Arrived in my pile

1. Stephen H. Axilrod, The Federal Reserve: What Everyone Needs to Know.  A short introduction to the topic, from OUP.

2. Hugh White, The China Choice: Why We Should Share Power (that link is for Kindle, the US Amazon link for the hardcover version is not yet available it seems).  A book about what is possibly the world’s #1 issue.

3. Robert Kuttner, Debtors’ Prison: The Politics of Austerity versus Possibility.

Each book works at a margin which is not mine, but I am happy to pass along notice of them to you.


Arrived because you placed an order for them, or arrived because some PR flunkie pushed them on you which you don't feel obligated to mention?

Same feeling here. Reading through the amazon introduction of these three books and I don't see any new insight or interesting perspective on the issues they discussed at all. First book reads like a copy from Fed's official website, second book repeats Nixon's argument from 1970s on why "we need be friend with China", third book reads like a Krugman piece except I can get all of that stuff on his NYT blog instead of spending $16 on this book.

Nothing to see here, let's move on.

Yea, let's move on to Metta's Bedtime Stories .

Indeed. Anything is more interesting to read than Krugman's blog or stuff that goes along a similar line. Thanks for sharing.

Here is what I need to know about the Federal Reserve: I need the transcripts of all ingoing and outgoing calls, especially to the primary dealers and the heads of those companies.

I find the idea of "The China Choice" humorous. American leadership has no choice: the US will continue to hemorrhage influence and power. Eventually the US will likely collapse and become a basically 3rd world country (or collection of countries).

While this will be pretty bad for Americans, it isn't really bad for the world. American hegemony isn't worth mourning. (China will probably not replace America as a global hegemon--rather power will be more evenly spread among regional powers.)

:checks ip:



You'd be correct in saying he is originated from China, however I am quite confident that his IP is provided by some random US proxy server. China has a huge internet firewall that blocks most of their citizens' access to the global internet and I don't think Tyler's website is on the "allowed list".

Tyler's website is on the "allowed list."

Very few websites, in the grand scheme of things, are blocked. Maybe best if you stick to topics with which you have some cursory familiarity?

>More than 2600 websites are or were blocked in mainland China (excluding Hong Kong and Macau) under the country's policy of Internet censorship.

"Maybe best if you stick to topics with which you have some cursory familiarity?"

The topic here is about a new book that basically says we should give China more power. Suppose your neighbor is ruining for a seat in the city council and yet you know he beats his wife everyday, wouldn't you consider that a vital piece of information that people should consider before giving him political power of any sort?

Mike H., I find your "we're heroes, they're villains" view of the world a little simplistic. We're not exactly doves ourselves both domestically and internationally. Then I guess being a superpower allows one to overlook their own moral failings and I suspect it will be the case for China if they become a superpower, provided that's even their goal. The commenter from 'China" is just repeating the usual arguments regarding whether China's rise equals the U.S. empire's fall. Watch the Munk Debates about whether the 21st century will be China's if you're looking to get informed on the topic.

Also, I looked up various job descriptions for city councilman and couldn't find anything about one's treatment of their spouse.

"Watch the Munk Debates about whether the 21st century will be China’s if you’re looking to get informed on the topic."

How can one country possibly claim a century will be "theirs" without first having some sort of expansionary scheme in mind? This just goes to show the contradictions behind China's so-called "peaceful rise". Mind you that I am not even an American and the country I am from is being aimed by over 2000 Chinese ballistic missiles. Talking about peaceful coexistence.

Also, comparing China with US without mentioning their political differences is just plain irresponsible. Chinese politburo is not your typical Congress or president, they represent the preferences of perhaps 3% of the total Chinese population. If your really want to give more power to a country that is known to abuse tens of millions of its own citizens, be my guest.

America has been the engine that has dragged the rest of the world into their present state of economic prosperity. The more that countries have abandoned their own indigenous politics and adopted American- (or more accurately Anglosphere-) style politics, the richer they are.

America is collapsing. And it is a disaster for the rest of the world. Who will slowly fall back into poverty and squallor without the Americans to provide that engine of growth.

China is obviously going to play a much bigger role and it will not have any particular challenger for a long time to come. Which is a problem for the world given the utter lack of concern for the planet the Chinese elites display. We are talking about an utterly immoral - amoral even - world power with nuclear weapons. That can't be good.

I find it humorous that Hugh White, an Australian (and a fairly boring person who regularly reproduces this sort of mildly anti-Western pious wish list), is lecturing anyone on what America has to do.

From what I observed Australian academics and intellectuals have been the furthest to the left than all other English-speaking countries, they are also extremely friendly to China and are willing to turn a blind eye on all the oppressions, censorship, nationalism, religious persecution, organ-harvesting etc happening in China. Sort of reminds me the behaviors of the West German intellectuals during the Cold War.

While I don't necessarily disagree, I count nine separate claims or predictions packed into that post, each one of which speaks to an important issue and each one is really consensus. It might have been better to provide fewer claims and more arguments.

That was a response to Brian H at 10:18 PM, not the original set of links.

no mention of the RBA or the RBNZ - how parochial!

Comments for this post are closed