Customer Reviews

On The Wealth of Nations (Books That Changed the World)

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(16)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

There may be a puzzle here for some: P.J. O'rourke is a humorist, why is he taking on such an...academic task? Looking for "the lighter side" of the darkest slice of current events has been his shtick for some time but writing a gloss on one of the most-glossed works in the library would seem out of character, at first.
Those familiar with O'rourke's work will know that humor is but a tool he uses to get at the real nub of an issue. In the end, he finds the blithering idiocy at the heart of the world's worst injustices; and those injustices always, always involve wonton disregard for the provable laws of economics.
Smith's "On the Wealth of Nations" is often cited but rarely understood and even more rarely actually read. It takes a fellow with a good sense of humor (and an army of research assistants) to dive into this musty tome and tell us what it has to say for the modern world. And what it has to say can still surprise us.
It is a universal truth that each generation assumes it is smarter than the one before. By extension, the mall-rat with the lip-ring has several thousand self-awarded IQ points on poor, simple Adam Smith. The fact that Smith has been misquoted and taken out of context by a dozen generations has clouded the perceived relevance of his works still further. Smith's most enduring observation is that free trade leads to prosperity and restraint of trade leads to misery. History offers ample proofs before Smith's time and since and still the tired debates go on.
Humanity will place the study of economics alongside the study of spelling and mathematics or humanity will die. Any work that makes this more likely to happen for even a small slice of humanity is worth reading. O'rourke adds the allure of his devious wit. A fun and enlightening read.

It is not often that someone reading a book about Smithian economics ends up laughing out loud every page. This fantastic book offers just that. Not only does it humor the reader, but the humor serves to illuminate Smith's salient points, without doing damage to the original text. O'Rourke summarizes Smith's points quite cohesively: "wealth depends on division of labor, division of labor depends upon trade, trade depends upon natural liberty, so freedom = wealth." This simple point rings with as much clarity today as it did in 1776. Unfortunately, very few people, especially 'intellectuals', fail to understand Smith's essential libertarian philosophy. These are the same people that do not understand that the words 'trade imbalance' are essentially a contradiction in terms. They are also the people that still contend, despite being disproved for the last 50 years, that government is the best solution to achieve individual happiness. Smith has been called the first true prophet of the market economy, but as O'Rourke points out, he was by no means in the mold of a Tony Robbins. He is, in essence, again in P.J.'s words, the UN-motivational speaker. Instead, Smith emphasized the transient nature of money, or as O'Rourke's writes, 'money doesn't buy happiness...it merely rents it.'

Smith wrote that 'the person who either acquires, or succeed to any political power, either civil or military...his fortune may, perhaps, afford him the means of acquiring both, but...does not necessarily convey to him either.' That's why Joe Kennedy, despite having all the money in the world, could never win an elected office. It also explains why his son, Jack Kennedy won the presidency. Money is important, but you need a small amount of charisma to go the next step. So, can economics by funny, entertaining and enlightening at the same time? Well, with P.J. O'Rourke doing the writing, the answer is an unequivocal yes.

I consider P. J. O'Rourke to be one of the great social, political and economic commentators of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Three reasons suffice: he is brutally honest about foibles and failings across the entire political spectrum; he actually learns about what he writes about (including extensive travels, interviews, and readings); and he is drop dead funny, though preferring the absurdity of truth over the cheap quip or easy slander. _Eat the Rich_ has long been my favorite treatise on economics, and I have purchased copies for several of my (adult) children.

On the other hand, I likewise own Smith's _The Wealth of Nations_, but have struggled to get past the first few chapters. O'Rourke, with this new book, has provided what could be considered merely an entertaining 'Cliff Notes' version of _The Wealth of Nations_. But his book also provides a context and framework for reading TWON itself...which I will probably now do. (Hey, I have lots of other books in the queue.) And if you're unlikely to ever attempt TWON itself, then by all means buy and read this book. ..bruce..

The last I read of P. J. O'Rourke, he seemed to be pretty well washed up. His last book was yet another collection of current events essays, which this time barely managed to elicit an occasional wry grin from me. The idea of a hippie turned conservative satirist simply wasn't so novel anymore, and it seemed like P.J. was at a loss as to where to turn next.

This little tome is a delightful place-holder, while he's still deciding. So far as current events satire is concerned, he's been gradually going the way of Tom Wolfe, using current celebrities and brand names for punch lines, to disguise his growing disconnect from the zeitgeist. And that's no sin--the world passes everyone by sooner or later. So taking up a 230 year old book to jest over is inspired, and the results do not disappoint.

Oh, the collaborative nature of the book is fairly obvious at times. P. J. thanks his researchers in the acknowledgements, after all. And their presence is too obvious in places, such as when an off-hand mention of Thorstein Veblen is made--as if P. J. had any idea who Veblen was before he started this book. But P. J.'s distinctive wit is sharp and plentiful throughout, much to the pleasure of old fans like me.

The charge that the book does not plumb the depths of Smith's thought is misguided. We are living in a unique period of biography nowadays, with the return of the "brief life" type books. It may not be science, but it isn't dismal, either! If P. J. O'Rourke's On The Wealth of Nations leaves you entertained AND curious to learn more, then there's nothing else to call it but a success.

Some fair use passages:

****

A good head for business is a middle-class invention. The ancient Greeks and Romans, for all their genius, didn't have it. Otherwise they would have abandoned slave labor with its health benefit and pension plan burdens. They would have free the slaves, turned them into customers, and outsourced the unskilled jobs to Sogdiana and Gaul. The medieval burghers, besides becoming really free, became really smart in our present sense of the word. "The habits," Smith wrote, "of order, aeconomy and attention, to which mercantile business naturally forms a merchant, render him much fitter to execute, with profit and success, any project of improvement."

*****

Later economists, such as, in the early nineteenth century, J. B. Say, felt that Smith undervalued the economic contributions of service. And he did. The eighteenth century had servants, not a service economy. It was hard for a man of that era to believe that the semi-inebriated footman and the blowsy scullery maid would evolve into, well, the stoned pizza delivery boy and the girl behind the checkout counter with an earring in her tongue.

******

Even in the heady days leading up to the Declaration of Independence there was a prosaic and businesslike aspect to the American Revolution. The French Revolution did not get its start in a tiff over custom duties. The sans-culottes were not middle-class entrepreneurs like Paul Revere and Sam Adams, and running around without pants they weren't likely to become so. The Jacobins didn't put on feather bonnets to stage a commercial protest. If there ever had been a Paris Tea Party, the revolutionaries would not have been dumping oolong, they would have been scalping everyone in sight and then each other. No beer is named after Dr. Guillotin.

*****

The boggling complexity of tax law and the ceaseless fiddling with taxes, even by legislators who would lower them, violate Smith's principle that "a very considerable degree of inequality...is not near so great an evil as a very small degree of uncertainty." It's a principle that applies to practically everything, as anyone who is in love or waiting for a check in the mail knows.

*****

Smith came very close to stumbling on marginal utility when he noted that "Nothing is more useful than water, but it will purchase scare any thing." With an additional eight ounces of water all we get is a trip to the bathroom in the middle of the night. With an additional eight ounces of gold we get the upfront payment to lease a Lexus. Marginal utility explains why gold, vital to the life of no one except hip-hop performers and fiances, is so high-priced.

*****

Leftist critics of free markets assume that there is a fraudulent aspect to capitalism. They're right. We tricked the feudal powers into setting us free, and we remained free by continuing to bamboozle them. We used chicanery and sharp dealing to found our cities, become rich bourgeoisie, and supply ourselves with creature comforts. We left the barbarian aristocrats in their drafty castles throwing chicken bones on the floor.

I am an economist and a great fan of P.J. O'Rourke's, so I looked forward to his interpretation of the Wealth of Nations. Unfortunately, this book did not live up to my expectations. P.J. is in over his head when he attempts to explain economic theory. He attributes the velocity of circulation to Keynes, who was actually a critic. It seems he never heard of Irving Fisher who was its main exponent. Nor does he understand that the velocity of circulation is part of the quantity theory of money. He claims that "no one understands it," which I guess leaves out Milton Friedman. He also does not understand the difference between a "lump sum" tax and a "flat tax." Beyond the economic flaws, the book lacks his usual wit and wisdom. It is hard to summarize Smith's 18th century prose and there are sections that drag on like a history of economic thought text. My suggestion: Reread Parlaiment of Whores.

I've never read Smith's classic (other than a few academics, who has?) - but I have read O'Rourke (other than a few academics, who hasn't?). P.J. does a good job of crafting a readable overview and interpretation of a classic that would probably put most modern readers right to sleep. The stop-go flow created by alternating wordy Smith quotes and snappy O'Rourke one liners is a bit unnerving in the early sections, but the material is so interesting that you keep reading and eventually take the style for what it is - a witty modern writer trying to boil down an Enlightment era blabber fest into a weekend read. The only glaring weakness of the book is O'Rourke's personal lilterary curse - his frequent reference to current political news and news-makers. This instantly handicaps the timelessness of the works - though is does make them glaringly humorous today - probably a reasonable tradeoff to make if you are interested in prehumous book sales. Those interested in reading this book to gain a basic understanding of economics might consider pairing it with Hazlitt's excellent "Economics in One Lesson".

PJ O'Rourke's usual sarcasm is veiled by his outright admiration for Adam Smith's massive achievement. The book reads much more like a serious treatise on Smith's work than his usual humorour romp through the mores of our our time. O'ROurke has always been a keen observer of our times and proves that he is a keen observer of the past as well as Smith's many lessons for the present. Still entertaining, just more instructive than usual.

Adam Smith has been written off my many people who find themselves too sophisticated for his 18th Century views. Each time, it is they who prove themselves and their ideas dispensable. Adam Smith continues to influence new generations of people trying to understand not only economics, but what Smith called Moral Sentiments. Was Smith a Prophet? Of course not. Did he get everything right? No. But there is more right there than you will likely find in a library full of most other writers on economics who think they know more than Smith.

However, there are many fundamental concepts that have become central to our understanding of how human beings interact and create wealth that some of us treat him with a kind of devotion and veneration. We probably overdo it. Still, like scripture, he is more often talked about than read. And that is why the wonderful humorist P.J. O'Rourke wrote this book. It is a short guide through Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" (a much shortened title).

O'Rourke also gives us a brief view of Smith's "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" and a very brief look at Smith's life and times. As O'Rourke quote William Kristol, most of us only read in Smith. It is just so long and dry and tied to his times, it takes a special reason to read every darn word. O'Rourke did so he could write this book.

While there is much to enjoy in the book, O'Rourke has created a dictionary of Smith's best sayings (lightly edited). He also provides a list of other readings and points you to the best editions of Smith's works.

This book isn't just a funny book that riffs on Smith. Yes, O'Rourke is great at making things funny, to the point you will laugh out loud. But his humor is most often insightful rather and it is a way of getting the reader to take in the point thinking he is getting dessert. I like this insight from page 62:

"A recurring lesson in "The Wealth of Nations" is that we shouldn't get greedy. And no people are as rapacious and grabby as those who work for the public good. They don't want mere millions or billions of dollars to satisfy personal avarice. They seek the trillions of dollars necessary to make life on earth better for everyone. The World Bank should content itself with private good, from which all good things flow"

Yeah, it isn't that funny. But it is concise and right with a nice bite.

Get it, read it and enjoy it. And, hey, you will probably learn something. Especially if you haven't read Smith (or even read much in his writings).

Having grown up on the P.J. O'Rourke of "All the Trouble in the World," "Holidays in Hell," and "Eat the Rich" I have to admit a certain affinity for P.J., developed from a familiarity with him in his prime. This affinity is what drove me to pick up this book, and although I'm certainly not disappointed with it, P.J. is definitely showing his age. A lot of his jokes are even more arcane, and require a near Ph.D. in Western Civilization or English Literature to get the references, and some of his common antics seem too comfortable for him and he relies on them perhaps a bit too much.

Nonetheless O'Rourke provides a brief and enjoyable book report on Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. O'Rourke -despite the fact that he is clearly brilliant and extremely knowledgeable of history- has always taken the stance of stepping back, playing dumb to the details and "nuances" of any situation, and just pointing and laughing at the complete absurdity that can only be seen at an impartial distance. He rarely tries to explain. Throughout his expositions of the ridiculousness of his subject matters he subtly weaves in several philosophical values he feels are constantly affirmed around him, including personal responsibility, freedom, and the pursuit of self interest. He is a big L libertarian and it shows.

From reading this book you will get just the lightest taste of what Adam Smith's the Wealth of Nations is all about. In fact, P.J. spends most of him time prominently displaying the myriad contradictions throughout the book, and quotes at length Smith's writings that sound both far right and far left, exploding the myth that any side of today's political debate can claim Smith on their side.

What you will learn in this book is not so much what the Wealth of Nations is all about, but about the history of the times that created it, and what it meant in the context of its own time as opposed to trying to interpret it in a modern, or in a "timeless" manner. The last chapter on the character of Smith himself, of which precious little is known, is truly one of the most interesting and funniest parts of the book. This is not because of how O'Rourke writes it but because it's intriguing to find out that Smith is basically a very likeable goof in person, and someone with a tremendous amount of personal character.

If you're an old school O'Rourke fan you'll derive some enjoyment and some reaffirming philosophical wisdom from this book. For newcomers to O'Rourke they may be somewhat put off or disappointed, especially since P.J. has fallen back heavy on the peculiarities of his style.

The first 2/3rds of this book are insightful, erudite and irreverant helping to elucidate much of Smith's ideas beyond the "invisible hand". Adam Smith remains one of the most important thinkers in the last several hundred years. It is incredibly difficult to create any theory that actually stands the test of time or is even new so understanding Smith is time well spent. O'Rourke does an excellent job of making the 18th century language of Smith more intelligible to the average person.

Unfortunately, the last few chapters are unmemorable at best and tedious at worst. The humor becomes increasingly strained and irrelevant to the subject at hand, for example, comparing Smith's early education to his daughter learning to play "Kumbayah" on the recorder. The price of reading a satirist's take on Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations is that O'Rourke is not an economist and does not bring any great depth of understanding to the subject. He is far more concerned about the next clever thing that he plans to say and never really is able to deliver a proper ending to the book. It is as though he has become bored with the subject.

Economics is extremely complex entailing the analysis of thousand of pieces of often conflictory data. As a non-economist, O'Rourke asserts that Smith contradicts himself without any understanding that there are no black & white answers. Anyone who studies this subject in any depth and attempts to make sense of it, would likely be aware of the contradictions that Smith grappled with at a time when the study of economics was in its infancy.

I highly recommend the first 2/3rds of the book and suggest that readers stop reading when they find a declining return on their investment of time.