4 ms·
"In this scathing indictment of our current global financial system..." Ugh. Lost me right there. I even agree with nearly everything it says in the summary,
by rossdavidh 6y ago
"In this scathing indictment of our current global financial system..."
Ugh. Lost me right there. I even agree with nearly everything it says in the summary, but if there's one thing I'm _not_ looking for, it's a book of "scathing indictment" of anything. I get plenty of anger and vicious conversation for free on the internet, unasked for, to want to seek out more.
Calm, reasoned analysis would be welcome. If this book is actually "scathing" (and that's not just some publisher's idea of what people are looking for), I can do without, thanks.
- tacocataco 6y agoIs logic and reasoning working?
- kristianc 6y ago> The book uses case studies–from Silicon Valley to the financial sector to big pharma–to show how the foggy notions of value create confusion between rents and profits, a difference that distorts the measurements of growth and GDP. This also reads like the book was written with the conclusions already in mind, and the case studies cherry picked.
- bryanlarsen 6y agoOr it just means that the cover blurbs were written after the book, which is normal practice.
- SkyMarshal 6y agoThat’s a possibility, but the build up in explaining those conclusions is in depth and comprehensive. The exploration of the problem space is worth reading, even if you disagree with the conclusions and solution proposals.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dasil003 6y agoAgreed, however calm, reasoned analysis doesn't generate political will. It just becomes fodder for the demagogues to slice and dice in service of their own influence. We're at a point that our societal and economic structures are not incentivized to solve the hard problems of scaling our civilization. I don't think polarized rhetoric is the way, but neither does anyone have time for the nuanced and deliberate thinking necessary to solve these kinds of complex structural problems.
- naringas 6y agoBy this point nunaced and deliberate thinking on its own won't cut it. We need to reconsider serveral implied assumptions going back hundreds of years. But doing this in a way such that people (and institutional persons) don't take it as an attack on what they are seems (and probably is) impossible.
- dustingetz 6y ago"Ugh lost me right there ... I can do without thanks" is not calm reasoning, its closer to "unasked for anger"
- amiga_500 6y agoI've not read anything from Mazzucato that his hyperbolic, so let me say that your immediate dismissal of her work based on one comment is not necessary.
- rossdavidh 6y agoSorry, you may be right, but I think a lot of other people will have the same reaction, and just never say so. It's better to voice what's a turnoff, I think, though I probably should have sent that comment to the publisher.
- SkyMarshal 6y agoThat’s just a copy-writer or reviewer comment. The actual book is more scholarly, calm and reasoned, starting with a tour of how the economic theory of value evolved and the impact of it on real economic activity. You would think that by now that the professional wordsmiths writing reviews and book-jacket comments would realize people are developing cognitive immunities and resistances to inflammatory language like that, and that it’s losing its effectiveness.