"I think it’s the specific kind of capitalism that we’ve developed in the last thirty or forty years, particularly beginning with the time of Reagan and Milton Friedman’s economic theories, which stress that the only goal of business is to maximize profit, regardless of the social and environmental costs, and not to regulate businesses at all—regulation is bad, all forms—and to privatize everything, so that everything is run by private business. And this mutant form of capitalism, which I think is really a predatory form of capitalism, has created an extremely unstable, unsustainable, unjust and very, very dangerous world." - Alex Scoble
Next time someone thinks I'm a nutball because I think that businesses should be about something other than making money, they need to listen to this guy. - Alex Scoble
Alex, are you trying to say you sometimes sound like John Perkins the nutball who wrote Shape shifting, Pscho-navigation and the World as you dream it ? http://www.johnperkins.org/?page_id=52 - Eric Logan
Just because the guy has dealt with perhaps "nutty" topics outside of economics doesn't mean that he's not right when he says that businesses have to get back to being responsible entities working towards being socially just and environmentally sustainable. - Alex Scoble
I can agree with that statement have you ever read Confessions of an economic hit man ? - Eric Logan
I read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man." I can't verify the veracity of all the factual statements in the book, but the general culture therein described struck me as plausible and consistent with many other insider reports. - Sean McBride
Varieties of capitalism: creative capitalism, crony capitalism, monopoly capitalism, nepotistic capitalism, predatory capitalism, socially responsible capitalism, vulture capitalism. Unregulated capitalism always seems to morph into self-destructive criminal enterprises. Too much regulation also tends to kill capitalism. - Sean McBride
It does sound plausible and I suspect that kernels of the story may have a basis in reality. Unfortunately there are glaringly obvious portions that are fabrications others are at best outlandish embellishments and narcissism pervades throughout the narrative. IMO - Eric Logan
Which portions did you find glaringly obvious fabrications? - Cole Jolley
He placed himself at the center of some events that are well documented in history. All of the potentially corroborating sources apparently died, many where assassinated according to the narrative. This tome reads like a thriller in the genre of the Da Vinci Code. Where the author took well known events, entities and research from other authors and weaved a narrative that makes a character "Mr. Perkins himself" in this instance, the central figure in a fictionalized version of events. The linked review is well written and is from 2006 which gives us the benefit of hindsight. I think it is even more relevant today in light of the recent failure of American institutions. Mr. Perkins tome does not pass my sniff test nor does it stand the test of time. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/26/AR2006022601265.html - Eric Logan
It's not particularly surprising that "corroborating" sources aren't plentiful, given the nature of Perkins' subject matter - intrigue, assassination and economic manipulation. Not the kind of thing people usually confess to, yes? ; ) However, the Perkins book is not inconsistent with Philip Agee's Inside The Company. Similar actions in earlier eras. The linked review you provide is from a Sebastian Mallaby opinion piece. Mr. Mallaby is hardly an unbiased source on the felicity of the IMF and Wall Street, a well known conservative economist and avid supporter of unregulated markets of the kind that created the current US mess. (His embarrassing screed against regulation is soundly dismantled here by Kevin Drum in Mother Jones: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2008/10/reregulation). He counts the IMF among his clients, and has a history of citing astroturf research from client subsidiaries to support dubious claims (from MediaMatters: http://mediamatters.org/research/200501100008). - Cole Jolley
Eric: I read Sebastian Mallaby's column on Perkins, and a few other Mallaby columns to get a feel for his mind. I don't find him to be nearly as credible as the John Perkins who comes through in his book and in the Democracy Now interview linked to above. Perkins strikes me as the much smarter and more authentic character. Mallaby comes across to me as a journalistic hack with mainstream media mediocrity written all over him -- he's in the business of providing tired apologetics for the establishment. Are there any particular statements in the Perkins Democracy Now interview that impress you as being false or unfactual, and which undermine Perkins' credibility? - Sean McBride
Cole -- nice work in filling in Mallaby's background and agenda. His Washington Post article struck me as a weak and cheesy hit piece at first glance -- up to the usual standards of the Washington Post. - Sean McBride
I will have to watch the Democracy Now interview. I was underwhelmed by the book and thought it to be fictionalized independently of any critiques. As a result of this conversation I read the State Department retort. Mallaby's critique and the Wikipedia talk page. I may actually read his current book which I would not have considered previously also as a result of this conversation and the potential sounding board you and Cole provide. The Mother Jones piece is interesting to me thanks for the link. - Eric Logan
