of the Great Depression in the midst of a banking crisis, government workers had "forgotten to be Republicans or Democrats" and came together in resolution to save the banking system and restore the people's confidence in the industry through new government policy using such "marketcrafting" tools. Other examples included things that directly affect American consumers today, including the development of the RFC, FHA, the Federal Reserve, and SBA that assist with managing stability within the fluctuations in markets.
It busts the myth that our industries operate on "free market" systems by numerous examples over the last 100 years, and particularly in the last 30 years of globalization trends. Hughes takes great care to detail background information to such depth that I found it a bit dense at parts and difficult to follow in keeping up with the directions of each long chapter. However, I did find it immensely informative and hopeful that many of the new crop of policymakers have the determination to continue working positively with all parties to come up with innovative solutions to complex issues like managing fairness of antitrust, large mergers, and corporate takeovers of major businesses. It takes a hard look at where those efforts have both failed and succeeded in the past, and what ideas are proposed for future stability of American workers.
Overall, I was happy to finish this book, mostly because it felt intense and laborious to get through some of the lengthy chapters and legal deep dives. It is not "easy reading" however I feel more well-informed of the ongoing relationship between business and government, and what it takes for major shifts to happen on a grand scale.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Favorite Quotes:
"Today's US medical system is governed neither by 'market forces' nor by the public interest. It illustrates what happens when large-scale government investment is not fused with power and discretion to manage markets effectively. The long-standing fear of a centralized state power, the enduring legacy of racism, and the outsized power of doctors and hospitals stood in the way of the creation of a national scheme to provide affordable health care to all Americans. In the pursuit of less bureaucracy and waste, we got more of both."
"Presidents can talk about the virtue of small government as much as they like," Greenspan later wrote, but every President, including Republicans, still oversaw an increase in the size and scale of government as America's economy grew larger."
"The free market alone will not serve the public interest without checks against abuse, corruption, and unacceptable levels of inequality," Sullivan eventually wrote. The antidote was a more muscular state, prepared to make surgical investments in struggling regions, coordinate directly with businesses to support growth of new, globally competitive industries, and reinvigorate antimonopoly policy to tackle abusive companies and the concentration of wealth."
"The income share going to the top 1 percent rose from 10.7 percent in 1987 to over 17 percent in 2006. Meanwhile, the broader workforce saw stagnant wages and diminishing economic security. This inequality may not have been purposeful, but it was unmistakably the result of dedicated marketcraft to support finance with no similar age3nda for American workers."
"When policymakers successfully shape markets to serve the public good, they do so by empowering institutions with clear missions and the flexibility to achieve them. Building state capacity isn't about writing more detailed rules - it's about setting clear objectives and giving skilled people the tools to achieve them."
August 31, 2025
When I grew up in China, this phrase was mentioned in news broadcast almost everyday:
社会主义市场经济下的宏观调控
It translates to "Macroeconomic Regulation under the Socialist Market Economy", which is just a fancier way to say "State Capitalism". What the author is advocating and what the American politics are pivoting to is roughly the same thing (with different implementation of course). The free market is like a child. It should grow independently and pursue its interest unimpeded, but from time to time, the parents need to put their foot down and say enough is enough. Otherwise, we will end up with a belligerent teenager burning the entire house down (we kind of already have, multiple times actually). The government playing a crucial role in guiding which industry to grow is just smart policy under the current economy that values short-term profits and market concentration above everything else. It has nothing to do with Capitalism or Socialism (this stupid fight over ideology should stop, period! It's meaningless and achieves nothing.) We absolutely should start investing in burgeoning industries, creating jobs that will last, and pivoting the country for a leadership role in the next era. If thriving in the new geopolitical environment and an unprecedented economic future means that the U.S. ends up with a similar industrial policy framework as China, so be it. It's just evolution at work; it's just Carcinisation (everything is crab).
I agree with many points in the book and think it is well-written and researched. However, I am afraid the author is painting too rosy a picture of how the left and right are uniting under the same vision of marketcrafting. While both the left and right are advocating for a stronger government to influence the industries, the how is very different. The author kind of brushes it aside, claiming that as long as the what (marketcrafting) is aligned, the how (which industry to support) does not matter. I disagree. I think the how is as important as, if not more pivotal than, the what. While the left wants to grow renewable energy (solar, wind, hydrogen, etc.), the right wants to revive the fossil fuel industry (coal, oil, gas). The former is looking forward, trying to catch up in an industry that the U.S. has already lagged behind. The latter, on the other hand, is still dreaming backwards (very fitting for the "conservative" nomenclature), chasing profits for the next 20-30 years, while ignoring the future where fossil fuel will inevitably deplete (Trump might play an important role here, as the fossil fuel bosses are his golf buddies, and none of them will live long enough to see the dire consequences of their short-sighted profit-seeking). These two paths can lead to drastically different futures for the U.S., and I think the right is on the wrong path, again.
Similarly, although both the left and right champion antimonopoly, the right's action does not match their words. In the book, the author noted on page 357 that
Essentially, the right is only antimonopoly on the surface; secretly they are perfectly fine with John Deere remaining a monopoly. In fact, with the country sliding further down the authoritarian path, all the policies and rules of law can mean nothing. No wonder Apple's CEO personally delivered a plaque with a golden base to Trump -- Cook knew that if he is on the right side of Trump, Apple can escape the antimonopoly crosshair. No wonder NVIDIA's CEO had dinner with Trump -- Huang knew that if he kept chummy with the President, NVIDIA could circumvent the law to sell more chips to China. Under such a backdrop, the right will use antimonopoly as a political tool (target the big companies it does not like while ignoring those that sing songs for Trump) instead of a marketcrafting tool (treat all monopolies equally regardless how many gold plaques or airplanes they give Trump).
One last point I'd like to make is that if the right is really serious about marketcrafting to ensure a stronger future for the U.S., it would never have allocated more than 11 billion dollars budget for ICE. I mean what would that money do, aside from disturbing neighborhoods, putting thousands of brown people in concentration camps, and causing unnecessary childhood trauma when the kids are yanked away from their parents? Some people may argue that it will save American jobs. What kind of jobs are we talking about? The fruit picking and meat packing jobs? They were already worked by illegal immigrants, for obvious reasons. You think those are the jobs regular Americans want to do? You think America can be saved and "made great again" once we take back those gruesome and low-paying jobs from illegal immigrants? People don't build wealth by saving money; they do so by earning more and investing. The same goes for a nation—-you strengthen a country by exploring uncharted territory and creating new industries, not by saving old jobs that nobody wants to do. While illegal immigration is clearly a problem to solve, using taxpayer money to lock away illegal immigrants with a pretense that it will save American jobs is never a solution.
Some people might also argue that the budget creates jobs for ICE as they will hire more brown shirts. Yes, indeed they will. But what value will those brown shirts provide? Do they advance any industry that will be crucial to American leadership in the future? Do they enhance productivity of the economy? Do they serve as the foundation that will create more jobs? No, they don't. This money will be spent on a bunch of guys with small-dick energy, dressing in full military costume (face mask included) and driving around in gas-guzzling SUVs with AC in full blasting. It will be spent building concentration camps which will eventually be torn down when a new administration takes power or Trump loses interest (the dystopian Alligator Alcatraz is already scaling down). That's it. That's where the money will go. If you simply set fire on the money, it would make no difference.
Let's imagine that in an alternative universe, we allocate those 11 billion dollars on something more productive. Maybe bet on a few new industries, we may strike gold (case in point, Tesla)? Maybe broaden the CHIPS act? Maybe reduce U.S. reliance on fossil fuel? Maybe CREATE jobs in areas where the U.S. can establish a lead in the future? There are so many more worthwhile endeavors 11 billion dollars can engage. Yet the Trump administration, the right that the author claimed to be onboard with marketcrafting (the repeated mention of Marco Rubio and JD Vance is laughable. Marketcrafting requires a strong back to withstand pressure, yet they have sold their spines years ago), chose to squander the money for nothing. I am deeply disappointed that the author fails to explore this further.
I have more quotes prepared but there is not enough space here. I put them on a cross-posting Medium article.
社会主义市场经济下的宏观调控
It translates to "Macroeconomic Regulation under the Socialist Market Economy", which is just a fancier way to say "State Capitalism". What the author is advocating and what the American politics are pivoting to is roughly the same thing (with different implementation of course). The free market is like a child. It should grow independently and pursue its interest unimpeded, but from time to time, the parents need to put their foot down and say enough is enough. Otherwise, we will end up with a belligerent teenager burning the entire house down (we kind of already have, multiple times actually). The government playing a crucial role in guiding which industry to grow is just smart policy under the current economy that values short-term profits and market concentration above everything else. It has nothing to do with Capitalism or Socialism (this stupid fight over ideology should stop, period! It's meaningless and achieves nothing.) We absolutely should start investing in burgeoning industries, creating jobs that will last, and pivoting the country for a leadership role in the next era. If thriving in the new geopolitical environment and an unprecedented economic future means that the U.S. ends up with a similar industrial policy framework as China, so be it. It's just evolution at work; it's just Carcinisation (everything is crab).
I agree with many points in the book and think it is well-written and researched. However, I am afraid the author is painting too rosy a picture of how the left and right are uniting under the same vision of marketcrafting. While both the left and right are advocating for a stronger government to influence the industries, the how is very different. The author kind of brushes it aside, claiming that as long as the what (marketcrafting) is aligned, the how (which industry to support) does not matter. I disagree. I think the how is as important as, if not more pivotal than, the what. While the left wants to grow renewable energy (solar, wind, hydrogen, etc.), the right wants to revive the fossil fuel industry (coal, oil, gas). The former is looking forward, trying to catch up in an industry that the U.S. has already lagged behind. The latter, on the other hand, is still dreaming backwards (very fitting for the "conservative" nomenclature), chasing profits for the next 20-30 years, while ignoring the future where fossil fuel will inevitably deplete (Trump might play an important role here, as the fossil fuel bosses are his golf buddies, and none of them will live long enough to see the dire consequences of their short-sighted profit-seeking). These two paths can lead to drastically different futures for the U.S., and I think the right is on the wrong path, again.
Similarly, although both the left and right champion antimonopoly, the right's action does not match their words. In the book, the author noted on page 357 that
Ferguson, for instance, did not join Khan in supporting one of her last moves, a lawsuit against John Deere for forcing farmers to use only authorized dealers for critical repairs.
Essentially, the right is only antimonopoly on the surface; secretly they are perfectly fine with John Deere remaining a monopoly. In fact, with the country sliding further down the authoritarian path, all the policies and rules of law can mean nothing. No wonder Apple's CEO personally delivered a plaque with a golden base to Trump -- Cook knew that if he is on the right side of Trump, Apple can escape the antimonopoly crosshair. No wonder NVIDIA's CEO had dinner with Trump -- Huang knew that if he kept chummy with the President, NVIDIA could circumvent the law to sell more chips to China. Under such a backdrop, the right will use antimonopoly as a political tool (target the big companies it does not like while ignoring those that sing songs for Trump) instead of a marketcrafting tool (treat all monopolies equally regardless how many gold plaques or airplanes they give Trump).
One last point I'd like to make is that if the right is really serious about marketcrafting to ensure a stronger future for the U.S., it would never have allocated more than 11 billion dollars budget for ICE. I mean what would that money do, aside from disturbing neighborhoods, putting thousands of brown people in concentration camps, and causing unnecessary childhood trauma when the kids are yanked away from their parents? Some people may argue that it will save American jobs. What kind of jobs are we talking about? The fruit picking and meat packing jobs? They were already worked by illegal immigrants, for obvious reasons. You think those are the jobs regular Americans want to do? You think America can be saved and "made great again" once we take back those gruesome and low-paying jobs from illegal immigrants? People don't build wealth by saving money; they do so by earning more and investing. The same goes for a nation—-you strengthen a country by exploring uncharted territory and creating new industries, not by saving old jobs that nobody wants to do. While illegal immigration is clearly a problem to solve, using taxpayer money to lock away illegal immigrants with a pretense that it will save American jobs is never a solution.
Some people might also argue that the budget creates jobs for ICE as they will hire more brown shirts. Yes, indeed they will. But what value will those brown shirts provide? Do they advance any industry that will be crucial to American leadership in the future? Do they enhance productivity of the economy? Do they serve as the foundation that will create more jobs? No, they don't. This money will be spent on a bunch of guys with small-dick energy, dressing in full military costume (face mask included) and driving around in gas-guzzling SUVs with AC in full blasting. It will be spent building concentration camps which will eventually be torn down when a new administration takes power or Trump loses interest (the dystopian Alligator Alcatraz is already scaling down). That's it. That's where the money will go. If you simply set fire on the money, it would make no difference.
Let's imagine that in an alternative universe, we allocate those 11 billion dollars on something more productive. Maybe bet on a few new industries, we may strike gold (case in point, Tesla)? Maybe broaden the CHIPS act? Maybe reduce U.S. reliance on fossil fuel? Maybe CREATE jobs in areas where the U.S. can establish a lead in the future? There are so many more worthwhile endeavors 11 billion dollars can engage. Yet the Trump administration, the right that the author claimed to be onboard with marketcrafting (the repeated mention of Marco Rubio and JD Vance is laughable. Marketcrafting requires a strong back to withstand pressure, yet they have sold their spines years ago), chose to squander the money for nothing. I am deeply disappointed that the author fails to explore this further.
I have more quotes prepared but there is not enough space here. I put them on a cross-posting Medium article.
July 13, 2025
Interesting Ideas, But a Tough Listen
I really wanted to love Marketcrafters. The premise—exploring the century-long tug-of-war over who shapes the American economy—sounded right up my alley. And there’s definitely a lot of valuable information here. Chris Hughes brings deep research and some compelling historical narratives to the table, especially when tracing the evolution of economic policy through a political lens.
But the truth is, this one just didn’t click for me. I’m not deeply immersed in economics, and a lot of the content—while clearly well-informed—felt dense and hard to follow. It reads more like a scholarly text than a popular nonfiction audiobook, and I found myself drifting more than I’d like.
The narration didn’t help. Sean Patrick Hopkins has a clear voice, but the pacing felt flat and slow, which made it hard to stay engaged through longer chapters. I kept waiting to be pulled in, but the spark never really came.
That said, if you're more versed in economic theory or public policy, this might land better for you. It just didn’t quite hit the mark for me personally.
Three stars for effort and content, but a challenging listen overall.
I really wanted to love Marketcrafters. The premise—exploring the century-long tug-of-war over who shapes the American economy—sounded right up my alley. And there’s definitely a lot of valuable information here. Chris Hughes brings deep research and some compelling historical narratives to the table, especially when tracing the evolution of economic policy through a political lens.
But the truth is, this one just didn’t click for me. I’m not deeply immersed in economics, and a lot of the content—while clearly well-informed—felt dense and hard to follow. It reads more like a scholarly text than a popular nonfiction audiobook, and I found myself drifting more than I’d like.
The narration didn’t help. Sean Patrick Hopkins has a clear voice, but the pacing felt flat and slow, which made it hard to stay engaged through longer chapters. I kept waiting to be pulled in, but the spark never really came.
That said, if you're more versed in economic theory or public policy, this might land better for you. It just didn’t quite hit the mark for me personally.
Three stars for effort and content, but a challenging listen overall.
November 16, 2025
The central argument of this book felt like an obvious one to me, sometimes state intervention and collaboration with private enterprise results in great business growth and sometimes devastating socioeconomic consequences (Greenspan era policies that built lead up to 2008 crisis in particular). I enjoyed the later anecdotes about Lina Khan and Brian Deese. The earlier explorations of Jesse Jones and Bill Martin were also interesting. My favorite was probably about Katherine Pollak Ellickson and her fight for healthcare access to Americans - her work almost led to universal healthcare in the U.S. but she was able to still get Medicare on good policy ground. Overall, a fine collection of historical anecdotes about American economic and public policy built on a somewhat bland thesis.
December 14, 2025
This is an excellent book that describes ways in which we can shape the economy to work for us... All of us. I think that there is a thought that deregulation is good for growing an economy, but this is not always so. Some regulations do not work and should be removed. Other regulations work well to make the economy work better for everyone. I think that there is a level of do-nothing-ism amongst some leaders that should be called out for what it really is... They do not understand the mechanics of growing a prospering economy that works on behalf of the people living within that economic structure. Very insightful book! Cheers!
August 28, 2025
It's a bit unfair for me to provide a reading for this book as I only read a few chapters. It appears to be very scholarly and very well researched, but I could not just get into the topics or storylines. I was not familiar with the influences or names of Jesse Jones or Brian Deese and their contributions on economic policy.
It's funny that my first impression of the book was based on the book cover, and it gave me the impression that I might not find this book interesting. Turned out to be right…
It's funny that my first impression of the book was based on the book cover, and it gave me the impression that I might not find this book interesting. Turned out to be right…
July 19, 2025
How could I resist an economics, finance, and history text from a kid whose career I've followed for maybe 15 years because of his excellent choice in name? (I say kid but he's only 10ish years younger. Looks like he's continuing our name tradition of getting a PhD later in life, and in PA too. I liked Pitt, but Penn is just a bit more reputable for econ!)
Each chapter examines one time period of US market crafting, written recently enough to include Lina Khan and the 2024 election.
Each chapter examines one time period of US market crafting, written recently enough to include Lina Khan and the 2024 election.
December 16, 2025
It is clear that Hughes did considerable work in writing this book. It is, unfortunately, equally clear that he put much less work into his analysis. He particularly seemed to struggle to treat cynically the claims of contemporary marketcrafters, particularly those who went to Yale law school. As a result, his book has the unfortunate (and seemingly unintentional) result of making Larry Summers’ claims during the first half of the Biden administration look better in retrospect.
June 3, 2025
This book provides an amazing real picture at the history we only think we know about our “free markets”. The nature of how we as a country can and should shape what we want our economy to be is a fascinating topic. The books highlights successes and failures in a way that acknowledges politics as a mechanic but is not political. Strong recommendation.
June 15, 2025
I like the idea that both right & left are rethinking (not necessarily together) the idea the free-markets are the optimal economic solution. It was also refreshing to hear a view that Greenspan did more harm than good to the economy with his interventions (despite always promoting laissez-faire policy).
June 22, 2025
One of the more idiotic accounts of recent years. Hughes lavishes praise on MAGAts and anti-globalist leftists—Julius Krien, JD Vance, Marco Rubio, Joshua Hawley, Zephyr Teachout, Lina Khan. Rubio is credited with "inventing a new ideology" after losing to Trump in 2016, and Hawley's writings are described as "cogent," etc. (chapter 15).
June 30, 2025
Interesting topic, but tedious
The overall premise of the book is interesting, and it is well researched. Unfortunately, the author is VERY wordy — this book is 50% longer than it should be, making it a very tedious read.
The overall premise of the book is interesting, and it is well researched. Unfortunately, the author is VERY wordy — this book is 50% longer than it should be, making it a very tedious read.
September 2, 2025
Really, really good book. Lots of great historical perspective, well-researched, fun to read. The insight on the Fed and monetary policy in particular were excellent. Biden/Trump chapters and the health care chapters maybe the weak links here, but one of my most useful 2025 reads.
January 23, 2025
Capitalism killed the world. fuck it
Want to read
May 12, 2025Add to my 'want to read' based on interview with Jon Stewart
June 19, 2025
Another C+ average generated thesis proving Modern Monetary Theory without mentioning anything about MMT.
July 5, 2025
Markets must be created by governments and shaped to encourage growth and prune the anti-competitive monopolies or levy tariffs to protect nascent industries.
August 2, 2025
Market is what you make it.
January 1, 2026
dnf. history book masquerading as an entertaining read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews