Amazon link2. Globaloney 2.0, The Crash of 2008 and the Future of Globalization "An attempt to make the concept of globalization more understandable. Is Michael Veseth really battling 'bogus' explanations of globalization or perhaps tilting at windmills?" thumbs down (see below)
Globaloney site______________________
Ameritopia
Mark R. Levin
Book Review and Opinions
by Chris Jansante email: cj_15601@hotmail.com
OPINION: Ameritopia is an
undertaking by Mark R. Levin to try to explain the elusive thought processes
and ambitions of proponents of Liberalism or Progressivism. Conservatives have
often marveled at what passes for decision making and problem solving on the
part of Liberals and Progressives. Mr.
Levin makes inroads into providing a coherent explanation of why the failures
evident by history and even the irrational follies of modern day reality do not
seem to matter to some Liberals and to their upside-down goals for
society. As such is the case, I believe
that this book is quite valuable to those of us who do not have the
cork-screw-like thinking that would cause us to believe that "up is down
and down is up," to paraphrase Albert Gore, Jr. Finally, someone has offered a clearer and
more detailed explanation of a great portion of Liberal concepts!
REVIEW: Subtitled "The Unmaking
of America", Ameritopia discusses utopianism, which Mark R. Levin
says "has long promoted the idea of a paradisiacal existence and advanced
concepts of pseudo 'ideal' societies in which a heroic despot, a benevolent
sovereign, or an enlightened oligarchy claims the ability and authority to
provide for all the needs and fulfill all the wants of the individual--in
exchange for his abject servitude".
Mr. Levin adds, "Utopianism substitutes glorious predictions and
unachievable promises for knowledge, science and reason, while laying claim to
them all". In other words, there
seem to be many people who believe in a fantasy of achieving a perfect world
for all here on earth is possible, even though that achievement demands extreme
sacrifices from many members of society.
OPINION: To me, the most important
portions of this book are the Prologue and Chapter One, in which Mr. Levin
postures his theory of how "utopianism" is embraced by Liberals, with
a clear discussion of what utopianism entails and its consequences.
OPINION: The philosophy that embraces utopianism
certainly might explain why so many people who do not believe in God try to
create a Heaven here on earth since it seems most humans have always hungered
for some type of spiritual perfection.
It also could explain why so many Liberals seem to have no problem
sacrificing everything, friends, family, truth, honesty, morality, decency,
civility, the Constitution, the rule of law, common sense, their Country or
their sacred oaths, in order to have Heaven on earth, or so they intend. After all, what's a country or two, or your
integrity, or the disruption of millions of lives, when you can have actual
Heaven on earth as a reward for your efforts to promote a superior philosophy? Or so some on the Left may think. It also explains why so many Liberals usually
believe they're morally superior to non-Liberals and why, as Jim Quinn says,
some Liberals "refuse delivery" of reality, of what is real. Some believe that they have the True Vision
of Perfection on Earth and we ordinary non-Liberal schlubs do not. We
Conservatives are largely doomed to believe in what we observe in reality and
doomed to think what has happened historically has valuable significance in the
lives of those who follow their predecessors here on this planet. Liberals
don't have those shackles. Previously, I thought that we Conservatives simply
didn't have the Fantasy Gene in our DNA as many Liberals do. As Dr. Michael Savage often claims,
"Liberalism is a mental disorder", but maybe there's a deeper level
than that of just mental defectiveness.
Perhaps Mr. Levin has the explanation.
REVIEW: Back to reviewing the book
itself. According to Mark Levin,
utopians believe an all-powerful State has all the answers and that the
individual must be suppressed; free will is bad for utopians. Utopianism makes slow progress in society
gradually, using deceit if necessary to attain its goals, making tiny,
relentless changes to its targeted society.
It finds a receptive audience among the "disenchanted, disaffected,
dissatisfied and maladjusted" who blame others and their surroundings for
their problems in life, rarely or never themselves. "Equality" is often a utopian
goal. "In utopia, rule by
masterminds is necessary", Levin states.
He continues, "The mastermind is driven by his own boundless
conceit and delusional aspirations, which he identifies as a noble
calling. He is, in his own mind, a
savior of mankind, if only man will bend to his will." Mr. Levin discusses
how laws are perverted for this purpose, how utopians attempt to centralize
authority, how immorality results, and how utopianism is incompatible with our
Constitution.
REVIEW: The author says
"Utopianism is not new. It has been
repackaged countless times--since Plato and before." In other chapters of this book, Mr. Levin
proves the last point while claiming that perhaps America has already been
transformed into "Ameritopia".
REVIEW: Mark Levin has done research
from early writings in antiquity to the present day on the topic of
utopia. He meticulously describes the
utopian viewpoint of four of the most well-known proponents of utopia: Plato,
Thomas More, Thomas Hobbes and Karl Marx.
Mr. Levin not only illustrates each author's approach to utopia, but
also whether or not some of the authors eventually recanted their philosophy of
an achievable utopia on earth. Then Mark
Levin shows the other side of the coin by analyzing how John Locke, Charles de
Montesquieu and Alexis de Tocqueville presented useful and realistic philosophies
that helped our Founding Fathers draw up the documents that America is based on
and then keep America on its golden path, philosophies that are at odds with
utopianism. Mr. Levin discusses other
facets, such as the Federalist Papers and reveals details in speeches and
writings of some of America's Presidents who were utopian, such as FDR and
Woodrow Wilson. He outlines how the
Federal Government tries to play a part in utopianism by creating an infinite
web of regulations that attempt to control every part of our lives. There are a number of other subjects relating
to utopianism that are touched upon as well.
OPINION: Mark R. Levin has created a
rather comprehensive treatise that illustrates what utopianism is, proves
utopianism is a genuine factor in societal change, and shows how its tentacles
are everywhere in America today. It is a
book that should be read and digested by anyone who is trying to make sense of
the condition we find ourselves in, not only in America but also in parts of
the world. Although this is not a book
to be read as light entertainment, it will provide much ammunition for those
serious about preserving our great Country as it was conceived in 1776 and
enhanced by the Founders in 1787 and beyond.
___________________________________
Globaloney 2.0
Author:
Michael Veseth
Book
Review and Opinions
by
Chris Jansante Email:
cj_15601@hotmail.com
OPINION:
The topic "globalization" was chosen because it was not a subject
that I had looked at in-depth before.
This book, chosen at random through Amazon, was selected because of the
possibility that it would explain and dispel myths about globalization. However, it did neither. After reading this book, I was forced to
glean a simplified, general understanding of globalization from other sources.
Wikipedia says the term "globalization" refers to "the process
or processes of international integration". The Cato Institute's Tom G. Palmer says it is
"the diminution or elimination of state-enforced restrictions on exchanges
across borders and the increasingly integrated and complex global system of
production and exchange that has emerged as a result". At its most basic, it's my understanding that
countries interact with each other on multiple levels for all types of
commerce, business and exchanges of cultural influences and have been doing so
since the time of ancient Greece.
FROM
WIKIPEDIA: After the beginning of the 20th century, International Business,
which includes all commercial transactions that take place between two or more
regions, countries and nations beyond their political boundaries, grew
rapidly. That led to the formulation of
Multinational Enterprises (MNE), companies that have a worldwide approach to
markets and production or with operations in more than one country. An MNE is often called a Multinational
Corporation (MNC) or a Transnational Company (TNC). These large entities are often the most
visible parts of globalization. However,
there are many other aspects of globalization, such as trade agreements, special
economic trading zones, the drug trade, global information systems,
international tourism, economic interdependence, the globalization of cultural
forces, multi-lingualism, the reduced importance of nation states, the
internet, population growth, food, energy, global health, sports,
deforestation, the global workforce, migration, the brain drain, remittances,
illegal immigration, and democratic globalization. Globalization, like other relationships, can
be either good or bad or have both good and bad aspects combined. In general, with some exceptions, large
corporations are in favor of globalization, while those who are against large
corporations are not in favor of globalization.
REVIEW:
Globaloney 2.0 was written by an University of Puget Sound professor who
is also a believer in Keynesian economics, a critic of Adam Smith and an expert
in French wines. The word "globaloney" refers to the author's opinion
that all global economists, himself included, teach global economics via
"stories" that are always inaccurate in their details and are thus
"bologna". The author claims that since globalization is
extraordinarily complex, the "stories" or explanations of
globalization are "bogus" and are based on isolated principles that
are somewhat loosely connected to individual observations to arrive at
deceptive viewpoints or economic theories of globalization.
REVIEW:
Because of the financial crash of 2008, Mr. Veseth said he rethought and
revised his previous book Globaloney and that produced Globaloney 2.0.
Prof. Veseth claims his first book had
non-persuasive arguments based primarily in the concept of hard facts so he
intended to replace those arguments with more emotional stories that would be
more convincing than less colorful, factual arguments. However, Prof. Veseth
claims in both books that the concept of "globaloney" remains true
regardless.
OPINION:
If I had the opportunity, I would ask the Professor why he wrote this second
book at all, then, if the first book was built on the quicksand of inaccuracies
and the second is more of the same? Is
there is a likely contradiction here?
The book does have some positive qualities, though. If the rest of Globaloney 2.0 were
much more like those sections, I could have viewed this book differently. Those
enjoyable parts were:
1) Why the French don't like Americans, McDonalds or
any globalization that French culture doesn't dominate.
2) What the worldwide Slow Food movement is and why
it is contrary to greater globalization.
3) Prof. Veseth's theory that consists of three
types of globalization, "thin", "thick" and "really
thick". Warning: it would be
necessary to read the book thoroughly to understand the author's three concepts
of globalization better than they can be summarized in this short book
review.
REVIEW:
Mr. Veseth says "Thick...means that international economic relations
involve both relatively free trade and high levels of capital
mobility". "Really thick...is
a strategy that takes maximum risk to try to get the maximum globalization
return." "Thin...puts
stability ahead of financial globalization's potential benefits." The author also talks about a
"trilemma", which is a "set of three mutually exclusive
options". Countries can only choose
two of the three and that sets the extent of their globalization
possibilities.
OPINION:
Without further explanation, that theory may be confusing to readers of this
review, as warned. Prof. Veseth says
that economists "need to tell better stories" even while he postures
that any stories that will be told will probably be more
"globaloney", although he hopes they won't be "globaloney"
at some vague time in the future. Is
there a stance here or is this just convolution? Although Prof. Veseth
describes the general mechanics of the 2008 financial crash, he doesn't get
specific about the U.S. government's legislative manipulations that seeded that
crisis and he doesn't offer a clear solution to preventing future financial
crashes, stating it's "beyond the scope" of this book. Perhaps the
author doesn't either have these answers or isn't interested in getting to the
bottom of the problem here.
OPINION:
What was learned from this book? I think Globaloney 2.0 had some quite
interesting parts, but it did not make the theory of globalization as
understandable to me as Wikipedia's brief article did, which seems to be a
failing of the book. Other than the
three favorable points listed above, Globaloney 2.0 seemed often contradictory and unclear. Wikipedia tells us that "Due to the
complexity of the concept, research projects, articles and discussions usually
remain focused on a single aspect of globalization". True, there actually may not be one
comprehensive way to deal with a complex, ever-changing subject like globalization. However, does that validate diminishing and
reducing all analyses by all authors on the subject of
globalization to "globaloney"?
What this book conveyed to me was that one professor admits he can't
comprehensively condense the subject of globalization, yet that didn't stop him
from writing books that he says are inherently flawed, or
"globaloney". A paradox? Why put his reputation on the line and open
himself up for criticism multiple times?
For profit, for academic recognition, or
some other reason, cleverly deflecting the inadequacy of the work itself
as an insulation against critics, who could know? I do know that, for me, this book is an
unfortunate and unfulfilling study of globalization and is not recommended.
