First, let me sum up this book. In this book Linda McQuaig ...

- critiques the new (post 1980) capitalism (which is based on neo-classical economics), in which greed is elevated to the primary human characteristic and virtue. She believes that the new capitalism helps the very rich, but increases our greed and social isolation and does not increase our happiness or help the 2.8 billion people who live on less than US$2 per day.

- believes that our social nature is our primary characteristic, and our desire for collective protection (ie. from the ravages of the market) is also important. She accepts, though, that greed is natural and that it isn't bad, but she says it isn't primary and it should be controlled rather than encouraged.

- shows how this model of humans as machines of personal accumulation has been used to denigrate government and the possibility of collective action.

- describes how the new capitalism is spread through the new policies of the IMF and WB, and new trade treaties such as the NAFTA. She shows that these policies and deals abandon concern for anything other than economic growth, and that this hurts us. Third world countries are particularly hurt since they don't get to implement the policies of industrial protection and social stabilization that the first world countries employed in their own development. Her hero in this section is Stiglitz.

- critiques the apologists of the new capitalism, Thomas Friedman and Dnish D'Szousa.

- describes Red Vienna of the 1920's and 30's, and tells the story of Karl Polyani (author of the seminal book 'The Great Transformation').

- discusses Polyani's rather bizarre but novel idea that prices could be set by the community, not by the market or by a central bureaucracy.

- describes the hostile reaction to the free market during its development in England, showing that it wasn't universally beneficial and welcomed, but was forced on the majority by the elite.

- defends the public sphere of life, of government and taxes, of collective space and action.

- argues that the a pure free market and private property are not our natural mode of interaction. Instead, a mixed free market (with exchanges that are also based on redistribuation and reciprocity) embedded within and subverted to the overall needs of society is our natural state. This is based on the historical analysis of Polyani.

Now, here are my complaints...

- What's with the word 'Lust' in the title? This book has nothing to do with lust. I suspect that was put in by the marketing dept.

- In her view everything is too black and white, eg. Stiglitz and especially Polyani are reverred. Could life really be like this?

- Isn't capitalism starting to help alleviate poverty in India and China? Won't it eventually improve the lot of the 2.8 billion poor she mentions (I'm not saying it isn't destroying the environment, social cohesion, equality, etc.).

- What is her prescription? Is she suggesting we return a classical economic model? Or is she suggesting a Polyani-esque solution, with prices set by the community? If so that's a bit scary.

On the whole I liked it, but I certainly don't agree with everything she suggests.

Filled with statistics about income inequality, this book is one great manipulation of numbers. McQuiag sees income inequality as an evil in itself and something that must be prevent without giving a coherent explantion as to why this should be so.

Once again, a great display of how a total lack of knowledge of how a free market system works can lead to the adoption of an incoherent ideology. Innoculate yourself with basic economic theory before reading this book, lest you get swept up by the ultimately totalitarian ideals of McQuiag.

Why does my country keep producing these socialistic demagogues?

Linda McQuaig is simply one of Canada's finest journalists and writers on our country's persistant social problems. Her analysis of the neoconservative agenda to dismantle governmental involvement in social programs is both clear and articulate. The general point that McQuiag makes is that Canadians have been fed a bogus line by neoconservatives when it comes to the financial burden caused by the government's involvement in social programs. Drawing on examples from Europe, she argues that countries that spend considerably more of their GDP on social programs have lower crime and poverty rates, etc. and do not have larger deficits (since they have relatively high tax rates). Where the reverse is the truth, such as in the US and South Africa, what we find is a much more pronounced inequality between the rich and the poor. Canada, McQuaig claimed, was at the crossroads in 1993--either we could go the Europeans route, or adopt the American approach, which of course is what the neoconservatives would prefer. But why? Does it have to do with saving taxpayers money, improving services by allowing private corporations to operate day care centres or provide medical insurance? Nope. It all has to do with power, and the pathetic notion that the wealthy and elite have concerning those who are poor, disabled and unemployed--this is their lot in life, so why should we [the rich] have to pay their way? In essence, McQuaig exposes the true nature of Canadian society--which is very much contrary to the image that is presented to the rest of the world--and this discomforts many people, and downright irritates those who have much to lose from Canadian society becoming more equitable.

A powerful book written in defense of the Canadian welfare state, "The Wealthy Bankerfs Wife" takes a critical look at the American social-welfare system and compares its counterpart in Europe - most notably the Scandinavian countries. In doing so, author Linda McQuaig reveals to readers the direction that Canadafs leaders are taking Canadafs social-welfare system in their quest to "re-define" Canadafs social-welfare programmes.

In chapter after chapter, McQuaig shows that under the European model, family values have been maintained, families have been supported, children do not go hungry, children are educated. There is a support system purposely designed so that parents can stay at home to raise their children. In contrast,"The Wealthy Bankerfs Wife" shows that under the American model, purposeful, conscious social policy has been to destroy and attack family values in a country where extremely high rates of child poverty, malnutrition, child abuse and child violence are the rule rather than the exception.

"The Europeans manage to maintain extensive social welfare systems and strong economies, while the Americans have convinced themselves that they canft afford anything more than the most minimal social programmes. Canada, which has traditionally been situated somewhere between the two models, has recently been drifting in the American direction. Before we drift any further we should remind ourselves that we do have a choice of directions, and that the direction we choose will ultimately determine what kind of society we live in." A well-researched, provocative book that provides the opportunity for much-needed debate concerning the future of Canadafs social-welfare system.

If you wanted the Canadian equivalent of Squealer in George Orwell's best-selling Animal Farm, you wouldn't need to look further than McQuaig.

Her predicatable and tiresome rants against the wealthy capitalists that earn their living despite the odds in Canada against the dreaded accumulation of wealth, grates against McQuaig, who is a friend to all things Socialist.

By reciting page after page of Left-Wing talking points, her book hopes to infuse her fellow Communists with even more reasons to extract and redistribute the wealth of useful Canadians to their pet causes.

This is Mein Kampf for the Homeless, and is not worth the paper its written on.

A definite NO to this propaganda tripe!

For anyone that has any interest what so ever in where their money goes and what the government allows to happen behind our backs. . . READ ANYTHING BY LINDA MCQUAIG! She is an incredible writer/speaker and really explains everything that goes on with the government. This book focus' mainly on the Tax system and how, as she would rightly say, "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer". A terrific read; the best you'll find in this field of reading!!

This books is no different from any other book written by McQuaig. This means that the private sector is always bad, and if only the right (read socialist) people were running the government we would have a utopia. Mcquaig would do some good if she thought through the implications of her own arguments, if she did she would realize that her main point is that wealth creation is bad and that a world where we were all equally living in poverty rather would be superior to one in which wealth inequality exists.

The last review utterly distorts McQuaig's argument, which if anything, favours a dynamic relationship of balance and counter-balance between the public and private sector. McQuaig's argument is fundamentally based on a belief in democracy, and in the role of government to act as the people's representative, and in the people's interest. This view is perhaps misplaced, given that many or most Western governments in recent years have been co-opted and effectively act as agents for large corporations, which represent at best the interest of their shareholders. Since, despite myths to the contrary, a relatively small number of interests still hold the bulk of share equity, this co-opting of government has resulted in governments that superficially bear the features of democracies, but effectively represent an oligarchical form of governance.

McQuaig's argument is that government does at all times have the tools necessary to re-invent itself, and legislate on behalf of the populace at large, and that the oft-bandied claim that government is helpless in the fact of "inevitable" trends such as globalization amount essentially to a self-serving abdication of responsibility.

The problem with the review below, other than its intellectually dishonest misrepresentation of McQuaig's argument, is that it takes a stereotypically Manichean view of the universe. Any government regulation or, indeed, governance per se is inherently evil (or "communistic", which is much the same thing), and destroys wealth and prosperity; by the same token, absolutely unfettered capitalism is the Archangel of goodness, and the guarantor of prosperity for all. Tell that to the former employees, shareholders and pensionholders of Enron. From where they stand today, a little judicious, and uncorrupted governance would have saved their security, and kept a huge amount of wealth from being destroyed by uncontrolled rapacity. Tell that, also, to the millions of working poor in the U.S., with dead-end jobs, zero prospects, lousy inner city educational facilities and no health insurance. Boy, it sure is paradise!

You know, the Scandinavian countries have, for several generations, maintained capitalistic systems (with no shortage of productive private enterprise), while ensuring a good quality of life for all their citizens: health care, education, day care, a sound social safety net, generosity to less developed countries, and microscopic crime rates. Maybe we North Americans should put aside our arrogance, show some willingness to actually investigate what others have achieved (without assuming that our way is inherently best, simply because it is ours), and learn what the models of these little countries have to offer us. Their governments are hardly impotent, yet I suspect that their high per capita incomes and fairer distributions of wealth will ultimately prove more stable than the boom-to-bust model we pursue with such blinkered certainty.

The gospel according to McQuaig is quite simple: the private sector is ALWAYS bad. Why is this so? Because they operate for profit, that's the argument. Yet, Mcquaig also does not have much respect for government, unless, the government does what she wants it to do. Indeed, when reading this or any other McQuaig book on must ask: why does she still have faith in government? By asking this question one can come to only one conclusion: McQuaig is just as selfish as anybody else in the world (ie. she wants to the world to run according to her rules). Once this connection is made most of her arguments can be seen for the empty poorly researched rhetoric they are.

Basically a conspiracy theory, McQuiag believes that the corporate power brokers have manipulated the Canadian government to profit. Despite the fact that the government is half the problem in letting go along with the plan, McQuiag blames almost all the problems on solely on free enterprise

Short-shorted, poorly researched, and lacking any real economic insight, this book is of little value to a person who knows basic economic principles.

A worthless plea for government intervention into all aspect of human life.

McQuaig has written an economic book for all the people who don't make $500,000 plus a year. This is the book that has free enterprisers in shock! There is a conspiracy and it involves the massive transfer of ordinary peoples' wealth to the corporations that would not last a year without it. McQuaig, in a well documented readable argument, assails the myths of international business and exposes its complete moral and financial (!) bankruptcy. From the tyranny of the gold standard, used to imprison our grandfathers and grandmothers, to the current myth of the fickle international investor which is being used to destroy two generations of social progress McQuaig describes a world which is not kinder, or gentler to anyone not born into money.

If you want to understand why rabid antigovernment hedge fund investors receive billion dollar government (!) bail-outs while millions of people in hurricane ravaged Central America are offered less than a dollar each in aid to rebuild there lives this is the book for you.