I’ll begin with my criticisms of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins. First, it’s poorly written. The punctuation is in place, and the words are spelled correctly, but it just doesn’t flow well. Perkins takes us on a nonlinear path through his life - not that this is a bad thing in some cases - but he thinks he’s gone linearly and that makes for a disconcerting work. Second, it’s a confessional, as the title implies. Because it’s a confessional, the author really dwells on himself, the remorse he supposedly feels, and his journey to self-discovery. None of that stuff do I care about in the least. Third, the book isn’t specific enough to be truly believable.

I wanted to like this book because I wanted the message to be important. But, to be fair, even though I tend to believe the message, I tend not to believe this particular messenger. Therefore, I can’t, in good conscience, endorse this book. However, as a platform for talking about the greater message in books like this one, and in this volume itself, there is some importance to be found in its pages.

What Perkins reveals is a blueprint for how business is done in third world countries. That model begins with a team of engineers headed by an economist. This engineering team uses economic data to predict growth rates for a nation and then works out an engineering plan to build the infrastructure of the nation (electricity, water, roads, etc.) to optimize and encourage this growth. The nation then uses this plan to obtain loans from the World Bank or other financial agencies and delivers that money to corporations able to enact the plans presented. This happens, the country has enhanced infrastructure and everyone is happy. Happy, that is, until the debt is to be repaid.


It is then that the growth doesn't meet expectations (it almost never does, as the economist has a vested interest in inflated projections) and the country defaults on the loans. This isn't a problem for the Banks, because they just go in and demand changes in the country's economic system, sell-offs of industry or infrastructure assets at low prices to private interests and then, later demand more and more concessions in order to keep servicing the debt. Sometimes it’s oil field policy, or land use, or whatever it may be. The point is that poverty increases and unrest increases and money is made and taken out of that country and the world stays unstable. It’s not a formula for a humane approach to economic management as it concentrates the wealth into the hands of the few while taking the means of production and economic self-sustainability away from the people. Villages are relocated, families and clans are separated, farmland is consumed, forests are detimbered, and all of that is done to remove wealth from the area, not to maintain the economic base, but to strip it as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Is it a conspiracy? No. Of course not. Each individual and each company involved in this process is just doing what they see fit in order to maximize profit. Perkins goes to great lengths to demonstrate that this isn’t conspiracy.

Is it legal? Yes, it is. Perkins does not make any claims that this is illegal.

Is it moral? I don’t believe so.

There are plenty of liberals, like myself, who would like the discussion of economic responsibility to be more than a name calling tantrum. I believe in making a profit. I own a company and employ people. I don’t want to end private ownership of land, homes, businesses. Very few people do. In fact, most of the socialist countries (I’m using this as an extreme example, not an endorsement, so don’t overreact) in the world today have private ownership of land, homes, businesses, etc. I don’t want the government to control the means of production either. The points that Perkins brings up in his book are important, even if his book isn’t believable. The point is that it may not be best for people to be beholden to such large economic entities that can dictate terms of business to entire nations. Corporations are supposed to be for the bringing together of resources that individual private citizens or partnerships couldn’t muster to undertake an economic task. That’s what they started out as, anyway. But that’s no longer the case - and I believe that people in general are worse off for it. When companies can dictate economic policy to nations, they’re too large. When companies can bring the power of national militaries to bear upon regions in order to back their corporate policies and actions, I think they’re too powerful.

Perkins talks about these things in his book and it makes for interesting reading, but by the time I’d read that far into it, a significant credibility gap had already developed. As a result I have to draw on my own experiences.

Large organizations tend to threaten life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those organizations can be governments, unions, religions, companies, or armies. Whenever the responsibility for actions is so diluted among many people, reckless endangerment can be done in the name of a greater cause and no one need feel any guilt over it.

I’ll stick with my small business, my small property, and my own conscience. But, this book, I won’t recommend.

More of my reviews.