 |
|  |
 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:29
|
|
Hi
Hopefully this thread doesn't get deleted, too 
Interested in recent history and politics, I've been reading some stuff lately. It's easy to get recommendations on lefty literature, but that's always the same, and it doesn't help building a picture of the whole thing (talking most recent and current developments, mostly). So I thought I might have a look into some (mostly American) stuff that'd be considered more to the right or at least less anti-US then the crap you're advised to read in Europe. Following a list of books that I've put on a list, some of them might not fit in at all. Which of those, do you think, are most essential for a recent politics newbie? 
Keep in mind I'm just a graduate student, so my budget is limited. 
.
Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire
Chalmers A. Johnson (EUR 13,64)
Dreaming War
Gore Vidal (EUR 10,87)
The End of the American Era: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the Twenty-First Century
Charles Kupchan (EUR 25,41)
Diplomacy.
Henry A. Kissinger (EUR 20,01)
The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers
Paul Kennedy (EUR 15,46)
- this one doesn't seem too recent in field of discourse, though, might be interesting, though...
Does America Need a Foreign Policy? Towards a New Diplomacy for the 21st Century.
Henry Kissinger (EUR 13,41)
The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives
Zbigniew K. Brzezinski (EUR 15,91)
- even Mr Todd recommended this one 
Paradise and Power: America Versus Europe in the Twenty-first Century
Robert Kagan (EUR 14,92)
It basically adds up to who is the best right winger 
Total sum of the above; €129+, slightly above what I have in mind for an average amazon purchase 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:29
|
|
What's the author's general political leaning, Boris?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:29
|
|
BTW, even right wingers should use some logic in their argumentation. I won't bother reading religious pamphletes.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:29
|
|
History of the World = History of the 20th Century?
If not, can you recommend both?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
JohnT

|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999 time: 00:29
|
|
Well, according to the Census Bureau, real (2001 dollars) wage growth was like this during the Reagan Administration:
Lowest Second Third Fourth Highest Top 5
Year fifth fifth fifth fifth fifth percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 Dollars
1989 9,679 23,989 39,876 60,318 117,911 190,503
1988 9,352 23,461 39,239 59,316 113,241 178,598
1987 9,190 23,223 38,826 58,687 111,610 175,840
1986 9,159 23,054 38,491 57,973 108,390 165,565
1985 9,096 22,485 37,242 56,007 103,310 155,254
1984 9,089 22,106 36,557 55,036 99,955 146,944
1983 8,833 21,575 35,584 53,393 96,617 141,534
1982 8,786 21,492 35,465 52,730 95,119 138,638
1981 8,995 21,556 35,603 53,033 92,894 132,239
I see income gains across the board. Hope you can read the table... if not, then check the original at http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h03.html
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:29
|
|
you will notice that the top fifth gains the most, the claim seems wrong though...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:29
|
|
alright, couldn't happen as easily in Europe, social mobility is pretty low
in case someone missed it:
History of the World = History of the 20th Century?
If not, can you recommend both?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001 time: 00:29
|
|
quote: Originally posted by JohnT
Well, according to the Census Bureau, real (2001 dollars) wage growth was like this during the Reagan Administration:
|
John, John, John...the chart supports what Roberts is asserting. If you adjust for inflation and cost of living increases, the relative wealth of the bottom income-earners changed negligibly, but the wealthiest's increased considerably. That was the point of what Roberts was saying, and he is correct.
He was speaking in a generality, which is an accepted literary device, and his generality is essentially correct. That your family defied the trend is great, but Roberts is addressing what was most common, not the exceptions.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
JohnT

|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999 time: 00:29
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov
John, John, John...the chart supports what Roberts is asserting. If you adjust for inflation and cost of living increases, the relative wealth of the bottom income-earners changed negligibly, but the wealthiest's increased considerably. That was the point of what Roberts was saying, and he is correct.
He was speaking in a generality, which is an accepted literary device, and his generality is essentially correct. That your family defied the trend is great, but Roberts is addressing what was most common, not the exceptions. |
Using words like "only" does not express generalities, Boris. If he would've said "most" or "all except JohnT's family and a few others I don't know about", he might've gotten away with it. Big deal: it doesn't change the intrinsic worth of the book, which we both rate as very high. 
The chart is already adjusted for inflation and COLA increases (see where it says "2001 dollars"?). Doing so again is unnecessary.
Last edited by JohnT on 21-06-2003 at 19:44
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:29
|
|
isn't inflation included in real income calculation?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:29
|
|
You are forgiven.
Any opinions on Kissinger, Kagan, Vidal, Brzezinski...
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29. Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|