Public-finance

Egomanical, self-centered old man discusses how he lies to other lawyers and tries to get an edge by serving papers on opponents when he knows that they are suffering personal problems. Had he simply reprinted the cover page ... a photo of himself ... on every page in the inside I suspect that the book would have been as useful to both him and to the rest of us as it is in its present state.

I really wanted to like this book more than I did -- I really wanted to -- great title, and you figure the author, a top divorce lawyer, would have some good advice. But there's not much here. It's mostly just anecdotes about being a divorce laywer, and about his divorce cases, with an occasional -- rare -- bit of negotiation advice randomly thrown in. If you want to read about divorce law, this book works. But if you want to read about negotiation -- and if you take the author's advice and not bother with other "academic" books, you will be woefully unprepared against a trained negotiator. Don't believe me? Do a test. Read this book and then imagine yourself across from the following volleys of negotiation:

"I only have $5,000, that's all I have."
"You've got to do better than that."
"You've got to do MUCH better than that."
"I don't have much time. What have you got?"
"What if I doubled/tripled/etc my order?"

All of these are basic negotiation tactics, with basic counter-measures that can be used. You will not find them in this book. If you need the basics, suggest you start with Dawson's "Power Negotiating" or Camp's "Start with No." And be careful, do not get suckered into that "Getting to Yes" win/win stuff -- those are horrible tactics and you will not have a chance against a trained negotiator. In fact, Bare-Knuckle Negotiation is much better than those feel-good win-win books.

Author Raoul Felder is one of New York's most famous divorce lawyers. He moves in elite company and counts movie stars, big shot executives and political heavyweights among his clients and antagonists. He didn't get to that point by being a shrinking violet. This book is full of interesting if promotional anecdotes that attempt to position the author not only as a ruthless negotiator, but also as the right sort of fellow. That's a tough balance to strike, particularly since some of his tactics are outrageous, albeit effective. As celebrity memoirs go, this is a pretty good one, written in short episodes with glamorous client insider stories. And, as negotiations manuals go, it's quite strategic, even if weighted somewhat toward divorce issues. Felder manages to dish the dirt, we find, while also serving up useful advice about gloves-off negotiations.

This book scared alot of people when it first came out. And it still scares people. I remember laughing when I read this book a few years ago because the author, Figgie, uses math as bad as that used by the federal govt. to reach his conclusions. Can the U.S. go bankrupt? Sure, but if the govt. can balance the budget, including off-budget items, the economy can grow past this debt and eventually eliminate it.

The first reason why we haven't reached a position of "Bankruptcy 1995" is because of the Republican Congress that came in and made the hard choices to balance the budget and revive a sagging economy that was suffering under the control of the Clinton administration and his left-wing mob in Congress.

The second reason is because Figgie was basing his numbers on how he thought revenues and expenses should be calculated, not how the govt. actually does it.

Figgie is right that at some point we must stop bleeding red ink or we'll be faced with an massive economic disaster. On the other hand, Figgie used bad math and hysteria to sell his book, not taking into consideration the various options of how the govt. can get out of this situation. This book only gives you half the story, and as such, I can not recommend this book.

I read this in hardcover when it was first published and it was very interesting and seemed credible. It did not come true in 1995 as predicted. However, in June, 2002 so much of that book has come true it is frightening.

In retrospect, legislation proposed by Clinton/his administration (and then enacted) postponed the predictions in this book. Just in recent months (Spring, 2002) this book has proven itself. Unfortunately, more of its predictions may come to pass.

Easy to read, but very disconcerting because of the negative impact on this country. Services will decline due to economics is just one prediction. Yesterday's news announced "budget cuts" in Tulsa schools including more pupils per classroom and school beginning later in the calendar year, elimination/reduction in programs,etc. Roads not being repaired and then falling apart has already occurred in OK due to "lack of funds". Hopefully, not all the predictions in this book will come true.

In this current bubble of false prosperity people are choosing to criticize Harry Figgie rather than examine the evidence he presented. Congress hasn't changed with the Republicans; they are still spending beyond the money taken in. The national debt is still growing and we are still headed for a financial disaster. In the Great Depression the Government bailed out the people with funny money. When the Government goes broke, who will bail them out?

Those who consider it all hype just because it didn't happen on Harry Figgie's timetable are only deluding themselves.

This is THE same book as Financial Reality. If you have one, there's no sense in buying the other. Other than that, this is an excellent, easy to read book explaining how people find themselves in financial trouble and some common sense methods on what you can do about it, or if nothing can be done, how you can deal with the consequences. It could be sub-titled, "Things your parents should have taught you!"

Professor Bernhard has written a lucid yet dense explanation of phenomenon that, while much commented on, remains unexplained: Central Bank Independence. Considering the relationship between legislators, parties and central bank independence, Bernhard inserts politics back into a topic where it was previously neglected.

A valuable contribution to political economy and comparative politics.