Money

Good book for anyone who wants to maximize their investment returns.

Dennis Rodman was inspiring - what a great comeback story.

If your goal is to build and hang on to wealth, this bookis a must read.

THIS BRILLIANT book is a devastating exposure of the pretensions of those who want to rule Europe. It shows that the attempts to achieve monetary and economic union, and consequently political union, are bad for us. They will not bring monetary stability, economic growth or political harmony. Instead they will destabilise currencies, reduce growth and promote hatred between the nations of Europe.

Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) is supposed to build on the experience of the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM). Britain's membership of the ERM forced us into a disastrous and quite unnecessary recession. After two years of suffering, Major said in July 1992 that Britain would soon be the leader of the ERM. Two months later, we were well out of it, and ERM had bermbed, as Jacques Clouseau, Major's mentor, would say.

ERM constrained British Government policy on non-monetary matters too. The Government appeased Spain over the fishing dispute to keep Spain happy about the sterling/peseta rate. So the Common Fisheries Policy, so damaging to Britain's fishing industry, is not an isolated EU aberration: it stems from the whole logic of economic and monetary union.

The ERM was described as the Eternal Recession Mechanism; EMU is likely to be Even More Useless. The ERM kept the poor countries poor; it did not help them to converge; it certainly did not help them to meet the Maastricht criteria. Spain's experience of ERM was catastrophic: 22% unemployed. The ERM forced Denmark into recession: unemployment doubled to 12%, the budget was slashed, and investment, output and wages all fell. In the ERM, Ireland's unemployment soared from 11% to 23%. ERM subordinated nations' economic interests to minorities' foreign policy goals: ruling class interests dominated working class interests. Some still claim that ERM and EMU could control capital, but actually they were and are attacks on the working class.

A 1992 report by the Monetary Committee, which advises the EU's Council of Ministers, admitted that ERM did not stabilise prices or money and did not reduce inflation. Perhaps it was after all just a tool for moving countries towards political union.

The book also depicts the present dangerous struggle between the French and German ruling classes for control over the proposed institutions of a single European state. Germany is determined to keep the Deutschmark and the Bundesbank: it wants EMU so that it can assimilate other countries into an expanded Deutschmark zone. France wants a new currency and wants to get its hands on the Bundesbank; it pushed for the Maastricht Treaty, which would destroy the Deutschmark. Who would control Europe's currency? Who would control the proposed new European Central Bank? Germany or France?

As Wilhelm Nolling, a Bundesbank Council member, said: "We should be under no illusion - the present controversy over the new European monetary order is about power, influence and the pursuit of national interests."

They are already fighting about the 1996 InterGovernmental Conference. Germany wants the economic criteria for EMU met as soon as possible: it insists that economic convergence must precede monetary union. France wants the earliest possible date for monetary union, believing that monetary union would produce economic convergence. Both are wrong of course: convergence cannot and will not be achieved, either way.

EMU's implications are universally unpopular. The workers of France, Italy and Belgium are striking against the EU's schemes. The Austrian Government fell in October, unable to pass the EU-required budget.

We can see both from ERM's effects, and from the effects of the attempted imposition of the Maastricht criteria, how damaging membership of EMU would be. It would cause, as intended, a permanent lowering of wages, a permanently higher level of unemployment, and massive cuts in public spending.

Connolly sums up: "My central thesis is that the ERM and EMU are not only inefficient but also undemocratic: a danger not only to our wealth but to our freedoms and ultimately, our peace. The villains of the story - some more culpable than others - are bureaucrats and self-aggrandizing politicians. The ERM is a mechanism for subordinating the economic welfare, democratic rights and national freedom of citizens of the European countries to the will of political and bureaucratic elites whose power-lust, cynicism and delusions underlie the actions of the vast majority of those who now strive to create a European superstate. The ERM has been their chosen instrument, and they have used it cleverly."

If you support the European Community, reading this book will change your mind -- if you dare read it.

I've chosen this book, together with Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" and Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" to end a lecture I give on the top 50 books every American should read in order to understand why America is not safe today and will not become safe anytime soon, unless the people take back the power and restore common sense to how we spend the $500 billion a year that is now *mis-spent* on the military-industrial complex instead of real capabilities for a real world threat.

Mark Green knows as much as anyone could know about the intricate ways in which the existing system provides for *legally* buying elected representatives away from the citizens' best interests. The details he provides in this book--as well as the moderate success stories where reforms have worked--are necessary.

The bottom line is clear: until the 60% of America that is eligible to vote but does not vote, comes back into the democracy as active participants who question candidates, vote for candidates, and hold elected representatives accountable *in detail and day to day,* then corporate corruption will continue to rule the roost and will continue to concentrate wealth in the hands of an unreasonably wealthy few at the expense of the general public.

Although I found the book inspiring, I also found it depressing. Absent another 9-11 (or two--or suicidal shooters in an elementary school in every state of the union, or cataclysmic failure in Iraq and North Korea) I see no immediate prospects for America's dropped-out citizens "awakening" and taking back the power. There is still time for corporate money to get smart, pump a little more down to the poor, and avoid a revolution at the polls.

Whereas America's founding fathers provided the nation's fledgling government with a system of checks and balances, in current times one can forget about the balances and concentrate fully on the checks. Checks and more checks are forthcoming from big interests, which translates into ultimate control, no matter how often this axiomatic truth is denied. As critics ask: If the strategy is not succeeding, why do the big money interests shower accelerating amounts on political campaigns?

The cancer on our democracy is abundantly clear to those interested citizens watching election battles in the current 2002 mid-term campaign. Rather than stepping forward and debating the merits of the major issues facing the nation, an increasingly helpless and turned off citizenry is bombarded by simplistic campaign negative ads highlighting half truths and sometimes outright lies. Post election studies reveal that excessive negative advertising disgusts many voters, who then become so turned off by the process that they do not vote at all. This was symbolized in the 1988 presidential election when George Bush the Elder prevailed on a highly orchestrated campaign of negative advertising highlighted by Willie Horton and the Pledge of Allegiance. Less than half of all eligible voters bothered to go to the polls, an all-time high since such scientific studies began to measure voting tendencies.

This cancer on the body politic has been a festering wound for some time. A few years ago in California an election campaign specialist with an imposing track record for success proclaimed bluntly that when a candidate hired his services it was time for him or her to take a vacation. He did not want the candidate to get in the way as he put his big money campaign into gear, highlighted by advertising displays of catchy symbols and pithy comments, which were drummed ad nauseum into the minds of voters through television and radio.

Mark Green made a recent appearance on the Phil Donahue Show in which he made a dire prediction. If this cancer is not dissipated through corrective legislation very soon then we will reach the point where the only two types of candidates are independently wealthy moguls ready, willing and able to spend millions of their own dollars such as a Michael Bloomberg, or lackeys under the total control of the wealthy special interests bankrolling their campaign efforts.

Mark Green's is an important voice which needs to be heard. The voice is tuned into the major area that will make or break democracy as we have known it. Will the days of idealistic but far from wealthy candidates be truly a thing of the past? Will Jeffersonian town hall democracy be something the smooth talking kingmakers will dismiss with sarcastic laughter as relics from a truly distant past?

When will this book come into print again ???

Bonnie Bock

This is not to suggest that there is any lack of violence or derring-do in Kent's book. Much of the latter is supplied by Benny's daughter, Andy, a fresh-minted Penn graduate who is determined to find out why her father died. Her mentor is an agoraphobic obituary writer name Shep Ladderback at the tabloid Philadelphia Press where Andy has just been hired. He helps her explore the web of Cosicki's relationships which began in an orphanage and stretch from the blue collar neighborhood of Redmonton where Benny tended bar and met Andy's mother to Philadelphia's Main Line.

I hope Kent gives us more Ladderback and Cosiski collaborations.