This book is about the transformation of America that has occurred over the past thirty-five years, as capitalist logic has expanded into previously protected spheres of life. This expansion has had devastating effects on the potential for human development. Looking at how human beings create themselves and their worlds on material foundations of health and the natural environment, through work and politics, the book chronicles how neoliberalism has limited human potential. At a time when neoliberalism's effects are stirring various forms of popular resistance and opposition, this is a manifesto of sorts for the range of processes that need to be confronted if human potential is to be freed from the increasingly cramped quarters to which neoliberalism has confined it. -- .

Part I of this book explores the economists debate over the relative costs of the two health care systems. Part II explores the debate about access and quality of outcomes in the U.S. and Canadian systems. Part III of this book incorporates surveys and debate on the U.S. and Canadian health care systems in terms of satisfaction, interest, and willingness to accept either the U.S. market-driven system or the Canadian single-payer system.

"The New York Times" can make a legitimate claim to be the most influential newspaper in the U.S. and possibly the world. Because of its influence, the "Times" has become a central figure in the debate over the direction of bias in the media, with some claiming that it is left-wing or liberal and others arguing that it is right-wing or conservative. But the liberal-conservation media debate is very misleading. "The Gatekeeper" argues that the "Times" can more accurately be characterized as supporting long run profitability for U.S. business, which involves both liberal and conservative policies in different contexts. Through a thorough examination of the "Times " star commentators and its coverage of the issues of macroeconomics, regulation, foreign policy and the 2008-2009 economic crisis, "The Gatekeeper" refocuses the debate about the bias of the most venerable institution in U.S. journalism.

"The New York Times" can make a legitimate claim to be the most influential newspaper in the U.S. and possibly the world. Because of its influence, the "Times" has become a central figure in the debate over the direction of bias in the media, with some claiming that it is left-wing or liberal and others arguing that it is right-wing or conservative. But the liberal-conservation media debate is very misleading. "The Gatekeeper" argues that the "Times" can more accurately be characterized as supporting long run profitability for U.S. business, which involves both liberal and conservative policies in different contexts. Through a thorough examination of the "Times " star commentators and its coverage of the issues of macroeconomics, regulation, foreign policy and the 2008-2009 economic crisis, "The Gatekeeper" refocuses the debate about the bias of the most venerable institution in U.S. journalism...".one of the most sophisticated and original works of journalism criticism in years..." -Robert W. McChesney co-author "The Death and Life of American Journalism""

This book is about the transformation of America that has occurred over the past thirty-five years, as capitalist logic has expanded into previously protected spheres of life. This expansion has had devastating effects on the potential for human development. Looking at how human beings create themselves and their worlds on material foundations of health and the natural environment, through work and politics, the book chronicles how neoliberalism has limited human potential. At a time when neoliberalism's effects are stirring various forms of popular resistance and opposition, this is a manifesto of sorts for the range of processes that need to be confronted if human potential is to be freed from the increasingly cramped quarters to which neoliberalism has confined it. -- .

The economics profession has a lot to answer for. After the late 1970s, the ideas of influential economists have justified policies that have made the world more prone to economic crisis, remarkably less equal, more polluted and less secure than it might be. How could ideas and policies that proved to be such an abject failure come to dominate the economic landscape? By critically examining the work of the most famous economists of the neoliberal period including Alan Greenspan, Milton Friedman, and Robert Lucas, the authors Robert Chernomas and Ian Hudson demonstrate that many of those who rose to prominence did so primarily because of their defence of, and contribution to, rising corporate profits and not their ability to predict or explain economic events. An important and controversial book, The Profit Doctrine exposes the uses and abuses of mainstream economic canons, identify those responsible and reaffirm the primacy of political economy.

The economics profession has a lot to answer for. After the late 1970s, the ideas of influential economists have justified policies that have made the world more prone to economic crisis, remarkably less equal, more polluted and less secure than it might be. How could ideas and policies that proved to be such an abject failure come to dominate the economic landscape? By critically examining the work of the most famous economists of the neoliberal period including Alan Greenspan, Milton Friedman, and Robert Lucas, the authors Robert Chernomas and Ian Hudson demonstrate that many of those who rose to prominence did so primarily because of their defence of, and contribution to, rising corporate profits and not their ability to predict or explain economic events. An important and controversial book, The Profit Doctrine exposes the uses and abuses of mainstream economic canons, identify those responsible and reaffirm the primacy of political economy.

Economics has always been nicknamed the "dismal science," but today the field seems a little more dismal than usual as governments, social movements, and even students complain that the discipline is failing to make sense of the major economic problems of the day. In Economics in the Twenty-First Century, Robert Chernomas and Ian Hudson demonstrate how today's top young economists continue to lead the field in the wrong direction. The recent winners of the John Bates Clark medal, economics's "baby Nobel," have won that award for studying important issues such as economic development, income inequality, crime, and health. Examining their research, Chernomas and Hudson show that this work focuses on individual choice, ignores the systematic role of power in the economic system, and leads to solutions that are of limited effectiveness at best and harmful at worst. An accessible summary of the latest debates in economics, Economics in the Twenty-First Century takes on what is missing from mainstream economics, why it matters, and how the discipline can better address the key concerns of our era.

Reviled as one of the worst healthcare providers in the world, the United States has among the worst indicators of health in the industrialised world, whilst paradoxically spending significantly more on its health care system than any other industrial nation. Economists Robert Chernomas and Ian Hudson explain this contradictory phenomenon as the product of the unique brand of capitalism that has developed in the US. It is this particular form of capitalism that analogously created social and economic conditions that influence health, such as, highly industrialised labour that produced chronic disease amongst the labouring classes, alongside an inefficient, unpopular and inaccessible health care system that is incapable of dealing with those same patients. In order to improve health in America, the authors argue that a change is required in the conditions in the capitalist system in which people live and work, as well as a restructured health care system.