This book was a mixed bag for me, coming down in the end on the "meh" side of things.

The positive: This book contains lot of information about how an economy can fail if it's been hijacked by special interests. In particular, it focuses on the Great Recession and how it followed from the economic policies since the Reagan era.

One of the core arguments of the book is that capitalism doesn't have to look like laissez faire capitalism advocated by libertarians in the US and those influenced by them. In fact, by accepting that capitalism overall has failed because of the problems of this particular model's problems is buying into the false narrative that capitalism must look like unconstrained markets with regulatory capture by large businesses. Tyler argues that capitalism can look different by comparing the US to other countries that practice what he calls family capitalism, which is capitalism which considers protecting the needs of employees as the primary role of government interaction with business rather than protecting the needs of businesses. Note that part of this is an acknowledgement that the Reagonomics, as he calls it, practiced in the US is not, in fact free of government interference. It very heavily relies on the government regulating in favor of business owners. Other countries show that this need not be the case.

Overall, this general argument had me thinking about a lot of interesting ideas about what assumptions we bring to economic systems and the importance of studying not just history but also what other countries do today.

The negative: The strength of this book was the comparative analysis with other countries, but sadly that comparison was not particularly systematic. What I would have liked to see is a comparison where the countries considered to do a better job of helping employees were compared broadly to the US and where other countries that are considered to have problems were also included in the analysis. That would allow us to understand what factors really differentiate countries that do capitalism well (for some definition of well) from those which don't. Instead, what Tyler does is take specific problems with contemporary capitalism in the US (of which there are plenty) and compare them to specific instances where other countries do better. We hear that codeterminism in Germany helps employee voices get heard on boards and wage setting policies in Australia help all employees have a living wage, but we don't really see the data to show that these are the root cause and not just a symptom of a deeper difference between the systems.

Tyler also relied heavily on quotes which did nothing but restate points he could have made as well himself. Essentially, instead of providing data, he relied heavily on argument from authority. E.g., instead of using quotes to show why some economist came to some particular conclusion, he just gave the quote showing that some economist concluded the point he was trying to make. As a long form, analytical news article it would have been great, but that same style extended to a book is rather shallow. Related to this, he tends to use arguments of the style "Adam Smith would not have agreed with this" as if that proves his point.

Another problem I had with this book is that Tyler was kind of obsessed with demonizing Reagan. Yes, I agree that the economic policies set into motion by Reagan and doubled down upon by his successors have systematically favored the short term interests of investors over longer term interests of companies or employee interests. Still, we got the point after the first 100 pages -- really, after the first chapter. Tyler spends so much time saying how Reagan's policies were wrong and damaging that he never really digs more deeply into why those policies spread so successfully in the US and what factors would make more positive policies take root.

Finally, the solutions proposed are not rooted in the current US regulatory and business environment. Tyler essentially says that the US should adopt the policies that other countries successfully apply, but doesn't give any sense of how that might realistically be achieved. I don't expect a full fledged policy proposal from a book whose main purpose was to describe what went wrong, but I do expect slightly more thought put into whether or not what works in other countries would work in the US.

Overall, if this book hadn't given me pointers to other material to read and triggered some good thought experiments, I would have given it 1 star. Since it did get me to think I'm rating it a bit higher, but still, I was unsatisfied in the end. ( )

I wish the book talked more about the velocity of money. This could be a good background for a graphic novel: how two generations were cheated out of success.

Tyler performs a much needed service, which is to examine and unmask the lies we hear all the time about taxes, job stagnation and "old Europe". For example, there is no evidence that raising corporate taxes and taxes on the wealthiest individuals has any effect on jobs. He also finished up with a discussion of some ways to make changes that would help stimulate the economy, reduce income inequality, and address part if not all of the federal deficit. ( )