A Trying to meet all your book preview and review needs.
to e-mail us: support the site |
How the West Was Lost general information | review summaries | our review | links | about the author
- Return to top of the page -
Our Assessment:
C : wide-ranging and touches upon many problems/issues, but too muddled, and undermined by sloppiness and carelessness (in both argument and presentation) See our review for fuller assessment.
Review Consensus: - Return to top of the page - The complete review's Review:
In How the West Was Lost Dambisa Moyo wants to explain Fifty Years of Economic Folly -- and the Stark Choices Ahead.
Her main points are that 'Western' economies (both governments and consumers) have relied far too much on debt in building their houses of cards (leaving them also now beholden to purse-string (well, debt-)holders such as China), and that they have got their priorities all wrong, from investment (not bothering with infrastructure, for example) to education (not producing enough engineers, for example) to housing policy.
As a consequence, unless they get their act together (or do something creatively/crazily destructive -- like go for the all-out default) they may very well get stomped on and crushed by the economic juggernaut that now is (so Moyo) China.
(Oh, yeah, and some of those other emerging economies might also prove uppity and annoying -- though she doesn't really get around to any sort of coherent picture of that non-'Western' bloc (sort of a modern, economically strong non-aligned movement, perhaps ?).)
Today, Saudi Arabia is the largest oil-producing country in the world, and Russia the second largest; together they produce just over 9 million barrels of oil a day. Yet America imports 11-12 million.Saudi Arabia and Russia are, indeed, consistently the two largest oil-producing nations (though they've switched top position several times in recent years); in fact, however, they each currently produce around 10 million barrels a day (see the numbers here) that's simply a (major) factual error. The US hasn't imported 11 million barrels of oil since January 2009 (and the latest available figures, for October, 2010 were only 8.692 million (admittedly an unusually light month)) (see the figures here); while imports have been as high as 13.4 million (August, 2006), Moyo's claim is, again, a misleading number. Arguably the worst sin, however, is one of omission: as is frequently left unmentioned in the great energy debate, the world's third-largest oil producer is none other than the United States -- in November 2010 producing only a few thousand barrels daily less than Russia (very close to 10 million, too). America's oil dependency is an enormous problem, but it shouldn't be forgotten (as it always is) that a significant sector of America -- and several states, in particular -- do very, very well when oil prices are high; the vested interests in energy-profligacy in the US are not to be underestimated (much less ignored, as they are here -- and Moyo might have done well to look into the economic policy distortions oil wealth has led to in many of the petro-states, from Venezuela to Saudi Arabia, offering an endless variety of examples of the misallocation of capital and incentives (and arguably far more wastage than the Americans ever could come up with)). (As far as energy goes, Moyo offers a quick endorsement of nuclear energy, without going into the economics of that (nuclear is theoretically a cheap, reliable energy alternative; in practice it certainly hasn't quite worked out that way so far). She also argues that: "the US Government does not fund anything meaningful in the nuclear field"; support is currently largely in the form of (enormous) loan guarantees -- arguably not 'meaningful', in a certain sense, but certainly playing an important role. Certainly, larger-scale research and development in the field would be welcome, but to say that the government hasn't done enough to foster this industry (spending tens of billions over many decades) seems a curious interpretation of the facts. And, yet again, Moyo also does herself no favors with throw-away claims such as: "even France gets almost 20 per cent of its electricity from nuclear sources" (the actual percentage for super-nuclear France of course is -- and long has been -- around the 80 per cent mark; in fact, France is a surplus producer and exports electricity to other European nations).) In her rush to address all the wrong priorities and the misallocation of capital and labor she sees (especially in the 'West') Moyo even goes after high-priced sports and entertainment stars. Their stratospheric salaries come at an enormous cost, she says -- including (or especially) a social cost, of deluding youngsters into believing they, too, might achieve such positions, leading them to waste years of their lives on the useless acquisition of such skills like ball-dribbling when it would be much better if they strove to become engineers and the like. It's a fun idea -- and, sure, it'd be great if more kids applied themselves to their studies, but ... seriously ? (Apparently so -- though Moyo's case in this case really isn't very convincing (i.e. there's an enormous amount she isn't taking into account).) Moyo actually discusses the American housing collapse (and its larger consequences) in reasonable depth, and even hammers home the good (if familiar) point that the longtime American policy of encouraging homeownership (and the way this was promoted) has some terrible consequences, and that it is has led to a damaging misallocation of capital; she even correctly notes that: "US policy now should focus on what to do next given that the government is involved in the housing market". Again, however, she uses the isolated example, and doesn't compare housing policies and bubbles in other countries (some still on-going, some inflating for entirely different reasons). Indeed, while bashing the 'West' and its failures comes relatively easy to her, she consistently doesn't consider too many of the problems of the rising economies. While the demographic issue faced by Europe and Japan are seen as problems, she doesn't note plummeting fertility rates in many developing countries, and the problems those will bring with them -- first and foremost China, whose one-child policy (which, of course, was never implemented to the extent of reducing the fertility rate to anywhere near one) will likely hit home devastatingly at some point in the coming decades unless the sudden turn to a rapidly aging population is carefully prepared for. Moyo seems somewhat blinded by China's success -- and, curiously, rarely notes the one-time much feared juggernaut that was Japan (and all its wonderfully ineffective policies -- despite investment in infrastructure and R&D). Rapid economic growth -- whether on national or corporate scale -- can hide many flaws, and flame-outs, from the dot-com pseudo-companies to countries like Ireland, can suddenly reveal that there wasn't all that much there in the first place. China has had a nice long run (though it has only been on it for a couple of decades); the extent to which it is sustainable remains to be seen, and Moyo certainly should have probed a bit more closely whether there isn't a house-of-cards aspect to much of what supposedly has been built there ("it largely seems to have got that right" she instead says about Chinese economic policy, without very convincing explanation). Moyo begins her book (which has both a Preface and an Introduction) by suggesting that the US has alienated many up-and-coming countries -- going so far as to suggest that: Were it not for the profit motive, the real risk is that come the day when the emerging nations don't have to trade with the West, they won't.Moyo's faith in -- and support of -- globalization is, indeed, rather limited (and that does influence much of what she offers here) So also, among Moyo's scenarios of the future, she suggests radical protectionism is a viable option for the United States (indeed, she even suggests the true nuclear option of an American government default, an ... interesting idea (with so many consequences that the few pages Moyo devotes to this suggestion seem far too inadequate)). How the West Was Lost does address many important issues and problems, and Moyo certainly has it right in ridiculing much American policy and noting the dangers and consequences of large-scale (even on the small, personal scale) debt-financing, leverage, misallocation of capital and labor, among other things. But it's not a coherent critique -- and it's an odd world-view on offer here, in which economics matters a great deal in certain regards and not at all in others. Moyo spreads herself and her arguments very thin -- which could be pardonable if she didn't also make so many mistakes (never mind the misleading statements, the many omissions, and everything that she leaves undiscussed (especially the many different weaknesses of the emerging economies)). There's so much here that is plain wrong, and so many (counter-)examples and arguments that are left out that even her valid arguments begin to look suspect, fatally undermining her project. It's not uninteresting, but it is a maddeningly frustrating book. - M.A.Orthofer, 9 March 2011 - Return to top of the page - How the West Was Lost:
- Return to top of the page - Zambian-born Dambisa Moyo was educated at Harvard and Oxford, and worked for Goldman Sachs. - Return to top of the page -
© 2011 the complete review
|