Gabor Steingart

Be a Reviewer of “The War for Wealth” by Heather Cooper, McGraw-Hill

I think globalization is inevitable, but it would be hard to say whether or not it is entirely good or bad. Perhaps a little of both.
Bill F., Jun 19, 2008, 5:58pm EDT

Wow! this is an important issue with many sides. I have many different opinions, but I would love to read this book.
What exactly is globalization? Is it selling books to Zimbadwe on ebay? is it factories relocating to China? Is it the need to become more creative in creating wealth in our own back yards.
I assign many McGraw Hill books in my English classes already. This might be an important read and certainly I want to look at the issue from every angle.
Mary Ann S., Jun 19, 2008, 6:11pm EDT

Globalization is not necessarily a good or bad force but an entity that had been brewing for a long time. Now it is about to explode and invade us whether we like it or not, whether we are prepared, or whether we even are aware of it.
Many will need to read this book…I certainly would love to.
Helen C.D.~2008 Wishes ~., Jun 19, 2008, 6:20pm EDT

I think Globalization is a very bad thing. There is no self sustaining local economy whatsoever in our area any longer. It all started with local factories starting to make products to sell and ship to China, Mexico, etc. and it ended with those same factories eventually building plants in China, Mexico, etc. When they built those factories, they turned the tables and started making OUR products overseas to utilize the cheap labor (in turn closing down or extremely downsizing the factory here in the U.S.). It’s pretty hard to condense what I’m trying to say in just a few sentences…hopefully, you get where I’m coming from. I would love to check this book out and give it a review.
Chuck M., Jun 19, 2008, 6:29pm EDT

Please include my name in the list of potential reviewers. I would like to see this presentation to clarify my views which are not solidly placed in either camp at the moment. Having been a teacher and social studies person, I am always interested in trying to see how each facet contributes or decimates the whole when it comes into its own “spotlight,” so to speak.
Donna Hammett-Tooker, Jun 19, 2008, 6:51pm EDT

A very important issue. I believe that it is inevitable we are going to lose our economic standing with the way things are going. Its effects will be far reaching. I would love to review the book!
Cheryl W., Jun 19, 2008, 6:53pm EDT

This is a fascinating issue! I would love to read this book so I can become more informed.
Mary M., Jun 19, 2008, 7:50pm EDT

To me Globialization is a force for good
Soince globalization is a wide-scale experiment with free-market capitalism–that is, trying to give the rough-and-tumble effects of supply and demand between countries more power than the impulse to regulate them.
What we don’t appreciate as a society is the extent to which our standard of living depends on globalization!!!!!
Because of globalization, all of us in America in particular have more career options in more new industries than would have been conceivable even 30 years ago. Affordable prices for goods such as food and electronics, and more choices in these goods, are the result of increased trade.
Globalization also helps save the environment. U.S. environmental groups have teamed up with U.S. corporations such as Ford and Anheuser-Busch, Brazilian companies, and the Brazilian government to save what remains of the Atlantic rain forest in southern Bahia, Brazil. By creating an ecopark in the remaining forest, the group helped create tourism jobs for nearby townspeople who had previously logged the forest as their only source of income. It also worked with local farmers to cultivate shade crops such as cocoa and coffee.
April H., Jun 19, 2008, 10:35pm EDT

Like anything else in life, the success or failure of globalization will depend on its implementation. One thing we can be certain of, however. Globalization is the future, and how we are able to control that future will depend on what measures we take to have it serve us rather than let it consume us.
No doubt globalization will be a more difficult pill for the West to swallow. We are used to being at the top of the economic food chain. The United States can no longer afford to be xenophobic or self-centered. With increasingly globalization, we are forced to confront our own good luck and overuse of the world’s resources.
This book is sure to provoke debate, and I would love to add my voice (ie, review) to the discussion.
Christine Zibas, Jun 21, 2008, 1:40am EDT

This sounds like a very interesting book. Thanks for allowing Gather readers a chance to review it!
Genine Hopkins, Jun 21, 2008, 8:29am EDT

I’d love to read and review this upcoming book, what an interesting, timely topic!
Globalization is here. I think I am still ambiguous about whether it will be good or not. There is a shift of power and wealth going on in the world. There will be more shifts and rifts in wealth and economy as globalization gains momentum.
Everyday Americans may not all be ready to accept the fact that the US will not maintain super power status, but they do see their wealth eroding and feel threatened.
American corporations and business community have long since recognized and embraced globalization.
In a sense it has and will continue to force us to share wealth and resources and globally address how we use our resources. The actions of newly emerging powerhouses like China and India and in the future some African nations will impact us.
I think it is up to us to hold our own and to remain a player in the new global economy. It’s never fun to be knocked off your pedestal, but we can get up and dust ourselves off and stand up proudly right alongside those new powerhouses, because we are still a player.
We’re just not the only game in town any more.
Rose H., Jun 21, 2008, 9:19am EDT

Sounds fascinating but I wouldn’t have time to review it by then.
Jo C., Jun 21, 2008, 12:20pm EDT

It is great that someone will get to read it, though. I might buy a personal copy :)
Jo C., Jun 21, 2008, 12:20pm EDT

An important issue affecting all of us. I would love to review this book!
ISABEL Y., Jun 21, 2008, 3:29pm EDT

I think that globalization is a very big part of our reality in this day and age. The world is slowly being drawn into it. I think there are both good and bad points to it though. We are all so very different and to bring us to the same economic growth as well as prosperity is yet to be proved.
~Connie ~ MLC, Jun 21, 2008, 10:42pm EDT

Globalization, I think is a good thing. The problem is when you live in a rich country, some of our wealth will go away… we’ll have to live with less. I’m ok with it and I am trying to prepare my children by teaching them how to do things the old fashioned way. Especially preparing foods, no cans, more raw beans and veggies.
A percentage of their clothes are hand me downs, we could afford to buy them new, but I know the time is coming when they will have to do with less and I’m ok with it.
As a child I traveled to Brazil… most of my family is middle class there, but one uncle chose to keep his family in the boonies. Some of their neighbors had absolutely nothing, they’d invite me to eat with them and have to borrow an extra fork from a neighbor. They had what they needed on a regular basis and no more yet I would call them rich. I think the US and other countries need to realize that they may gain something more than monetary, like how to live off the land and faith.
So, back to the point, I think globalization is in our best interest. If there are poor disgruntled people aren’t they more likely to become enemies? there’s enough for lots of people to get some, not all, but some.
Delphine B., Jun 22, 2008, 1:18am EDT

I don’t think globalization is a force for good or for bad. I don’t even think globalization is a single thing that can be viewed in those terms. Steingart’s book sounds interesting (and more than a little disturbing, and I’d very much like to read and review it
Wil B., Jun 23, 2008, 6:45am EDT

great topic
♠♠(Just~♠DN♠~) ♠♠ &., Jun 23, 2008, 10:36am EDT

Conceptually I think globalization was sold to us as a good idea: we would have access to more markets for trade, which would help our economy and give us access to cheaper goods. However, big picture, I think it has had a negative effect. We have out-sourced more and more of our jobs overseas and our trade defecit is increasing. Due to the out-sourced industries, other countries are now becoming industrialized and westernized and competing with us for energy and food, driving up those costs. We have outsourced our food production, displacing local food production in those countries and leading to food shortages for their own people because what is grown is exported to the US at high energy costs and where much of it will likely be tossed into the garbage. Everywhere I look I see negative impacts as a result of globalization.
Amy B., Jun 23, 2008, 11:09am EDT

It is inevitable but can be both good or bad.
Ashley B., Jun 23, 2008, 3:51pm EDT

Wow, I had not thought about this topic for a long time now. While being under so much stress with the Motgage problems, Social Security issues, electricity issues, job problems, etc. but I just stoped to think about it and I think globalization is the problem behind all of my personal issues. I could be wrong, but it seems as though certain companies and people are taking over our Country (possibly the World) and I did not even notice. I am not totally sure I understand “globalization” I would be very interested in reading your book and coming to my own understanding of it and how it will effect my family. Thanks.
Susan D., Jun 23, 2008, 5:23pm EDT

globalization is neither good nor bad. It is a process that will create a new world economic balance based on technology. We can try and fight it, but it won’t help, it is coming. The best situation is to try understand the impact on individuals and the nation and form a plan how to prosper in this brave new world.
Linda G., Jun 24, 2008, 6:45pm EDT

Sounds like an interesting read.
Rae M., Jun 25, 2008, 8:48am EDT

In a perfect world globalization could be a good thing if “Free Trade” were allowed to work as intended. It would force competition between suppliers producing similar items. Cost and quality would be decided by the consumer, not corporations deciding what should be made available, sub-standard or not and at what price.
Unfortunately, the playing fields aren’t level from country to country. Safety regulations, labor and content laws are all different, some are enforced while others are not. Plus, there are too many deep pocketed special interest groups able to manipulate the global market and economy.
After 25 years in the in automotive industry, I was able to witness first hand what forced globalization can do to an entire industry. In my personal opinion since the rules of the game aren’t equal, globalization at this time is not good for the United States.
Vana R., Jun 25, 2008, 5:54pm EDT

Globalization is a process of bringing about homogenization of our societies to the time described in the Bible – as Babel. This will result in the creation of a one World order resulting in the ultimate rebellion against God the creator of all things (in the form of abuse of all good things known to mankind). The process has accelerated in the past decades. Enormous transfer of people, wealth, knowledge, culture and religious systems will take place.
It is inevitable and foretold for the ones who care to know. As with any major changes there will be winners and losers. Survival will depend on humility, closeness to your family and Church (I simply mean the spiritual body of believers in Christ as our savior – no religion). Also, start downsizing your economic life style, consume less – simply put live within your means however meager it gets.
Jai S., Jun 26, 2008, 7:43pm EDT

In my opinion, Globalization is a ”bad” thing. The consequence has already brought ”down” the economic health of America. It pits the American worker and environmental standards, against 3rd world countries that do ”not” have these same standards. Competition between us and the rest of the world is harming the American dream.
Not only do these things present problems for the United States, but we have yet to feel the ”real” consequence of globalization. We have started to feel its other disadvantages, like food shortages, and higher food and fuel prices, but the most devastating scenario is yet to come. Famine, disease, starvation and mass death from these plagues. It is only a mater of time that we start seeing thing like Ebola, Dengue Fever, Cholera, Hantavirus , and other such diseases in epidemic proportions in America, being brought here by unsuspecting products and people. Globalization doesn’t only mean the good things will end up here. We will import the bad too.
Dr. dummy (I may be dumb, but I’m not stupid) B., Jun 28, 2008, 3:00pm EDT

It is a very important issue, and one we have had little time, as the American public to really study. Everything changes is true, but I do not feel this is a good thing. Too many jobs gone, and what do have to show for it? We have lost clout in many markets, and have contributed to the construction of others in many countries. Where are those benefits for us?
I would truly enjoy an informed opinion on this topic. And better still I would like to relate my feelings on this, as it will affect many, and generations to come. Ellen B
ELLEN B., Jul 8, 2008, 5:10pm EDT

I personally have little to no faith that this world as we know it will do anything but become ever more polarized between the filthy rich few that are already in control and forcing the globalization under their terms, with the majority being effectively their slaves on the bottom.
Theirs is a dualistic process of winners/losers, the rich/poor, and them calling the shots. Already they have plans for the US, Canada, and Mexico (as a beginning) to unite as a single business entity to do battle with the EU … all of that as part of the master plan of the old story of “Divide and Control” … pitting the peoples against one another in a form of competition with some nationalism called patriotism imposed while the strings of all below are being pulled by the few at the top of the secret hierarchy that prosper due to the interchanges they have arranged.
That all being a part of the master plan laid out ages ago and followed patiently to this very day with lying, trickery and conspiracy beyond the imagination of most folks who have been brainwashed to deny any mention of it, and them encouraged to apologetically shame anyone that does, by supposed peer pressure.
A good read through the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion will show that hidden blueprint for such control. Take the mention of Jews (as the red herring used to justify calling it a forgery) out of the issue and leave in the Zionists, and you will have an accurate picture …
The fate of this world as prophesied forever is at stake here, the control by an uncaring greedy evil that seeks to remain in charge with false promises … relative poverty and social enslavement for most all … OR … gaining some spiritual insight to make your personal connection to a generic God that will direct you on the best path for an eternal future NOT relying on this world materialistic trend mentioned …
Naturally you would NOT select me for a review because I tell the truth as I have come to see it, besides, I am always too busy here on Gather telling others what I know anyway, to have the time to read it … if it is being published by a major publisher such as McGraw Hill, then they have probably already been bought out by those “controllers” any way, along with our entire main stream media, all which is tightly controlled to perpetuate the farce at our expense … the
“game” is highly “rigged” and I reject the whole farcical scenario …
Jerry Kays, Jul 9, 2008, 1:52am EDT

Good Luck Heather.
Janet B., Jul 9, 2008, 12:09pm EDT

I see Rose is going to be reviewing this. She is one of my favorite people on Gather. I am eager to see her review :)
Jo C., Jul 10, 2008, 6:32pm EDT

oh wish I had seen this earlier. I think the unions have sucked the life out of Canada and the US. I know they were necessary for a long time , but they have gone over board, and so have our companies (over board as in gone to other countries )
Wendy F., Jul 13, 2008, 8:22pm EDT

AMAZON-REVIEWS

Look Into the Future!, July 10, 2008
By Loyd E. Eskildson “Pragmatist” (Phoenix, AZ.)
Steingart believes we spend too much time worrying about places like Kabul and Baghdad, and not enough thinking about places like Shanghai. “The War for Wealth” then details that case. Steingart also contends that the true tale of globalization is not being told – it is anything but a win-win situation. By 2025 China and India will likely dominate the world market with their purchasing power. It took both the U.S. and Japan about 40 years to double their per capita GDP; China took only twelve years.
Harvard historian David Landes believes that their success (and others) is determined by culture – moral values and behaviors. Unfortunately, per Steingart, we currently are paving the road to our demise with self-deception and self-affirmation.
Premier Deng Xiaoping was underestimated by Western leaders when he took over after Mao’s death – partly because capitalism was seen as incompatible with a lack of democracy. Deng began by gradually liberalizing restraints on China’s collectivized farmers, and in five years 98% of farmland was back in their hands. Deng also put off the military demands for resources, telling them the economy needed to grow first. Subsidies for government businesses decreased, then stopped, in exchange for the state no longer claiming all their revenues. Deng also opened China to foreign investment – $7 million in 1980, $250 billion now. Deng’s changes were much more successful than those in resource-rich Russia which underwent a U.S. consultant-led crash immersion.
Brazil, Russia, China, and India together comprise about 45% of the world’s labor supply. This will increase further – by 2050 another 1.2 billion are expected to live in Asia.
Those waiting for Chinese wages to equal those in the U.S., thereby eliminating its competitive advantage, have a long wait – Steingart estimates it will take another 30 years before Asian incomes are half as high as those in the U.S., if wage growth in Asia remains constant.
Eighty percent of Wal-Mart’s suppliers are in China; until 2004 the U.S. was the largest exporter of IT products – now it is China.
Chinese innovation is accelerated by partnership requirements placed on Westerners building in China, piracy, espionage, R&D spending about 1/3 that of the U.S. (not adjusted for currency differences), extensive training in U.S. universities, higher IQs (about 10 points, on average, per research elsewhere; nine of Microsoft’s ten most promising employees are Asian), and buying Western companies and resources. (Hitachi bought RCA and found it could sell its products at a higher price using the RCA label.)
Not only is Chinese labor much cheaper than that in the U.S., it doesn’t have the social overhead costs of the U.S. – eg. health care and pensions.
Potential Flashpoints in the Future: North Korea (supported by China) vs. South Korea, India (backed by Russia) vs. Pakistan (backed by China), and Taiwan. Meanwhile, the U.S. and China continue their strange economic relationship.
“The War for Wealth’s” one weakness lies in its recommendations – eg. more R&D in the U.S. That cannot overcome a dramatic cost difference held by a nation that is rapidly moving from production to also provide capable design and invention as well. Help other customers find the most helpful reviews

Insightful and compelling…, May 13, 2008
By Amanda Marie Kempa
I am currently researching NATO’s history, so I was immediately intrigued when I heard about Gabor Steingart’s ideas on an “economic NATO” – a stronger partnership between Europe and the US intended to grapple with the challenges posed by emerging economic powerhouses such as China and India and the new forms of authoritarian democracy they propagate. I would not agree with all the conclusions of his book — overall, I am more optimistic that future giants such as China will ultimately come to the conclusion that increasingly playing by the rules is in their best interest, and that current giants like the US will manage to remain competitive, just as they did when confronted by another economic threat from Asia, Japan, in the 1980s. However, Steingart presents an inspiring and thought-provoking case for the need for stronger transatlantic cooperation: he mixes compelling reporting from all over the world with sharp and concise analysis. The far-reaching interview with Prof. Samuelson at the end of the book is big plus, too.
I particularly liked, though, that Steingart does not hesitate to develop a real vision for the partnership between Europe and the US. In the conclusion, he refers to John F. Kennedy’s Philadelphia speech from 1962 and his often overlooked ideas on a transatlantic cooperation beyond NATO. Given the roadblocks even minor agreements seem to encounter, it might be overly optimistic to hope for really closer ties anytime soon — but any outline of a vision for the future is badly needed in the current debates on the relationship between Europe and the US. That is because, unfortunately, far too many people on both sides of the Atlantic seem to consider the “special relationship” a thing of the past rather than the huge field of opportunity it actually is

A Must Read …, April 22, 2008
By Kris Kline
Gabor Steingart not only takes the incredibly complex issue of globalization and puts it into terms we can all recognize and understand, but he then dares to go where many authors fear to tread: he offers solutions. For anyone seriously interested in the future of America, it’s a real page-turner. Kris Kline, co-author Estados Unidos/United States Help other customers find the most helpful reviews

Democratization of Globalization: Wishful Thinking?, January 20, 2009
By Serge J. Van Steenkiste (Atlanta, GA)
Gabor Steingart argues that the biggest challenge that the United States, and more generally the West, faces, is not terror, but globalization (p. ix). Globalization is a process that polarizes and divides, producing a large number of winners and losers (p. 142). Think for example about what has been going on in the United States for decades: Deindustrialization, a persistent trade deficit, and a fast-growing debt (pp. 9, 13, 69-76, 79, 81-90, 145-49, 159, 172, 190-93, 225, 229-32, 237). Steingart observes that economic strength is not a guarantee but a condition of the ability to become and remain a world power (pp. 123, 172-78).
Steingart is critical of both die-hard free traders and unreconstructed protectionists in the West. Both groups share an inability to change due to their unwillingness to acquire new knowledge that challenges their moral values and behaviors (pp. 8-10, 15, 21, 122, 133, 190-93, 241-45). Openmindness is the key driver behind the rise and fall of world powers (pp. 7-8, 224).
Steingart points out that the 20th century triumph of (Western) liberalism over both fascism and communism went hand in hand with the resurgence of Asia (pp. 7, 125, 161, 167). Democracy and the market economy are not connected like Siamese twins (p. 102). Asia is the theater of a clash of values and behaviors that fuels instability (pp. 203-22, 225-30). Unlike countries such as India, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan; China and Russia combine capitalism with an authoritarian state (pp. 102-05, 124-25, 207-08, 228). Steingart pleads for the democratization of globalization, a new paradigm for the worldwide economy that takes away its archaic and authoritarian characteristics (pp. 21, 230-60).
To achieve this goal, Steingart spends most of his time debunking what he calls the seven fallacies of globalization (pp. 10-21):
1. The logical progression for a developed economy is to move from an industry-based to a service-based economy. Like Erik Reinert, Steingart rightly stresses the critical importance of the manufacturing sector as a vector of innovation and riches for a (developed) economy. Service jobs are at the end of the production chain, not an independent unit. When manufacturing jobs get offshored, service jobs will soon follow (pp. 11-12, 77, 79, 232). The West is losing jobs that cannot be replaced with jobs in the service economy (pp. 123, 143). In their arrogance, some politicians regard consumption without production a sign of strength (pp. 80-81, 237). Unfortunately, Steingart does not acknowledge that Asian countries like China are also subject to the offshoring of manufacturing jobs to “more convenient” locations.
2. Economics and morals have no commonality. Steingart contrasts the more sophisticated capitalism of the West, which aims to protect both the environment and its workers, with a brutal and primitive form of capitalism that prevails in some Asian countries that are willing to do everything for less (pp. ix, 13, 35, 52-53, 178-90, 217, 242-45, 257-58). Most Western consumers are co-responsible for this situation: they compare prices and performance, but they could not care less about nationalities or social welfare systems (pp. 152, 193). However, Western economies as a whole suffer, and in the end even the individuals pay an additional price through, for example, deindustrialization and wage adjustments (pp. 13, 15, 152-54, 190-93)
3. The new world is flat. Steingart disagrees with Thomas Friedman by demonstrating that unlike the labor market in the West, the worldwide labor market is not a flat world or a playing field (pp. 14-15, 66-67, 130, 241). The labor market is unlimited for the Western capitalist, not for the (high-wage) Western worker (pp. 140, 147-50, 154-66). Wage declines and unemployment are the two forms of wage adjustment in the West to cope with the (Western-driven) competition from Asia (pp. 136-40, 144, 184, 193-201).
4. The tide of globalization automatically lifts all boats. Globalization does not benefit everyone to the same degree. It also produces many losers in the lower and middle classes (pp. 15-17, 69, 73, 76-77, 192-93, 235). Many Americans have the feeling that they are no longer valued as workers, but only as consumers (p. 122).
5. Globalization fosters peace. Steingart reminds us that the first wave of globalization died on the battlefields of WWI because the industrial revolution did not go hand in hand with a revolution of political thought in Europe (pp. 27, 37, 41-42, 210-12, 218-19). History could repeat itself. Economic globalization alone is no guarantee of peace because globalization to this day remains excessive and unstable (pp. 35, 47, 58-61, 64-65, 122, 170, 203-22). There is no institutional cross-border framework to reduce the imbalances and alleviate the tensions in Asia (pp. 221-22).
6. A nation is powerless to do something for the people in its care. Steingart correctly remarks that no government in the West has the legitimacy to fundamentally transform the state and the economy. Blaming politicians for it is both cheap and wrong because of the checks and balances of a democracy (pp. 122-23). However, Steingart invites those responsible for making economic policy in the West to keep in mind that the interests of the employed are no less global than those of capital. Steingart exhorts trade politicians to become globalization politicians (p. 19).
7. Globalization is too hot an issue to handle for a single person. Steingart challenges this powerlessness by remarking that in a democracy, people are citizens, consumers, and/or investors with the power to push for changes (pp. 21, 152, 193, 241).
To summarize, Steingart invites the United States to play a more active role in designing the ground rules so that globalization serves the people (pp. 21, 230-60). Steingart pleads for the enactment of stricter industry standards worldwide to level the playing field in order to strike a better balance between capital and labor (pp. 237-41, 245-50). Trade is a question of usefulness and not a matter of belief (pp. 15, 232, 243, 257). Power follows ideas, not the other way around (p. 252). Otherwise, Asia will take the lead in rewriting world history (pp. 125, 232).

An important and timely book…, April 17, 2008
By John Hudson (Bloomington, IN United States)
Gabor Steingart’s book, the War for Wealth, offers a compelling and frightening assessment on the global balance of power and how it is changing. Steingart shows that while the US, Europe and other liberal democratic countries have enjoyed preeminent economic status and a high quality of life, the rise of China and India and other developing nations are emerging as very real and serious threats. He offers a wealth of informed and insightful commentary on the nature of these threats and what can be done to counteract them. This book is essential reading to anyone interested in understanding the way in which the global balance of power is shifting and how we can respond. Help other customers find the most helpful reviews

a great book probably coming too late, October 17, 2008
By Dli “CloudsWatcher”
I feel almost personally grateful to Steingart because he has written something I have always wanted to say, but couldn’t possibly have said so well.
The questions he asks on page 227, for example, have been troubling me for years. I beseech every American to pause and respond to these buring questions.
“Did you really believe that you could live, in the long term, on borrowed money?
“Who actually claimed that such a large nation doesn’t need an industrial base?
“Where are the men and women who made us believe that a negative balance of trade is a sigh of strength?
“Why did no one on Wall Street sound the alarm bell when the U.S. dollar became eroded and lost intrinsic value for such a prolonged period of time?
“Is it possible that no one could have noticed a country that was once the world’s biggest lender selling off its assets to others?
“How could the entrenchment of economic inequality in a democratic nation have been tolerated for so long?
“What happed to the upward mobility that was once this country’s trademark?
“And, last but not least: why did democracy, which is supposed to react more quickly to malfunctions than other forms of government, fail so miserably?”
As someone who genuinely wishes America well, it pains me to see this great country de-industrialized and become the biggest debtor in human history, reduced to begging more loans from foreign powers such as the Chinese Communist regime.
My gut feeling is that it’s too late to remedy the dire situation. I pray miracle happens. I wish to be proven wrong.
By the way, Deng Xiaoping was never premier of China, as Steingart told us. His official position, when he did hold one, was vice-premier, though he was the paramount leader of the Chinese Communist Party from the early 80s. Chinese politics was bizare.

An Original and Thoughtful Analysis, July 14, 2008
By Tom G (Arizona)
I congratulate Gabor Steingart for writing a book that clearly defines the problems for the West brought about by globalization. He suggests realistic ideas for mitigating the worst aspects of this process. His historical context of India and China and analysis of their current direction and strategies makes it very clear that the West better act quickly to protect our culture and institutions. America’s foolish self-subjugation to corporate self interest is the wrong path. We’re empowering China without regard to our long-term needs. My only criticism is that he’s much too lenient with the Bush administration’s many failures. This is a great book and Pulitzer Prize quality writing. Help other customers find the most helpful reviews

Ten Miles Wide and an Inch Deep, December 27, 2008
By William Lyman (Saint Helena, CA United States)
This book is worth reading simply for the pertinent information on world economic trends. I found it interesting and well written, though shallow. If you are a devotee of “realpolitik” this book will likely “fry your burger.” If, however, you are looking for in-depth analysis of the forces driving globalization and are committed to the advancement of human rights you may be disappointed in this book. It is like a flyover of a landscape at a few thousand feet; it gives a nice overview of the topography but fails to seriously address the tectonics, climate, and plant and animal communities that shape it, to dangerously stretch the metaphor. His bottom line on globalization: You can’t fight the future, but maybe the West can unite to fend off the economic warfare being waged against us by the yellow scourge. He sees the demise of the welfare state and labor unions as natural and not particularly lamentable outcomes of globalization. He advocates nationalized health care paid for by a national sales tax in order to unburden the flagging US corporations of their labor obligations. I think this is a splendid idea as long as the tax is levied on all sales at the same rate, including stocks and securities (that will be the day). One sub-text to be gleaned:If you’re in the upper economic strata, relax; life will only get better. It’s only the working stiffs at the bottom who will really suffer. The parasites at the top will always find plenty of fresh blood to suck (my terminology, not his). Help other customers find the most helpful reviews

Reform tax policy, September 11, 2008
By Daniel J. Sullivan “RogueWino” (Oregon)
Among the fairly simple, but politically difficult recommendations is to eliminate income based taxes and instead tax consumption. The US policy of taxing income of individuals and, especially corporations, effectively makes US products gives importers a free ride and makes US exports uncompetitive internationally. Taxing sales not only levels the playing field for US producers domestically and internationally, but also greatly reduces tax fraud and black market free riders.
Eliminate the tax on savings and capital gains and odds are people would save and invest more. Help other customers find the most helpful reviews

Read This Book, Understand Today’s Economy, July 22, 2008
By Christine Zibas “AnythngArt” (Chicagoland, IL, USA)
I love books, and I seem to find a new one to like every week. And yet, I can honestly say, this is the best book I’ve read in years. Few books have the power to encapsulate the meteoric economic and political changes that face the United States–and the world–right now. Gabor Steingart, a German journalist working in Washington, DC, for “Der Spiegel,” has managed to come at just the right time with just the right book, “The War for Wealth.”
What makes this book so pertinent? First, it approaches the question of whether globalization truly benefits all. Unlike those who favor the open market who make the assumption that free trade helpa all, Steingart posits that globalization instead is leading to a redistribution of resources. Not all countries benefit equally. In this new world order, Americans are needed largely as consumers, not workers, who are financing their purchases on a mountain of debt.
The expansion of the labor market as a result of globalization, in fact, has led to a decline in the value of workers. This has hurt Western nations the most. In the US industrial base alone, there has been a 50 percent decline in jobs in a single generation. Americans and Europeans are overpriced for the global market, not because of their wages (although this is a factor) but largely because of the cost of their social safety net.
Who are the winners? Those in India and China, obviously. In China, those growth rates are even being understated by the Communist government so that the West does not even see the full extent of this unfettered development. Moreover, China has chosen a different, more insidious tactic in this economic war. As Steingart notes, “the Asians are attacking with economic weapons and avoiding ideological conflict. They do not conduct debates with the West over equality and justice, nor do they level any accusations or issue threats. The rising global powers are not interested in a battle of cultures. They are ignoring issues of religion and ideology. They are quiet adversaries who are placing their bets on economic efficiency. The West, they reason, can be defeated with its own weapons.”
Unlike many who see these problems, however, Steingart is not a protectionist, nor does he see globalization as something to be halted in its steps. He is not a fear monger. As an economist and journalist, Steingart knows that this is a trend that is not likely to be reversed. It can, however, be managed by savvy leadership and a willingness on the part of Western nations to work together. Steingart basically lays out three options: global chaos (the shock scenario), the rise of Asia (the Asia-above-all scenario, in which American dreams bite the dust), or remaking history (the American Renaissance scenario).
How America and the West manage globalization, international trade, and the development of rules and regulations to even the playing field are critical to the continuance of the good life. If I could have one wish, it would be that both presidential candidates and their camps would read Steingart’s book. This critical overview of the world and economic development today is something that every American should be thinking about as they approach the future.