Books about the latest crisis are predominantly from the angle that "we're all doomed."
Kaletsky, whom I have admired and read a lot over the past 20-odd years, resolutely does not think we are. His main thesis is that capitalism has suffered setbacks before and each time (namely after the Great Depression and after the stagflationary seventies) it has reinvented itself and thrived. He identifies four "megatrends" (three really: globalisation, the great moderation and the democratization of debt) that remain in place and will keep the world economy going in the medium term.
The book is full of deep and rather iconoclastic analysis, as well as packed with facts that are not widely publicised. Trouble is, I've just finished it and I remain unconvinced.
How come? First of all, Kaletsky provides the best analysis, bar none, of how we got into this mess. Global imbalances, animal spirits, the "Minsky moment," "reflexivity," income inequality, it's all there. Somehow, though, Kaletsky thinks all of the above added up to less than eveybody thinks and a single man, the doctrinaire Hank Paulson, managed to bring down a world that was already on the mend. He devotes 28 whole pages to his bete noire!
Funnily enough, the book then goes on to explain how we should deal with all these problems, even though they did not really cause the recession. Kinda weird.
Regardless, the book is well worth a read, because it is comfortably the most coherent "What me worry" account of the world economy to emerge so far. With no sense of irony, the author actually lists many of the risks the economy is facing in a chapter of precisely that name!