Budget-deficit

This book, Bucking the Deficit: Economic Policymaking in America, is a gripping read. So many Americans today are interested in learning more about the economy and fiscal policy, and this is truly the book for them. In clear, precise prose, the book discusses the economic policymaking process and the limitations faced by the executive branch of government. While your favorite political junkie will love this book, it is also accessible for the average American.

I am one of the authors of this book. Cal and I wrote it because so many people say the economy is the most important issue affecting their voting decisions, yet few really understand the economic policymaking process, the limits of what the President and Congress can do, and the current economic issues we are grappling with (e.g., balancing the budget). This book was written for the average American who wants to know more about these important issues. We focused on making it readible and intuitive. It's not full of a lot of jargon. If you want to make a more informed vote this November, if you want more insight into when politicians are telling you the truth about the economy and when they are lying, give it a read

Well written and documented with numerous tables, this book makes a compelling case for limiting debt by reducing citizen's dependence on the government and supporting private sector growth. Recommended for informed general readers; upper-division graduates and up.

Every serious political activist should own a copy of "The National Debt from FDR (1940) to Clinton (1996) by C.L.T. member Robert E. Kelly, with a foreword by Jeff Jacoby, now available in bookstores. A fascinating read with evereything you really want to know about the federal government in one compact place.

A beautiful book with beautiful words

Neely brings an informed and interesting perspective to problems of illegitimacy, crime, and welfare dependency. This book deserves to be read by everyone interested in really understanding these problems beyond the sound-bite level.

A wonderful, vibrant, and energetic treatise on the Republican vision for a Better America. Packed with specificity not often seen by presidential candidates, Bob Dole and Jack Kemp lay out exactly what they would do if elected as President and Vice President, respectively. They provide their reasons for policy ideas and explain how and why they would work to unleash the full potential of the American Economy. The book is well structured, starting out by laying out the ideas of the Dole-Kemp Economic Plan and its goals. The remainder of the book is devoted to elaborating on those ideas, with it folded together into a cohesive framework in the conclusion. I closed the book feeling refreshed and optimistic for the future of America. But I was also saddened by the fact that Dole and Kemp never had the opportunity to demonstrate the efficacy of their vision. I would recommend this book to conservatives and non-conservatives alike. Conservatives will be inspired by the Dole-Kemp vision for a more Prosperous America. Non-conservatives will perhaps gain insight into the heart of Republican ideals, possibly even dispelling some common myths about the GOP - e.g. lacking compassion, favoring the rich, etc.

Very intriguing approach to balancing the federal budget. Mr. Friedman's thoughts were actually implemented in part by Congress, saving the taxpayers approximately $60 Billion over five years. Easy to read, although Mr. Friedman takes a few controversial positions.

I BELIVE IT'S A GOOD BOOK. IT TEACHES YOU ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE IN GERMANY WHENT THROUGH!!!!!

"The Great American Deception" by Ravi Batra is good theater but bad economics. Batra tries to show how free trade will damage America's economy. Batra does make a brave stand against the current conventional wisdom but he ultimately comes up short.

The biggest error that Batra makes is by using historical "evidence" to back up his claims. The problem is that Batra uses economic data from a time period where the data is not only not accurate but is the result of a vastly different American economy. Trying to compare America's economy of only forty years ago to today's is like comparing the US economy to South Korea's. What is good for South Korea is by no means good for the US.

Batra does effectively debunk the free trade for developing economies though. However, this is done with caveats. An economy must first be large enough to supply its needs from internal production. Countries like China, India, and Russia would do well to throw up the protectionist barriers to grow their home industries (much as the US did up until after WWII). On the other hand, smaller countries like Costa Rica, Tunisia, and Jordan would do better with selective protectionism. They should identify those industries where they have the potential to compete on a global scale and protect them from outside forces.

The main thing that Batra seems to ignore is the number of jobs dependent upon trade in the United States. It's largely the unskilled, low-pay jobs which leave the US as a result of free trade. Conversely, it's high-paying transportation jobs which are created as a result of this labor flight. While we do lose low-paying manufacturing jobs, we gain higher-paying transportation ones. The high-pay manufacturing jobs are unlikely to leave the US because they tend to require a level of skilled worker that isn't found in very many economies.

"The Great American Deception" is worthy of a read, just don't put too much stock in to what it says.

Batra explains why free trade and regressive taxation have not led us to the nirvana of universal prosperity promised by establishment democrat and republican politicos. He presents an overwhelming mass of evidence to bolster his conclusions. Dr. Batra is a brilliant and incisive thinker who really is concerned with the welfare of the little person. To read this man is to know that the elites in the media, financial, and political spheres are lying, self-serving tyrants. Read this book -- and learn the reality of modern American economic history, a reality that is intentionally obscured from our view by the powers-that-be.

The author tackles the big economic thinkers and ideas, one by one. He has done amazing historical research in order to debunk all the popular myths about the economy, myths he feels are perpetrated by economists beholden to rich clients. He takes no prisoners in his attack on regressive taxes and free trade (you know, the money goes out but it doesn't come back). Better than a boxing match.

Shaviro has written an excellent and informative book about a (seemingly) important issue. The book nicely summarizes much of economic literature in non-technical terms. I would highly recommend this book to anyone (including non-specialist economists who want a quick introduction to this area).

My one complaint is that the book -- as is clear from the introduction -- is very U.S. centric and has only a few references to other countries. For example, the discussion of why shifting powers to the states might limit the size of government (since they can not print money and therefore can not run persistent deficits and can only tax so much before taxpayers move to escape high taxes) seems to go against the experience of some other federal countries (e.g., Brazil) where the states seem willing to be quite profligate (perhaps relying on federal bailouts).

According to the author, "over the past twenty-five years, the deficit debate among economists has grown increasingly discordant, reflecting the issue's increasing prominence, the growing size of reported deficits, and the collapse of 1960s Keynesianism."

Daniel Shaviro is professor of law at New York University and a former legislation attorney with the Joint Committee on Taxation of the United States Congress. There are few lawyers who write like economists (or better) and Shaviro's mastery of the development of economic thought is both judicious and impressive.

Nevertheless, if we can judge the state of economic arguments by papers presented at the annual convention of economists, there would seem to be a reduction in papers even dealing with the the Federal budget deficit. At the end of 1997, most policy-makers are celebrating the virtual elimination of the deficit, and the question becomes one of whose taxes should be cut? In this respect, Shaviro's rather conservative position seems to be one of accepting $200 billion deficits for some time.

In my view, a great deal of the skeptical view of economists with regard to the Federal deficit has been the result of the heroic writings of the Classical Keynesian, Robert Eisner, former President of the American Economic Association, reinforced by the last writings of Nobel Prize winner William Vickrey.

Shaviro treats Eisner's writings with critical respect and even admits a certain renaissance in Keynesian thinking as a result of the prediction failures of the monetarists, including the rational expectations and real business cycle extensions of neo-classical thinking.

This reviewer was pleased to see a younger political economist take the views of Abba Lerner seriously, particularly his pathbreaking article on "functional financs." Shaviro maintains that "Lerner was perhaps the leading early post-World Waw II Keynesian economist in the United States, not a marginal figure or a crank." If true, how does one explain the endless peregrinations of Professor Lerner searching for tenure?

One little-recognized contribution of Lerner was his recognition of what he called "supply-side inflation" in the seventies, something also understood by the British Keynesian, Sir Roy Harrod, and the Canadian economist John Hotson, who labeled the Harrod insight as the "Harrod dichotomy." Milton Friedman's reassuring claim that "we are all Keynesians now" permitted the eclipse of the Lernerians in theoretical discussions and the continuation of the dogmatic monetarist belief that inflation is always a question of too much money in the system.

More importantly, it resulted in the popularity of Paul Volker's "licking of inflation" with a little-noticed jump of real interest rates in the early eighties and the continued fawning approval of his successor, Alan Greespan, despite the fact that Greenspan has given up the use of monetary aggregates to determine his monetary policy decisions.

Shaviro seems overly impressed with an "independent" Fed conducting monetary policy (except for Burns in 1972), and it is very difficult for this reviewer to go along with Shaviro's conclusion that "deliberate management of the business cycle should generally be left to the Federal Reserve, acting through monetary policy."

The persistent fears of the Fed concerning demand-pull inflation in the long run have produced passive or cyclical deficits and eventually deflation. It is no accident that the postwar record deficits have all been passive and achieved by Republican Administrations beginning with Eisenhower and ending with Bush.

John Steele Gordon is an excellent writer, one whom I have enjoyed very much in the pages of American Heritage and who wrote a nifty history of Wall Street called "The Great Game."

This book, "Hamilton's Blessing: The Extraordinary Life and Times of Our National Debt" is a good, if brief, overview of the fiscal history of the American government. It is somewhat misnamed, since the National Debt serves as a background and tie in to each period of fiscal history studied.

The author does a superb job of explaining Alexander Hamilton's establishment of our financial, banking, debt and money system. Here is a woefully under appreciated founder explained succinctly and whose brilliance and indispensability are brought forth by Gordon.

Descriptions of attitudes towards and major changes in financial policy and tools follow. Gordon covers the major aspects: the struggle over the Second National Bank, Jackson's paying off the debt (the only time the US Gov't has been debt free), Lincoln and Chase's tax, greenback and bond finance of the Civil War, the long fight to establish the income tax, the fight over high marginal rates and an efficient system of taxation, and the change in view in the last century from one that deficits and debt were something to be controlled to our current sorry state of view whereby no one worries about much about deficits anymore.

Debt, when properly used, has allowed us to primarily wage wars. It was retired in times of peace. We face an interesting time now, when debt as a percentage of GDP is much higher than it has been in most peacetimes. This raises the question that if we have to fight a truly massive and long war in the future, will we have the capacity to borrow what we need (based on historic statistics, it is a question well worth pondering).

Gordon finishes the book with a polemic against the political culture that has lost its way in terms of providing an efficient and fair and economically sound system of taxation and the willingness to moderate the nation's debt.

This is a good and interesting book. Anyone looking for a succinct telling of the development of our government's fiscal structure will appreciate this gem.

Just two years ago, John Steele Gordon's book on the history of the U.S. federal debt would have seemed dated, even though it was published in 1997. After more than twenty consecutive years of operating in the red, the U.S. federal government had not only erased its annual deficits and began paying down the debt, but surpluses were projected over the next ten years.

This is no longer the case. A tax cut, the war on terrorism, and a slowdown in the economy have combined to push the U.S. government's outlays above its revenues. They have also made this book -- "Hamilton's Blessing" -- relevant again.

Gordon's book is two things: 1) a basic history describing the twists and turns of U.S. fiscal policy over the last two hundred-plus years and 2) a political tract condemning the latest turn U.S. fiscal policy has taken since the Great Society.

By combining the two, Gordon seeks to show that the most recent practice of U.S. fiscal policy -- that of habitually running deficits in peacetime -- is not only unprecedented in U.S. history, but also, more importantly, unsupported by any sound theory of economics.

"Hamilton's Blessing" is well-written and interesting. The book is only slightly marred by a lack of detail in some areas. How exactly does a large public debt hurt your average citizen and by how much? We never find out.

Gordon also should have kept his own political bent out of the book. Among other things, he spends three pages in a less than 200-page book detailing Jack Kemp's personal and political history, including his football career. All very interesting, but not really relevant to the history of the U.S. debt.

This book is detailed, but easy to read, giving a good background on how our national debt came to be what it is today. Teh book also covers several of the more popular schools of thought on economics, specifically the teachings of John Maynard Keynes, the namesake of Keynesian Economics. I recommend this book to anyone who has ever questioned our government's inability to pay down the national debt as that debt is known as "Hamilton's Blessing."