Again, the Marxian babbling about some grand conspiracy of the "elite".  Of course the closing of plants does not occur randomly, as in the way the weather changes.  Wal-Mart closes and opens stores to make, and increase, profit.  Its job is to maximize the value for shareholders, which requires it to maximize benefits to consumers.  What else is it supposed to do?  Keep the store open and lose money when the demand is not there?  You seem to believe -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that Wal-Mart has some sort of obligation to these towns.  It's obligated to follow the law, or face punishment.  That's it.  This is why I said companies should be viewed as machines.  Charities do charity work.  Companies do business.

The "elites" do not have the power to "rig" the economy.  Who rigged the economy to the extent that you were able to buy a computer with high speed internet access?  Who rigged the economy to give you the choice of a Dell, an Apple, a Compaq, a Sony, or an HP?  Who rigged the economy to give you choice of Ford, GM, Honda, Toyota, or one of the other brands of cars?  Who rigged the economy to give you the choice of untold numbers of brands of beer?  Who rigged the economy to give you lower prices at Wal-Mart, instead of the overpriced, equally-worthless garbage at Sears?  Did the "elite" at Yahoo! "rig" the economy to give you Google?

No.  You have choices and lower prices because of competition and innovation among "elites" and "non-elites".  You appear to be so wrapped up in 19th-Century fairy tales about the Evil Capitalist System^TM that you've become completely ignorant of what is really going on, and incapable of thinking seriously about it, as adults are supposed to.  The system works the way it works because of the need of the firm to please consumers and investors -- not out of some desire to rape the working class.

Keen claims economic theory is not verified.  Really?  The Volcker Contraction that began in 1979 spoke fairly clearly in favor of the Keynesian and Monetarist explanations of what would happen when the money supply fell.  When WWII began, and massive public spending programs took off as the US began its war economy, what happened?  The US reached full employment and, when the war ended, the US and Europe went into a period of incredibly strong growth.  It worked roughly as Keynes said it would.  Unfortunately, FDR was not able to spend on that level until war preparations began on a massive scale.

Worst of all, Keen judges economics against perfection, a horrible academic sin and a near-sure sign of intellectual dishonesty, and that's only in the first few pages.  This is the same ridiculous style of argument engaged in by communists: "Haha, see?  The market doesn't, like, work perfectly, man, so we, like, need a revolution or something."  And, yet, to continue with my half-joking, hypothetical communist quote, they completely ignore life in countries where capitalism is not the economic system.

Or, as the Wizard put it, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

He comments on the Russian transition, yet he ignores the fact that there were two major sides to the debate over how the transition should take place.  Some, like Joseph Stiglitz, advocated gradual change.  Others, including a few of my old professors and the IMF, advocated rapid change, or "shock therapy".  No one was sure of the correct answer -- hence the use of the term, theory.  But, to fools like Keen, it's all about the Shock Therapists, for they must be the true representatives of economic thought.  Forget about Russia's default.  That had nothing to do with it, right?

And never mind the silly detail of those in favor of rapid transition being a group of people for whom the best economists have never held respect.  No, no!  Steve Keen, Detective Dipshit, is off to the races, seeking to set a record for the number of straw men set up in one book!  Someone had better get the good folks at Guinness World Records on the phone.

Please.

Note, by the way, that every name Keen mentions, from Stiglitz to Samuelson, with some sense of respect is the name of a follower of Keynes.  And, here, we see why the foundation for Keen's book is crumbling, already.  He is separating them, because he wants to concentrate on Classicalists and Neoclassicalists.  Implicitly, he then assures the reader that the theories of the Classicalists are the "true" economic theories, completely ignoring the fact that Keynesianism remaining the dominant school of thought.  (Macroeconomics was originally named Keynesian economics, and Keynes is known in history books as the Father of Macroeconomics.)  It allows him to make generalizations about the field, using theories that do not actually represent the field, in general.  He can then claim that economists (say) believe all markets are perfectly competitive, because that's how the Classicalists' models are built.  The problem with this approach is that modern (or "New") Keynesian models are built on the assumption of imperfect competition, and even monopoly, in some cases.

It doesn't sound like a book that is worth $27.

If you want to read serious thought on the subject, read Keynes's The Economic Consequences of the Peace and A Tract on Monetary Reform.  Also, Krugman's Peddling Prosperity and The Return of Depression Economics are good choices.  If you like those, read the counterpoints in Milton Friedman's Capitalism & Freedom.  Stop reading books that simply pander to your settled prejudices.  That's a game for cowards who are afraid of what they may find in writings that offer a different view.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.