I greatly enjoyed this piece!



First, to address some of the book's lower reviews, I think if you are looking at this piece from the lens of someone interested in the micro-issues of Africa or other nations, or if you are someone who is more solutions-oriented in a micro sense, this book could be disappointing.



However, if you are looking for a cogent macro-argument, this book is top notch. Baker does a very convincing job of connecting the way that Capitalism, when applied to states that lack effective regulatory systems (i.e. both legal infrastructure as well as actual capital regulatory structure) can result in rampant graft. He then connects this issue to a variety of social issues. The reason this is particularly important from a theoretical perspective is because the prevailing notion in society is that Capitalism solves everything. In fact, when poorly executed, it actually inspires graft and can lead to the transfer of value out of a nation, using a variety of means. This has a tremendously negative effect on a nation, the causal of which is the Capitalism that was implemented to "help".



While one critic has suggested that the book speaks too much in generalities, I would mention that his commentary is actually quite the opposite. Relative to notions that poverty is the problem, he turns the argument upside down and demonstrates how poverty is the result. He also sets forth both a solution (the need for comprehensive international regulation from the top down), versus coming up with fringe and marginal changes that are questionably effective (i.e. pouring more money into the poverty issue). I think the critic comes from the fact that Baker does not see a "simple" solution. Instead he frames the solution in ALL it's complexity. This requires the reader recognize that many existing measures are moving in the opposite direction of the solution.



He clearly shows, through examples of Korea and Africa, how addressing the money laundering/lack of regulation of money flows, could have played a positive role in changing social conditions. This is actually completely opposite the common discussion of economists who are more interested in ideas of equilibrium, without consideration for graft and power getting mixed into the equation of how equilibrium plays out.



He ends in defense of capitalism. I would have preferred he end with some of the modified capitalism theories that are out there. However, I suspect he feared that people would think him a socialist if he didn't not explicitly come out in favor of capitalism.



A great book full of examples, that I will be using for some of my academic work. Fantastic job!!

Читать «Capitalism's Achilles Heel: Dirty Money and How to Renew the Free-Market System»

Купить электронную версию