What do you think?
Rate this book
Building the New American Economy: Smart, Fair, and Sustainable
In this passionate and powerful book--part manifesto, part plan of action--the renowned economist Jeffrey D. Sachs offers a practical strategy to move America, seemingly more divided than ever, toward a new consensus: sustainable development. Sustainable development is a holistic approach that emphasizes economic, social, and environmental objectives in shaping policy. In focusing too much on economic growth, the United States has neglected rising economic inequality and dire environmental threats. Now, even growth is imperiled.
Sachs explores issues that have captivated the nation and political debate, including infrastructure, trade deals, energy policy, the proper size and role of government, the national debt, and income inequality. Not only does he provide illuminating and accessible explanations of the forces at work in each case, but he also presents specific policy solutions. His argument rises above the pessimism born of political paralysis, economic stagnation, and partisanship to devise a brighter way forward, achievable both individually and collectively. In Building the New American Economy, Sachs shows how the United States can find a path to renewed economic progress that is fair and environmentally sustainable.
Sachs explores issues that have captivated the nation and political debate, including infrastructure, trade deals, energy policy, the proper size and role of government, the national debt, and income inequality. Not only does he provide illuminating and accessible explanations of the forces at work in each case, but he also presents specific policy solutions. His argument rises above the pessimism born of political paralysis, economic stagnation, and partisanship to devise a brighter way forward, achievable both individually and collectively. In Building the New American Economy, Sachs shows how the United States can find a path to renewed economic progress that is fair and environmentally sustainable.
152 pages, Paperback
Published March 20, 2018
114 people are currently reading
957 people want to read
About the author
Jeffrey D. Sachs
93 books863 followersJeffrey David Sachs, is an American economist, public policy analyst, and former director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, where he holds the title of University Professor, the highest rank Columbia bestows on its faculty. He is known as one of the world's leading experts on economic development and the fight against poverty.
Sachs is the Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs and a professor of health policy and management at Columbia's School of Public Health. As of 2017, he serves as special adviser to the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a set of 17 global goals adopted at a UN summit meeting in September 2015. He held the same position under the previous UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and prior to 2016 a similar advisory position related to the earlier Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), eight internationally sanctioned objectives to reduce extreme poverty, hunger and disease by the year 2015. In connection with the MDGs, he had first been appointed special adviser to the UN Secretary-General in 2002 during the term of Kofi Annan.
In 1995, Sachs became a member of the International Advisory Council of the Center for Social and Economic Research (CASE). He is co-founder and chief strategist of Millennium Promise Alliance, a nonprofit organization dedicated to ending extreme poverty and hunger. From 2002 to 2006, he was director of the United Nations Millennium Project's work on the MDGs. He is director of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and co-editor of the World Happiness Report with John F. Helliwell and Richard Layard. In 2010, he became a commissioner for the Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, whose stated aim is to boost the importance of broadband in international policy. Sachs has written several books and received many awards.
Sachs is the Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs and a professor of health policy and management at Columbia's School of Public Health. As of 2017, he serves as special adviser to the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a set of 17 global goals adopted at a UN summit meeting in September 2015. He held the same position under the previous UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and prior to 2016 a similar advisory position related to the earlier Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), eight internationally sanctioned objectives to reduce extreme poverty, hunger and disease by the year 2015. In connection with the MDGs, he had first been appointed special adviser to the UN Secretary-General in 2002 during the term of Kofi Annan.
In 1995, Sachs became a member of the International Advisory Council of the Center for Social and Economic Research (CASE). He is co-founder and chief strategist of Millennium Promise Alliance, a nonprofit organization dedicated to ending extreme poverty and hunger. From 2002 to 2006, he was director of the United Nations Millennium Project's work on the MDGs. He is director of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and co-editor of the World Happiness Report with John F. Helliwell and Richard Layard. In 2010, he became a commissioner for the Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, whose stated aim is to boost the importance of broadband in international policy. Sachs has written several books and received many awards.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 70 reviews
February 7, 2017
Jeffrey Sachs’ new book, which runs about 150 pages, has a Foreword by Bernie Sanders. Sachs directly addresses the new Trump administration, and makes suggestions about our nation’s priorities. Sachs wrote it fast, since the election, and it shows. He'd supported Bernie, but Sanders was not particularly explicit when it came to running the government. These are Sachs' ideas, but knowing he supports Sanders is helpful to our understanding of Sanders' positions as well.
Sachs allows that we might be able to comprehend priority spending of the government, so shares some national budget particulars:
On the spending side, first is military spending at 5% of GDP. Next is what Sachs calls “mandatory spending” but what Republicans call “entitlements:” Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, income support programs, etc. This is a rising share of GDP, at 12.6%. The third category of spending is interest payments of government debt, which will rise when interest rates increase. Public debt to national income is about 75%, and average interest charges on that debt are at about 1.5% of GDP per annum. Finally, we have non security discretionary spending, or our investment in the future, which in the scenario Sachs talks about here, doesn’t even make it to the drawing board unless we take on further debt.
The reason Sachs gives us is that income taxes, etc are only 18% of GDP while military, mandatory spending, and interest payments alone are 19%. He is a smart guy, and he may be right, but if you are asking us to decide on which categories or programs to cut, I will need to see the whole budget, many thanks. [Unfortunately the graphs and charts are not reproduced in the ebook of this pre-publication galley.]
Anyway, Sachs suggests we cut military spending and increase discretionary spending commensurately, leaving the other categories to be adjusted in smaller ways. In theory, I don’t have a problem with this. I have lately weighed good and bad in American foreign policy in the past fifty years, and see lots of room for a reduced role, though one has to acknowledge the vacuum of leadership is going to be filled, perhaps by a country we don’t admire much, or at all.
When we abdicate as a superpower, we also jettison some of the trust and reliance of our allies, as some of their positions and spending were predicated on our own. It is a much more fragmented and divided world, a world that may not be so amenable to policies the U.S. supports. And Sachs’ proposals for the future are all about global cooperation. He suggests that we use our military spending instead on global development projects, which will keep some portion of goodwill headed our way.
Sachs also recommends a value-added tax like they have in Scandinavia which would raise another 3-4% of income. The huge discrepancies in income from top to bottom of the U.S. income ladder will still be there, they just won’t be as great, and more in line with the world’s other great democracies. Sachs is even willing to consider restructuring corporate taxes, like Trump has already proposed, but only “if combined with an end to corporate loopholes and foreign tax deferral provisions.” Definitely one of the main income disparities is who even pays taxes in the U.S.
Sachs looks not very far into the future and see some major changes in our economy: an end to internal combustion mobility and the beginning of a low-carbon lifestyle, regardless of government leadership. It would help if government was in front, using their think tanks and scientific offices to help direct some of the changes, but what we really have to guard against is allowing entrenched corporate interests to hijack our future and investment money. We can decide these things without government, though.
Trump has stated he wants states to make their own decisions on many things we have in the past asked the federal government to do. States with wealth, educated workforces, and well-funded universities (like Massachusetts, California, and New York) may make out very well, drawing more similarly-minded folks to them, and exacerbating the cross-talk divisiveness among the states. They’d have to capture taxes from individuals who wish to work, but not live in their states. But my feeling is, if we can’t work together within our own country, how can we expect to work across national boundaries on important issues like climate change, exploration, and energy supplies?
When Sachs discusses the changes in the workplace, I find my credibility meter reading low. I agree that even educated workers will be replaced in the modern economy as computers and machines get more capable. But Sachs is suggesting that older, experienced workers pay some part of their wages to younger people who cannot find jobs.
Hello! We’re already doing that! It’s called taxes, and it is a stupid idea. Older workers, whether they want to believe it or not, are going to die, and if they haven’t mentored young people to get experience and be able to take on the stress of creativity everyday, they may be surprised when the whole show goes tits up. [This was Hillary Clinton’s problem. She thought she needed to do everything herself.]
We cannot continue to have older workers stay in the workplace as long as they want—and continue to decline—keeping younger folk from earning and gaining experience, let alone spur creativity. May I suggest this is a real problem? People who have been working for forty or fifty years cannot keep up, no matter what they believe about themselves. And it is not good for the country.
Sachs has one idea towards the end that is kind of interesting: that Wall Street be tasked with earning and churning the financial investment monies for our infrastructure retooling. I actually really like that idea, and think the incentives could be restructured to focus on this. Once the wonky windfall profits not only on Wall Street, but everywhere in corporate America, are tempered with reasonable tax policy and closing of tax havens and loopholes, people might remember they must play well with others. We don’t have long, however: we should already be well into flood abatement.
There are lots of other things lightly touched on in this book, including a discussion of why “free trade” is not free for everyone. Sachs has a blog where he makes notes and posts articles and media accounts that he find interesting or thinks we need to discuss. In the summer of 2016, his important and informative discussion about the election, globalization, immigration, and Brexit was subsequently picked up by NPR and discussed on radio. He pointed to what is now called “populist” anger and explains the real substantive issues behind this. Jeffrey Sachs is professor of economics and sustainable development at Columbia University, and former director of the Earth Institute, special advisor to UN Secretary General Ban Kin-moon. He is the author of The End of Poverty.
Sachs allows that we might be able to comprehend priority spending of the government, so shares some national budget particulars:
“Federal taxes account for about 18 percent of GDP, mostly income and payroll taxes…Together with state and local taxes, the total tax collection of all levels of government amounts to around 32 percent of GDP.”
On the spending side, first is military spending at 5% of GDP. Next is what Sachs calls “mandatory spending” but what Republicans call “entitlements:” Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, income support programs, etc. This is a rising share of GDP, at 12.6%. The third category of spending is interest payments of government debt, which will rise when interest rates increase. Public debt to national income is about 75%, and average interest charges on that debt are at about 1.5% of GDP per annum. Finally, we have non security discretionary spending, or our investment in the future, which in the scenario Sachs talks about here, doesn’t even make it to the drawing board unless we take on further debt.
The reason Sachs gives us is that income taxes, etc are only 18% of GDP while military, mandatory spending, and interest payments alone are 19%. He is a smart guy, and he may be right, but if you are asking us to decide on which categories or programs to cut, I will need to see the whole budget, many thanks. [Unfortunately the graphs and charts are not reproduced in the ebook of this pre-publication galley.]
Anyway, Sachs suggests we cut military spending and increase discretionary spending commensurately, leaving the other categories to be adjusted in smaller ways. In theory, I don’t have a problem with this. I have lately weighed good and bad in American foreign policy in the past fifty years, and see lots of room for a reduced role, though one has to acknowledge the vacuum of leadership is going to be filled, perhaps by a country we don’t admire much, or at all.
When we abdicate as a superpower, we also jettison some of the trust and reliance of our allies, as some of their positions and spending were predicated on our own. It is a much more fragmented and divided world, a world that may not be so amenable to policies the U.S. supports. And Sachs’ proposals for the future are all about global cooperation. He suggests that we use our military spending instead on global development projects, which will keep some portion of goodwill headed our way.
Sachs also recommends a value-added tax like they have in Scandinavia which would raise another 3-4% of income. The huge discrepancies in income from top to bottom of the U.S. income ladder will still be there, they just won’t be as great, and more in line with the world’s other great democracies. Sachs is even willing to consider restructuring corporate taxes, like Trump has already proposed, but only “if combined with an end to corporate loopholes and foreign tax deferral provisions.” Definitely one of the main income disparities is who even pays taxes in the U.S.
Sachs looks not very far into the future and see some major changes in our economy: an end to internal combustion mobility and the beginning of a low-carbon lifestyle, regardless of government leadership. It would help if government was in front, using their think tanks and scientific offices to help direct some of the changes, but what we really have to guard against is allowing entrenched corporate interests to hijack our future and investment money. We can decide these things without government, though.
Trump has stated he wants states to make their own decisions on many things we have in the past asked the federal government to do. States with wealth, educated workforces, and well-funded universities (like Massachusetts, California, and New York) may make out very well, drawing more similarly-minded folks to them, and exacerbating the cross-talk divisiveness among the states. They’d have to capture taxes from individuals who wish to work, but not live in their states. But my feeling is, if we can’t work together within our own country, how can we expect to work across national boundaries on important issues like climate change, exploration, and energy supplies?
When Sachs discusses the changes in the workplace, I find my credibility meter reading low. I agree that even educated workers will be replaced in the modern economy as computers and machines get more capable. But Sachs is suggesting that older, experienced workers pay some part of their wages to younger people who cannot find jobs.
Hello! We’re already doing that! It’s called taxes, and it is a stupid idea. Older workers, whether they want to believe it or not, are going to die, and if they haven’t mentored young people to get experience and be able to take on the stress of creativity everyday, they may be surprised when the whole show goes tits up. [This was Hillary Clinton’s problem. She thought she needed to do everything herself.]
We cannot continue to have older workers stay in the workplace as long as they want—and continue to decline—keeping younger folk from earning and gaining experience, let alone spur creativity. May I suggest this is a real problem? People who have been working for forty or fifty years cannot keep up, no matter what they believe about themselves. And it is not good for the country.
Sachs has one idea towards the end that is kind of interesting: that Wall Street be tasked with earning and churning the financial investment monies for our infrastructure retooling. I actually really like that idea, and think the incentives could be restructured to focus on this. Once the wonky windfall profits not only on Wall Street, but everywhere in corporate America, are tempered with reasonable tax policy and closing of tax havens and loopholes, people might remember they must play well with others. We don’t have long, however: we should already be well into flood abatement.
There are lots of other things lightly touched on in this book, including a discussion of why “free trade” is not free for everyone. Sachs has a blog where he makes notes and posts articles and media accounts that he find interesting or thinks we need to discuss. In the summer of 2016, his important and informative discussion about the election, globalization, immigration, and Brexit was subsequently picked up by NPR and discussed on radio. He pointed to what is now called “populist” anger and explains the real substantive issues behind this. Jeffrey Sachs is professor of economics and sustainable development at Columbia University, and former director of the Earth Institute, special advisor to UN Secretary General Ban Kin-moon. He is the author of The End of Poverty.
October 20, 2017
كتاب شديد الاهمية بسبب كاتبه. جيفري ساكس احد اهم الاقتصاديين المنظرين للتحول الاقتصادي بالعلاج بالصدمة للتحول الى الاقتصاد النيوليبرالي في بولندا وروسيا في اوائل التسعينات. ساكس اصبح بعدها احد المنظرين للتنميةالميتدامة وضرورة ضخ المساعدات للقضاء على الفقر. والان في هذا الكتاب، الذي يقدم له برني ساندرز بما لذلك من دلالة يصبح ساكس اقتصاديا يدافع عن فرض ضرائب على الاغنياء وعن تدخل الدولة لتحقيق التنمية. تحول مدهش.
March 20, 2017
This was an uneven mixed bag. Definitely much better thought of as an anthology of essays than as a coherent book. More on that in a bit, and I'll temper all of the below with A) the caveat that I actually agree with 80-90% of this book and B) the recognition that Jeffrey Sachs is much, much smarter than I am.
I'll start with the good. There are a lot of ideas in here -- I'll probably return to this later as I continue work. The chapter on trade is very good, and one of the more coherent, thoughtful short critiques of modern American trade policy I've read recently-- his view is not isolationist, but instead a recognition that the problem is not so much trade deals that have gone awry, but our complete political failure to compensate the people who lose out from these changes in the rules and our unwillingness to divvy up the larger pie. The chapter on automation, while a bit weaker, is also solid.
The bad and the ugly: this is poorly organized, and the fact that chapters are drawn from op-eds shows in a grating, obnoxious way. There's a thread across chapters of building a smart, fair, and sustainable economy, but why on earth would you talk so much throughout about the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) then bury the chapter about what the SDGs are at the end? Other chapters don't flow in a natural way -- infrastructure gets a big chapter near the front, but then comes back throughout in ways that seem to assume the reader hasn't read that chapter. And since these were op-eds, there are a lot of "rule of three"-type sections
Structure aside, the bigger challenge is a book that at times struggles to decide what it wants to be. In some places, it's a polemic, waxing at length about the trend toward plutocracy in the United States and the need for a better, more-inclusive politics. In others, it's a wonky policy manifesto, with targets for the obesity rate down to the percentage point and clear policy prescriptions to improve our infrastructure and fight inequality. Sachs doesn't transition between the two modes very effectively, and in my view, this book is at its best when it talks about solutions.
One last set of gripes: the book seems to ignore politics -- too often Sachs slips into a "pox on both houses" critique of modern policymaking that draws no difference between Republicans and Democrats, particularly with respect to the Obama and Clinton administrations. I'll be charitable and call this naive; someone more critical than I would call this intentionally misleading. The barrier to getting strongly progressive policies enacted, in Sachs's view, always seems to be moneyed interests that have captured both parties -- it's very rare that Republicans specifically come up for blame (even though Obama proposed a number of the policies Sachs now calls for). I could go on, but I'll leave it there. (Actually, one last gripe -- while I am a firm believer Europe and Canada show you can do policymaking much, much better than we do, Sachs totally ignores the challenges unique American heterogeneity presents for redistributionist policy, and like Sanders, whose campaign Sachs advised, race often seems an afterthought).
Anyway, worth a read -- it's short, and there's fodder for other work and thinking that builds on this -- but it's pretty aggravating at many points, too.
I'll start with the good. There are a lot of ideas in here -- I'll probably return to this later as I continue work. The chapter on trade is very good, and one of the more coherent, thoughtful short critiques of modern American trade policy I've read recently-- his view is not isolationist, but instead a recognition that the problem is not so much trade deals that have gone awry, but our complete political failure to compensate the people who lose out from these changes in the rules and our unwillingness to divvy up the larger pie. The chapter on automation, while a bit weaker, is also solid.
The bad and the ugly: this is poorly organized, and the fact that chapters are drawn from op-eds shows in a grating, obnoxious way. There's a thread across chapters of building a smart, fair, and sustainable economy, but why on earth would you talk so much throughout about the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) then bury the chapter about what the SDGs are at the end? Other chapters don't flow in a natural way -- infrastructure gets a big chapter near the front, but then comes back throughout in ways that seem to assume the reader hasn't read that chapter. And since these were op-eds, there are a lot of "rule of three"-type sections
Structure aside, the bigger challenge is a book that at times struggles to decide what it wants to be. In some places, it's a polemic, waxing at length about the trend toward plutocracy in the United States and the need for a better, more-inclusive politics. In others, it's a wonky policy manifesto, with targets for the obesity rate down to the percentage point and clear policy prescriptions to improve our infrastructure and fight inequality. Sachs doesn't transition between the two modes very effectively, and in my view, this book is at its best when it talks about solutions.
One last set of gripes: the book seems to ignore politics -- too often Sachs slips into a "pox on both houses" critique of modern policymaking that draws no difference between Republicans and Democrats, particularly with respect to the Obama and Clinton administrations. I'll be charitable and call this naive; someone more critical than I would call this intentionally misleading. The barrier to getting strongly progressive policies enacted, in Sachs's view, always seems to be moneyed interests that have captured both parties -- it's very rare that Republicans specifically come up for blame (even though Obama proposed a number of the policies Sachs now calls for). I could go on, but I'll leave it there. (Actually, one last gripe -- while I am a firm believer Europe and Canada show you can do policymaking much, much better than we do, Sachs totally ignores the challenges unique American heterogeneity presents for redistributionist policy, and like Sanders, whose campaign Sachs advised, race often seems an afterthought).
Anyway, worth a read -- it's short, and there's fodder for other work and thinking that builds on this -- but it's pretty aggravating at many points, too.
August 23, 2018
Very short read, but I am very glad that Sachs wrote this. Very short and efficient, written sort of a guiding handbook for a would-be politician or perhaps someone contributing to policy formulation. How does what the US is doing compare to its prime days of tech advancement? He talks realistically about the state of our infrastructure and how the US has steered away from the bread and butter that made us great - education, technology, infrastructure, etc. Now, we have a distorted medical and pharmaceutical market, where Medicare is not allowed to negotiate because of law that the pharmaceutical industry wrote into a massive congressional bill which became law. The US has tax revenue of 18% of GDP but spends 19% of GDP - this is not sustainable. This is a wide angle view of the US economy and direction at a time when perhaps we need a reminder of what is actually going on.
June 23, 2019
I read this book last summer, but I decided to re-read it because it's a bit dry and wonkish but also very important to understand the best way forward, economically speaking. Sachs is not a fan of the "tranquilizing drug of gradualism" when it comes to reforms, and he uses clear statistics to illustrate the magnitude of our current economic morass. The solution is a bold combination of doing what countries with better outcomes do (only on a larger scale) and a moonshot marshalling of resources.
August 3, 2017
I read some of the reviews of this book on this site. Lots of cynicism as if stuck in ruts and this book didn't help lift them out. I empathize. At the same time, I find Jeffrey D. Sachs refreshingly straightforward with a solid understanding of the big picture made surmountable. If just some portion of his recommendations were adopted this nation, this planet would be so much better off at some point in the future. I've lived long enough, as has Sachs, to know what he says is doable. And even way up here in Northern Michigan I have spoken to thought leaders joining together locally to move the needle. Under the radar, things are stirring. A favorite line from this book, for me, was about connecting each Congressperson with a worthy science department in their own district to learn about the climate. If people in enough U.S. Congressional Districts did this, then united in holding their Members accountable it could produce change in national direction. More of us need to become fuller-time citizens and walk the talk of people like Sachs.
January 30, 2017
"By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all people to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it." - JFK
A timely and optimistic look at real, tenable solutions to what ails American political economy. Professor Sachs manages to discuss often-stressful or frightening topics without succumbing to fearmongering, and instead offers practical solutions that have already been successfully undertaken by other major economies.
Covering trade, the federal budget, inequality, job automation, foreign policy, and energy policy, (I'm sure I'm missing something), this is a dense little book. (My ARC was 154 pages.) The author doesn't waste any time with excessive text. He gets to the point, and it's very readable and accessible to readers who may not feel very well read on these topics.
Overall, I highly recommend this book. It's meaty enough to satisfy policy wonks, without overwhelming casual readers.
I received this book via Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.
A timely and optimistic look at real, tenable solutions to what ails American political economy. Professor Sachs manages to discuss often-stressful or frightening topics without succumbing to fearmongering, and instead offers practical solutions that have already been successfully undertaken by other major economies.
Covering trade, the federal budget, inequality, job automation, foreign policy, and energy policy, (I'm sure I'm missing something), this is a dense little book. (My ARC was 154 pages.) The author doesn't waste any time with excessive text. He gets to the point, and it's very readable and accessible to readers who may not feel very well read on these topics.
Overall, I highly recommend this book. It's meaty enough to satisfy policy wonks, without overwhelming casual readers.
I received this book via Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.
Read
March 14, 2017Great book - a rallying cry, a call to action. In this Trumpian era, this is a must read. I was particularly fascinated with the way this book hits on the three major issues of our times: IT (or technological progress), Fair (or the fight against inequality) and Sustainable (or defending our planet from pollution and climate change so that our children and grandchildren can enjoy it as we - still, if not for long - do)
It is also a very easy read, nice and short, not your usual academic brick. Don't miss out on it. And I think that if you're American (I'm not) this should act as a wake-up call. You really can't let Trump destroy America's leadership of the world and this book tells you quite clearly how to stop him.
It is also a very easy read, nice and short, not your usual academic brick. Don't miss out on it. And I think that if you're American (I'm not) this should act as a wake-up call. You really can't let Trump destroy America's leadership of the world and this book tells you quite clearly how to stop him.
March 14, 2021
A good brief for policy makers (and voters). None of Sach's observations or prescriptions are extremely novel or ahead of the curve, but it's attention-grabbing to have a well-known economist lend these ideas with his authority. For instance, it is surprising to hear a leading economist say, as Sachs does, that 'corporations are not people' and 'CEOs should be held accountable-- to the point of corporate indictment' for malfeasance and 'the ethos of the shareholder profit should be abandoned' for the stakeholder approach that is obligated to include public welfare and environmental outcomes in corporate accounting.
Some of Sachs' points/ propositions:
-President Obama's 'Yes we can' philosophy was always a fable, and never deliverable, because his actual budget proposals did not reflect his promises
- Americans should act on two political philosophies that have long been antithetical to their political mindset: long-term planning that stretches beyond one administration to become decades-long policy, and bigger government
-Wall Street should course-correct to investing and administering sustainability projects rather than high-speed trades they are currently doing
- politics is what determines how shares between corporations and workers-- capital and labor-- are halved, but both the Republicans (Reagan's small government) and the Democrats (Clinton's 'War on Welfare') have thrown their weight behind big business and accelerated the stark inequality in social outcomes in the US
- Americans should develop infrastructure and transport, and President Obama did not invest in long-term infrastructure and he develop 'no long-lasting results' in infrastructure despite workshopping the term 'high-speed rail' in his talking points
- Americans should abandon new oil and fossil fuel projects because even just practically speaking, these don't have financial future
-Americans should accept higher taxes, especially the wealthy, since taxation is simply not generating enough revenue to service the debt burden, and to fund outlays like health care and education
- end absurd tax giveaways that allow corporations to exploit tax havens, and raise national sales tax
- looming inequality have destroyed the social fabric and social trust, and has inhibited happiness even among high earners
- technological change is going to break social cohesion even further unless politics intervenes to redistribute disposable income
- the future tech revolution will shift income away from all workers (both high and low-tech) and to capital owners, and from the young to the old
- there will be higher returns to capital, which will be advantageous to older and thus richer Americans regardless of their individual ability, while the younger workers who have to rely on their labor without any money to invest will be unable to find decent jobs (automated) or to have enough savings to invest
- successive generations will be trapped in the downward spiral of savings decline unless older, richer generations cooperate in income transfers
- a condemnation of regime change wars
-ceilings on prescription costs and other medical care changes
- there is a 'collapse of civic trust' in American society
Some of Sachs' points/ propositions:
-President Obama's 'Yes we can' philosophy was always a fable, and never deliverable, because his actual budget proposals did not reflect his promises
- Americans should act on two political philosophies that have long been antithetical to their political mindset: long-term planning that stretches beyond one administration to become decades-long policy, and bigger government
-Wall Street should course-correct to investing and administering sustainability projects rather than high-speed trades they are currently doing
- politics is what determines how shares between corporations and workers-- capital and labor-- are halved, but both the Republicans (Reagan's small government) and the Democrats (Clinton's 'War on Welfare') have thrown their weight behind big business and accelerated the stark inequality in social outcomes in the US
- Americans should develop infrastructure and transport, and President Obama did not invest in long-term infrastructure and he develop 'no long-lasting results' in infrastructure despite workshopping the term 'high-speed rail' in his talking points
- Americans should abandon new oil and fossil fuel projects because even just practically speaking, these don't have financial future
-Americans should accept higher taxes, especially the wealthy, since taxation is simply not generating enough revenue to service the debt burden, and to fund outlays like health care and education
- end absurd tax giveaways that allow corporations to exploit tax havens, and raise national sales tax
- looming inequality have destroyed the social fabric and social trust, and has inhibited happiness even among high earners
- technological change is going to break social cohesion even further unless politics intervenes to redistribute disposable income
- the future tech revolution will shift income away from all workers (both high and low-tech) and to capital owners, and from the young to the old
- there will be higher returns to capital, which will be advantageous to older and thus richer Americans regardless of their individual ability, while the younger workers who have to rely on their labor without any money to invest will be unable to find decent jobs (automated) or to have enough savings to invest
- successive generations will be trapped in the downward spiral of savings decline unless older, richer generations cooperate in income transfers
- a condemnation of regime change wars
-ceilings on prescription costs and other medical care changes
- there is a 'collapse of civic trust' in American society
May 27, 2025
Jeffrey Sachs is an economist I've seen lately making the rounds in Trump's second term. He's very pragmatic, straight forward, and an optimist. This book, written in 2017, lays a kind of groundwork for what used to make our economy good and the future we need to keep it.
Reading this in hindsight almost ten years later, none of Jeffrey's hopes come to fruition; more investment in large scale government projects, more investment in carbon neutral technologies, more investment in healthcare, etc. All these things have traditionally lead to better economic output long term, but ever since the late 80s, Wall Street has moved to a quarter to quarter outlook versus the 10 and 20 year outlook.
Jeffrey talks about how the federal government played instrumental roles in the polio vaccine, the interstate highway system, the space race and moon landing, mapping of the human genome, etc. There are these large scale, multi-presidential term projects American has in the past taken on in a bipartisan effort, which are largely non-profitable investments (i.e. cannot be privatized to a corporation, and nonprofitable on a short term basis the way investors expect) that have paid dividends in research, investment, and economic growth. Not to mention that, again since the 80s, America is constantly in a state of war where the enemy is more and more vague, and our objectives less and less clear. Our Military Industrial Complex remains largely a self fulfilling prophecy where America, budget wise, says investing in selling weapons is more important than healthcare, education, transportation, science &tech, and environment (i.e. parks, conservation) combined.
He gives alternatives, and ways out, how to make things better, and what the current sitting president should do, but it's all on deaf ears. For younger generations like millennials and gen Z, it's hard to even imagine a federal government that did such large scale projects for the benefits of citizens, and it was a good reminder for me and what a strong, American federal government is capable of.
It's a short book, and a quick read, so I'd recommend it to any fan of economics looking to see where America has been and where it can go.
Reading this in hindsight almost ten years later, none of Jeffrey's hopes come to fruition; more investment in large scale government projects, more investment in carbon neutral technologies, more investment in healthcare, etc. All these things have traditionally lead to better economic output long term, but ever since the late 80s, Wall Street has moved to a quarter to quarter outlook versus the 10 and 20 year outlook.
Jeffrey talks about how the federal government played instrumental roles in the polio vaccine, the interstate highway system, the space race and moon landing, mapping of the human genome, etc. There are these large scale, multi-presidential term projects American has in the past taken on in a bipartisan effort, which are largely non-profitable investments (i.e. cannot be privatized to a corporation, and nonprofitable on a short term basis the way investors expect) that have paid dividends in research, investment, and economic growth. Not to mention that, again since the 80s, America is constantly in a state of war where the enemy is more and more vague, and our objectives less and less clear. Our Military Industrial Complex remains largely a self fulfilling prophecy where America, budget wise, says investing in selling weapons is more important than healthcare, education, transportation, science &tech, and environment (i.e. parks, conservation) combined.
He gives alternatives, and ways out, how to make things better, and what the current sitting president should do, but it's all on deaf ears. For younger generations like millennials and gen Z, it's hard to even imagine a federal government that did such large scale projects for the benefits of citizens, and it was a good reminder for me and what a strong, American federal government is capable of.
It's a short book, and a quick read, so I'd recommend it to any fan of economics looking to see where America has been and where it can go.
April 20, 2018
This book gave me very mixes feelings. I enjoyed some of the concrete policy proposals but they all seemed half-baked, unoriginal or undeveloped. This felt like a long serious book consisting of position papers and justifications for main points was condensed into 100 pages of generalizations and shibboleths. For example, it mentioned an innovative clean power project that would involve the US and Canada but never really explained how that would be built or listed any specifics ( I may have missed them). There was some attempt to interpolate graphs and statistic but if you were expecting anything more than pop-economics , then you will be disappointed. I actually agree with much of what Sachs says in the book but his ideas aren't developed to the extent that I would like. This did give the book the upside of prompting further reading. This entire book has the feeling of being cropped and heavily edited for general audiences. This is primarily a manifesto, not a polemic. While perfunctory concern is given to substantiating the author's claims , many questions remain unanswered. The lack of supporting evidence makes Sachs seem overly self assured and even arrogant at times. Often, he declares a problem to be a grave threat and then charges head-long into a solution completely failing to consider common counter arguments or alternative solutions. He also takes pot shots at various other economists at certain points like an aberrant swing at Paul Krugman for being a deficit dove and his abrupt dismissal of secular stagnation. It also bears being mentioned that this book is very much akin to other books by different others . Robert Reich and Bernie Sanders both cover this material more elegantly and skillfully in their respective books. I think most people could probably skip this one if they have read Reich or Sanders.
June 4, 2018
Sachs is a rather progressive economist, and that is clear just from the foreword from Bernie Sanders. The book is very precise in its policy recommendations, and reads more like a platform released by a Presidential candidate. The structure is more in the form of separate essays, with little connective tissue between topics. The book is also short, with the issues explored on a surface level more than what is perhaps desired.
The book emphasizes raising taxes on the super rich, cutting the military budget, and free higher education. Senator Sanders wasn't too specific about how he would pay for his bold proposals, and Sachs does enough to support his policy recommendations. Most of the revenue would come from the top down, and these questions must be answered if we are to accept the proposals brought forward, considering our debt growth can strangle future growth. The book does just enough to show that we can address our debt and invest in projects such as a smart grid, new infrastructure, and addressing health care.
I appreciate the books willingness to embrace bold solutions, as we need those solutions more than ever. In addition to our issues in health care, education, and climate change, we have the debt crisis. Addressing this is vitally important, and we cannot solve societal problems without solving the debt problem with it. Doing so can be accomplished via a restructuring of the tax code, such as a carbon tax, and land-value tax, a financial transaction tax, and possibly a prosperity dividend.
Overall, there are a lot of good ideas presented by Sachs in this book. The structure is a bit fractured, which hurts the delivery, but the propositions are worth exploring.
The book emphasizes raising taxes on the super rich, cutting the military budget, and free higher education. Senator Sanders wasn't too specific about how he would pay for his bold proposals, and Sachs does enough to support his policy recommendations. Most of the revenue would come from the top down, and these questions must be answered if we are to accept the proposals brought forward, considering our debt growth can strangle future growth. The book does just enough to show that we can address our debt and invest in projects such as a smart grid, new infrastructure, and addressing health care.
I appreciate the books willingness to embrace bold solutions, as we need those solutions more than ever. In addition to our issues in health care, education, and climate change, we have the debt crisis. Addressing this is vitally important, and we cannot solve societal problems without solving the debt problem with it. Doing so can be accomplished via a restructuring of the tax code, such as a carbon tax, and land-value tax, a financial transaction tax, and possibly a prosperity dividend.
Overall, there are a lot of good ideas presented by Sachs in this book. The structure is a bit fractured, which hurts the delivery, but the propositions are worth exploring.
May 11, 2025
It is a book of good intentions but a sloppy execution. Personally, I would be embarrassed to author such a book and, though I agree with many of the sentiments, felt it was a waste of my time. There are many unsupported and outright false assertions, a lack of footnotes and generic statements of intent with no actionable followup items or examples.
A few sample false assertions: 1) trump voters represented the economic losers; 2) the earth has an atmosphere allowing it to be 30 degrees warmer than the moon. 3) “ 70 hour work weeks in 1870 have become 35 hour work weeks today.” He attributes this to machines, though people were working 6 days / week, 12 hrs / day w machines. Perhaps the labor movement was responsible for the lessening of the work week … ya think?
One must wonder what other assertions are false. Should have been reviewed by his cadre of doctoral students.
Here is a frustrating example of a statement of intent with no followup detail: - “ we need to pursue policies that ensure the coming generation of smart machines works for us and our well-being, rather than our working for the machines and a few who control their operating systems.” … … Any examples of those types of policies or of how people end up working for machines? No. Thanks, that us very helpful.
Talks about income inequality but suggests a VAT - a very regressive tax, much like the current tariffs.
This book is shallow and broad - mile wide, inch deep.
The positives I got from it? The achilles heel of the US is its lack of long term planning and consistency. Also, the values of a nation is reflected in its budget.
I do not recommend reading this book, though I have enjoyed Mr Sach’s commentaries and articles.
A few sample false assertions: 1) trump voters represented the economic losers; 2) the earth has an atmosphere allowing it to be 30 degrees warmer than the moon. 3) “ 70 hour work weeks in 1870 have become 35 hour work weeks today.” He attributes this to machines, though people were working 6 days / week, 12 hrs / day w machines. Perhaps the labor movement was responsible for the lessening of the work week … ya think?
One must wonder what other assertions are false. Should have been reviewed by his cadre of doctoral students.
Here is a frustrating example of a statement of intent with no followup detail: - “ we need to pursue policies that ensure the coming generation of smart machines works for us and our well-being, rather than our working for the machines and a few who control their operating systems.” … … Any examples of those types of policies or of how people end up working for machines? No. Thanks, that us very helpful.
Talks about income inequality but suggests a VAT - a very regressive tax, much like the current tariffs.
This book is shallow and broad - mile wide, inch deep.
The positives I got from it? The achilles heel of the US is its lack of long term planning and consistency. Also, the values of a nation is reflected in its budget.
I do not recommend reading this book, though I have enjoyed Mr Sach’s commentaries and articles.
December 15, 2017
Finally got around to finishing this book. It's actually a quick read but noticed I forget most of the "stats /data" by a week later.
Interesting things I got from this book:
1. Trade agreements - The proposal here by Sachs, who advised Bernie Sanders is against TTIP (Europe trade agreement) and the TPP (Asia version) in their current form. He proposed to remove a certain international provision (ISDS), although reading it makes me think ... well, Trump and the conservatives are against these agreements in current form as well.
2. Increase in infrastructure spending - Of course, devil's are in the details but again, similar platform as Trump's campaign.
Aside from these points, lots of divergence from today's reality and I feel that reading this book feels like reading an orbituary of a child, born with so much potential for life, but passed. His proposal for a tax transfer from the wealthy to the poor, healthcare for all are a few examples.
There are much more grounds covered, most of them based on the UN Sustainable Development Goals, where he provided overview of the goals. He also proposed a few ideas of how they could be achieved, or applied to the US, and harkening back to JFK's goals setting for the US. There's much nostalgia for a better government / leadership, but one won't find exactly "how" we can achieve the goals. (The book is thin and I can see it's hard for the "how" to exist if the goals are lofty and our current government veered complete opposite).
Interesting things I got from this book:
1. Trade agreements - The proposal here by Sachs, who advised Bernie Sanders is against TTIP (Europe trade agreement) and the TPP (Asia version) in their current form. He proposed to remove a certain international provision (ISDS), although reading it makes me think ... well, Trump and the conservatives are against these agreements in current form as well.
2. Increase in infrastructure spending - Of course, devil's are in the details but again, similar platform as Trump's campaign.
Aside from these points, lots of divergence from today's reality and I feel that reading this book feels like reading an orbituary of a child, born with so much potential for life, but passed. His proposal for a tax transfer from the wealthy to the poor, healthcare for all are a few examples.
There are much more grounds covered, most of them based on the UN Sustainable Development Goals, where he provided overview of the goals. He also proposed a few ideas of how they could be achieved, or applied to the US, and harkening back to JFK's goals setting for the US. There's much nostalgia for a better government / leadership, but one won't find exactly "how" we can achieve the goals. (The book is thin and I can see it's hard for the "how" to exist if the goals are lofty and our current government veered complete opposite).
September 9, 2017
TL;DR - It's an informative read, but mainly confirmation bias for Climate change believers. Not sure it will convince nonbelievers to change their minds.
I absolutely love Sach's SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) and the impact they would have around the world. Unfortunately, the book falls short on delivering good reason to convert nonbelievers (ie, the Trump administration) to adhere to the SDGs.
It was right up my alley with tons of things I wanted to hear, but it didn't challenge much of the beliefs of the opposition.
Example, for years, scientists have warned us of global warming. And for years, some groups ignore the warnings and scientific advice. So saying "we have to listen to the science community" when they've voluntarily ignored is not a strong response.
My thoughts - why not present the immediate pros and cons of green energy vs fossil fuels - such as new jobs and energy independence? What about reframing global warming as a pollution issue?
I absolutely love Sach's SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) and the impact they would have around the world. Unfortunately, the book falls short on delivering good reason to convert nonbelievers (ie, the Trump administration) to adhere to the SDGs.
It was right up my alley with tons of things I wanted to hear, but it didn't challenge much of the beliefs of the opposition.
Example, for years, scientists have warned us of global warming. And for years, some groups ignore the warnings and scientific advice. So saying "we have to listen to the science community" when they've voluntarily ignored is not a strong response.
My thoughts - why not present the immediate pros and cons of green energy vs fossil fuels - such as new jobs and energy independence? What about reframing global warming as a pollution issue?
December 31, 2018
Some of Sachs writing is dated as he mused about what the Trump Administration might do in its first one hundred days in office. Despite this minor annoyance, the work is excellent. Sachs focuses on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and points out that one reason why states such as Israel and Japan are so innovative is because their governments invest in Research & Development far more than the US Government does. Our priorities as a country are reflected through our national budget. Sachs argues greatly that the US Government should spend far more on humanitarian aide and less on the US military. 900 billion dollars for the US military, our intelligence agencies and Veterans Affairs is a good chunk of our annual budget. Humanitarian aid has an excellent return on investment diplomatically that the US would do well to increase.
April 19, 2018
Good coverage on income equality and that the minimum wage has actually decline 35% since its adjusted high of $11+ in the ‘60’s.
Retain people not jobs
Dysfunctional healthcare
Pollution lack of sustainable energy and an energy plan
DOD 4,154 facilities 114 are in us colonies and 587 in 42 countries. $900 billion a year. 5% of national income and 25% of the federal Govt outlay.
Brown University cost of Iraq and Afghanistan war by 2016 was $4.7 trillion. More than the 15 yearnoutlay of Depts of Education, Energy, labor, interior, transportation NSF, NIH and EPA COMBINED from 2000-2015!
No investment for innovation
Need for political system reform. Corporations with free speech and citizen rights.
Retain people not jobs
Dysfunctional healthcare
Pollution lack of sustainable energy and an energy plan
DOD 4,154 facilities 114 are in us colonies and 587 in 42 countries. $900 billion a year. 5% of national income and 25% of the federal Govt outlay.
Brown University cost of Iraq and Afghanistan war by 2016 was $4.7 trillion. More than the 15 yearnoutlay of Depts of Education, Energy, labor, interior, transportation NSF, NIH and EPA COMBINED from 2000-2015!
No investment for innovation
Need for political system reform. Corporations with free speech and citizen rights.
May 14, 2018
Sachs's proposals are pretty mainstream fare of technocratic social democracy, and what's striking (and depressing) is how radical that ends up seeming in the US context given the lack of long-term planning and investment and a retrenchment of the non-militarized public sector. I don't care about the debt as much as he does (I'm sympathetic to MMT arguments here--although his proposals to address it are fine), and I'm far more skeptical of nuclear power and CCS than he is, but the US would be a far better country if our elected officials listened to the proposals in the books, which seem to align US policy with the Sustainable Development Goals. Too bad that the ones in the White House couldn't care less.
June 22, 2022
The book is quite short, but provides a good roadmap towards economic, political, and environmental reforms.
A bit out of date now, as it was written at the conclusion of the 2016 presidential election, and much of the content is presented in the form of advice to the incoming trump administration. Sadly, almost all of it is still just as relevant, and it's not too late for the Biden administration to enact much of it.
Of course the hope that trump would seriously consider any of the progressive policies proposed is laughable, and should have been in 2017. Finally, the false equivalence between the admittedly disappointing shortcomings of Clinton and Obama to the disastrous heinous scorched earth activities of Bush and trump is not only disingenuous, but dangerous.
A bit out of date now, as it was written at the conclusion of the 2016 presidential election, and much of the content is presented in the form of advice to the incoming trump administration. Sadly, almost all of it is still just as relevant, and it's not too late for the Biden administration to enact much of it.
Of course the hope that trump would seriously consider any of the progressive policies proposed is laughable, and should have been in 2017. Finally, the false equivalence between the admittedly disappointing shortcomings of Clinton and Obama to the disastrous heinous scorched earth activities of Bush and trump is not only disingenuous, but dangerous.
Read
July 12, 2024Okay. Dated, given it was written with advice for the start of Trump's term (2017). Crazy how little some things have changed and crazy how much others have (especially COVID pandemic and everything related). I probably wouldn't recommend, mostly because it isn't current, but also because I didn't care for or agree with some of it. However, there was a great deal I did agree with, and it did make me more fully consider what objections I had, and such reflection is always a good thing. Still, I'd recommend finding a more current book.
Purchased hardcover from a library book sale, and then borrowed the audiobook from the library via the Libby App.
Purchased hardcover from a library book sale, and then borrowed the audiobook from the library via the Libby App.
October 13, 2017
I don't think Sachs breaks much new ground here but what he does accomplish is sharing common ideas on how to approach the new economy in a compact book. I think it's also great because he packs in some statistics a research to support his recommendations. The book runs the table from politics to economics, but as he emphasizes...in the US they are intimately bound together. I think this is a good read if you want a primer on concrete policy decisions that could move the US economy towards a more sustainable future.
September 7, 2025
Jeffrey Sachs sees trends and analyzes data and maps solutions. This book was published at the beginning of Trump’s first term in office. The negative situation has become more entrenched in the decade since. Some of Sachs projections (if his suggestions were implemented) seem naively optimistic in light of our current world. We’re talking a range of topics from climate change to income inequality to governance to tech. Was it worth reading? Yes! It’s overwhelming, but important to weigh his solutions in the light of the current situation.
January 24, 2020
The US economy right after the election of Trump. Professor Sachs sees wide ranging ways forward. Hard to envision Congress taking the steps necessary, but as China and Europe move forward perhaps the US will tag along behind. Sigh. Foreword by Bernie Sanders. I wonder if he really read the book. Sachs sees a major role for nuclear power in the next decades. And tax hikes on more than the top 1%.
August 17, 2020
Essential short read
I believe our politicians and large part of mass media don't seem to highlight how far behind we have fallen c o compared to other developed countries. While America has great resources to correct these inbalances, our politics and policies need to change to utilise these resources. Prof Sacks both lays out what a ills our nation and offers the remedies. Highly recommend to everyone concerned citizen.
I believe our politicians and large part of mass media don't seem to highlight how far behind we have fallen c o compared to other developed countries. While America has great resources to correct these inbalances, our politics and policies need to change to utilise these resources. Prof Sacks both lays out what a ills our nation and offers the remedies. Highly recommend to everyone concerned citizen.
March 27, 2021
This book was written in the wake of the 2016 US Presidential elections, and discusses the reasons that led the US to rank relatively low on the sustainable development index, and how it can redeem itself through public policy and activism.
The book is short, to the point, and accessible to any curious citizen without training in economics, math, or policy analysis.
Sustainable development is defined by the author as economic growth, with social inclusion, and environmental protection. The themes discussed are: budget allocation towards education, health, infrastructure, innovation, energy, and military; taxes and tax transfers; globalization, AI, and labor; campaign finance.
While there are no new ideas or deliberation on any existing proposals, it makes for a good introductory read covering key points on sustainable development that every responsible citizen must know.
The book is short, to the point, and accessible to any curious citizen without training in economics, math, or policy analysis.
Sustainable development is defined by the author as economic growth, with social inclusion, and environmental protection. The themes discussed are: budget allocation towards education, health, infrastructure, innovation, energy, and military; taxes and tax transfers; globalization, AI, and labor; campaign finance.
While there are no new ideas or deliberation on any existing proposals, it makes for a good introductory read covering key points on sustainable development that every responsible citizen must know.
December 18, 2022
Very thought provoking read. Sachs concisely outlines the dire need to rebuild our domestic economy to be more sustainable and efficient. Sachs’ ideas on creating jobs through rebuilding the US infrastructure is historically effective and a necessity. This rebuild would create a shift to a renewable and sustainable form of energy through solar, wind, and nuclear power. Overall great book, with an emphasis on the need for bipartisan collaboration and positive change.
November 12, 2017
A must read
If we are to become leaders once again, we first must face what ails us. However, this will not happen until we first face it. We are at the cusp of a new economic system. In broad strokes this book tells us some of the reasons why
I admit that was not the goal. But sustainable development requires we rethink the way we conceive of the economy.
If we are to become leaders once again, we first must face what ails us. However, this will not happen until we first face it. We are at the cusp of a new economic system. In broad strokes this book tells us some of the reasons why
I admit that was not the goal. But sustainable development requires we rethink the way we conceive of the economy.
January 30, 2018
A manifesto for Progessives, this book prescribes a series of actions that should be taken by government to achieve a Smart, Fair and Sustainable economy. This book is aspirational and optimistic; it could have been a blueprint for a 3rd Obama administration.
Unfortunately much of this agenda is the opposite of what the Trump administration is pursuing.
Unfortunately much of this agenda is the opposite of what the Trump administration is pursuing.
March 27, 2018
My son is reading this book for his Pioneering Business for the Public Good class at Denver University so I decided to read it too! It's a short, succinct, brilliant and hopeful read by a Columbia University professor. He provides sources for all information presented. He lays out solutions and time-frames. For me, it was a hopeful challenge to America.
Read
July 16, 2019Great book! Actionable, do-able, hopeful! I feel like Professor Sachs was even handed despite the fact that he clearly tilts left (as do I). He clearly outlines the problems, suggests an over-arching solution (The UN Sustainable Development Goals) and then lays out a framework.
Imagine if we had leaders who would actually READ this and then implement it.....
Imagine if we had leaders who would actually READ this and then implement it.....
Displaying 1 - 30 of 70 reviews