massornament

I have been meaning to post a review of some of the books I have read over the last few months and which I thought were particularly noteworthy.  However, I was waiting to get one back that is on loan so that I could photograph it.  But rather than holding up the reviews any longer, I decided to go ahead and just shoot the empty jacket (hence, the odd photograph).

I was very excited about reading This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Follies by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff as I had been increasingly encountering references to it.  The book did not disappoint.  In it is a clear and interesting discussion of sovereign debt over the last 800 years.  As is to be expected, it concentrates on the last few (since data and financial records are more abundant).  It is very intriguing to consider how the banking and financial institutions have grown alongside large expansive governments (whether monarchies, monarchy/dictatorships, or some other socialist/democratic forms).  I read it with the idea of learning more about how finance/banking is an important facilitator of warfare, imperialism, and the general expansion of power.  And there is a lot on that in there as well.

Reinhart is an economist at U of Maryland and Rogoff is at Harvard.  The authors should be commended for building data sets and working from there.  I seem to remember that in the beginning, they mention that the database is going to be available (or something like that) but there was nothing in the appendices or anything else mentioned in the book if that has been done.  But I was impressed by their data and the analysis (at least what they display in the pages of the book).  It is not ideologically driven in any discernible way and overall is very reasoned.

What the book shows is how some aspects of government or state power are extremely resource intensive and, more central, how our modern economy is really characterized by extreme boom-and-busts or, as they aptly put it, financial folly.  But that is putting it very mildly.  Rather than describing it as folly (or simply as the ‘business cycle’) it could also be described as how greed and the blind lust for power have redistributed and concentrated financial and other resources for the benefit of a few, and how the financial sector is a crucial cog in this machine.

The line, ‘this time is different,’ is reference to the continuation of this folly and how every time there is a major financial crisis or a country (or king) defaults on its debt, there is the belief that it was just a one-time event, could not have been predicted, and how it will not happen again.  The general belief is that this is because the major events like the Great Depression or the Second Great Contraction (as Reinhart and Rogoff call the most recent financial event) are so distant in time that we simply and  eventually forget about them.  The authors are not so sure about this convenient explanation and I would take it further and simply state that the system seems to be so geared toward the booms that many mechanisms that might curb these excesses are never realized or implemented in the first place, simply because the state and corporate expansion benefit–and rely upon–these booms-and-busts in the first place.

At any rate, this is a very interesting and important book.  It should be required reading for every citizen and every public employee and every government official and every politician.  If that were the case, then we would have a much better view of the excessives of state/corporate power, especially when it comes to concentrating and wasting all kinds of human, renewable and non-renewable resources.

Next, is Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy by Matthew Simmons.  The author is an investment banker and consultant to the oil industry.  He is another person that has access to good, solid resources and, while he is making some very educated guesses when it comes to Saudi and world oil reserves at times, he has empirical data to consider as well.  It is a fascinating book and accessible to general readers.  There are some interesting facts about the oil industry, petroleum-related geology, and financial history (relating to oil production and the history of the companies/countries involved).  Plus, I really get the sense that Simmons has a relatively neutral perspective even though he is very cynical about OPEC claims on reserves (but that is a different issue).
If you are familiar with some of the documentaries and websites associated with the topic of peak oil or peak energy, then you probably have seen or read about Simmons.  His motivation seems mostly driven by pure curiosity.  I have heard him on numerous times mention that he kept hearing about peak oil discovery/production or about M. King Hubbert and that is what led him to undertake the research that eventually led to the book.  From his vantage point, Simmons basically says two things: 1) while we are not given access to all the data, it appears that Saudi Arabia is at peak production or is very close to it and, 2) since there have been no new major discoveries of oil since the late sixties, it does not seem like the world can rely on Saudi Arabia to either fill-in when supplies are disrupted elsewhere or to increase production in order to supply future demand (a condition that all of the economic growth estimates of the past decade relied upon to be true).

There are a multitude of other interesting aspects to the book as well.  One that I will mention is that Simmons fears that the temptation to ‘milk’ Saudi Arabia’s giant fields (by both western corporations and the Saudi ruling elites/families themselves) has actually damaged the fields and reduced what could have been originally produced from them.  (This is not a new problem with oil field management as I have learned over the last while.)  At any rate, Simmons’ book is a very good one, especially if you want to learn more about the oil industry (including some history), discovery and production, and what the state of Middle Eastern supplies are like.

Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil by Michael Ruppert is an intriguing book, I must say.  I came to the book not knowing much at all about the author.  He is a former police officer or detective, came into contact (and not in a good way) with circles of power when he first started and has turned his attention to research and writing and advocating on many issues.  At any rate, I came to the book with the ideas of empire and energy in mind, and there is a lot to recommend about the book on those subjects.  He also comments upon 911 and other controversial subjects too but that is beyond my expertise.  One subject that he makes reference to that has stayed with me (and I just recently read a news item about a court case pertaining to the topic) is the role played in the global drug industry by major financial institutions, primarily in laundering money; and by money, I mean billions of dollars world wide.  It is a very intriguing story and one that, from my view at least, is very plausible.  Crossing the Rubicon might not be for everybody as it is very dense and ties together many different ideas.  That is its strength but it could be intimidating too.

The last one for now is Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance, and Why They Fail by Amy Chua.  The author is a professor at Yale Law School.  This too is an intriguing book but quite different from the previous ones in that it is more argumentative and idea based in some ways.  Chua’s basic thesis is that great powers (hyperpowers but also some lesser ones too) have historically benefited by basically practicing some forms of tolerance toward other ethnic and religious groups.  Chua ventures throughout history, basically from the earliest empires up until the present, and explores this idea/observation.

It is a fascinating read, especially for how it provides such a neglected perspective on world history, especially concerning dominant world powers throughout history.  (The tendency to treat ‘great’ empires and ‘great’ leaders in a simplistically glorified way in popular culture and academic circles has been historically consistent.  It is also scary to consider that Stalin or Hitler might one day be treated in a way similar to how Hollywood treats Alexander or Ghengis Khan.)

While I think that the author makes too great an effort to maintain the focus on ‘tolerance,’ it is an interesting and convincing analysis.  Often, states that are open to incoming populations that might be persecuted elsewhere (especially if they bring necessary skills and resources) will grow into world dominating empires.  While they might not embrace these foreigners (or immigrants, or refugees, or whatever term best applies), it often is a crucial cog in the imperial machine.  These people might be bankers, farmers, merchants, soldiers, or whatever, but the degree to which they are incorporated into society (sometimes even in all institutions and seats of political and economic power) seems to make an important contribution.  Of course, the decline is there as well.  As the society or empire ages, it often tends to become less tolerant and this coincides with the decline.

As an author writing for a (mainly) U.S. audience, Chua seems to be hinting that the U.S. might be able to stave off the extremism that accompanies the decline if it remains tolerant of outsiders, if not stave off the decline itself.  I am less convinced of this (and that is the reason why I think Chua clings too much to the ‘tolerance’ theme) since even in a democracy like Britain or the U.K., the reason why democratic values can be honoured is simply because slaves are not needed by a modern power.  Instead, I see the behaviours/phenomena that Chua labels as ‘tolerance’ just as the normal workings of the ebbs and flows of empire and power seeking.  But anyway, that is a minor quibble and in no way affects the quality of the book.  It is a very interesting and thought-provoking read.

.