I will make an exception for the chapter “Latin America and populism” as this is the especially relevant topic for Ukraine. “… with too few exceptions, Latin America had not been able to wean itself from the economic populism that had figuratively disarmed the entire continent in its competition with the rest of the world”.
Greenspan defines economic populism as a response by the impoverished populace to a failing society, characterized by an economic elite who are perceived as oppressors. I think this is exactly the case we are currently witnessing in Ukraine. It logically follows and is empirically true that populism is most evident in the economies with high income inequality.
Greenspan’s depiction of Mexican president Lazaro Cardenas is quite negative, which in my opinion is biased.
Economic populism according to Greenspan doesn’t bring with it a formalized analysis of the conditions necessary to create wealth and rising standards of living. As a result it sticks – despite multiple failures, populism doesn’t recede.
Greenspan makes an interesting observation: populist economic prescriptions are the falsely obvious: if there is unemployment the government should hire the unemployed (which to certain extent is not false at all), if money is short – print more of it etc.
Populism leaders are often charismatic and display authoritarian competence (doesn’t explain why, but I think because their message is empty of substance and charisma has to fill the void).
Greenspan concludes that it is difficult for a country and its people who got used to the populist policy to change, citing the example of Argentina.