Colossus: The Price of America's Empire

Great History Book

This book is part Overthrown and part The World is Flat. Ferguson spends the first chapter trying to convince us that the US is an empire in the traditional sense, but that it won't admit it for some reason. While he never quite convinced me (Maybe I can't admit it either!) his comparisons with Britain at the height of its power were striking. This book works better as a sort of short history of Britain and the US which was exceptional. Most intriguing though, were the chapters on the threats to American power and it's change from a creditor nation to a debtor nation. The point is well taken....Rome was destroyed from within. Ferguson's points concerning the US fiscal policy are laid out very well and it may have been the best explanation of the future financial crisis the US faces I've had the chance to read. The book is worth reading if just for that alone. It's also worth noting that Ferguson is British and doesn't seem to sway his argument to the 'Right' or 'left' in case anyone thinks this is some sort political diatribe.

1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

A Liberal American Empire? Why not?

This is a wonderful book with wonderful conclusions that is ill-served by a rather poor historical argument in the first half. Ferguson, swimming against the political currents, argues that not only has the U.S. always been an "empire in denial," but a Liberal American empire focused on ending genocide, introducing democratic values, and lowering poverty levels would be the best thing for the world. He makes the rather unique argument that, contrary to popular belief, the British Empire of old brought with it free market practices, notions of the rule of law, and democratic values to many of the nations it ruled over (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and India to name a few). While he doesn't turn a blind eye to atrocities done by both the British and America, he ultimately takes the view that, all things considered, a liberal empire, under America today or Britain before, is a good thing. The second half of the book is very good. Ferguson makes a compelling case for liberal empire, debunks the idea of the European Union as a potential rival, and warns his American readers of the greatest threats to their imperium: growing Social Security and Medicare costs, a short attention span, and little dedication on the parts of its citizens to maintaining its empire (i.e. small numbers of recruits for the government organizations and NGOs). Ferguson falters greatly though in the first half of the book where he charts America's rise to hegemony from the Revolution to the present. His retelling of American history only seems to hurt rather than help his argument. And his chapter on U.S. goals in Iraq glosses over the fact that the Bush administration made WMDs and not humanitarian concerns the main reason for invading Iraq. If Ferguson were to revise these sections in an updated text, I might be far more willing to give him a higher rating.

A great historian, a great book

Professor Ferguson delights us with this great piece of historical, economic and political analysis. He argues that the U.S. could actually do a much better job in the world by spreading liberal institutions. One thing is undeniable: dictators in many poor countries have brought misery to their own people and a powerful nation as the U.S. (given the lack of interest of other powerful nations, say Germany, France, Japan) could help spread democracy, free markets and small government (perhaps it would not be a bad idea at all to spread liberal economic institutions to most of Western Europe). Prof. Ferguson also argues that the word 'Empire' has been considered as a 'bad word' when it actually isn't. The British Empire was successful in spreading liberal institutions. Americans should actually learn from British mistakes to do a better job. I find one problem in Professor Ferguson's analysis. Many times, the spread of liberal institutions to many countries is just not possible. In some cases, culture, religion, and many other factors (say geography) act as obstacles to the adoption of democracy and free market, perhaps because these institutions are just not the best under certain circumstances. That these institutions are good for one society does not necessarily mean that they are good always for all societies.

The flash Harry of modern history-writing

Ferguson, Professor of Financial History at New York University, has a lifelong passion for finance capital, witness his books The cash nexus and The house of Rothschild. Having written an overrated history of the British Empire, he here tackles the US empire. He tells the Americans how to run their empire, even criticising Bush for being `too diplomatic¿. ¿I write not as a carping critic but as an avid admirer of the United States who wants it to succeed in its imperial undertakings.¿ Ferguson backs General MacArthur¿s approach in the Korean war, that the US should drop atomic bombs on China and Korea. When he writes of `casualties in Vietnam¿, he means US casualties, ignoring the three million Vietnamese killed by US aggression. Ferguson notes, without explaining, that all the US interventions in Latin America, Central America and the Caribbean never produced a single democracy. He claims that Cuba supports terrorist groups, ignoring the 40 years of terrorist attacks on Cuba from Florida. He sneers, ¿Like all revolutionary regimes, Khomeini¿s Iran was soon embroiled in a war with its neighbour.¿ He ignores the US backing for Saddam¿s attack. He aims to give us a cost/benefit analysis of empire but gives us instead a stream of caricatures and smears. For Britain, empire meant capital exported abroad rather than invested in British industry and jobs. The ruling class gained its profits through imperial theft; the working class lost the work. India under the Empire grew only 0.12% a year, because, says Ferguson, it got too little British investment. But independent India has grown far faster. From the facts of increasing wars, poverty and inequality, he deduces that there is still too little movement of capital and labour. He complains that workers are generally too well paid and leisured, and that the costs of Medicare and Social Security threaten to capsize the US economy. Ferguson is the flash Harry of contemporary history-writing, cavalier with the facts, crude in his views and contemptuous of most of the world¿s peoples. His book is one long, unsuccessful, attack on the democratic right of national independence.

No text was provided for this review.

No text was provided for this review.

No text was provided for this review.

No text was provided for this review.

No text was provided for this review.