Mayor Bloomberg is a business guy who seems to be pretty effective (I won’t say good lest I offend people) at running one of the greatest cities in the world. Different possible reasons are given as to what makes him such an effective mayor: his business experience as CEO, his political inexperience, his wealth, his pragmatism, and what some claim as his apolitical way of running the city (see the introduction to the book, page 3), though the author disagrees.
The book seems to predicate itself on showing how Bloomberg’s economic knowledge and power made him such an effective mayor. Yet time and again throughout American history the government and the economy are always very tightly connected and related. Even when we talk about “laissez faire” government, which refers to the government keeping their hands off the economy (neoliberal?), the term implies that government would otherwise be involved in the economy and general business practices. I wonder, therefore, if it is really such a novelty that a CEO is able to come onto the scene and show New York and the rest of the country that he knows what it takes to run a major city. If politics and the economy are so interconnected (particularly now), it almost seems logical that a business person should take more active involvement in the government. This is particularly true of New York City, which is and has been for centuries, the capital of capitalism and economic growth.
