New York Times
"Economic Scene" columnist Madrick sets out to debunk the "new economy" rhetoric that ignited the late-1990s stock market, and although his argument may seem belated, it's far from mundane. According to the author, technological innovations aren't just less important to economic expansion than we've been led to believe—they're not even necessary. Henry Ford's advances were much more managerial than technological, Madrick writes; therefore, improvements in marketing and distribution can prompt growth without serious technological developments. In the supply versus demand equation, Madrick tips the balance toward demand: in the last 1,000 years of economic history, desire for product has always been the motivation for expansion. Even the 19th-century invention of the commercial thresher, which vastly improved farms' productivity, was invented to feed a growing population. Much of the book chronicles the decline of American productivity from 1970 to 1995, with Madrick asserting that stagnation inspired people to invent the fiction of a "new economy," which, by the late '90s, was almost exclusively identified with high-tech enterprises. Unfortunately, Madrick, a former Business Week
financial editor, here plays the role of essayist, rather than journalist, foregoing specific data for broad assertions. He calls for more progressive taxes to redistribute wealth and greater public spending on education and healthcare, but his last chapter is fatalistically titled "Why We Won't Do It," and is a critique of the laissez-faire orthodoxy that has dominated politics and economic theory since the '80s. (Nov. 1)
