Not quite the burning of the Books - just the Bookstores. This is the verdict of Wall Street guru Bill Arends at Dow Jone MarketWatch website.

Are we about to see bookstores closing across the country? I suspect so.

The arguments are based on three angled legs. First, stock valuations of the major bookstore chains, principally Barnes and Noble plus Borders are down by factors of 1/4th and 1/6th respectively. Second the price of eBook readers is rapidly declining while their capabilities and features continue to increase almost exponentially displacing the last objections for paper based books [more on this below]. Third, and finally, Bill cites the case of record stores. They have declined by a factor of 4 in employment downsizing proportionally both in number and size. All Bill is saying, despite the fact that he loves to browse for books in bookstores, is the same declining fate will be arriving for Main Street bookstores soon. Talk about being a volunteer Bearer of Bad News.

Paper Books Are Losing to eBooks

Bookraft has been following the rise of eBooks and eReaders plus the nature of paper books diminishing advantages over eBooks. A year ago, this was the balance in favor of paper books:
1)Do you want to read an eBook that can run out of power vs a book that is always available?
2)Do you want to carry around an eBook reader that is quite fragile concerning liquid, dropping, and electronic frying damage versus a paper book that can take a beating and still be worth reading?
3)Do you want to lose your reading material, out of sight and out of mind, on some cryptic eReader directory instead of books handy and immediately scannable on a bookshelf or tabletop?
4)Do you want to lug a heavy laptop/eReader around or just carry a light and friendly paperback?
5)Do you want to try to bookmark an eBook or slide a nifty real one in a book?
6)Do you want to highlight or attach notes to an eBook, if you can, or easily do the same for a real book?
7)Do you want to accelerate the decline of your eyes trying to read an eReader or be eye-friendly with a much more readable book?
8)Finally, what do want to carry to the john for a little comfy reading, a book or eBook?

Well the latest eBook readers and tablets have arrived including Apple's iPad which with Apps just adds on color eReader as another capability. And suddenly advantages 4), 5), 6), 7)and perhaps even 8)go by the wayside for books. Maybe eReaders are a bit heavier and more cumbersome than a paperback but they allow the choice of a full library of hundreds of books or the choice to switch to some music or perhaps a game. And we haven't mentioned the ease of copying a quote and inserting the bon mots in an email. Suddenly that BookStore on Main Street is looking more likely as a place for a Beauty Salon.

Needless to say Bill's article has caused a notable stir of reactions - see here while the debate on Books vs eBooks has been raging for quite a awhile. But don't bother me - I am going to the loo for a bit of Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility.

The New York Times has an intriguing story about an major art exhibition in Vienna of over 200 pieces from the North Korea Art Gallery Pyongyang. "North Korea you say ... what art do they have ? -Its is all propaganda." And you would be right as this slideshow demonstrates - the picture above is one of 100 distressingly familiar examples of how art as well as life in North Korea is molded to a state view.

So why have the exhibit in the first place?

This is the question raised by the NYTimes. They explore the motives behind the exhibit in Vienna Museum of Applied Art and its director, Peter Noever . On one hand, Mr Noever is given credit for being astutely clever in his exhibits. On the other, he is implicitly criticized for the scale of the show, the lack of real dialogue as the North Koreans will discuss the show only once at its end, and none of the North Korean artists were allowed to come to Vienna to see and/or discuss their artwork. Inevitably, the show has garnered some varied but also harsh criticisms. Given North Korea's chequered history, such critiques are not unexpected.

The recent history of totalitarian family rule in North Korea has been totally despotic. Kim Il-sung had his sone Kim Jong-il installed and now the recent belligerence of the North Koreans including the torpedoing of a South Korean coast guard ship with 46 sailors killed - is the handiwork of Kim Jong-un as he grasps for power. But the despotism has had terrible consequences including developing and spreading nuclear weapons, military expansion helping to trigger a lethal famine, known as the Arduous March in North Korean propaganda parlance. This famine left 2-3 million dead in the late 1990s and continues to have nutritional and health repercussions in North Korea. The night time picture taken by satellite to the left sheds light on the economic depredation of North Korea relative to China to the North and South Korea on the lower half of the Korean peninsula. The art exhibition absolutely whitewashes the stark realities of North Korea during the era when they were painted/created.

However, Jane Portal of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts defends the exhibit -

“However much we may think of it as a joke or odd,” she said, “we’ve seen it all before in terms of communist and totalitarian societies — from the Soviet Union to the Nazis to China. This is the last remnant of that, the last bastion of this kind of thinking that’s bound to disappear. That’s why it’s so important for it to be seen and collected for posterity.”

Bookraft is not certain that such blatant propaganda should be given such kid glove treatment in Vienna. Rather all Ms. Portal's concerns above could be accomplished by a much smaller exhibit of perhaps 15-25 pieces with an ongoing lecture series and other scheduled exhibits on "national art" under different political regimes. Also if native North Korean artists were not allowed to come and comment on their works perhaps some of the tens of thousands of North Korean refugees could add their commentary. In sum, if you must show the propaganda art, show it in context.

Update: Nine days later, this story has finally dropped out of the top 5 articles read at Dow Jones MarketWatch

---

Marketwatch's Paul Farrel is at it again - speaking his mind. Paul has taken former Ronald Reagan Budget Director David Stockman's article in the NYTimes and played it back again and has come up with the most popular posting on Dow Jones Marketwatch today.

This is an unprecedented opinion because the the founder of Reagonomics, David Stockman, is saying that the Republican party has been instrumental in bankrupting the US over the past 25 years. Stockman and Farrel mince no words:

Stockman is equally damning of the Democrats' Keynesian policies. But what an indictment by a GOP party insider -- someone so close to the development of the Reaganomics ideology -- says about America, helps all of us better understand how America's toxic partisan-politics "holy war" is destroying not just the economy and capitalism, but the America dream. And unless this war stops soon, both parties will succeed in their collective death wish....
Stockman rushes into the ring swinging like a boxer: "If there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation's public debt ... will soon reach $18 trillion." It screams "out for austerity and sacrifice." But instead, the GOP insists "that the nation's wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase."

Paul Farrel examines all four points made by Republican Stockman and asks his readers not to just label Stockman just a traitor but to consider the underlying problems Stockman is citing:

there's a depressing sense that Stockman will be dismissed as a traitor, his message lost in the 24/7 news cycle ... until the final apocalyptic event, an unpredictable black swan triggers another, bigger global meltdown, followed by a long Great Depression II and a historic class war.

The article is timely because there is a huge debate going on about whether the US should do more to stimulate the economy, get rid of the unpaid for Bush tax cuts for the wealthy or, like the British, embark on large scale and very painful austerity measures now [see one view here]. But the problem is the austerity measures make the financial crisis even worse because they decrease wages and tax revenues while forcing cutbacks that often are unevenly applied.

And that is just what Stockman and Farrel point out. Tea Partiers and Republicans want their cake and to eat it too . Not just no tax increases but continuation of the "temporary" tax cuts for the wealthy while cutbacks in spending are targeted on the social safety net programs and not Defense or Medicare or their favorite federal aid programs or tax shelters. The problem is that the US has concentrated so much wealth in the top 20% of the population that the other 80% have only 7% of the remaining financial wealth - and so the ability of 80% of the population to endure a prolonged second recession or deflation/depression cycle is very slim indeed.
So in effect what Paul Farrel and David Stockman are saying if voters decide to kick the Congressional bums out of office they should do so in a bipartisan fashion and get rid of as many Republican incumbents as they do Democrats. With all of Congress having a 11% approval rating you would think that electors would throw the bums out of office en masses in a truly bipartisan fashion. Yet the historical record of the past 100 years shows that there is less than a 10% turnover every election. This means the electorate hold their noses and return, even in the worst of times, 90% of the existing Congressman and Senators every election. It seems "you get what you pay for" has a political corollary - "you get what you vote for... or don't bother to vote for".

---

Other comments on David Stockman's critique of his own GOP.
The original article by David Stockman in the NYTimes
The Big Picture - Blog that comments of financial markets agrees with Stockman
Outside the Beltway - agrees and provides insights on the various players
BusinessWeek - backgrounds Stockman who has had SEC charges in past 5 years
Seatlle PI - Stockman is last honest Republican
NPR - Stockman: Bush Tax Cuts Will Make U.S. Bankrupt
Barrons - sees HerbertHoover-like approach in Stockman's critique
SpiderLegs - best commentary on article
Aleksandreia - looks at two posts on the GOP's stature
Bloomberg - columnist blames both political parties for one fine mess

Curiously, there is nary a word from WSJ, Fortune, Forbes, The Financial Times, The Economist and a number of other sources one would expect to comment.

Thank you, Mrs Gallagher. A bit belated, really not anticipated words of gratitude for my kindergarten teacher prompted by this New York Times story on the measured effectiveness of good early schooling - particularly in kindergarten. This is another case of contradictory signals from different measures of success.

Early measures and results of good kindergarten teaching shows up in the test scores of children in the next few grades. But by junior high school a fade out effect appears to take effect and early kindergarten learning advantages seem to fade away in educational test scores.

However, recent work at Harvard University which broadened the measures and looked at success
in economic and social terms found that good kindergarten training had a broader effect:

Students who had learned much more in kindergarten were more likely to go to college than students with otherwise similar backgrounds. Students who learned more were also less likely to become single parents. As adults, they were more likely to be saving for retirement. Perhaps most striking, they were earning more. All else equal, they were making about an extra $100 a year at age 27 for every percentile they had moved up the test-score distribution over the course of kindergarten. A student who went from average to the 60th percentile — a typical jump for a 5-year-old with a good teacher — could expect to make about $1,000 more a year at age 27 than a student who remained at the average. Over time, the effect seems to grow, too.

By changing the viewpoint and measuring broader outcomes good kindergarten education appears to have very beneficial effects.

But this is not the only point of the article. Education and its efficacy is under attack not just for kindergarten but across a broad spectrum of grades and efforts. The whole issue is highly charged as teachers unions resist efforts to change compensation based on seniority /years of service and not scores outcomes. This dispute has opened the pandora's box of evaluating educational effectiveness in general - and conservative critics are using test-score only measures to show that education is a)highly overrated for effectiveness and therefore b)highly overcompensated.

As the US declines in international test scores in a number of categories, this becomes a hot button political issue. Thus the importance of this article which finds that measuring educational success, already a tough assignment on the basis of educational test scores - gets more difficult to do but more informative when broader and later economic and social measures are brought into consideration.

Everybody who works in the IT and Computing industry knows that it is changing rapidly. For example, in the past4 years Apple has gone from 0 to 60% of its stock value added alone by its iDevices line of products - iPod, iPad, and iPhone. And the stock price itself is up by 250% to $250 over that same period. And the market has been quite tumultuous as the new Face of Personal Computing emerges in the shape of smartphones, tablets, slates and other iDevice-like tools. Several key issues have emerged - lets see how well the Tech Press has covered them. Note that stories marked in green are must-reads on their topics:

1)Will Microsoft Windows Phone 7 make the mobile market cut - this is Redmond's 5th and last swing for a presence in the rapidly emerging and huge mobile and iDevice markets. They have already had swings and misses with Windows Mobile 6, Mobile 6.5 , Courier and Kin - another miss would see Microsoft out of the fastest growing and most IT influential market. How has the Tech Press covered this?

BNet - sets the "what is at stake table" with So Where's Microsoft ?
BusinessWeek - mid July & Ballmer promises presence in Smartphone and tablets

Computerworld - Hints of trouble with Window Phone 7 and reliance on Zune software

Computerworld - Humor - Why was Russian spy working at Microsoft?

Engadget - Looks at 5 gadgets that failed including Microsoft Kin as prelude to WP7

eWeek - Lists ten markets misses for Microsoft, Mobile phones is at the top
eWeek - Sets out 4 key success factor for Windows Phone 7
NYTimes - has hinted at problems with Youthful market spurns the wares of Microsoft
Gizmodo - July 19th Windows Phone 7 Review is upbeat with caveats
Infoworld - July 15th Windows Phone 7 : Don't bother with this disaster
Note these three must-reads could not be more different in their conclusions
ZDnet - July 18th technical preview of Windows Phone 7 - a winner come Christmas

PCWorld - grave reservations on Windows Phone 7...Vista again
theRegister - Humor - Vista hating Microsoft throws poo at Apple iPhone 4
ZDnet - a second, more cautionary take on Windows Phone 7

---

2)Apple's Steve Jobs has done a PR no-no: openly disparaging Adobe's Flash software while cutting off Java and program generators from use on Apples iDevices - Is Steve's harsh criticism of Flash justified? Why include Java and program generators as banned software tools? Is Steve's HTML5 to replace Flash solution viable ? Whats behind the ban?

AllthingsD -

If Steve Jobs Is a God, How Could He Be So Wrong About HTML5 vs. Flash for Us Mere Mortals?

Businessweek - lays bare Steve Jobs attacks on Adobe Flash
Gartner Blog - very early on in debate defines some of the key trade-offs on Flash, Java, and HTML5

Gartner Blog - compares the Apple developer economics to Facebooks
Gizmodo - Apple takes developers hostage in War on Adobe - how far Apple goes to ban Flash
Infoworld - Java developers are left outside of all iDevices
Keep an Open Eye - Apple vs Adobe: Vetting Steve Jobs Flash Assertions
NYTimes - Is Apple a victim of Sour Grapes briefly mentions Apples ban of Flash

O'Reilly - YouTube and Hulu voice caution about replacing Flash with HTML5 video
theRegister - Humor - Apple reels as Steve Jobs Flashturbates
Wired - decidedly for Flash replacement by HTML5

---

3)Google's Android is coming from behind to challenge Apple's iDevices with an Open Development and Support model in contrast to Apples Closed Ecosystem - Do the two ecosystems make a difference in consumer and/or corporate buying decisions? How well is Android doing in the mobile phone and tablet markets? How is Apple fending off the OS leads that Google has?

BusinessWeek - 10 best Smartphone Apps for college - iPhone-10, Android-6, BBerry-2
Computerworld - the iPhone 4 vs Android battle

Engadget - Nielsen says iPhone has 3 times market share of Android phones

eWeek1 + eWeek 2- 2 mustviews cover major trade-offs between iPhone4 vs Android2.2
Gizmodo - great graphic summary:The-dogs-of-war: Apple vs Google vs Microsoft
PCWorld - one of several very good articles on Android vs iPhone
theRegister - Humor- The "truth" about the iPhone 4 antenna problems
theRegister - superb analysis on developer advantage Android has over iPhone

---

Summary
The Tech Press acquitted itself reasonably well in covering these issues. First, there is a surprising amount of good if sardonic humor. One could easily double the number of humor articles. The traditional Tech Press acquitted itself well with eWeek, Infoworld, and ZDnet all bagging must-read articles. The nouveau gadget press also is well represented with AllthingsD and Gizmodo showing up in the must-reads. TheRegister easily took the humor crown with some delicious funny send ups that The Daily Show or Stephen Colbert would flash green with envy at.

What was surprising were three things: not much presence of the Business press with just BusinessWeek, Gartner and NYTimes catching mentions [if Gartner and NYTimes can be thought of as Business Press]. I looked at Forbes, theEconomist, Fortune, WSJ... and they were doing latest news stories on these fast moving, big events in IT but certainly not the Brobadingnagian Battle Story. Second, the Android vs iPhone story got a lot less coverage than expected. After all these are former near partners now swinging tooth and nail with Apples iDevices' Design++ and Closed Ecosystem vs Google Android and Chrome's Massive Competence and Open Source Ecosystem. This is legendary Business Case material - only BusinessWeek showed up with big view articles.
However, the most interesting trend was the widely diverse opinions on Windows Mobile 7. Gizmodo and ZDNet loved it; Infoworld was thorough, but curt with its assessment - "Don't bother with this disaster". PCWorld was middling, but favoring caution. This is no small matter because if Microsoft shoots itself in the foot a fifth time for Mobiles - the train has left the station. And what brought Microsoft to so much power in the IT industry, its UI and Windows, will surely wither away over the next 3-5 years barring a major merger or acquisition.

In sum, the IT Press coverage was a lot better than expected. I suspect the young guns like Engadget, Gizmodo, TechCrunch [just missed on 3 stories] are keeping all the players more committed to following the IT game. With the two Steves out there pitching their IT wares and throwing a lot of high heat - there are big Summer Blockbuster stories to be found.

What magazine or other news source would you expect to be providing the best coverage and/or analysis of US Energy Strategy ? Barrons, Foreign Policy, the Wall Street Journal ? Or does the US have an Energy Strategy beyond let the private sector blow this problem out of the water? After answering NO to all of the above - consider Popular Mechanics, that great policy magazine for the popular "we have got to fix this tech problem right now" set.

Well, Popular Mechanics has a very interesting article in its July 2010 issue - Energyland - The Race to Cheap, Sustainable Power. On the cover of the magazine PM-Popular Mechanics promises "The truth about energy", "No more hype-real world ideas to power our future", "Debunking myths about: wind power, solar, shale oil, bio fuels", "The Clean Coal Boondoggle", and "Why Nuke Power is Safe (Really)", Despite the "No more hype promise", Takethe5th decided to proceed carefully.Well page 70 revealed a sort of snakes and ladders landscape illustration of the major energy strategies. Notably, the road to energy independence started at Petroleum Swamp. So at least the coverage started with some well oiled black humor.

But right away I was impressed that PM did dare to take on many of the key issues and "myths" confronting the US [and much of the World for that matter - clean, cheap, and sustainable energy is big in Beijing as well and very lively in London]. And one can understand why - there is not just the Climate Change/CO2-Greenhouse gas issue, but also the limitations of Peak Oil and since the Gulf of Mexico blow out, there are the nasty reminders that Nigeria and the US are not the only countries that have to worry about oil and gas production from offshore and environmentally sensitive areas. So the fact that PM chose to discuss 10 key energy sources was impressive right off the bat.

But what really impressed Bookraft was the honest-to-goodness myth busting approach. Okay, they went light on Nuclear and really did not give the very promising Thorium approach due consideration. And in no topic did PM do a comprehensive Pros and Cons. Also missing was the big picture of how these various sources would help fill national energy tank. But compared to their sources [see immediately below - a)PM delivered fairly well on its headline cover promises and b)did much more comprehensive review than a lot of the financial and news media.

As a point of comparison Takethe5th did on site searches of some major business and news sources to see what they had to say about "energy policy strategy plan" then substitute "oil" for "energy" and here is what was to be found:
Barrons - almost all are investment oriented, definitely slim on a national plan or strategy
Business Week - some good article about specific energy sources but no overview
Financial Times - mirrors Barrons having mostly financial coverage, few complete ideas
Forbes - had two good pieces: Green New Deal and the Clean Energy Race
Fortune - has some top stories on individual energy sources and Brainstorm Green
MIT Technology Review - best source by far for wide ranging studies
NYTimes - like theAtlantic, lots of Energy policy politics; see DotEarth Blog
TheAtlantic - lots of energy political discussions - take a look for yourself
Wall Street Journal - lots of news stories but mainly breaking features on energy policy
With the notable exception of Forbes, Bookraft was surprised to see how little coverage there was in major Financial press sources. The expectation was the Financial Press would want to get ahead of the curve and define some major options and reflect the energy thinking and planning in business. Not really so. Maybe the volatile markets and continued orientation towards quarterly results are absorbing all the time and attention - and diminishing time for the big picture at these financial media. Just listen to some CEOs who have to tread the Quarterly Treadmill, they are carping at TARP, being hyper-defensive and have few ideas let alone commitment for the future. Instead, they beach because of the uncertainty created by increased government involvement - some ruefully conceding they fumbled both self regulation and changes. Maybe the financial press just reflects it constituents falterings and ambiguity about how to approach the future as Southeast Asia more rapidly takes over the mantle of innovators and the World's leading Economic powerhouse.

TV News like the Print Press is reeling under the great switch that has eyeballs stuck to the Web in ever greater numbers. But both Print and TV News have only themselves to blame. This is particularly true of TV where it has lost much credibility with viewers. As noted here news coverage in the US TV media has been faltering badly, with Fox News being allowed to employ blatant lies and distortions while defiantly proclaiming itself as a source of "fair and balanced coverage". But other networks, seeing Fox anomalous ratings success [the more you prolong and comfort public misconceptions the better your ratings?], are using Fox-like bombastics in their news coverage - think MSNBC's Keith Obermann and some of CNN's infotainment shows. Viewers are having to go to PBS or North of the Border to CBC or CTV to get "fair and balanced coverage".

For those looking for solid news coverage, there seemed to be a last refuge - the Sunday Morning News Analysis shows on the major networks - ABC This Week, CBS Face the Nation, and NBC Meet the Press. But even here the trends are defiantly bad. Face the Nation is down to 30 minutes. But in effect so are the other programs as viewers have to endure 3 and 5 minute ad breaks. Yes, the shows do offer up serious subjects with sometimes excellent outside analysts. But the shortness of time often means key topics and ideas get discussed for 2 minutes tops and then cutoff. Major issues are just left hanging - or left unmentioned as the elephant in the room.

But the most perverse trend is that the major networks are leaning over backwards and then falling down badly in promoting their "fair and balanced" coverage. This means trotting out one Senator from each party who when asked a tough question quickly diverts to the Party's PR talking points regardless of the response's relevance. So what viewers get often simply does not address the issue at hand. Given time constraints and the insistence of the counter party of getting their "right of rebuttal", all viewers get is a clear demonstration of how polarized and partisan is Washington politics at a time when a roster of critical problems confront the nation. To make matters worse the "debate" often degenerates into the worst pettiness thus easily justifying the voters exasperation and rancor with their top politicians.

But even the second half of these programs which features 4-7 invited reporters and analysts covering the week's top issues is subject to "fair and balanced" distortions. The invited pundits are often split 50-50 on their Democratic or Republican leanings. So then George Will tells us that free markets are working just fine despite the fact that the nation is still barely recovering from the financial free markets coming to a halt . Or Cokie Roberts says innocuously all the freedoms granted to women in Afghanistan under American/NATO auspices "I think have been a fine thing" ignoring the great cultural rift and toll it may be creating for troopers in the country. Or incredibly inviting Liz Cheney on as a balancing Republican analyst forces all of the remaining commentators to act as buffers correcting Liz and her patently false or less than fully forthcoming assertions.

Yet even in an era of Internet ascendancy, TV has a critical live video advantage that even blogs and Huffington Posts with their streams of screed commentary are hard pressed to match - that is live and relevant debate among experts. Meet the Press today, with its devoted discussion of the fast morphing Afghanistan issue with its panel of experts who have written, experienced and/or covered the scene in depth was a very good example of how TV News can press its advantage over the press of the oncoming Web Wave. Hopefully the networks will insist on much higher standards for "fair and balanced" political debate and expression. Also, the networks need to tie their own coverage better with the Internet. One simple way - have a short "What You Said"take the 2 best posted commentaries as voted on by the web viewers and as chosen by the show's editors, also tell viewers what topics provoked the most and the best comments.

In sum, TV has long had the power to clarify, shine a visual light and thus persuade effectively. Given the rapid and perilous change rumbling through these Times, the major networks should seize the initiative against the avalanche and cacophony that ca be the Web. One of the best would be to bring well respected and well illustrated news and financial analysis and debate to the fore. There is a market for both, one has only to look at the Web and the cable channels to see the teeming opportunity.

Imagine that you are the writer and director of a regional theater company in say Northumberland County, Ontario Canada - and

Ghenghis Khan conjures up images of massive hordes of mounted archers riding across the steppes of Russia or the various mountain menaces of the Central Asian Stans or into the constantly power-changing Muslim states of the Middle East . In 20 years from age 40 to 60 Ghenghis Khan subjugated Northern China, Korea, all of Central Asia to the Caspian Sea with forays into the Middle East, Persia West India, and onto the Black Sea. 50 years later all of these areas just touched upon would be absorbed into the Khanate Empire. Within 100 years this great Khan empire, which doubles the size and population of the Roman Empire at its greatest extent [which took 400 years to amass], would be disintegrating. This collapse was spurred on by intense internecine Mongol rivalries and the terrifying outbreaks of the plague that would kill millions [and drift relentlessly westward to the middle East and Europe. This is the 100 year panorama events that surely did change the World.

Given the breadth and scope of the Khan incursions, Weatherford provides only 271 pages of historical narrative despite having a wealth of contemporary and historical sources [the suggested bibliography runs for 8 pages and scores of books/studies.Thus, the book reads like a CNN Powerpoint story of Historical Conquest on a Monumental Scale. Do not look for penetrating analysis or even comprehensive coverage of the political or military players .
Also military buffs will find the book informative for the first 1/3 and then gradually the Mongol political intrigues take precedence. What is clearly lacking is any attempt to analyze the motives for amassing such an empire beyond aggrandizing wealth and an imperious rage and revenge for the disdain that political foes showed to the Mongols and their emissaries. Remember these are nomadic hunters herders that are demolishing armies and great cities with infinitely clever and diverse military and psychological warfare. Even more impressive is the "backward" Mongols willingness and ability to absorb their enemy's winning tactics and arms into their own arsenal almost at once.

Why do that? What caused the Mongols to upgrade and adapt so quickly. How did they communicate with their captives and so persuasively. The book is silent because it is racing across the story of the Khan Empire at breakneck speed. This is almost like a high school history book approach to Genghis and the Khan conquerors.

But Weatherford has 3 things going for him. First and foremost, history in North America and Europe is largely homebody - rarely do studies and courses go outside domestic players and trends. So much of the scope and intrigue of the Khan Conquests is utterly unknown by most readers [ye reviewer largely dim has to be included]. Second, contemporary conflicts and unrest are taking place in areas like Iraq, Iran , Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and Uighr Sinkiang - stretching right through the heart of the former Mongol Empire. Some of the tactics being employed have echoes from the Mongol era. Third, Weatherford has the knack of latching onto fascinating facts:
So the author inform us that Ghenghis Khan allowed for freedom of religion in an era when religious radicalism had reached its most virulent form [think Crusades and other religious wars]. For example, among the Mongol elites Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and Native Spiritualism co-existed. From this comes the following delicious passage:

The Mongols loved competitions of all sorts, and they organized debates among rival religions the same way they organized wrestling matches. It began on a specific data with a panel of judges to oversee it. In this case Mongke Khan ordered them to debate before three judges: a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist. A large audience assembled to watch the affair, which began with great seriousness and formality. An official lay down the strict rules by which Mongke wanted the debate to proceed: on pain of death "no one shall dare to speak words of contention".
Rubruck and the other Christians joined together in one team with the Muslims in an effort to refute the Buddhist doctrines. As these men gathered together in all their robes and regalia in the tents on the dusty plains of Mongolia they were doing something that no other set of scholars or theologians had ever done in history....

So come to the book for the gaping hole in history it will likely fill. Use the many references to plan your own deeper dive into answering the questions the book raises. And enjoy the not infrequent fascinating highlights that Weatherford brings to your attention. But expect 10 more questions for every insight or answer you get.

Caixin Online is a Beijing-based Chinese Business Magazine. Bookraft found some postings at Caixin tainted. For example commentary on US Financial Reforms were written by an American and not translated for the Chinese edition of Caixin. The following article is dramatically more authentic - written by a Western-exposed, Chinese journalist and available in Chinese as well as English. Here is critical portions of the postings:

Dismantling Factories in a Dreamweaver Nation

A new generation is challenging China's labor-squeezing business model and an older generation that apparently doesn't get it.
A decade ago, I took a group of fund managers to an assembly line at an electronics manufacturing contractor in China. We saw rows and rows of young women hunkered down, concentrating on putting together tiny parts. They had few toilet breaks, and during rest periods they had to sit at their benches.

"They're all 18," the line manager told me. "We need nimble fingers. In a few years, we will replace them with another batch of 18-year-olds."

I wrote a story after that visit. I didn't judge the situation but stated that a compliant labor force willing to be pushed to the extreme was the fuel for China's economic miracle. The engine was the mutually beneficial relationship between western companies with technologies, brands and distribution channels, and China-based manufacturing outsourcing companies that specialized in taking advantage of China's vast, cheap labor force. These included Taiwanese companies, which have been by far the most successful in the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) business.

The fund managers with me on the visit wanted to determine sustainability and profitability before deciding whether to buy the company's shares. They thought an endless supply of labor would ensure the model's profitability, and they were bullish about the company. What's happened in the years since has proven them right....

An even more important factor is labor management. What I observed during my visit 10 years ago was actually the key to economies of scale. To put it bluntly, the key competence of a successful OEM in China is to squeeze labor to the maximum extent possible. That skill is developed within an organization. When a company employs hundreds of thousands from all over China, it needs a massive machine that involves recruiting, housing, training, and worker management on the factory floor.

For example, the factory I visited derives its economies of scale from 1) knowing where to find all the 18-year-old girls, 2) convincing them to stay in factory dormitories, 3) training them to put the parts together, and 4) ensuring that no one takes too many toilet breaks. This is all part of a huge system that can derive considerable economies of scale by processing hundreds of thousands of workers.

The girls at the factory I visited were earning US$ 100 a month, which was not a bad wage. That money could be used to pay for a younger brother's tuition, a mother's medical bill and, if circumstance permitted, building a house for the whole family. Each worker was willing to sacrifice herself for the family; she was not living for herself. Essentially, she accepted hardship.

These factors have changed. Today's young adults are less willing to eat bitterness. They are the first generation to grow up during prosperity, without worrying about food and shelter. Many were pampered by parents sensitive to the one-child policy. They are more like counterparts in other countries, which is good for China's international relations....

Moreover, rural families are not desperate as they were a decade ago. Siblings are few, and the government pays much more for rural education. Health insurance is decreasing the numbers of families facing financial crises due to sickness. Most rural families have built houses. And familial obligations for today's rural youth are not as urgent as in the past.

Meanwhile, inflation has severely eroded income value. Today's rural youth aspire to live in big cities, yet property prices in cities have grown twice as fast as wages. Dreams of owning a house in a comfortable city are becoming more distant.

Recent events at Foxconn and Honda factories are symbols of this new China. The labor force isn't as plentiful or compliant as before, and the ways that governments and businesses are handling the situations expose their ignorance of a new reality. They still think these are isolated incidents and, through pressure and bribery (such as a little wage increase for all and then firing rebel leaders) can bring the situation back to normal.

They think this way because of a generation gap, and the unusual relationship between local governments and businesses in China. The economy has raced three times faster than western economies did a century ago, and the generation gap seems three times larger as well. Today's young adults and their parents may as well be from different centuries. But government and business leaders are all from the parental generation, handling labor crises from this old perspective.

The governing class judges everything on short-term, marginal economic improvement rather than according to dreams and long-term goals. Today's young people are more concerned about what will happen to them in the future. They want to settle down in big cities and have interesting, well-paying jobs – just like their counterparts in other countries. This vast generation gap in perception is the force behind social tension over China's property bubble as well as factory working conditions.

The current factory system is unable to realize the dreams of today's young people. China's factories are often in isolated locations and self-contained. Youths who leave villages for these jobs find themselves more isolated than at home, with little hope of integration into urban communities. Indeed, they are neither in city or village. It's the most isolated life possible.

The compensation system makes their lives extremely difficult as well. Base pay is low, and only with massive overtime can they expect to earn close to 2,000 yuan a month. They have no time for self improvement or integrating into modern urban life. In a few years, they will lose their youth and jobs, but they still will not have the ability or financial resources to live in cities.

Go here for the complete story.
While watching Jay Leno I often cringed at the "Chinese Child labor" jokes as being too extreme. Since the emergence of the story on Foxconn suicides where 420,000 workers labor in military fashion in huge factories most notably on Apple and HP electronics, the viewpoint has shifted. And with Foxconn suddenly raising wages by 30% and the NYTimes shedding light on the even grotesquely and gothically worse conditions in North Korea - this story picks up even more creditability. In sum, the Foxconn Suicides may be the tipping point in which China forgoes its cheapest labor-cost economic model and starts to compete on its ability to out innovate the West. The proof of the pudding will be A)more Chinese companies competing with their own products and services on World markets, B)Chinese currency rises and C)whether China starts reining in rampant IP and western goods copying as it seeks to have its own goods sold without pirating on World markets. A) appears much more likely than B) or C).