Reddit mentions of Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich

I'll step up and post some critiques as per your request. I'm unsure that anyone else here really will-- small movements tend to be overly sensitive to criticism.

This is a book called Wealth and Democracy, a very historical book whose premise is simply "Laissez-faire is a pretense." As much as the idea that capitalism leads the way to corporatism is solely a problem with government gets bandied around here, the author makes a very strong historical argument that the capitalists will simply create the mechanisms for their own control and rent-seeking if none exist.

The Chomsky Reader is another good choice. The idea that replacing the government with less government (or no government, as the people at Mises.org or Murray Rothbard would recommend) is preferable given that government has done bad things, is silly given the history of the interaction of lawless or near-lawless states and very rich people.

Not a book per se, but Bryan Caplan (a very conservative economist, in fact) showing the fallacies in the grape kool-aid that is Austrian economics is a compelling read. Also not a book, E. Feaser's critique of Rothbard as a philosopher really does a good job of clipping the wings off of the premise-pyramid that is Man, Economy, and State before it ever leaves the ground.

I've found this website useful for addressing some of the more esoteric, but no less fundamental, aspects of Libertarian philosophy. Finally, if you can separate advocacy from critique and understand that the critique still applies even if the solution turns out not to work, I would recommend reading Das Kapital. Much of Marx's formal critique of the system of capitalism (the beginnings of public choice theory, the machinations of capitalism) remains unaddressed today.

Economists are like the calvary in old western movies, they only show up at the very end. Much as I like C21 and it's rigor this trend was adequately laid out a decade prior.

http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Democracy-Political-History-American/dp/0767905342#productDescription_secondary_view_pageState_1419103157762

Huge part! Merchants dove head first into war profiteering. The Continental Congress was issuing IOUs to any company that was willing to help. This book spends a considerable amount of time discussing all the ship builders, gun makers, and fur traders that made a killing with the war.

https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Democracy-Political-History-American/dp/0767905342

Here is a link to one of many books that will explain it.

Nice going there, showing a chart from 1987 to explain there was no billionaires in the 70s. I gave you a list, which is correct and you cannot refute. Here's a book that talks in more detail about it. I don't know why you say there was no billionaire before, i gave you example. I guess ludwig made his 2 billions in 2 years after the glorious 70s were over.

You have no grasp of economics, the 70s are why there are so many billionaires today. it was an era of economic prosperity and the beginning of globalisation and agressive capitalism. the reason we have controlled wealth by the top today is the 70s and 80s. I never said having income inequality is good, but fixating on terminology and wealth amount to determine if somone is good or bad for society is so simplistic it hurts. Are you sure you're not a 20-something liberal arts student?



By the way, i would love to put a 70% tax rate on companies but what you think will happen when you do? They'll leave. You need to be realistic. A 70% tax rate will only hurt the businesses that don't have the money to leave. There needs to be drastic changes to reduce income inequality but you are misguided at best if you think all billionaires are bad because they're billionaire.