How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of Our Country, from the Pilgrims to the Present

The author sounds like my grandfather shouting at the television. He rants about the wrongheadedness of the intellectuals, media, environmentalist.... His dogmatism ensures he is reving up the already converted but makes it unlikely he will persuade any not already committed to his cause. I was expecting a less slanted "history" and better referencing ("90% of murderers on network television are business people" Where did that statement come from? The study either included portrayals of drug dealers or included only episodes of Columbo). I gave this book three stars only because it introduced me, through cover art, to William Bradford (the painter, not the colonist. Check out the internet gallery).

A contrarian point of view is very much needed because the media has reached a conclusion about the role of government or entrepreneurial activity and the economy. I am always concerned about what I read in the media. Few if any journalists understand the topics of business, finance, or economics, let alone what the free market is. Yet the media commonly presents as facts things of which they have little understanding or practical knowledge. The media in America would have the average American convinced that Rockefeller or Gates are robber barons, the Great Depression was caused by too free of a market, too much competition is somehow bad, and the energy crisis of the 1970s was real. When compared to our popular notions of the free market and the role of capitalism, DiLorenzo's arguments cut cleanly across the grain of conventional economic wisdom. He deftly explains that what most Americans understand as the free market is hardly that at all. Having worked on Capital Hill, his explanation of how our `trusted' politicians in Washington (or elsewhere) distort, even while claiming to deregulate, the market place for their own gain is spot on. The American economy has becoming increasing mercantilist as a consequence. Even if you are of a liberal political strip, I recommend this book if just to get a different perspective. Emotion free, the book is not written with technical jargon. It is a very accessible read.

It is quite obvious that many posting reviews on this book have not actually read it. This may seem fantastic, but one should not be terribly shocked at human irrationality (it's all around us). In fact, the author of the book in question wrote in some length of the anti-capitalistic mentality that contributes to this kind of behavior. I comment specifically on the "review" by A. Epstein as his protests are typical. However, it is clear that "Arwin Ascendi", "Panopticonman", "Sgt. Rock", "Steven S.", and "F Hayek" also have not read the book (at least, their "reviews" contain no information to suggest so). Epstein wrote: "25,000 children die every day around the world from hunger. 1 in 4 American children go starving every day. And this is the proud economic system that the author talks about? Capitalism has shown to be nothing but a smoke screen to make the rich richer. Unfortunately, the rest of the world hasn't figured out the trick just yet." 1. Societies of the world are not organized under capitalism. Therefore, the reference to the number of child deaths in this world is irrelevant. 2. The use of the word "starving" in this case is a dysphemism. Compare the "hunger" experienced by the thousands of dead children invoked by Epstein with the "starving" experienced by 1 in 4 Americans. The words of a Russian immigrant who fled soviet Russia during the 1980's illustrate my position well. When asked why he decided to leave the Soviet Union for the United States, this immigrant replied "Why would anyone not want to live in a country where the poorest members of society are also the fattest!" 3. The statistics cited in this book (compiled by the U.S. government) illustrate nicely that not only are the "rich" getting richer, but the poor are getting richer faster than the rich. If Epstein had actually read the book, then perhaps he would have decided to attack these figures and/or the author's reasoning and conclusions directly. Personally, I believe Epstein to be motivated by envy of those who are more intelligent, industrious, talented, vigorous, and lucky than himself and others. He does not want equality of opportunity, but equality of results... for himself and every other envious and mindless sloth. Many fail to understand that the less gifted and even the lazy see greater and greater return on their efforts under capitalism. In fact, everyone sees a greater return. Epstein is merely upset that there exist some individuals who will always be more efficacious than others. Epstein's position is in opposition to human nature... to reality itself. Murray Rothbard expressed this truth well when he wrote: "On the free market, every man gains; one man's gain, in fact, is precisely the consequence of his bringing about the gain of others. When an exchange is coerced, on the other hand - when criminals or governments intervene - one group gains at the expense of others." 4. A good proportion of this book is devoted to the argument that Ame

There is one silly argument being made among these reviews that conservatism and capitalism are unrelated. Actually, DiLorenzo, a superb colleague of mine, is more of a libertarian and true free-market thinker than a Tory conservative of the George Will mode. Understand this, and you will have a better appreciation for DiLorenzo's approach to capitalism and its cleansing powers. People and markets proposer because we act in our own self-interest. Adam Smith was right and some label him 'liberal'. 'Liberal' means something quite different outside the United States. Those who equate Oliver Stone's "greed is good" mantra for capitalism are missing the point. "Greed" is "reprehensible acquisitiveness" and the beauty of capitalism is that the market speaks louder than government dictates or "greedy capitalists". When the government says, "I'm here to help you," it's time to hold onto your wallets. With capitalism, it's your choice. Greed doesn't work; markets do. DiLorenzo writes with a clear, accessible style. While he is an accomplished researcher and academic, he discovers and disseminates knowledge for a much larger public than other academics. And he is brave enough to take on well-entrenched conventional wisdom, be it the nanny state or worshipful devotees of Abraham Lincoln. We have a problem with unchallenged soft-headed, bleeding heart, liberal thought on many college campuses. DiLorenzo is part of the solution to the excessive political correctness rampant on many college campuses. Read this and open your eyes and mind. This is a nice companion piece to David Landes' "The wealth and poverty of nations: Why some nations are so rich and others so poor." And it fits with the recent studies of the differences between English and French law, and the impact of their respective legal systems on economic success.

Thomas DiLorenzo has a marvelous analytical talent-a knack for drawing the reader's attention to the material that matters-and his new book employs this talent in defense of the whole history of free enterprise in America. How long have we waited for a book like this? A very long time. Having just read it, I'm confident in predicting continued success and sales. It seems like just the right book to give a market skeptic. "You have doubts about capitalism? Read this." After years of interacting with students in an urban business-school environment, DiLorenzo knows precisely what are the main points of contention. The chapters are short but careful in choosing just the right episodes to highlight and arguments to present to make his case. His main points are drawn from the Austrian tradition: the classic texts by Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Reisman, but also the public choice school, and also the best economic historians of our time. He begins with a definition and sweeping defense of capitalism, along with an eye-opening illustration of why such a defense in necessary, citing an egregious history of intellectual defenses of communism. Who remembers that John Dewey called Soviet communism "intrinsically religious" with the "moving spirit and force of primitive Christianity"? The text never slows, as he marches through the history of the pilgrims, the American Revolution, the 19th century debate over internal improvements, the advancement of workers amidst capitalist advance, the myths of the Robber Barrons, the great depression, the New Deal, the energy crisis, and the modern debate on the environment, social regulation, and the war on vice. It occurred to me while reading this that this whole book is a kind of guerilla manual for beating back the most common economic myths one is likely to encounter on campus or in public debate. Master this book and you have overcome most of the bad economic thinking of our time.