What do you think?
Rate this book
The Middle Out: The Rise of Progressive Economics and a Return to Shared Prosperity
Political journalist Michael Tomasky tracks an exciting change among progressive economists who are overturning decades of conservative dogma and offering an alternative version of capitalism that can serve broadly shared prosperity to all.
"Engaging, briskly paced ... On balance, history appears to be on Tomasky’s side." —The New York Times Book Review
In the first half of the twentieth century the Keynesian brand of economics, which saw government spending as a necessary spur to economic growth, prevailed. Then in the 1970s, conservatives fought back. Once they got people to believe a few simple ideas instead—that only the free market could produce growth, that taxes and regulation stifle growth—the battle was won. The era of conservative dogma, often called neoliberal economics, had begun. It ushered in increasing inequality, a shrinking middle class, and declining public investment. For fifty years, liberals have not been able to make a dent in it. Until now.
In The Middle Out, journalist Michael Tomasky narrates this history and reports on the work of today's progressive economists, who are using mountains of historical evidence to contradict neoliberal claims. Their research reveals conservative dogma to be unfounded and shows how concentrated wealth has been built on the exploitation of women, minorities, and the politically powerless. Middle-out economics, in contrast, is the belief that prosperity comes from a thriving middle class, and therefore government plays a role in supporting families and communities. This version of capitalism--more just, more equal, and in which prosperity is shared--could be the American future.
"Engaging, briskly paced ... On balance, history appears to be on Tomasky’s side." —The New York Times Book Review
In the first half of the twentieth century the Keynesian brand of economics, which saw government spending as a necessary spur to economic growth, prevailed. Then in the 1970s, conservatives fought back. Once they got people to believe a few simple ideas instead—that only the free market could produce growth, that taxes and regulation stifle growth—the battle was won. The era of conservative dogma, often called neoliberal economics, had begun. It ushered in increasing inequality, a shrinking middle class, and declining public investment. For fifty years, liberals have not been able to make a dent in it. Until now.
In The Middle Out, journalist Michael Tomasky narrates this history and reports on the work of today's progressive economists, who are using mountains of historical evidence to contradict neoliberal claims. Their research reveals conservative dogma to be unfounded and shows how concentrated wealth has been built on the exploitation of women, minorities, and the politically powerless. Middle-out economics, in contrast, is the belief that prosperity comes from a thriving middle class, and therefore government plays a role in supporting families and communities. This version of capitalism--more just, more equal, and in which prosperity is shared--could be the American future.
293 pages, Kindle Edition
Published September 6, 2022
27 people are currently reading
461 people want to read
About the author
Michael Tomasky
15 books12 followersMichael John Tomasky is an American columnist, commentator, journalist and author.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
November 20, 2022
Highly recommend. Uses the 'Shared Prosperity' of the post-World War II years as a standard against which to compare (known as the 'Trente Glorieuses' in France - the glorious thirty years of unusually high and stable economic growth). The postwar period was characterized by an increase in the spirit of collectivism and equality that, while not strictly economic factors, were key to economy's performance. A rising tide raises all ships, but the lifting the fortunes of robber barons (or 'market disrupting innovators', as monopolists are known today) lifts the canal lock containing their mega-yachts by draining the water from the rest of society. And the rest of society does the spending that is the lifeblood of the economy, while the robber barons throw their excess into high-altitude joy rides, shaky financial bubbles (cryptocurrency), and outsize campaign contributions to politicians advocating for their interests (lower taxes for the rich, less regulation of the costs they impose on society, abdication of government's anti-trust responsibilities, elimination of any limitations to their anti-democratic power over government).
The field of economics has few areas of strong consensus, but almost all can agree that Keynesian policies work - and not much else does. (Keynesian policies being those that argue for countervailing government fiscal intervention in the economy - increasing government spending during downturns to manage 'aggregate demand'.). Even Richard Nixon, no darling of the left, said in 1971 'we are all Keynesians now' (slight paraphrase).
Monetarism is an another approach to economic policy, championed by Milton Friedman, which emphasizes the importance of managing the amount of money in circulation. In my younger days I placed much stock in monetarism as a key part of economic policy, supplemented by Keynesian fiscal policy. But monetarism relies on a somewhat stable velocity of money, as well as being able to define what we mean by money. The definition of money has certainly gotten squishier over time, and the velocity of money has become more variable - breaking down completely in Federal Reserve System response to the 2008 financial crisis.
Of the two major political parties in the US, the Democratic Party promotes Keynesian policies - the one proven economic tool of the government. The opposing party has no use for economic tools for the government, as it has little use for government. There have been some attempts at justifying the opposition's approach - the laughable 'Laffer Curve' (suggesting lower tax rates could lead to higher tax revenue; surprise - they don't) and the inane 'trickle down' theory impressively promoted by Ronald Reagan (but demonstrably disastrous in practice). (Full disclosure: I was a registered Republican from 1975 to 2016. I understand and respect the policy differences of the parties.)
My favorite quotes from this book are the following:
"Jobs created during the sixteen years of Democratic presidencies versus Republican presidencies: 33.8 million versus 1.9 million. That is not a typo. Job creation per month: under Democrats, 176,093; under Republicans, 9,687. Average GDP growth: Democrats, 3.1 percent; Republicans, 1.62 percent. Dow Jones Industrial Average increase: Democrats, 185.5 percent; Republicans, 26 percent."
One could substitute "Keynesian" for Democratic and "Non-Keynesian" for Republican. But these are the facts. It is not close. The economy performs MUCH better under Democratic/Keynesian leadership.
Further, this improvement has not been accomplished via fiscal recklessness by Democrats/Keynesians:
"As for impact on the budget deficit, it’s not remotely close. Clinton took the country from a $290 billion deficit to a $236 billion surplus, for a $526 improvement. The deficit did increase under Obama by $126 billion (though he cut it by more than half in his second term). Combined, they left the country $400 billion better off. The Bushes and Trump combined to add nearly $3.5 trillion to the deficit."
Decimating taxes on the rich takes a tremendous toll on government finances - but, hey, it does make for great space rides and plenty of big money for political contributions.
As to the impact across the breadth of our society:
"Finally, median household income increase: Democrats, 9.5 percent; Republicans, 0.6 percent. Yes, that’s 0.6 percent, as in less than 1. It went up under Trump by 9.2 percent, which is very good, but it went down under both Bushes. It went up 5 percent under Obama and around 14 percent under Clinton."
You won't hear this on Fox News (how would they have time to cover people wanting to specify their personal pronouns, or transgender bathroom issues, or the next Mexican caravan). In fact, you won't hear it expressed this clearly or dispassionately from actual news organizations either.
Wonderful book. Thought provoking. Challenging.
The field of economics has few areas of strong consensus, but almost all can agree that Keynesian policies work - and not much else does. (Keynesian policies being those that argue for countervailing government fiscal intervention in the economy - increasing government spending during downturns to manage 'aggregate demand'.). Even Richard Nixon, no darling of the left, said in 1971 'we are all Keynesians now' (slight paraphrase).
Monetarism is an another approach to economic policy, championed by Milton Friedman, which emphasizes the importance of managing the amount of money in circulation. In my younger days I placed much stock in monetarism as a key part of economic policy, supplemented by Keynesian fiscal policy. But monetarism relies on a somewhat stable velocity of money, as well as being able to define what we mean by money. The definition of money has certainly gotten squishier over time, and the velocity of money has become more variable - breaking down completely in Federal Reserve System response to the 2008 financial crisis.
Of the two major political parties in the US, the Democratic Party promotes Keynesian policies - the one proven economic tool of the government. The opposing party has no use for economic tools for the government, as it has little use for government. There have been some attempts at justifying the opposition's approach - the laughable 'Laffer Curve' (suggesting lower tax rates could lead to higher tax revenue; surprise - they don't) and the inane 'trickle down' theory impressively promoted by Ronald Reagan (but demonstrably disastrous in practice). (Full disclosure: I was a registered Republican from 1975 to 2016. I understand and respect the policy differences of the parties.)
My favorite quotes from this book are the following:
"Jobs created during the sixteen years of Democratic presidencies versus Republican presidencies: 33.8 million versus 1.9 million. That is not a typo. Job creation per month: under Democrats, 176,093; under Republicans, 9,687. Average GDP growth: Democrats, 3.1 percent; Republicans, 1.62 percent. Dow Jones Industrial Average increase: Democrats, 185.5 percent; Republicans, 26 percent."
One could substitute "Keynesian" for Democratic and "Non-Keynesian" for Republican. But these are the facts. It is not close. The economy performs MUCH better under Democratic/Keynesian leadership.
Further, this improvement has not been accomplished via fiscal recklessness by Democrats/Keynesians:
"As for impact on the budget deficit, it’s not remotely close. Clinton took the country from a $290 billion deficit to a $236 billion surplus, for a $526 improvement. The deficit did increase under Obama by $126 billion (though he cut it by more than half in his second term). Combined, they left the country $400 billion better off. The Bushes and Trump combined to add nearly $3.5 trillion to the deficit."
Decimating taxes on the rich takes a tremendous toll on government finances - but, hey, it does make for great space rides and plenty of big money for political contributions.
As to the impact across the breadth of our society:
"Finally, median household income increase: Democrats, 9.5 percent; Republicans, 0.6 percent. Yes, that’s 0.6 percent, as in less than 1. It went up under Trump by 9.2 percent, which is very good, but it went down under both Bushes. It went up 5 percent under Obama and around 14 percent under Clinton."
You won't hear this on Fox News (how would they have time to cover people wanting to specify their personal pronouns, or transgender bathroom issues, or the next Mexican caravan). In fact, you won't hear it expressed this clearly or dispassionately from actual news organizations either.
Wonderful book. Thought provoking. Challenging.
October 20, 2022
Read this book for a detailed history of the failures of “free market” economics and the dreadful prescriptions of Milton Friedman who elevated “profit” above all other considerations.
Read The Middle Out to get some concepts and some vocabulary and some inspiration to shift public discourse toward the embrace of a philosophy of economics that puts energy into sustaining the public good and the best interests of all of us.
Read more of my book reviews and poems here:
www.richardsubber.com
Read The Middle Out to get some concepts and some vocabulary and some inspiration to shift public discourse toward the embrace of a philosophy of economics that puts energy into sustaining the public good and the best interests of all of us.
Read more of my book reviews and poems here:
www.richardsubber.com
February 21, 2023
Yet another recent work laying out "what happened" since the "golden years" immediately following WWII when government agencies -- and major business leaders -- were in agreement on the importance of directing policies towards building up a growing middle class, and doing so with a rigorous effort towards progressive taxation.
As one who has studied this period closely over the past 20 years, there is nothing truly new in Tomasky's book, but that it not in any way to "damn it with faint praise."
Quite the contrary, as his writing is clear, brisk, and program-specific. For anyone who did not live through the slow-moving but immensely counter-productive changes that began in the '70s -- or for those who just weren't paying much attention then -- this book makes everything quite clear.
What it also exposes is how the Right which has captured today's Republican Party actually has NO program ideas or proposals of any substance whatsoever! They have ably disguised this fact through their skillful and ongoing method of "picking at America's scabs" -- that is, constantly stirring up the culture wars "pot," and it has clearly worked to fool or -- perhaps more accurately -- create "cognitive dissonance" among millions of Americans so that they cannot get out of their "rage/resentment" mood long enough to consider facts or connect the dots.
For, once you look carefully through the constant warnings about socialism/communism once again raising their ugly heads, or about how there is "clearly" a conspiracy among leftists and American educators to "impose a false and debased understanding of America" upon our innocent children, or that the small number of bi- or trans-sexual individuals in this country are intent to impose their values upon the rest of us----why, then, you realize that their real "program" consists of two major things:
1) Preserve the stranglehold the extremely wealthy already have on the economy, primarily by continually cutting taxes that overwhelmingly favor the 1% and doubling down on their anti-union rhetoric to keep workers locked into a permanent state of weakness vis-a-vis employers and businesses; and,
2) Attacking and cutting any and all programs that direct policy and money toward the "rest of us," very much including trimming Medicare, nutritional and child assistance programs, drastically undercutting public education through attacks on its teachers and by directing tax dollars to private schools, many of which are religiously sponsored, and by "privatizing" any and all things that can be "captured back" from the government, wholly apart from whether or not such is logical or results in any improvements. Their "private is always better, more efficient, and less costly" is absolute nonsense and unsupported by facts, but this is of little concern to those who have long since jettisoned facts as the basis for anything.
What Tomasky essentially proposes is to continue and expand the efforts begun by the Biden Administration, supported by very narrow majorities in the past Congress, to "build back better" (a term which I find thoroughly uninspiring if accurate in its expression of intent). This runs the entire gamut from increased support for parents with children to investing in human, not robotic, labor.
A major problem, of course, is that Tomasky is likely "preaching to the choir" here. Those who most need to read this book -- because the facts therein are likely to help them understand that the world of "alternate facts" is a world of delusion -- are most likely not to be bothered picking it up.
For the rest of us though, it is a sound reminder that the blatant charges of "socialism" and "loss of your freedoms" is, um, well, simply, BS, shouts intended to ramp up rage and clamp down on listening or seeing.
Two hundred years ago Lincoln was just beginning his evolution into what became his membership in the then Whig Party. That party, in opposition to the then-Democrats, was FOR directing government efforts and dollars for the benefit of the people: expand transportation options (including steamships, more canals, better roads, and expansion of building railroads) and communication abilities including the telegraph system. Encourage small entrepreneurs and farmers, direct resources AWAY from those already doing quite-well-thank-you to those who showed up-and-coming talent. Expand education and educational institutions. And, in what we know become the most explosive issue of all, limit the exploitation of human labor in all ways, including through wage exploitation because of an imbalance of power between the ownership class and workers AND limiting the further expansion of the abominable institution of chattel slavery, which Lincoln saw as a blot upon the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Today's progressives (whatever name they go by) are following in Lincoln's and FDR's shoes. Their programs are not only like theirs, but they are as solid and productive as theirs proved to be.
The question is: will enough of us see through the smoke and mirrors of tribal warnings about "socialism -- eek!!!" in order to see the profound value in investing America's resources on behalf of the "rest of us"?
As one who has studied this period closely over the past 20 years, there is nothing truly new in Tomasky's book, but that it not in any way to "damn it with faint praise."
Quite the contrary, as his writing is clear, brisk, and program-specific. For anyone who did not live through the slow-moving but immensely counter-productive changes that began in the '70s -- or for those who just weren't paying much attention then -- this book makes everything quite clear.
What it also exposes is how the Right which has captured today's Republican Party actually has NO program ideas or proposals of any substance whatsoever! They have ably disguised this fact through their skillful and ongoing method of "picking at America's scabs" -- that is, constantly stirring up the culture wars "pot," and it has clearly worked to fool or -- perhaps more accurately -- create "cognitive dissonance" among millions of Americans so that they cannot get out of their "rage/resentment" mood long enough to consider facts or connect the dots.
For, once you look carefully through the constant warnings about socialism/communism once again raising their ugly heads, or about how there is "clearly" a conspiracy among leftists and American educators to "impose a false and debased understanding of America" upon our innocent children, or that the small number of bi- or trans-sexual individuals in this country are intent to impose their values upon the rest of us----why, then, you realize that their real "program" consists of two major things:
1) Preserve the stranglehold the extremely wealthy already have on the economy, primarily by continually cutting taxes that overwhelmingly favor the 1% and doubling down on their anti-union rhetoric to keep workers locked into a permanent state of weakness vis-a-vis employers and businesses; and,
2) Attacking and cutting any and all programs that direct policy and money toward the "rest of us," very much including trimming Medicare, nutritional and child assistance programs, drastically undercutting public education through attacks on its teachers and by directing tax dollars to private schools, many of which are religiously sponsored, and by "privatizing" any and all things that can be "captured back" from the government, wholly apart from whether or not such is logical or results in any improvements. Their "private is always better, more efficient, and less costly" is absolute nonsense and unsupported by facts, but this is of little concern to those who have long since jettisoned facts as the basis for anything.
What Tomasky essentially proposes is to continue and expand the efforts begun by the Biden Administration, supported by very narrow majorities in the past Congress, to "build back better" (a term which I find thoroughly uninspiring if accurate in its expression of intent). This runs the entire gamut from increased support for parents with children to investing in human, not robotic, labor.
A major problem, of course, is that Tomasky is likely "preaching to the choir" here. Those who most need to read this book -- because the facts therein are likely to help them understand that the world of "alternate facts" is a world of delusion -- are most likely not to be bothered picking it up.
For the rest of us though, it is a sound reminder that the blatant charges of "socialism" and "loss of your freedoms" is, um, well, simply, BS, shouts intended to ramp up rage and clamp down on listening or seeing.
Two hundred years ago Lincoln was just beginning his evolution into what became his membership in the then Whig Party. That party, in opposition to the then-Democrats, was FOR directing government efforts and dollars for the benefit of the people: expand transportation options (including steamships, more canals, better roads, and expansion of building railroads) and communication abilities including the telegraph system. Encourage small entrepreneurs and farmers, direct resources AWAY from those already doing quite-well-thank-you to those who showed up-and-coming talent. Expand education and educational institutions. And, in what we know become the most explosive issue of all, limit the exploitation of human labor in all ways, including through wage exploitation because of an imbalance of power between the ownership class and workers AND limiting the further expansion of the abominable institution of chattel slavery, which Lincoln saw as a blot upon the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Today's progressives (whatever name they go by) are following in Lincoln's and FDR's shoes. Their programs are not only like theirs, but they are as solid and productive as theirs proved to be.
The question is: will enough of us see through the smoke and mirrors of tribal warnings about "socialism -- eek!!!" in order to see the profound value in investing America's resources on behalf of the "rest of us"?
July 20, 2025
This book is standing the test of time, as it still is fully relevant and practical today as it was when it was written during the Biden Administration. Michael Tomasky's projections of what would happen in a second Trump Administration have been presciently on target. Without the application of competent Keynesian economic policies, the über-wealthy have become more so with inequality racing higher each year—Republican control of the government and Project 2025 have put that race on steroids, to the extent that heretofore basic safety net backstops (such as Medicare and Social Security) are being systematically dismantled. Tomasky offers a remedy for this societal malady, with the book's title providing a pointed hint at the solution.
Democratic Party factions such as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and the Third Way are being increasingly challenged by unapologetic proponents of progressive economics such as Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and AOC. Tomasky points out that, although this divergence may appear unsolvable, some wealthy donors have openly and substantively promoted taxation plans that significantly increase taxes on their wealth. The terminology used sometimes can be unclear to those hearing it—for example, Warren and Pete Buttigieg have said separately that they are capitalists (which serve to neutralize the inaccurate autocratic socialist epithets used against their positions).
Tomasky provides (if not a road map, at least) some highway signs to guide recovery from this unsustainable economic inequality. Those pointers are as follows:
1. Challenge the assumption that Republicans are better for the economy—it has been objectively documented that the economy performs best under Democratic governments.
2. Destroy the myth of Homo economicus (that is the notion that people are naturally rational and self-interested in their economic philosophy). People act out of more than just self interest—cooperation is the key to prosperity.
3. Associate equality with the founders—such as Madison and Jefferson, who were suspicious of unbridled business interests (not just FDR and LBJ).
4. Tie progressive economics to Freedom—it's not freedom if you work full time and are still in economic precarity. Freedom from economic uncertainty is needed to truly be productive.
5. Name these concepts, and don't just call it post-neoliberalism—if nothing else, call it Middle-Out Economics.
Connect the above ideas to ideals, and coordinate publicity at all levels to reduce public infighting. Tomasky mentions several organizations, such as the Roosevelt Institute among others, which are working to communicate these ideals.
How to successfully execute progressive economic policy will be a challenge since, as Tomasky points out, the Republicans have long since abandoned anything approaching bipartisanism in all but verbal deflections. Republican actions to tinker with election processes are also well documented and increasingly done in the open. Even so, there is significant overlap between economic progressives and Red state residents who are wary of losing the very social programs they depend on—stranger nexus incidents have occurred in the past, and it could happen again. With proper messaging and genuine communication with voters where they are, it is possible to enact Middle-Out economic policies—for the prosperity of all.
Democratic Party factions such as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and the Third Way are being increasingly challenged by unapologetic proponents of progressive economics such as Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and AOC. Tomasky points out that, although this divergence may appear unsolvable, some wealthy donors have openly and substantively promoted taxation plans that significantly increase taxes on their wealth. The terminology used sometimes can be unclear to those hearing it—for example, Warren and Pete Buttigieg have said separately that they are capitalists (which serve to neutralize the inaccurate autocratic socialist epithets used against their positions).
Tomasky provides (if not a road map, at least) some highway signs to guide recovery from this unsustainable economic inequality. Those pointers are as follows:
1. Challenge the assumption that Republicans are better for the economy—it has been objectively documented that the economy performs best under Democratic governments.
2. Destroy the myth of Homo economicus (that is the notion that people are naturally rational and self-interested in their economic philosophy). People act out of more than just self interest—cooperation is the key to prosperity.
3. Associate equality with the founders—such as Madison and Jefferson, who were suspicious of unbridled business interests (not just FDR and LBJ).
4. Tie progressive economics to Freedom—it's not freedom if you work full time and are still in economic precarity. Freedom from economic uncertainty is needed to truly be productive.
5. Name these concepts, and don't just call it post-neoliberalism—if nothing else, call it Middle-Out Economics.
Connect the above ideas to ideals, and coordinate publicity at all levels to reduce public infighting. Tomasky mentions several organizations, such as the Roosevelt Institute among others, which are working to communicate these ideals.
How to successfully execute progressive economic policy will be a challenge since, as Tomasky points out, the Republicans have long since abandoned anything approaching bipartisanism in all but verbal deflections. Republican actions to tinker with election processes are also well documented and increasingly done in the open. Even so, there is significant overlap between economic progressives and Red state residents who are wary of losing the very social programs they depend on—stranger nexus incidents have occurred in the past, and it could happen again. With proper messaging and genuine communication with voters where they are, it is possible to enact Middle-Out economic policies—for the prosperity of all.
January 19, 2023
Tomasky has written an approachable, conversational book on an attempted shift from the neoliberal political-economic paradigm over the past decade. He touches upon what neoliberalism is, where it came from as an ideology, how republicans and democrats have both bought into it and advanced policies that buy into its framework, and how it failed in the Great Recession. Tomasky is significantly more optimistic about how changes at left-leaning foundations and non-profits have been able to pull elected Democrats to a more progressive economic framework.
I think he overestimates the importance of this work, and is generally too remiss to criticize democratic administrations and legislators of the last 3 decades. For instance, he criticizes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for voting against the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2021 without noting that she and other progressives voted against this because centrists like Josh Gottheimer (who is not mentioned in the narrative at all) split the bipartisan bill off from the larger Build Back Better bill and then were happy to watch those investments in the care economy and green economy wither and die. If I really wanted to shift to a more progressive economic paradigm, I'd be blaming the Gottheimers of the world, not the AOCs. This fits into another criticism, where he does not question those who champion bipartisanship despite radicalization of the GOP. In general, Tomasky is clearly a guy with an amount of access who is most comfortable being kind to those in the circles he travels in even when it means he mis-aims or pulls his punches (his attempted rehabilitation of the Clinton and Obama administrations' acceptance of neoliberalism is a bit ham-handed).
There are good takeaways here - the last chapter on linking economic freedom to political freedom and its implications for messaging are especially important - but I think Gary Gerstle's "The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order" is a better work for understanding these paradigm shifts.
I think he overestimates the importance of this work, and is generally too remiss to criticize democratic administrations and legislators of the last 3 decades. For instance, he criticizes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for voting against the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2021 without noting that she and other progressives voted against this because centrists like Josh Gottheimer (who is not mentioned in the narrative at all) split the bipartisan bill off from the larger Build Back Better bill and then were happy to watch those investments in the care economy and green economy wither and die. If I really wanted to shift to a more progressive economic paradigm, I'd be blaming the Gottheimers of the world, not the AOCs. This fits into another criticism, where he does not question those who champion bipartisanship despite radicalization of the GOP. In general, Tomasky is clearly a guy with an amount of access who is most comfortable being kind to those in the circles he travels in even when it means he mis-aims or pulls his punches (his attempted rehabilitation of the Clinton and Obama administrations' acceptance of neoliberalism is a bit ham-handed).
There are good takeaways here - the last chapter on linking economic freedom to political freedom and its implications for messaging are especially important - but I think Gary Gerstle's "The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order" is a better work for understanding these paradigm shifts.
January 5, 2024
Tomasky provides a detailed economic history in the US, from the Great Depression, to 1970s stagflation, to neoliberalism, to Reagan and supply-side economics, etc. Americans and especially Republicans have taken the core values of neoliberalism to heart: that the government should stay out and leave the free market be. Since the 80s, income inequality has grown tremendously and has disproportionately affected minorities as well. Through some history, a little theory, but almost all facts and data, Tomasky explains that middle-out economics are the right idea, giving power to the people, not powerful corporations. Keynesian economic policy has shown a positive effect, from FDR to the Biden Administration, but the economy has mainly leaned on supply-side policies in this time span of raging inequality. As the book mentions, Americans heavily value democracy and freedom. And to many Americans, these values are threatened when government starts interfering with the economy. But what about people working full time that live in poverty? Or a single mother that can’t work the hours she wants because childcare isn’t affordable? Or those born in marginalized communities that will attend underfunded schools and not be able to pay for college? That is not freedom. Nor is the top 1% holding almost as much wealth as the bottom 90% in any way a democracy. Real democracy is an economy where the people have the power, not the top 0.1%, the wealthy corporations and monopolies. Real freedom is the freedom for all to achieve their potential in the economy. Tomasky emphasizes that economic justice, freedom, and democracy are all one fight, and I couldn’t agree more.
December 12, 2023
I just finished the book by Michael Tomasky called “The Middle Out: The Rise of Progressive Economics and a Return to Shared Prosperity.”
I hadn’t understood President Biden’s mantra about “The Middle Out” until I read this book.
There are many interesting insights from a messaging angle for Democrats to push, such as what is proselytized by Senator Warren and Sen Sanders.
BUT, there is little truth in the economic arguments or policy claims in the book.
The underlying assumption is that free-market capitalism doesn’t work for everyone, especially the middle class.
So, government actions should be targeted at helping the middle class in whatever way possible without consideration of tradeoffs.
This is a path to serfdom, as Hayek would say.
Unfortunately, many of the #NatCon and “new right” groups are championing these big-government policies when government is the problem.
I encourage you to read this book to see what progressives are trying to do to expand the size and scope of government, and it appears this is the playbook used by Joe Biden.
#Congress #Biden #econtwitter
I hadn’t understood President Biden’s mantra about “The Middle Out” until I read this book.
There are many interesting insights from a messaging angle for Democrats to push, such as what is proselytized by Senator Warren and Sen Sanders.
BUT, there is little truth in the economic arguments or policy claims in the book.
The underlying assumption is that free-market capitalism doesn’t work for everyone, especially the middle class.
So, government actions should be targeted at helping the middle class in whatever way possible without consideration of tradeoffs.
This is a path to serfdom, as Hayek would say.
Unfortunately, many of the #NatCon and “new right” groups are championing these big-government policies when government is the problem.
I encourage you to read this book to see what progressives are trying to do to expand the size and scope of government, and it appears this is the playbook used by Joe Biden.
#Congress #Biden #econtwitter
June 7, 2023
An excellent, readable account of economic theories from Adam Smith to John Maynard Keynes to Milton Friedman. The bulk of the book argues that Friedman's neoliberal ideas captured the US economy in the 1980s, along with many world economies, and have not led to increased prosperity or freedom for the middle class. A redistribution of wealth went to the rich rather than the middle along with the rich's ability to influence their own economic and political freedom.
Republicans (and some Democrats like Manchin) still hold to failed neoliberal truisms: supply-side economics, lower taxes for the rich, less government intervention in markets, fewer regulations, less gov spending, the market will be self-regulating (reminiscent of Smith's "invisible hand").
Tomasky argues for a new economic paradigm: the Middle Out. By focusing on middle class economic programs the society will become more democratic, with less inequality, shared prosperity and happiness.
Republicans (and some Democrats like Manchin) still hold to failed neoliberal truisms: supply-side economics, lower taxes for the rich, less government intervention in markets, fewer regulations, less gov spending, the market will be self-regulating (reminiscent of Smith's "invisible hand").
Tomasky argues for a new economic paradigm: the Middle Out. By focusing on middle class economic programs the society will become more democratic, with less inequality, shared prosperity and happiness.
December 28, 2022
This is an excellent polemic for a new approach to economics that better reflects how Americans live and relate to each other and to politics as a whole. Clearly written, cogently argued there are villains (Milton Friedman) and heroes (Keynes and the modern economists who learn from him and the Occupy movement).
Recent events and developments are put into sharper focus as Tomasky presents economic history in vivid terms (really!).
I was inclined to appreciate this book before I picked up; for years I’ve made some of these arguments and pointed out the hollow nature behind the assumptions of economics as usual. Still, I now have a better understanding, better arguments and facts to back them up.
Recent events and developments are put into sharper focus as Tomasky presents economic history in vivid terms (really!).
I was inclined to appreciate this book before I picked up; for years I’ve made some of these arguments and pointed out the hollow nature behind the assumptions of economics as usual. Still, I now have a better understanding, better arguments and facts to back them up.
September 25, 2023
A well written, engaging discussion of the rise of capitalism and neoliberal thinking; the historic case for and evidence of economic decisions grounded in human well-being; and some clear ideas for how the public and nonprofit sectors can advance a new conception of and approach to the economy. This book is largely based in white, western thought, with little to no mention of indigenous nations, politics, or world views, or frankly, those of any other communities of culture. This is a big miss, but not enough to not recommend this book as part of an overall look at building economies for life.
August 7, 2023
I read "If we can keep it" by the same author and really enjoyed the exceptional book. This one may not reach that level, but is still be very good one. The coverage of the history of neoliberalism was outstanding. Even I know this topic quite well, but it still provided a lot of fresh and interesting opinions and stories. I was quite pessimistic after seeing how the Great Recession was handled, the later chapters describes many people and organization have been working on turning the tide, which is encouraging. Let's see how history will play out in the next decade or two.
November 25, 2024
Started this before the election and this was written in 2022 when there was a hope of more progressive policies. So hard to continue post election. But very interesting to hear the history of how progressive policy has risen and fallen out of favor.
His call out of progressives needing to create more messaging was an interesting perceptive. And I agree based on the fact we see so many people vote for personality and fear mongering. But damn it’s dismal to think that the American public is so easily persuaded by a narrative with no real basis in fact.
His call out of progressives needing to create more messaging was an interesting perceptive. And I agree based on the fact we see so many people vote for personality and fear mongering. But damn it’s dismal to think that the American public is so easily persuaded by a narrative with no real basis in fact.
December 12, 2022
Highly readable and energizing. Not only clearly and incisively takes apart the fallacies of neoliberalism and trickle-down economics, the author proposes reasonable alternatives and, most heartening, shows us the numbers of people of intelligence, energy and influence who are working toward implementing those alternatives. Recommended.
August 22, 2022
An informative read on the economic challenges Americans are facing today. Tomasky presents some interesting concepts in changing how we view capitalism.
ARC was provided by NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
ARC was provided by NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.
February 2, 2023
Helpful in providing a perspective on liberal economics, contrasted with the prevailing economic theory of today. It’s strays into the realm of polemic, as the author’s bias is fully on display in places. Still, a very enlightening read.
July 19, 2025
I was worried that this book would already be outdated given that it was written in 2022 and our politics have changed substantially since then. But the historical analysis is great and the ideas at the end are still strong and should be put to use.
October 30, 2022
Great for economics geeks and those not. Well written and compelling.
August 18, 2023
3.44 sterren.
May 18, 2024
A nice recap of what's happened economically since 1945 and some ideas for the future, but nothing particularly actionable unless you run communications for a Democratic politician.
November 20, 2022
I loved this book. A very clear guide on how to save democracy and a very understandable description of neoliberalism and Keynesian economic theories.
June 23, 2023
Ok, but way too heavy handed and the author makes no distinction between his opinion and facts.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews