Customer Reviews

Eat the Rich: A Treatise on Economics

5 star:		(58)
4 star:		(30)
3 star:		(11)
2 star:		(11)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

I got hooked on P.J. O'Rourke through his work in "Rolling
Stone." Each of his books have usually just been expanded
versions of his gonzo-style of journalism. He is definitely the sick
love child of Hunter S. Thompson (another "Rolling Stone"
family member) and Dave Barry--of course with a twist of Rush
Limbaugh's conservatist flare. His dry wit is interlaced with a keen
eye for the bizarre. He has attacked politicians and Congress in
"Parliament of Whores" (still his best book to date) and the
"hawks" and "doves" in "Give War a
Chance" (enjoyable though not as memorable). This time he takes
on economists who apparently win Nobel prizes simply by boring the
most people. However, he does this by actually bouncing around the
globe, from Wall Street to Havana. And Albania to Hong Kong. And
several other points in between.

He gets deep into a
country. Immersing himself within society itself to develop his theory
of why a country's economic ills are what they are. This is usually
done by attending the local watering holes. If anything else is
redeeming to an O'Rourke work, it's certain that you will always walk
away with an unquenchable urge to have a stiff drink--or maybe
four.

O'Rourke examines and compares several societies and
countries that exhibit the most free of the free market (Hong Kong) or
the country with "good" socialism (Sweden) and
"bad" socialism (Cuba) and several other nations like
Tanzania, Albania and Russia. As well as the U.S. and Shanghai. The
examination on these countries are too brief to be worthy of real
study, but the truth within the humorous observations are what is the
real nugget. ...this book is
thoroughly enjoyable just to get his no-nonsense and never boring take
on why the free-market is greatest invention of mankind. ....

Finally, you will definitely laugh while reading this
book.

I have never met P. J. O'Rourke, though I've always wanted to. (We probably wouldn't get along, as I don't drink much and wear a hat.) So I have no reason to say this other than the fact that it's true: He is the funniest man on Earth.

It's my contention that humor that is *about* something is far funnier than humor that is nothing more than a grab-bag of exaggerations and incongruities, Dave Barry style. Dave Barry is good--I have all his books too--but every time I get another one, I have this feeling that I've heard all these jokes before. Only the words are different.

P. J. O'Rourke's books are almost always about something--GIVE WAR A CHANCE was about the Gulf War, mostly--that matters. War matters, even dumb wars like Vietnam, though they don't all matter the same way. ALL THE TROUBLE IN THE WORLD was about a lot of things that matter in a hurtful sort of way, though the king on that throne is bad government. The significance of the subject matter is what makes the humor so pointed--the absurdities of the Gulf War are far funnier than talking about pigeons letting go on some slob's head.

So in his latest volume P. J. takes on economics. This matters more than anything else on Earth, pretty much, because life on Earth is about work and wealth and what's for supper. I never learned economics because it's taught by men who are basically mummies without the wrappings. The books are unreadable, the graphs devoid of any connection to the real world. Finally, 25 years after getting out of school, I find an economics book by a guy who's still breathing. Furthermore, it's so painfully funny that two days later it's etched so firmly in my head I can still remember nearly all the points he made.

Many of these points are made in the course of P. J.'s trademark travelogs. The one to Albania (during which he explains how the recent pyramid schemes slagged the entire country's economy) was the best in the book--if perhaps the grimmest. The humor here is pretty black, but once you read it you will understand Albania almost completely, and be damned glad you live in Des Moines.

This approach isn't for everybody. The politically correct will hyperventilate with fury. Economists will suspect they are being skewered. (They are--but economists are notoriously bad at drawing correct conclusions.) Socialists, environmentalists, Democrats, and Swedes will shake their heads and sigh: If only this guy were on *our* side.

I've already gone on too long. Definitely read this book. I haven't quoted any of the humor because the humor doesn't lie in one-liners. You have to read it all. If you do, you will laugh your butt off--and come out of it understanding a little better why the rich are rich and the poor are poor.

I have read---and found myself going back to---"Eat the Rich" by P.J. O'Rourke. It is insightful, much tongue-in-cheek, honest and disconcerting in his observations, metaphors and conclusions.

Like other reviewers above, I have traveled and found his remarks on the mark. My work involves doing strategic planning, conflict resolution and project design around the world and somehow O'Rourke, captures much of what I saw and observed better than I ever could!!

He does present in a clear, witty writing style some very important learning's about economics, politics and more. He may be known as a conservative, but his economic insights are those of the greatest economist ever: Adam Smith, Mises, Hayek and the school of Austrian Economics.

Even O'Rourke acknowledges his own greater understanding in an interview held:

"'Well, probably the most important of those is the--is
the Friedrich Hay--von Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom." It is -- it was
Written in the '40s, during World War II, as a antidote to what Hayek
Saw as the increasing collectivism of politics in the world. He was
protesting against communism and Nazism, but also against the
in--increasing organization and size of the--of the democratic welfare
states. Hayek is one of the great champions of the individual. I
mean, he basically says that individuals are smarter than groups.
Anybody who's ever had to deal with a mob or with Congress
could -- could probably tell you this. One on one, individuals will
make, on average, reasonable decisions, whereas if we put people in a
group -- it's like the difference between Harvard and the Harvard
football team."

And his closing chapter, by the same name as the book, presents the fundamentals of sound economics, and shows the importance of focusing on building prosperity and wealth rather than trying to address poverty.

If ever he were asked to present at any international conference, he would have done as a "the friend' did in this quote (though the source I find unusual)
:
"I had a friend once and he was asked to chair a commission, an
international committee, and the title of it was What Causes Poverty. He declined. He said I will do it but on one condition. The condition is that we change the title and I'll chair a committee on What Causes Prosperity. The reason he said that was, the title What Causes Poverty leaves the impression that the natural state of the world is for people to be prosperous and that for whatever reason there are prosperous people running
around making people poor... He looked at the world the other way. He said the natural state of people is to be relatively poor and that there are certain ways and things that can be done that can cause prosperity."
-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Nov.

No, O'Rourke is a shrew observer of life and economics and offers a fine study of how many countries are operating and it is not a pretty picture.

I highly recommend it for an insight and understanding of economics today, how the collectivist and government interventions stand in the way of the prosperity of people today.

Quoting him again, "Western Civilization not only provides a bit of life, a pinch of liberty and the occasional pursuance of happiness, it's also the only thing that's ever tried to."

Yes, Western civilization is one of the known groups that have tried, and, it is as if "the discovery' of individual Freedom and liberty is something new, deserves consideration. (For further understanding the history of Freedom and liberty, do read "The Discovery of Freedom: Man's Struggle Against Authority" by Rose Wilder Lane. Lear about the 800 years of prosperity under Islam that culminated in Spain as it stretched from China to Europe; the role of Christianity in recognizing self responsibility and, not covered, the 1,000 year stretch in Irelant, brought to an end by the same underlying forces in Curope that used the Crusades as an outlet for the war mongering energies killing Europe!)

Liberals and statist miss this and what O'Rourke saw so clearly. As shown in the following independent review, the writer lacks any insight and, with the typical false academic-type and very smug remark---and, I doubt if she has traveled and studied people, life and economics the way O'Rourke or myself for that matter have!) misses his point completely, but with classic "other view" understanding:

"If you agree that capitalism is the best economic system, and that laissez-faire policies are the best method of running an economy, then this book is in effect a self-indulgent look at a world-wide train wreck, with O'Rourke patting you on the shoulder by way of congratulations. You managed to miss that train. However, if you understand the complexities of cultures and history, then you might find O'Rourke's little excursion appallingly naive....

This book is an introduction into the economics that works, honors freedom and liberty, reflecting the down side of government intervention and regulation as it distorts the true value of working people and prosperity.

There are other books that capture economics for those that have not studied it, Economics in One Easy Lesson by Hazlitt, "What Ever Happened to Penny Candy" by Richard J. Marbury or "How an Economy Grows and Why It Doesn't" by Irwin A Schiff.

These books address money and banking and other topics that are key to the world's current situation with ease and understanding.

But, for a world tour presentation on economics for the every day Jane or Joe, for all those liberals that went to college and took Economic History or, at most "An Introduction to Economics" that favored Keynesian economics and big government management of economies that has prevailed for most of the 20th Century and may be the linchpin for the situation we find ourselves today as it crumples and falls, may the clear writings of O'Rourke serve as your treatise on economics and

Turn the dismal science into one that makes you laugh as you learn!!

He does an excellent job here.

As supply increases prices fall; the demand curve moves in inverse proportion to supply; and economics is as dry as the bleached bones of Adam Smith. At least that is what you were lead to believe by that stringy-haired Marxist who taught ECON101. In his humorous, pointed and informative treatise, "Eat the Rich", P. J. O'Rourke has contravened at least one rule of economics - He has established that it is by no means boring. Indeed he has elevated it to a spectator sport.

In "Eat the Rich" O'Rourke builds economic theory from keen observation of various governmental, social and economic systems. He begins with the bustling center of American capital, Wall Street, where he vividly describes the chaos inherent in the capitalist system. In the course of his exposition of the money capitol, he notes that he found the one thing he never expected to find, "Transcendent Bliss". Yet transcendent bliss does not seem so far out of line when one considers that John Locke, an eighteenth century political philosopher, concluded that the right to property was the guarantor of liberty, and Thomas Jefferson took the notion a step further equating it with happiness. While O'Rourke clearly expounds such economic truisms he manages to avoid the ponderous philosophic explanations constraining most commentators.

From Wall Street "Eat the Rich" visits Albania, Sweden, Russia, Tanzania and Cuba. The description of each country is on-the-mark. In his description of Moscow, for example, he notes, "The traffic signals are timed to let three battalions of crack airborne troops and a hundred missile launchers through before the yellow caution light comes on." The reader can imagine the old Soviet Politbureau directing traffic from their platform in the event of an electrical outage. He shows how the absence of the rule of law in that country has lead to the rise of the Russian Mafia - "The only way to enforce a contract is, as it were, with a contract--and plenty of enforcers. What would be litigiousness in New York is a hail of bullets in Moscow. Instead of a society infested with lawyers, they have a society infested with hit men. Which is worse, of course, is a matter of opinion."

The romp through each country shows a different side of economics. In Albania it is capitalism in anarchy. In Sweden it is socialism in a stable, moral society. In Cuba it is the worst of all worlds. Yet all the pictures placed side by side, clearly illustrate that a stifling of individual liberty (including property rights entailing an incentive to work and invest) will make a nation poor. Indeed, this descriptive collage goes further to show what Adam Smith and classical economists ever since have endeavored to explain - Money is not wealth, the wealth of a society is inherent in the goods and services it produces, and sufficient production only occurs when there is an incentive to produce.

O'Rourke spends a few chapters explicitly explaining economic theory. Though sarcasm and skepticism run deep in this work, these qualities allow the reader to be entertained while getting to the nub of economic thought, as when the advantages of the division of labor are demonstrated by comparing the relative productivity of John Grisham and Courtney love in units of BS - BS serving as the mathematical symbol for what you would expect.

To characterize O'Rourke as the economic Carl Sagan, would be a mistake. He does not so much popularize its study as he journalistically exposes it to scrutiny, allowing the reader to extract information that will be useful in daily life. That most of his conclusions reflect the conservative theories of the Austrian school of economics seems only to be incidental to his observations.

O'Rourke shows he is aware that economic application has a significant influence on society. He pointedly notes, "Socialists think of society as a giant, sticky wad. And no part of that gum ball--no intimate detail of your private life, for instance--can be pulled free from the purview of socialism. Witness Sweden's Minister for Consumer, Religious, Youth and Sports Affairs. Socialism is inherently totalitarian in philosophy." He is correct. Why should the government be in any way involved in the religious or consuming or sporting aspects of our daily lives?

"Political systems must love poverty--they produce so much of it. Poor people make much easier targets for a demagogue." It is a keen observation. History has shown that free societies have been eroded and eventually washed away by the demagoguery of politicians calling for the redistribution of wealth. It happened to the Roman Republic in the First Century AD, culminating in the rise of the Empire. It is happening now with our own system. We have politicians buying votes by advocating policies that in the end will only degrade the productivity of our economic system (creating less wealth for everyone) and will surely undermine personal liberties.

If the book has a flaw, it is that it lacks an index. It would be nice to be able to use this work as a quick and ready reference. (However, this flaw has been remedied in the reviewer's copy through injudicious use of a red pen and dog ears.) "Eat the Rich" should be on the bookshelf of every thoughtful conservative, ready to thrust into the hands of the young skulls full of mush who come home from their liberal arts education thinking Lenin and Che Guevara are modern heroes. It should be mailed to every congressman who thinks society can be advanced through a redistribution of wealth. More, it should be read, studied and enjoyed by every person who considers taking the life of a nation into his hands by walking into a polling booth.

P. J. O'Rourke makes economics interesting...by citing real life examples from his travels rather than engaging in a boring exercise of describing some economic theory. The pages of the book spring to life.

I read this book prior to visiting Tanzania, one of the countries visited by O'Rourke, and have reread it many times since my visit. The details covered are well-researched. I picked up things after rereading the chapter that I had missed before.

I recently attended a conference on global affairs hosted by the World Affairs Council in Monterey. The conference was dull in comparison to this book.

For those who might find O'Rourke's conservative conclusions a bit extreme, I would suggest skipping his concluding chapter and focusing in on his case studies. The facts, as they say, speak for themselves.

I enjoyed reading the book; it made me laugh even though much of the humor was too flippant and occasionally annoying when he passed off yet another of his pet opinions as the obvious truth.

The major drawback of the book is that it is clear that the author already had his conclusions in mind before he set foot in any of the countries he visited, and he saw everything the way he knew it had to be. I don't even disagree with most of his points, but it bothered me that he was clearly sifting through a mountain of evidence to find the bits that support his point of view. He glossed over many, many "troublesome" points -- eg the free market that he holds up as the best thing for humanity ever invented... isn't even very free; he soundly thrashes the strawman of fairness while ignoring stability, invisible costs, and other pesky drawbacks; and he doesn't mention that no truly free market ever manages to stay that way.

Well, now, this isn't what I came here to do.

I was going to write a review of Eat the Rich by P.J. O'Rourke. Instead, I made the mistake of scrolling down some, first, and reading other peoples' reviews. And now I feel the need to respond. (Briefly, then, for those who don't care about my assessment of these others' reviews: Eat the Rich is travel writing in exotic locales and an economic analysis of the conditions there, according to the author's essentially libertarian views. O'Rourke writes cleverly and informally. Four stars.)

Now then.

Mr. Hans Haneberg, the "recent Econ Major from the University of Washington," can't seem to pin down the reason he didn't like this book. At first, he describes it as being a "political polemic dressed up as an 'economic treatise'" which tends to imply, though not state outright, that O'Rourke is guilty of intentional data manipulation. After all, O'Rourke is presenting his observations and data and saying that they lead to a particular conclusion--much like every other economic text in the history of the world--the only way that would make it a "polemic" is if it were being unfair in its representations or characterizations. Of course, Haneberg offers no evidence nor reason to believe that this is the case. Personally, I think that Mr. Haneberg probably finds it polemical because he disagrees with it; I suspect that an economic text better suited to his own worldview would have been acceptable, even if as didactic.

Then our Huskie friend calls the book unfunny (which it isn't).

Then he says that O'Rourke is a poor libertarian and a lousy researcher.

Heh.

Humor is awfully subjective, so we'll let that criticism pass (though it makes us wonder who truly has "a bit of an axe to grind here"). His critique of O'Rourke being a poor libertarian stems from the fact that Albania is here listed as being a "Capitalist" nation. He then observes that O'Rourke "hasn't done his research very well" because Haneberg's been able to come up with some statistics which show that Albania isn't all that economically free. He muses at the fact that, while O'Rourke actually travelled to Albania, and spent time there, Haneberg just had to Google the info.

I don't suppose it might have anything to do with the fact that, while Haneberg looked up statistical information on Albania in July of 2006, O'Rourke wrote up his experiences in the mid-to-late 90s... would it? A quick look at easy to find online sources will tell us that, following the disasterous (nigh-Anarchist) events chronicled by O'Rourke in this book, Albania elected a series of Socialist governments in an attept to stem the tide. This might explain the apparent discrepancy, yes? (Though you have to admire Haneberg's chutzpah in claiming to know a country better, by browsing a few websites, than a skilled and experienced journalist who was there, and has travelled the world over.)

Further, while it might be the case that some libertarian thinkers would not allow lawlessness to equate laissez-faire (which seems to be Haneberg's criticism of O'Rourke's calling Albania Capitalist), some would. O'Rourke is trying to be fair in examining what would constitute a "failed Capitalism" in many people's eyes. And, he eventually reaches the proper conclusion: the reason Albania failed is that Capitalism is a specific economic system predicated on rule of law, protections of life, liberty and property. I mean, yeah, you have to read to the end of the book to get to this conclusion... but that's usually where conclusions are, you know? I suspect that Haneberg probably stopped reading about half-way-through in order to start his scathing write-up.

In short, the best thing to learn from Mr. Haneberg's analysis is to question the merits of the University of Washington.

Alright--this is already running longer than I'd anticipated. Just one more. (In fact, the next one.)

AliGhaemi of Toronto, Canada, believes that O'Rourke's entire premise is wrong. That premise being, essentially, that the economic systems that countries choose matter when it comes to... oh... you know... their way of life. That some economic systems (like Socialism) tend to bankrupt countries and generally make them poor, whereas other systems (like Capitalism) tend to raise the overall wealth.

This is a controversial stance? It doesn't take a degree in history (though I happen to have one) to be able to find good evidence for this conclusion.

Incidentally, I like how AliGhaemi feels the need to quote the word "fellow" in his description of O'Rourke ("P.J. O'Rourke, a 'fellow' at the Washington-based Cato Institute"). He dislikes libertarianism so much that he's even taking issue with standard nomenclature. Silly Socialists, I swear... :)

Anyways, Ghaemi's complaint seems to be that such an economic analysis will not include items like "progress, happiness or well-being." Well... I think a fair reading of O'Rourke will see that this isn't the case at all; I think that O'Rourke is talking about those things, exactly, when he describes the death of a friend's family member on the Serengeti for want of a doctor. Ghaemi's inability to see how economics (and all of those cold, abstracted numbers like GDP) impacts human lives, in terms of happiness and all of the rest, does not make O'Rourke wrong.

Again, O'Rourke is called unfunny and his data is implicitly challenged (though, again, no direct refutation; that would require, you know, facts): "Fathoming and shaping reality in order to lasso intellectual discourse can only go so far."

Aside from Ghaemi's basic incomprehensibility, I'm led to wonder: when describing the rampant prostitution in Havana, is O'Rourke "shaping reality" or is he reporting it? Ghaemi challenges O'Rourke's calling Sweden a Socialist country and then supposes that Cuba might be alright if not for U.S. trade embargos. He dismisses Hong Kong's success on account of its being "strategically placed" and then compares Korea, Malaysia and Dubai favorablly against the United States, economically.

Yeah. Whose trying to "fathom reality" (whatever that means) now, AliGhaemi?

To explain all of the ways in which AliGhaemi is wrong here would be to reconstruct O'Rourke's book entire (and a treatise on common sense and logic, besides), and so I'll have to leave it here. Allow me simply to stipulate that some of these criticisms are handled by O'Rourke, explicitly (such as the damage to Cuba by U.S. trade embargos versus the support money they received from the Soviet Union during the Cold War); some have their own chapters (like Singapore, which AliGhaemi demands O'Rourke explain... almost as though that AliGhaemi is unaware that O'Rourke did just that in this very volume); and some are simply obvious to those familiar with these countries and rational thought (like the fact that only a desperate idealogue would describe Haiti as a "beacon of capitalism").

It seems that AliGhaemi was being quite explicit in his review's title... I just didn't know that people in Toronto had quite so much Ignorance to Spit Out.

Well, there you have it, and I apologize. Like I said, I intended to write about the book, and wound up writing about the people writing about the book. It's just that, stupidity kind of cheeses me off. My best advice: read some other books about general economics (Henry Hazlitt is a good first choice), then read this book and consider. If you're coming to the conclusion that Cuba's doing okay whereas the United States is in the toilet, you may want to start over again.

"I had one fundamental question about economics. Why do some places prosper and thrive while others just suck?"

This is the first sentence of the first chapter of _Eat the Rich_ by P.J. O'Rourke, and it very succinctly describes the origin and aim of the entire book.

As O'Rourke himself admits in the first chapter, economics is not his strong suit. Economics is by nature a very dull & boring subject, but O'Rourke still does a good job trying to understand why different places wind up different ways. This is NOT a treatise on economic theory, nor is it some type of econ-lite that is supposed to be easy reading for college freshman that can't make it through Econ 101 without falling asleep.

What _Eat the Rich_ DOES do is try to look at the effects of people's behavior in larger systems. The behavior of a society is determined by all of the individual decisions of each person in that society. So, to understand why different places are different to live in, you have to observe the quirks of individuals in that society -- and that is an area where O'Rourke excels. For instance, it says a lot about Albania that everyone in Albania bought into the pyramid schemes BECAUSE they figured the pyramid schemes were just a front for drug profits or arms dealing. It also says a lot about Sweden that it has an official state religion "complete with bishops, a synod, and pastors in every parish, and only 5 percent of the population goes to church" (pg. 62).

Overall, the book has a vague feeling of lack of depth, and that is one reason why I give this book four stars (and not five). It often feels like O'Rourke was in an area just long enough to get a feel for what was going on, but he never quite has enough time to reconcile some of the contradictions he finds.

However, the book is still very good overall, and I have recommended it to friends. Specifically, I have recommended it to computer geek friends who say they "want to understand" economics, but who make it clear from their conversation that they DON'T want to bother understanding the messy human emotions that help determine economic decisions. Above all else, _Eat the Rich_ makes it clear that PEOPLE matter, and the biggest difference between a hell hole and a decent place to live is the PEOPLE there, including the people who write the economic theories, the people who make the decisions in government, the people with the big money who decide how to invest the big money, and the everyday people with the little money who decide each day how they're going to spend their money.

To round out this review and give a good idea of what O'Rourke covers, here are the chapter titles:
1 - Love, Death and Money
2 - Good Capitalism: Wall Street
3 - Bad Capitalism: Albania
4 - Good Socialism: Sweden
5 - Bad Socialism: Cuba
6 - From Beatnik to Business Major: Taking Econ 101 for Kicks
7 - How (or How Not) to Reform (Maybe) an Economy (if There is One): Russia
8 - How to Make Nothing From Everything: Tanzania
9 - How to Make Everything from Nothing: Hong Kong
10 - How to Have the Worst of Both Worlds: Shanghai
11 - Eat the Rich

As a side note, O'Rourke's dissection and comparison of economic statistics about various countries (and how relevant those statistics are to reality) makes the book worthwhile in and of itself. Also, he does a good job of showing how regulation in moderate amounts is needed for a decent economy: regulation is needed to enforce the rule of law (meaning there's at least an official nod at reducing corruption) and respect for property rights (meaning a person has a hope that their well-being will depend on their own individual efforts, and not on how well they can flatter the local bully), but too much regulation leads to the central-planning nightmares that are the worst of China & Russia.

Economic theory is based on ...theory, and is often wrong. O'Rourke, not a posterchild for higher education, skipped the classes and took a round the world tour to find which economic systems work and which don't. He visited Sweeden, Albania, Tanzania, Russia, Hong Kong, plus others and then described his experiences. In some places wild dogs ran the streets beneath his hotel room, in others people spent their day sleeping under their broken-down cars, and in most places alchohol was used liberally.

I liked the book because I was an economics major and found real-world tour of economic systems refreshing. It was like touring another country each night without leaving my bedroom. The book was also really funny. Quite enjoyable.

though it could have been funnier; I laughed out loud now and then, but far less often than when reading "Holidays In Hell" (his best book in my view).

I thought he would adopt the old-fashioned 100% libertarian line that anything more regulated than Hong Kong is a socialistic Hell on Earth. Instead, he wrote a surprisingly balanced chapter on Sweden, and admits that when the Swedish government was about the size of ours (31% of GNP in the 1960s) "Growth continued, unemployment was minimal, and inflation was low." (p. 70). Tacit implication: when taken in moderation, social programs can help build a decent society - a point of view closer to Jerry Ford than to today's right wing fire-eaters.

And like Jerry Ford (and unlike some modern "conservatives" who shall remain nameless) O'Rourke actually thinks that if we do have a government, we ought to pay for it with taxes (p. 244), pointing out that although deficits "are less immediately painful than high inflation or huge taxes . . . eventually they lead to one or the other, or both." (p. 112).