How The West Was Lost

How The West Was Lost

Fifty Years Of Economic Folly--and The Stark Choices Ahead

Book - 2011
Average Rating:
7
Rate this:
"One of TIME magazine's 100 most influential people of 2009 asks: Can the decline of the West be reversed?"--
"In How the West Was Lost, the New York Times bestselling author Dambisa Moyo offers a bold account of the decline of the economic supremacy of the West. She examines how the West's flawed financial decisions and blinkered political and military choices have resulted in an economic and geopolitical seesaw that is now poised to tip in favor of the emerging world. As Western economies hover on the brink of recession, emerging economies post double-digit growth rates. And whereas in the past, emerging economies lived and died by America's economic performance, now they look to other emerging countries to buy their goods and fuel their success. Formerly a consultant for the World Bank and an investment banker specializing in emerging markets at Goldman Sachs, Moyo daringly claims that the West can no longer afford to simply regard the up-and-comers as menacing gate-crashers. ow the West Was Lost reveals not only the economic myopia of the West but also the radical solutions that it needs to adopt in order to assert itself as a global economic power once again"--
Publisher: New York : Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011
ISBN: 9780374173258
0374173257
Branch Call Number: 330.973
Characteristics: xiii, 226 pages;,22 cm

Opinion

From the critics


Community Activity

Comment

Add a Comment

d
donkeyhote
Mar 15, 2017

When you assess this book's contents, take into consideration these facts. Acc. to Ted Flynn's book (illustrated with original photos too): "Hope Of The Wicked' (2001) Mao Tse Dung was chosen for his role by Americans. And China is planned to become the Manufacturer of the world. Communism was created by the West for several purposes, read Anthony Sutton's book: "Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution." The present white-dominated consumer capitalist world will be dismantled, capitalism and democracy replaced by a world dictatorship. The "Federal Reserve" is not federal and not American - it's an international bankers' group, which controls the USA money, they print it and lend it at an interest to the American Gov. Lincoln was tricked (forced) into accepting to pass a bill (around 1860), which hands over the rights to print American money to an international bankers' group, in exchange for a 250M Dollar loan during the Civil War, to pay his soldiers. Both sides of that war were financed by the same bankers' group, and they decided which side to win, by stopping the loan. Lincoln was planning the revoke the Bill as soon as the war was won, that's why the bankers sent Wilkes Booth to assassinate Lincoln. 100 years later (around 1960) JF Kennedy wanted to kick out those bankers, had free USA money printed by the Treasury, by an Executive Order, and soon other (3 British James Bond) assassins were sent to remove him. The Founding Fathers (around 1776) were advised, when wording the American Constitution, by a man sent by the Bankers (his name was Heym Solomon), and they put in: "Congress has the right to print money." Somehow, the words "Exclusive right" have been "forgotten" from the text. (And in a book, whose title I prefer not to mention here, bec. even its title is dangerous for anybody who dares to speak of those people - so, in a book the author says: "The Founding Fathers were good friends with the Bankers." The author of that book is Solomon Tulbure, and the book is there in Burnaby Public Library). Read Texe Marrs' book "Codex Magica" too, where he also mentions this and the name of Heym Solomon.

s
stewstealth
Mar 14, 2017

This book feels as the author rushed it out to the marketplace. There are some good points mixed in with claims and statements that are not backed up with good arguments or facts. Overall it is probably worth reading for those interested in economics as its' brevity is ultimately both a positive and negative.

s
StarGladiator
Sep 24, 2014

This is the exact type of book written by a pure capitalist believer, a pure supporter of the status quo, who believes she is tilting against that status quo, and while correct on several items, is thoroughly confusing because she doesn't understand she is chasing insanity. And baldand, you are mistaken, the Fed's rates exactly bolstered the housing bubble, as evidently was the plan all along.

b
baldand
Jun 04, 2012

Moyo’s second book is less successful than her first one, Dead Aid. Where the former was a tightly argued brief on how foreign aid was failing sub-Saharan Africa, her new book is a discursive overview of virtually everything, and on some issues she is simply out of her depth. Still, it is well worth a read by anyone interested in economic issues.
For me, the most valuable part of the book was the section “Not All Bubbles Are Created Equal”, where Moyo details just why housing bubbles can be much more devastating to an economy than equity bubbles. Anyone who remembers the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2000 and the bursting of the American housing bubble in 2005 must have suspected this was so: Moyo explains why.
Moyo gets way out of her depth when she launches a tirade against the adoption of inflation targeting (IT) by central banks as contributing to the Great Contraction of the nought decade. Tony Blair’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, comes in for special criticism for taking financial regulation out of the hands of the Bank of England, as if this decision were somehow intrinsically related to inflation targeting, and not a completely unrelated call. Neither Blair nor Brown had anything to do with the Bank of England adopting IT. This happened under Thatcher, when John Major was her Chancellor of the Exchequer, in November 1992, four and a half years before Brown took office. Although the United Kingdom moved to IT just under two years after Canada, it wisely did not follow Canada’s lead in its choice of inflation indicator. Canada adopted the CPI All-items, which included mortgage interest costs in its owned accommodation component. The counterpart British indicator was the Retail Price Index (RPI), but for its inflation indicator the UK instead went with the RPIX, i.e. the RPI excluding mortgage interest. This was arguably a better inflation indicator than its Canadian equivalent in 1992, and was unarguably a better inflation indicator from 1995 forward, when the RPI and RPIX incorporated a series for replacement cost of depreciation of owner-occupied dwellings, similar to the one in the Canadian CPI, so that the RPIX was reasonably sensitive to movements in current house prices.
On December 10, 2003, Gordon Brown announced that the Bank of England would be switching immediately to the Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices, to be renamed the Consumer Price Index. While in some respects a superior measure of inflation, the CPI’s fatal weakness was that it excluded all homeownership costs except for minor repairs, and so was completely insensitive to the big runup in housing prices then in progress, which ended in a big bust.
Pace Moyo, the US Fed was not an IT central bank in the nought decade so it is grossly unfair to blame the US housing boom and bust on IT. The Fed’s preferred inflation indicator was in any case as insensitive to changes in current house prices as its British counterpart, since it measured homeownership costs based on imputed rents.
Neither Australia nor New Zealand went through a housing boom and bust in the nought decade, although they both have IT central banks. This is at least partly due to their wisdom in adopting as inflation indicators consumer price series that take a net purchase approach to owner-occupied housing. This is why the European Central Bank is planning on moving to a similar indicator, likely by 2017 or 2018.
Denmark’s central bank never went in for IT, following an exchange rate policy with respect to the euro through the nought decade and afterwards, but it suffered a housing boom and bust just the same. On this issue, Moyo simply doesn’t know what she is talking about.

z
zipread
Oct 26, 2011

This book might also be called How the Reader Was Lost! The books starts up all right, like a sort of Economic History with a global perspective. But then it lapse into “longs” and other jargon that it never explains to my satisfaction. And then (gasp) it even throws in some formula ABC = FYIn. Shades of university introductive courses. And that’s where I closed the book and put it on the I Probably Should Read This Book But Can’t be Bothered stack. But then you might want to give it a try. But be warned.

ahousebc Oct 06, 2011

Duller than I expected, which is okay. What was not okay was the consistently weak and incomplete argumentation: Moyo wants to posit a theory that is outside the "conventional wisdom" - she fails to state it clearly and then follows up by failing to make her case.

2
21288004246712
Apr 12, 2011

good start, finish not so much, Moyo is a smart lady, she needs to decide what will happen then strongly argue that idea through

Age

Add Age Suitability

There are no ages for this title yet.

Summary

Add a Summary

There are no summaries for this title yet.

Notices

Add Notices

There are no notices for this title yet.

Quotes

Add a Quote

There are no quotes for this title yet.

Explore Further

Browse by Call Number

Recommendations

Subject Headings

  Loading...

Find it at my library

  Loading...
[]
[]
To Top