Posts tagged `economics`

Our Dumb World

Our Dumb World Our Dumb World by The Onion
Publisher: Little, Brown and Company
Year: 2007
Pages: 256

The Onion has long been known as one of the snarkiest satirical rags around, first in its print form, and later as a website. They also put out damn books damn near yearly, either archives or original compilations of new material. Their latest, Our Dumb World is a fictional atlas.

After the success of Jon Stewart’s America: The Book, there is something to be said for humour books which explicitly take the form of education texts. In Stewart’s case, the form was a high school social studies textbook; in The Onion’s case, it’s an atlas, though lighter on maps and heavier on sidebars than a traditional atlas.

Grouped into sections like “North America,” “The Middle East,” and “Asia,” these regions are further divided into countries, and in the cases of America, even further into states. Each entry has a map with a meaningless legend, as well as meaningless text pointing to equally meaningless spots on the map. There is an introductory blurb of text, “Facts” at a glance, and a panel for the nation’s history, as well. In the top of the page are thumbnail images, sometimes accompanied by (humourous) explanatory text.

The Good: I’m blown away by the amount of effort it must have taken to compile this book; the image selection, the minutiae, the word choice. Since basically each single instance of text comprises a joke, it’s impressive that I don’t recall the writers ever specifically repeating a joke. This, in a book with what amounts to thousands of jokes.

Also, it’s funny. The Onion‘s writers have a mastery of satire and a keen grasp of the quirks of humanity.

The Bad: Some items got repetitive. Every entry in Africa, for instance, gave basically the same impression. The jokes were different, but the point the same. It is, in all likelihood, a valid point (i.e. many/most African nations are plagued by corruption, civil war, and poor infrastructure), but broad criticism delivered many times for individual constituents can get old. So can the tiny, tiny type, which began to give me headaches if I read too long.

The jokes could get pretty extreme. I realize they were always making a point (No “How can you fit 100 Jews into an ashtray” kind of jokes), and I was never offended, you might want to stay away if you’re got more delicate sensibilities. Actually, if you’ve got delicate sensibilities, you probably shouldn’t be reading anything by The Onion anyway, so perhaps the point is moot.

§1974 · February 9, 2008 · 2 comments · Tags: , , , , , ,

Condensed Knowledge

Condensed Knowledge Condensed Knowledge by Will Pearson et al.
Publisher: Collins
Year: 2004
Pages: 345

My brother’s been reading mental_floss and its associated books for several years. Condensed Knowledge is, to the extent of my knowledge, the first of their [adjective] Knowledge compendia, essentially giant books of trivia. After having my appetite whetted by A.J. Jacobs (who, though is a contributor to mental_floss, does not have any material in this particular book), I decided to try my hand at one of these.

To be honest, Condensed Knowledge is a little hit-or-miss. Personally, I can’t quite figure out of it’s supposed to be a “Knowledge for Dummies” kind of book, or a “Bet You Didn’t Know…” kind of book. It’s organized into sections based on topic; e.g. “Condensed Religion,” “Condensed Geography,” “Condensed Art.” Each section contains a bunch of 1 or 2-page articles with a variable number of trivia. For example, “5 Famous Sculptors” or “7 Ancient Civilizations You Never Knew About.” Each subitem gets a little blurb.

Perhaps it’s just my own variable knowledge that made the book seem inconsistent. When I’m being told, somewhat condescendingly, about famous painters, I think to myself, “Why am I reading this again?” But when the books veers into the esoteric, like little-known painful rituals in history, it becomes genuinely interesting. Even within a section (each section being written by a different author or co-authors), there is remarkable inconsistency: religion, for instance, goes from the stupidly simple to the genuinely interesting.

Then, too, some of the authors seem to have a better grasp of neutrality than others. The author responsible for the philosophy section, for instance, really hates Jean-Paul Sartre, and made those feelings known on at least two separate occasions.

Remember, too, that the purposed of Condensed Knowledge is to tell you a little bit about a lot of things. There’s no in-depth analysis here; sometimes the author repeats a misconception or is so glib that they misrepresent their topic.

Despite its flaws, the book was a fun enough read. If nothing else, it should function similarly to Wikipedia: if you read a blurb that piques your knowledge, or that sounds suspicious, go research it. I know that happened with not a few topics in my case. In that respect, I suppose, the book has fulfilled its mission.

§1973 · February 8, 2008 · 1 comment · Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Big Con

The Big Con: The True Story of How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics The Big Con: The True Story of How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics by Jonathan Chait
Publisher: Houghton Mifflin
Year: 2007
Pages: 304

Economics books are notoriously difficult reading. It seems like even economists often don’t understand the economy. I thoroughly enjoyed Tim Harford’s The Undercover Economist. This book, ostensibly a firm rebuttal to supply-side economists, deals with the issue in two parts. The first is about supply-side economics themselves, but the second seems to be about The Big Republican Machine™.

It may surprise many of you (as it surprised me) that the origins of supply-side (“voodoo”) economics are relatively recent and humble. Essentially, a half-wit journalist saw a Laffer Curve and concluded that tax cuts increase revenue. Initially a wingnut idea that no one bothered with, it managed to impress, among others, Dick Cheney. By the time Reagan was in office, it became fiscal policy.

It’s important here to understand, and Chait drives this home, that today’s Republican Party, supply-siders all, have very little in common with the fiscal conservatives of yesteryear, who were actually fiscally conservative. A legacy of increased spending, culminating in George W. Bush, has no problem with large deficits, so long as they fund tax cuts for businesses. Chait pretty definitively shows that this kind (supply-side) thinking is nonsense. I know you National Review or Wall Street Journal fans will argue, flog Reagan’s “legacy,” and probably say something about “spendocrats.” Read Chait. He shows how little the GOP wanted to do with supply-side economics, even recently; yet, the phenomenon has managed to somehow infiltrate the highest levels of the party to the point where the GOP and “supply-side” are virtually indistinguishable.

Some of this has to do with the GOP’s fantastic cohesion as a party. Whereas Democrats seem fragmented, disorganized, and internecine, Republicans are lead by strong conservatives like Grover Norquist who clearly draw a party line and bludgeon other conservatives until they faithfully toe it. Thus, Republicans don’t question supply-side economics because it’s now part of the platform, even though it doesn’t work.

I could go on and on, but you’d be better off just reading the book. I was a little concerned at first, because Chait spares no effort to establish, in the introduction, that he is not necessarily a liberal. This, I assume, is to ward off accusations of bias (you know that won’t work), but methinks he doth protest too much. I must admit, having read the book, that despite his straightforwardness and occasional vehemence, Chait does a pretty good job bowling down the center. His rhetoric tends to idealize centrism, painting previous incarnations of “liberal” and “conservative” as cleaving much closer to the center. Most of his ire is reserved for supply-side conservatives, yes, but he doesn’t shy away from telling horror stories about democrats, either. Chait isn’t trying to sweep Democratic malfeasance under the rug.

I view this as something of a companion book to Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter With Kansas; a persistent question is why many conservatives vote against their economic interest. This has to do with the lockstep nature of social conservatives with the rest of the pro-business platform, even if it harms them financially. The GOP paints it as a matter of authenticity; it’s really anti-intellectualism, which comes as blatant hypocrisy from smug conservatives educated at Ivy League schools. Republicans are just better at telling people what to believe; better, and more shameless as well. This is some indication of their success in delivering messages contrary to common sense.

If you’re a conservative of the “I like Bush” stripe, then you’ll probably be offended by The Big Con, even though I think you’d have a hard time refuting much of what it says. If you’re a classic fiscal conservative (i.e. deficit hawk, &c.), or you’re a new or old-school liberal, you’ll probably agree with most of what’s here. Regardless, it’s a solid read.

§1964 · January 29, 2008 · 4 comments · Tags: , , , , ,

Dave Barry’s History of the Millenium (So Far)

Dave Barry's History of the Millenium (So Far) Dave Barry's History of the Millenium (So Far) by Dave Barry
Publisher: Putnam Adult
Year: 2007
Pages: 224

I’ve noticed that Dave Barry has been waning in recent years. Maybe it’s just me, or maybe that’s why he decided in 2005 that it was time to stop writing his regular column for the Miami Herald. Dave Barry Hits Below the Beltway was good. Dave Barry’s Money Secrets felt forced.

I shouldn’t even analyze it that much: Dave Barry is a self-deprecating humor writer. His jokes involves boogers and weasels. Still, his books, stretching back into the 80s, have always been a guilty pleasure of mine. Even his fiction novels are good (I have yet to read his books with Ridley Pearson).

Dave Barry’s History of the Millenium (So Far) is a short book comprised of his yearly “Year in Review” articles for the Miami Herald, which he has done since the year 2000 (except for 2001, when he didn’t write one). It goes month by month, highlighting all of the major (and silly) events that happened. The effect is cumulative, as Barry uses recurring jokes heavily (e.g., Iraq, the Palm Beach County election officials, etc.). I’m not sure it was intended this way, although the book ends up being a sort of chronology of the George W. Bush presidency, except with more booger jokes.

Barry, for those of you who don’t know, is a registered Libertarian, which essentially means he holds most of the government in contempt. He lambastes the Democrats pretty heavily for being unorganized, inept, and knee-jerk, and then rakes the Republicans over the rails for what’s been a non-stop decade of corruption, ineptitude, and Pat Robertson. If you’ve read him for a while, you’ll recognize some old jokes that he’s recycled for the purpose (hey, he’s been putting out books for 25 years; I’ll cut him some slack), but this book genuinely did make me laugh out loud. It’s kind of sophomoric, but it’s got a gloss of respectable satire.

What’s charming about Barry’s work is that even though he professes to talk about really awful news (e.g., next year can’t possibly be any worse than this year), he does so in a way that makes it seem as harmless as booger jokes. It is, in one way, a sort of depressing cynicism about government that particular to libertarians and even moreso to humorists; yet, it’s also somewhat soothing, because I feel that if I can still laugh about government, it hasn’t yet gotten too bad.

§1962 · January 27, 2008 · 1 comment · Tags: , , , , , , ,

Boomsday

Boomsday Boomsday by Christopher Buckley
Publisher: Twelve
Year: 2007
Pages: 336

I’ve previously covered Christopher Buckley’s book from more than a decade ago, Thank You for Smoking (which was recently turned into a major motion picture that more or less defanged it). I was fascinated with Buckley, wondering how the son of a (in)famous conservative would turn out (just look at Ron Reagan, Jr.). As I mentioned then, Christopher falls somewhere in the middle.

Boomsday is neither the greatest narrative or the most cutting satire you’ll ever read. Let me get that out of the way before I go any further. That being said, it was still funny and enjoyable. If that is a dealbreaker for you, you can stop reading now: this isn’t a trick.

Boomsday is a farsical little story about Big Government. Specifically, the monstrosity called Social Security. Set in the near future, the book centers around the life of one Cass Devine, a late-20s blogger with a massive (impossible) following who incites under-30s to commit violence against retiring Boomers who are now living on the labor of the young. Other characters include Terry Tucker, a only-some-what evil media consultant who is Cass’ boss and best friend (think a lovable Karl Rove) and Randolph Jepperson, an obvious play on the somewhat-serious-but-mostly-a-goof-off-and-philanderer-at-heart JFK, a slimy evangelical named Gideon with a predilection, it appears, for wine and women, and an increasingly flustered President and Chief of Staff.

In the often-zany goings on of a Christopher Buckley novel, there are plenty of one-off jabs at current political peccadilloes, including the aforementioned sidelong glances at historical figures or current archetypes. The story itself requires a sort of incredulity in order to enjoy it—that is to say, the story doesn’t work without the context of a humorous novel. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but I feel that it requires pointing out.

I still can’t put my finger on Buckley’s political alignment: as a satirist, he seems to subscribe more to the “all politics is a circus” school of political philosophy. Nothing in Washington escapes ridicule, basically. Say what you want about the ramifications of such a viewpoint, but I guarantee that we’ve all felt that way at some time or another.

Buckley also likes ambiguous endings, but this one in particular felt like he had no clear idea how to wrap it up. It’s as though the last few chapters went missing somewhere in the process, and it ends just before the denoument. Regardless, Boomsday is fun, and it makes you think (a little), so there’s really no reason why you shouldn’t give it a try, especially if this sort of political satire is your thing.

§1856 · June 12, 2007 · (No comments) · Tags: , , , , ,

← Older entries
Newer entries →