How China Escaped the Poverty Trap (Yuen Yuen Ang, 2022)

(Kindle)

Book club selection (via Rose; session held (via Zoom) June 12, 2022).

The problem of development.  I much like thinking about it but the challenges, the local difficulties.

calling China "capitalist"; yet all the interviews seem to be with government officials; the entire story is about government control; five levels etc; what relevance the long imperial history - bureaucrats, exams, top-down has been accepted forever - ?

Deng - a leader.  His "Southern Tour" revives lagging momentum.

Willingness to "let some get rich first" was a key.

And China has accomplished a lot.

more broadly:  societies that don't tolerate inequality also don't improve economically.  yet the "inequality" complaint makes people miserable.

TVEs (township and village enterprises) - (from corporate law perspective) who really owned/controlled?  neither state-owned or owned by private individuals - ? surrogate entrepreneurialism - ?  I didn't understand.

what relevance England, US, Holland?  emergence there centuries ago was not complicated by an overweening global economy

author's theme:  coevolution: harness weak instits to build markets; then emerging markets stimulate better instits; strong instits preserve markets.  at the beginning, settle for "good enough" governance (aid agencies shouldn't strictly insist on "democracy", however defined).

corruption

aid agencies killing local initiative, opportunity.  Is it permissible to compare to domestic welfare programs?

functioning administrative states left behind by colonizers (Singapore, India) - to what effect?

Nollywood an odd case

I liked the interview approach, the review of local records - an interesting dive into the situation in various Chinese locales.  Just not sure how far it takes us.

Where India Goes - Abandoned Toilets, Stunted Development and the Costs of Caste (Diane Coffey and Dean Spears, 2017)

(238 pages)

Authors study and write about open defecation in rural India; most of the field work by the authors was done in the north; of course plenty of environmental issues remain in India's urban areas (including sanitation issues), but the authors state that open defecation has mostly ceased in the cities.

The continuation of open defecation in rural India was often thought to be an issue of poverty - lack of resources - but the puzzle has been that income has risen - to levels higher than other countries that don't have open defecation issues.

As the most practical solution, authors are generally talking about a latrine without running water in these areas.  Quite a few latrines being built; a major government initiative was launched with Modi support in 2014 with the goal of ending the problem in five years.  Getting folks to use the latrines has been a knottier problem.  Authors explain the harm to children (illnesses, stunted growth and development) and others, and the consequences for the economy.

A major value of the book is its detailed look at just how complicated it can be to effect change as to something that inarguably seems good for everyone.  The authors are respectful of traditions that are deeply rooted and typically have social/historical reasons that make some sense (even if caste practices now are generally indefensible and sanitation issues clear).

A number of factors come into play but this problem seems almost uniquely tied to caste - perhaps the most notorious task assigned to Dalits was cleaning up "night soil" - so in early 21st century, as Dalits work to escape untouchability - if there is a latrine, who will clean it?  Anyone upper caste obviously will not (too much status-risk); lower caste members also will not given their aspirations not to be perceived as such.  Authors discuss high price for bringing a professional cleaning service to rural areas - out of reach for most latrine-owners.

Reluctance to use a latrine in part because rural residents believe the pit-cleaning issue will be upon the owner - soon and repeatedly - without an acceptable solution.  Related problem - for those willing to build a latrine - tend to overbuild the pit - way larger than international norms or sanitation requirements would indicate - in the belief that the cleaning problem can be deferred for indefinite future (also signals prosperity).  But this makes the latrine far more expensive - out of reach for folks that would put these funds toward basic housing.  Building the recommended (affordable) pit would make the owner appear un-prosperous.

Government wants to report success, so lots of statistics about the number of latrines being built.  Not so interested in gathering data about whether latrines are actually being used; or whether the latrines are even constructed properly (this a problem - local diversion of funds etc.) 

Policy suggestions ensue.  All this is interesting, useful.

Civilization & Capitalism, 15th - 18th Century - The Perspective of the World (Fernand Braudel, 1979)

Started this book in 2012 and left off for whatever reason.  Resumed this year, but I still don't really get it.  Interesting information throughout on an anecdotal level, but I don't have enough knowledge to grasp what he's saying about "world economies" and the like.

French author; this translation from 1992.

The idea that cities in the north - Bruges etc. - were built from scratch.  Italian cities hearkened back to Rome, Byzantium, etc.

Reiterates that the Champagne fairs were a big deal; year-round; gathered from north and south;  in 12th and 13th centuries.

Lots of interesting discussion about the rise of the Dutch, the manner in which they operated their colonies, and then being overtaken by Britain.  The idea that England gained from finally "losing" its French possessions and becoming a true island.

Sections on Russia, Ottoman Empire, China, etc.

The Evolution of Everything (Matt Ridley, 2015)

Ridley consistently expresses ideas with which I already agree (as for example in this book), so I was a little worried that this latest book of his might not have much value.  The good news:  he knows a lot more than me, can express it far better, and can pull threads together in ways I'd never see - so yes, it was well worthwhile.

Started a bit slowly - the theme is explaining how everything evolves on a bottoms-up basis - yet so much talk at the opening about how a "great man" - in this case, Lucretius - figured out so much and influenced so many.  But then the author found his way.

The core idea:  when reasonably free, humans are creative, innovative, collaborative - and will work out generally effective decentralized solutions based on local needs.  Freedom is limited by forces such as government and religion and incumbents in any field.  This certainly is not a new idea - and history seems to bear out its accuracy repeatedly - yet we live in an era when the intelligentsia (aka the "clerisy" in Deirdre McCloskey's terminology) clamors for centralized control and planning.  Politicians of course feed this relentlessly - their power depends on getting voters to believe that the politician has some sort of grand plan to make everything wonderful (or great again, if that's your taste).  And voters, understandably, wish to believe this - despite all the evidence to the contrary.

How much better if the clerisy just backed off - and just stated something like this:  "our ability to manage from the center is limited, we promise to "do less" and that approach will make us all better off in the long run."  This would be honest, and consistent with what history shows.  It also would be a formula for electoral disaster.  And loss of government-funded jobs-for-experts.  Not going to happen; the best we can hope is that somehow Leviathan is slowed a bit from time to time.

All the chapters are worthwhile, even if Ridley jumps around a bit.  Probably my favorites were (1) the chapter on the evolution of technology - how science follows the tinkerers, and grand government-funded scientific initiatives tend to misallocate resources - and (2) the chapter on education - how bizarre that the clerisy that rightly condemns monopoly in any business setting insists on monopolies in education - it didn't, and doesn't, have to be that way.

Recommended by Paul Jr., I'd share the recommendation.

The Richest Man Who Ever Lived - The Life and Times of Jacob Fugger (Greg Steinmetz, 2015)

Generally interesting and worthwhile - but where was the editor?  Fugger lived an amazing life during amazing times - all this would have spoken for itself - but the author endlessly wrote in hyperbolic fashion (starting with the overwrought title).  (By comparison - this book discussing very much the same time period was enjoyable - and credible - in significant part because it was so matter-of-fact.  Let a good story tell itself!)

The author also occasionally descends into tropes-about-business - taking shots at "capitalism" here and there, when someone like Fugger generally was involved in pure-play "crony capitalism" - not at all the same thing.  Made most of his money by getting monopolies (often on metals) backed, of course, by state violence - this is not capitalism.  Sometimes he was involved in what I would consider capitalism (or what this author would refer to as "trade tested betterment,")

Great stories of Fugger's interactions or cause/effect relationships with all the big players in the last part of the 15th and first of 16th centuries - several Hapsburgs (his financing could swing Holy Roman Empire elections it seems); several popes; Francis I, Suleiman the Magnificent, Charles V.  Ferdinand and Isabella/Columbus; voyages of exploration; New World gold (and food); Henry VIII; Martin Luther (supposedly the aggressive ramping up of indulgence sales was prompted in significant part by the need to repay Fugger loans).  Finances spice trips with Portuguese (as discussed in this book); Venice still powerful but loss of overland spice trade monopoly was a factor in gradual loss of influence.  Hapsburgs rising from pretty much nothing, then in right place at right time (with right financier) via HRE elections, savvy marriages and New World discoveries.  Later in Fugger's life - peasant revolts in Germany; Luther becomes more conservative.

An early adopter of double-entry bookkeeping (learned from the Italians).

Author considers Fugger to have been a sincere practitioner of his religion notwithstanding tough business practices.  Puts up a housing complex for needy workers - ahead of his time here as well.

The years around 1500 were pretty amazing; endlessly interesting; this was a different perspective.

Bourgeois Equality - How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World (Deirdre McCloskey, 2016)

650-page finale to the author's three-volume set (first book is discussed here; second book is discussed here.  She expands and develops the themes from the first two books.

Author is "emerita distinguished professor of economics and of history, and professor of English and of communications" at University of Illinois at Chicago.  Her breadth of knowledge and experience shows throughout.  I've never taken an econ course and remain marvelously illiterate on the topic - but coming into the subject in an unscientific way late in life, I do have a strong impression that econ really is about "living" in a very broad sense . . . about considering all the variables that affect or constitute human behavior . . . deep knowledge of history and literature, as McCloskey clearly brings to bear, adds invaluable depth to the discussion.

Her basic idea - a detailed exposition about how ideas matter - about how liberating regular folk to "have a go" (her phrase) - led to the unbelievable enrichment of the last 200 years, to the great betterment of so many.  Human potential, unleashed and respected, is beyond marvelous.

I like how she goes after conservative forces on the left and on the right.  I think I'm getting a better handle on this.  Aristocrats or plutocrats or military leaders with plenty of financial resources and/or power don't benefit from disruption or a lifting-up of regular folk.  University professors, bureaucrats, priests, columnists and politicians sit on their perches - not themselves needing to be productive (or, heaven forbid, to generate a profit) - they don't benefit from disruption or a lifting up of regular folk.  Constant sneering from these sources at those engaged in commercial activities - coming from those ultimately supported by it!  Unions, regulations, minimum wage, tariffs, crony capitalists, etc. - regularly employed to prevent regular folk from having a go.  Especially as these organizations mature and become focused, first and foremost, on their own turf.

Useful discussion about why capitalism (a term she considers misleading - she prefers "trade-tested betterment" - in significant part because "capital" is so small a factor in what she calls the Great Enrichment) - anyway, capitalism so obviously is a success overall, and so obviously a success in improving the lives of the regular/poor folk -  yet it draws endless opprobrium.  Gives lots of useful history on this. Including reviewing literature/arts, which turned anti-bourgeois starting 1848.

She uses the idea of "waiting for the third act" as a helpful way of thinking about how entrepreneurs - after enriching (maybe) themselves - end up bestowing far greater riches on regular/poor folk.  If I pay $600 for an iPhone - Steve Jobs (or Apple stockholders) capture how much - let's assume $100 in profit - but I capture far more value from the device than I paid.  A Yale study, for what it's worth, estimates that entrepreneurs capture just 2.2% - whatever the number, it's a great bargain for all of us!

But count on academics, politicians, media types to keep focusing only on (sneering at) the "first act" - without considering the longer term - how else to keep the ignorant whipped up?

She continues her useful elaboration on the positive way that virtues fit into the commercial life.

Also debunks the "Eden" myth - such a favorite of the conservative right (but also conservatives on the left, now nostalgic for the 1950s economy, of all things!!) - the myth being the utterly false belief in how great everything was back in the old days - one ex. being the myth of the contented villagers living in close harmony with each other and nature - no reader of history slightly believes this.  But politicians endlessly cite variations on this theme, and human nature seems to respond to the myth.

Also useful:  her discussion about today's #1 hobby horse - "inequality".  Since no one can continue to seriously argue that trade-tested betterment, or capitalism, dramatically aids the poor/regular folks - and dramatically better than any other system including charity or socialism - the sneering and complaining shifts to "inequality".  (See discussion above about low capture rate by entrepreneurs.)  But envy works so very poorly - except to attract votes from the ignorant.

She emphasizes that things are quite good in many countries  as a result of the bourgeois deal - but this can quickly be reversed.  Policies and governments matter, a great deal.  Countries like the U.S. (and others - Canada, Scandinavia, etc.) are wealthy enough and have generated enough momentum to continue at a comfortable level - if slow-growth - despite increasing stupidity in the political arena (see e.g. politicians braying for protectionism, free college, minimum wage etc. in current presidential campaign).  For so many other/emerging countries - adopting the same stupidities - they will never get off the dime.

Per McCloskey - above all else, ideas - and rhetoric about ideas - matter.

I think the three volumes are incredibly valuable, and would be worth anyone's time.  (And it does take some time.)

The Rational Optimist (Matt Ridley, 2010)

Via Paul Jr.  Had read the reviews and it met high expectations.

Essentially:  it recounts, skillfully and inventively the narrative that gets severely underplayed. That things are good; have gotten better; in all probability will continue to get better; it's rational to be an optimist!

Media gets clicks and ratings by emphasizing trouble.  Politicians chase votes by emphasizing the negatives.  Skeptics/cynics come across as smarter/more clever than optimists.

Yet the world is an immensely better place than it's been at any time in history - not even close - and there's no particular reason to think that progress will halt, let alone regress.  Even chronic bad governance - which certainly has held back, or contributed mightily to holding back, so many countries - can't overwhelm the innovation machine in all the places where it is deeply grounded.

Before the Industrial Revolution - European Society and Economy 1000-1700 (Carlo M. Cipolla, 1993 edition)

Trying to get a little better handle on stuff going on in Europe in this period.  Helpful book (probably primarily intended as a textbook); but the topic is so vast that I don't know that I'm making any progress.

As is true with so much historical reading - one is struck with the idea that "they lived so much like us" - certainly rings true for this fairly recent, increasingly commercial era.

Interesting stuff about the growth of what I'll call commerce - "fairs" in various European locales; towns; free towns; trading leagues; interruptions via plague, war; amazing outliers such as Italy and - perhaps my favorite - Holland.

I keep thinking that Dierdre McCloskey is onto something with her focus on innovation (and governments that allow it to flourish).

Useful, hard to summarize (in part because there is so much variance by geography even within Europe).

How Adam Smith Can Change Your Life (Russ Roberts, 2014)

The author here is one of the two contributors to Cafe Hayek, a primarily-econ blog that I find continually useful.

Instead of focusing on Adam Smith's by far best-known work (The Wealth of Nations), this book is built on The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

I think Smith was an incredibly astute observer - his understanding of human nature is makes the  economic principles that he articulates so solid.  This same deep understanding comes through in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (which I've not read), as explicated by the author here.

More self-help-y than I normally prefer, but Russ Roberts and Adam Smith make for a highly useful combination.

They hammer home - effectively and repeatedly - just how easy it is for each of us to fool ourselves - so difficult to see ourselves accurately.  Not a novel insight, but expressed in a useful way.

Easy read, worthwhile.

Owning the Earth - The Transforming History of Land Ownership (Andro Linklater, 2013)

In the end I didn't find this very useful.  The author simply is trying to do too much - there's no way he can be expert about all of the subjects covered.  Also suspect because he is pretty open about his policy orientation - while I of course prefer openness, in this case it supports the impression that the author is applying policy preferences as gap-fillers as he comments on just about everything under the sun.

The author tells us that the genesis of the book is his effort to explain the financial "crisis" circa 2008 - as he looked for explanations he kept coming back to the importance of land ownership - then the arc of the book changed and he indicates that he wrote a different book than intended.

It's certainly not startling to assert that land ownership policies are important.  He tries to address the topic across the globe and across the centuries, inevitably supplemented by observations about social and political systems - to repeat, there's just no way he can be sufficiently knowledgeable to knit all these pieces together.

So I read pretty closely for a hundred pages or so - and there are plenty of interesting ideas floating around.  Government policy matters immensely, but it needs to take into account local history, etc.  Nothing startling here.

Reminded me of Dierdre McCloskey in describing why there was nothing inevitable about the economic progress of northern Europe (including England), though he comes from a different ideological perspective.  China, Middle East - examples of areas more advanced than Europe, but failed to advance.

Seems to adopt the standard narrative on lots of issues . . .  The Road to Serfdom tellingly described as a "savage hymn"; also throws in some standard-issue CEO bashing (not sure how it fit the story line, but then again he did start from 2008 perspective - of course with no mention that government policy might have had a role).  The selfishness and greed memes become tiresome.

Interesting discussion comparing serfs (eastern Europe) and peasants (western Europe) with analogous discussions regarding other geographies.  I'd like to come back to this part of the discussion.

Bourgeois Dignity - Why Economics Can't Explain the Modern World (Deirdre N. McCloskey, 2010)

At an overview level most of us are aware that our minds are packed with assumptions - many useful, many just plain wrong.  What turns out to be devilishly difficult:  identifying specific assumptions, why we hold them, why we wish to cling to them.  Especially incorrect assumptions.

I grew up with a pretty typical education.  Inundated during those school years, and thereafter, by mainstream news and information sources.  Also:  most folks with whom I interacted over the years mouthed the same standard narratives - listening to adult conversations while growing up, listening to adult conversations even today.  Result:  nonstop exposure to the standard narratives most of the country lives by.

That's where this book fits for me.  A highly useful discussion not only critiquing standard narratives within the book's scope, but explaining how those narratives came to be "standard," with some thoughts as to why so many are so invested in keeping them so.

McCloskey describes "the great fact" - that no one disputes - that virtually the entire planet lived on $3 per day (or worse) for millennia; that something happened in the Netherlands around 300 years ago - quickly copied and expanded shortly thereafter in England - that this something (or somethings) expanded wealth by at least a factor of 16 (much higher in the wealthiest countries).

As a result, lives are incredibly better in countries where this "something" took hold.  Not perfect.  But "incredibly better" is a pretty fine achievement.  Especially for the poor.  And no one with a shred of knowledge of history - and by that I mean no one - would ever "go back" to live in those allegedly good old pre-innovation days.

[Despite this:  constant disparagement of bourgeois values by the "clerisy":  intellectuals, artists (now including TV/movie types), aristocrats, journalists (not to mention politicians chasing votes from the mass of folks without enough knowledge or interest to think independently of the standard narratives).]

How we explain this "something" that fueled a growth explosion starting ~300 years ago goes such a long way to how we view public policy today.  McCloskey illuminates the basis for many of the standard anti-capitalist (including the "exploitation" hobby horse), anti-growth narratives - fashionable since 1848 (certainly pounded into my head during college and to this day) - this discussion opened up many new ideas for me.

[Interesting:  as wonderful a writer and economist as Marx was, the author explains how Marx was so often just plain wrong on the history (which of course weakens everything else).  In his defense, somewhat:  professional historians didn't really exist in 1848, so he didn't have much good information with which to work.  But the damage has been done in terms of persistent distortion via the clerisy-narrative, down to the present.]

Her own explanation of the primary driver in support of explosive growth:  a new respect, and language, became acceptable in relation to innovation (and innovators) in the Netherlands, then England, then many other places.  It's a compelling, thought-provoking idea.  Give dignity and freedom to the innovators:  and just watch what happens.  McCloskey traces the effect across geographies and timelines.

This book is part of a series; another equally valuable book by this author is discussed here.

Displaying the closing two paragraphs below (though they make much more sense for those that RTWT).

The Bourgeois Virtues - Ethics for an Age of Commerce (Deirdre McCloskey, 2006)

I don't know quite how to characterize this book, but it certainly gave me all sorts of ideas (including many I hadn't really put together before).  About 500 pages, and I found it ok to skip/skim a bit - without derogation of the whole.  It's part of a longer series of books, and I think I should pursue more.

In this book, McCloskey notes something odd:  the merchant/bourgeoisie class regularly exhibits the classic and Christian virtues while simultaneously generating the wealth that pays for kings (or "governments", as known today), priests, artists and professors - yet is universally reviled by these groups, to the point of cliche.  McCloskey points out that this trend took root following the intellectual-led revolutions that swept across Europe in 1848.  When I think about it - Balzac, Dickens and the rest did delight in portraying the bourgeoisie as venal, grasping, etc.  Not to mention Marx et al.  And this trend has continued - almost like an accepted truth that is badly in need of being un-accepted.

(In a related vein, Larry Ribstein sometimes blogs about Hollywood's portrayal of businesspersons as almost invariably evil - he can't really explain it - speculates that the "artists" believe themselves to be the new religion/priesthood (certainly a trend since the Romantic era), and resent that movies can't be made without the funding from the low-class, money-grubbing businesspersons.  Perhaps it's the same effect as discussed in this book?)

How odd - the university community of professors and students overwhelmingly comes from bourgeois or aspire-to-bourgeois roots, and overwhelmingly return to a bourgeois lifestyle after graduation - and lives largely off bourgeois profit while in the university cocoon - and all the while revile the bourgeoisie.  

McCloskey converted to Christianity at some point in her adulthood, and doesn't make any attempt to disguise this. To her credit (Christianity not essential to the narrative, but what are referred to as the "Christian" virtues do apply outside Christianity; I prefer authors that are upfront about this kind of thing).

Some ideas:

1.  How capitalism has generated the wealth that has improved the lots of the poor - in a way that no other system has come close to accomplishing.  And is reviled for it.  Perhaps due to envy - since it is absolutely true that successful capitalists end up with more wealth than the average person.  Yet no system of kings, priests, government handouts or artists has ever come close to doing more for the poor.  Should these systems - demonstrably less effective on behalf of the poor, and certainly ineffective in achieving "equal" distribution - be favored because wealth in a capitalist system doesn't end up perfectly equally distributed, either?  See #6 below.

2.  The "evil" of profit - listen to our current president's tiresome harangues, repeating the conventional, unthinking "wisdom" - yet without "profit" - how would anything ever be paid for?  I think this has been demonstrated repeatedly.  Where would the funds come from that have raised living standards to the benefit of all (well, at least "all" who live in societies that encourage bourgeois behavior - forget communist and other state-dominated systems, for example) in the last couple centuries (or whatever measurement period applies)?

3.  The notion that persons of "noble" blood would never grub for money or hold a job - no, they earned their wealth simply by force of arms, or by inheriting wealth taken by force of arms by their ancestors.  Yet this is constantly portrayed as "honorable"!  Why?  The indolent gentlemen who disdains work and profit-seeking - worthless yet revered for so long - how was this character's positive image created and maintained for so long?  The violent conqueror of new territories - this behavior also is revered!

4.  Businesspersons do not stay in business for long unless they abide by the traditional virtues.  They can't take wealth by force, as "nobles" did and modern governments do.  They can't take wealth by "appeals" to "charity" or threats of damnation - as religions do. They thrive via voluntary exchanges - not by force.

(Can I dispense with the disclaimer that businesspersons often are dishonest, especially those looking for a quick hit rather than a long-term enterprise?  Yes, it's anything but a perfect system.  That this occurs does not disprove the benefits to society of pervasive bourgeois virtues.)

5.  The notion that artists - like the nobility - are "above" grubbing for profit.  Fine - many wonderful things are created.  But:  who finances this?  What society could indulge in serious art unless some producers generated the wealth to support it?

The crazy notion that heroes like Achilles embody the highest virtues - but this is just courage without prudence, temperance, etc. - where would that leave a society?

6.  That making profit in a capitalist system is not - notwithstanding the NY Times writers and all the other purveyors of conventional wisdom (including vote-chasing politicians) - a zero sum game.  The economy is not like a room in which a parent places two kids with 10 toys, and the stronger kid prevails at the expense of the weaker.  Voluntary exchanges typically make everyone better off, i.e. they all participate in the "profit", if at different levels.  Compare the noble requiring the peasant to turn over a big chunk of his crop (or a government expropriating assets) - much closer to zero-sum.  (Even recognizing that the peasant may have gotten some protection against others who sought to steal from him.)

7.  So many economists have gone off the rails - looking at "prudence only".  The virtues need to go beyond this - justice, temperance, and courage.  The three Christian virtues round out the group:  hope, faith, love.  You can't explain human behavior with "prudence only". 

8.  That other disciplines (in addition to economics) look to reduce behavior to a single overriding principle.  Utilitarianism. Or to reduce it to an exercise in pure reason (sound familiar from undergrad philosophy?) divorced from common sense observation of the complicated impulses of actual humans.  The ancients had it right - a blend of multiple virtues is involved.

9.  Look at the countries that haven't developed or permitted an active bourgeoisie class - have the poor (or any other class, setting aside government rent-seekers) ever been better off in these societies that were "cleansed" of the evil profit motive?

10.  Today's glorification of "non-profit" organizations - many of which merit skepticism.  Any organization not facing market discipline is in dangerous territory.

The seven virtues make a lot of sense.  Demonizing the bourgeoisie doesn't - unless you're a Huey Long type pursuing power, or a rent-seeker feeding off the Huey Longs (invariably in the name of the "little guy").

The Road to Serfdom (F.A. Hayek, 1944)

The author is referred to constantly in articles I read yet I had never had occasion to pick up any of his works. This book was a Christmas gift from Luis. I like that the book included a collection of related materials as the book has been published and republished in recent decades.

While our politicians lurch around passing inexplicable laws, I wonder if they could also adopt a law requiring each politician and government regulator to spend say 10 minutes each morning reading this work before they set about wreaking havoc.

Hayek was moved to write the book while observing England - in the late 1930s - repeating many of the factors that led to the rise of National Socialism - and Hitler - in Germany. His observations are remarkably relevant to America even now. He was concerned that central planning and control would necessarily stunt innovation and productivity and, in turn, freedom - the road to serfdom.

It was interesting to read someone with his perspective explain how the collectivists co-opt the terminology of freedom - all the way to the point that the term "liberal" is completely removed from its 19th century meaning.

He acknowledges that unfettered capitalism can't exist anymore, and that capitalism itself is full of faults. That doesn't stop him from convincingly making the case for the concept that free individuals will come up with practical solutions during the course of their normal interactions in a way that no government regulator can ever do.

Watching our leaders in action these days confirms this point of view. Watching the pack bray at AIG in today's news also calls to mind Hayek's observations (not to defend AIG - moreso that this involves populist rabble-rousing to deflect attention from the AIG bailout blunders). Unfortunately we are going through a set of conditions in which what seemed like an already ridiculously large government is going to expand by several orders of magnitude. Under what circumstance will Washington give up the control it's taking in banking, automobile industry (including suppliers as of today), healthcare? - and the list goes on. More sectors to lose dynamism in exchange for expending their energies seeking government favors. Aarrgh.