Jeremy Rifkin

A disturbing bit of prescience - this was published at the turn of the last century, and correctly pegs the effect of the information age on the economics of capitalism. Markets are secondary now to networks, property is mostly an intangible "experience" and access has replaced ownership. About the only things missed here are the overwhelming rise of online shopping and the contributions of online social networks to the destruction of culture, but other than that, this book could have been show more written earlier this year. Unfortunately there are no real solutions proposed here, but I suspect that's because the author was secretly hoping his speculations were wrong. Read it and weep, then worry. show less

Some interesting and hopeful ideas around financing projects with e.g. pension money bogged down by the entire rest of the book which is a collection of half-truths, mistakes, naivete, bad math, self-promotion, and ignorance.

Which shouldn't be a surprise. This is Rifkin's schtick, this is his game. He was wrong e.g. 20 years ago on fuel cells (which, given another 20 years, will probably be ready for widespread usage.) He got smacked down in the 80's by, amongst others, no less than Stephen show more Gould for his ignorance on evolution and genetics. He's at it again, wildly promoting plans and ideas supported by little more than conjecture and promises, with a handful of cherry-picked evidence.

We need to deal with fossil fuels and carbon. We need to prepare for climate change as already baked in. We need something like a "green new deal." But with friends like these, who needs enemies? show less

A more intelligent argument than most I have heard for something other than a market economy (for which I remain an advocate). Rifkin argues that the advances in technology are quickly taking us to a state in which few workers are needed. The resulting unemployment and free time should lead to increased participation in the third sector of volunteerism and community service. He also makes a decent case for a negative income tax for certain low incomes, which in my opinion, beats the show more alternatives he and others propose. The history he provides around the basis of the New Deal (moving the 65+ crowd out to avoid having idle youth) and the trends of the 50's and 60's is very interesting. show less

***.5

Mostly good stuff, but it's all over the place, with way too many seemingly random asides to unrelated topics. The author also has some disturbing opinions about cities, religion, politics, technology, education, children, psychology, and nature. He throws around many references and statistics, but they are often only vaguely related to the point he's making at the time.
Which is a shame, because it detracts from the main thesis of the book, which is that we need to transition from show more viewing "progress" and efficiency as paramount to a more resilient, forgiving, and adaptive society and economy. show less