While no one book can teach you everything about mail order marketing, How to Start and Operate a Mail Order Business gives the reader a good overview of the many things that a person will come across when in the Mail Order Business. If this is your first venture in mail order it is a very good starting point. John Schulte Chairman National Mail Order Association

There was a pronounced sense amongst many British, let alone Germans that the Versailles treaty was overly vindictive and would only serve to sow the seeds of the next great conflict. At the end of 1919 J M Keynes published 'The economic consequences of the peace' . He took great pains to point out the folly of the French position at the conference, namely to be as extreme as possible, cognisant of the fact that their claims would be moderated and noted that in several cases where the British and US delegations had no specific interest, provisions were passed 'on the nod' which even the French would not have subscribed to. Keynes was damning about both Clemenceau and Wilson and pointed out that almost everything had been done which 'might impoverish Germany now or obstruct her development in future' and that to demand such colossal reparations without any real notion of whether Germany had the means to pay was foolhardy in the extreme. Keynes book provided a fulcrum for British doubt about the treaty and an avenue for British sympathy with the fledgling German Republic. Keynes made treaty revision a thing of morality and enlightened self interest to avoid 'sowing the decay of the whole of civilised life of Europe'.

The Economic Consequences of the Peace was written in 1920 by Keynes, who was not already recognized as the most influential economist of the 20th century, a condition he would only attain when he wrote his famous General Theory some years later, and can be interpreted as a personal outburst against the heads of state of the four countries who participated in the Group of Four (France, Italy, UK and the USA) and decided the fate not only of the defeated countries (Germany and Austria) but also of the whole world, in a way that Keynes was adamantly against and which led to his resignation of his capacity of an important negotiator in the British delegation. One has also to remember that Keynes had always been against the war and lost some important friends in the conflict.

The portrait he gives of the different negotiating abilities of French's Clemenceau, United States' president Wilson and British Prime Minister Lloyd George is a devastating picture of the different motives each one of them had at the time: the aim of Clemenceau was to exact revenge to French's traditional enemy and to debilitate Germany as much as possible, thus postponing her return to prosperity and to menace again France. WIlson's, portrayed as a good man but lacking any negotiating feature a man of his stature should have, was a frail man only to save his face in the moral stances he took in his preliminary 14 points Armistice proposal, which led to the initial surrender of the Germans to the Allied forces. The British Lloyd George was only worried about upcoming elections in his country and was playing all the cards (good or bad) he had to save himself from an humiliating defeat to the Liberals.

The outcome of it all was a Peace Treaty who despised each and every point of reality, representing a burden Germany would not be able to pay, thus leading to the dismantling of an economic European system that led famine, social disturbance and finally to the World War II.

The book is a best-seller ever since and very easy to read and should be also recommended to every one interested in the power broker skills one has to have to succeed (Clemenceau) or fail (Wilson) in negotiation as hard as this one.

Great British economist John Maynard Keynes second book recounts his assessment of the economic consequences of the Treaty of Versailles, where he was a member of British delegation as an economic expert.
Keynes starts with providing a dazzling psychological analysis on how the treaty came to be.
"When President Wilson left Washinghton he enjoyed a prestige and a moral influence throughout the world unequalled in history ... Never had a philosopher help such weapons wherewith to bind the princes of this world. How the crowds of the European capitals presses about the carriage of the President! With what curiosity, anxiety, and hope we sought a glimpse of the features and bearing of the man of destiny who, coming from the West, was to bring healing to the wounds of the ancient parent of this civilization and lay for us the foundations and the future"
Alas, this was not to be. American idealism, French quest for security and British distaste for alliances and hypocrisy created an unworkable solution. Soul of the treaty was sacrificed to placate domestic political process, and as the result put Germany in the position of defiance and economic insolvency; the position which at the bottom drew sympathy from the former Allies and as the result contributed to brutality of the second conflict.
Keynes draws a picture of pan-European economy which was destroyed by the treaty and rightfully predicted that not only Germany will not be able to pay, but will be obligated to pursue the expansionist policy at the expense of her weak Eastern neighbors. Treaty did not contain any positive economic programme for rehabilitation of the economic life of Central powers and Russia. One just could not disrupt the economic position of the greatest European land power, at the same time strengthening it geo-politically and suffer no horrible retribution. ""The Peace Treaty of Versailles: This is not Peace. It is an Armistice
for twenty years." - said Foch about such a agreement.

I am a great Julian Simon / Björn Lomborg fan, but this book has a limited number of mostly useless diagrams, especially from non-US perspective. But any other Simon book.

It is fashionable to bemoan the state of the world. The conventional wisdom is that global warming, Terrorism, drug abuse, crime, AIDS and all the rest of the crises threatening humanity lead us to the conclusion that the "good old days" were somehow better, safer and saner than today.

But, if things are so bad why is infant mortality going down around the world? If things are on the edge of anarchy why are proportionately fewer of us hungry, or sick today than one hundred years ago. If things are going to hell in a handbasket why is our life expectancy steadily improving?

These are inconvenient questions. The answers are tough on the prophets of doom.

Luckily, the conventional wisdom is wrong. Stephen Moore and Julian Simon prove this convincingly. Facts are often inconvenient. But, if you want to know the facts, this is the book for you.

It's Getting Better all the Time is an upbeat statistical reference consisting of factual text and colorful graphs.

Fascinating and fun, the book is an essential reference for authors and speakers. It is a treasury of statistics.

And the book has a great title.

As a publisher, author of 28 Books, 109 revised editions, six translations and over 500 magazine articles as well as a consultant to the book publishing industry, I spend much of my time doing research. I will refer to this book again and again.
Dan Poynter, Para Publishing.

For some reason, perhaps because many intellectuals suffer from and write about it, depression has become a trendy psychological affliction among people who by objective criteria have little to complain about.

Julian L. Simon suffered from depression for many years, yet he was able to defeat it through an eclectic approach incorporating ideas from his Jewish cultural background, cognitive therapy, existential therapy, Eastern philosophy and other sources. It's refreshing to find someone who emphasizes that depression derives from an unhealthy form of self-absorption that needs to be disputed vigorously. Stop making comparisons between your actual life and some hypothetical "ideal" life; recognize that you have an obligation to provide an emotionally healthy environment for the people you love; cultivate the values that conflict with your depression. In general, take action against your depression instead of selfishly wallowing in it.

Although Simon mentions his economics research only in passing in _Good Mood_, I also recommend reading his books about the positive trends in the environment, population and general material well-being to provide some cognitive support for a better attitude towards the human prospect.

The premise of Simon's theory is that depression is due to our tendency to compare ourselves to others, how we used to be, what we hope to be, etc. It sounds simplistic, but the book is actually very comprehensive. Rather than making generalizations about all depressed people, he details many different methods and combinations of methods so that you can choose the ones that will work for you.

lofas

The world lost a very special person on February 8th, 1998. I remember hearing of his death the day after it happened and it was the first time I felt truly sad at the passing of someone I had never met. Julian Simon was an economist who studied a broad range of issues but he will most certainly be remembered for his breakthrough work in population economics, showing that population growth correlates with increases in human well being, not decreases. Simon turned doomsayers like Thomas Malthus on their heads and was dubbed the "doomslayer" in a Wired Magazine interview about a year before his death.

Although Simon died well before publication, his wife, Rita, was able to put together this book, working from about 900 (!) pages of manuscript that Julian wrote before his death. Unfortunately, the book seems to suffer a bit from poor editing and typographical mistakes, but that's a minor nit. I'm not a fan of biographies in general, so much of the childhood years bored me, but the chapters on his career and research are fascinating and, alas, way too short. I couldn't help but get the feeling that there were mounds of interesting anecdotes on his career and research that were left out for space reasons. It's too bad; most people who would read it would be most interested in that part. Fortunately, unlike some other autobiographies written by economists, Simon does discuss how he evolved in his thinking over the years

The book covers all the areas that Simon is well known for, including population studies, immigration, treatment of depression, advertising and the mail order business and, of course, Simon's brilliant idea for solving the problem of overbooked planes. This last item was a stroke of genius and Simon deserves a place of honor for that alone. The solution came to him in the mid-sixties, but it wasn't until 1978, when an economist was appointed head of the Civil Aeronautics Board that it was put into use. Simon was baffled as to why it took so long, but an obvious explanation never occurs to him: the airline industry was a heavily regulated, government-enforced cartel, so there was less of an incentive to innovate.

For a non-fiction, it was good reading. This was the first book to show me why "overpopulation " is not a problem.

Even if publications like this are not written by millionaires, surely that's the audience they intend to reach. I can't blame the conservative public for wanting a rebuttal to assertions on issues such as environmentalism, civil liberties, racism, etc. that leftists might seem to have monopolized in the public consciousness. No position should go unchallenged as incontrovertible fact, especially not if the proof is so difficult to ascertain, as it is with global warming.

In reading books like this and Facts Not Fear: Teaching Children About the Environment, you get the feeling that conservative types see today's environmentalist establishment as some unpleasant amalgam of mamby-pamby peaceniks and humorless grown-up hall monitor killjoys who arbitrarily claimed authoritatively to know what is best for the planet. From the former's standpoint, all that was thought to be good and wholesome not so long ago (like red meat, driving, farming) has since been villified. What is a red-blooded American to do?

What makes books like these disappointing is the low road they seem to prefer. Not all environmentalists strive to kill the dreaded multinationals, spike trees and take away your driving privileges. Those that do tend to inflate figures and resort to scare tactics, but aren't likely to appeal to the better educated public. If it is necessary to inform the public that there is an alternate school of thought on ecology, the best way to present it is probably not to suggest that we are all living well, so let's just ignore the fact that 3 of the 10 most polluted locales in the world belong to the US. It seems that when the Right finally does get the microphone to present commentary on the state of the environment, instead of articulating, it chooses to play armpit noises. It might play to more of the audience, but only because it takes the seriousness out of an issue that the angry or insipid masses don't want to be bothered with. At least not until an environmental disaster hits them personally.

Academia probably won't have much use for Simon's work in this lifetime, but it doubtlessly has, and will have, an audience. If his purpose was just to preach to the choir, he succeeds, but it's not likely to reach beyond. It's disappointing, though, that this type of perspective represents so much money, yet all these resources cannot buy more informed, or at least persuasive authors.

Simon does his usual thing in this book as he debunks the bunked-up balderdash of the blinkered. His "Ultimate Resource" book, his book on "the State of Humanity" and his posthumous offering, "It's Getting Better All the Time" with Stephan Moore, all converge with the theme of exposing the political agenda under which the progressive Left operates as they disguise their true motives while waving their banner of concern for the environment. The recent publication by Bjorn Lomborg, "the Skeptical Environmentalist", just adds more fuel to Simon's fire. Lomborg has impeccable Leftist credentials as a former member of Greenpeace who also works as a professor in the political science department of a Danish University. He's just that oddity of oddities, an honest Leftist intellectual.

Lomborg set out to prove Simon wrong, but found him to be...drumroll...., to in fact, be right. Lomborg's shock parallels Ron Radosh's experience in setting out to prove the Rosenbergs innocent, but in fact finding that they were guilty. Both men have received scorn at the hands of the Far Left. They are made to be an un-person in true Stalinist style as they suffer the dispersement of disinformation at the hands of their former comrades. The rabbit is out of the hat, as Simon has always known, it's a political agenda that fuels almost all the environmental scare tactics of the Left and in no way does their agenda resemble a search for the truth.

Simon and Lomborg both used statistics and science, freely available in the public domain, leading Lomborg to question why so many environmental myths are so truculently lodged in the minds of the public? Just as Simon talks about the need for a "Truth Lobby" Lomborg was amazed at the closed minded religiosity of his friends who refused to believe, nor had an interest in discussing, his research findings. It is this compartmentalized-brain-syndrome that has consigned Simon's works to the dustbins of bookstores who continue to extol the virtues of always wrong, but presumably well intentioned, environmentalists such as Paul Erhlich of Stanford.

If we are fortunate enough to have a collective national awakening it will probably be because Simon's work, like Bach's music, will have been discovered at some later date in a more rational time in some collectors trunk in an attic, deep in the heart of the land of the fruits and the nuts.

It should be quite obvious to anyone with any real background in natural science, math, or perhaps just good old, non-hysterical common sense, that the earth isn't coming to an end. This book completely refutes the reasoning of the 1990s trend of screaming at "big business" for "destroying the planet". Face it folks, just 'cause Al Gore claims it's true, doesn't make it so. Global warming...Am I the only one who remembers the mid-1970s panic over "global cooling"? Back then, we were all going to die in a new ice age. People need to be scared about something new every 25 years or so. It seems to give them an excuse for their righteous rage, when all they really need is a couple of Prozac.

Simon states the world has trended positive in the past and will continue to do so in the future. If you read a review which states Simon has been proven wrong since the time of publication, then that reviewer totally misunderstands Simon's position OR really hasn't read the material. It would be impossible to say anything has been proven at this point, because Simon's analysis requires long periods of time for a trend to develop. Pointing to an increase in fuel prices or a decline in a region's life expectancy (due to a disaster, natural or economic) does not show a flaw in Simon's reasoning, only a bump in the road, to which humanity must develop a response. It is the RESPONSE which has made humans what they are, and has brought us to the modern state in which we now live.

I find the reviews of this book interesting. The last few comments made on the book are on how Simon's "predictions" have been debunked. His predictions are in fact panning out quite nicley. The united states "fall" on the world life expectancy list does not mean things have gotten worse: it means more countries are improving, and some have surpassed us. This is a bad thing? Other readers point out how things just havn't panned out. Are you all on crack? In truth Simon makes no predictions in his books that aren't based of fact. Over the last 100 years things have gotten MUCH better for EVERYONE. You can argue about disparities among the races, but the TRENDS for ALL of humanity show great improvements (ie, for all races). Scoff at his claims if you will, but you are likley living proof of some miracle brought about within even the last 40 years. It matters not what race you are. If you don't like Simon, hit up the statistical abstract of the united states and verify his numbers - this is a claim simon makes. Lastly, seeing some blips in humanity, such as the adverse effects of the fall of the soviet union (again, you cannot simply say simon is wrong because the soviets dove into free market economies and are struggling, anymore than you could have said capitalism is wrong because of the recession in the 80's, or the depression before WW2; russia is an EXTREME example of how NOT to transition into democracy, hence the term use of the uncontrolled "fall" in "fall of the soviet union"). This is the essence of simons ENTIRE BOOK - that the overall TRENDS are improving. Readers who miss that miss the book. Life isn't easy every day or every year, sorry. Don't go blaming Simon for that.

This is a book jam-packed with statistical information regarding, what else, the state of humanity. Collected are statistics relevant to life, health, standards of living, and the ecological state of the planet.

For example, if you believed Ehrlich and Ted Danson in the 1970's that the Earth was on the cusp of another ice age, only now to believe that the Earth is warming rapidly, your extreme beliefs, no doubt influenced by a media that has little regard for facts, could stand a dose of reality from the information in this book. Of course, Simon is not the only writer to debunk the eco-extremists. Dr. S. Fred Singer, inventor of the satellite ozone monitoring system, is among the large percentage of globabl scientists who concur that there is indeed nothing wrong with the ozone layer. How could they come to such a conclusion? Probably a consideration of the facts, ones such as those Simon has amassed.

Far from culling information only from the western world, the statistics in this book are often global. Of course, this is a book largely composed of statistics. Regardless of the accuracy of the information, quantitative analyses such as this are purely for reference.

I suggest Simon's book not as the end-all-be-all of rational debate, but merely as one source of information. Simon, and the information he has gathered, do not speak conclusively on any issue. What you will most probably gain from reading this book is an understanding of the kind of evidence and material that is not even considered by those who make opposing arguments. Opinions may vary, but ultimately facts lend themselves only to a finite number of interpretations.

Most cultural debates have their ebbs and flows; I am glad to see this segment of the argument being constructed with facts and rationality, however incomplete they may be.