NFT: Non-fiction reading: A diverse collection of favorites.

Incompetence make up a pathetic fraction of spending. The private sector is much more wasteful then the public sector. Corruption is also the calling card of the private sector.

In comment 12958184 dust_bowl said:

Quote:

Incompetence make up a pathetic fraction of spending. The private sector is much more wasteful then the public sector. Corruption is also the calling card of the private sector.

Did you miss the point of the thread?

In comment 12958186 GMenLTS said:

Quote:

In comment 12958184 dust_bowl said: Quote: Incompetence make up a pathetic fraction of spending. The private sector is much more wasteful then the public sector. Corruption is also the calling card of the private sector. Did you miss the point of the thread?

nope. It was about interesting books the op read. They look quite interesting and I'm going to read a few. During his post he gave a sort of review on one book which he sad was too damn liberal and illustrated that point by incorrectly labeling three things and attributing them to a mixed economy. I corrected his rudimentary mistake.

Thank you for correcting that grave error for us all

In comment 12958193 GMenLTS said:

Quote:

Thank you for correcting that grave error for us all

it is a horrible error....also quite embarrassing frankly as it shows the poster has fallen for some propaganda over the years. But fear not I'm Here to correct.

you're special

His nickname is Special Ed.

I've liked most of Gladwell's books, as they're usually quick, easy and fascinating reads. I'm a lifelong Yankee fan, and was very young when the '86 Mets happened, but Pearlman's "The Bad Guys Won" was a freaking great read. "The Franchise" by Cameron Stauth is a great basketball book, it follows the '89(?) Pistons as the author was entrenched with the team. It was the year the Bad Boy Pistons won their first ring, and was far deeper and detailed than the bastardized 30 for 30 about the Pistons. David Wells' Autobiography was a pretty good, quick read. I have Strahan's autobiogprahy on my list to read soon, and surprisingly, it's near impossible for me to find Bouton's Ball Four, something I've been meaning to read for some time.

Non-sports books though, Gangleader for a Day by Sudhir Venkatesh is a must-read, especially if you enjoyed the Wire. Venkatesh basically gets to see the inner workings of a street gang in the South Side of Chicago while working on his graduate degree. Engrossing book to say the least.

But particularly The March of Folly's.

In comment 12958205 manh george said:

Quote:

His nickname is Special Ed.

you are very witty sir. Mind blowing joke.

A very interesting look at some of the less heralded Founders, men like Schuyler, the Morrises, Duane, Wilson and Dickinson who sought to moderate some of the more radical tendencies of the American Revolution.

In comment 12958224 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

A very interesting look at some of the less heralded Founders, men like Schuyler, the Morrises, Duane, Wilson and Dickinson who sought to moderate some of the more radical tendencies of the American Revolution.

calling them conservative is a stretch and some book critics say it is forced. What I will say is the actual founders were not radical at all. Madison said the "the prime goal of government is to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." They were the "more capable set of men." They feared that if the people were given to much power they would "strive for a more equal share of blessings." This they carefully crafted the system to limit democracy.

In fairness to the founders they were pre captalist. So the authors assertion that these were capitalists is absurd. In fact they talk often about how their benivelence would help the less fortunate. But they wouldn't allow a bottom up approach. But they were anything but capitalist. Years later Madison lamented the purchasing of government by wealth.

As for the radical changes they prevented there were none. The founders were pretty agreed on maintaining slavery. Keeping woman and non propert holders from voting. In fact the bill of rights was only included to placate a furious popular response.

One could go on. But to call it the founding conservatives gives away the agenda from the start. To fall for that is shameful. There were no conservatives. There were no capitalists. There were radicals but they were common people kept out of the political process of forming the constitution. Jefferson was a radical but he was sent to France to stay out of it.

The American Political Tradition

Extends across multiple topics, a true Renaissance fool...

No model of ownership is intrinsically more efficient - the efficiency of service is dependent upon external factors such as competition (the military has none, so tends toward wastefulness), regulation, type of service, etc. The public sector is indisputably better at providing some services, the private others - anyone that speaks in absolute terms is more concerned about politics than efficiency.

published several years ago but the author won the nobel prize last year.

In comment 12958239 Ash_3 said:

Quote:

The American Political Tradition

Read that one in my HS American History class.

In comment 12958268 Rob in CT/NYC said:

Quote:

Extends across multiple topics, a true Renaissance fool... No model of ownership is intrinsically more efficient - the efficiency of service is dependent upon external factors such as competition (the military has none, so tends toward wastefulness), regulation, type of service, etc. The public sector is indisputably better at providing some services, the private others - anyone that speaks in absolute terms is more concerned about politics than efficiency.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote at all. I was advocating for a mixed economy one in which the private sector has a crucial role. I did not explain myself well and I welcome your accurate correction. Your point about the military was spot on. Though I think you neglect that there is some competition in the military regarding private security contractors and in production of weapons other militaries. I am to be clear strongly against the market solves all approach which I think to some extent you are.

I am no communist and see the incredible role the private sector has played in this countries history. But I find government intervention and economic development to have played a massively underrated role and a bigger one. For example the military is responsible for developing virtually every major invention in the last 60 years. Incidentally a lot of that came from nazi technology a major reason we won the race to the moon. But the internet, cell phone technology, major advances in medicine, air travel, computers, etc, are overwhelmingly products of the state sector which is vibrant and dynamic. You take away the private sector and we get the stale soviet state. Nobody wants that I hope. But you take away the state sector and you get a third world country, something we are headed towards in terms of economic inequalities.

A World Lit Only by Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance: Portrait of an Era is an interesting look at some of our ancestors.

I also advocate that any and all baseball fans read Bouten's Ball Four. very irreverent look inside the game way before it's time.

This sums it up well, IMO

"A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

In comment 12958431 AP in Halfmoon said:

Quote:

This sums it up well, IMO "A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

he was def my favorite founder.

But I think the will of the majority of people are far more important than a slaveholder reading hypocritical words. Over the course of American history I think ordinary Americans have done a great job shaping America into a much better place. Whether via feminism, labor struggles, environmental groups, civil rights etc. That's America at its best in my view. The new deal, another example of civic action, repudiates Jefferson and showed that Americans came to expect more from their government. Basic safeguards. The right has been trying to overturn virtually every achievement of the last 60 years. The left is so owned by money interests that their protests have been hollow at best. It's up to the people again!

"The Illusion of God's Presence: The Biological Origins of Spiritual Longing"
by John C. Wathey

Clever, well-written, highly analytical.

As far as responding to Rob:

Quote:

No model of ownership is intrinsically more efficient - the efficiency of service is dependent upon external factors such as competition (the military has none, so tends toward wastefulness), regulation, type of service, etc. The public sector is indisputably better at providing some services, the private others.

That is exactly their point. The problem is that in many states and in much of Congress, the complementary role of government in what they call the "mixed economy" is now viewed derogatorily. Our infrastructure crisis, the diminishing role of public-derived science, and in some states, efforts to starve all governmental activities (e.g., Kansas) are all examples of that. The whole idea of cost-benefit in examining public sector activities has gotten badly distorted. On the other hand, as we move toward an increasingly technological age, governments are going to have to reach out to the public sector for partnership, as technological skills and efficiencies move up faster on the private side than the public side. Be all of this as it may, the authors give terrific examples where the public sector role in the 20th century US economic miracle was essential. And, in my view, the mixed economy framework will become even more important as we move deeper into "The Fourth Technological Revolution," as Klaus Schwab calls it. (I don't recommend that book, btw. Too simplistic.)

In comment 12958205 manh george said:

Quote:

His nickname is Special Ed.

I think that's been changed to "Short Bus."

In comment 12958441 manh george said:

Quote:

"The Illusion of God's Presence: The Biological Origins of Spiritual Longing" by John C. Wathey Clever, well-written, highly analytical. As far as responding to Rob: Quote: No model of ownership is intrinsically more efficient - the efficiency of service is dependent upon external factors such as competition (the military has none, so tends toward wastefulness), regulation, type of service, etc. The public sector is indisputably better at providing some services, the private others. That is exactly their point. The problem is that in many states and in much of Congress, the complementary role of government in what they call the "mixed economy" is now viewed derogatorily. Our infrastructure crisis, the diminishing role of public-derived science, and in some states, efforts to starve all governmental activities (e.g., Kansas) are all examples of that. The whole idea of cost-benefit in examining public sector activities has gotten badly distorted. On the other hand, as we move toward an increasingly technological age, governments are going to have to reach out to the public sector for partnership, as technological skills and efficiencies move up faster on the private side than the public side. Be all of this as it may, the authors give terrific examples where the public sector role in the 20th century US economic miracle was essential. And, in my view, the mixed economy framework will become even more important as we move deeper into "The Fourth Technological Revolution," as Klaus Schwab calls it. (I don't recommend that book, btw. Too simplistic.)

starting in the 1970s there was a consorted effort by corporate America do to just that. They were scared to death of the 60s. High level meetings were planned. This is quite documented now. It launched numbers of coalitions, such as the heritage foundation with the specific purpose of creating a false narrative of neo liberalism. Which isn't new or liberal. It also had the effect of moving the right off the charts and traditional democrats to essentially what used to be called moderate republicans. It was and is still the biggest assault on American democracy in the modern age or perhaps ever. There's a rich documentary record on this. It demonized unions the bread and butter of what was the American Dream. It was a viscous class war brilliantly fought against working people and it will continue until popular action rights it's wrong.

In comment 12958449 BMac said:

Quote:

In comment 12958205 manh george said: Quote: His nickname is Special Ed. I think that's been changed to "Short Bus."

it takes real scum to make such jokes. Having dealt with relatives with real disabilities I find it despicable and the fact that nobody will call you out on this is testament to the sheep who graze here. Disgraceful.

what an awful human being you are. The really bad jokes were simply intended to do just that. I start a thread to discuss non-fiction books I like, and perhaps induce a few others to do the same, and you take the opportunity turn it into another exercize in "look at Dust_Bowl." There was no reason for that, and there is no reason you continue to be permitted to post on BBI. You can hide behind the idea that a couple of people made awful jokes toward theoretical targets, or recognize that the general view toward you here is richly earned contempt.

In comment 12958586 manh george said:

Quote:

what an awful human being you are. The really bad jokes were simply intended to do just that. I start a thread to discuss non-fiction books I like, and perhaps induce a few others to do the same, and you take the opportunity turn it into another exercize in "look at Dust_Bowl." There was no reason for that, and there is no reason you continue to be permitted to post on BBI. You can hide behind the idea that a couple of people made awful jokes toward theoretical targets, or recognize that the general view toward you here is richly earned contempt.

Yup, you started a good thread with some interesting book recommendations, and it quickly gets turned into another "look at me" vehicle by one poster with zero interest in engaging in mature discussions.

Having strong opinions is one thing. Using them to turn every attempted conversation into a debacle is another.

In comment 12958586 manh george said:

Quote:

what an awful human being you are. The really bad jokes were simply intended to do just that. I start a thread to discuss non-fiction books I like, and perhaps induce a few others to do the same, and you take the opportunity turn it into another exercize in "look at Dust_Bowl." There was no reason for that, and there is no reason you continue to be permitted to post on BBI. You can hide behind the idea that a couple of people made awful jokes toward theoretical targets, or recognize that the general view toward you here is richly earned contempt.

Leave it up anyway. He deserves to continue being exposed.

In comment 12958586 manh george said:

Quote:

what an awful human being you are. The really bad jokes were simply intended to do just that. I start a thread to discuss non-fiction books I like, and perhaps induce a few others to do the same, and you take the opportunity turn it into another exercize in "look at Dust_Bowl." There was no reason for that, and there is no reason you continue to be permitted to post on BBI. You can hide behind the idea that a couple of people made awful jokes toward theoretical targets, or recognize that the general view toward you here is richly earned contempt.

there is nothing wrong with what I posted on this thread. I agreed with posters. Accepted mistakes. Disagreed with others. You made a remark on your book review that I had every right to respond too. The fact you are calling me out instead of the person making fun of people with disabilities exposes you for the fraud you are. I like talking about the issues, clearly. I seek no attention from these threads and continuing to pump that bs is a cop out because on the merits you have nothing.

You're consistently wrong, this thread is another example. How does one discuss policy with a person who lacks a fundamental understanding of issues?

In comment 12958602 dust_bowl said:

Quote:

In comment 12958586 manh george said: Quote: what an awful human being you are. The really bad jokes were simply intended to do just that. I start a thread to discuss non-fiction books I like, and perhaps induce a few others to do the same, and you take the opportunity turn it into another exercize in "look at Dust_Bowl." There was no reason for that, and there is no reason you continue to be permitted to post on BBI. You can hide behind the idea that a couple of people made awful jokes toward theoretical targets, or recognize that the general view toward you here is richly earned contempt. there is nothing wrong with what I posted on this thread. I agreed with posters. Accepted mistakes. Disagreed with others. You made a remark on your book review that I had every right to respond too. The fact you are calling me out instead of the person making fun of people with disabilities exposes you for the fraud you are. I like talking about the issues, clearly. I seek no attention from these threads and continuing to pump that bs is a cop out because on the merits you have nothing.

Why didn't you just recommend books you wish to push instead of degrading books that others recommended? Apparently you don't want people to read various sources and make their own unbiased opinions.

Cool your jets and add books to the list. You can be an asset here but you chose to be an ass.

What causes you to be so confrontational?

When you think your better than everyone, the only thing that proves is you aren't.

the American Revolution didn't go the way of the French Revolution for a variety of reasons, many of which are the subject of vigorous historical dispute. But there was certainly nothing foreordained about that, and the men who took it in a direction away from class violence - leveling in the parlance of the day - and toward more gradual or limited changes to the existing social order could fairly be termed conservatives, even if that term had little or no contemporary meaning.

And likewise proto-capitalism, even if not understood as such by its practitioners, still bore some of the recognizable features of its later, better-developed successors. And while of course many of these ventures had the imprimatur of the state (particularly through the granting of monopoly), they were in uncharted territory. Hamilton's understanding of commerce and of finance might not impress a libertarian but certainly there are rudiments of the sorts of public finance, and privately organized finance for that matter, that would power the later industrial revolutions, the railroad and canal booms, etc.

In comment 12958418 ktinsc said:

Quote:

A World Lit Only by Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance: Portrait of an Era is an interesting look at some of our ancestors.

There has been a lot of revisionism in medievalism in the 25 years since A World Lit Only by Fire was published. Much of it is no longer considered accurate.

have a few flights for work coming up.

Going to come back and look at the suggestions.

Thanks!

In comment 12958212 grizz299 said:

Quote:

But particularly The March of Folly's.

Thanks for reminding me about this author. Several years ago, read her book The Guns of August: The Outbreak of World War I. Good read.

Have not read any of them; will try.

as non-fiction, but after watching the AMC historical fiction show Turn (about America's first spy network in the Revolutionary War) I read the book Washington's Spies: The Story of America's First Spy Ring by Alexander Rose.

It's not as riveting as the show. I expected a real page turner, but he I don't think takes the liberties the show does to embellish the plots, but the writing is all over the place.

but...what I found fascinating was how the spy network worked, how hesitant they all were to use spies because it was thought of as dishonorable, and some of the purported actual letters between some of the spies and Washington or Arnold.

talking about under-acknowledged founders, Benjamin Tallmadge, Caleb Brewster and Abraham Woodhull (especially Woodhull) and Anna Strong risked so much personal loss for the future of their country.

I'd read it if you're interested in stuff like this, it's kind of a difficult read though just by way of flow, not the content or the words.

"Wall Streeters: The Creators and Corruptors of American Finance" by Edward Morris.

A new one is imminent: "Makers and Takers: The Rise of Finance and the fall of American Business," by Rana Foohar. It was excerpted in the cover story on the crisis in Capitalism in this week's Time Magazine

Quote:

Policy makers get caught up in the details of regulating “Too Big To Fail” banks, but the problems in our market system go much broader and deeper than that. Consider that: · Thanks to 40 years of policy changes and bad decisions, only about 15 % of all the money in our market system actually ends up in the real economy – the rest stays within the closed loop of finance itself. · The financial sector takes a quarter of all corporate profits in this country while creating only 4 % of American jobs. · The tax code continues to favor debt over equity, making it easier for companies to hoard cash overseas rather than reinvest it on our shores. · Our biggest and most profitable corporations are investing more money in stock buybacks than in research and innovation. · And, still, the majority of the financial regulations promised after the 2008 meltdown have yet come to pass, thanks to cozy relationship between our lawmakers and the country’s wealthiest financiers.

Bill2 has been talking about these issues for years, although I won't begin to suggest that he agrees with all of it.

P.S. Some of the missing regulations of banks are excellent , and some suck, so that's another story.

In comment 12959792 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

as non-fiction, but after watching the AMC historical fiction show Turn (about America's first spy network in the Revolutionary War) I read the book Washington's Spies: The Story of America's First Spy Ring by Alexander Rose. It's not as riveting as the show. I expected a real page turner, but he I don't think takes the liberties the show does to embellish the plots, but the writing is all over the place. but...what I found fascinating was how the spy network worked, how hesitant they all were to use spies because it was thought of as dishonorable, and some of the purported actual letters between some of the spies and Washington or Arnold. talking about under-acknowledged founders, Benjamin Tallmadge, Caleb Brewster and Abraham Woodhull (especially Woodhull) and Anna Strong risked so much personal loss for the future of their country. I'd read it if you're interested in stuff like this, it's kind of a difficult read though just by way of flow, not the content or the words.

Here is the summary from the book jacket:

And if anyone likes this genre, I cannot recommend the show enough, it's in season 3 now, but would be an incredible binge watch.

Quote:

Based on remarkable new research, acclaimed historian Alexander Rose brings to life the true story of the spy ring that helped America win the Revolutionary War. For the first time, Rose takes us beyond the battlefront and deep into the shadowy underworld of double agents and triple crosses, covert operations and code breaking, and unmasks the courageous, flawed men who inhabited this wilderness of mirrors—including the spymaster at the heart of it all. In the summer of 1778, with the war poised to turn in his favor, General George Washington desperately needed to know where the British would strike next. To that end, he unleashed his secret weapon: an unlikely ring of spies in New York charged with discovering the enemy’s battle plans and military strategy. Washington’s small band included a young Quaker torn between political principle and family loyalty, a swashbuckling sailor addicted to the perils of espionage, a hard-drinking barkeep, a Yale-educated cavalryman and friend of the doomed Nathan Hale, and a peaceful, sickly farmer who begged Washington to let him retire but who always came through in the end. Personally guiding these imperfect everyday heroes was Washington himself. In an era when officers were gentlemen, and gentlemen didn’ t spy, he possessed an extraordinary talent for deception—and proved an adept spymaster. The men he mentored were dubbed the Culper Ring. The British secret service tried to hunt them down, but they escaped by the closest of shaves thanks to their ciphers, dead drops, and invisible ink. Rose’s thrilling narrative tells the unknown story of the Revolution–the murderous intelligence war, gunrunning and kidnapping, defectors and executioners—that has never appeared in the history books. But Washington’s Spies is also a spirited, touching account of friendship and trust, fear and betrayal, amid the dark and silent world of the spy.

is the idea that dust_bowl reads.

by Nick Flynn, the 2nd of his three memoirs.

#1 and #3 were better, but I recommend all 3 (the other two being Another Bullshit Night in Suck City and The Reenactments).

Keegan's The First World War is still the finest history of it that I have read.

But I think you really need to dive into a monograph or two. It's not that you need to understand every battle in depth, it's that a book or two on Ypres/Passchendaele or the Somme or even Verdun can help you to understand in greater depth than a survey the challenges of the Western Front.

Of those, the one that stands out off the top of my head is Alastair Horne's history of Verdun, The Price of Glory.

A World Lit Only by Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance: Portrait of an Era is an interesting look at some of our ancestors.



There has been a lot of revisionism in medievalism in the 25 years since A World Lit Only by Fire was published. Much of it is no longer considered accurate. [/quote]

Thanks for your input Greg. My reading is less about scholarly pursuit than entertainment. I've really enjoyed reading Manchester. Has much of his work been dismissed?

Goodbye, Darkness his memoir of landing on Tarawa was a great read.

was a great read of events from a personal perspective.

I agree, A World Lit Only by Fire is an entertaining read, but it plays along with a lot of outdated stereotypes about medieval Europe. It's a subject that was outside of his area of expertise, and not his best book.

In comment 12959865 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

Keegan's The First World War is still the finest history of it that I have read.

Someone mentioned Barbara Tuchman above. "The Guns of August" is required reading in that area.

Cod: A Biography of the Fish that Changed the World. I enjoy fishing and history so I ordered it. It's a fun read and parts of it are fascinating. It's the perfect book for a beach vacation.