What do you think?
Rate this book
Eat the Rich: A Treatise on Economics
In the tradition of his contemporary classic Parliament of Whores , renowned political humorist P. J. O’Rourke is back with Eat the Rich , in which he takes on the global economy. P. J. O'Rourke leads us on a hysterical whirlwind world tour from the “good capitalism” of Wall Street to the “bad socialism” of Cuba in search of the answer to an age-old “Why do some places prosper and thrive, while others just suck?” With stops in Albania, Sweden, Hong Kong, Moscow, and Tanzania, O’Rourke takes a look at the complexities of economics with a big dose of the incomparable wit that has made him one of today’s most refreshing commentators. Now updated with new material from the O'Rourke, fifteen years after the original publication of his riotous first take. “O’Rourke has done the he’s made money funny.”— Forbes FYI “[O’Rourke is] witty, smart and—though he hides it under a tough coat of cynicism—a fine reporter . . . Delightful.”— New York Times Book Review
246 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1998
About the author
P.J. O'Rourke
114 books488 followersPatrick Jake "P. J." O'Rourke is an American political satirist, journalist, writer, and author. O'Rourke is the H. L. Mencken Research Fellow at the Cato Institute and is a regular correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, The American Spectator, and The Weekly Standard, and frequent panelist on National Public Radio's game show Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!. Since 2011 O'Rourke has been a columnist at The Daily Beast. In the United Kingdom, he is known as the face of a long-running series of television advertisements for British Airways in the 1990s.
He is the author of 20 books, of which his latest, The Baby Boom: How It Got That Way (And It Wasn’t My Fault) (And I’ll Never Do It Again), was released January 2014. This was preceded on September 21, 2010, by Don't Vote! – It Just Encourages the Bastards, and on September 1, 2009, Driving Like Crazy with a reprint edition published on May 11, 2010. According to a 60 Minutes profile, he is also the most quoted living man in The Penguin Dictionary of Modern Humorous Quotations.
He is the author of 20 books, of which his latest, The Baby Boom: How It Got That Way (And It Wasn’t My Fault) (And I’ll Never Do It Again), was released January 2014. This was preceded on September 21, 2010, by Don't Vote! – It Just Encourages the Bastards, and on September 1, 2009, Driving Like Crazy with a reprint edition published on May 11, 2010. According to a 60 Minutes profile, he is also the most quoted living man in The Penguin Dictionary of Modern Humorous Quotations.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 193 reviews
March 3, 2009
I re-read this book about once every two years because it so amuses me. It's admitedly a bit out of date now. A lot changes in ten years. For one, it was written at the height of the stock market in the late 90's, but nevertheless his reflections remain basically true. (It was fun to read in the chapter on "Good Capitalism: Wall Street" his caveat "An investigation of money might as well begin where lots of money is being made -- for the moment, anyway...")
This is a very funny book, but it's also an excellent layman's introduction to basic economics and basic economic systems. In Eat the Rich, O'Rourke explores the one fundamental question of economics: "Why do some places prosper and thrive while others just suck?" He dismisses many of the typical explanations given for economic prosperity: brains (nope, "In Russia, where chess is a spectator sport, they're boiling stones for soup"); civilization (nope, the Chinese had civilization when O'Rourke's relatives were "hunkering naked in trees"); government (nope, "citizens of totalitarian countries have plenty of government and nothing of anything else" and with "no government at all" everyone's "naked in the trees."). So "why are some places wealthy and some places poor"? To find out, O'Rourke travels to Wall Street, Albania, Sweden, Cuba, Russia, Tanzania, Hong Kong, and Shanghai. His observations are sometimes enlightening and always amusing.
As I'm re-reading it now, I'll note a few of my favorite observations:
"We all know how 'modern democracies take loaves from the wealthy.' It's the slipups in the 'pass them out to the poor' department that inspire a study of Econ."
"We artsy types would have been shocked if anyone had told us (and none had the nerve) that making money was creative. And we would have been truly shocked to learn that a fundamental principle of economics--'Wealth is created when assets are moved from lower- to higher-valued uses'--is the root of all creativity, be it artsy, IBMsy, or whatever."
"[The textbook:] continues: 'Marx was wrong about many things...but that does not diminish his stature as an important economist.' Well, what would? If Marx was wrong about many things AND screwed the baby-sitter?"
"Think of the stock market as an endless Gallup poll with 207 billion things that people can't make up their minds about."
This is a very funny book, but it's also an excellent layman's introduction to basic economics and basic economic systems. In Eat the Rich, O'Rourke explores the one fundamental question of economics: "Why do some places prosper and thrive while others just suck?" He dismisses many of the typical explanations given for economic prosperity: brains (nope, "In Russia, where chess is a spectator sport, they're boiling stones for soup"); civilization (nope, the Chinese had civilization when O'Rourke's relatives were "hunkering naked in trees"); government (nope, "citizens of totalitarian countries have plenty of government and nothing of anything else" and with "no government at all" everyone's "naked in the trees."). So "why are some places wealthy and some places poor"? To find out, O'Rourke travels to Wall Street, Albania, Sweden, Cuba, Russia, Tanzania, Hong Kong, and Shanghai. His observations are sometimes enlightening and always amusing.
As I'm re-reading it now, I'll note a few of my favorite observations:
"We all know how 'modern democracies take loaves from the wealthy.' It's the slipups in the 'pass them out to the poor' department that inspire a study of Econ."
"We artsy types would have been shocked if anyone had told us (and none had the nerve) that making money was creative. And we would have been truly shocked to learn that a fundamental principle of economics--'Wealth is created when assets are moved from lower- to higher-valued uses'--is the root of all creativity, be it artsy, IBMsy, or whatever."
"[The textbook:] continues: 'Marx was wrong about many things...but that does not diminish his stature as an important economist.' Well, what would? If Marx was wrong about many things AND screwed the baby-sitter?"
"Think of the stock market as an endless Gallup poll with 207 billion things that people can't make up their minds about."
May 2, 2015
It’s my own fault, I should have stopped even earlier than I did, but there was something compulsively awful about this book.
There are some things that are truly contemptible, like privileged and relatively intelligent people who assume a sort of corn-pone dumbness, and it seems to particularly affect the US right-wing. So why would anyone who pretended not to understand arithmetic write about economics in Eat the Rich? Well, because it isn’t so much about economics as it is an excuse for a diatribe about how much better the US of A’s “good capitalism” is than any other country’s system. To prove it, PJ takes a series of trips, with his smug US attitudes at full throttle, to so-called “good socialist” countries like Sweden (damned with the faint praise of someone who experiences a culture even slightly different from his own), Cuba (“bad socialist”; say no more, you know what that means), the “bad capitalist” Albania with its endemic corruption and poverty, and the aspiring capitalist Russia ... and manages a sneer at the varied successes (some magnificent, some baby steps) of every one of them.
But what makes EtR so wearying to read is not the piffle and facile economics, but the incessant one-liners. Every line is a wisecrack. (Stupid word that, these are dumbcracks ... bad-a-boom! - and believe me, that one is better than 90% of PJ’s)
I’m not entirely sure where the Eating part comes in, because I had to skip ever-increasing chunks and paused only when I noticed an egregiously appalling bit. But I suspect that it embodies the idea that Good Capitalism encourages the Rich to freely take what they want without any envy on our part, in the belief that the rest of us will somehow benefit. (Of course this was all before Good Capitalism showed its Albanian side in 2008, so perhaps PJ has changed his mind? Though I somehow think not)
Well, if that isn’t the message, feel free to let me know, but you can’t make me read any more of this execrable rubbish.
There are some things that are truly contemptible, like privileged and relatively intelligent people who assume a sort of corn-pone dumbness, and it seems to particularly affect the US right-wing. So why would anyone who pretended not to understand arithmetic write about economics in Eat the Rich? Well, because it isn’t so much about economics as it is an excuse for a diatribe about how much better the US of A’s “good capitalism” is than any other country’s system. To prove it, PJ takes a series of trips, with his smug US attitudes at full throttle, to so-called “good socialist” countries like Sweden (damned with the faint praise of someone who experiences a culture even slightly different from his own), Cuba (“bad socialist”; say no more, you know what that means), the “bad capitalist” Albania with its endemic corruption and poverty, and the aspiring capitalist Russia ... and manages a sneer at the varied successes (some magnificent, some baby steps) of every one of them.
But what makes EtR so wearying to read is not the piffle and facile economics, but the incessant one-liners. Every line is a wisecrack. (Stupid word that, these are dumbcracks ... bad-a-boom! - and believe me, that one is better than 90% of PJ’s)
I’m not entirely sure where the Eating part comes in, because I had to skip ever-increasing chunks and paused only when I noticed an egregiously appalling bit. But I suspect that it embodies the idea that Good Capitalism encourages the Rich to freely take what they want without any envy on our part, in the belief that the rest of us will somehow benefit. (Of course this was all before Good Capitalism showed its Albanian side in 2008, so perhaps PJ has changed his mind? Though I somehow think not)
Well, if that isn’t the message, feel free to let me know, but you can’t make me read any more of this execrable rubbish.
September 7, 2007
You know what? I love Karl Marx. He is the definitive historian, the modern day secular Clio. He understood economics, but he didn't understand wealth. Adam Smith understood wealth. PJ O'Rourke understands both. He was a marxist and then he became a rich-ist. In 1997 he traveled the planet doing a comparative study of different economic systems, looking at Russia, Cuba, Sweden, Tanzania, the US, China, and Hong Kong.
His conclusions support classical economic liberalism, while thumbing his nose at the leftist slaking thirst for regulation. I've never met a leftist who thoroughly understood economics. Perhaps caring about social justice goes beyond economics. O'Rourke seems to think the only way countries pull themselves out of third world poverty is through adoption of sensible market solutions. East Asia has proven him right. However, O'Rourke fails to address the growling beast of global warming. What a dick.
His conclusions support classical economic liberalism, while thumbing his nose at the leftist slaking thirst for regulation. I've never met a leftist who thoroughly understood economics. Perhaps caring about social justice goes beyond economics. O'Rourke seems to think the only way countries pull themselves out of third world poverty is through adoption of sensible market solutions. East Asia has proven him right. However, O'Rourke fails to address the growling beast of global warming. What a dick.
November 14, 2009
"Eat the Rich" isn't so much a treatise on economics as it is a travelogue with an economics slant.
I really enjoyed reading this work. I found it informative to a degree, and laughed out loud multiple times at O'Rourke's wit. It's obvious to me now that P.J. O'Rourke is the direct literary predecesor of Sarah Vowell. Their politics probably don't synch up too swell, but their writing voices are practically Siamese twins. The humor with which O'Rourke describes and explains such diverse locales and cultures as Shanghai, Tanzania, Sweden, Hong Kong, Cuba, Russia, and Wall Street make this work immenantly readable.
The problem is, it never actually gets around to explaining much. The author does make quite a big deal early on about the weird thing about economics is that it makes no sense and that the experts seem to know less about it than lay people do. And that may be true (or not). But other than pointing out the underlying pros and cons of Socialism and Capitalism as they exist in various cultural and geographical contexts, there is no connective thread that even tries to draw any kind of conclusions.
Well, there sort of is, but it seemed to be a bit off the mark. In his closing chapter, O'Rourke states that wealth is not a bad thing, and frequently gets a bad wrap, as though it were personally responsible for the flip side of the economics coin, poverty. This is very true: wealth is a tool that can be (and sometimes actually is) used for mankind's benefit. But he then goes a step further and claims that wealth in most cases (even if accidentally) used for good, and that people living in poverty shouldn't resent rich people for having nice things! They should just go figure how to get nice things for themselves.
I'm sure O'Rourke could give a detailed explanation of why that is supposed to make sense and be in some way practical advice for poor people, but in the closing pages of "Eat the Rich", he doesn't really make any kind of case at all. He just sites the 10 Commandments ("Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbors Stuff") and some statistics that show the Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality Rate gaps between wealthy and poor nations have closed over the last few decades. Based on these two things, he concludes that everything is going to be okay.
Had I not read that last chapter, I probably would have awarded this 4 stars. Its clever, funny, insightful, and even if it doesn't have any systematic explanations of how economics work in different countries around the globe, it is still fun to read.
I really enjoyed reading this work. I found it informative to a degree, and laughed out loud multiple times at O'Rourke's wit. It's obvious to me now that P.J. O'Rourke is the direct literary predecesor of Sarah Vowell. Their politics probably don't synch up too swell, but their writing voices are practically Siamese twins. The humor with which O'Rourke describes and explains such diverse locales and cultures as Shanghai, Tanzania, Sweden, Hong Kong, Cuba, Russia, and Wall Street make this work immenantly readable.
The problem is, it never actually gets around to explaining much. The author does make quite a big deal early on about the weird thing about economics is that it makes no sense and that the experts seem to know less about it than lay people do. And that may be true (or not). But other than pointing out the underlying pros and cons of Socialism and Capitalism as they exist in various cultural and geographical contexts, there is no connective thread that even tries to draw any kind of conclusions.
Well, there sort of is, but it seemed to be a bit off the mark. In his closing chapter, O'Rourke states that wealth is not a bad thing, and frequently gets a bad wrap, as though it were personally responsible for the flip side of the economics coin, poverty. This is very true: wealth is a tool that can be (and sometimes actually is) used for mankind's benefit. But he then goes a step further and claims that wealth in most cases (even if accidentally) used for good, and that people living in poverty shouldn't resent rich people for having nice things! They should just go figure how to get nice things for themselves.
I'm sure O'Rourke could give a detailed explanation of why that is supposed to make sense and be in some way practical advice for poor people, but in the closing pages of "Eat the Rich", he doesn't really make any kind of case at all. He just sites the 10 Commandments ("Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbors Stuff") and some statistics that show the Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality Rate gaps between wealthy and poor nations have closed over the last few decades. Based on these two things, he concludes that everything is going to be okay.
Had I not read that last chapter, I probably would have awarded this 4 stars. Its clever, funny, insightful, and even if it doesn't have any systematic explanations of how economics work in different countries around the globe, it is still fun to read.
July 28, 2014
They don't call economics the dismal science for nothing. As P.J. O'Rourke puts it in his latest book, "Economics is just too complicated. It makes our heads ache." And no wonder. The economics profs turn simple ideas like people buy less of something as it gets more expensive into something arcane and incomprehensible like
Y = [1] [C+I+G+(X-M)]/1-mpc
But for those of us who invest in the capitalist system, it behooves us to know something about how our system generates wealth. What better way than to take it with a spoonful of sugar, P.J. O'Rourke style!
O'Rourke, the conservative-libertarian raconteur, sets out in Eat the Rich, subtitled A Treatise on Economics, to answer a simple question, "Why do some places prosper and thrive while others just suck?" He does it by his favorite method, visiting various places around the world and observing how they work.
If you haven't met O'Rourke before, you are in for a treat. Possibly America's funniest writer, the Mencken Research Fellow at the Cato Institute and regular contributor to Rolling Stone is a brilliant observer of the passing scene wherever he is and loves to poke fun at humanity's foibles and fads. Eat the Rich is his ninth book and joins such classics as Parliament of Whores (where he tries to explain the entire U.S. government) and All the Trouble in the World (where he looks at the lighter side of overpopulation, famine, ecological disaster, ethnic hatred, plague and poverty).
In this new "treatise" he visits such varied places as Wall Street (good capitalism), Albania (bad capitalism), Sweden (good socialism) and Cuba (bad socialism). He also takes a stab at actually explaining some economic concepts such as the law of comparative advantage (using John Grisham and Courtney Love as his guinea pig examples).
Okay! Okay! You gotta know, right? You see, he hypothesizes that John Grisham is a better novel writer and a better composer than Courtney Love. But Courtney is relatively better at song writing than she is at writing novels. So it pays for Courtney to concentrate on "caterwauling" and Grisham on "bashing the laptop". Society as a whole benefits from this. O'Rourke draws up the usual comparative advantage chart to prove that we get more "benefit to society" units or BS from the duo's specialization.
O'Rourke's trip to Wall Street is a must read for fans of the stock market. He notes that the stock market has become the darling of the media. It is in, it is hip, "the New York Stock Exchange has achieved celebrity status".
O'Rourke spent his first hour at the exchange "fascinated by the littering". "Stockbrokers," he notes, "are the last nonpsychotic people in the U.S. throwing garbage over their shoulders" while the rest of us fret about the environment. Over four thousand pounds of canceled buy and sell orders and other detritus is swept from the exchange floor every day.
O'Rourke explains, in his wry way, the inner workings of the exchange - the floor brokers, the competitive traders, the specialist brokers and the two-dollar brokers. The language of the exchange - upticks, downticks, the trading crowd, fill or kill, limit orders and such oddities as trading in sixteenths of a dollar - called teenies. And, oh yes, "one of the old-fashioned charms of the NYSE, besides the littering," the constant use of the F word!
But despite the humor, O'Rourke's observations are quite intriguing. "When we own any financial instrument," he says, "what we basically own is an opinion." For example, if the British pound declines, "the number of pence in a pound doesn't change. We just don't feel the same way about pounds anymore." Our collective opinions on a stock constitutes its price. So when we buy a stock, we are of the opinion that someone later on will think the stock is worth more than we think it's worth now. As O'Rourke observes, "Economists call this - in a rare example of comprehensible economist terminology - the Greater Fool Theory."
And as with most working stiffs, ask whether stockbrokers are of the classical school, Keynesians or a monetarists, the reply will be, as one broker put it, "I don't think they give two shits!"
But as we learn, economics is important. What makes our free market economies strong, vibrant and productive, is a combination of freedom in an environment of the rule of law.
Albania went from communist hell hole to anarchist hellhole in short order. From total control to no control. A country ruined by Ponzi schemes. Freedom, but no rule of law. "The Albanian concept of freedom," observes O'Rourke, "approaches my own ideas on the subject, circa late adolescence." When communism was overthrown, the best people "ran like hell" escaping to Greece, Italy or western embassies. Looting became endemic, finally stopping when they ran out of stuff to loot.
Sweden - good socialism - is contrasted with Cuba - bad socialism, though O'Rourke clearly doesn't care for either. "Socialism," he says, "is inherently totalitarian in philosophy." Every aspect of your private life can become public property. "Witness Sweden's Minister for Consumer, Religious, Youth and Sports Affairs." Gee! Don't we have one of those in Canada! No! Actually we have several!
Cuba is worse. "There is one vibrant, exciting, and highly efficient sector of the official Cuban economy," he writes. "The police!" When he made an errant left turn with his rented car, O'Rourke was pulled over a mile away in a different part of town for the transgression.
He visits a dissident couple, though "they hadn't actually dissented about anything. They just wanted to leave Cuba." They had visited Sweden and applied for asylum, but the egalitarian, progressive Swedes with their generous refugee policy had sent them back! "Now they were in permanent hot water."
O'Rourke writes about the history of Cuba - the concentration camps, the executions. Cuba, according to the Americas Watch human rights group, holds "more political prisoners as a percentage of population than any other country in the world." And he writes in detail about the economic mess. The American embargo on trade with Cuba, he notes, is stupid. "It gives Castro an excuse for everything that's wrong with his rat-bag society. And free enterprise is supposed to be the antidote for socialism. We shouldn't forbid American companies from doing business in Cuba, we should force them to do so."
But Cubans, he argues, are also stupid for rising to Castro's propaganda bait. Another little island country embargoed by her large neighbour and threatened with invasion has done quite all right for itself. That, of course, is Taiwan.
After an interlude with economics proper, including his "Ten Less-Basic Principles of Economics", O'Rourke takes us on the best part of the journey - trips to Russia, Tanzania, Hong Kong and China. The Tanzanian and Hong Kong experiences are a study in contrasts. Tanzania has everything - beautiful landscapes, verdant forests, rich agricultural land - and extreme poverty. Hong Kong has nothing - little land, no natural resources - and fabulous wealth. Why? Appropriately the chapters are titled "How to make nothing from everything" and How to make everything from nothing".
Tanzania was a victim of the egalitarian Julius Nyrere and his ujamaa vijijini or villagization program. It didn't work. But the worst thing about it is that we, meaning the western democracies, paid for it. "There's a certain kind of gullible and self-serious person who's put in charge of foreign aid," writes O'Rourke, and "this type was entranced by the modest, articulate Julius Nyrere and the wonderful things he was going to do." Aid amounted to $20 a head and O'Rourke speculates that that is how much it cost "to build a vijijini hovel, catch a Tanzanian, and stick him inside."
Although O'Rourke is a humorist, it is clear that he writes with great passion for the people he visits (from whatever country) and a great empathy for the hardships they suffer at the hands of professional do-gooders like Nyrere. He genuinely likes the people he meets and we feel his pain and anger as he describes how his guide's five year old daughter died a few months before his visit from the gross incompetence and backwardness of the country.
At the same time, he is fascinated by the beauty, customs and uniqueness of each place he visits. Besides exploring the economies of Sweden, Russia, Tanzania and Shanghai, he takes us on visits to some of the interesting sights like a jungle safari, or a trip to an exotic Chinese restaurant serving Cobra blood as an appetizer. They keep live cobras for that purpose in glass aquariums just like western restaurants keep live crabs and lobsters. He has an eye for the intriguing and unusual and gives us descriptions that put Fodor's travelogues to shame.
O'Rourke becomes particularly incensed when he visits Hong Kong during the British surrender of "the best contemporary example of laissez-faire" to "the biggest remaining example of socialist totalitarianism," an act he sees as craven and cowardly, "a shameful moment." And yet, the people of Hong Kong celebrated. Why? Because they hate the English. O'Rourke asked why that should be. The Vietnamese have forgiven the Americans, surely Hong Kongers could forgive "the odd opium war."
"It's different," his Hong Kong friend told him, "You just killed the Vietnamese; you never snubbed them." Canadians take note! Understand the significance of that remark and you understand Quebec separatism.
He explores Hong Kong's history and economy. The hero of this economic miracle is John Cowperthwaite, the young colonial officer sent to oversee the colony in 1945. He found it recovering nicely from the war without him and so "took the lesson to heart, and while he was in charge, strictly limited bureaucratic interference in the economy." The result? "A stewing pandemonium: crowded, striving, ugly, and the most fabulous city on earth."
In a 1961 budget speech, Cowperthwaite spoke words that O'Rourke says should be "engraved over the portals of every legislature worldwide" or better still "tattooed on the legislators' faces:"
... in the long run the aggregate of decisions of individual businessmen, exercising individual judgment in a free economy, even if often mistaken, is less likely to do harm than the centralized decisions of a government; and certainly the harm is likely to be counteracted faster.
O'Rourke's last stop is Shanghai, China, where the government is trying to impose a free market using totalitarian means. It can't be done and he calls this chapter "How to have the worst of both worlds". Yet in spite of the horror of the home of Tiannenmen Square, he keeps his sense of humor. "Omnipresent amid all the frenzy of Shanghai," he writes, "is that famous portrait, that modern icon. The faintly smiling, bland, yet somehow threatening visage appears in brilliant hues on placards and posters, and is painted huge on the sides of buildings. Some call him a genius. Others blame him for the deaths of millions. There are those who say his military reputation is inflated, yet he conquered the mainland in short order. Yes, it's Colonel Sanders."
O'Rourke is a very funny writer. At the same time, he writes with passion and conviction. His travelogues are filled with facts and figures (though not in a stuffy way). The book is short on what professional economists would consider economics. But it is full of the stuff of life - the real story that gets you an understanding of economics on a gut level. And that is that "poverty is hard, wretched and humiliating. Poverty is John (his guide) driving around in the Tanzanian night looking for the doctor while his daughter dies."
On the other hand, "Making money through hard work and wise investment is a fine thing to do." And so it is. "Economic liberty makes wealth," concludes O'Rourke. "Economic repression makes poverty."
So have a laugh or two, be enthralled by exotic and fascinating places, and learn a few lessons about life and the blessings we gain from liberty. This is a superb book. Read it. (This and other reviews can be found on my personal website, marcodenouden.com)
Y = [1] [C+I+G+(X-M)]/1-mpc
But for those of us who invest in the capitalist system, it behooves us to know something about how our system generates wealth. What better way than to take it with a spoonful of sugar, P.J. O'Rourke style!
O'Rourke, the conservative-libertarian raconteur, sets out in Eat the Rich, subtitled A Treatise on Economics, to answer a simple question, "Why do some places prosper and thrive while others just suck?" He does it by his favorite method, visiting various places around the world and observing how they work.
If you haven't met O'Rourke before, you are in for a treat. Possibly America's funniest writer, the Mencken Research Fellow at the Cato Institute and regular contributor to Rolling Stone is a brilliant observer of the passing scene wherever he is and loves to poke fun at humanity's foibles and fads. Eat the Rich is his ninth book and joins such classics as Parliament of Whores (where he tries to explain the entire U.S. government) and All the Trouble in the World (where he looks at the lighter side of overpopulation, famine, ecological disaster, ethnic hatred, plague and poverty).
In this new "treatise" he visits such varied places as Wall Street (good capitalism), Albania (bad capitalism), Sweden (good socialism) and Cuba (bad socialism). He also takes a stab at actually explaining some economic concepts such as the law of comparative advantage (using John Grisham and Courtney Love as his guinea pig examples).
Okay! Okay! You gotta know, right? You see, he hypothesizes that John Grisham is a better novel writer and a better composer than Courtney Love. But Courtney is relatively better at song writing than she is at writing novels. So it pays for Courtney to concentrate on "caterwauling" and Grisham on "bashing the laptop". Society as a whole benefits from this. O'Rourke draws up the usual comparative advantage chart to prove that we get more "benefit to society" units or BS from the duo's specialization.
O'Rourke's trip to Wall Street is a must read for fans of the stock market. He notes that the stock market has become the darling of the media. It is in, it is hip, "the New York Stock Exchange has achieved celebrity status".
O'Rourke spent his first hour at the exchange "fascinated by the littering". "Stockbrokers," he notes, "are the last nonpsychotic people in the U.S. throwing garbage over their shoulders" while the rest of us fret about the environment. Over four thousand pounds of canceled buy and sell orders and other detritus is swept from the exchange floor every day.
O'Rourke explains, in his wry way, the inner workings of the exchange - the floor brokers, the competitive traders, the specialist brokers and the two-dollar brokers. The language of the exchange - upticks, downticks, the trading crowd, fill or kill, limit orders and such oddities as trading in sixteenths of a dollar - called teenies. And, oh yes, "one of the old-fashioned charms of the NYSE, besides the littering," the constant use of the F word!
But despite the humor, O'Rourke's observations are quite intriguing. "When we own any financial instrument," he says, "what we basically own is an opinion." For example, if the British pound declines, "the number of pence in a pound doesn't change. We just don't feel the same way about pounds anymore." Our collective opinions on a stock constitutes its price. So when we buy a stock, we are of the opinion that someone later on will think the stock is worth more than we think it's worth now. As O'Rourke observes, "Economists call this - in a rare example of comprehensible economist terminology - the Greater Fool Theory."
And as with most working stiffs, ask whether stockbrokers are of the classical school, Keynesians or a monetarists, the reply will be, as one broker put it, "I don't think they give two shits!"
But as we learn, economics is important. What makes our free market economies strong, vibrant and productive, is a combination of freedom in an environment of the rule of law.
Albania went from communist hell hole to anarchist hellhole in short order. From total control to no control. A country ruined by Ponzi schemes. Freedom, but no rule of law. "The Albanian concept of freedom," observes O'Rourke, "approaches my own ideas on the subject, circa late adolescence." When communism was overthrown, the best people "ran like hell" escaping to Greece, Italy or western embassies. Looting became endemic, finally stopping when they ran out of stuff to loot.
Sweden - good socialism - is contrasted with Cuba - bad socialism, though O'Rourke clearly doesn't care for either. "Socialism," he says, "is inherently totalitarian in philosophy." Every aspect of your private life can become public property. "Witness Sweden's Minister for Consumer, Religious, Youth and Sports Affairs." Gee! Don't we have one of those in Canada! No! Actually we have several!
Cuba is worse. "There is one vibrant, exciting, and highly efficient sector of the official Cuban economy," he writes. "The police!" When he made an errant left turn with his rented car, O'Rourke was pulled over a mile away in a different part of town for the transgression.
He visits a dissident couple, though "they hadn't actually dissented about anything. They just wanted to leave Cuba." They had visited Sweden and applied for asylum, but the egalitarian, progressive Swedes with their generous refugee policy had sent them back! "Now they were in permanent hot water."
O'Rourke writes about the history of Cuba - the concentration camps, the executions. Cuba, according to the Americas Watch human rights group, holds "more political prisoners as a percentage of population than any other country in the world." And he writes in detail about the economic mess. The American embargo on trade with Cuba, he notes, is stupid. "It gives Castro an excuse for everything that's wrong with his rat-bag society. And free enterprise is supposed to be the antidote for socialism. We shouldn't forbid American companies from doing business in Cuba, we should force them to do so."
But Cubans, he argues, are also stupid for rising to Castro's propaganda bait. Another little island country embargoed by her large neighbour and threatened with invasion has done quite all right for itself. That, of course, is Taiwan.
After an interlude with economics proper, including his "Ten Less-Basic Principles of Economics", O'Rourke takes us on the best part of the journey - trips to Russia, Tanzania, Hong Kong and China. The Tanzanian and Hong Kong experiences are a study in contrasts. Tanzania has everything - beautiful landscapes, verdant forests, rich agricultural land - and extreme poverty. Hong Kong has nothing - little land, no natural resources - and fabulous wealth. Why? Appropriately the chapters are titled "How to make nothing from everything" and How to make everything from nothing".
Tanzania was a victim of the egalitarian Julius Nyrere and his ujamaa vijijini or villagization program. It didn't work. But the worst thing about it is that we, meaning the western democracies, paid for it. "There's a certain kind of gullible and self-serious person who's put in charge of foreign aid," writes O'Rourke, and "this type was entranced by the modest, articulate Julius Nyrere and the wonderful things he was going to do." Aid amounted to $20 a head and O'Rourke speculates that that is how much it cost "to build a vijijini hovel, catch a Tanzanian, and stick him inside."
Although O'Rourke is a humorist, it is clear that he writes with great passion for the people he visits (from whatever country) and a great empathy for the hardships they suffer at the hands of professional do-gooders like Nyrere. He genuinely likes the people he meets and we feel his pain and anger as he describes how his guide's five year old daughter died a few months before his visit from the gross incompetence and backwardness of the country.
At the same time, he is fascinated by the beauty, customs and uniqueness of each place he visits. Besides exploring the economies of Sweden, Russia, Tanzania and Shanghai, he takes us on visits to some of the interesting sights like a jungle safari, or a trip to an exotic Chinese restaurant serving Cobra blood as an appetizer. They keep live cobras for that purpose in glass aquariums just like western restaurants keep live crabs and lobsters. He has an eye for the intriguing and unusual and gives us descriptions that put Fodor's travelogues to shame.
O'Rourke becomes particularly incensed when he visits Hong Kong during the British surrender of "the best contemporary example of laissez-faire" to "the biggest remaining example of socialist totalitarianism," an act he sees as craven and cowardly, "a shameful moment." And yet, the people of Hong Kong celebrated. Why? Because they hate the English. O'Rourke asked why that should be. The Vietnamese have forgiven the Americans, surely Hong Kongers could forgive "the odd opium war."
"It's different," his Hong Kong friend told him, "You just killed the Vietnamese; you never snubbed them." Canadians take note! Understand the significance of that remark and you understand Quebec separatism.
He explores Hong Kong's history and economy. The hero of this economic miracle is John Cowperthwaite, the young colonial officer sent to oversee the colony in 1945. He found it recovering nicely from the war without him and so "took the lesson to heart, and while he was in charge, strictly limited bureaucratic interference in the economy." The result? "A stewing pandemonium: crowded, striving, ugly, and the most fabulous city on earth."
In a 1961 budget speech, Cowperthwaite spoke words that O'Rourke says should be "engraved over the portals of every legislature worldwide" or better still "tattooed on the legislators' faces:"
... in the long run the aggregate of decisions of individual businessmen, exercising individual judgment in a free economy, even if often mistaken, is less likely to do harm than the centralized decisions of a government; and certainly the harm is likely to be counteracted faster.
O'Rourke's last stop is Shanghai, China, where the government is trying to impose a free market using totalitarian means. It can't be done and he calls this chapter "How to have the worst of both worlds". Yet in spite of the horror of the home of Tiannenmen Square, he keeps his sense of humor. "Omnipresent amid all the frenzy of Shanghai," he writes, "is that famous portrait, that modern icon. The faintly smiling, bland, yet somehow threatening visage appears in brilliant hues on placards and posters, and is painted huge on the sides of buildings. Some call him a genius. Others blame him for the deaths of millions. There are those who say his military reputation is inflated, yet he conquered the mainland in short order. Yes, it's Colonel Sanders."
O'Rourke is a very funny writer. At the same time, he writes with passion and conviction. His travelogues are filled with facts and figures (though not in a stuffy way). The book is short on what professional economists would consider economics. But it is full of the stuff of life - the real story that gets you an understanding of economics on a gut level. And that is that "poverty is hard, wretched and humiliating. Poverty is John (his guide) driving around in the Tanzanian night looking for the doctor while his daughter dies."
On the other hand, "Making money through hard work and wise investment is a fine thing to do." And so it is. "Economic liberty makes wealth," concludes O'Rourke. "Economic repression makes poverty."
So have a laugh or two, be enthralled by exotic and fascinating places, and learn a few lessons about life and the blessings we gain from liberty. This is a superb book. Read it. (This and other reviews can be found on my personal website, marcodenouden.com)
August 27, 2014
Just before starting this book I read through an issue of MAD magazine. Remember MAD? Well, our library has a few copies, they are in the basement in the 'teen' section...yes, I'll admit it, I was wandering through the teen section, but, I like to make full use of all areas of the library. Funny though, I should read MAD and then start Eat the Rich. They are strikingly similar. Both are satires to the extreme...and in fact, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if O'Rourke was a writer for MAD.
Back to the world of economics in Eat the Rich. O'Rourke dishes out a very tongue-in-cheek summary on the basic theories of economics. You may be familiar with a few; supply & demand etc. Being a business major in university I had the joy of taking the required micro/macro economics for years so I found this sarcastic view of economics very funny. As for the non-business minded people - you won't understand a thing. When he starts into the theory of comparative advantages I'm sure all you'll get is that he is insulting John Grisham and Courtney Love through a chart somehow! Actually, this is only one small section that is laid out like a textbook with graphs and charts (this is the part that made me think of MAD the most) which look almost exactly like my first year econ book. O'rourke's charts end up making funny jokes like point B and point S make BS (haha). This is funny, but, I have a real world example that made this even funnier. In my first year econ we had a 'cool' prof. She let us have cheat sheets, told us exactly what was going to be on the exam, and get this : she made charts with the supply/demand curves for funny things likes smokes and booze! How cool was she!?
PJ also takes us on a trip through the world looking at different economies to try and figure out which one is the best. Being an American seems to have tainted his vision a bit, er a lot. His travels consist of criticizing the country he is visiting and slyly comparing it to the overwhelming success (his opinion) of the US. The only positive visit he had was to Wall Street! He thought those screaming/rushing/greedy stockbrokers were just wonderful guys. The polite reasonable citizens of Sweden did nothing for him. In fact, their generous 'welfare' state benefits (like maternity leave) were almost criminal in his mind. How can a country just pay people to 'not work'? Then he berates their high taxes and their word/philosophy 'lagom' (which means something similar to 'just enough', as in not greedy not impoverished just good...er just click the link). From the ol' capitalist point of view I can see his argument that money in the US may make more profit than that in Sweden...but, strangely he completely left out any of those surveys/rankings that put quality of life in Sweden in the top few countries, while his precious US always hovers around the double digits. There is a lot more to life than money O'Rourke! Ok, enough with my soap box speech back to the book.
There were a few good points to the book. The wide range of vocabulary PJ uses is astounding. He sent me searching through my dictionary a couple of times - per page! Unfortunately, many times the word did not show up. I guess many of his words were quasi-fictitious words, as in understandable but not dictionary-worthy (see I can make up words too!). Even with all these rarely used words, in a veiled attempt to confuse the reader, the writing was clear.
Now onto the 'bad' parts. How about we start with O'Rourke's remarks about Canadians? The only mention about Canadians in this book is when PJ is visiting Cuba strangely enough. While explaining the tourist industry in Cuba he throws some off-colour remark about the only visitors seem to be Canadians who's idea of a good time is visiting the all-you-can-eat salad bar for seconds. How insulting! Even before this hurtful comment I noticed the book had a very negative tone. Most of the 'witty' comments/jokes were just blatant insults of other countries.
Warning to readers: Only read if you have run out of MAD magazines and want to hear more American-centric world views...and it helps if you have a degree in Economics and can catch the subtle econ-jokes.
http://bookwormsfeastofbooks.blogspot...
Back to the world of economics in Eat the Rich. O'Rourke dishes out a very tongue-in-cheek summary on the basic theories of economics. You may be familiar with a few; supply & demand etc. Being a business major in university I had the joy of taking the required micro/macro economics for years so I found this sarcastic view of economics very funny. As for the non-business minded people - you won't understand a thing. When he starts into the theory of comparative advantages I'm sure all you'll get is that he is insulting John Grisham and Courtney Love through a chart somehow! Actually, this is only one small section that is laid out like a textbook with graphs and charts (this is the part that made me think of MAD the most) which look almost exactly like my first year econ book. O'rourke's charts end up making funny jokes like point B and point S make BS (haha). This is funny, but, I have a real world example that made this even funnier. In my first year econ we had a 'cool' prof. She let us have cheat sheets, told us exactly what was going to be on the exam, and get this : she made charts with the supply/demand curves for funny things likes smokes and booze! How cool was she!?
PJ also takes us on a trip through the world looking at different economies to try and figure out which one is the best. Being an American seems to have tainted his vision a bit, er a lot. His travels consist of criticizing the country he is visiting and slyly comparing it to the overwhelming success (his opinion) of the US. The only positive visit he had was to Wall Street! He thought those screaming/rushing/greedy stockbrokers were just wonderful guys. The polite reasonable citizens of Sweden did nothing for him. In fact, their generous 'welfare' state benefits (like maternity leave) were almost criminal in his mind. How can a country just pay people to 'not work'? Then he berates their high taxes and their word/philosophy 'lagom' (which means something similar to 'just enough', as in not greedy not impoverished just good...er just click the link). From the ol' capitalist point of view I can see his argument that money in the US may make more profit than that in Sweden...but, strangely he completely left out any of those surveys/rankings that put quality of life in Sweden in the top few countries, while his precious US always hovers around the double digits. There is a lot more to life than money O'Rourke! Ok, enough with my soap box speech back to the book.
There were a few good points to the book. The wide range of vocabulary PJ uses is astounding. He sent me searching through my dictionary a couple of times - per page! Unfortunately, many times the word did not show up. I guess many of his words were quasi-fictitious words, as in understandable but not dictionary-worthy (see I can make up words too!). Even with all these rarely used words, in a veiled attempt to confuse the reader, the writing was clear.
Now onto the 'bad' parts. How about we start with O'Rourke's remarks about Canadians? The only mention about Canadians in this book is when PJ is visiting Cuba strangely enough. While explaining the tourist industry in Cuba he throws some off-colour remark about the only visitors seem to be Canadians who's idea of a good time is visiting the all-you-can-eat salad bar for seconds. How insulting! Even before this hurtful comment I noticed the book had a very negative tone. Most of the 'witty' comments/jokes were just blatant insults of other countries.
Warning to readers: Only read if you have run out of MAD magazines and want to hear more American-centric world views...and it helps if you have a degree in Economics and can catch the subtle econ-jokes.
http://bookwormsfeastofbooks.blogspot...
August 1, 2012
Part "economics for dummies" and part travel guide, Eat the Rich not only tries to (and to a great extent succeeds) explain economics to folks like me, while at the same time trying to explain the bigger question - why are some countries richer or have a better standard of living than others? O'Rourke, a conservative Republican who is also able to write for more liberal magazines as Rolling Stone and Harper's deftly examines and compares culture, infant mortality rates, life expectancy, mineral wealth and other factors in a number of countries from Cuba to Sweden.
Why are culture-rich countries like Tibet or mineral rich countries like Tanzania so poor? He takes jabs equally at both the left and right, for example comparing China's official One Child Policy, to America's unofficial One Parent Policy." Readers looking for a bit of good travel writing such as O'Rourke's Holidays in Hell will not be disappointed either. Here is a zinger from Eat the Rich, "Albania has the distinction of being the only country ever destroyed by a chain letter." A reference to the civil war that broke out in Albania in 1996-1997 when the largest pyramid scheme collapsed. I laughed so hard at "Third World Driving Tips and Hints" in Holidays in Hell, I photocopied the entire chapter. One of the most useful tips in the book may be this, "A fundamental rule of happy living: Never let the people with all the money and the people with all the guns be the same people."
Why are culture-rich countries like Tibet or mineral rich countries like Tanzania so poor? He takes jabs equally at both the left and right, for example comparing China's official One Child Policy, to America's unofficial One Parent Policy." Readers looking for a bit of good travel writing such as O'Rourke's Holidays in Hell will not be disappointed either. Here is a zinger from Eat the Rich, "Albania has the distinction of being the only country ever destroyed by a chain letter." A reference to the civil war that broke out in Albania in 1996-1997 when the largest pyramid scheme collapsed. I laughed so hard at "Third World Driving Tips and Hints" in Holidays in Hell, I photocopied the entire chapter. One of the most useful tips in the book may be this, "A fundamental rule of happy living: Never let the people with all the money and the people with all the guns be the same people."
February 19, 2015
Written in 1997, many things have changed since the book's publication.
This does not, however, invalidate the humour or the sharp observations of P. J. O'Rourke.
The section on Wall Street is extremely interesting in the light of America's financial disaster of 2008.
An excellent read.
This does not, however, invalidate the humour or the sharp observations of P. J. O'Rourke.
The section on Wall Street is extremely interesting in the light of America's financial disaster of 2008.
An excellent read.
May 3, 2009
I’ve given this book a 5 because it did exactly what the flap copy promised: it explained economics in a clear, understandable way and it made me laugh. But knowing that the author is a libertarian with an agenda to push, I took him with a grain of salt. Even still, by the end, he had this ex-lefty fully convinced that the greatest civic duty I can perform is to go out and make as much money as I possibly can. But the book is definitely dated; it was written in the 90’s, before 9/11 and before the current financial meltdown. But all in all, it’s an excellent book that everyone, whether right or left, can learn from.
I could see right from the start that the O’Rourke was an engaging writer, but I was almost immediately turned off when he told us, “Never read anything by John Kenneth Galbraith.” Now, John Kenneth Galbraith is the only economist whose writings I’ve ever attempted, and though I’ll admit I couldn’t get through his Money: Whence It Came, Where It Went, I have no doubt that he has plenty of good things to say. Galbraith served as economic advisor to every Democratic president between FDR and LBJ, which means that he’s a Keynesian who believed that deficit spending stimulates the economy. O’Rourke is most decidedly not a Keynesian or a Democrat, but telling people, “Don’t ever read this” doesn’t seem all that libertarian either, but then, I suppose, that’s advice, not law.
Even with that tick against him, as well as the title of his other book (Give War A Chance, for goodness sake!), I pressed on to the first chapter, “Love, Death, and Money” and found such undeniable truths there, my opinion began to shift. What are the three things people think about most? Love, death, and money. Love, of course, is a subject dissected in all its pleasurable forms through countless successful romances in literature and film. Death and what happens afterwards is the focus of most religions. And since irreligious people have a fascination with it too, there’s the philosophy of existentialism. But while money is something people think about very often in their day-to-day lives, for the most part, most of us ignore the subject of economics. O’Rourke blames high school textbooks for that. By making the subject seem so irrelevant to daily life, most people are turned off to economics pretty early on. So plenty of students go into the liberal arts where they can philosophize about love and death, pooh-poohing the crassness of a life focused on money, but rejoicing every time they happen to get hold of some.
As an ex-lefty with a BA in Philosophy, I definitely saw myself in O’Rourke’s description, including the low opinion of business and economics majors. He claims they’re the real intellectuals since what they studied is much harder, though he admits himself that the intellectual exercise isn’t what drives these guys. They’re into money. And even though it’s true that essentially, we’re all into money, there is such a thing as excessive greed and materialism. I saw plenty of it amongst my peers in high school and college. In fact, my reaction against that materialism is probably the main reason I became a self-proclaimed communist at age 16. That early foolishness is probably what sentenced me to remain low income for so long, but I’d still rather be an underpaid editor than some laid-off former yes-man to a bank exec who’s responsible for the mess we’re in now.
And this brings me to the next section of the book, a comparison of the “good capitalism” of Wall Street and the “bad capitalism” of Albania. What was the big industry that caused Albania to fall into chaos and violence? Ponzi schemes. So I couldn’t help wondering what O’Rourke is saying about Wall Street now. I suspect he’d defend his thesis. His conclusion in the capitalism chapters is that rule of law makes all the difference. So apparently, O’Rourke is not a pure libertarian, but Wall Street needed a lot more regulation than he realized.
The next section compared the good socialism of Sweden to the bad socialism of Cuba. The Cuba chapter was just one big misery, but the Sweden chapter was quite interesting. O’Rourke explained the many benefits Swedes get – free health insurance, free college education, free day care, great unemployment benefits – but he also proved with statistics that Sweden’s productivity has leveled off. It was the classic anti-socialist argument: when unemployed people get the same amount of money and benefits that working people do, it dulls motivation overall.
O’Rourke posits that the reason they have made their economic system work as well as it does is cultural. Living in that cold climate for generations taught them: work hard or freeze to death. It was Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers thesis to a T. (The Hong Kong chapter dovetails Outliers even more closely.)
In the next chapter, O’Rourke stops his world tour for a little break in economic theory called “Economics 101 for Kicks.” The main point I learned from this chapter is an economic principle called “specialization,” which states that when all of us do whatever we do best, we’re more productive as a society. That’s one economic rule I wish I’d learned in high school.
And this brings me to a personal point, but since O’Rourke states that economics is supposed to be personal, here goes. When I was in high school, I put myself under terrible pressure about getting into the “right” college. I perceived my choices as limited; there are only so many students who can be accepted at a given college, right? So I had to be “top notch” or I’d only be accepted by my “safety school, ” and what would that say about me? The colleges were in the position of power in my mind. I had to conform to their requirements; my particular needs were secondary.
And this, I think, was part of my flawed understanding of capitalism. Supply may have been limited, but it wasn’t that limited. Capitalism, when it works, makes many choices available. And the educational choices available to the average American high school graduate are so vast, there’s a right place for everyone to be themselves and maximize their own potential.
Another memorable economic lesson from O’Rourke were his descriptions of the three solutions to recession, a very relevant topic now. The first is to raise taxes, which hits the rich the hardest and which he doesn’t favor. Another solution is to print more money so that more is available. But because of supply and demand, having more printed money makes it worth less. Then everyone suffers, especially those who have the least of it. O’Rourke cited Carter as an example of someone who used that policy, but it had even more disastrous effects in the Weimar Republic, predecessor to Nazi Germany. In any case, this seemed like the worst solution of the three.
The final method is the one that President Obama is using: deficit spending. Sweden, he says, is doing the same thing. So while the spending pays for all kinds of good social programs, ultimately, it just puts of the problem till later. The question is: will it be easier for us to deal with the problem later, or will it be worse? Keynesians argue that when the money is spent wisely, it will be earned back, like giving the country a big college loan. Fiscal conservatives would argue that it’s more like the reckless use of a credit card. Personally, I’m praying that the Keynesians are right.
O’Rourke concludes “Economics 101 for Kicks” by saying something along the lines of “Enough about economics in theory. I learned more from studying reality,” and then he launches back into a world tour of economic systems. They all had really catchy titles: “Russia: How to Reform An Economy (sort of) If There Ever Was One;” “Tanzania: How to Have Nothing with Everything,” “Hong Kong: How to Have Everything with Nothing,” and “Shanghai: How to Have the Worst of Both Worlds.” As I said, the Hong Kong chapter is an especially amazing read after Malcolm Gladwell’s chapter on Chinese rice farmers in Outliers. Some aspects of Shanghai sounded an awful lot like the business practices that created the “toxic assets” here. But the chapter on Tanzania, which was the most depressing in the whole book, showed O’Rourke at his most sympathetic and human. Gross national product isn’t an accurate measure of a country’s economic success, he states. Infant mortality rate is. And that’s a bottom line I can respect. Can a country take care of its people or not?
And finally, the conclusion, which gives the book its title: “Eat the Rich.” Remember that grain of salt I mentioned at the beginning of this review? Well, it melted in this chapter. Up until then, I was annoyed at the way O’Rourke was constantly poking fun at the sentiment that gave rise to communism and socialism, the drive to make economic conditions “fair.” I kept reading because he was such a compelling writer. But at the end of the book, he finally acknowledges that thousands of decent and intelligent people were attracted to socialistic ideologies for humanitarian reasons. Once I felt he acknowledged me, I could accept his argument that capitalism ends up creating the most humanitarian conditions of any other system. It’s true that capitalism doesn’t distribute wealth evenly, but evenness is irrelevant compared to infant mortality rate. Yeah, the bank manager lives in a mansion, and the bank security guard lives in a dumpy little apartment. But is the security guard starving? Can he get medical care? That’s the stuff that counts. Quoting from Adam Smith, O’Rourke makes the case that self-interest makes the world go round, but it doesn’t have to mean dog-eat-dog competition. When the rich get rich, the poor get richer, too.
I didn’t become a right-wing libertarian after reading this book. I still think that it’s greedy bankers and CEO’s who got us into this mess, not government officials, and that government regulation of business is necessary. I still believe the government should fund social programs, especially education, because that gives people the opportunity to put money back into the system later. And I definitely believe that fairness is a value we should all strive for, not just a value for the school room, as he jokingly argues. But I do wish I hadn’t bought into the lie that the pursuit of money is somehow immoral. Had I behaved more “capitalistically” when I was young, I’d probably be living a more independent life now.
Perhaps it’s never too late to change. May Hashem make it possible for all of us. With hard work, healthy self-interest, and balanced other-centeredness, may we all climb out of this hole together.
I could see right from the start that the O’Rourke was an engaging writer, but I was almost immediately turned off when he told us, “Never read anything by John Kenneth Galbraith.” Now, John Kenneth Galbraith is the only economist whose writings I’ve ever attempted, and though I’ll admit I couldn’t get through his Money: Whence It Came, Where It Went, I have no doubt that he has plenty of good things to say. Galbraith served as economic advisor to every Democratic president between FDR and LBJ, which means that he’s a Keynesian who believed that deficit spending stimulates the economy. O’Rourke is most decidedly not a Keynesian or a Democrat, but telling people, “Don’t ever read this” doesn’t seem all that libertarian either, but then, I suppose, that’s advice, not law.
Even with that tick against him, as well as the title of his other book (Give War A Chance, for goodness sake!), I pressed on to the first chapter, “Love, Death, and Money” and found such undeniable truths there, my opinion began to shift. What are the three things people think about most? Love, death, and money. Love, of course, is a subject dissected in all its pleasurable forms through countless successful romances in literature and film. Death and what happens afterwards is the focus of most religions. And since irreligious people have a fascination with it too, there’s the philosophy of existentialism. But while money is something people think about very often in their day-to-day lives, for the most part, most of us ignore the subject of economics. O’Rourke blames high school textbooks for that. By making the subject seem so irrelevant to daily life, most people are turned off to economics pretty early on. So plenty of students go into the liberal arts where they can philosophize about love and death, pooh-poohing the crassness of a life focused on money, but rejoicing every time they happen to get hold of some.
As an ex-lefty with a BA in Philosophy, I definitely saw myself in O’Rourke’s description, including the low opinion of business and economics majors. He claims they’re the real intellectuals since what they studied is much harder, though he admits himself that the intellectual exercise isn’t what drives these guys. They’re into money. And even though it’s true that essentially, we’re all into money, there is such a thing as excessive greed and materialism. I saw plenty of it amongst my peers in high school and college. In fact, my reaction against that materialism is probably the main reason I became a self-proclaimed communist at age 16. That early foolishness is probably what sentenced me to remain low income for so long, but I’d still rather be an underpaid editor than some laid-off former yes-man to a bank exec who’s responsible for the mess we’re in now.
And this brings me to the next section of the book, a comparison of the “good capitalism” of Wall Street and the “bad capitalism” of Albania. What was the big industry that caused Albania to fall into chaos and violence? Ponzi schemes. So I couldn’t help wondering what O’Rourke is saying about Wall Street now. I suspect he’d defend his thesis. His conclusion in the capitalism chapters is that rule of law makes all the difference. So apparently, O’Rourke is not a pure libertarian, but Wall Street needed a lot more regulation than he realized.
The next section compared the good socialism of Sweden to the bad socialism of Cuba. The Cuba chapter was just one big misery, but the Sweden chapter was quite interesting. O’Rourke explained the many benefits Swedes get – free health insurance, free college education, free day care, great unemployment benefits – but he also proved with statistics that Sweden’s productivity has leveled off. It was the classic anti-socialist argument: when unemployed people get the same amount of money and benefits that working people do, it dulls motivation overall.
O’Rourke posits that the reason they have made their economic system work as well as it does is cultural. Living in that cold climate for generations taught them: work hard or freeze to death. It was Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers thesis to a T. (The Hong Kong chapter dovetails Outliers even more closely.)
In the next chapter, O’Rourke stops his world tour for a little break in economic theory called “Economics 101 for Kicks.” The main point I learned from this chapter is an economic principle called “specialization,” which states that when all of us do whatever we do best, we’re more productive as a society. That’s one economic rule I wish I’d learned in high school.
And this brings me to a personal point, but since O’Rourke states that economics is supposed to be personal, here goes. When I was in high school, I put myself under terrible pressure about getting into the “right” college. I perceived my choices as limited; there are only so many students who can be accepted at a given college, right? So I had to be “top notch” or I’d only be accepted by my “safety school, ” and what would that say about me? The colleges were in the position of power in my mind. I had to conform to their requirements; my particular needs were secondary.
And this, I think, was part of my flawed understanding of capitalism. Supply may have been limited, but it wasn’t that limited. Capitalism, when it works, makes many choices available. And the educational choices available to the average American high school graduate are so vast, there’s a right place for everyone to be themselves and maximize their own potential.
Another memorable economic lesson from O’Rourke were his descriptions of the three solutions to recession, a very relevant topic now. The first is to raise taxes, which hits the rich the hardest and which he doesn’t favor. Another solution is to print more money so that more is available. But because of supply and demand, having more printed money makes it worth less. Then everyone suffers, especially those who have the least of it. O’Rourke cited Carter as an example of someone who used that policy, but it had even more disastrous effects in the Weimar Republic, predecessor to Nazi Germany. In any case, this seemed like the worst solution of the three.
The final method is the one that President Obama is using: deficit spending. Sweden, he says, is doing the same thing. So while the spending pays for all kinds of good social programs, ultimately, it just puts of the problem till later. The question is: will it be easier for us to deal with the problem later, or will it be worse? Keynesians argue that when the money is spent wisely, it will be earned back, like giving the country a big college loan. Fiscal conservatives would argue that it’s more like the reckless use of a credit card. Personally, I’m praying that the Keynesians are right.
O’Rourke concludes “Economics 101 for Kicks” by saying something along the lines of “Enough about economics in theory. I learned more from studying reality,” and then he launches back into a world tour of economic systems. They all had really catchy titles: “Russia: How to Reform An Economy (sort of) If There Ever Was One;” “Tanzania: How to Have Nothing with Everything,” “Hong Kong: How to Have Everything with Nothing,” and “Shanghai: How to Have the Worst of Both Worlds.” As I said, the Hong Kong chapter is an especially amazing read after Malcolm Gladwell’s chapter on Chinese rice farmers in Outliers. Some aspects of Shanghai sounded an awful lot like the business practices that created the “toxic assets” here. But the chapter on Tanzania, which was the most depressing in the whole book, showed O’Rourke at his most sympathetic and human. Gross national product isn’t an accurate measure of a country’s economic success, he states. Infant mortality rate is. And that’s a bottom line I can respect. Can a country take care of its people or not?
And finally, the conclusion, which gives the book its title: “Eat the Rich.” Remember that grain of salt I mentioned at the beginning of this review? Well, it melted in this chapter. Up until then, I was annoyed at the way O’Rourke was constantly poking fun at the sentiment that gave rise to communism and socialism, the drive to make economic conditions “fair.” I kept reading because he was such a compelling writer. But at the end of the book, he finally acknowledges that thousands of decent and intelligent people were attracted to socialistic ideologies for humanitarian reasons. Once I felt he acknowledged me, I could accept his argument that capitalism ends up creating the most humanitarian conditions of any other system. It’s true that capitalism doesn’t distribute wealth evenly, but evenness is irrelevant compared to infant mortality rate. Yeah, the bank manager lives in a mansion, and the bank security guard lives in a dumpy little apartment. But is the security guard starving? Can he get medical care? That’s the stuff that counts. Quoting from Adam Smith, O’Rourke makes the case that self-interest makes the world go round, but it doesn’t have to mean dog-eat-dog competition. When the rich get rich, the poor get richer, too.
I didn’t become a right-wing libertarian after reading this book. I still think that it’s greedy bankers and CEO’s who got us into this mess, not government officials, and that government regulation of business is necessary. I still believe the government should fund social programs, especially education, because that gives people the opportunity to put money back into the system later. And I definitely believe that fairness is a value we should all strive for, not just a value for the school room, as he jokingly argues. But I do wish I hadn’t bought into the lie that the pursuit of money is somehow immoral. Had I behaved more “capitalistically” when I was young, I’d probably be living a more independent life now.
Perhaps it’s never too late to change. May Hashem make it possible for all of us. With hard work, healthy self-interest, and balanced other-centeredness, may we all climb out of this hole together.
April 27, 2022
Excellent! It’s interesting to compare what’s happened to the countries O’Rourke visited to the condition they were in when he wrote the book. Some are doing better, like Sweden. Some are doing worse, like Russia. Some are more or less the same, like Cuba.
I found the chapter on Hong Kong particularly poignant given what’s happened there since the Chinese reneged on their commitment to allow them limited autonomy for a period of time. I happened to be in Hing Kong on the day of the first protest against China, in the summer of 2019. I guess that will be my last visit.
The last chapter alone is worth the time it took to read the book. O’Rourke Points out the hard truth that life isn’t fair, some people we don't like get rich, there’s a lot of suffering and so on. The only way to lift everyone is to lift yourself first. The recipe for success includes hard work, education, responsibility, property rights, rule of law and democratic government. Socialists and their religious cousins, communists, are deluded and so far have only made things worse wherever they’ve come into power (usually because free market economies have made things so much better they can earn degrees from each other and cry and stamp their feet until they get their way, which usually lasts until a carton of eggs costs an hour’s wage). Anyway, read the book. It’s fun and informative.
I found the chapter on Hong Kong particularly poignant given what’s happened there since the Chinese reneged on their commitment to allow them limited autonomy for a period of time. I happened to be in Hing Kong on the day of the first protest against China, in the summer of 2019. I guess that will be my last visit.
The last chapter alone is worth the time it took to read the book. O’Rourke Points out the hard truth that life isn’t fair, some people we don't like get rich, there’s a lot of suffering and so on. The only way to lift everyone is to lift yourself first. The recipe for success includes hard work, education, responsibility, property rights, rule of law and democratic government. Socialists and their religious cousins, communists, are deluded and so far have only made things worse wherever they’ve come into power (usually because free market economies have made things so much better they can earn degrees from each other and cry and stamp their feet until they get their way, which usually lasts until a carton of eggs costs an hour’s wage). Anyway, read the book. It’s fun and informative.
March 12, 2017
I enjoyed this because P.J. O'Rourke uses humor to explain economics in understandable terms as demonstrated by one of his basic questions: Why do some places prosper while others suck? In trying to answer this question, he examines several types of governments and explores that made them successful and what failed. It was entertaining for me when O'Rourke traveled the world to learn about money and disparity of wealth.
September 23, 2016
Y = [1] [C+I+G+(X-M)]/1-mpc, this jumbled mess of numbers and letters is used to show the simple concept that as an object gets more expensive, the less people purchase said item. Why is it that every economic text is written in such an arcane and unappraochable manner? Such pieces are near incomprehensible except to those who have studied economics, and even they may still have trouble understanding. Eat the Rich by P.J. O’Rourke seeks to rectify that problem by writing a treatise on economics that the layman can understand. Without any pictures, P.J. O’Rourke takes the reader on a journey throughout the world in an attempt to solve the problem that all economists are trying to solve, what makes one country rich and another country poor.
The author of this book is not an economist, however he is a journalist and so has seen many parts of the world which have varying levels of prosperity. In each place he reasearches what is going on in that country socially, politically, and, of course, economically. All the while he keeps a humorous and easy tone doing it. P.J. O’Rourke travels to each country that he deems as a paradigm of some concept related to economics. He looks at examles of good and bad capitalism, Wall Street and Albainia respectively, good and bad socialism, Sweden and Cuba respectively, how to reform an economy, Russia, how to make nothing from everything and everything from nothing, Tanzania and Hong Kong respectively, and finally, how to have the worst of both worlds, Shanghai. In the end, P.J. O’Rourke concludes that the reason one country is rich and another is not is because the rich country usually has a freer market. Even in Sweden, the example of good socialism in this book, O’Rourke notes that the economy there is stagnating. So ultimately, a nation can be wealthy by adopting the free market, free enough that money can be made, and sensibly regulated enough that it can not be exploited by pyramid schemes as seen in Albania.
This book had many good moments and I quite liked reading it, but there were a few flaws. For example, despite there being some funny moments in this book, there were a couple of moments in which the pace dragged considerably. In those sections of the book, there was little to no humor, and the pages were filled with long, boring, descriptions which just causes me to attempt to speedread through the section until the next funny bit. One part in particular which may be my least favorite part was when O’Rourke travels to Tanzania to investigate the economic situation there, that part seemed to drag on forever. On the other hand, there were many good parts of the book. As with other P.J. O’Rourke books I read, the best moments tended to be around the beginning and the end of the book. Perhaps the best two chapters in the book were the second chapter of the book, Good Capitalism - Wall Street, and, Eat the Rich, the final chapter of this book. The chapter Good Capitalism holds perhaps one of my favorite quotes in existence on page 35, “...I needed to go someplace that had no rules and was full of crooks. I considered Washington D.C., but Albania looked like more fun.” If I were to change anything in this book, I would include more funny moments as seen above, and less lengthy, tedious spaces in between those funny moments. In the end, Eat the Rich is, in my opinion, a great but clearly flawed book.
The age old question stood, what makes one country wealthy, and another country poor? The question that had been, and is still, debated constantly by economists whom we couldn’t make sense of. Who knew that a book from 1998 would provide an answer with evidence that we all could understand and have fun reading. That answer being free market economics. I would fully recommend this to pretty much everyone who has a passing interest in economics but can not yet understand the jargon.
The author of this book is not an economist, however he is a journalist and so has seen many parts of the world which have varying levels of prosperity. In each place he reasearches what is going on in that country socially, politically, and, of course, economically. All the while he keeps a humorous and easy tone doing it. P.J. O’Rourke travels to each country that he deems as a paradigm of some concept related to economics. He looks at examles of good and bad capitalism, Wall Street and Albainia respectively, good and bad socialism, Sweden and Cuba respectively, how to reform an economy, Russia, how to make nothing from everything and everything from nothing, Tanzania and Hong Kong respectively, and finally, how to have the worst of both worlds, Shanghai. In the end, P.J. O’Rourke concludes that the reason one country is rich and another is not is because the rich country usually has a freer market. Even in Sweden, the example of good socialism in this book, O’Rourke notes that the economy there is stagnating. So ultimately, a nation can be wealthy by adopting the free market, free enough that money can be made, and sensibly regulated enough that it can not be exploited by pyramid schemes as seen in Albania.
This book had many good moments and I quite liked reading it, but there were a few flaws. For example, despite there being some funny moments in this book, there were a couple of moments in which the pace dragged considerably. In those sections of the book, there was little to no humor, and the pages were filled with long, boring, descriptions which just causes me to attempt to speedread through the section until the next funny bit. One part in particular which may be my least favorite part was when O’Rourke travels to Tanzania to investigate the economic situation there, that part seemed to drag on forever. On the other hand, there were many good parts of the book. As with other P.J. O’Rourke books I read, the best moments tended to be around the beginning and the end of the book. Perhaps the best two chapters in the book were the second chapter of the book, Good Capitalism - Wall Street, and, Eat the Rich, the final chapter of this book. The chapter Good Capitalism holds perhaps one of my favorite quotes in existence on page 35, “...I needed to go someplace that had no rules and was full of crooks. I considered Washington D.C., but Albania looked like more fun.” If I were to change anything in this book, I would include more funny moments as seen above, and less lengthy, tedious spaces in between those funny moments. In the end, Eat the Rich is, in my opinion, a great but clearly flawed book.
The age old question stood, what makes one country wealthy, and another country poor? The question that had been, and is still, debated constantly by economists whom we couldn’t make sense of. Who knew that a book from 1998 would provide an answer with evidence that we all could understand and have fun reading. That answer being free market economics. I would fully recommend this to pretty much everyone who has a passing interest in economics but can not yet understand the jargon.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 31, 2013
I first looked into this book because of a post I saw on Facebook which quoted a piece of its text. The quote was very amusing and intrigued me partly because the idea put forward seemed to contradict the title of the book, so I got a copy of the book and began reading. Happily the book was as good as the quote made it seem, if not better thanks largely to the author's particular style of writing.
Mr. O'Rourke has done plenty of writing in his day, most notably for Rolling Stone, and has been known for his sense of humor in his writing; if I had to describe this sense of humor from what I saw in the book (this being the first time I have ever read any of his works) I would have to say that it is a blend of Anthony Bourdain's (sometimes) caustic and straightforward (while good-natured) mockery and Jeremy Clarkson's love of absurd metaphor. This being a treatise on economics that sense of humor was of special value as most of anything dealing with economics tends to be so complicated that most of the time you can't really understand what's going on unless you are an economist yourself. What O'Rourke has done here, however, is an excellent way to look into economics as a whole, provided that you don't already know a great deal about economics. But, if you do, read on anyways because you will enjoy the laughs.
That is not to say that this book is intended to solely be a work of humor, far from it. What O'Rourke wants to do here is make economics make sense to everyone on the basic and practical levels, while answering a question that he himself puts forward early on: Why do some places prosper and others just suck? And to do this Mr. O'Rourke visited several different countries, each with a different economic system that either worked or did not work with the view of seeing what made the country tick (or not tick, as the case may be). After a brief introductory chapter this travelogue, backed with statistics from several sources (which he lists in the prologue) he begins to related his travels, naming them after the system and the place; you see chapters like "Good Capitalism: Wall Street", "Bad Capitalism: Albania", "Good Socialism: Sweden", and "Bad Socialism: Cuba" in the beginning with other areas to come, mostly teaching about the particular success or failure of the area regardless of what system they used.
At the end of the book you might not know much more about economics as you did before, at least not in terms of formulas and other academic aspects. You will, however, get to see just how much economics is tied up with human action and human beliefs. You see how no two nations are at all alike but how they are similar at the same time; you see how the good intentions of some are not always answered according to their economic ideas; you get an idea of what some people are willing to do, and even required to do, just to survive. And when that gets to be too much to bear, Mr. O'Rourke's sense of humor will help bring back the good mood. (Tactfully, of course; throughout the course of the book he mocks the areas that are successful and himself, while bemoaning the areas that are going through difficulties.)
This book was written over a decade ago, but do not let that change your mind about reading it. Just bear in mind that O'Rourke tends to use profanity and innuendo (i.e. this is not a book for children; persons in their late teens could start if their parents allowed it) and that there is a good chance that he will poke fun at you, even if only indirectly. The insights to be gained are just as valid today as ever, and if I were to recommend any book to help anyone understand economics it would be this one.
Mr. O'Rourke has done plenty of writing in his day, most notably for Rolling Stone, and has been known for his sense of humor in his writing; if I had to describe this sense of humor from what I saw in the book (this being the first time I have ever read any of his works) I would have to say that it is a blend of Anthony Bourdain's (sometimes) caustic and straightforward (while good-natured) mockery and Jeremy Clarkson's love of absurd metaphor. This being a treatise on economics that sense of humor was of special value as most of anything dealing with economics tends to be so complicated that most of the time you can't really understand what's going on unless you are an economist yourself. What O'Rourke has done here, however, is an excellent way to look into economics as a whole, provided that you don't already know a great deal about economics. But, if you do, read on anyways because you will enjoy the laughs.
That is not to say that this book is intended to solely be a work of humor, far from it. What O'Rourke wants to do here is make economics make sense to everyone on the basic and practical levels, while answering a question that he himself puts forward early on: Why do some places prosper and others just suck? And to do this Mr. O'Rourke visited several different countries, each with a different economic system that either worked or did not work with the view of seeing what made the country tick (or not tick, as the case may be). After a brief introductory chapter this travelogue, backed with statistics from several sources (which he lists in the prologue) he begins to related his travels, naming them after the system and the place; you see chapters like "Good Capitalism: Wall Street", "Bad Capitalism: Albania", "Good Socialism: Sweden", and "Bad Socialism: Cuba" in the beginning with other areas to come, mostly teaching about the particular success or failure of the area regardless of what system they used.
At the end of the book you might not know much more about economics as you did before, at least not in terms of formulas and other academic aspects. You will, however, get to see just how much economics is tied up with human action and human beliefs. You see how no two nations are at all alike but how they are similar at the same time; you see how the good intentions of some are not always answered according to their economic ideas; you get an idea of what some people are willing to do, and even required to do, just to survive. And when that gets to be too much to bear, Mr. O'Rourke's sense of humor will help bring back the good mood. (Tactfully, of course; throughout the course of the book he mocks the areas that are successful and himself, while bemoaning the areas that are going through difficulties.)
This book was written over a decade ago, but do not let that change your mind about reading it. Just bear in mind that O'Rourke tends to use profanity and innuendo (i.e. this is not a book for children; persons in their late teens could start if their parents allowed it) and that there is a good chance that he will poke fun at you, even if only indirectly. The insights to be gained are just as valid today as ever, and if I were to recommend any book to help anyone understand economics it would be this one.
November 14, 2015
What makes rich countries rich and poor countries poor? Is it, as some would have us believe, the result of exploitation, poor governance, or the dead hand of the market? And is it as critical a problem as it appears? PJ O'Rourke takes a wry look at the issue in a book based on a series of articles originally published in Rolling Stone magazine.
O'Rourke is best described as a slightly more cynical and political Bill Bryson. The book reads like a travelogue, but with less emphasis on his personal adventures and more observation of the culture and politics of the countries he visits. From Sweden to Tanazania, Cuba to China, he takes his experiences of each country and applies this to his knowledge of the political history, producing some very interesting observations and not a few laughs. When he's not talking about the countries and looks at the economics, he clearly knows his own limitations, but even here he manages to poke fun at the subject with telling accuracy.
Obviously, this isn't a book you read for a serious examination of wealth disparity, but that's not to say it should be dismissed as irrelevant to the debate. Many a true word is spoken in jest, just as many lies are spread in deadly earnestness, and for anyone who wonders why Sweden is consistently held up (particularly in Britain) as a shining example of state intervention, this book may open a few eyes. Highly enjoyable and highly informative.
O'Rourke is best described as a slightly more cynical and political Bill Bryson. The book reads like a travelogue, but with less emphasis on his personal adventures and more observation of the culture and politics of the countries he visits. From Sweden to Tanazania, Cuba to China, he takes his experiences of each country and applies this to his knowledge of the political history, producing some very interesting observations and not a few laughs. When he's not talking about the countries and looks at the economics, he clearly knows his own limitations, but even here he manages to poke fun at the subject with telling accuracy.
Obviously, this isn't a book you read for a serious examination of wealth disparity, but that's not to say it should be dismissed as irrelevant to the debate. Many a true word is spoken in jest, just as many lies are spread in deadly earnestness, and for anyone who wonders why Sweden is consistently held up (particularly in Britain) as a shining example of state intervention, this book may open a few eyes. Highly enjoyable and highly informative.
February 6, 2013
In Eat the Rich, P. J. O'Rourke visits various countries that exemplify good and bad approaches to different economies. Good capitalism: USA; Bad capitalism: Albania; Good socialism: Sweden; Bad socialism: Cuba. He also explores Tanzania as an example of "how to make nothing out of everything" and Hong Kong as an example of "how to make everything out of nothing."
O'Rourke does a fairly decent job of explaining economics in simple terms, and he does it in a funny way. Sometimes too funny. His attempts at humor seem to, at times, obscure the actual point he's trying to make, as if giving an entire lecture with his tongue tucked in his cheek.
In addition to being a bit out of date (1998, which I can't fault him for), his conclusions at the end of the book (capitalism is the way to go, socialism doesn't work) doesn't flow from his prior chapters about the failures of capitalism he describes in Albania and Russia, or the successes of socialism in Sweden. It would have been nice to see him address what lessons aspiring capitalistic governments could learn to be more like a successful capitalist (USA) rather than a failed capitalist (Albania and Russia).
Take away: fun book that looks at economics from an everyman's perspective, doubles as an entertaining travelogue about the various countries, but skip the last chapter where the Cato institute pulls a hostile takeover.
O'Rourke does a fairly decent job of explaining economics in simple terms, and he does it in a funny way. Sometimes too funny. His attempts at humor seem to, at times, obscure the actual point he's trying to make, as if giving an entire lecture with his tongue tucked in his cheek.
In addition to being a bit out of date (1998, which I can't fault him for), his conclusions at the end of the book (capitalism is the way to go, socialism doesn't work) doesn't flow from his prior chapters about the failures of capitalism he describes in Albania and Russia, or the successes of socialism in Sweden. It would have been nice to see him address what lessons aspiring capitalistic governments could learn to be more like a successful capitalist (USA) rather than a failed capitalist (Albania and Russia).
Take away: fun book that looks at economics from an everyman's perspective, doubles as an entertaining travelogue about the various countries, but skip the last chapter where the Cato institute pulls a hostile takeover.
August 14, 2007
O'Rourke visits countries representative of the leading economic systems and explores how people live there. He leavens a brilliant exposition of key economic ideas with a witty travelogue. I know of no other book that makes so direct and so incisive a comparison of economies, focusing not on ideology or politics, but on the everyday practical world - how people think and feel, and what they do to meet their material needs in each system. The result is a persuasive brief for what works - what makes people secure, prosperous, and happy - and a persuasive exposure of what fails to work - what makes people insecure, poor, and miserable. The results may disappoint those with political or ideological axes to grind, but they'd be hard pressed to refute O'Rourke. The book is useful, in that it offers a way to evaluate the liklihood that any economic project or program will succeed. This might inform a reader's opinion of proposed businesses or government policies. Eat the Rich is extraordinary in being both enlightening and entertaining.
November 18, 2013
This could be issued as "Everything you need to know about economics, but you fell asleep in that class back in college." It's more or less an economics companion to P. J. O'Rourke's "Parliament of Whores" book on politics.
The author uses his "Holidays in Hell" travelogue-style of writing to explore capitalism, socialism, and the what-the-heck-is-this giant ball of chaos that was Russia in the late 1990s. He looks at the nature of economic theory, which turns out to be all about money, and looks at money, which turns out to be pretty theoretical when you get right down to it. He looks at places that are doing pretty well (Sweden) and places that aren't (Albania). He explores the stock market ("We're rich! We're poor!") and visits a place which doesn't even have an economy (Tanzania.)
Like his previous "Parliament of Whores," which actually did impart political knowledge, this book actually does give you some economic knowledge - along with some laughs. That's never a bad combination.
The author uses his "Holidays in Hell" travelogue-style of writing to explore capitalism, socialism, and the what-the-heck-is-this giant ball of chaos that was Russia in the late 1990s. He looks at the nature of economic theory, which turns out to be all about money, and looks at money, which turns out to be pretty theoretical when you get right down to it. He looks at places that are doing pretty well (Sweden) and places that aren't (Albania). He explores the stock market ("We're rich! We're poor!") and visits a place which doesn't even have an economy (Tanzania.)
Like his previous "Parliament of Whores," which actually did impart political knowledge, this book actually does give you some economic knowledge - along with some laughs. That's never a bad combination.
July 22, 2009
P.J. O'Rourke attempts to explain the success of those nations which have embraced the Free Market system as contrasted with those nations which have imposed government controls.
He contrasts the fabulous wealth of Hong Kong, a tiny island with virtually zero resources and a less than friendly neighbor thousands of times larger right next door, to the pathetic poverty of Tanzania, a relatively large nation with abundant resources but a totally corrupt and inefficient government.
Some of P.J.'s chapter headings include:
Good Capitalism: Wall Street; Bad Capitalism: Albania
Good Socialism: Sweden; Bad Socialism: Cuba
How (or How Not) to Reform (Maybe) an Economy (if there is one): Russia
How to Make Nothing from Everything: Tanzania
How to Make Everything from Nothing: Hong Kong
How to Have the Worst of Both Worlds: Shanghai
He contrasts the fabulous wealth of Hong Kong, a tiny island with virtually zero resources and a less than friendly neighbor thousands of times larger right next door, to the pathetic poverty of Tanzania, a relatively large nation with abundant resources but a totally corrupt and inefficient government.
Some of P.J.'s chapter headings include:
Good Capitalism: Wall Street; Bad Capitalism: Albania
Good Socialism: Sweden; Bad Socialism: Cuba
How (or How Not) to Reform (Maybe) an Economy (if there is one): Russia
How to Make Nothing from Everything: Tanzania
How to Make Everything from Nothing: Hong Kong
How to Have the Worst of Both Worlds: Shanghai
November 12, 2013
not being a believer in the "free market" (no i'm not a defender of Cuba either; it's worthwhile to remember how horrific its recent history of human rights violations is), i wasn't persuaded by pj o rourke's concluding argument. of course, much of it's dated post-recession, but that's not really his fault - he admits he's no prophet when it comes to economics. but even so. i doubt i'd have been persuaded in 1997. me & most people i know would probably rather live in sweden than the USA, especially if there's a chance i'll ever become seriously ill, disabled, made redundant etc. regardless of how powerful those respective nations are. i could see holes in his arguments and i'm not an economist. and he reported some stats about north korea that sounded highly dubious. nevertheless he's always worth a read for the wit.
December 31, 2010
Far more useful and entertaining than my recently completed university Macroeconomics course.
O'Rourke spends less time manipulating economic theory and far more time exploring economic practice in Sweden, Wall Street, Russia, Shanghai, and beyond.
This book strongly reinforces the ideas found in James Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds in showing that even a group of stupid, selfish people can collectively make better economic decisions than any central government.
O'Rourke spends less time manipulating economic theory and far more time exploring economic practice in Sweden, Wall Street, Russia, Shanghai, and beyond.
This book strongly reinforces the ideas found in James Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds in showing that even a group of stupid, selfish people can collectively make better economic decisions than any central government.
May 4, 2022
I re-read P.J. O'Rourke's books when I'm in need of something fast and entertaining; each chapter is more like a stand-alone essay, good for a quick read with lunch. Though Eat the Rich isn't my very favorite, I love the sections on traveling through other countries.
Read
November 2, 2008Assigned by my microeconomics instructor in grad school. 'nuf said.
August 18, 2014
A bit dated, but still a good read to put some meat onto the bones of more theoretical economics texts. Try reading this along with "The Commanding Heights".
October 1, 2022
enjoyed this much more second time around! obviously it’s a little outdated, but still relevant (and funny)
March 7, 2020
Some really funny bits but a bit drawn out in my opinion. Would still nonethless recommend to anyone looking to learn some real life economics rather than textbook voodoo Keynesianism
October 24, 2022
Great summary of some basic economics told through real-world examples of countries around the world (Hong Kong as an example of great wealth from nothing, Tanzania as an example of great poverty despite bountiful resources, Albania as an example of lawless capitalism, etc.). It's a bit dated now (since the examples were from the late 90s), but very well written (and funny!), and the lessons themselves are still true, you just need to adjust for what those countries were like then.
July 27, 2016
What a great idea, a travel memoir that illustrates the various economic systems and is laugh out loud funny. I'm all in. I know this book is dated and it would be interesting if he went did a epilogue to it but then it would be outdated in a year anyway and what would be the point. So get past that and for all the left side of aisle people get over that he slants right. The observations are just funny and it's his views from his travels that we all can relate with. He actually makes economics slightly less boring but with great sarcasm
"Let’s take the Tanzanians’ own figures—it’s their country after all: $128 per-capita GDP. And here we see the fallacy on the bottom line of utopian economic ideas. If theoretic social justice were enacted—if all the income in this nation were divided with complete fairness and perfect equity—everybody would get thirty-five cents a day. This (using the PPP method, by the way) is half a pack of Sportsman cigarettes and nine ounces of dried beans.
I mentioned the thirty-five-cents figure to an American friend, who said, “Christ! You can find that much lying in the road.” Not in Tanzania you can’t. There’s nothing on or near the roads. The things we throw away—broken scraps of plastic, bits of tin sheeting, snips of copper wire—are collected by the Maasai and made into the centerpieces of beadwork necklaces and bracelets. These are sold by old women at the tourist spots for about a dollar apiece. Sell one and that’s three days of per-capita gross domestic product.”
Excerpt From: P. J. O'Rourke. “Eat the Rich.” Atlantic Monthly Press, 1998. iBooks.
Although now dated I would still recommend this book just for a laugh and to have the realization that any politician on any side of the aisle has no idea what economics are and for that matter neither do most economists
“Professor Samuelson, who wrote the early editions by himself, turns out to be almost as much of a goof as my friends and I were in the 1960s. “Marx was the most influential and perceptive critic of the market economy ever,” he says on page seven. Influential, yes. Marx nearly caused World War III. But perceptive? Samuelson continues: “Marx was wrong about many things . . . but that does not diminish his stature as an important “economist.” Well, what would? If Marx was wrong about many things and screwed the baby-sitter?”
Excerpt From: P. J. O'Rourke. “Eat the Rich.” Atlantic Monthly Press, 1998. iBooks.
Read it laugh and learn something
"Let’s take the Tanzanians’ own figures—it’s their country after all: $128 per-capita GDP. And here we see the fallacy on the bottom line of utopian economic ideas. If theoretic social justice were enacted—if all the income in this nation were divided with complete fairness and perfect equity—everybody would get thirty-five cents a day. This (using the PPP method, by the way) is half a pack of Sportsman cigarettes and nine ounces of dried beans.
I mentioned the thirty-five-cents figure to an American friend, who said, “Christ! You can find that much lying in the road.” Not in Tanzania you can’t. There’s nothing on or near the roads. The things we throw away—broken scraps of plastic, bits of tin sheeting, snips of copper wire—are collected by the Maasai and made into the centerpieces of beadwork necklaces and bracelets. These are sold by old women at the tourist spots for about a dollar apiece. Sell one and that’s three days of per-capita gross domestic product.”
Excerpt From: P. J. O'Rourke. “Eat the Rich.” Atlantic Monthly Press, 1998. iBooks.
Although now dated I would still recommend this book just for a laugh and to have the realization that any politician on any side of the aisle has no idea what economics are and for that matter neither do most economists
“Professor Samuelson, who wrote the early editions by himself, turns out to be almost as much of a goof as my friends and I were in the 1960s. “Marx was the most influential and perceptive critic of the market economy ever,” he says on page seven. Influential, yes. Marx nearly caused World War III. But perceptive? Samuelson continues: “Marx was wrong about many things . . . but that does not diminish his stature as an important “economist.” Well, what would? If Marx was wrong about many things and screwed the baby-sitter?”
Excerpt From: P. J. O'Rourke. “Eat the Rich.” Atlantic Monthly Press, 1998. iBooks.
Read it laugh and learn something
October 28, 2015
A romp, as always and as expected from PJ O'Rourke. I dropped economics in my first year but if I had had it presented in this manner I may have pursued it more. OK, it's the world according to PJ and OK, he can be tough to swallow at times, but hey his writing is funny and there are grains of truth littered in each chapter.
His fundamental question: why do some countries prosper and thrive whilst others don't?
"When we look at economics in general terms, all of us... are daunted... We feel as though we're confronting an enormous piece of machinery that we can't comprehend and don't know how to operate. In fact, we feel like we're being run through that machinery. We are wheat, rice and corn being delivered to the Nabisco factory, and we're going to cone out the other end definitely toasted, possibly shredded, and, maybe, we hope, coated with sugar."
How does he pull sentences like this together? Absolutely brilliant!
What he did present in this book, and what I have referred to on timeless occasions is the economic problem explained by Milton and Rose Friedman in 'Free to Choose'. It outlines the four ways in which money can be spent.
1. Spend your money on yourself.
2. Spend your money on other people.
3. Spend other people's money on yourself.
4. Spend other people's money von other people.
Using this understanding O'Rourke goes on to suggest "If you spend your money on yourself, you look for the best value at the best price - knockoff Pings on sale at Golf-fore-less. If you spend your money on other people, you still worry about price, but you may not know - or care - what the people want. So your brother-in-law gets a Deepak Chopra book for Christmas. If you spend other people's money on yourself, it's hard to resist coming home with real Pings, a new leather bag, orange pants with little niblicks on them, and a pair of Foot-Joy spikes. And if you spend other people's money on other people, any damn thing will do and the hell with what it costs."
Priceless!
His fundamental question: why do some countries prosper and thrive whilst others don't?
"When we look at economics in general terms, all of us... are daunted... We feel as though we're confronting an enormous piece of machinery that we can't comprehend and don't know how to operate. In fact, we feel like we're being run through that machinery. We are wheat, rice and corn being delivered to the Nabisco factory, and we're going to cone out the other end definitely toasted, possibly shredded, and, maybe, we hope, coated with sugar."
How does he pull sentences like this together? Absolutely brilliant!
What he did present in this book, and what I have referred to on timeless occasions is the economic problem explained by Milton and Rose Friedman in 'Free to Choose'. It outlines the four ways in which money can be spent.
1. Spend your money on yourself.
2. Spend your money on other people.
3. Spend other people's money on yourself.
4. Spend other people's money von other people.
Using this understanding O'Rourke goes on to suggest "If you spend your money on yourself, you look for the best value at the best price - knockoff Pings on sale at Golf-fore-less. If you spend your money on other people, you still worry about price, but you may not know - or care - what the people want. So your brother-in-law gets a Deepak Chopra book for Christmas. If you spend other people's money on yourself, it's hard to resist coming home with real Pings, a new leather bag, orange pants with little niblicks on them, and a pair of Foot-Joy spikes. And if you spend other people's money on other people, any damn thing will do and the hell with what it costs."
Priceless!
June 18, 2009
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.
October 17, 2019
Published in 1998, this book is a series of essays analyzing the economic outlook of 1) Wall Street (“Good Capitalism”) 2) Albania (“Bad Capitalism”), 3) Sweden (“Good Socialism”), 4) Cuba (“Bad Socialism”), 5) Russia, 6) Tanzania, 7) Hong Kong, and 8) Shanghai.
Author P. J. O’Rourke starts out with one question: Why do some places prosper and thrive while others just suck? I agree with the author when he says prosperity isn’t necessarily contingent on intelligence, education, natural resources or culture. He says it has to do with money. He doesn’t pretend to have any specialized economic knowledge.
Written in a breezy, often over-the-top travelogue style, this seems on the surface a light, fun read. It is not. O’Rourke takes the time to depict not only governmental waste but true human suffering. Nevertheless, his conclusions reflect his views. That is, he did a lot of traveling to confirm his belief in the free market, even if the cost of that free market is a little corruption among the wealthy. In his version of trickle-down economics, filthy rich tax cheats have to spend their ill-gotten gains somewhere:
While there are many cute passages, something is missing. Perhaps it’s an understanding that sometimes people are dealt unequal hands, and that there are no easy answers.
I disliked this book.
Author P. J. O’Rourke starts out with one question: Why do some places prosper and thrive while others just suck? I agree with the author when he says prosperity isn’t necessarily contingent on intelligence, education, natural resources or culture. He says it has to do with money. He doesn’t pretend to have any specialized economic knowledge.
Written in a breezy, often over-the-top travelogue style, this seems on the surface a light, fun read. It is not. O’Rourke takes the time to depict not only governmental waste but true human suffering. Nevertheless, his conclusions reflect his views. That is, he did a lot of traveling to confirm his belief in the free market, even if the cost of that free market is a little corruption among the wealthy. In his version of trickle-down economics, filthy rich tax cheats have to spend their ill-gotten gains somewhere:
Wealth brings great benefits to the world. Rich people are heroes. They don’t usually mean to be, but that’s their problem, not ours.
While there are many cute passages, something is missing. Perhaps it’s an understanding that sometimes people are dealt unequal hands, and that there are no easy answers.
I disliked this book.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 193 reviews