13 Bankers

By Simon Johnson and James Kwak Copyright 2010
According to the authors of this book, the financial crisis of 2008 was caused by inadequate government regulation of large banks. Unfortunately, the author's thesis is wrong, and they waste their time needlessly rehashing United States banking and economic history only to arrive at this wrong conclusion.

They argue that banking regulations put into place after the Great Depression of the 1930's resulted in 50 years of financial market stability. Then in the 1970's and 1980's the government began deregulating the banking and finance industry. This allowed some of the banks to grow very large and become interconnected and form into an oligarchy.

This banking oligarchy engages in high risk investments on a massive scale. When the risky investments succeed, the bankers keep the profits. But when the investments fail, the taxpayers take the losses and bail out the bankers. The authors point to events such as the 1990's savings and loan crisis, and the 2000's housing and mortgage bubble, among others, as examples of how the system works.

The authors say the government's response to the 2008 financial crisis didn't solve anything. The same banking oligarchy that created the crisis is still in place. Specifically, there are, by the authors count, 13 banks that are too large to fail. None of these banks could be allowed to go bankrupt because they are so large and intertwined with other financial institutions that one failure could cause a chain reaction of other failures.

For readers who are already familiar with the banking and economic history of the United States, there is nothing new in this book. And although the authors get most of their history correct, their conclusions are wrong.

One of the glaring mistakes the authors make is to claim that the former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan was an ardent supporter of free markets and financial deregulation. The authors repeatedly make this claim which seriously undermines their credibility. Alan Greenspan is an ardent Monetarist, which means he believes in paper money and central banks and government controlled interest rates. Anyone who believes in those things isn't a believer in free markets, no matter what they say. The regulator of the money supply is the banking and economic dictator. Alan Greenspan only claimed to believe in free markets and financial deregulation, but in fact he controlled and manipulated the money supply to the point that other financial regulations were of little importance.

The authors are essentially correct in their assessment of the American financial system being controlled by an oligarchy of financial institutions with the support and assistance of the government. However, their claim that it is government support of free market policies and limited regulation that created the oligarchy is not true. The truth is that a free market financial system would require ending the Federal Reserve System, the fiat money monopoly, fractional reserve banking, and government sponsored financial guarantees expressed or implied. The end of these government policies would result in a true free market banking system which would result in competition and the end of the oligarchy.

The authors are so wrong in their conclusions, and their history of banking is so commonplace, that this book is a waste of time.

Shooting at Loons

By Margaret Maron     Copyright 1994

This is a revolting book. The author is obviously a feminist, and she has written a book intended to degrade men. She also appears to have some sort of social agenda. She wants to inspire woman to change their behavior and to adopt masculine personalities and for men to be regarded as feminine. So her story consist of woman characters who are strong, aggressive, and decisive leaders. And her male characters are relatively weak, sensitive, vulnerable, and indecisive. In addition, her male characters are the villains, and the women characters are the heroes.

The story is about a woman judge, in her thirties, who is staying at her cousins vacation cottage in a North Carolina coastal fishing community. In the community, there is conflict between the local people, who traditionally support themselves with fishing, and newcomers who are wealthier and support tourism and environmental regulation.

The judge discovers the murdered body of one of the local residents who got along with both the locals and the newcomers. As the judge goes about her business she learns more about the community residents and motives they may have had to commit the murder.

The suspects include an ambitious woman real estate agent, a feisty woman fish processing plant owner, a strong woman fish farmer, and a sharp woman lawyer.

There are also male suspects. One is a divorce lawyer the judge use to live with in New York. He use to be an idealist, but he has now sold out and is just interested in making money. Another is a fellow male judge, who turns out to be crooked. And then there is her ignorant, abusive boat building neighbor who turns out to be the murderer.

The woman characters are all successful and turn out to be good. The male characters are all pathetic.

This book is rubbish and suitable for burning.