Professor Edward Younkins has selected 29 articles from newspapers and journals, beginning with Novak's first break from social democracy "A Closet Capitalist Confesses" Washington Post (March 1976) and " An Underpraised and Undervalued System" (Worldview August, 1977) up to "Solidarity in a Time of Globalization." He collects these essays under five headings -- the theory of democratic capitalism; free persons and the common good; religion and morality; the responsibilities of the corporation; the global arena - and concludes with the autobiographical essay "Controversial Engagements." Younkins located these articles in well-known journals such as The Public Interest and First Things, in lesser-known journals such as Worldview, Public Opinion, Economic Affairs (London) The Journal of Ecumenical Studies, and the Dravo Review and previously unpublished material. He has included substantial essays such as "The Communitarian Individual in America," "The Silent Artillery of Communism," "The Evangelical Basis of a Social Market Economy," "The Future of Civil Society," "The Jewish and Christian Foundation of Human Dignity," "Economics as Humanism," and "The International Vocation of American Business." He also retrieved two unpublished pieces, one of which offers a new definition of social justice to overcome the powerful objections of Friedrich Hayek. Much of the periodical literature in which Novak has developed the idea of democratic capitalism over the years appears in this collection, in addition, Younkins appends a valuable bibliography listing further articles. The collection displays the development of Novak's thought on democratic capitalism from its embryonic beginnings through its later unfolding.

Michael Novak is probably the foremost Christian thinker on the economy. His "Toward a Theology of the Corporation" is an under-appreciated classic that succinctly, yet powerfully, sets out a theologically sound analysis of the modern corporation and its role in society. In this slender and well-written volume, Novak joins issue with theologians like Paul Tillich who contend that "any serious Christian must be a socialist."

THEOLOGY has two principal themes. First, it is addressed to those who work for corporations. Many Christians have been taught to feel, at best, "faint disdain" for corporations and those who manage them. In contrast, Novak knows that many (most) business men and women are ethical people who yearn for moral guidance and advice. Consequently, THEOLOGY tackles a basic moral question: "Can a Christian Work for a Corporation." Novak's answer? "Yes!" (Those wishing more detailed discussion of practical business ethics ought also read Novak's "Business as Calling.")

Yet, Novak recognized that anyone who purported to think about practical business ethics needed to understand the predominant form of business organization-the public corporation. Much of THEOLOGY is thus devoted to an analysis of the corporation: Is the firm's structure as a bureaucratic hierarchy consistent with church teaching on human dignity? What social responsibility, if any, does the corporation have? And so forth.

Thinking about those questions naturally lead Novak to broader issues, such as the consistency of capitalism with church teachings on wealth. In THEOLOGY, therefore, Novak began working out the line of argument that was later developed more fully in his magisterial "The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism." Novak recognizes that church teaching has been hostile to capitalism, as with much else of modernity. Yet, Novak contends that arguments against capitalism serve mainly to give aid and comfort to the Leviathan state

In the most controversial portions of THEOLOGY, Novak attributes Christian opposition to capitalism to two main sources: ignorance and antique world views. Church leaders and theologians tend to be poorly trained in economics and inexperienced with the world of economic reality. Many believers (again, this is especially true of theologians) "are likely to inherit either a pre-capitalist or a frankly socialist set of ideals about political economy." As a result, "Church leaders are more likely to err in this territory [i.e., economic justice] than in most others." (p. 59.)

To be clear, Novak does not believe that faith should be subordinated to capitalism. To the contrary, he recognizes that the divine plan was that we should enjoy the fruits of the earth and of our own industry. He simply contends that capitalism is the best way Fallen humans have yet devised to obey the Biblical command that we are to be stewards of God's world. Novak never loses sight of the basic proposition that it was equally the divine plan that God should be worshiped, obeyed, and feared. The fear of the Lord, he would argue, is the beginning of capitalist wisdom, just as it is of any other kind of wisdom. Not surprisingly, therefore, Novak's analysis has begun to impact the way the church thinks about capitalism. Pope John Paul II's most recent encyclicals on work and the economy, for example, such as Centesimus Annus, contain obvious marks of Novak's influence. In sum, THEOLOGY is very highly recommended for any Christian interested in corporations.

Not only is capitalism moral, but Novak proves out how the Catholic church has a history of rejecting socialism and exalting the capitalist society. Contrary to Max Weber's work on the Protestant Ethic, all of Catholicism is not one big tome to social justice and human rights. From _Rerum Novarum_ to _Centesimus Annus_, Catholicism captures the spirit of entrepreneurial ingenuity and liberty.

"Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism." Pope John Paul II, _Centesimus_Annus_-1991, #46

Michael Novak has written several books on the impact of capitalism on democratic society, including _The_Catholic_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism_. In essence, this volume contains a synopsis of papal thought on economics from Leo XIII in his encyclical _Rerum_Novarum_ (1891) to John Paul II in his centennial rejoinder _Centesimus_Annus_ (1991). This tumultuous period in between these two documents oversaw the rise of socialism and its final collapse. These events lead to the question, does capitalism engender a moral superiority as an economic system. The book leads the reader to the conclusion in the qualified affirmative.

Modern society maintains three dimensions involving public participation--political, economic and moral. Democracy (or probably more accurately, constitutional republican government) constitutes probably the best political form that flawed humans can achieve in this life. Capitalism has been demonstrated to be the most effective economic means to ensure maximum benefit (in productivity and material reward) for the greatest number of persons. Publicly expressed religious worship (particularly the Judeo-Christian creeds) have blessed society with moral leavening to help counter the vices so prevalent among persons at large in all walks of life. That socialism has collapsed so utterly is partly due to its _unitary_ nature. It intends to concentrate all powers--political, economic and moral--into the apparatus of the state. However, a democratic capitalist society with no accountability to God will also ultimately degenerate and collapse.

Leo XIII criticized to Europe's early Marxist movement, predicting that "The Socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, endeavor to destroy private property, and maintain that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State... But their proposals are so clearly futile for all practical purposes, that if they were carried out the working man himself would be among the first to suffer." He extends his comments noting that the socialists "act against natural justice and threaten the very existence of family life. And such interference... is quite certain to... subject [all citizens] to odious and intolerable slavery... Ideal equality--of which so much is said--would, in reality, be the leveling down of all to the same condition of misery and dis-honor. Thus it is clear that the main tenet of Socialism, the community of goods, must be utterly rejected; for it would injure those whom it is intended to benefit, it would be contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and it would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonwealth." One can only shudder at the cost in human lives and misery that mankind has suffered for not affording greater attention to these words at the time.

Catholic ideas of these components in society were further expounded by Pius XI in _Quadragesimo_Anno_ (1931), to which he contributed. Injustice within society must be confronted, and for this imperative the term "social justice" was coined. Pius XI emphasized three points: personal responsibility, institutional change, and practicality. Humans have a moral nature and thereby must accept responsibility within the society in which they live. They must focus on change in the system--the institutions which constitute society. And finally, people should be realistic, concentrating on what is "possible" and not on utopian visions. During past ages, common people were passive "subjects"--this was a call to action for "citizens" to participate. (Needless to say, this encyclical was not very popular with Mussolini.) This requires free men and women to join together and organize. The art of association, Tocqueville wrote, is the first law of democracy. The absence of this quality makes the practice of modern citizenship and civil society impossible. The contrast can probably be best illustrated by a comparison between the American and French Revolutions of the eighteenth century. American colonialists were knit together by habits of volunteerism, whereas the French were still a mob of solitary individuals. The first revolution led to a free society--the second disintegrated quickly into a murderous anarchy followed by Napoleon's dictatorship.

The underlying principle of John Paul's anthropology is the "creative subjectivity" of the human person--seen from two perspectives: philosophically and theologically. The former sees _homo_creator_ envisions _imago_Dei_. In _Centesimus_Annus_ #32, John Paul writes, "Whereas at one time the decisive factor of production was the land,... today the decisive factor is increasingly man himself, that is, his knowledge, especially his scientific knowledge, his capacity for interrelated and compact organization, as well as his ability to perceive the needs of others and to satisfy them."

As a consequence, freedom is a means--not an end--to seek a harmony between self interest and the interests of society as a whole, wherever this is possible. Liberty is not to be taken as license--not as liberty _from_ the law, but liberty _within_ the law. Ultimately, all societies must focus on "the truth about man", for without this emphasis, people lose their moral bearings and sense of direction. (See the excerpt at the beginning of this review.) Capitalism enables the greatest opportunity to engage creatively in the economic sphere, and rewarding the labors of those who endeavor in productive enterprise. John Paul continues, "Important virtues are involved in this process such as diligence, industriousness, prudence in undertaking reasonable risks, reliability and fidelity in interpersonal relationships as well as courage in carrying out decisions which are difficult and painful, but necessary both in the overall working of a business and in meeting possible setbacks." Democratic polity provides a means of participation by citizens in establishing consensus. But without an understanding of the truth of man's obligations to God, corruption will ultimately dissolve the spirit of cooperation and chaos will ensue. Checks and balances provide the counterweights to inappropriate economic desires, as the pope describes the proper role for the public's moral component: "Such a society is not directed against the market, but demands that the market be appropriately controlled by the forces of society and by the state so as to guarantee that the basic needs of the whole of society are satisfied." The message from John Paul's encyclical and of Michael Novak's _The_Catholic_Ethic_ could be summarized as follows: The human imperative is to be creative, and society must endeavor to encourage public virtue.

I've lived through the '50's red scares,communist world expansion, the '60's nihilism and militaristic support for capitalistic expansion. I've witnessed the polemics of the 80's and '90's, culminating in the demise of Communism and the emergence of a "Third way" synthesis. Capitalism always appealed to the intellect as logical but, knowing that not all humans are hard working and creative, capitalism in its pure state always seemed morally lacking. Mike Novak argues this is like blaming the car engine for and moral deficits of a drunk driver. While providing an interesting ride, this socio-economic -political rollercoaster has always lacked a tanscendent moral order. Along the way, pundits, social critics and propogandists produced a moral overview both fragmentary and conflicting. Mike Novak's book assigns some greater moral clarity to the choas of this historical tumult. He argues that one may be both a devout catholic and an enthusiastic capitalist, that indeed, being catholic may even oblige one to be a capitalist. He stenghens his views with the imprimatur of encyclicals, both eloquent and prescient, by Popes Leo XIII through John Paul II. Each humanistic and thoughtful citizen, whether a member of The American Republic or the world at large, must ask: Are private property and the pursuit of profit moral goods or evils? Are capitalism's excesses and shortcoming the faults of the economic order itself or the hosting culture? Is the pursuit of self interest a natural expression of god-given talent (hence a moral imperative to inspire, protect and empower others) or is it the selfish and exploitative. Is greed good? When does legitimate self interest become greed? Is global expansion of American capitalism righteous, as an escape from the enslavement of starvation-level poverty? Or is it simply an invitation to starve more freely? Is the inclusion of world citizens an invitation to the feast of expanding prosperity or an exploitation of their circumstance? Should the social conscience of a corporation make good business sense? Is it even possible? Is it theologically sound? Is it theologically required? After reading Professor Novak's book, I believe each reader will have a clearer view of capitalism's moral strengh and the weakness of opposing neo-socialist apostasies.

The American theologian Michael Novak converted from socialism to capitalism in the 1970s, somewhat against the trend of the times. It might be said that he got in early to beat the rush to the neoconservative right. He has written that his liberal humanist education, mostly in philosophy and theology, was anti-capitalist 'as was common'. At the age of 40 he recognized a need to question his presuppositions about political economy and especially economics. This led him to discover and eventually to celebrate democratic capitalist traditions and institutions, especially in their North American form. He is especially proud of the achievements of the founding fathers of the Constitution with their appreciation of the need to separate the powers of church and state, and to take precautions against the predatory activities of political factions.

In his capacity as a Catholic theologian he has been especially concerned to reply to the moral critics of capitalism who typically argue that the system abandons the public interest and the welfare of the community to self-interest and the pursuit of individual gain. In one of his other books, Free Persons and the Common Good, he attempted to retrieve from the Catholic literature a conception of the common good that is consistent with capitalism and the market order. At first sight this is not a promising venture, given that Hayek in The Fatal Conceit argued that the Catholic theologians in general and Aquinas in particular had no understanding of the positive function of markets. Novak takes up this challenge with a tortuous excursion into the works of Catholic thinkers, among them Aquinas who Lord Acton described as 'the first Whig'. This is all very heavy going, as Novak realises, and skeptics are likely to wonder whether the Catholic tradition is really as hospitable to freedom and the secular common good as he claims.

His account of the American experience as an adventure of classical (non socialist) liberalism is more convincing. He identifies several valuable moral traditions which were called forth by democratic capitalist institutions in the early American colonies. These include civic responsibility, personal economic enterprise, creativity and a special kind of communitarian living. He also offers a cogent rejoinder to the critics who accuse capitalism of lacking moral or spiritual depth. He explains that statements on the 'spiritual deficiency' of democratic capitalism spring from a "horrific" category mistake. Democratic capitalism is not a church, a philosophy or a way of life, instead it promises three liberations; from tyranny and torture; from the oppression of conscience, information and ideas; and from poverty. The resulting social order provides space "within which the soul may make its own choices, and within which spiritual leaders and spiritual associations may do their own necessary and creative work". He suggests that Democratic capitalism has done rather well on the score of promoting spiritual and cultural life, in contrast with Fascism and Communism which aspired to cater for higher human needs.

The most significant achievement of the book is to explain how the common good can be served by the blend of individualism and free-market institutionalism (under the rule of law) that is advocated by von Mises and Hayek. Both these writers and other classical liberals dismiss the notion that there is anything identifiable as the common (collectivist) good. But the kind of 'common good' that Novak identifies is not of the collectivist variety, instead it is a framework of institutions and traditions which maximises the chance for all individuals to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This particular kind of common good is promoted by the extended order of morals and markets, provided that the markets and other vital parts of the system of law and government are working properly. Here the notion of the rule of law is crucial because it defines an essential function for strong (but limited) government.

Novak supports the market liberal thrust for free trade and he also endorses the traditional, conservative notion of the rule of law against certain types of social engineers and judicial activists. However he does not object to the welfare state because he thinks that it is necessary in these days of fragmented communities and highly mobile people. Those who like their ideology strong and pure will deplore this lapse from grace but it shows Novak's willingness to get the best of both worlds, if this is at all possible. In the same way that he is determined to retrieve the best of Catholic theology he is prepared to take whatever he finds acceptable from the diverse strands of liberalism, ranging from the laissez-faire of von Mises and the deregulators to the left-liberalism of the American democrats. Novak challenges libertarians who have no time for religious traditions and he challenges religious conservatives who regard the liberal tradition as self-centred. This book maintains his reputation for breaking new ground and making connections between apparantly antagonistic modes of thought.

...

This is an important book. It links the liberal democratic order of capitalism with the Judeo-Christian moral tradition and thus at once removes capitalism from being a secular, non-discriminatory form of free market exchange to a human set of relationships between individuals based on a moral code.

Whether or not all philosophers would agree with that thesis is another issue. Since the enlightenment when religious authority was usurped and the secular society emerged, religion has been under attack in developed societies and today many in organized religions decry the relatavistic nature of our behaviour.

That said this is a book that should be read by anyone interested in the concept of the ethical corporate governance. It is a difficult book to read due to the densely written arguemnts which require close reading. It is a challenging book in many ways, especially to those who have strong personal belief systems. Nevertheless, Novak makes a strong case and his exposition deserves to be taken to a wider audience

My thoughts upon rereading this book again recently were that there is a need for a similar book to relate Capatilism to other major religions in a way which transcends any one religion in particular. In the light of recent events too there is a case for a treatise which relates Capitalism to the Moslem world to show that it is an inclusive rather than an exclusive social system.

Michael Novak is probably the foremost Christian thinker on the economy. Any of his books reward study, but "The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism" is undoubtedly his magnum opus. In this classic text, which has now been updated and revised, Novak joins issue with theologians like Paul Tillich who contend that "any serious Christian must be a socialist." It appeared in a samizdat (underground) edition in Poland during the 1980s and had an obvious impact on the Solidarity movement. Its reasoned defense of democratic capitalism as being grounded in the humane values of the Judeo-Christian tradition also helped give a moral center to the neo-conservative movement.

In "Democratic Capitalism," Novak addresses the consistency of capitalism with church teachings on wealth. Novak recognizes that church teaching has been hostile to capitalism, as with much else of modernity. Yet, Novak contends that arguments against capitalism serve mainly to give aid and comfort to the Leviathan state. Indeed, Novak persuasively (if controversially) attributes Christian opposition to capitalism to two main sources: ignorance and antique world views. Church leaders and theologians tend to have either a pre-capitalist or a frankly socialist set of ideals about political economy.

To be clear, Novak does not believe that faith should be subordinated to capitalism. To the contrary, he recognizes that the divine plan was that we should enjoy the fruits of the earth and of our own industry. He simply contends that capitalism is the best way Fallen humans have yet devised to obey the Biblical command that we are to be stewards of God's world. Novak never loses sight of the basic proposition that it was equally the divine plan that God should be worshiped, obeyed, and feared. The fear of the Lord, he would argue, is the beginning of capitalist wisdom, just as it is of any other kind of wisdom. Not surprisingly, therefore, Novak's analysis has begun to impact the way the church thinks about capitalism. Pope John Paul II's most recent encyclicals on work and the economy, for example, such as Centesimus Annus, contain obvious marks of Novak's influence. In sum, very highly recommended.

Since at least the 1982 publication of his book, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, Michael Novak has been the leading voice in the effort to reconcile Catholicism and capitalism, an effort which bore spectacular fruit with the 1991 papal encyclical, Centisimus Annus. The tension between the two -isms, though partially a function of the fact that Capitalism is associated with Protestantism, was for the most part a fairly natural result of capitalism's dependence on individualism and self-interest, as opposed to Catholicism's hierarchical and authoritarian structure and Christianity's requirement of selflessness and charity.

The three essays in this collection, originally delivered as the Pfizer Lectures at the American Enterprise Institute, address the future of the corporation, intellectual property rights, and corporate governance. They are unified by the way in which Novak treats business and the corporation as institutions which have important moral roles to play in society. First he discusses the fact that corporations are voluntary associations, which allow individuals to work together in ways that make them more powerful and effective than they could ever be on their own and which serve important social ends :

From the point of view of civil society, the business enterprise is an important social good for four reasons. First, it creates jobs. Second, it provides desirable goods and services. Third, through its profits, it creates wealth that did not exist before. And fourth, it is a private social instrument, independent of the state, for the moral and material support of other activities of civil society.

In fact, he argues, the effectiveness of corporations in providing goods and services, in creating wealth, jobs, and opportunities, and in providing a counterweight to the power of central government, makes them second in importance only to religious organizations in terms of the role they have played in creating and guaranteeing democracy.

In this section he makes the really intriguing point that some of the earliest capitalist corporations were born out of the Catholic monasteries of the Middle Ages. He quotes the great modern Tory historian Paul Johnson to the effect that :

A great and increasing part of the arable land of Europe passed into the hands of highly disciplined men committed to a doctrine of hard work. They were literate. They knew how to keep accounts. Above all, perhaps, they worked to a daily timetable and an accurate annual calendar--something quite alien to the farmers and landowners they replaced. Thus their cultivation of the land was organized, systematic, persistent. And, as owners, they escaped the accidents of deaths, minorities, administration by hapless widows, enforced sales, or transfer of ownership by crime, treason and folly. They brought continuity of exploitation. They produced surpluses and invested them in the form of drainage, clearances, livestock and seed...they determined the whole future of Europe; they were the foundation of world primacy.

This is ingenious both for the insight that the great innovation that these first corporate entities offered was continuity, of a type that was not available to individuals or even to families, and for the way in which it implicates the Church in the creation of capitalism. Novak's writing is characterized by this unique combination of perceptive analysis on general issues combined with more subtle demonstrations that capitalism and Christianity are and have been compatible.

The second section, on intellectual property, is so compelling that it actually made me rethink my position on Napster. Most of us have been tape recording albums, videotaping shows, "borrowing" computer programs, and now burning cd's, for so long that we've become inured to the idea that the underlying products are ours to exploit and that this will have little or no effect on the artists who create this product. Novak draws upon Abraham Lincoln's 1850 Lecture on Discoveries and Inventions in order to make the case that protection for patents and copyrights is one of the central innovations of the American system, one that deserves to be defended. He points out, for instance, that the right of inventors and authors to receive royalties is the only "right" mentioned in the body of the Constitution. It can hardly be a coincidence that the country which affords such creative activity the greatest protection has been the most creative nation. Novak discusses the ways in which these protections, which reward those who are willing to share their ideas and to take risks to develop them into products, have served to benefit not merely the innovators themselves but the society at large, and concludes :

Patent regimes recognize the right of inventors and authors to the fruit of their own labors as a right in common law. They do so because this right serves the common good by stimulating useful inventions and creative works from which a grateful public benefits. Far from protecting private interests at the expense of the common good, patent protection advances the common good by means of private interest. The common good is the end, private interest is the means.

Here again, we see that although it is often blithely assumed that capitalism serves only individual interests, it is in fact the most effective way for society in general to achieve progress.

In the final section, Novak discusses the various threats to the corporation presented by the various efforts to change how they are governed. He cites Michael Oakeshott's differentiation between the "civic association" and the "enterprise association" :

The civic association aims at something larger than any particular end, interest, or good: the protection of a body of general rules and a whole way of life; in other words, the larger framework within which, and only within which, the pursuit of particular ends becomes possible, peaceable, and fruitful. Given such a framework, individuals are free to choose myriad activities. The state is a civic association, he thought, or at least should be; so is the church; and so are many kinds of clubs, charitable organizations, and associations for self-improvement.

... By contrast, Oakeshott noted, the enterprise association is built to attain quite particular purposes... Enterprise associations are focused, purposive, instrumental, and executive: they fix a purpose and execute it.

The problem that corporations (enterprise associations) now face is that politicians and political activists are trying to blur these lines and turn them into civic institutions, with responsibilities for meeting all kinds of political and social purposes. This diffusion of aims, unwise as it may be, is perhaps appropriate for government organizations : if affirmative action and the like are going to be implemented somewhere, better that it be in government which is already moribund. But one need only look at the havoc such social experiments have wreaked on the military [as Stephanie Guttman has done in her excellent book : The Kinder, Gentler Military: Can America's Gender-Neutral Fighting Force Still Win Wars? (2000)(Stephanie Gutmann) (Grade: B+)] in order to see the disastrous effects of making an organization with a single purpose (being prepared to fight and win) try to satisfy a multitude of political purposes (gender neutrality, acceptance of homosexuals, etc.). Such fiddling by the political class has rendered our once mighty fighting forces politically correct, but much less formidable.

Corporate America now finds itself prey to these same pressures. Already overregulated on the environmental, labor, and other fronts, business finds itself under attack for not being sufficiently socially conscious. They are being asked to ignore the bottom line, to eschew profits, and to instead focus on their role in local communities. It is supposed that society would be better off if corporations were governed so as to "benefit" their employees and their neighbors, and governed in the way that government thinks fashionable at the moment, rather than being run with mere efficiency and profits in mind. One would have thought that the long and disastrous European experiment with Socialism and the spectacular failure of Japan's once vaunted economic planning would have put this argument to rest, but, alas, such is not the case. There will apparently always be a class of activists, politicians, and bureaucrats who believe that they, if given the opportunity, could run the economy. But having seen how inefficiently they run our governments, we should resist them at all costs.

In this book, Michael Novak is really trying to steel business people, to whom the initial lectures were addressed, for this fight. He seeks to warn them that they must not give up the freedom from government interference which has made American industry so uniquely creative an

... and the rest of the western world. This is an incredible book, successfully debunking every anti-corporate myth. Far more than the usual abstract pro-capitalist treatise; it focuses on the single institution that underpins the success of capitalism, AND that is the sole salvation of the Civil Society - the corporation.

This book was obviously written at the peak of the internet "Boom". The majority of the companies cited as examples of the onslaught of the new economy are no longer in existence. Earnings are barely mentioned. Companies cited as the movers and shakers of tomorrow are now penny stocks. The total lack of balance relative to other sectors is appalling and in retrospect is by itself educational. Everyone bought into the hype including the entire VC industry. This might explain why they all sat on the sideline in 2001 trying to regain their sense of direction. The entertainment value is a 5 and the educational value a 1. It is your choice.

This book is a must read for every entrepreneur and VC. The snippets of information in it are very valuable even after the downfall of the Internet economy-most of the text is more focused on timeless vc/entrepreneur related issues. I would highly recommend this book...

I was very impressed by the knowledge in this book. It has a ton of useful information for everyone from entrepreneurs to investors to other financial professionals. In addition, the content is fresh and much more applicable to the "after the shakedown" landscape than other venture capital oriented books such as eBoys, Confessions of a Venture Capitalist and Done Deals. This is a great book that has a ton of useful information straight from some very accomplised venture capitalists.

I bought this book for our Lutheran church library. The first 9 chapters and chapter 12 are excellent and thought-provoking. However, Chapter 10 on the role of women in religion (the Catholic faith) and Chapter 11 on abortion degenerate into Catholic dogma. The writers should SAY THIS: the Catholic church does not allow women to be priests due to tradition, although other faiths do. Instead, Michael weaves a mysteriously weak argument: women are great at ministering to others (ala Mother Theresa) but they could not serve as intermediaries to God because they aren't able to get through to the "warrior man" because they are too meek and mild. Doesn't that make you just go all fuzzy inside? He said how "funny" or "odd" it would be to hear a WOMAN, of all people, deliver the Sermon on the Mount. The argument was idiotic. What about Mary Magdelene, the 13th disciple? What about Joan of Arc, the warrior woman? What about female pastors of other faiths? Gee, I wonder if God listens to them? What about the fact that limiting the priesthood to males has resulted in a homosexual priesthood--not that I would mind that, but it is surely not the result the church intended way back when, and is a big problem in the eyes of the church. This is never mentioned. In chapter 11, the abortion chapter, the authors do a great disservice to their readers. They totally avoid discussing contraceptive devices (naturally)and the fact that condoms can keep you from contracting AIDS! Catholic couples and women especially are condemned, shamed and made to feel guilty by the male hierarchical church if they use contraceptives, and condemned to suffer needless pain, possible death, not to mention the guilt of unwanted pregnancy and the dangers that come with childbirth or abortion, if they do not use contraceptives. Catch 22. How do they ever get right with the church? What kind of church creates such needless suffering on the part of over half its followers-- women? The author mentions a euphemism for the rhythm method as the only acceptable birth control method, never mentioning that it is totally unreliable and does nothing to protect against STDs or HIV. Novak mentions how wonderful it is that Catholic nuns help young unmarried pregnant girls with their pregnancies. Who pays for their welfare once they leave these facilities? The Catholic church? No, you and me, the taxpayers. I got the feeling while reading this book that women are EXPECTED to suffer in this church and to just take it as a saintly cross to bear, never to object. I believe Christ expects us to make responsible decisions and take some responsibility for our lives. The idea that we should bow to some male hierarchy in a faith like Catholicism or Christian fundamentalism is silly. God did not put us on earth to suffer if we could do something to avoid it in the first place, for goodness' sake. I got so mad at these chapters that I wrote rebuttals in the margins. EVERYONE should use a CONDOM when they have sex EVERYTIME whether they are married or unmarried. You ask for death if you don't. The idea that college students receive condoms for free on campuses was so offensive to the authors because it "cheapens sex." No, actually, sex without love cheapens sex. Would they rather these students suffer and die from STDs and AIDS when they could easily avoid it? Get real! So read this book with a grain of salt and remember it is written from a very dogmatical point of view.

Interesting and thought-provoking, although with some flaws. At times, for example, it can be rambling and lacking in substantive answers to the actual questions posed--it often leaves the reader wanting more. Of course, the very fact of wanting more indicates the overall solidity of the book. On balance a very worthwhile read.

I would have given "Tell Me Why" four stars instead of five, because of all the issues left only half-explored or totally unexplored by Michael and Jana Novak. (For instance, barely anything was said about Eastern religions.) However, this book's shortcomings are not half as important as what this book can do for people.

"Tell Me Why" can start debate among believers and non-believers alike. It can inspire critical thinking among the most complacent readers. It can even bring about new joy and enthusiasm to those who need a boost to their faith.

Other reviewers have complained that the discussion "degenerates into Catholic dogma." Being Catholic, I can assure other Catholics that this is a great book to read--and tell believers of other faiths that this is a book that will set them thinking about their own religious and spiritual beliefs. "Tell Me Why" covers abstract issues, such as how to choose a religion and why it is important to believe in a Higher Power, and practical points, such as abortion and ritual--all explosive topics in their own ways.

To its credit, "Tell Me Why" does not merely lay down Catholic doctrine and leave the reader, who may be unfamiliar with Catholicism, floundering for answers; it presents the philosophic background of each teaching. Doing so requires a lot of intellectual meandering, which is why Michael Novak can take over ten pages to answer a simple Yes or No question. (Of course, problems still crop up when Michael Novak explains something to daughter Jana's content, but not to the reader's.)

The text is sprinkled with quotes and prayers from figures such as C. S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton, and other philosophers of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. (Michael Novak has a mind very much like a database when it comes to his field.) While reading, I often found myself thinking about unincluded others who have written about spritual and religious matters, such as M. Scott Peck or Kahlil Gibran. Though my experience proves that "Tell Me Why" is far from perfect or comprehensive, it also shows that this book _does_ inspire people to look into themselves in order to complete what the authors may have left unexplored.

We need more popular theology in our lives.

In the summer of 1995, author Michael Novak was approached by Pfizer Inc, with their desire to have him give three lectures on key issues facing businesses in the 21st century. This short book (51 pages if you include the title page, endnotes, etc.) covers one of those lectures.

In February of 1859, Abraham Lincoln gave a speech in which he listed the six steps in the history of liberty, and the final step was the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, which includes the first establishment of copyrights and patents. Mr. Lincoln argued that copyrights and patents were the cornerstone of American prosperity and advancement. Some 150 years later, Mr. Novak makes the argument that copyrights and patents are just as important now as they ever were.

If you are interested in reading a short, but clear-sighted argument in favor of copyrights and patents, then I highly recommend that you read this book.

After finishing this book, i got the impression that the author has touched something about the philosophical grounding on capitalism, however, the book is not deep enough in analysing these grounds. 1 the moral basw which the author inspected is of the christian ( or rather ) catholic culture, the reasons of the christian culture is the most suitable one to suit with the capitalism are not yet fully explained 2 its hidden presumption on pratising ideal capitalism is having a good government, good smaall societies to support the neighbours or citizens, good law system etc, but if i live in a place full of corruption, business law system not well developed, what should i do? he does not suggest any means 3 the model which he inspected is the usa, he also studied catholic, i would rather say, it is like, when someone got a hammer, all things can be solved by using it 4 i cannot agree more than that, doing business must have moral and courage if you have interest in discussing with me in this book or others, pls email me

The view going in is very different than the view coming out. Novak's idealism helped to encourage me in my own. I read this book as an undergraduate business student struggling to find the balance that I saw in between greed and good. I so enjoyed his language, examples, and message that I recommended it to my Business Ethics professor. Last I heard, he was planning on using it as one of the textbooks. I gave it a 4 star rating because although it was a good read, it could always be better. Let's leave some room for improvement.

This book was reccomended by a friend and I was fascinated by the title. The book is a quick read with many references to socio-economic theory and the Catholic way. The book was written by Mr. Novak, a distinguished author who grasps both the economic and theological apsects of modern day business activities. He does a good job of portraying work as a means to help the common good of all society.The idea that being productive as a person in business can benefit others in unseen ways is worthy. Even business can work in its' self interest while helping advance society. Business as a calling tied together many aspects of faith, work and finding meaning in a career. This book should be on the must read list of every young MBA or CEO.

Rocco Buttiglione is an absolute cretin. A servile henchman of the cancerous worldwide catholic lobby and a junior partner in Berlusconi's neofascist bloc, he contents himself with the few crumbs that fall from his master's table... like a faithful, mangy little dog. May Jah have mercy upon him and upon the misguided souls who have nothing better to do than to read his insignificant works.

The book is hard to understand not only in philosophical thought but also some polish history would help.
As a casual reader I found the book to be more of a task then I wanted.
A challenge is good if you have the patience for the subject mater. I rated the book high because it was well written and informative but a little over my head. I simply didn't have the back round knowledge I needed to get full understanding.
There are other books on Pope John Paul 2 that would be more beneficial for the causal reader.

The reader seeking to understand the thinking of Pope John Paul II will find no better introduction than this remarkable book. Buttiglione is a major philosopher in his own right--as if evident from his careful discussions of Adorno, Sartre, Marx, and other thinkers he brings into dialogue with Wojtyla. Highly recommended.