Economic-union Books

Wegren's book is a comprehensive and detailed analysis of the post-Soviet agricultural reforms in Russia. He successfully argues that the Russian state is not "weak" compared to its Soviet counterpart, but that it is still stronger than other components of society, thus creating numerous barriers to the development of an expanding free market in the rural areas. His archival, fieldwork and anecdotal information make this a tremendous contribution to the social sciences.

Alas, this could have been a book filled with enlightening explorations of the endless catastrophe called Russian/Soviet agriculture. Instead, we get tired recitations of fact mixed with analytical reviews of theories that lead the reader away from exactly the places where most readers will probably want to go -- to the farms of the ex-USSR, where real people are struggling with a monumentally inefficient system that's all but collapsed under its own weight. Can't this book give us a glimpse into that rality, rather than the mental constructs of the western academics? We'll have to wait for a better book to come along and help us out.

Everything about this book was bad. It really had nothing to do with "Living Poor in America." It only showed Mr. Richards viewpoints on how to improve our already great nation. Anyone who is looking for any information should turn the other way.

"~The review above tell you why the publication of this book was necessary: there are millions of people living in America who do not share in America's bounty. And there are apparently many Americans who would rather not confront this reality. works of photographic art, for they clearly are. But the photographs scream out at the viewer that what concerns Richards is the plight of those whose lives he records, rather than photographic technique.

Cesar was the second born in the chavez family that had 6 kids. After reading this incredible book (TWICE) I have found no errors. This book is true to the core. GOOD BOOK! The other reviewer was obviously a drunk monkey!

This book is not recommended for those interested in accurate information on the subject. Whereas I counted countless errors, I think the most telling is that the authors did not know that Cesar Chavez was the eldest son in the Chavez family. At least three times they mention his brother Richard as being older. If biographers can not get this important fact correct, you can imagine how accurate the rest of the book is. I would say reading it is a waste of time.

This book - authored by E.P. Davis the foremost expert in the study of financial crises - provides a comprehensive overview of the theory of financial fragility together with a review of a detailed review of a number of case studies. These range from the Herstatt crisis of the 1970s to the housing booms/busts in the UK and Scandanavia in the 1980s/1990s. It is essential reading for all economists seeking to understand the underlying factors at work in generating financial fragility. It should be required reading for those responsible for the supervision of financial institutions.

Having re-read this book for the second time,I have to confess that I still have severe doubts about the validity of the underlying assessments. The fundamental problem of the book is its pre-occuptation with the anglo-saxon shorttermist mentality which leads to ultimately misleading conclusions regarding monetary policy. Ultimately a firm orientation of monetary policy towards the medium-term objective of price stability - in the context of an 'ordnungspolitische' well-based broader economic and social framework - it the best guarantor of the financial and economic stability which is essential to reap the full fruits of economic progress. The experience of Germany over the last 30 years - which, in contrast to the poor record of the anglo-saxon economies, is characterised by a solid track record of price stability combined with the absence of notable financial fragility - is powerful evidence of the enduring truth of this proposition. While this view may not be en vogue with many financial commentators - especially those in the anglo-saxon presse - I am convinced that this will change radically in the near future, as events unfold in the US and reveal the inherent weakness of monetary policies orientated to cyclical fine-tuning and the support of stock marktes.

This book reads much more like an editorial writen by a constituent of England than an objective description of the EU, which is reflected in the lack of documentation. It is written not only from a British perspective but also a British bias. While many trivial details are mentioned, almost nothing is said about what the treaties of Rome, Amsterdam, or Maastricht actually said and meant. Neither does the author use monetary values or statistics of economic growth. The United States is virtually ignored, although it is Europe's largest trading partner, and has played a key role in facilitating the EU's development. Maclay does mention the EU's apparent "success" in opposing Ronald Reagan's sanctions of the Soviet Union. Need Maclay be told that Reagan's sanctions worked? (the Soviets no longer exist) However, Maclay does describe key players, such as Delors and Monnet fairly interestingly. The diagrams are helpful (although there are only 2) and someone that knows nothing about the EU will undoubtedly learn something by reading this.

I don't know much about the European Union or its roots. This book gave a detailed, well-written, simple overview of the history of the EU. It gave me a foundation to build upon in reading other works about the European Union. This should be the first book someone reads before launching into more indepth and analytical works.

This is an excellent, factual source concerning the issue of the creation of FYROM. The reader will get a clearer understanding of the controversy surrounding this new state and the tension it created with neighboring Greece.
This is not some history-revisionist babble one finds within other writings but a clear representation of the issues, both political and legal, which the Balkans are now facing.

The most important thing to remember about the "Macedonian conflict" is that the Greek position has changed dramatically over the past decade. Official Greek government policy was that Macedonia did not exist. When Greece took over Aegean Macedonia in 1913, they killed, tortured and ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Macedonians. They changed the names of people, villages, and landmarks from Macedonian to Greek in their attempts to eradicate the Macedonian name. Two things to remember:

1. It is ironic that Greeks now "love Macedonia" when they tried to eradicate its very existence.

2. If Macedonia has always been Greek, why did the Greek government deny its existence until the 1980's?

The book presents a challenging hypothesis that some may not agree with or like: that deep seated national values matter and can explain why Americans, despite appearing more union friendly in survey approval ratings, have much lower union density than Canadians. The argument is not a new one, Lipset himself made the argument many years ago, but what is novel his how the seeming contradictory data regarding opinion polls actually can be used by the authors to show that Americans are not so easily dislodged from their deep values of freedom. Canadians, on the other hand, have less fear of equality or government involvement, and it this that translates into laws and behaviour (as opposed to attitudes) that are more union friendly north of the border. I liked this book, but it demands patience to read through all the data. If I was a student studying labour markets or industrial relations it would be invaluable.

Lipset et al. assert facts, provide statistical evidence, and use quantitative methods to prove their point without helping us understand why Americans do not join unions. The book is simplistic, and rehashes old arguments. The writers fail to use historical and comparative analysis of the divergent tracks and the U.S. and Canada have in labor relations. The statistical analysis does not substantiate the problemmatic that U.S. workers are more or less militant than Canadians. Not to be taken seriously THE PARADOX OF AMERICAN UNIONISM is nothing more than an ideological screed for intellectuals with lots of time on their hands but little to say of substance.

The most sweeping analysis of the period that articulates the major debates facing race and class today.

I find myself the subject of a portion of this book. Some statements are opinions, but some of the statements are actually errors. I would like to respond.
1. When I bought the property in October 2001 I continued (but did not initiate) the opt out of the single contract with HUD. The previous owners had begun the process, but had not informed the tenants. I met with the tenants immediately and explained the opt out process, and their rights to have Enhanced Vouchers, giving them special rights to STAY at the property.
2. One basic and essential right of Enhanced Vouchers is that the tenant will NEVER pay more than 30% of their income, no matter what the contract rent. The contract rent had no bearing on what my tenants would pay.
3. Anyone who was evicted for non-payment was opting not to pay the normal family portion of 30% of income. Less than 5 tenants were evicted. Some tenants left to take advantage of the Enhanced Voucher to relocate outside of central New Haven, to be in a less urban environment, or to be closer to their now grown-up children.
4. Since 2001 I have continued to operate the building adhering to my goal of having a mixture of different kinds of tenants, from many different races and nationalities, and I have kept my promise to retain the original tenants, many of whom are "overhoused," that is, living in a multi-bedroom unit as a single person (their family having grown up and moved away). Since HUD offers a subsidy for ONLY ONE YEAR after it is aware of overhousing, I took on subsidizing the difference for these tenants by accepting a ONE bedroom contract rent for the TWO and THREE bedroom apartments the tenants were inhabiting. Ovella Watts is still a tenant in the same apartment she has occupied all these years, even though she technically would have had to move if I had not stepped in and accepted the lower rent.
5. Although it is difficult to make improvements to occupied apartments, I have offered to each of my long-term tenants to choose an improvement they want (which is in addition to appropriate maintenance). One section 8 tenant recently asked for a hardwood floor to be installed in her living room, which we did.
6. I have an excellent relationship with all my tenants at 65 Dwight Street, especially my section 8 tenants whom I have now known for over 6 years.
7. I WAS NEVER CONTACTED BY THE AUTHORS OF THIS BOOK, even though my office is two blocks from the property, and I would certainly have been willing to give them detailed information on any question they might have asked.

This book is a must read for students of economics, policymakers and business people alike. The essay contributions cover a host of interesting topics in economics not to mention an impressive list of contributors. I especially enjoyed the piece by Paul Ormerod on What Economics is Not. The papers summarize the economic topics in a very reader friendly format as well as raising some interesting questions for the future of economics. The A-Z entries are a useful guide for readers with a less formal background in economics

The hallmark of a good dictionary is fairness to all schools of economics, but the editor, Robert Beynon, lives up to his profession of "yellow" journalism. Imagine a dictionary on "globalization"--the end of communist command economies, global free markets and entrepreneurship, the dynamic financial markets, currency crises, etc.--and the editor has NO entries for Milton Friedman and the Chicago school!!! The Routledge dictionary has separate entries on Keynes, Marx, Solow, Galbraith, Malthus, Marshall, Mill, Say, Smith, Pigou, Schumpeter, Hicks, Modigliani, and Ricardo, but no entries on Friedman, Stigler, Fisher, Mises or Hayek. The latter two deserve special mention because they were the principal economists to predict globalization and the collapse of Soviet central planning! The book doesn't even have an entry on Paul A. Samuelson. Go figure.

I have carefully read this book and have seen Dr. Osterman deliver several lectures. The theoretical model underlying all of his work is the transfer of money and resources from those who have earned it to those who have not - in other words socialism.

One of the primary pieces of evidence in this book and others is the growing wage gap between the "rich" and the "poor." Paul and other policy wonks of his ilk know very well these are misleading statistics. Ours is a dynamic economy. Long term studies of the rich and poor show that the folks in the bottom end of the income spectrum are very young and/or uneducated. Over any 5 year period of time fewer than 20% of the people at the bottom remain at the bottom. Dr. Osterman recommends policies to move people out of these temporary brackets not by individual hard work but by income redistribution - overseen, presumably, by academic elites like himself.

Lefties such as Osterman believe a small group of elites can make better decisions provide better outcomes for society than individuals making decisions for themselves. I discourage the purchase of this book; a subscription to the Wall Street Journal is money much better spent.

Osterman presents a carefully researched look at the problems facing American workers in the new economy. He puts forth so solid a case for the need to ensure equity for all--not just technologists--that he even convinced this consultant that something has to be done. Like many, I thought the disillusionment and chaos of the past was history, but he proves that only by forming new kinds of institutions will workers be able to ensure that they are allowed the opportunity to succeed in what remains a very difficult environment for all too many workers.