Mr. Gray's book is ambitious. It delivers insofar as one is forced to reconsider the "truths" thrown about by American politicians and mainstream financial media. Sadly, at 235 pages, Mr. Gray does not allow himself enough room to address his entire project. Often, he will raise a (very interesting) point only to assume it as settled, then move on. This is disconcerting. My favorite of these in False Dawn can be found on p. 110 when he states "One of the tasks of a political leader is to conceal the choices his society has already made." This is followed by a *paragraph* dissecting Bill Clinton's presidency concluding with "[Bill Clinton b]y acting as a political shaman through whom the contradictions of his culture can be articulated without being perceived or resolved...may prove to be the prototype for the statecraft of the post-modern period." Ignoring for a moment the "WTF?!" sentiment sentences like this instigate, these statements can call into question the validity of the entire book, especially because they lack discussion or citation, . That is, one is tempted to dismiss Mr. Gray as *only* hyperbolic and pin-headed (to quote Poppa Bear) because he is *at times* hyperbolic and pin-headed. This would be a mistake (and one I would not have to address if Mr. Gray had been subject to some editing. I'm talking to you, The New Press of New York.)

Though the book could have used some conceptual and grammatic streamlining, Mr. Gray makes excellent points and strong arguments. One of my favorite of his well made arguments is concluded on p103 where, in a discussion of the effect of free-markets and global capitalism in American politics, he states "fundamentalist movements are a response by American society to the derelictions wrought on it by a radically modernist economic system." Though cleverly cloaked in some needless polysyllabes, this is a concise answer to Thomas Frank's question "What's the matter with Kansas?".

Further, Mr. Gray does not stop at pointing out why America is in trouble. (Though we should note, that a book written 10 years ago anticipated our current crisis. It was spooky to see Gray call out Greenspan on free markets with language eerily simliar to that used by Greenspan to apologize for that misake before Congress in late 2008 (see 198)).

He continues on to tell us why there can be no rescue from a destruction upon which we insist. Arguing from a sharp description of American self-delusion (the language on pp. 130-132 concerning Americans myopic, faith-based insistence on our own superiority is singularly poignant) and facts that belie that faith (like the infant mortality rate in DC in 1987 matched that of the USSR, Malaysia and Yugoslavia) he concludes, rightly, that the two cannot co-exist.

Though his argument is much more global than this (truthfully, I cannot comment on his analysis of New Zealand, it's beyond my experience) his discussion of America is spot on. To my small brain, his argument linking, for example, global capital mobility, the impotence of national governments over monetary and social policy and the resulting race to the bottom for provision of public services makes sense.

Don't get me wrong. He suffers from the same hubris any author trying to kill the king likely possesses. For example, his insistence that the world will march "inexorably" to chaos, Hobbesian or otherwise, is a little quick. Granted, Mr. Gray predicted our financial crisis. However, he claims it "not fantastic" that that crisis would cause "the re-emergence of something like the nomadic American poor whose hand-to-mouth lives were chronicled by John Steinbeck in the 1930s". That may be overblown. (Of course, the crisis ain't over yet, and he may be proven correct!)

In sum, the book is well argued, if less than well written. The problem Mr. Gray is tackling is huge, so I can forgive him if every point is not meticulously cited. Especially because the book was written for me, a non-economist, who would get lost in the numbers anyway. This book's arguments should be a part of the American political lexicon, and I am a richer person for having read it. ( )

Will Hutton is quoted on the cover of this book that "we needed a powerful challenge to the simple-minded advocates of globalisation," which is certainly true, but exactly where it leaves Gray's book, a sadly simple-minded challenge, is not clear. An original thinker Mr. Gray may be; a thorough and dispassionate one he is not. He sets his stall with an analysis of a number of experiments in free-marketism, and his especially critical of the reforms which took place in New Zealand under David Lange's Labour Government and then Jim Bolger's National one between 1984 and 1995.

I have two bones to pick with Mr. Gray's polemic: Firstly, in his entire analysis of the New Zealand situation, Mr. Gray quotes just one author, Jane Kelsey.

In any circumstances, that's lazy journalism, let alone academic writing. That is, unless Mr. Gray has in fact done his homework, but has been unable to find another academic to support his arguments. In which case it's disingenuo!us writing. Let's give Mr. Gray the benefit of the doubt. He's lazy.

But if he's lazy, he's also managed to have picked a rather singular commentator on whom to base his analysis. Jane Kelsey is, to put it mildly, a controversial commentator. Her views have very little subscription within New Zealand even at an academic level, let alone on the high-street. That Mr. Gray feels compelled to take Kelsey's word as gospel, while ignoring everyone else's, is nothing short of dumbfounding.

My second objection is personal: I was there, in New Zealand, the entire time the social revolution took place. Mr. Gray was, obviously, not. He patently has no experience of the New Zealand experiment outside Ms Kelsey's writings on the subject. The most stunning example of this is his quote, direct from Kelsey that "in the space of a decade a strong central authority, operating with almost total disregard for democratic process and pluralist politics, abetted by a private sector eli!te, revolutionised New Zealand's economy and its peoples lives". First time I read this I assumed this must be a misplaced reference to the Rob Muldoon's near Marxist regime, which culminated in 1984 with the election of the Lange Labour Government (the one with which Mr. Gray takes such umbrage). But bizarrely, Kelsey was actually referring to David Lange's Labour Government AND Jim Bolger's subsequent National one, which between them took ten years putting right the economic devastation which Muldoon had wrought. Muldoon's stewardship was so horrific that, to prevent the economy collapsing totally he had, for three years LEGISLATED a total ban on increases in wages or prices. It's stunning (but par for the course) that Kelsey should lament the loss of that, and distressing that Gray, albeit though his inattention, should support it.

To my mind such shoddy groundwork completely subverts any legitimacy the remainder of the book might otherwise have. If Gray's analysis i!s that shallow in his groundwork, how poor must it be in the core of his argument?

I'm still waiting for the powerful challenge. ( )

Gray makes a convincing case for free market capitalism as a utopian Enlightenment project, akin to communism, imposed by true believers who ignore its consistent failings. Based on the erroneous notions that markets are self-regulating and that the state impedes capitalism rather than decriminalises it, as well as ignoring the basic human need for security, free market ideology can only be imposed globally by force and sanction - liberal economics require illiberal means of imposition.

The book's outlook is generally grim, but with justification. In crude economic terms freer markets do create more growth, but their social cost is so severe that prospects for societies that suffer under them are bleak. The economic fetish bred in such societies leads these policies to be pursued regardless of the human cost; the social divisions and colossal prison population of the US do not exist despite free market economic policies, but in significant part because of them. ( )

A powerful analysis of the deepening instability of global capitalism.