In the past I might have given this book 4 stars despite its flaws, but my standards have gone up (I demand holistic analytics and true cost economics now for 5 stars) and the author makes too many mistakes in areas where I have superior knowledge.
Also new is the disgrace of the New York Times as a fake news Deep State media outlet, and the fact that the Pulitzer Prize is not worth anything, it is a controlled prize like the Nobel Peace Prize, and is named after one of the pioneers of yellow journalism, manufacturing wars for profit with lies.
There was a time when Michael Porter was moderately innovative and interesting. No more. This is a crap book that totally mis-represents reality. Just as Robert Reich's crap book blames the bankers without reference to the Deep State and the Red Mafiya/Zionist traitors, this book blames the two-party tyranny as if they were the masters rather than the servants of the Deep State and the Red Mafiya/Zionist traitors.
The authors provide exactly one serious thought in this book:
QUOTE (3-4): Washington is working exactly as it is designed to work, and delivering exactly the results it is designed to deliver.
CORRECT. $16 billion a year to cover up the theft of $20 trillion a year, more of less. Unfortunately, they get the first number and don't see the real puppet masters connected to the second number — George Soros, for example.
This is a very corrupt and deceptive book, a mediocre book, that suggests that greedy Wall Street bankers are to blame for everything including the corruption (no mention of blackmail) of politicians who serve the 1% and screw the 99% with impunity.
The author will make quite a bit of money with this shit book. It is 30 years late, superficial, has no index, and totally avoids discussing the real threat.
3 Stars for Deep Whining, Makes 1 Point Over and Over and Over Again
I finished the book and wrote the following:
30% shortfalls generally citing others
30% over-the-top misrepresentation
10% outright whining
The further I got into this book the more annoying I found the author, to the point that I would fire him rather than let him poison more young officers with his combination of grievances and ignorance.
3 Stars — Company Grade Officer Dabbles as Mercenary, Earns PhD, Pens a Sophmoric Best Seller Catering to Deep State Interests
Reviewed by Robert David Steele
This book is at best a ten page article with ten cute “rules” half of which are wrong. There are some useful observations in the book but it loses a second star and drops to three because it is completely lacking on multiple fronts. There are two kinds of “strategic” authors: opportunists, and visionaries. The author falls into the first category. He has no interest in — and no idea about — making things better (nor does he have a holistic analytic model), he is simply seeking to profit from “durable disorder” and advance his career within the Deep State / Shadow Government system that promotes people like him instead of people like Col Dr. Doug Macgregor.
3 Stars — Annoying Puff Piece that Glorifies Jared & Ivanka Kushner, Lacks Substance
I thought this book was going to be important so I looked at the index first (extremely good) and then the end notes (unprofessional and mediocre — URLs instead of full citations of author, title, publication, date). Then on page 7 the author calls Jared Kushner “brilliant” – this is the same Jared Kushner that was in the third out of five ranks in school, bought his way into Harvard, and took a $1B bribe from Qatar to save his failed business.
This is a crap book that I should have been smart enough to not buy but I overlooked the author's dubious credentials as a New York Times editor — the “pay to play” standard in the fake news Mainstream Media (MSM).
There is nothing really useful in this book, which paints a generally rosy picture of the New York Time and Washington Post “adapting” (they have not, they are both shit newspapers that cannot be trusted to tell the truth, both are shills for the Deep State and their propaganda line controlled by bribed or blackmailed editors and tame journalists) and a largely unsatisfactory look at VICE and BuzzFeed, both of which shit for different reasons.