Slouching Towards Utopia: An Economic History of the Twentieth Century

This erudite and masterful economic history uses a framework to document and explain what the author calls the long 20th C, a period from 1870 to 2010 which experienced extraordinary economic and material wealth for everyone (at least in the Northern Hemisphere), yet only partially delivered what should by now have been a utopia by any prior standards.The period is chosen at its start the rate of economic growth rapidly increases, and for the first time, allows the population to escape from the Malthusian trap that was the lot of humans from prehistory, and certainly since the start of civilization. While before then the upsetting of our ape-evolved social hierarchies was the only way for individuals and groups to improve their lot by getting a larger share of resources, but by and large, elites controlled the social system in a variety of ways ensuring that most of the population remained poor and at the mercy of those elites. After 1870, the wealth rapidly improved for most of the population, although the inequality seemed to increase, except for 2 periods, most recently for the 30 years after WWII. However, since 2010, after the financial collapse of 2007, growth has returned to a slow, pre-1870 rate, and inequality has increased with a vengeance. The author uses the framework of Hayek (the market is all) and Polyani (other rights to wealth and status) is important to show how different political systems have managed their economies, with some moderate, but variable success. [ I well recall a British tv political show that at the beginning of the Thatcher era suggested that the government should stop trying to make teh population happier and focus on wealthier - a Hayekian ideal that was the start of the neoliberal in the US and Britain.] 2010 saw the end of any success of the neoliberal experiment, and populations have been turning back to authoritarian/fascist approaches, last seen between WWI and WWII, and what the socialist systems of the USSR and China evolved into.DeLong has no answer for the why's of this history, nor any prescription to get societies moving forward toward a utopia again. [This is unlike Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty-First Century". DeLong wisely just provides a rich, beautifully written, economic history that could easily become a required reading, and rather than like many historians make historical events seem inevitable with hindsight, he acknowledges that how the twists and turns of history have resulted are not clear and that he may even be an imperfect historian as events overlap with his experiences.For myself, I think that the struggle of individuals and groups to ascend our evolutionary-determined social pyramid explains some of why various systems resulted in wealth inequality, either stably or by revolution. Whatever the system, some will always do anything to ascend to teh top of the pyramid by whatever means they have - by force of arms, by a revolt of the masses, by wealth accumulation through commerce, and so forth.My only niggle is that the editors missed some errors - most notable that it was Edward VIII, not VII who abdicated the British throne, and it seems that autocorrect has changed some words that I do not think teh author intended. Hopefully, a 2nd edition will fix any errors and language. But these are niggles in what is a superb book and highly recommended.

Note: I usually do not review books, but there are just too many fake 1-star reviews, of people who obviously did not read the book but instead complain about a scam seller of a copy of the book.Additional full disclosure: I am a recovering libertarian, thanks in part to Brad De Long.I have been waiting for this book for 20 years, ever since I read some draft chapters that Brad De Long posted in the late 90s on his blog. It has been worth the wait. One of the basic truths of our time is the fake news asymmetry principle: “It is much easier to make up lies and fake news, than it is to debunk them.”. Brad Delong’s world economic history of the long 20th Century gives you the tools to debunk and call out fake news.For example, many other grand stories (or “narratives”) about the 20th Century (“Age of Extremes” by Hobspawn and “Commanding Heights” by Yergin and Stanislaw) focus excessively on the rivalry of ideas between Marxism and “neoliberalism”, as represented by Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. Yet, in the political discourse of the last 30 years, Marxism has mostly been a foil for the right and was supported by only a small minority on the left. The viewpoint that today’s left is nothing else than your Grandpa’s Marxism is an example of fake news. Instead, the counterpoint in the battle of ideas to neoliberalism is identified by Brad De Long as Karl Polanyi and related ideas of European-style social democracy. Polanyi’s key insight was that markets did not just bring explosive economic growth since 1870, but also started to decouple themselves from social relations that used to embed them. For example, it used to be much more natural for CEOs to feel social responsibility, instead of focusing on shareholder value only. The vanguard of this decoupling process was Friedrich Hayek, who argued that unless we let unconstrained markets reign, the state will enslave us all. In contrast Polanyi argued that if nobody deliberately regulates the market, the backlash against untamed markets will enslave us all. Or in the words of John Kennedy: “If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.“ (Inauguration Speech). It is hard to see Republicans' turn towards MAGA not as basically confirming Polanyi's argument. Hayek vs Polanyi is the central tension that makes you understand the long 20th Century and it continues to shape our lives today. And I applaud Brad De Long for writing about Hayek and especially Polanyi in such a clear and accessible way.A second strength of this book is that I think it is actually ideologically balanced (instead of being fake balanced like Fox News). Much of the tale of economic growth in the 20th Century is about the pendulum swings in globalization and about technological progress and Brad De Long discusses these trends without falling into the trap of only seeing the positive side of less hunger and less poverty for many. Instead, he emphasizes throughout the long shadow of slavery, privilege and exclusion. Similarly, “government failure” isn’t just the story of corruption and incompetence but also of insufficient intervention and failure to keep markets open for everyone.Finally, the book is full of little historical gems, that are thought-provoking and insightful. For example:(1) Why did neoliberalism persist as convincing story of the how the world works, both on the left and on the right, when the track record of its policies is quite poor? Brad De Long: Reagan got credit for the fall of the USSR (with lots of hindsight bias about the “inevitable collapse of the Soviet command economy”!) (p.453)(2) How does pre-1914 globalization differ from post-1989 globalization? Brad De Long: transnational corporate control was infeasible then but is the norm now (p.483) – this reinforces the notion that anonymous global forces shape local daily life and explains why MAGA's rallies against “Globalism” are effective.(3) How was fascism and Nazism possible in the heart of civilized Western Europe and Germany, the country of Immanuel Kant, a key philosopher of the Enlightenment? Brad De Long: People failed to respond to market forces destroying the social foundations they are based on. And neoliberals have a pretty sad history of standing up for democracy and constitutional human rights. For example, it is well-known that Milton Friedman supported Pinochet’s fascist regime in Chile in the 1970s. But Brad De Long also shows that even the libertarians Ludwig Van Mises and Friedrich Hayek supported the idea that fascism should be used to halt political movements towards social democracy. (p280) Remember that the next time Rand Paul wants to tell you something about civil liberties!

Arrived on time and as advertised

This book did not live up to its hype. It tries to cover too much ground and therefore provides cursory coverage of hundreds of issues. His grounding in history is not as firm as I had expected it to be. The writing is awkward. He frequently uses the term ‘really existing.’ I have no idea what that means.