The Real Wealth of Nations

Customer Reviews

• 1 out of 5
  
  
  by Sunil from The United States | Sep 16, 2009
  

  I began reading Riane Eisler’s book “The Real Wealth of Nations” with an open mind. I am interested in the stated premise of the book, “Creating a Caring Economics”. I was intrigued by the coalescence of caring and economics and believe that our world today is in dire need of a change in priority and direction as it relates to caring for and nurturing one another. Unfortunately as I read Ms. Eisler’s work I found it to be a hate filled feminist manifesto, laced with a socialist agenda. There were several instances that I felt my beliefs, both religious and personal, were insulted by Eisler’s drivel. Eisler has the right ideas about a caring economics and I found some of her suggestions to be helpful as well. Sadly much of the good that could come from this book is lost among page after page of blaming males for all the ills of our society. Putting aside my personal thoughts on Eisler and her political standing, I completed the book in hopes of gleaning some useful insight.
  I do not think that blaming the male species, and comparing today’s male leaders to Hitler, Stalin and the like are beneficial. . When I was presented this book, I was told that it might “tweak” me and one should find good and something to reflect on in all books. Needless to say, I’m tweaked. I could site many examples of where Eisler’s socialist/uber feminist politics offend me, but that would as counter productive as her book in effecting change. As I stated earlier it’s not I disagree with the need for a caring economics or even some of Eisler’s ideas to effect change. For me, much is lost in the side agendas of this book, and I find it difficult get any meat out of all the bones that are evident to me. The idea that our society places too much emphasis on materiel production and consumption is accurate. Developed nations are raked by Gross National Product (GDP) type statistics; these numbers measure a nation’s output. This output measurement is limited to the monetary value of goods and services; lost is the work of many that care and nurture the healthy growth of our society. This work is inarguably of preeminent value and no society can thrive without it. Contrary to what Eisler espouses, lack of value assignment to this work is not the male oppression of “woman’s work”, but rather the challenges of how does one measure such work and assign value; this assignment may not even have traditional monetary values. If one does assign value to the work of caring how does one compensate and exchange for this work? These challenges are not trivial. Disposing of the traditional indices and adopting a new caring economic index could prove damaging to a nation’s economy. Other trading nations may not adopt the new index and thus not value or invest in an economy based on the new index. A better approach would be adopting a new index, in addition to traditional GDP; one similar to the Kingdom of Bhutan’s “happiness index”. This proposed index, combined with traditional GDP, could be a report card type statistic that nations’ leaders could use to measure the overall productivity, while maintaining indices that are widely accepted for trade.
  The assessment of care giving’s value is further complicated by availability of caregivers at a given quality level and the subjective nature of quality measurement. Eisler sites the comparison of a baby sitter’s wages to that of plumbers, with baby sitters making an average of $7 an hour and plumbers average $50. One could agree with Eisler’s superficial assessment that society values it’s pipes more that it’s children. The reality is that an equilibrium of care quality and availability is reached here. For example in my church and social circle there are dozens of people capable of providing the quality of care I require while my wife and go out to dinner and/or a movie. These care takers are in no way replacement for the full time care that I and my wife provide, but it is sufficient for the time required. If I was in need of full time care for my children, monetary considerations would much less important than finding a compatible and caring person to help care for my children. On the other hand I do not know any quality plumbers in the area that I would call if I had problem with my home. Here again the equilibrium of quality and availability are at play; I would be willing pay more for a large problem or job than I would to fix a dripping faucet.
  As a Christian I take personal offense to Eisler’s condescending treatment of the Christian Faith; dismissing people of Faith as dominating homophobes, and her book’s sub-text of a pro-choice agenda.

  
  

  ---

• 3 out of 5
  
  
  by Samantha from Auburn, AL | Feb 1, 2009
  

  ---