What do you think?
Rate this book
Um capitalismo para o povo: reencontrando a chave da prosperidade americana
Born in Italy, University of Chicago economist Luigi Zingales witnessed firsthand the consequences of high inflation and unemployment—paired with rampant nepotism and cronyism—on a country’s economy. This experience profoundly shaped his professional interests, and in 1988 he arrived in the United States, armed with a political passion and the belief that economists should not merely interpret the world, but should change it for the better.
In A Capitalism for the People, Zingales makes a forceful, philosophical, and at times personal argument that the roots of American capitalism are dying, and that the result is a drift toward the more corrupt systems found throughout Europe and much of the rest of the world. American capitalism, according to Zingales, grew in a unique incubator that provided it with a distinct flavor of competitiveness, a meritocratic nature that fostered trust in markets and a faith in mobility. Lately, however, that trust has been eroded by a betrayal of our pro-business elites, whose lobbying has come to dictate the market rather than be subject to it, and this betrayal has taken place with the complicity of our intellectual class.Because of this trend, much of the country is questioning—often with great anger—whether the system that has for so long buoyed their hopes has now betrayed them once and for all. What we are left with is either anti-market pitchfork populism or pro-business technocratic insularity. Neither of these options presents a way to preserve what the author calls the "lighthouse” of American capitalism. Zingales argues that the way forward is pro-market populism, a fostering of truly free and open competition for the good of the people—not for the good of big business.
Drawing on the historical record of American populism at the turn of the twentieth century, Zingales illustrates how our current circumstances aren’t all that different. People in the middle and at the bottom are getting squeezed, while people at the top are only growing richer. The solutions now, as then, are reforms to economic policy that level the playing field. Reforms that may be anti-business (specifically anti-big business), but are squarely pro-market. The question is whether we can once again muster the courage to confront the powers that be.
In A Capitalism for the People, Zingales makes a forceful, philosophical, and at times personal argument that the roots of American capitalism are dying, and that the result is a drift toward the more corrupt systems found throughout Europe and much of the rest of the world. American capitalism, according to Zingales, grew in a unique incubator that provided it with a distinct flavor of competitiveness, a meritocratic nature that fostered trust in markets and a faith in mobility. Lately, however, that trust has been eroded by a betrayal of our pro-business elites, whose lobbying has come to dictate the market rather than be subject to it, and this betrayal has taken place with the complicity of our intellectual class.Because of this trend, much of the country is questioning—often with great anger—whether the system that has for so long buoyed their hopes has now betrayed them once and for all. What we are left with is either anti-market pitchfork populism or pro-business technocratic insularity. Neither of these options presents a way to preserve what the author calls the "lighthouse” of American capitalism. Zingales argues that the way forward is pro-market populism, a fostering of truly free and open competition for the good of the people—not for the good of big business.
Drawing on the historical record of American populism at the turn of the twentieth century, Zingales illustrates how our current circumstances aren’t all that different. People in the middle and at the bottom are getting squeezed, while people at the top are only growing richer. The solutions now, as then, are reforms to economic policy that level the playing field. Reforms that may be anti-business (specifically anti-big business), but are squarely pro-market. The question is whether we can once again muster the courage to confront the powers that be.
267 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2012
70 people are currently reading
1175 people want to read
About the author
Luigi Zingales
17 books48 followersLuigi G. Zingales is a finance professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, and the author of two widely-reviewed books. Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists (2003) is a study of "relationship capitalism". In A Capitalism for the People: Recapturing the Lost Genius of American Prosperity (2012), Zingales "suggests that channeling populist anger can reinvigorate the power of competition and reverse the movement toward a 'crony system'."
Zingales received a bachelor's degree in economics, from the Bocconi University in Milan. In 1992 he earned a Ph.D. in Economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In the same year he joined the faculty of University of Chicago Booth School of Business, where he is the Robert C. McCormack Professor of Entrepreneurship and Finance.Zingales also serves as a member of the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation. He was the winner of the 2003 Germán Bernácer Prize to the best European economist under 40 working in macro-finance.
In July 2012, Zingales took part in the 'No-Brainer Economic Platform' project of NPR's program Planet Money. He supported a six-part reform plan that involved eliminating all American income, corporate, and payroll taxes as well as the war on drugs and replacing the system with a broad consumption tax (including taxing formerly illegal substances).
In 2012, he was named by Foreign Policy magazine to its list of FP Top 100 Global Thinkers, "For reminding us what conservative economics used to look like."
Zingales received a bachelor's degree in economics, from the Bocconi University in Milan. In 1992 he earned a Ph.D. in Economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In the same year he joined the faculty of University of Chicago Booth School of Business, where he is the Robert C. McCormack Professor of Entrepreneurship and Finance.Zingales also serves as a member of the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation. He was the winner of the 2003 Germán Bernácer Prize to the best European economist under 40 working in macro-finance.
In July 2012, Zingales took part in the 'No-Brainer Economic Platform' project of NPR's program Planet Money. He supported a six-part reform plan that involved eliminating all American income, corporate, and payroll taxes as well as the war on drugs and replacing the system with a broad consumption tax (including taxing formerly illegal substances).
In 2012, he was named by Foreign Policy magazine to its list of FP Top 100 Global Thinkers, "For reminding us what conservative economics used to look like."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
August 31, 2016
With this book, I think I've graduated from pop economics to geniune academic economics, which means many parts of it flew right past me, and I even skipped a few pages in the chapter on reforming finance. But I did get the general message, so here goes.
The author is an Italian-born professor of economics at that bastion of free market philosophy, the Booth School at the University of Chicago. He says that if you're an American, no matter where you stand on the political spectrum, you have no idea what life is like in a country as corrupt as his native Italy. We've got a strong meritocratic tradition here, and we should all appreciate it. Unfortunately, he goes on to say that the U.S. is becoming more and more like Italy, so we'd better act now and prevent it from getting worse.
What's refreshing about this book is that the author doesn't subscribe exclusively to the arguments of the right or the left. He doesn't just blame big government, nor does he pin it all on corporate greed. The trouble is that they're in collusion with each other, so both are at fault. He calls it "crony capitalism."
At the heart of his argument is the difference between being pro-business and pro-markets. A pro-market approach is much more in keeping with Adam Smith's thinking: businesses compete, and the best rises to the top. Pro-business is what the big corporations have been successfully lobbying the government for all these years: privileges to protect them from competition. As they grow bigger and eliminate their competitors, they can dictate their terms to us, the consumers who buy their products and the employees who must accept their wages. Eventually, this freezes the economy because if people can't earn a living wage, they purchase less and less.
In the first half of the book, the author lays out all the problems and their causes. In the second, he proposes solutions. But as interesting as these solutions were, they were all on the level of policy changes. I was hoping to learn what I as an individual can do, how pursuing my self-interest would earn me money and improve the economy at the same time. That's what the title A Capitalism for the People conveyed to me. But despite this disappointment and my lack of understanding of certain parts of the book, I'm giving the book a 4 because it's so well done. But it's definitely not for beginners.
The author is an Italian-born professor of economics at that bastion of free market philosophy, the Booth School at the University of Chicago. He says that if you're an American, no matter where you stand on the political spectrum, you have no idea what life is like in a country as corrupt as his native Italy. We've got a strong meritocratic tradition here, and we should all appreciate it. Unfortunately, he goes on to say that the U.S. is becoming more and more like Italy, so we'd better act now and prevent it from getting worse.
What's refreshing about this book is that the author doesn't subscribe exclusively to the arguments of the right or the left. He doesn't just blame big government, nor does he pin it all on corporate greed. The trouble is that they're in collusion with each other, so both are at fault. He calls it "crony capitalism."
At the heart of his argument is the difference between being pro-business and pro-markets. A pro-market approach is much more in keeping with Adam Smith's thinking: businesses compete, and the best rises to the top. Pro-business is what the big corporations have been successfully lobbying the government for all these years: privileges to protect them from competition. As they grow bigger and eliminate their competitors, they can dictate their terms to us, the consumers who buy their products and the employees who must accept their wages. Eventually, this freezes the economy because if people can't earn a living wage, they purchase less and less.
In the first half of the book, the author lays out all the problems and their causes. In the second, he proposes solutions. But as interesting as these solutions were, they were all on the level of policy changes. I was hoping to learn what I as an individual can do, how pursuing my self-interest would earn me money and improve the economy at the same time. That's what the title A Capitalism for the People conveyed to me. But despite this disappointment and my lack of understanding of certain parts of the book, I'm giving the book a 4 because it's so well done. But it's definitely not for beginners.
August 20, 2013
First off, a note about the author. He's an economist. He speaks that language. For those of us who don't speak that language, parts of this book can be hard to follow. Luckily, most of the time, he provides some kind of definition or example which non-economists can grasp.
He's also Italian (he's named Luigi, after all) and grew up there, emigrating to the US as an adult. So, he brings a certain perspective to the party.
The biggest problem with the economic system in the US isn't capitalism. It's Crony Capitalism. Where, instead of a vibrant marketplace with lots of competition, there are one or a handful of players who have basically divvied everything up and are NOT actively competing. Sometimes, it's because the chosen few have managed to kill off all of the competition. Sometimes, it is because they gained enough power that they were able to "capture" the regulatory or lawmaking bodies and tilt the playing field in their favor. Either way, we're dealing with a "captured market," not a "free market."
Every company out there is seeking to capture their respective market. After all, cut-throat competition, as found in a "free market," doesn't leave much room for profits. Without profits, where is the room for sky-high salaries for those at the top? In case you haven't guessed, these are hallmarks of a "captured market." A "free market" favors innovation, lower prices and better products. A "captured market" favors nearly-identical product lines, nearly identical prices, a glacial pace of innovation and high profit margins. So, for companies who are competing in a marketplace, there's pressure to either crush the competition, so you capture the entire market, or at least reach some sort of unofficial detent, so everyone can stake out their respective turfs and maximize profits.
So far, I have to say I'm sold on his explanation. He calls out Silvio Berlusconi, former Prime Minister of Italy, as a perfect example of Crony Capitalism at work.
We need a meritocracy, where hard work and good ideas give you and advantage. Competition is what allows this. No competition? No meritocracy. People decide that luck, not hard work, gets you ahead. And people or more likely to want to slack and leach off whatever welfare systems exist. What's the point? Italy is there. The way you get ahead is by "carrying the bag" for those at the top. It's who you know, and what they owe you, that gets you any measure of success.
The more I read, the more it sounds familiar. He's got a nice long row of nails and he's smacking every one of them on the head.
He proposes a variety of ways to kill the "capture" and return competition to the market. I particularly like Pigouvian Taxes. For example: tax the hell out of anything which is harmful to the environment or harms the population at large. Don't like paying that tax? Quite doing the harmful thing. Taxes on cigarettes are an example of this. Taxing the short-term loans held by a bank is a little harder for me to understand, but those short-term holdings, and the volatility in them, were a large cause of the latest financial crisis. Taxing them would drive less interest in that, promoting the holding of longer-term loans (much less volatile) as a way to earn money. Again, don't like paying the tax? Quit doing that which is harmful to the environment or the population.
No tax credits, incentives, etc. Just tax the undesirable activities.
If you eliminate all of the subsidies going to oil and coal, solar and wind have no trouble at all competing in the market. The price of gasoline would go up, prompting people to look for alternatives; hello electric cars, or alternative fuels. The price of electricity would go up, prompting people to look for alternatives to the local utility company; hello small-scale wind and solar panels on rooftops. Trying to get subsidies for wind and solar, in the face of much-better-financed lobbying for subsidies for oil and coal, is a losing proposition. Kill all the subsidies; let competition sort it out. The people who are fighting this the hardest are the ones who have the most to lose from having to get out there and compete.
What's the best source for information about corporate wrongdoing? Hint: it isn't regulators. Or even watchdog groups. It's whistleblowers within those companies. If we celebrate whistleblowers, and pointedly protect them from retaliation, along with stigmatizing corporate malfeasance, we stand a much better chance of keeping organizations on their toes in terms of legal compliance. And think of all the money we could AVOID spending on regulators, which frequently end up being captured by the organizations they're supposed to regulating.
Plenty of good ideas in this book. Some of them are wishful thinking; in many places, the manipulators and loophole-seekers are just too ingrained to be overcome.
At least we're not as bad as Italy.
He's also Italian (he's named Luigi, after all) and grew up there, emigrating to the US as an adult. So, he brings a certain perspective to the party.
The biggest problem with the economic system in the US isn't capitalism. It's Crony Capitalism. Where, instead of a vibrant marketplace with lots of competition, there are one or a handful of players who have basically divvied everything up and are NOT actively competing. Sometimes, it's because the chosen few have managed to kill off all of the competition. Sometimes, it is because they gained enough power that they were able to "capture" the regulatory or lawmaking bodies and tilt the playing field in their favor. Either way, we're dealing with a "captured market," not a "free market."
Every company out there is seeking to capture their respective market. After all, cut-throat competition, as found in a "free market," doesn't leave much room for profits. Without profits, where is the room for sky-high salaries for those at the top? In case you haven't guessed, these are hallmarks of a "captured market." A "free market" favors innovation, lower prices and better products. A "captured market" favors nearly-identical product lines, nearly identical prices, a glacial pace of innovation and high profit margins. So, for companies who are competing in a marketplace, there's pressure to either crush the competition, so you capture the entire market, or at least reach some sort of unofficial detent, so everyone can stake out their respective turfs and maximize profits.
So far, I have to say I'm sold on his explanation. He calls out Silvio Berlusconi, former Prime Minister of Italy, as a perfect example of Crony Capitalism at work.
We need a meritocracy, where hard work and good ideas give you and advantage. Competition is what allows this. No competition? No meritocracy. People decide that luck, not hard work, gets you ahead. And people or more likely to want to slack and leach off whatever welfare systems exist. What's the point? Italy is there. The way you get ahead is by "carrying the bag" for those at the top. It's who you know, and what they owe you, that gets you any measure of success.
The more I read, the more it sounds familiar. He's got a nice long row of nails and he's smacking every one of them on the head.
He proposes a variety of ways to kill the "capture" and return competition to the market. I particularly like Pigouvian Taxes. For example: tax the hell out of anything which is harmful to the environment or harms the population at large. Don't like paying that tax? Quite doing the harmful thing. Taxes on cigarettes are an example of this. Taxing the short-term loans held by a bank is a little harder for me to understand, but those short-term holdings, and the volatility in them, were a large cause of the latest financial crisis. Taxing them would drive less interest in that, promoting the holding of longer-term loans (much less volatile) as a way to earn money. Again, don't like paying the tax? Quit doing that which is harmful to the environment or the population.
No tax credits, incentives, etc. Just tax the undesirable activities.
If you eliminate all of the subsidies going to oil and coal, solar and wind have no trouble at all competing in the market. The price of gasoline would go up, prompting people to look for alternatives; hello electric cars, or alternative fuels. The price of electricity would go up, prompting people to look for alternatives to the local utility company; hello small-scale wind and solar panels on rooftops. Trying to get subsidies for wind and solar, in the face of much-better-financed lobbying for subsidies for oil and coal, is a losing proposition. Kill all the subsidies; let competition sort it out. The people who are fighting this the hardest are the ones who have the most to lose from having to get out there and compete.
What's the best source for information about corporate wrongdoing? Hint: it isn't regulators. Or even watchdog groups. It's whistleblowers within those companies. If we celebrate whistleblowers, and pointedly protect them from retaliation, along with stigmatizing corporate malfeasance, we stand a much better chance of keeping organizations on their toes in terms of legal compliance. And think of all the money we could AVOID spending on regulators, which frequently end up being captured by the organizations they're supposed to regulating.
Plenty of good ideas in this book. Some of them are wishful thinking; in many places, the manipulators and loophole-seekers are just too ingrained to be overcome.
At least we're not as bad as Italy.
June 23, 2020
(The English review is placed beneath Russian one)
Решившись во второй раз прочитать эту книгу, я в очередной раз поймал себя на мысли, что я абсолютно не помню о чём эта книга. Т.е. причину и время покупки я помню, а вот содержание совершенно стёрлось из моей памяти. Так как я уже перечитал много своих книг, то те книги, содержание которых я также не мог вспомнить, практически всегда оказывались неинтересными. Это правило не подвело и в этот раз.
Я точно помню, что положительную оценку поставил книге благодаря тому, что в то время у меня был период, когда я покупал и читал книги только по экономике. В дальнейшем бестселлеры закончились и начались книги, которые выпускались издательствами ВШЭ и Институт Гайдара. Те, кто много читает книг с экономическим уклоном, те возможно часто встречались с книгами этих издательств. Не знаю как остальные читатели, но для меня эти издательства, т.е. которые издают серьёзные, узкоспециализированные книги по экономике, не рассчитаны на широкую аудиторию. Эта книга была выпущена издательством Институт Гайдара. И в тот период я как раз перешёл от бестселлеров к вот такой узкоспециализированной литературе. Увы, но от всех книг я избавился. Данную книгу я читал уже после нескольких скучных и неинтересных книг этих издательств. Поэтому тут решило банальное «на фоне других книг, эта книга неплоха».
Я так много уделил внимание этому частному вопросу, так как это крайне важно для понимания книги. Эта узкоспециализированная книга ориентирована на тех, для кого тема, связанная с экономикой, является не пограничной, а основной, т.е. кто хорошо или очень хорошо разбирается в экономике, финансах и гос. управлении (или что-то типа этого) и кто прочитал уже не один десяток книг по экономике. Те, кто рассчитывают получить некий аналог книг типа «Великолепный обмен» или «Игра на понижение», могут проходить мимо этой книги. Это определённо другой тип книги по экономике. Это больше похоже на эссе современного экономиста на сегодняшние проблемы, с которыми сталкиваются капиталистические страны. И адресована она именно тем, кто интересуется этим вопросом, а не широкой публике.
Другая причина, почему за пределами США она будет мало популярна среди простых любителей non-fiction заключается в том, что большая часть книги будет посвящена США. Т.е. вам придётся продираться через многочисленные темы связанные с финансовыми вопросами и экономикой США. А учитывая, что текст предназначен для тех, кто хорошо разбирается в финансах и гос. управлении, то чтение превращается в бессмысленное времяпровождение. Опять же, если экономика, ваша любимая тема, и вы читаете всё, что связано с ней, то тогда книга возможно и подойдёт.
Так откуда положительная оценка, если по всем вопросам книга выглядит никакой? А всё дело в структуре книги. Автор не предлагает какую-то одну или две темы как в книге «Почему одни страны богатые, а другие бедные», а даёт список проблем, с которыми сталкивается капитализм в сегодняшнем мире. И вот если большая часть поднимаемых автором вопросом меня не очень сильно заинтересовали (т.к. они очень локальны), то несколько тем всё же вызвали у меня интерес. Так, автор довольно интересно пишет о подкупах конгрессменов, а также о подкупах журналистов пишущих проплаченные статьи. К сожалению, это больше напоминало газетную статью (вообще, вся книга напоминает сборник статей автора), нежели книгу. Так же автор пишет о несправедливости высоких зарплат у топ менеджеров. А начинает автор книги и вообще с темы монополий и в качестве иллюстрации приводит эпоху завоеваний, ситуацию в колониях расположенных в Африке и пр. Честно сказать, я что-то этот момент не понял, ибо, когда пишут о монополиях, приводят совсем другие примеры (автору следовало ограничиться примерами из сегодняшнего дня).
Так же в книге мы обнаружим привычные размышления о причине кризиса 2008 года и роль в этом государственных организаций, а точнее тех организаций, которые «слишком велики, чтобы рухнуть». Автор приводит их в качестве примера неэффективного гос. управления, когда такие компании могут игнорировать любые риски неплатёжеспособности людей которым они ссужают деньги, ибо даже в случаи просрочки по платежам государство все равно спасёт такие корпорации.
В общем, книга по��равится любителям политэкономии, финансов (госфинансы) и тем, которым интересно читать о проблемах США. Несколько идей в книге были действительно интересны (скрытый подкуп экспертов и сенаторов), а также рассуждения о корпорациях которые обозначаются фразой «слишком великие, чтобы рухнуть», т.е. чтобы правительство могло допустить их крушение.
Вторая половина книги будет являться решением тех проблем, о которых автор говорил в первой части книги.
When I decided to read this book for the second time, I caught myself thinking that I do not remember what this book is all about. That is, the reason and time of purchase I remember, but the content has faded from my memory. Since I have already re-read many of my books and those books, the content of which I also could not remember, was usually uninteresting. This rule did not fail this time either.
I remember that I gave a positive rating to the book because, at that time, I was buying and reading books only on economics. Later on, the bestsellers ended, and the books that were published by the publishing houses HSE and the Gaidar Institute started. Those who are reading many books on economic issues, perhaps, often came across these publishing houses. I don't know about other readers, but for me, these publishing houses, i.e., those that publish serious, highly specialized books on economics, not designed for a broad audience. This book has been published by the Gaidar Institute Publishing House. And at that time, I had just moved from bestsellers to such highly specialized literature. Alas, I got rid of all these books. I read this book after several boring and not very interesting books of these publishing houses. That's why here decided the trivial " on the background of other books this book is not so bad."
I have paid so much attention to this individual issue because it is essential for understanding the book. This highly specialized book focuses on those for whom the topic related to economics is not a borderline one, but the main one, i.e., who has a profound knowledge of economics, finance, and public administration and who has already read more than a dozen books on economics. Those who expect to get some equivalent to books like "A Splendid Exchange" by William J. Bernstein or "Lords of Finance" by Liaquat Ahamed may skip this book. It' s quite a different type of economics book. It is more like an essay by a modern economist on today's problems faced by capitalist countries. And it is addressed to those who are interested in the issue, not the general public.
Another reason why, outside the United States, it will be less popular among ordinary amateurs is that most of the book will be about the United States. In other words, you will have to get through numerous topics related to financial issues and the United States economy. And given that the text is for those who are very good at finance and public administration, it turns reading into a meaningless pastime. Again, if economics is your favorite subject and you are reading everything related to it, then the book is probably the right one for you.
So why does a book have a positive evaluation if it looks rather weak on all issues? It's all about the structure of the book. The author does not suggest one or two themes as the book "Why Nations Fail" by Daron Acemoğlu, James A. Robinson, but gives a list of problems that capitalism faces in today's world. And if most of the issues raised by the author did not interest me very much (because they are very local), then a few topics did interest me. Thus, the author writes interestingly about bribing members of Congressmen, and about bribing journalists. Unfortunately, it looked more like a newspaper article than a book (in general, the whole book is like a collection of papers of the author). The author also writes about the unfairness of high salaries of top managers.
The author starts the book with the theme of monopolies. And as an illustration, he refers to the era of conquests, the situation in the colonies located in Africa, etc. Frankly, I did not understand this moment, because when one writes about monopolies, one gives very different examples (the author should have limited himself to examples from today).
Also, in this book, we will find the usual reflections on the cause of the 2008 crisis and the role of state organizations, or rather those organizations that are "too big to fail." The author cites them as an example of inefficient state management when such companies can ignore any risks of insolvency of people to whom they lend money because even in case of overdue loans, the state will save such corporations.
In general, the book will please fans of political economy, finance (public finance), and those who are interested in reading about the problems of the United States. Several ideas in the book were quite remarkable (hidden bribery of experts and senators), as well as the discussion of corporations that are referred to as "too big to fail," because the government could not allow them to collapse. The second half of the book will be devoted to the solution of the problems mentioned by the author in the first part of the book.
Решившись во второй раз прочитать эту книгу, я в очередной раз поймал себя на мысли, что я абсолютно не помню о чём эта книга. Т.е. причину и время покупки я помню, а вот содержание совершенно стёрлось из моей памяти. Так как я уже перечитал много своих книг, то те книги, содержание которых я также не мог вспомнить, практически всегда оказывались неинтересными. Это правило не подвело и в этот раз.
Я точно помню, что положительную оценку поставил книге благодаря тому, что в то время у меня был период, когда я покупал и читал книги только по экономике. В дальнейшем бестселлеры закончились и начались книги, которые выпускались издательствами ВШЭ и Институт Гайдара. Те, кто много читает книг с экономическим уклоном, те возможно часто встречались с книгами этих издательств. Не знаю как остальные читатели, но для меня эти издательства, т.е. которые издают серьёзные, узкоспециализированные книги по экономике, не рассчитаны на широкую аудиторию. Эта книга была выпущена издательством Институт Гайдара. И в тот период я как раз перешёл от бестселлеров к вот такой узкоспециализированной литературе. Увы, но от всех книг я избавился. Данную книгу я читал уже после нескольких скучных и неинтересных книг этих издательств. Поэтому тут решило банальное «на фоне других книг, эта книга неплоха».
Я так много уделил внимание этому частному вопросу, так как это крайне важно для понимания книги. Эта узкоспециализированная книга ориентирована на тех, для кого тема, связанная с экономикой, является не пограничной, а основной, т.е. кто хорошо или очень хорошо разбирается в экономике, финансах и гос. управлении (или что-то типа этого) и кто прочитал уже не один десяток книг по экономике. Те, кто рассчитывают получить некий аналог книг типа «Великолепный обмен» или «Игра на понижение», могут проходить мимо этой книги. Это определённо другой тип книги по экономике. Это больше похоже на эссе современного экономиста на сегодняшние проблемы, с которыми сталкиваются капиталистические страны. И адресована она именно тем, кто интересуется этим вопросом, а не широкой публике.
Другая причина, почему за пределами США она будет мало популярна среди простых любителей non-fiction заключается в том, что большая часть книги будет посвящена США. Т.е. вам придётся продираться через многочисленные темы связанные с финансовыми вопросами и экономикой США. А учитывая, что текст предназначен для тех, кто хорошо разбирается в финансах и гос. управлении, то чтение превращается в бессмысленное времяпровождение. Опять же, если экономика, ваша любимая тема, и вы читаете всё, что связано с ней, то тогда книга возможно и подойдёт.
Так откуда положительная оценка, если по всем вопросам книга выглядит никакой? А всё дело в структуре книги. Автор не предлагает какую-то одну или две темы как в книге «Почему одни страны богатые, а другие бедные», а даёт список проблем, с которыми сталкивается капитализм в сегодняшнем мире. И вот если большая часть поднимаемых автором вопросом меня не очень сильно заинтересовали (т.к. они очень локальны), то несколько тем всё же вызвали у меня интерес. Так, автор довольно интересно пишет о подкупах конгрессменов, а также о подкупах журналистов пишущих проплаченные статьи. К сожалению, это больше напоминало газетную статью (вообще, вся книга напоминает сборник статей автора), нежели книгу. Так же автор пишет о несправедливости высоких зарплат у топ менеджеров. А начинает автор книги и вообще с темы монополий и в качестве иллюстрации приводит эпоху завоеваний, ситуацию в колониях расположенных в Африке и пр. Честно сказать, я что-то этот момент не понял, ибо, когда пишут о монополиях, приводят совсем другие примеры (автору следовало ограничиться примерами из сегодняшнего дня).
Так же в книге мы обнаружим привычные размышления о причине кризиса 2008 года и роль в этом государственных организаций, а точнее тех организаций, которые «слишком велики, чтобы рухнуть». Автор приводит их в качестве примера неэффективного гос. управления, когда такие компании могут игнорировать любые риски неплатёжеспособности людей которым они ссужают деньги, ибо даже в случаи просрочки по платежам государство все равно спасёт такие корпорации.
В общем, книга по��равится любителям политэкономии, финансов (госфинансы) и тем, которым интересно читать о проблемах США. Несколько идей в книге были действительно интересны (скрытый подкуп экспертов и сенаторов), а также рассуждения о корпорациях которые обозначаются фразой «слишком великие, чтобы рухнуть», т.е. чтобы правительство могло допустить их крушение.
Вторая половина книги будет являться решением тех проблем, о которых автор говорил в первой части книги.
When I decided to read this book for the second time, I caught myself thinking that I do not remember what this book is all about. That is, the reason and time of purchase I remember, but the content has faded from my memory. Since I have already re-read many of my books and those books, the content of which I also could not remember, was usually uninteresting. This rule did not fail this time either.
I remember that I gave a positive rating to the book because, at that time, I was buying and reading books only on economics. Later on, the bestsellers ended, and the books that were published by the publishing houses HSE and the Gaidar Institute started. Those who are reading many books on economic issues, perhaps, often came across these publishing houses. I don't know about other readers, but for me, these publishing houses, i.e., those that publish serious, highly specialized books on economics, not designed for a broad audience. This book has been published by the Gaidar Institute Publishing House. And at that time, I had just moved from bestsellers to such highly specialized literature. Alas, I got rid of all these books. I read this book after several boring and not very interesting books of these publishing houses. That's why here decided the trivial " on the background of other books this book is not so bad."
I have paid so much attention to this individual issue because it is essential for understanding the book. This highly specialized book focuses on those for whom the topic related to economics is not a borderline one, but the main one, i.e., who has a profound knowledge of economics, finance, and public administration and who has already read more than a dozen books on economics. Those who expect to get some equivalent to books like "A Splendid Exchange" by William J. Bernstein or "Lords of Finance" by Liaquat Ahamed may skip this book. It' s quite a different type of economics book. It is more like an essay by a modern economist on today's problems faced by capitalist countries. And it is addressed to those who are interested in the issue, not the general public.
Another reason why, outside the United States, it will be less popular among ordinary amateurs is that most of the book will be about the United States. In other words, you will have to get through numerous topics related to financial issues and the United States economy. And given that the text is for those who are very good at finance and public administration, it turns reading into a meaningless pastime. Again, if economics is your favorite subject and you are reading everything related to it, then the book is probably the right one for you.
So why does a book have a positive evaluation if it looks rather weak on all issues? It's all about the structure of the book. The author does not suggest one or two themes as the book "Why Nations Fail" by Daron Acemoğlu, James A. Robinson, but gives a list of problems that capitalism faces in today's world. And if most of the issues raised by the author did not interest me very much (because they are very local), then a few topics did interest me. Thus, the author writes interestingly about bribing members of Congressmen, and about bribing journalists. Unfortunately, it looked more like a newspaper article than a book (in general, the whole book is like a collection of papers of the author). The author also writes about the unfairness of high salaries of top managers.
The author starts the book with the theme of monopolies. And as an illustration, he refers to the era of conquests, the situation in the colonies located in Africa, etc. Frankly, I did not understand this moment, because when one writes about monopolies, one gives very different examples (the author should have limited himself to examples from today).
Also, in this book, we will find the usual reflections on the cause of the 2008 crisis and the role of state organizations, or rather those organizations that are "too big to fail." The author cites them as an example of inefficient state management when such companies can ignore any risks of insolvency of people to whom they lend money because even in case of overdue loans, the state will save such corporations.
In general, the book will please fans of political economy, finance (public finance), and those who are interested in reading about the problems of the United States. Several ideas in the book were quite remarkable (hidden bribery of experts and senators), as well as the discussion of corporations that are referred to as "too big to fail," because the government could not allow them to collapse. The second half of the book will be devoted to the solution of the problems mentioned by the author in the first part of the book.
February 25, 2018
I loved the first half of the book and disagreed greatly with some of the proposals at the end. The first half of the book lays out the problem of political cronyism subverting our democracy and our capitalist markets. From bank lobbying to the revolving door to money in politics--it's an excellent account. He also makes a particularly convincing case of the problems by showing the promise of American meritocracy in contrast with Italy's system. But when he goes to suggest fixes to the problem, he seems to want to use more capitalism to fix the problems capitalism created. On some of the points, I wholeheartedly agree--on regulating financial markets and making banks smaller and more manageable, but on some, he seems to oppose government interventions that might be very helpful. He's right that the government can't fix most things and is likely to be a terrible manager, but we have to compare apples to apples--utopias with utopias. In other words, perfect capitalism should be contrasted to democratic governance and not shitty governments with perfect markets or vice versa. All in all, I recommend this book.
October 18, 2023
I had high hopes for exploring a book about economics in what I thought would be a relatively easy-to-understand explanation of the potential reforms to the capitalism system in the United States. What I got instead was a series of unsatisfying arguments and misplaced assumptions where opinions are presented as irrefutable facts, leaving little room for the nuanced context or analysis.
Zingales frustratingly refuses to acknowledge the limitations of a perfect free market capitalist system. For example, it is repeatedly argued throughout the book that the government should remove itself from market policies (outside of its power of taxation) whenever possible and only lightly establish a base set of rules that each participant must abide by. However, the book fails to address the fact that government regulations come when bad actors abuse the free market. Government oversight and regulatory compliance become important to prevent the same types of events that negatively impacted the masses because of a few powerful institutions. Simply because the US government stepped in does not mean that the American government is as corrupt as the Italian government.
Regrettably, the writing doesn’t help the book either. As an example, the quote that Zingales chose to begin Chapter 8 is cited in as an Abraham Lincoln quote. However, a quick fact check shows that the quote is actually attributed to early 20th century conservative speaker Rev. William J. H. Boetcker, and then used in error by Ronald Regan during his 1992 Republican National Convention. It is frustrating to read a book when the author apparently failed to do basic fact checking. Further, when the subject matter is inherently complex, it is the author’s responsibility to convey it in an accessible and engaging manner, which was not the case in this book.
The book has a few good points about competition, equal opportunity, and the benefits of a free market system (in theory, less so in practice). However, the central argument lacks depth and nuance. The statement of opinions as fact and the failure to address capitalism’s inherent flaws in the discussion of potential solutions make this book frustrating to navigate.
Zingales frustratingly refuses to acknowledge the limitations of a perfect free market capitalist system. For example, it is repeatedly argued throughout the book that the government should remove itself from market policies (outside of its power of taxation) whenever possible and only lightly establish a base set of rules that each participant must abide by. However, the book fails to address the fact that government regulations come when bad actors abuse the free market. Government oversight and regulatory compliance become important to prevent the same types of events that negatively impacted the masses because of a few powerful institutions. Simply because the US government stepped in does not mean that the American government is as corrupt as the Italian government.
Regrettably, the writing doesn’t help the book either. As an example, the quote that Zingales chose to begin Chapter 8 is cited in as an Abraham Lincoln quote. However, a quick fact check shows that the quote is actually attributed to early 20th century conservative speaker Rev. William J. H. Boetcker, and then used in error by Ronald Regan during his 1992 Republican National Convention. It is frustrating to read a book when the author apparently failed to do basic fact checking. Further, when the subject matter is inherently complex, it is the author’s responsibility to convey it in an accessible and engaging manner, which was not the case in this book.
The book has a few good points about competition, equal opportunity, and the benefits of a free market system (in theory, less so in practice). However, the central argument lacks depth and nuance. The statement of opinions as fact and the failure to address capitalism’s inherent flaws in the discussion of potential solutions make this book frustrating to navigate.
June 5, 2023
My favorite class at Chicago Booth has been Professor Zingales’ “Crony Capitalism”. Reading this book is the closest you can come to taking that class without forfeiting $200k. Gets a little repetitive but thought provoking and insightful nonetheless.
December 3, 2016
Zingales is a faculty member at the Booth School of Management at the University of Chicago. This book, which follows a couple of earlier ones, makes strong case for the interactions of government and business. He argues that American markets grew up after the growth of our political system and became robust before government was a big share of the GDP. He also argues that our system grew up with relatively limited foreign influence and under the influence of the Protestant ethic.
He argues that as the share of GDP has grown several things have happened. First, he suggests that more organizations are praying to government for help in directing how market outcomes will be determined - that is evidenced in all sorts of rules both in the tax code and other statutes but also in directed financial support to businesses.
ZIngales is Italian and he describes the situation in Italy and much of Europe. He finds that only 40% of Americans believe that luck has more influence than hard work in determining outcomes. (Compared to 75% of Brazilians, 66% of the Danes and 56% of the Germans). Four billionaires in ten in the US are "self-made" while only one in ten in Germany are. He argues that a lot of European business is based on who, not what, you know.
But a meritocratic system is not inherently self sustaining - especially when compensation is not tied to results and benefits do not spread through the system. But things are changing - he gives a convincing case that many rewards in society have become skewed. Enhanced competition and the value of being at the top have raised the payoffs for many activities.
Zingales' main enemy of efficient markets (and the ability to reap the benefits) is crony capitalism. Unlike the book recently reviewed by Edward Luce (Time to Start Thinking) he argues that our system was developed in part in response to the bad notions of crony capitalism. But as entities like large banks grew to control an increasing percentage of total deposits (the five largest control 40% today) government has tried to insulate those entities from the ability to fail. As financial entities have grown so has their compensation. Thus he argues that one way to reduce inequality would be to introduce more uncertainty (a penalty for financial managers who make foolish decisions) into the system. He also makes a strong case that the value of using government to help influence market outcomes would be a lot less prominent were we to reduce the share of GDP taken by the government. Lobbying expenditures and campaign costs have grown even faster than the growth in the percentage of GDP going to government and Zingales makes the case that this is entirely logical.
One other problem raised by Zingales - as we have tried to respond to problems with monstrosities like Sarbanes Oxley or Dodd-Frank - we've made our financial markets less attractive to foreign capital. During the 1990s the number of foreign companies listed on the NYSE increased but then after 2000 they began to delist. In 2007 the number of foreign companies delisting from our exchanges exceeded the numbers listing by a ratio of 14:1.
Zingales is not for an absolute reduction in governmental activity - for example he argues that education should be state funded (albeit not necessarily state provided).
Markets depend upon an underlying understanding of trust. Ultimately the system that has evolved has reduced trust for many individuals. They see increasingly complex regulations and a perception that lobbying has an effect on allocations of both government and non-govermental resources and decide that their commitment to hard work versus luck is less efficacious. He also argues that the nature of this process increases uncertainty - witness for example the growth in the tax code since 1986 - the last major tax overhaul in the federal system. In a GAO study in 2008 55% of US corporations paid no taxes. Zingales does a first rate exposition on the counter intuitive assumptions about taxes. For example , he cites a study on the 1986 act that when rates decreased from 50-28% that taxable income increased by 44%.
His final sections are on the power of data. He is a strong advocate for increased transparency and has an inherent faith in the power of data. As more and more data is electronic the costs of these disclosures comes down. Better data will promote competition.
In his final chapters he contrasts four trends - meritocracy and inherited privilege, accountability and discretion, freedom and power and markets and crony capitalism. Ultimately by making the right choices (each of the right choices) competition is enhanced. But to make that happen we need rules that are universal and easy to understand.
This is a challenging book - but the fundamental soundness of his arguments which mix examples and theory in a skillful way - is worth working through.
He argues that as the share of GDP has grown several things have happened. First, he suggests that more organizations are praying to government for help in directing how market outcomes will be determined - that is evidenced in all sorts of rules both in the tax code and other statutes but also in directed financial support to businesses.
ZIngales is Italian and he describes the situation in Italy and much of Europe. He finds that only 40% of Americans believe that luck has more influence than hard work in determining outcomes. (Compared to 75% of Brazilians, 66% of the Danes and 56% of the Germans). Four billionaires in ten in the US are "self-made" while only one in ten in Germany are. He argues that a lot of European business is based on who, not what, you know.
But a meritocratic system is not inherently self sustaining - especially when compensation is not tied to results and benefits do not spread through the system. But things are changing - he gives a convincing case that many rewards in society have become skewed. Enhanced competition and the value of being at the top have raised the payoffs for many activities.
Zingales' main enemy of efficient markets (and the ability to reap the benefits) is crony capitalism. Unlike the book recently reviewed by Edward Luce (Time to Start Thinking) he argues that our system was developed in part in response to the bad notions of crony capitalism. But as entities like large banks grew to control an increasing percentage of total deposits (the five largest control 40% today) government has tried to insulate those entities from the ability to fail. As financial entities have grown so has their compensation. Thus he argues that one way to reduce inequality would be to introduce more uncertainty (a penalty for financial managers who make foolish decisions) into the system. He also makes a strong case that the value of using government to help influence market outcomes would be a lot less prominent were we to reduce the share of GDP taken by the government. Lobbying expenditures and campaign costs have grown even faster than the growth in the percentage of GDP going to government and Zingales makes the case that this is entirely logical.
One other problem raised by Zingales - as we have tried to respond to problems with monstrosities like Sarbanes Oxley or Dodd-Frank - we've made our financial markets less attractive to foreign capital. During the 1990s the number of foreign companies listed on the NYSE increased but then after 2000 they began to delist. In 2007 the number of foreign companies delisting from our exchanges exceeded the numbers listing by a ratio of 14:1.
Zingales is not for an absolute reduction in governmental activity - for example he argues that education should be state funded (albeit not necessarily state provided).
Markets depend upon an underlying understanding of trust. Ultimately the system that has evolved has reduced trust for many individuals. They see increasingly complex regulations and a perception that lobbying has an effect on allocations of both government and non-govermental resources and decide that their commitment to hard work versus luck is less efficacious. He also argues that the nature of this process increases uncertainty - witness for example the growth in the tax code since 1986 - the last major tax overhaul in the federal system. In a GAO study in 2008 55% of US corporations paid no taxes. Zingales does a first rate exposition on the counter intuitive assumptions about taxes. For example , he cites a study on the 1986 act that when rates decreased from 50-28% that taxable income increased by 44%.
His final sections are on the power of data. He is a strong advocate for increased transparency and has an inherent faith in the power of data. As more and more data is electronic the costs of these disclosures comes down. Better data will promote competition.
In his final chapters he contrasts four trends - meritocracy and inherited privilege, accountability and discretion, freedom and power and markets and crony capitalism. Ultimately by making the right choices (each of the right choices) competition is enhanced. But to make that happen we need rules that are universal and easy to understand.
This is a challenging book - but the fundamental soundness of his arguments which mix examples and theory in a skillful way - is worth working through.
December 24, 2012
This is a thoughtful collection of essays by a University of Chicago (Booth) finance professor addressing the recent financial crises and the subsequent efforts at reform. What makes this book different from others in this line is the author's focus on "crony capitalism". The author starts with the general proposition that the problem in the financial crises is that big business and government are in bed with each other and that because of this, the workings of the "free market" are severely impaired, leading to the crisis. His intention is to be "pro market" without being "pro business". He begins the book by noting problems of corruption in his native Italy and then making the point that the US was in danger of becoming like Italy if there wasn't significant reform. The idea that the problem with big business is not the anticompetitive behavior that comes with size but the ability to effectively lobby the government into a favorable regulatory arrangement is the major contribution of the book in my opinion.
The second half of the book is about potential solutions and is less successful than the first half. There is borrowing from other areas, such as research in educational reform. Much is also said about the importance of business schools, business ethics, and social norms. On the whole, however, these suggestions come across as much more tentative and less promising than the sharp exposition of the issues in the first half. That is OK, however. The critical policy responses to these issues will no doubt evolve. This book brings the critical issues together in a manner that is effective and yet uncommon in the large literature on financial crises to date. The writing is also excellent and fairly easy to follow. The author is especially effective in tying a clear economic logic to the points that are made. This makes the book sound reasonable.
The second half of the book is about potential solutions and is less successful than the first half. There is borrowing from other areas, such as research in educational reform. Much is also said about the importance of business schools, business ethics, and social norms. On the whole, however, these suggestions come across as much more tentative and less promising than the sharp exposition of the issues in the first half. That is OK, however. The critical policy responses to these issues will no doubt evolve. This book brings the critical issues together in a manner that is effective and yet uncommon in the large literature on financial crises to date. The writing is also excellent and fairly easy to follow. The author is especially effective in tying a clear economic logic to the points that are made. This makes the book sound reasonable.
May 31, 2015
I know you have to be guilty of a particular species of nerdism to enjoy longish books on economic policy. So be it. This is a mostly wonderful read with a series of prescriptions for restoring both capitalism and democracy. Zingales is an Italian-born economist at the University of Chicago, and, of course, a free-marketeer. His key point is that we seem to be heading into a semi-toxic, pro-business, anti-competitive environment, built on subsidies and lobbying and on preserving the success of the already-successful. This pro-business trend is destructive of a genuinely creative and meritocratic free-market. He wants to rescue the market from both crony capitalism and over-regulation. His prescriptions strike me as very smart but also as political long shots. They include: 1) reforming and simplifying the tax code to outlaw subsidies to businesses; 2) a tax on lobbying; and 3) a new 3-part regulatory architecture to keep the regulators from tripping over each other, from being captured by the industries they're trying to regulate, and to clearly specify their mandates.
September 8, 2022
Luigi Zingales advances a compelling populist agenda centered around increasing competition. Although it was written in 2012, back then Zingales predicted a populist upsurge (which came to fruition in 2016 through the Trump and Sanders campaigns) based on his Italian experience. With this in mind, wrote the book as a proposal to restore American capitalism and channel this coming populism into a restoration of American capitalism, unique for its democratic and populist flavor.
I found his diagnosis of the problem highly persuasive. Like a modern-day Hilaire Belloc in The Servile State, Zingales strings together a whole host of trends under the banner of crony capitalism. He tackles bailouts and moral hazard, wasteful government subsidies, monopolization, public-private partnerships exemplifying the worst of both, excessive financialization, and regulatory capture. His writing is accessible enough, although taking a few financial regulation classes in law school may have made it easier for me.
Zingales seeks to address these ills with pro-market interventions to undo the corrupt relationship between big businesses and big government. Fundamentally, "competition is the magic ingredient that makes capitalism work for everyone." (29) It's refreshing to see somebody who leans right recognize that pro-market =/= pro-business. If business gets too concentrated, it ends up lobbying the government for favors like subsidies and entry barriers. Many of our economic models assume perfect competition, but that's almost never reality. Therefore, Zingales admits that certain interventions he proposes aren't the most economically efficient but pushes for them as ways to preserve competition and prevent business from becoming too politically powerful. Restraining laissez-faire with economic democracy makes capitalism work better.
He presents evidence for each of his schemes but doesn't spend a ton of time explaining every nuance. If anything, there are probably too many ideas thrown around; some don't get more than a paragraph of explanation and could have used more detail. While this makes the book more readable, it also means I'm not sure how to feel about some of the less-explained proposals. Nevertheless, Zingales proposes some creative ideas like a tax on lobbying or equity financing for college tuition. Some ideas are more associated with the contemporary left, like accounting for political impacts in antitrust analysis. Others are definitely right-coded-- cutting all government subsidies, lowering the corporate tax rate, and ending all tax deductions. Yet others are less classifiable, such as his comprehensive proposal for lowering systemic financial risk or his idea to have business schools focus more on teaching ethics. He also puts a high premium on transparency, arguing convincingly for open data access. I didn't expect to agree with everything in the first place, but ended up nodding my head to a surprising number of ideas. Many of them seem worth trying, although some (vouchers for education) I disagree vehemently with and most would have trouble passing due to the regulatory capture he criticizes.
This book greatly benefits from Zingales' extensive research and deep knowledge of economics--his ideas, even those I disagree with, are backed up by various studies. Based on this research, Zingales has a clear preference for norm-based nudges and Pigouvian taxes over heavy-handed regulation or industrial policy. He's more of a Jeffersonian than a Hamiltonian, so most of his ideas would shrink government while making markets more competitive. This also means that they don't fit perfectly in our political system. While Paul Ryan praised the book, he did absolutely nothing to carry out Zingales' proposals. Yet today perhaps there's potential for this evidence-based populism to represent a new way forward for the right. It fits with the right's mounting shift away from pure laissez-faire but doesn't compromise core conservative principles. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, if you feel like something's wrong with the economy these days, you ought to check out "A Capitalism for the People."
I found his diagnosis of the problem highly persuasive. Like a modern-day Hilaire Belloc in The Servile State, Zingales strings together a whole host of trends under the banner of crony capitalism. He tackles bailouts and moral hazard, wasteful government subsidies, monopolization, public-private partnerships exemplifying the worst of both, excessive financialization, and regulatory capture. His writing is accessible enough, although taking a few financial regulation classes in law school may have made it easier for me.
Zingales seeks to address these ills with pro-market interventions to undo the corrupt relationship between big businesses and big government. Fundamentally, "competition is the magic ingredient that makes capitalism work for everyone." (29) It's refreshing to see somebody who leans right recognize that pro-market =/= pro-business. If business gets too concentrated, it ends up lobbying the government for favors like subsidies and entry barriers. Many of our economic models assume perfect competition, but that's almost never reality. Therefore, Zingales admits that certain interventions he proposes aren't the most economically efficient but pushes for them as ways to preserve competition and prevent business from becoming too politically powerful. Restraining laissez-faire with economic democracy makes capitalism work better.
He presents evidence for each of his schemes but doesn't spend a ton of time explaining every nuance. If anything, there are probably too many ideas thrown around; some don't get more than a paragraph of explanation and could have used more detail. While this makes the book more readable, it also means I'm not sure how to feel about some of the less-explained proposals. Nevertheless, Zingales proposes some creative ideas like a tax on lobbying or equity financing for college tuition. Some ideas are more associated with the contemporary left, like accounting for political impacts in antitrust analysis. Others are definitely right-coded-- cutting all government subsidies, lowering the corporate tax rate, and ending all tax deductions. Yet others are less classifiable, such as his comprehensive proposal for lowering systemic financial risk or his idea to have business schools focus more on teaching ethics. He also puts a high premium on transparency, arguing convincingly for open data access. I didn't expect to agree with everything in the first place, but ended up nodding my head to a surprising number of ideas. Many of them seem worth trying, although some (vouchers for education) I disagree vehemently with and most would have trouble passing due to the regulatory capture he criticizes.
This book greatly benefits from Zingales' extensive research and deep knowledge of economics--his ideas, even those I disagree with, are backed up by various studies. Based on this research, Zingales has a clear preference for norm-based nudges and Pigouvian taxes over heavy-handed regulation or industrial policy. He's more of a Jeffersonian than a Hamiltonian, so most of his ideas would shrink government while making markets more competitive. This also means that they don't fit perfectly in our political system. While Paul Ryan praised the book, he did absolutely nothing to carry out Zingales' proposals. Yet today perhaps there's potential for this evidence-based populism to represent a new way forward for the right. It fits with the right's mounting shift away from pure laissez-faire but doesn't compromise core conservative principles. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, if you feel like something's wrong with the economy these days, you ought to check out "A Capitalism for the People."
November 17, 2017
I've found that when it comes to conservatives talking about issues relating to Capitalism they tend to fall into two camps. The majority camp insists that Capitalism has no problems, and that government is the problem. They defelect all charges of market failure to be by-products of too much regulation. The smaller camp admits that there are issues to deal with: that income inequality is an issue. That unregulated markets are a mistake. That market failure is real and needs to be addressed. That Capitalism has started to not work for everyone, and needs to be course corrected.
Luigi Zingales is in this smaller camp, and he has more than a few good ideas on potential solutions.
I was very skeptical about this book when I picked it up (any book recommended by Paul Ryan is immediately suspect), and took to it very slowly. To be fair, I never totally took to the book. I finished it disagreeing with the author on 3 key issues:
1. Healthcare will never have a free market solution
2. The importance and necessity of a Value Added Tax
3. The importance of unions for employee representation
Zingales would disagree heavily with me on these three issues, but they are all but footnotes in the books arguments. I'm with him on the big issues, such as:
-reorganizing regulators to address their 3 key issues (price stability, investor protection, and systematic risk)
- move to a system that rewards whistle blowers to address finance crime. A reward for tips and a percentage of fines for corporate crimes (of say, 10-15 percent) would do this nicely.
-controlling the power lobbying and campaign contributions with a progressive tax on donations. Which also leads too.....
-introducing a piguot tax on externalities
- simplying the tax code, and reducing our reliance on the income tax.
- reducing or eliminateing differences between capital income and personal income.
- fixes to how companys focus on short term gains at the expense of long term growth.
(All of this is just a part of the ideas he brings up, read the book to get the whole story)
I just finished the book, and I already want to read it again. I feel that if more conservatives could take a more nuanced look at economics as Zingales does we would not be in the political quagmire that currently plagues real economic reform.
Perhaps we could even find solutions that everyone could be ok with. Someday, I hope we can get there.
Check this book out. I'll be rereading it at some point soon.
Luigi Zingales is in this smaller camp, and he has more than a few good ideas on potential solutions.
I was very skeptical about this book when I picked it up (any book recommended by Paul Ryan is immediately suspect), and took to it very slowly. To be fair, I never totally took to the book. I finished it disagreeing with the author on 3 key issues:
1. Healthcare will never have a free market solution
2. The importance and necessity of a Value Added Tax
3. The importance of unions for employee representation
Zingales would disagree heavily with me on these three issues, but they are all but footnotes in the books arguments. I'm with him on the big issues, such as:
-reorganizing regulators to address their 3 key issues (price stability, investor protection, and systematic risk)
- move to a system that rewards whistle blowers to address finance crime. A reward for tips and a percentage of fines for corporate crimes (of say, 10-15 percent) would do this nicely.
-controlling the power lobbying and campaign contributions with a progressive tax on donations. Which also leads too.....
-introducing a piguot tax on externalities
- simplying the tax code, and reducing our reliance on the income tax.
- reducing or eliminateing differences between capital income and personal income.
- fixes to how companys focus on short term gains at the expense of long term growth.
(All of this is just a part of the ideas he brings up, read the book to get the whole story)
I just finished the book, and I already want to read it again. I feel that if more conservatives could take a more nuanced look at economics as Zingales does we would not be in the political quagmire that currently plagues real economic reform.
Perhaps we could even find solutions that everyone could be ok with. Someday, I hope we can get there.
Check this book out. I'll be rereading it at some point soon.
October 23, 2012
One of the greatest misconceptions bought into by many people, including our political leaders, is the notion that being "pro-market" is equivalent to being "pro-business." All too often, and especially in Europe, the folks who champion free markets end up making common cause with the interests of big business, either out of genuine confusion or as a bulwark against socialist politicians that would substitute government-run enterprises for private-sector ones. While this ma be understandable on some level, it is extremely short-sighted, as Luigi Zingales demonstrates in this important new book. Increased concentration of economic power in the hands of huge corporations, abetted by the increased power and influence of central governments, destroys the efficiency and prosperity arising from truly free and open competition, increases the potential for corruption, and gives free markets a bad name while perpetuating a system that ignores them.
Zingales writes from a unique perspective: a professor of economics at the University of Chicago, with a strong bias in favor or freedom and market-based solutions, who arrived a couple of decades ago from Italy, where he saw crony capitalism as the driving economic force in the land. Having escaped a system where, as he puts it, "Who you know mattered more that what you know," he has come to have grave concerns about the drift of America toward a crony capitalist system, and seeks to find solutions to prevent this.
The book is segmented into two parts: a description of the problem and some proposed solutions. The first part is the stronger of the two, as it is far easier to make the case than provide workable solutions, which are more easily picked apart. His detailing of the rise of corporate lobbying, and industry's realization that a far higher ROI can be realized on investing money in influencing legislators than on simply competing in teh marketplace, is both compelling and depressing. Zingales' highlighting of the incest between government administrations (especially the last 3) and Wall Street banks is particularly illuminating; regulatory and legislative capture are fairly pouring out of thee pages as he documents the ways in which Wall Street bankers conflate their interests with that of the nation, requiring massive bailouts despite the moral hazard this creates. Here, there is not just the typical cynical gamesmanship, but also a sense of groupthink, in which no one in leadership roles at the Treasury Dept. seems to have any economic experience or network outside of Wall Street, which simply reinforces their views. Additionally, the loopholes built into the Bankruptcy Reform Act, the Dodd-Frank Bill, and a number of others drafted and signed under Clinton, Bush and Obama are shown to have direct benefits for the biggest financial players, while decreasing utility and efficiency for consumers.
The solutions area is a tougher road for Zingales, as he is (rightly) skeptical of government intervention after demonstrating the ways in which the collusion of business an government are the problem. However, it's clear that government has to do something, and the main idea here is to return to simplified regulation, which may have been a blunt instrument (think Glass-Steagal), but had the advantages of being clearer, with fewer loopholes to exploit and less complexity to allow for regulatory capture. Drawing fewer, but brighter, lines that industry can't cross prevents some efficiencies from being realized, but also makes it easier to enforce rules evenly, and allows for fewer appeals to "expert" regulators who may simply be between jobs in the very industries they regulate. Zingales' lobbying criticism yield fewer satisfactory ideas, as there doesn't appear to be an easy way to curb lobbying within the Constitution, but the notion of "shaming" those who use lobbying to promote narrow self-interest may not have much force, I'm afraid. And his discussion on education, while pointed in it's highlighting of the system's failures, is not detailed enough in its call for greater competition to convince the skeptical (though i happen to agree with his conclusions).
Still, the biggest idea to come out of Zingales' work is not a new one. It's a return to the ideals of Adam Smith, who understood that markets work wonders but businessmen will try to collude once they have the advantage, and the role of government should be to prevent this, not to facilitate it. I would have liked to see a stronger call for reduced government, since the size and influence of government is the very thing that makes regulatory and legislative capture feasible. However, the points about tax and regulatory simplification address this point. More interestingly, Zingales calls for a greater emphasis on an ethical framework in business, especially in business schools (he is a professor at Chicago Booth, where I received my MBA), permeating through the generalized course of study. He suggests that a normative ethical approach be applied throughout a curriculum, not quarantined in a separate ethics class where it can be safely isolated. He also suggests that schools show disapproval of alumni who make fortunes by less-than-admirable (but still legal) means such as gambling enterprises and high-frequency trading. The infusion of an ethical sensibility that creates strong social norms around free market behaviors, and frowns upon lobbying and rent-seeking, is a useful application of a libertarian approach to re-animiating the enterprising spirit of American capitalism. While the proposed solutions could use further expansion, Zingales has provided a tremendous public service in establishing the stark difference between advocating for free markets and advocating for business interest, and lights the way forward for those who seek to support the former, even at the expense of the latter.
Zingales writes from a unique perspective: a professor of economics at the University of Chicago, with a strong bias in favor or freedom and market-based solutions, who arrived a couple of decades ago from Italy, where he saw crony capitalism as the driving economic force in the land. Having escaped a system where, as he puts it, "Who you know mattered more that what you know," he has come to have grave concerns about the drift of America toward a crony capitalist system, and seeks to find solutions to prevent this.
The book is segmented into two parts: a description of the problem and some proposed solutions. The first part is the stronger of the two, as it is far easier to make the case than provide workable solutions, which are more easily picked apart. His detailing of the rise of corporate lobbying, and industry's realization that a far higher ROI can be realized on investing money in influencing legislators than on simply competing in teh marketplace, is both compelling and depressing. Zingales' highlighting of the incest between government administrations (especially the last 3) and Wall Street banks is particularly illuminating; regulatory and legislative capture are fairly pouring out of thee pages as he documents the ways in which Wall Street bankers conflate their interests with that of the nation, requiring massive bailouts despite the moral hazard this creates. Here, there is not just the typical cynical gamesmanship, but also a sense of groupthink, in which no one in leadership roles at the Treasury Dept. seems to have any economic experience or network outside of Wall Street, which simply reinforces their views. Additionally, the loopholes built into the Bankruptcy Reform Act, the Dodd-Frank Bill, and a number of others drafted and signed under Clinton, Bush and Obama are shown to have direct benefits for the biggest financial players, while decreasing utility and efficiency for consumers.
The solutions area is a tougher road for Zingales, as he is (rightly) skeptical of government intervention after demonstrating the ways in which the collusion of business an government are the problem. However, it's clear that government has to do something, and the main idea here is to return to simplified regulation, which may have been a blunt instrument (think Glass-Steagal), but had the advantages of being clearer, with fewer loopholes to exploit and less complexity to allow for regulatory capture. Drawing fewer, but brighter, lines that industry can't cross prevents some efficiencies from being realized, but also makes it easier to enforce rules evenly, and allows for fewer appeals to "expert" regulators who may simply be between jobs in the very industries they regulate. Zingales' lobbying criticism yield fewer satisfactory ideas, as there doesn't appear to be an easy way to curb lobbying within the Constitution, but the notion of "shaming" those who use lobbying to promote narrow self-interest may not have much force, I'm afraid. And his discussion on education, while pointed in it's highlighting of the system's failures, is not detailed enough in its call for greater competition to convince the skeptical (though i happen to agree with his conclusions).
Still, the biggest idea to come out of Zingales' work is not a new one. It's a return to the ideals of Adam Smith, who understood that markets work wonders but businessmen will try to collude once they have the advantage, and the role of government should be to prevent this, not to facilitate it. I would have liked to see a stronger call for reduced government, since the size and influence of government is the very thing that makes regulatory and legislative capture feasible. However, the points about tax and regulatory simplification address this point. More interestingly, Zingales calls for a greater emphasis on an ethical framework in business, especially in business schools (he is a professor at Chicago Booth, where I received my MBA), permeating through the generalized course of study. He suggests that a normative ethical approach be applied throughout a curriculum, not quarantined in a separate ethics class where it can be safely isolated. He also suggests that schools show disapproval of alumni who make fortunes by less-than-admirable (but still legal) means such as gambling enterprises and high-frequency trading. The infusion of an ethical sensibility that creates strong social norms around free market behaviors, and frowns upon lobbying and rent-seeking, is a useful application of a libertarian approach to re-animiating the enterprising spirit of American capitalism. While the proposed solutions could use further expansion, Zingales has provided a tremendous public service in establishing the stark difference between advocating for free markets and advocating for business interest, and lights the way forward for those who seek to support the former, even at the expense of the latter.
February 25, 2020
Un comienzo fascinante, con un cierre dubitativos
Me ha encantado el inicio, como se remueve desde las entrañas el odio hacia el aprovechamiento. Probablemente, mucha imitación en Chile.
Sin embargo, hay una cultura diferente, y es donde las soluciones propuestas, si bien son siempre lógicas y difíciles de implementar, entran en una nebulosa. ¿Por qué? Porque la cultura, la educación, y la sensación de competencia (justa) no se inserta del día a la mañana en el adn, ni es algo que tengamos incorporado en nuestros más de 200 años de vida.
Recomendable, con un inicio sólido, pero a medida que avanza, su densidad se evapora y termina en una nebulosa.
Me ha encantado el inicio, como se remueve desde las entrañas el odio hacia el aprovechamiento. Probablemente, mucha imitación en Chile.
Sin embargo, hay una cultura diferente, y es donde las soluciones propuestas, si bien son siempre lógicas y difíciles de implementar, entran en una nebulosa. ¿Por qué? Porque la cultura, la educación, y la sensación de competencia (justa) no se inserta del día a la mañana en el adn, ni es algo que tengamos incorporado en nuestros más de 200 años de vida.
Recomendable, con un inicio sólido, pero a medida que avanza, su densidad se evapora y termina en una nebulosa.
July 16, 2017
Not what I thought, but better
When I first heard about this book I thought it be mostly spouting ideas I agree with. And, while I agree with much of this book it is only after it challenged some of my ideas about markets. This book has an ideology, but one that sits in the middle of most others I hear.
When I first heard about this book I thought it be mostly spouting ideas I agree with. And, while I agree with much of this book it is only after it challenged some of my ideas about markets. This book has an ideology, but one that sits in the middle of most others I hear.
February 17, 2019
It was fine. Very neoliberal but I guess I should have expected that from the title. Information is somewhat interesting but policy proposals are a bit far-fetched and seem to have little evidence behind them.
May 25, 2020
It's a little tricky reviewing a book that consists of policy arguments. Was it well-written? Generally pretty solid, although in parts it got dry and jargon-filled. Did I agree with the arguments? Yes to some, no to others; probably around 50-50. So—3 stars.
December 26, 2022
An essential read of political economics and free market capitalism
November 22, 2023
Has interesting parts. But it's hard to break through the ideology (both his and others')
January 1, 2024
Good book about the GFC and the rise of the Tea Party. Well researched and argued by a good and objective Chicago school economist. I've read much on this topic, and this book was also good.
February 12, 2024
great book on American dream
so much history and very well written
one of the best book if you like Austrian economics
so much history and very well written
one of the best book if you like Austrian economics
March 20, 2024
Good read. A refreshing look at how we might be able to fix a lot of the issues going on currently. It’s pretty dense reading, but he makes it very accessible.
April 1, 2013
Uhg this book took me a whole month to read. It wasn't that long and the font wasn't tiny or anything but I just had no idea what it was talking about near the end. Maybe if you have a stronger background in econ and business this would be better.
From what I got, Zingales is arguing that the biggest problem in government today that tea party members and occupy wall street members can both agree on is crony capitalism, which is when governments and business mix and you get corruption. I can dig that. He argues that to fix this, we need more competition, simpler and less regulations, limiting lobbyists, and better business ethics instilled in business schools. Most of what he said went over my head but he did touch on two topics I am more familiar with and when he did mention these I completely disagree with his assessment.
Education: Zingales argues for vouchers to help students get to choose which schools they want and the poor performing teachers/schools presumably get fired/shut down. That sounds... okay in theory but how are you suppose to measure teacher performance? Test scores? Test scores is a terrible way to evaluate teacher performance and it puts the teacher in a conflict of interest. And if everyone gets the same voucher, won't everyone just want to go to the best school in the area? Doesn't this also discriminate against lower income families if they don't have the means to travel far to get to the school? Additionally Zingales tries to use Finland as an example of a successful education system. He says that they weed out much more of their teachers. And through this process, get better teachers even though their salary isn't that high. This is hilarious because the Finnish system is the exact opposite of what Zingales is proposing. There are no standardized tests (only one required one at the end of high school), there is no "tracking" students, there is no release of test scores. Obviously people come up with different reasons why the Finnish system works but many say that it is because teachers are so respected, so that is why there are so many more applicants. They have mastery over their classroom and they can be flexible with their curriculum. While in the US, Zingales' love for standardized tests will definitely push teachers to "teach the test" further removing time from extracurriculars (of which Finnish schools place a large emphasis on). Yes the US has a ton of problems with their schooling system that won't go away by just throwing money at it BUT I strongly believe that vouchers are not the way to go because there is simply no way to measure teacher performance.
Health Care: He believes that to control costs of medicine, it is important to empower consumers. He believes that although consumers might not know the difference between good and bad care, giving them more freedom would generate a market for expert opinions. A Consumer Reports for medicine. However, there is no way to evaluate every doctor or hospital or health care provider when there are so many. Is he suggesting that expert opinions should publish guidelines on how certain diseases should be treated? Because there are guidelines for doctors but patients don't seem to care. I believe that doctors need to be better incentivized to give proper and cheaper care to patients instead of springing for the more expensive procedures that may not be indicated. I don't think there's anything wrong with giving patients more choice in their provider, I just don't think it'll solve anything.
I think my fundamental problem is that for there to be competition, there has to be a way to measure outcomes. If one computer is better and cheaper than the other, of course I would get that computer. But in education and health care, outcomes is something that many are still trying to figure out how to measure.
Anyways, in conclusion, this book is too confusing and the parts I did understand I didn't agree with. I do agree with his assessment of the problem, just maybe not his solutions (although hard to say since I don't understand most of them). Anyways super glad to be done with this book and now I can move on to another book that I'll actually understand.
Meh I'll proofread this later. Too tired.
From what I got, Zingales is arguing that the biggest problem in government today that tea party members and occupy wall street members can both agree on is crony capitalism, which is when governments and business mix and you get corruption. I can dig that. He argues that to fix this, we need more competition, simpler and less regulations, limiting lobbyists, and better business ethics instilled in business schools. Most of what he said went over my head but he did touch on two topics I am more familiar with and when he did mention these I completely disagree with his assessment.
Education: Zingales argues for vouchers to help students get to choose which schools they want and the poor performing teachers/schools presumably get fired/shut down. That sounds... okay in theory but how are you suppose to measure teacher performance? Test scores? Test scores is a terrible way to evaluate teacher performance and it puts the teacher in a conflict of interest. And if everyone gets the same voucher, won't everyone just want to go to the best school in the area? Doesn't this also discriminate against lower income families if they don't have the means to travel far to get to the school? Additionally Zingales tries to use Finland as an example of a successful education system. He says that they weed out much more of their teachers. And through this process, get better teachers even though their salary isn't that high. This is hilarious because the Finnish system is the exact opposite of what Zingales is proposing. There are no standardized tests (only one required one at the end of high school), there is no "tracking" students, there is no release of test scores. Obviously people come up with different reasons why the Finnish system works but many say that it is because teachers are so respected, so that is why there are so many more applicants. They have mastery over their classroom and they can be flexible with their curriculum. While in the US, Zingales' love for standardized tests will definitely push teachers to "teach the test" further removing time from extracurriculars (of which Finnish schools place a large emphasis on). Yes the US has a ton of problems with their schooling system that won't go away by just throwing money at it BUT I strongly believe that vouchers are not the way to go because there is simply no way to measure teacher performance.
Health Care: He believes that to control costs of medicine, it is important to empower consumers. He believes that although consumers might not know the difference between good and bad care, giving them more freedom would generate a market for expert opinions. A Consumer Reports for medicine. However, there is no way to evaluate every doctor or hospital or health care provider when there are so many. Is he suggesting that expert opinions should publish guidelines on how certain diseases should be treated? Because there are guidelines for doctors but patients don't seem to care. I believe that doctors need to be better incentivized to give proper and cheaper care to patients instead of springing for the more expensive procedures that may not be indicated. I don't think there's anything wrong with giving patients more choice in their provider, I just don't think it'll solve anything.
I think my fundamental problem is that for there to be competition, there has to be a way to measure outcomes. If one computer is better and cheaper than the other, of course I would get that computer. But in education and health care, outcomes is something that many are still trying to figure out how to measure.
Anyways, in conclusion, this book is too confusing and the parts I did understand I didn't agree with. I do agree with his assessment of the problem, just maybe not his solutions (although hard to say since I don't understand most of them). Anyways super glad to be done with this book and now I can move on to another book that I'll actually understand.
Meh I'll proofread this later. Too tired.
February 26, 2013
The first third of this book is a 5, really, really good. Zingales compares Italy's system with what's going on today in America. There are many facts presented and explained that I was either unaware of or did not understand.
The last third of the book is not that great. Zingales, like most Booth professors, has a Titanic blindspot. He argues that behavior like gaming the bidding system used by Booth students to select classes should be frowned on. He argues for more simplicity in regulations. He argues that academics and regulators become "captured" by the industries they study. Then he defends the trading of credit derivite swaps, claiming they reduce risk. The hell they do. Each individual trade by an insurer or a firm needing insurance may be a good trade. However in the aggregate the entire swap market is like a financial nuclear bomb, just waiting for the correct series of "bad" trades create a reaction, blowing up a significant portion of our entire financial services system. The huge market does not grow the pie, but is simply a zero-sum game casino except for those very few participants, perhaps less than 1% the market, that actually provide insurance as their business or lay off some risk buying insurance against inputs or outputs of their core business. Zingales inability to connect his observations about bidding for classes, need for simplification, and capturing, while defending the insanity of financial insurance product trading is a shortcoming that is inexplicable.
In general the last third of the book is not as well written as the first two thirds, giving one the feeling it was written to deadline.
I read this book on my flight home from vacation in Maui.
The last third of the book is not that great. Zingales, like most Booth professors, has a Titanic blindspot. He argues that behavior like gaming the bidding system used by Booth students to select classes should be frowned on. He argues for more simplicity in regulations. He argues that academics and regulators become "captured" by the industries they study. Then he defends the trading of credit derivite swaps, claiming they reduce risk. The hell they do. Each individual trade by an insurer or a firm needing insurance may be a good trade. However in the aggregate the entire swap market is like a financial nuclear bomb, just waiting for the correct series of "bad" trades create a reaction, blowing up a significant portion of our entire financial services system. The huge market does not grow the pie, but is simply a zero-sum game casino except for those very few participants, perhaps less than 1% the market, that actually provide insurance as their business or lay off some risk buying insurance against inputs or outputs of their core business. Zingales inability to connect his observations about bidding for classes, need for simplification, and capturing, while defending the insanity of financial insurance product trading is a shortcoming that is inexplicable.
In general the last third of the book is not as well written as the first two thirds, giving one the feeling it was written to deadline.
I read this book on my flight home from vacation in Maui.
November 25, 2012
Very good book by a professor at the chicago kellog business school. He advocates in a change from a pro-business to a pro-market emphasis within the conservative ranks. Pro-business would equate to a party wanting to maximize the profits of businesses in the country, and pro-market would want vibrant markets with free competition to bring about the maximum benefit to the citizenry.
My favorite part is when explains how cronyism warps free markets. That lobbying in washington by large corporations ends up influencing the creation of laws which build artificial barriers to entry within many markets. This ends up being pro-business but lowers competition and keeps innovation and efficiencies from evolving. He advocates a steep progressive tax on lobbying, one that ramps up quickly by the aount of money spent on lobbying by corporations. this would allow small groups like veterans, the indians, etc to keep lobbying but heavily dis-incent large corporations from flooding washington with money.
My favorite part is when explains how cronyism warps free markets. That lobbying in washington by large corporations ends up influencing the creation of laws which build artificial barriers to entry within many markets. This ends up being pro-business but lowers competition and keeps innovation and efficiencies from evolving. He advocates a steep progressive tax on lobbying, one that ramps up quickly by the aount of money spent on lobbying by corporations. this would allow small groups like veterans, the indians, etc to keep lobbying but heavily dis-incent large corporations from flooding washington with money.
December 22, 2013
An analysis of the problems with America's economy which concentrates, first, on crony capitalism, the undue influence of large businesses and their lobbyists on legislators and their capture of the regulatory and other aspects of the executive branch; and second, on monopolies and the increasing lack of competition. His solution is greater competition, which certainly is much needed in the economic sector but is simplistically applied when he moves into education, medicine and other social policy areas. It is an ideological book, though hidden under a genial narration, and one solution solves every problem, a suspicious situation.
The author set out to write an accessible, appealing book that would convince ordinary people that they should support populist movements that emphasize competition and free markets, not those that advocate egalitarianism or income redistribution. His style and persona are certainly very engaging. His analysis of the problems is convincing, his solutions a mixed bag.
The author set out to write an accessible, appealing book that would convince ordinary people that they should support populist movements that emphasize competition and free markets, not those that advocate egalitarianism or income redistribution. His style and persona are certainly very engaging. His analysis of the problems is convincing, his solutions a mixed bag.
April 28, 2013
One of the most important books to come out in the past decade, "A Capitalism for the People" should be mandatory reading for everyone serving in the halls of Congress. Zingales' thesis is that big business and big government are two sides of the same coin, and that movements like Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party fail to grasp this interdependency. Big business could not exist without the political protection afforded by its allies in government; and big government could not survive without the financial backing by big business.
A University of Chicago economist, Zingales dives into specifics about how to rein-in the power of lobbyists, fix our educational system, end too-big-to-fail banks, and other subjects. His analysis offers a surprising mix of recommendations which are sure to raise hackles on the left and the right alike. His writing style is lucid and succinct-- a rare combination which other writers on economic topics often fail to match.
Highly recommended.
A University of Chicago economist, Zingales dives into specifics about how to rein-in the power of lobbyists, fix our educational system, end too-big-to-fail banks, and other subjects. His analysis offers a surprising mix of recommendations which are sure to raise hackles on the left and the right alike. His writing style is lucid and succinct-- a rare combination which other writers on economic topics often fail to match.
Highly recommended.
June 14, 2014
A powerful rallying cry for "pro-market populism," like his previous co-authored book ("Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists"), this one espouses a pro-market but not pro-business view that is deeply skeptical of rent seeking, lobbying, and business-government partnerships more broadly. The first half starts out with a tribute to American exceptionalism which he sees as coming from democracy that preceded industrialization, flourished before government grew large and was mature before it entered into foreign competition. He sees the growing size of government, lobbying, bailouts, etc., as undermining this form of capitalism. The second half of the book is a set of recommendations for what to do about it, ranging from tax reform and financial regulation reform to a discussion about how to create a more civic culture premised on trust and averse to rent seeking. Many of the ideas are avowedly impractical.
July 17, 2012
The author proposes reforms which he believes would move our country in the direction of being fairer to all while at the same time protecting a free market.
For example, it's his theory that excessive lobbying could be curbed by a progressive tax on political contributions instead of via regulations which he says are easier to avoid. In fact he proposes a simpler income tax code for both individuals and corportions which he says would provide practically the same revenue but with far less loopholes.
He presents many interesting solutions and by and large is against over regulation, subsidies, and government intervention in health care. As one who has been in favor of "Obamacare" I found his arguments to be very interesting if not persuasive.
For example, it's his theory that excessive lobbying could be curbed by a progressive tax on political contributions instead of via regulations which he says are easier to avoid. In fact he proposes a simpler income tax code for both individuals and corportions which he says would provide practically the same revenue but with far less loopholes.
He presents many interesting solutions and by and large is against over regulation, subsidies, and government intervention in health care. As one who has been in favor of "Obamacare" I found his arguments to be very interesting if not persuasive.
June 10, 2013
Get this book and read Chapter 6. Economic capture and its role in the recession and slow recovery of the US economy is not new. But Zingales is brave enough to turn the spotlight toward his own profession and argue that economic capture can bias career economists as well.
The rest of the book offers a simple yet thorough summary of the trends which led to the recession, and suggests idealistic policy recommendations that could improve the long-term health of the economy and our society. The arguments would have been strengthened by explaining how stakeholders with a vested interest in today's system would be convinced to support these new policies. Overall, a worthwhile read.
The rest of the book offers a simple yet thorough summary of the trends which led to the recession, and suggests idealistic policy recommendations that could improve the long-term health of the economy and our society. The arguments would have been strengthened by explaining how stakeholders with a vested interest in today's system would be convinced to support these new policies. Overall, a worthwhile read.
August 1, 2013
This is a really great book about the problems that are plaguing the American system of markets and governments. Political capture, vested interests warping outcomes, a lack of education amongst the populace about what is really happening and many more issues. However, unlike several other books Luigi provides us with serious, logical solutions to all these problems. There is no math or fancy jargon or intimidating charts to be had in the book. Just simple, direct information that explains in concise terms what Zingales thinks are the real issues with our current situation and, for the most part, I feel he is spot on. I would make everyone read this book if I could.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews