|
Post by smartarse on Jun 9, 2006 17:09:49 GMT 10
Yesterday i finished a really good book that i would be recommend to anyone - Chalmers Johnson The Sorrows of Empire (2004).
I'll spare you the tryhard book review routine and just say this: this is probably the best book/article/website i've ever read on the topic of the US military bases and alliances.
Its very detailed, and some of that detail is unnecessary for the purposes of debates, but there is some great info and fantastic examples. Plus its written for an intelligent but unaware audience, so it explains all the history of the bases (ever wondered why the US has a naval base in Cuba, given that Cuban-American relations aren't exactly close? Ever wondered how Pueto Rico came to be a US colony? those as well as all the more familiar bases in asia, europe and the middle east are all discussed).
So as i said in the "US military bases in asia" thread, the issue of US military bases is very common - and a really, really good debate. And this book is your one stop shop.
It also covers some good background on the US influence on globalisation and free trade (so some history of the WTO, World Bank and IMF - which every debater needs to read sooner or later).
Don't let the first 2 or 3 chapters put you off, the middle part of the book is great, and the ideas in the earlier section are actually useful if you're interested in having a really comprehensive understanding of the issues.
The author is an unrepentant Lefty, and i love him for that, but some of you might not appreciate that as much as i do, but regardless, the history and examples are excellent (except when he basically blames the US for the 1975 Whitlam dismissal - even i think thats going too far - but the rest is pretty damn good!)
4.5 stars.
|
|
|
Post by Chancellor of the Exchequer on Jun 21, 2006 16:53:23 GMT 10
As part of some stuff that I'm doing to help out with the MDR, I recently purchased and subsequently read Peter Singer's latest book, "The Ethics of What We Eat".
There's an old adage - oft-quoted in this book - that if slaughterhouses had glass walls, then we'd all be vegetarian. Singer certainly tries to open up the process involved in getting most of the meat to our tables, often in quite excruciating detail. It's something that I think most people should read - or at least be aware of (though, reading it a few short hours after consuming a big parma down at the pub, as I did, probably isn't the best idea). He does this through looking at the eating habits of three American families - one a pretty much average American family that buys the standard stuff, another that is more conscientious, but still consumes meat, and a third that is strictly vegan.
The book looks not only at the ethical concerns of the animals, but takes into account issues of environmental impact (of both meat farming and growing crops), as well as the welfare and working conditions of those producing the meat/crops, and looks briefly at issues of fair trade. His conclusion is, predictably enough, that strict veganism the most ethically and environmentally sound practice.
Though, in Singer's defence, the book does generally try to take into account other factors (cost, time, convenience), and the tone is generally quite reasonable and considered (though he does slip up every now and then). Singer is enough of a pragmatist to realise that not everyone will convert to strict veganism, and follow it religiously, but he does think that people can make far better choices than they do now.
In an interesting side note relating to another thread on this board, Singer advocates localism - though is quick to point out that it is not good in all circumstances. He notes that production methods overseas may be cheaper and more environmentally efficient (because they use less fuel for heat, for example), so much so that even with the cost of transport, they are more environmentally friendly than local goods. Other things like the benefit of your money to your local farmer versus the benefit to a poor Bangladeshi farmer are also included.
In summary, the first couple of sections are enlightening and sometimes shocking reads, and reveal some really important issues about our food that quite frankly can effect whole communities. The third section, dealing with the vegans, is kind of predictable and not that interesting, but the last two chapters, that bring everything together, are definitely worth reading.
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Sept 6, 2006 15:57:30 GMT 10
There is a great series of books out at the moment called "Books That Shook The World", and I want to highly recommend them to everyone. What makes this series so brilliant, is that they aren't just reprints of classic books, but they are biographies of the books! So you get the historical/political background to the books as well as some useful biographical information on the author (plus obviously there are selected sections of the original work included too) - all of which makes a huge difference to your understanding of their work, as well as being very interesting in its own right. I read two of the books this week (they are very brief, roughly 150 pages each), firstly Thomas Paine's The Rights of Man, which i read (the original that is) in Political Theory class, (and very much enjoyed) but i can honestly say that my understanding and appreciation of both the brilliance and importance of the work have been much enhanced. Given all the current debates about civil rights (in terms of counter-terrorism, and workers rights, and the bill of rights...etc) this is a vitally important book to read and absorb. For all you people who often say to me "i don't know how to make rights sound important and powerful in debates" you should READ THIS BOOK! Second i read the biography of Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species, which is obviously incredibly topical at the moment because of the 'intelligent design' debate in Australia and the US. What i didn't really appreciate about Darwin's work is that he was writting it at a time when creationism was not only the norm, but an actively defended norm, and that Origin is explictly written to confront those beliefs, but to a certain extent is restrained by the culture of the day (for example in Origin Darwin studiously avoids any mention of human origin/evolution, restricting himself to a discussion of animal evolution. Of course readers quickly grasped the implications and eventually Darwin was forced into the debate over human origins). Anyway, i wanted this to be brief, so i'll wrap it up. But in short these are great books, and any serious debater should do their best to read a couple of them (there are about 10 of them in total, not all are available at present). I think the two i read are amongst the most useful, but the others (which include Plato's Republic, Marx's Das Capital, the Bible, Quran and others) are all incredibly important works that will help deepen your analysis and understanding of a range of common debates. Plus they are really, really short! So 5 Stars!!! www.abc.net.au/rn/perspective/stories/2006/1720168.htm#
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Sept 19, 2006 14:43:21 GMT 10
Earlier today i finished Paul Kennedy's The Parliament of Man: The past, present and future of the United Nations (2006) and its quite a good book. Its very new and a little long, so its expensive (i assume a paperback edition will come out soon), but if you only read one book about the UN, this is one of the best. Kennedy's discussion of the UN is thorough, but doesn't try to be comprehensive (which is good because the UN is hideously complicated), so you get a good broad sweep of info, covering all the major elements of the UN (Security, Human Rights, Economic and Social development) without boring you with endless accronyms and reports. Ancedotes and background stories are sprinkled throughout the text to help humanise the story and to give you sense of the breath-taking optimism that is at the heart of the UN Charter. Its written for a audience with little understanding of the UN, so its good for those new to the issues, and in the final chapter he outlines a number of reform models and gives a quick glimpse into the arguments for and against each of them. The analysis of security and human rights are probably the most important for debaters, and in this respect this is a good text for beginners. The chapter on HRs is like a compressed and simplified version of the much more sophisticated work of Geoffrey Robinson in Crimes Against Humanity (which was recently updated - penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780141024639,00.html) and the discussion of the security issues is like a steamlined version of the phenomenally detailed UN Peacekeeping, American Policy, and the Uncivil Wars of the 1990s, edited by William Durch ( stimson.org/pubs.cfm?ID=5) which is a little dated now but is one of the best things i ever read in terms of preparing for tournaments. But while Robinson and Durch offer incredible detail, Kennedy gives you more than enough to survive (and do well) in 95% of debates about the UN, global security and peacekeeping/peacemaking. So i recommend it highly, and if you want more detail then those other works would decent options.
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Nov 27, 2006 14:46:01 GMT 10
Hey folks. I'm not sure if many people are reading this forum at the moment, but work is pretty quiet today so i thought i'd add a few reviews of some of the things i've read recently. To begin with, i'll talk about Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilisations: The Remaking of World Order. This is one of those books that you hear a lot about, but honestly its worth reading because the popular discussions of it are at best simplistic, at worst a gross distortion. to summarise his thesis in as few worlds as possible, Huntington says that civilisations (i.e. - dominant cultural identies) have replaced political ideology as the key source of potential conflicts. So whereas in the last 50 years we killed each other over ideas about politics (democracy Vs communism Vs authoritarianism) now we kill each other over ideas about culture. But bare in mind his argument isn't that a 'clash of civilisations' is inevitable (as the media and dumb politicans tend to suggest), it is simply that culture is the now most salient geopolitical factor, and thus the most likely trigger for hostilities. In fact much of the book is dedicated to explaining how to avoid a 'clash' between civilisations. Huntington has a slightly odd notion of what equals a civilisation. he says the West counts as one, not because its culture is particularly unified (think of the difference in values between the netherlands and the US), but simply because there are some broad commonalities and they are markedly different to all other cultures - sort of a culture by reduction. Conversely he counts Japan as a single culture (b/c its obviously united sense of identity and history) but then has "Sinic" or Confuncian (as in China) which includes all the indo-Chinese states (like Vietnam - which makes sense) but also Korea (which makes no sense at all to anyone who has been to Korea). he then has "Islamic" which unites Malaysia and Saudi Arabia - which is dubious but arguable. But i wont go on about that - if you want to know which other groups qualify as a 'civilisation' to him, you'll have to read the book. But basically his theory is that because culture is the new dominant paradigm, a new global order is needed - a multicultural (in the way the word is used in Australia - i.e. tolerance and coexistance) manner. Which all sounds great. But then in the last chapter he goes completely mental and says that while multiculturalism is needed at the global level, within given civilisations governments should pursue programs that re-invigorate the cultural identity (in other words, only have tolerance for differing cultures between states, but not within states! Thats like saying "i don't have any problems with Asians, i just hope my daughter doesn't marry one" ) To put that more formally (in 1st Principle terms) Huntington is the other end of the spectrum to people like Friedman and Fukuyama who think liberal democracy are the univeral human truths. Huntington is more of a 'cultural relativist. Anyway, what i think debaters will find most interesting is the small section at the end that talks about (bizzarely) UN Security Council reform! He suggests a model that would be really interesting to debate (its quite defensible, although astonishing unlikely). Basically he says permenant seats in the UNSC should be given out on the basis of civlisations, with the West getting 2 seats (US and UK) in recognition of their dominant position, with all other civilisations getting one (which would mean china and Japan getting a seat each, plus Russia, and one permenant seat for the Islamic world) leaving France as the big loser in this formula). so that would be about 8 permanent seats, with another dozen-odd rotating seats baased on elections. This is actually a pretty interesting idea and i suggest people have a serious think about it (as well as reading the book - or at least the 5 pages or so at the end that deal with it because it was a few weeks ago for me and i might get the numbers wrong) before running it. But its as good (and bad) as any other model i've ever heard used in a UNSC debate. Overall this a book that makes enormous sense to me, until the last chapter which is totally insanely conservative stuff that only Howard and Abbott could agree with. In any case its much more subtle (and interesting) that the popular understanding and its well worth a read given how often its quoted by people who have never read it. Once you read it you should read something from the competiting 1st Principle disicpline - like The End of History or The World is Flat to get a sense of the whole spectrum.
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Nov 27, 2006 15:18:54 GMT 10
OK, so you can see how quiet it is - because i'm posting another review! (i guess if i don't end up with a job as a result of the post-election re-shuffle i'll have lots more time for reading and posting reviews while i look for work.... ) Anyway... another book i read recently is Fair Trade For All: How Trade Can Promote Development by Joseph Stiglitz. I'd never heard of it - Nic bought it for me for my b'day - but Stiglitz is pretty famous. He used to be Chief Economist at the World Bank until he decided it was totally fucked and is now its most respected critic. More info on the book and the man here www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/ . The CV is important because it will give you credability in debates if you want to use the model i'm about to describe. In Fair Trade for All Stiglitz outlines all the familiar problems with the WTO and world trade in respect to developing nations. Since his criticism are fairly generic (although accurate nevertheless) i won't repeat them other than to say that he says market access is a key issue - poor nations need more access to the developed world, without having to expose their fragile economies to unfair competition too soon. They also need fairer rules in respect to conflict resolution and technical issues (like 'country of origin' regulations, but i won't say any more about that here unless someone asks). So because the world trade system is broadly based on norms of equal-access (Most Favoured Nation status, Product Not Process, National Treatment, etc) Stiglitz proposes the obvious alternative - an unequal or biased trading system. Now it should be said that Stiglitz is in favour of free trade, just not the sort of forced, one-size-fits-all, IMF/WTO approach - which is an argument i have much sympathy for. The problem in debates is that its easy to propose a model of traditional free trade, but on the other side the counter models are usually overly complex or ill-defined. Stiglitz offers an elegent solution. He says that the new rules for the WTO should be this - any nation that is richer than another (based on GDP and GDP per captia) should have to give totally open access (in terms of trade barriers, not safety rules, etc - no tarrifs or quotas). But the poorer nation should be able to erect trade barreirs against the richer state until it catches up (although it doesn't have to if it doesn't want to). that way poorer states can protect "infant industries" until they are ready to compete. It means economies like the US, the EU and Japan would have to open up to virtually everybody, and African and some Asian states would be able to prevent the flood of goods from other states washing away their industries. The problem of what this would mean for China is clearly an issue, and one you'd have to have an answer for before you ran this model. Maybe people might like to discuss it here with some of the more economic-y minded folks. Obviously you'd need to insert some caveats - such as a phase in period and the usual protections for environmental harm or labour abuse, but this model gives you a great starting point to defining an alternative trading system. And if you mention that its Stiglitz's idea you'll wipe the smile off the faces of smug pricks who think its pie-in-the-sky. Plus i think if you ran this model it would be ok to say that more stringent labour and enviromental standards would be enforceable (because the biased trading rules reduces the 'race to the bottom' mentality) so the developed world would get important concessions out of this too - in fact i think those issues would make a great extention... Its a fairly short and easy to read book. Its light on jargon and there isn't too much arcane WTO trivia in it. So if you're new to these issues you'll learn a lot - although this wouldn't be a good book to read first about trade issues. Bare in mind also that Stiglitz doesn't use the term "fair trade" in the more technical sense that is meant by the broad "fair trade movement" - fairtrade.asn.au/ but i think its still a reasonable definition because it is a totally different model of development than the traditional WTO/free trade system so the pro-free trade side can still run the same case. However you should also be aware of the arguments for and against the other notion of 'fair trade' - because thats the most obvious and likely definition of the term. Overall this book was interesting but not exciting. But if you're serious about doing well at IVs then you need to read a couple of books like this.
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Nov 29, 2006 9:15:47 GMT 10
OK here is the last of the reviews i'm going to write (this week at least Last night i finished a really good book about India called In Spite of the Gods: The Strange Rise of Modern India by British journalist Edward Luce and its a fun read. It only came out in october, so its perfectly up-to-date: penguin.com.au/new/new-title-details.cfm?SBN=0316729817 I plugged away at it during the election campaign, so i only read it in small sections and usually when i was pretty tired, which isn't how i normally like to read, so i don't feel like i fully absorbed this one. But its still a fascinating read and a fantastic introduction to India for anyone who doesn't know much about it. It covers (in a lightweight, journalistic sense) the modern history of India - its culture (Hindu, Muslim and Christian), castes, politics (and the links with caste) and of course economy. Its almost more of a travel book than a scholarly work because there are lots of anecdotes and interviews rather than deep analysis. But with a country as big and complex as India thats about all you can hope to do in one book. I won't say much more about it because there are no models and few arguments (although he does inadvertanly pick up on a point made by Huntington in Clash of Civilisations, which is that "modernisation" doesn't equal "westernisation" - because while India is clearly modernising at a phenomenal rate, its not turning into America. Instead he describes a few broad sociological trends - "Sanskritisation" and "Westoxification" - which he thinks are some of the hallmarks of 'modern' India). Instead its just a great insight into all the important aspects of Indian society. But really i think this is an excellent book for debaters. India features prominently in more and more debates and this book gives you enough depth to do any of those debates well. I hope to get the chance to re-read it in the not to distant future.
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Jan 30, 2007 9:01:47 GMT 10
OK here is a very quick review of a very small book i just read, its called In Search of Stability by (eds)Goldie, Doublas & Furnass (2006), its a collection of very brief essays on different aspects of environmental and social sustainability, published by the CSIRO.
I'll be blunt, this is not a super-sophisticated book but it does cover pretty much all the essential information and ideas you need to understand environmental debates (especially in the Australian context, which will be very useful for Easters). Its written in an extremely straightforward, accessable manner. Partially because it is pitched at such a basic level, some of the chapters can be a little boring, but i recommend the chapters on Water, Population, Urban Design and (my favourite) Post-growth economies (strongly recommend). If you're wondering why 'urban design' is something a debater needs to know, then you obviously weren't at the Monash Internal BP comp GF last year, because that was the topic!
Given the current political climate (locally and globally) there are going to be A LOT of environment topics at Easters, Australs and smaller tournaments (including DAV Schools which many of you will be adjudicating) and if you want to understand those debates, and be able to sound like you know what you're talking about, then a book like this is perfect.
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Mar 19, 2007 12:34:49 GMT 10
Well its with a real sense of irony that i post this review of the book i read last week The Trouble With Diversity by Walter Benn Michaels. I say irony because as some of you are probably aware, this is Cultural Diversity Week in Victoria! This is a really interesting book, some of which i agree with very strongly, and some of which i think goes too far, but all of which i found extremely thought-provoking. The Trouble With Diversity hasn't been released in Australia yet, i got my copy imported (which most bookstores will happily do and surprisingly is not very expensive) after reading a review in the NYT while i was at Worlds (i found a link to that review - nytimes.com/2006/12/24/books/review/Caldwell.t.html?ex=1324616400&en=b51b1100e7162899&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss which will almost certainly be better than my efforts to summarise the thesis). Michaels core argument is that the current focus on promoting respect for 'cultural diversity' has distracted attention from the more important need to promote social equality. Let me be clear, Michaels is not a racist, but he thinks (rightly in my opinion) that the if the purpose of programs like Affirmative Action in univeristies is simply to create a society where 13% of rich people are black (the rough representation of African-Americans in the general population) then its not actually a very good policy. Universities like Harvard have AA and 'cultural diversity' programs, which means that there is a fair number of black, asian and other racial groups represented in the student body. but what Harvard doesn't have is any poor people (only 3% of the student population comes from the lowest quartile of the household incomes) so what has actually been achieved? Discrimination against wealthy minorities has been defeated, but the larger project of lifting all people out of poverty has been forgotten. Its the difference between Barack Obama's "there is no black america or hispanic america or white america" philosophy (which is plainly wrong, but makes people feel good) and John Edwards' "two americas (rich and poor, with the gap increasing)" which is true and important, but which makes people feel uncomfortable so is ignored. Its not that Michaels doesn't want to see black people get rich, he does (and so do I), but his interest is in creating a society where no one is poor, not one where the poor contain the 'right' mixture of colours and races. The problem of poverty isn't that black people are over-represented amongst the poor, its that there are poor people at all. So instead of AA based on race, Michaels suggests the radical poicy of AA based on socio-economics. It will obviously never happen, but its fascinating to think about (and would be a very interesting counter-model in an AA debate). I highly recommend this book - its quite short, its easy to read (quite funny in several places) and is a unique perspective on one of the most important political issues - multiculturalism. Anyone who wants to borrow my copy is welcome to it.
|
|
|
Post by Chancellor of the Exchequer on Aug 18, 2007 14:40:08 GMT 10
In an attempt to avoid doing any actual substantive work, I've been doing a bit of reading lately, part of which was "The Wal-Mart Effect" by Charles Fishman.
I'm sure you've all heard of Wal-Mart - for those of you who haven't, it's a giant retail store in the US that sells stuff ridiculously cheap (think K-Mart, Bunnings and Safeways all rolled into one, with really low prices). They sell practically everything, they're the largest employer in the US and the fourth largest employer in the world (behind the Chinese Army, the UK Health System and the Indian Railways). They were also, until recently the largest company in the world, though ExxonMobil overtook them on the back of rising oil prices. It's expanding around the world, and has come under fire for some questionable business practices
All this, and nobody knows really all that much about them - Wal-Mart doesn't release much data to the public, and most suppliers of Wal-Mart are reluctant to talk to the media, as is Wal-Mart itself. The book itself takes a look at various aspects of Wal-Mart's operations, from business philosophy, to the environment, from labour standards to production processes. It touches on aspects of global economics as well as corporate social responsibility, and takes a look at what Wal-Mart is doing to repair its image, which has been somewhat tarnished. It's a very well-written and even-handed account, looking at the good and the bad, as well as some quirky facts along the way.
In a way, Wal-Mart represents much of the best and the worst of globalisation, and those who remember the heated discussion had on another thread on globalisation a while back will likely enjoy this book.
I'd highly recommend the book, as it's very informative, and also an enjoyable read.
|
|
|
Post by bookeditor on Aug 18, 2007 16:12:25 GMT 10
In all debating clear, succinct articulation is vital. Hence, I recommend the following book about English expression:
The Complete Plain Words, by Ernest Gowers.
Gowers was a man of incredible erudition - a lawyer and civil servant. He discusses the thorny issues of English writing and speaking, from sexism to new words and grammatical errors, and is entertaining and witty at many points. For instance his chapter about the Canadian Defence Dept's "buzzword generator" is hilarious. It was a series of three columns with fancy words like "interconnect" , "manufacturing" , "schematic" etc. For any media release or letter a random number generator would pick three of the words to make a buzzword phrase!
The chapters on troubles with verbs and punctuation are outstanding. Gowers is meticulous without being dogmatic about rules; when there is a genuine matter of contention among experts he says as such.
In the final chapter Gowers discusses the merits and flaws of seven specimens of writing which represent the spectrum. The first is mediocre and the last is masterful. This book is a classic and, in my opinion, essential for any writer or speaker to maintain a high quality in the technical aspects of English expression. Indeed, it is the book recommended by the Rationalist Society of Australia for anyone who is contributing an article to their magazine. It is the best 20 dollars you will ever spend to improve your English.
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Jun 15, 2008 17:28:32 GMT 10
Ravi's recent review of The Porn Report was both interesting and made me feel guilty for not posting any reviews for a while. Since i just spent a relaxing afternoon finishing of a newly released book i feel compelled to post some info about it. The book is Supercapitalism by Robert Reich. It was published a few weeks ago - i heard about it when the author was interviewed on lateline (available here: www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2251929.htm). At the time i had just finished Paul Krugman's Conscience of a Liberal which Roland had urged me to read. Both books cover some of the same terrain, but are different in some significant ways. Conscience of a Liberal is more of a standard 'left vs right' political dicussion - essentially Krugman justifying his progressive economic views on taxation, corporate goverance and state intervention. What marks it out is the lively and informative historical perspective - starting with the so called "Gilded Age"and finishing up with the current ascendancy of neo-liberalism. If you haven't read this sort of stuff before you really should. For some reason these sorts of books are incredibly common in the American political context, but are less common - and certainly less commentated on - when written by Australians, about Australia (which has generally followed a very similar path). So although debates about taxation and corporate goverance are usually not high on the list of people's favourite they are very common and this is a good background to many of those debates. Roland and I have been recommending it to people for the last few months. Supercapitalism goes a little further, and while Reich is clearly of a very similar political persuasion to Krugman, their conclusions differ in some important ways. Whereas Krugman lements the growth in economic inequality that has occured in the US over the past 2-3 decades, which he says resulted from the deregulation (and reduced taxation) of corporations and the upper class, Reich is more interested in understanding why that happened, and what that means for the future. In essence, the thesis of supercapitalism is that the trends that Krugman discusses did not happen as a result of corruption or conspiracy by political or coporate leaders. The principle driver was technology which facilitated a globalisation of production and consumption. This unleashed forces which have partially overwhelmed the checks and balances that should exist in democratic societies - but again not because of any devious plot, but simply because globalisation allowed companies to become bigger, and competition forced them to become fiercer and as those forces feed off each other the result was predictable (pressure on governments to reduce regulation and restrictions). But the reason why thats not a plot of a conspiracy is that everyone is involved in it - its not corporations against society, its soceity driving corporations to reduce prices and boost profits (for shareholders - which in the age of superannuation is everyone). Reich says that people have two sides of their brains - the consumer half which craves the best deal, and the citizen part which wants a clean environment and good working standards and an equitable society. The problem is that one side of that equation is well organised and well resourced and the other has become detached or disempowered. If you read Krugman, and you're pressed for time, you can probably skip ahead to the last two chapters of Reich, since thats where things become really interesting. Reich provides some disturbingly compelling arguments against 'corporate social responsibility' (which is odd for a progressive, and hard to do in a debate). He goes well beyond that standard "corporations are just profit maximers" line and looks at the capacity of corporations to make 'moral' decisions, and the appropriateness (or lack there of) of using shareholders money in that way. For the sake of brevity i'll stop here and just say that the last two chapters are chock full of good ideas and arguments for cases on corporate social responsibility, corporate goverance and legal accountability, election funding and many of the general economic issues canvassed by Krugman. If you're feeling a bit light-on in the economics department then you could do worse than reading both of these books. If you feel pretty comfortable in economics debates, then i'd skip Krugman, but Reich is worth the effort.
|
|