This book was written by a Boomer; so of course there are many places where he fails to see the point, in a way that would be indefensible in anyone else in history. Does he not notice the synergy between "you're American, you want to compete" and the American rejection of European-style social democracy?

He also doesn't understand how the right-left split works in Europe. In the US, the social conservatives are also economic liberals, and vice-versa; in Germany, the social liberals are also classical liberals, while the social conservatives are economic socialists. His fear of Merkel is completely unfounded, and his enthusiasm for the German liberal parties is equally so; how did he manage to spend any significant amount of time in Germany without figuring this out?

(Also, be aware of an annoying verbal tic: "kids", when he writes it, means "twenty-somethings," not "children.") ( )

The book reads simply and is certainly geared to a centre-left American Democrat perspective. This being the case, it simplifies most arguments that it makes into very simple statements, making heavier use on countless anecdotes and personal experiences than on citable facts and statistics. One might be able to tell this by the repeated references to the general "European model." One shouldn't look to this book for a more in-depth analysis of economic systems (as I did for some reason), or for a defence of the principles of social thought, but for an analysis of a system where labour hasn't collapsed -- as it has in America -- and can still deliver on its philosophy and promise.

To people picking up this book for the first time: don't let the initial slowness, dizzying use of anecdotes or lack of "hook" get you down. Even if you hold different opinions from the author or his ideas, you will likely learn quite a bit about how modern capitalism functions, and how it is moving into the future in different markets. ( )

The book begins as a refreshing read in the line of the new "growth-skeptic" genre that attempts to challenge the idea that GDP is the best conceptualisation we have of progress. The author is a union lawyer and so offeres a somewhat unique perspective that I haven't found in other books. He tries to make his point by drawing upon supposed characters (the student, the rocker, the professional) and contrasting their standard of living in the U.S.A. and Europe. While the approach is merited, the delivery is subpar and often degenerates in to an aimless and romantic appeal about the merits of Europe. Perhaps because of his background as a trade lawyer, the author seems to be unable to tie his arguments down to any accepted language. The book is likely to appeal to anyone already on his side, but hardly presents a cohesive argument to a skeptic.

The book also quite restrictively focuses on Germany, and in the face of the economic crises in Ireland and Greece, the reader can't help but feel that he's looking upon the whole region with rose-coloured glasses and avoiding the various problems that Europe has had in the past. ( )

I'd give him a B+ for relevant and intriguing ideas, a C- for writing ability, and I'd fail him for his capacity to make a logical argument (even at times when I think he might be right).

Let's start with the first. Geoghegan's basic premise is that the European (most specifically, the German) style of capitalism works much better as a social and economic system than the Anglo/American flavor of capitalism. He argues that it produces a healthier economy, a better quality of life for almost the entire population, and a more stable society. He founds this premise on an examination of published statistics about taxation levels, work hours, measures of productivity, etc. Sitting in a country whose systems most empathically did not work well recently, it doesn't matter if you blame the banks and think we need strong regulation, or are an ardent Friedman disciple and think things would have been fine if we'd just let the free market truly be free. Either way, this is an area worth thinking about, discussing and, ultimately, improving.

Geoghegan's writing style is, unfortunately, not the best. I think I'd describe it as "ADD Author." We flit from point to point, never alighting long enough to truly explore it. Just as I'd become interested in an argument he was making, he'd hare off on tangent…perhaps related or perhaps not. Too often, he'd digress into an anecdote or sidebar that I thought was going to bolster a position, only to find it was absolutely unrelated…just an interesting story he felt like telling, germane or not. There was no sense of a sustained and continuous argument building to a conclusion.

However, it's his ability—or lack thereof—to make a good argument that spoils this book for me. He never examines his fundamental premises. For example, the entire book assumes that the government is capable of greater efficiency in providing mass services than the private sector: "But to get the same level of service of what are really collective-type goods, she has to pay more." This may be true, but it's nothing more than opinion as he presents it. He uses unsubstantiated claims as the basis for further argument: "She also has to pay more to get her kids in the 'right schools', as the hyper rich keep bidding up the tuitions to keep out the riffraff like Barbara and her ilk." What is the evidence that this is the foundation rather than, say, a shortage of good teachers limiting supply and driving up demand? He creates false cause-and-effect situations: "…she realizes she doesn't have enough money for [basic needs]…so she goes out and…[buys] a Toyota she doesn't need." This might be fine as a deliberate exaggeration to make a point but Geoghegan actually uses these kinds of statements as arguments and goes on to build upon them.

The whole thing has a wink-wink-nudge-nudge tone to it that assumes it is preaching to the choir and, of course, the reader will agree. Even if you think he has some good points, this is very disappointing if you're looking for discussion of the issues. Not recommended. ( )