The author has written quite a few thrillers set in the financial world. I think this is my first (and last). The two principals are a divorced couple: he runs a big-time hedge fund and she is the FBI supervisory special agent in charge of anti-terrorism in the NY area. She's so sure of herself and committed to her work that she divorced him and didn't ask for a penny - of his billions. He is estranged from his dad, who happens to be the President of the NYSE. In the opening moments of the book, his dad, the Federal Reserve Chairman and the Secretary of the Treasury are killed on their way to the White House. They've uncovered a very sinister Chinese plot to eavesdrop on every decision maker in the world and undermine the West's finance. The same night, the FBI agent (who keeps a picture of Hoover on her dresser and calls him Father) is involved in a massive shoot-em-up near JFK at which three of her colleagues die. They uncover a huge arsenal and deduce that there are plans for 24 terrorists to attack Manhattan. Told to take two days off, she refuses - too much at stake. Meanwhile, her ex travels to Connecticut to talk his dad's right hand gal. He hopes to find an explanation for the text his dad sent to him right before he died. He finds her body - still warm. No mas, no mas.
I'm sure I read a positive review somewhere or it wouldn't be on my list. Maybe I didn't. In any event, this is so contrived, cliched, and predictable that I don't need to read the last 2/3rd's to know that Bobby and Alex save the world- I mean Manhattan. Maybe they even get back together.
7.31.2014
7.29.2014
A Crack In The Edge Of The World, Winchester - B
My thanks to Jane Carp for letting me have this volume from my dear friend Bob's library. This is the story of the San Francisco earthquake of April 18, 1906. In the preface, the author tries to imagine the event as seen Neil Armstrong-like from the moon with a powerful telescope. He suggests "the planet very briefly shrugged". Perhaps, it could be characterized as a "shudder". In any event, from 5:12 to 5:14 a.m., the world of northern California was shaken to its core. Policemen in the streets described it as waves coming in from the Pacific. Scientists have since concluded that the wave was moving at 2 miles per second. Buildings shook and many fell as people, including the many members of the Metropolitan Opera staying at the Palace Hotel, rushed into the streets. Enrico Caruso told stories about his morning for years. The quake was felt 390 miles north, 370 south and 340 east of the city it is named for. "The earthquake shook the ground, it broke the buildings, it killed and maimed, and it spawned the fire." The quake itself did 3-10% of the damage, fire did the rest. With all the water mains ruptured, the fire raged for three days. Over half of the city's 400,000 people were homeless, 3,000 were dead and 28,188 buildings were destroyed. Private, state and federal help poured into the devastated city.
The consequences of the quake were many and diverse. San Francisco lost its status as the preeminent city of California to Los Angeles. The quake itself was downplayed and the civic boosters blamed the loss on the fire. In a reconstituted city, they could work to fireproof buildings and enhance firefighting skills. Thus there was no need to worry about a repeat. For those that choose to believe it was the will of God, there was a rise in evangelism. One of the most interesting and long lasting consequences was the result of all of America's records on Chinese immigrants being burned. Under the Exclusionary Acts, immigrants were allowed into this country if they had relatives. So right up to WW2, Chinese claiming to be related to Americans arrived at Angel Island to seek entry.
In the actual reconstruction of san Francisco the slapdash temporary junk buildings that had covered the city were banned. There was a new code to govern new construction. Over a hundred years later, the city is well-prepared for the 'big one'. Every local, state and federal agency has directives and plans, as do many businesses. And those plans are necessary. The US Geologic Survey has asserted that there is a 62% chance of a repeat by the year 2032. The North American and Pacific plates that have been moving in opposite directions at a rate of 1.5 inches per year along the San Andreas fault have not had any release in northern California in 108 years. "The two plates are nearly 200 inches, about 17 feet, out of kilter. This means that an unimaginably enormous amount of kinetic energy is currently stored in the rocks of the Bay area."
The consequences of the quake were many and diverse. San Francisco lost its status as the preeminent city of California to Los Angeles. The quake itself was downplayed and the civic boosters blamed the loss on the fire. In a reconstituted city, they could work to fireproof buildings and enhance firefighting skills. Thus there was no need to worry about a repeat. For those that choose to believe it was the will of God, there was a rise in evangelism. One of the most interesting and long lasting consequences was the result of all of America's records on Chinese immigrants being burned. Under the Exclusionary Acts, immigrants were allowed into this country if they had relatives. So right up to WW2, Chinese claiming to be related to Americans arrived at Angel Island to seek entry.
In the actual reconstruction of san Francisco the slapdash temporary junk buildings that had covered the city were banned. There was a new code to govern new construction. Over a hundred years later, the city is well-prepared for the 'big one'. Every local, state and federal agency has directives and plans, as do many businesses. And those plans are necessary. The US Geologic Survey has asserted that there is a 62% chance of a repeat by the year 2032. The North American and Pacific plates that have been moving in opposite directions at a rate of 1.5 inches per year along the San Andreas fault have not had any release in northern California in 108 years. "The two plates are nearly 200 inches, about 17 feet, out of kilter. This means that an unimaginably enormous amount of kinetic energy is currently stored in the rocks of the Bay area."
7.24.2014
The Heist, Silva - B
This book is the fourteenth in the Gabriel Allon series, and although last year's slotted him for the top job at the 'Office', that job is still a year away and he remains in the field. The circumstances strain credulity more than usual, but the extensive background on art history and Silva's storytelling skills overcome the weaker plot points. While working on a restoration in Venice, Allon is asked by the Italians to investigate the murder of a man who sells stolen art. The painting that may have led to the murder is a Carvaaggio that has been missing for four decades. Gabriel confirms that the missing 'Nativity' is indeed in play and sets up a trap. His first attempt to recapture the painting fails but he ascertains that the man behind it all, the man trying to accumulate a string of stolen masterpieces, is none other than the President of Syria, Bashar al-Assad. The action then shifts from Europe to King Saul Boulevard in Tel Aviv, home of Israel's intelligence service. Gabriel's team plots to strip Assad of his financial assets and undertakes one of their legendary operations. And so, off they go back to Europe to spin their web and entrap the Syrians. In consideration of those who will read this, I will simply state the ending is one of those LeCarre-ish partially resolved and subtle conclusions. Presumably, Allon will be Chief when we see him next summer. One of the attractions of any series is the familiarity of not just the main, but also the secondary characters. His team of Israelis is the same one he's used for years and that is comforting in series like this. Additionally, Silva uses a familiar cast of associates in London, Geneva, Corsica and Paris. I'm certain this series will be with us for quite some time.
7.21.2014
A Wicked War: Polk, Clay, Lincoln And The 1846 Invasion of Mexico, Greenberg - B
This a superb treatise about the politics of an era lost in vague memories of Manifest Destiny and the Halls of Montezuma. After independence, the US prospered, but not so Mexico. Its population declined, there was significant racial conflict between the Europeans and the Indians, and it became what today is known as a 'failed state'. There was virtually no centralized government and "between 1821 and 1857, the presidency of Mexico changed hands at least fifty times, almost always by coup d'etat". The 'Texians' had achieved independence in 1836, and were clamoring for annexation. That the US would expand from coast-to-coast was a generally accepted principle. The only real questions were how far north and south on the way west, and who might we have to fight to get there.
As the 1844 election approached, all acknowledged that the Great Compromiser, the founder of the Whig Party, the master of the House and later, the Senate, Kentucky's Henry Clay would at long last achieve the prize he had been twice denied. The Democrats were in disarray. They nominated Polk, the 'Young Hickory' after Jackson recommended him for the highest office. He was such a long shot that one Whig paper punned "the Democrats must be Polking fun at us". Clay was opposed to annexation because he knew it would lead to war. Polk made it the central theme of his campaign and he pulled off the upset. America was on the threshold of fulfilling its destiny - Texas, Oregon and California awaited. Annexation was approved by Congress and the President, and Texas joined the union on July 4, 1845. A treaty with England led to Oregon becoming a US territory. Polk provoked a border dispute, and in the summer of 1846 had his war with Mexico. The letter he sent to Congress stating that the US and Mexico were already at war was generally conceded to be a pack of outlandish lies, but the bloodlust for territory was overwhelming. Fourteen votes in the House (including former President Adams) and two in the Senate ( John C. Calhoun abstained) were all that mustered the strength to resist. And from day one Polk made it clear - Texas was a given - he wanted New Mexico and California too. Within a year though, popular enthusiasm began to fade as American atrocities against the perceived racially inferior Mexicans began to see the light of day. A vigorous anti-war movement surfaced in the northeast and Whigs nationally remained opposed. The Wilmot Proviso ( excluding slavery from any territory taken in the war) passed the House, but not the Senate, thus further dividing opinion around the country between pro- and anti-slavery supporters. The war, however, went very well as Gen. Winfield Scott captured and occupied Mexico City on Sept. 14. Polk waited for a surrender and an honorable peace - but it was not forthcoming. The Mexicans opposed the occupation and initiated a low-grade guerrilla resistance. Clay, who had lost his son in battle, protested the war, as did a young Abe Lincoln in his first Congressional speech. The war became so unpopular that many called for the US troops to come home and for Polk to forego his demands for territory. There then arrived from Mexico, six weeks after it had been signed, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. It had been negotiated on Polk's terms by his diplomatic agent, Nicholas Biddle. This notwithstanding that Polk recalled Biddle after he realized the diplomat had come to oppose the war and the occupation. Biddle, with the support of Gen. Scott, ignored the recall. The Treaty accepted the Rio Grande as the Texas boundary and awarded New Mexico and Upper California to the US, thus achieving all of Polk's initial war aims.
Polk had won the war, magnificently expanded the country, but lost the day. The Whig General, Zachary Taylor, who had reluctantly participated in the opening invasion of northern Mexico succeeded him in the White House. Polk himself died a few months after he returned home to Tennessee. Taylor supported the Compromise of 1850 allowing California to enter the union as a free state. The war and its aftermath led to the inadequate presidencies of Taylor and Pierce and further exacerbated tension between the north and the south. In his memoirs, one of the successful young West Point officers said that the war "was one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger nation against a weaker one and that the Civil War was our punishment for that transgression". Ulysses Grant's opinion represented the late 19th century view of the war. The author closes with, " It is one of the few American wars not commemorated in Washington D.C. There is no monument to the 1847 conflict in the nation's capital , not even a statue."
Clearly, the Mexican-American War was inconsistent with our republican principles. We trumped up a phony war against a harmless neighbor. But, I can't help but conclude that the western half of the US prospered in our system in ways that it never could have in Mexico's. And as a part-time resident of southern California and western Colorado, whose ancestors came to the US a decade after the war, I'm pleased with the consequences of Manifest Destiny.
As the 1844 election approached, all acknowledged that the Great Compromiser, the founder of the Whig Party, the master of the House and later, the Senate, Kentucky's Henry Clay would at long last achieve the prize he had been twice denied. The Democrats were in disarray. They nominated Polk, the 'Young Hickory' after Jackson recommended him for the highest office. He was such a long shot that one Whig paper punned "the Democrats must be Polking fun at us". Clay was opposed to annexation because he knew it would lead to war. Polk made it the central theme of his campaign and he pulled off the upset. America was on the threshold of fulfilling its destiny - Texas, Oregon and California awaited. Annexation was approved by Congress and the President, and Texas joined the union on July 4, 1845. A treaty with England led to Oregon becoming a US territory. Polk provoked a border dispute, and in the summer of 1846 had his war with Mexico. The letter he sent to Congress stating that the US and Mexico were already at war was generally conceded to be a pack of outlandish lies, but the bloodlust for territory was overwhelming. Fourteen votes in the House (including former President Adams) and two in the Senate ( John C. Calhoun abstained) were all that mustered the strength to resist. And from day one Polk made it clear - Texas was a given - he wanted New Mexico and California too. Within a year though, popular enthusiasm began to fade as American atrocities against the perceived racially inferior Mexicans began to see the light of day. A vigorous anti-war movement surfaced in the northeast and Whigs nationally remained opposed. The Wilmot Proviso ( excluding slavery from any territory taken in the war) passed the House, but not the Senate, thus further dividing opinion around the country between pro- and anti-slavery supporters. The war, however, went very well as Gen. Winfield Scott captured and occupied Mexico City on Sept. 14. Polk waited for a surrender and an honorable peace - but it was not forthcoming. The Mexicans opposed the occupation and initiated a low-grade guerrilla resistance. Clay, who had lost his son in battle, protested the war, as did a young Abe Lincoln in his first Congressional speech. The war became so unpopular that many called for the US troops to come home and for Polk to forego his demands for territory. There then arrived from Mexico, six weeks after it had been signed, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. It had been negotiated on Polk's terms by his diplomatic agent, Nicholas Biddle. This notwithstanding that Polk recalled Biddle after he realized the diplomat had come to oppose the war and the occupation. Biddle, with the support of Gen. Scott, ignored the recall. The Treaty accepted the Rio Grande as the Texas boundary and awarded New Mexico and Upper California to the US, thus achieving all of Polk's initial war aims.
Polk had won the war, magnificently expanded the country, but lost the day. The Whig General, Zachary Taylor, who had reluctantly participated in the opening invasion of northern Mexico succeeded him in the White House. Polk himself died a few months after he returned home to Tennessee. Taylor supported the Compromise of 1850 allowing California to enter the union as a free state. The war and its aftermath led to the inadequate presidencies of Taylor and Pierce and further exacerbated tension between the north and the south. In his memoirs, one of the successful young West Point officers said that the war "was one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger nation against a weaker one and that the Civil War was our punishment for that transgression". Ulysses Grant's opinion represented the late 19th century view of the war. The author closes with, " It is one of the few American wars not commemorated in Washington D.C. There is no monument to the 1847 conflict in the nation's capital , not even a statue."
Clearly, the Mexican-American War was inconsistent with our republican principles. We trumped up a phony war against a harmless neighbor. But, I can't help but conclude that the western half of the US prospered in our system in ways that it never could have in Mexico's. And as a part-time resident of southern California and western Colorado, whose ancestors came to the US a decade after the war, I'm pleased with the consequences of Manifest Destiny.
7.13.2014
Fragile By Design, Haber and Calomoris - A*
In the fall of last year, the authors previewed this book in a 'Foreign Affairs' article that piqued my interest. Indeed, I was astounded, and still am, by one simple statement. Since the late 1830's, the US has suffered through 12 major banking crisis - Canada, none! My historic desire to read books about the 'dismal science' has been pretty low, perhaps exceeded only by my total lack of interest in books about banking systems. But, how could our unbelievably successful nation have faltered so many times and still have wound up number one? I felt this was a must read.
Banking systems are a function of national political will and design. In essence, you get the banking system your nation's politicians summon up. Without credit, a nation cannot grow and it is critically important that a system provide stable credit. The US has had ample credit, but in an inherently unstable system. In this book, the US system is contrasted to that of a number of countries, but particularly those of England and Canada in what the authors call "The Game of Bank Bargains." The starting point is that those in charge of the government partner up with aspiring bankers and create a set of rules. The government charters the banks and passes laws that establish the rights of depositors, borrowers, creditors, investors and insiders. As the arbiter, the government has to juggle inherent conflicts of interest. For example, how do you establish the rules of debt enforcement, when the people against whom debt may be enforced are the same people who elect the government? The list of conflicts in a sophisticated modern democratic society are endless.
The first important national financial institution was the Bank of England, established in 1694 to finance Parliament's wars with France and the expansion of the Empire. It was the only joint stock company ( limited liability) with a banking charter allowed in England until 1825. "The Bank of England deployed its resources to serve government needs throughout the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries." Interestingly, it did very little to help finance the Industrial Revolution. The tide turned against the B of E in the 1820's when other joint stock companies were allowed to charter banks, and the B of E began to establish branches around the country. A central premise of this book is that strong national institutions with multiple branches are the key to economic growth and financial stability, whereas small dispersed single branch banks are incapable of spreading risk. The reforms of the early nineteenth century led to a burgeoning economy and a bank system that was essentially crisis free until 2007.
The authors are American - one teaches at Stanford and the other Columbia - and it is our system that is the primary focus of this book. The Constitution is silent on banking and it was only by citing 'implied powers' that Hamilton was able to charter a national bank. The agrarian populists were opposed and in 1832 were able to revoke the banks charter. "From this point until roughly 1980, the coalition of small bankers and agrarian populists would dominate the politics of bank chartering and bank regulation." Thus, the US was poorly served by thousands of small state-chartered unit (one branch) banks that were non-competitive supporters of the local gentry. This inherently unstable system would pay low interest on deposits, make risky loans to its supporters and not have the wherewithal to survive liquidity crises. " By 1914, there were 27,349 banks in the US, 95% of which had no branches!" This system had spawned bank crises in 1837, 1857, 1861, 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, 1896 and most famously, 1907. After the banking system was saved by J.P. Morgan, Congress authorized the Federal Reserve. The Fed, however, did not change the underlying fundamental, it merely provided a national liquidity vehicle. "As late as the early 1970's, only 12 states allowed unrestricted intrastate branching and no states allowed interstate branching." Disintermediation, money-market funds, the computer revolution, globalization, urbanization and the 1986 Tax Act all added up to the end of the 19th century agrarian system in the 1980's. Banks operating national branching networks accounted for only 10 percent of the US banking system in the early 1980's. By the mid-90's, they accounted for more than 70%. As the US system finally achieved the ability to spread risk, politics intervened. Merging banks were scored by the regulators on many fronts, and one was compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. In order to assure support on the CRA issue, the banks dropped their credit requirements for poorer urban borrowers. Banks committed billions in CRA lending to underserved or low -income communities between 1992 and 2007. In turn, the government supported entities (GSE's) of Fannie and Freddie adjusted their rules to accept loans that had smaller down payments, riskier profiles, etc. If this new type of inherently aggressive loan was ok for the urban poor, it was clearly appropriate for the middle class. Three percent down payments became the norm and no-doc loans categorized as Alt-A and sub-prime became the rule not the exception. "The result was the rapid growth of mortgages with high probabilities of default for all classes of Americans." Both the Clinton and Bush administrations pushed the housing envelope because it not only brought the American dream to a much higher percentage of the population, but because real estate fueled the boom that was the '90's and '00's. The merry-go-round brought in mortgage bankers who churned out loans, leveraged investment banks that packaged and sold the sub-prime stuff around the world and the rating agencies that approved it all. Capital requirements were lightened by the regulators because it seemed like the boom would go on forever. "By June of 2008 there were approximately 28 million sub-prime and Alt-A loans outstanding with a total value of approximately $4.8 trillion.... roughly half of all mortgages outstanding were high risk."After it was over, a deposed bank CEO said that you had to keep dancing while the music played. The music stopped and the government was required to bail out the banks in order to avoid a repeat of the Great Depression. The damage to the US will reverberate for decades. The authors believe, and I believe they make their case, that a strong centralized system with branch banks is the key to financial stability and growth. They laud the Canadians. For almost two centuries, the Canadian branch banking system has spread the risk around the country. It has been so effective that they didn't even need a central bank until the Depression and brought on deposit insurance later than the US. There were no liar loans, no no-down-payment loans and no negative amortization tables. Excess did not seep into their system and they suffered no Great Recession.
Although it appears throughout this book that the authors discredit perceived truisms of American history (dismissing deposit insurance as inherently risky), and that at times, they carry some right wing libertarian message, I found this to be one of the most insightful books I have ever read. I feel as if blinders have been lifted from my eyes. Branch banking seems so terribly logical and efficient. When I combine that fact with my personal conclusion that Congress is, and has been, structurally incapable of governing in the best interests of the nation, I view this book as an economic epiphany. It was reviewed for the Times by the man who wrote the Pulitzer-winning treatise on the Great Depression called 'Lords of Finance'. The article by Liquat Ahamed on April 11 this year is a superbly composed must read. He does think that our recent travails are more complex than the authors concede while making their case here and focusing on the CRA. But, he does refer to the book as "brilliant" and that "it deserves to become a classic."
Banking systems are a function of national political will and design. In essence, you get the banking system your nation's politicians summon up. Without credit, a nation cannot grow and it is critically important that a system provide stable credit. The US has had ample credit, but in an inherently unstable system. In this book, the US system is contrasted to that of a number of countries, but particularly those of England and Canada in what the authors call "The Game of Bank Bargains." The starting point is that those in charge of the government partner up with aspiring bankers and create a set of rules. The government charters the banks and passes laws that establish the rights of depositors, borrowers, creditors, investors and insiders. As the arbiter, the government has to juggle inherent conflicts of interest. For example, how do you establish the rules of debt enforcement, when the people against whom debt may be enforced are the same people who elect the government? The list of conflicts in a sophisticated modern democratic society are endless.
The first important national financial institution was the Bank of England, established in 1694 to finance Parliament's wars with France and the expansion of the Empire. It was the only joint stock company ( limited liability) with a banking charter allowed in England until 1825. "The Bank of England deployed its resources to serve government needs throughout the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries." Interestingly, it did very little to help finance the Industrial Revolution. The tide turned against the B of E in the 1820's when other joint stock companies were allowed to charter banks, and the B of E began to establish branches around the country. A central premise of this book is that strong national institutions with multiple branches are the key to economic growth and financial stability, whereas small dispersed single branch banks are incapable of spreading risk. The reforms of the early nineteenth century led to a burgeoning economy and a bank system that was essentially crisis free until 2007.
The authors are American - one teaches at Stanford and the other Columbia - and it is our system that is the primary focus of this book. The Constitution is silent on banking and it was only by citing 'implied powers' that Hamilton was able to charter a national bank. The agrarian populists were opposed and in 1832 were able to revoke the banks charter. "From this point until roughly 1980, the coalition of small bankers and agrarian populists would dominate the politics of bank chartering and bank regulation." Thus, the US was poorly served by thousands of small state-chartered unit (one branch) banks that were non-competitive supporters of the local gentry. This inherently unstable system would pay low interest on deposits, make risky loans to its supporters and not have the wherewithal to survive liquidity crises. " By 1914, there were 27,349 banks in the US, 95% of which had no branches!" This system had spawned bank crises in 1837, 1857, 1861, 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, 1896 and most famously, 1907. After the banking system was saved by J.P. Morgan, Congress authorized the Federal Reserve. The Fed, however, did not change the underlying fundamental, it merely provided a national liquidity vehicle. "As late as the early 1970's, only 12 states allowed unrestricted intrastate branching and no states allowed interstate branching." Disintermediation, money-market funds, the computer revolution, globalization, urbanization and the 1986 Tax Act all added up to the end of the 19th century agrarian system in the 1980's. Banks operating national branching networks accounted for only 10 percent of the US banking system in the early 1980's. By the mid-90's, they accounted for more than 70%. As the US system finally achieved the ability to spread risk, politics intervened. Merging banks were scored by the regulators on many fronts, and one was compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. In order to assure support on the CRA issue, the banks dropped their credit requirements for poorer urban borrowers. Banks committed billions in CRA lending to underserved or low -income communities between 1992 and 2007. In turn, the government supported entities (GSE's) of Fannie and Freddie adjusted their rules to accept loans that had smaller down payments, riskier profiles, etc. If this new type of inherently aggressive loan was ok for the urban poor, it was clearly appropriate for the middle class. Three percent down payments became the norm and no-doc loans categorized as Alt-A and sub-prime became the rule not the exception. "The result was the rapid growth of mortgages with high probabilities of default for all classes of Americans." Both the Clinton and Bush administrations pushed the housing envelope because it not only brought the American dream to a much higher percentage of the population, but because real estate fueled the boom that was the '90's and '00's. The merry-go-round brought in mortgage bankers who churned out loans, leveraged investment banks that packaged and sold the sub-prime stuff around the world and the rating agencies that approved it all. Capital requirements were lightened by the regulators because it seemed like the boom would go on forever. "By June of 2008 there were approximately 28 million sub-prime and Alt-A loans outstanding with a total value of approximately $4.8 trillion.... roughly half of all mortgages outstanding were high risk."After it was over, a deposed bank CEO said that you had to keep dancing while the music played. The music stopped and the government was required to bail out the banks in order to avoid a repeat of the Great Depression. The damage to the US will reverberate for decades. The authors believe, and I believe they make their case, that a strong centralized system with branch banks is the key to financial stability and growth. They laud the Canadians. For almost two centuries, the Canadian branch banking system has spread the risk around the country. It has been so effective that they didn't even need a central bank until the Depression and brought on deposit insurance later than the US. There were no liar loans, no no-down-payment loans and no negative amortization tables. Excess did not seep into their system and they suffered no Great Recession.
Although it appears throughout this book that the authors discredit perceived truisms of American history (dismissing deposit insurance as inherently risky), and that at times, they carry some right wing libertarian message, I found this to be one of the most insightful books I have ever read. I feel as if blinders have been lifted from my eyes. Branch banking seems so terribly logical and efficient. When I combine that fact with my personal conclusion that Congress is, and has been, structurally incapable of governing in the best interests of the nation, I view this book as an economic epiphany. It was reviewed for the Times by the man who wrote the Pulitzer-winning treatise on the Great Depression called 'Lords of Finance'. The article by Liquat Ahamed on April 11 this year is a superbly composed must read. He does think that our recent travails are more complex than the authors concede while making their case here and focusing on the CRA. But, he does refer to the book as "brilliant" and that "it deserves to become a classic."
Mr. Mercedes, King - C +
Apparently, this is Stephen King's first attempt at a detective novel and I, for one, am not moved. That's rather presumptuous of me, as the 'about the author' section of the book mentions that he has written over 50 books, all of which are worldwide bestsellers. Wow - all - worldwide. A rather creepy guy uses a Mercedes (thus, the title) to kill a bunch of people at a jobs fair waiting area. A just-retired detective goes after him and, of course, with help from a very eclectic crew, stops him on the threshold of another sensational act of violence. Any mass murderer is going to be weird, creepy or just plain crazy. But, the fact that this guy is creepy (I can't avoid the characterization ) pushes this very close to the horror genre. And since I think I've only read one of the above referenced fifty, it's just not for me.
7.01.2014
Sacred Treason, Forrester - B
This book is a fine example of what I like about historical novels. It is well-written and well-researched. It conveys some of the passion, emotion and detail that is often missing in the academic and general histories. The reason it is so well done is that it is written by a professional historian dabbling on the side under a pseudonym, and presumably looking for a few extra pounds. The setting is London in the 1560's at a time when Elizabeth I is still very vulnerable. The Catholics are hoping for a restoration; Mary Queen of Scots is their logical hope, and the plot here is about the possibility that Elizabeth is illegitimate. Anne Boleyn may, or may not, have been married to Percy. If she had been, a case can be made against Elizabeth. The lead character is Clarenceaux King of Arms, a Royal Herald and a designer of coats-of-arms. He is part of the old religion's underground establishment, finds conclusive proof of the marriage of Percy and Anne Boleyn, but opts to play his cards close to the vest and not rock the boat of rebellion. William Harley will be back, as this is the first of an already published trilogy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)