Review by Choice Review
Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations provided the foundation for the study and application of modern (or free market) economics and economic thought. It is tough sledding for any reader, but with political satirist and humorist O'Rourke's book, there is no excuse for not studying this work. O'Rourke's CliffsNotes-like coverage takes what Smith treated in five "books" in order, from production, distribution, and his famous principle of specialization and division of labor (Book 1), to capital, profit, and banking (Book 2), a comparative look at the evolution of economic ideas and practices in Europe (Book 3), railings against the mercantilists and physiocrats (Book 4), and finally, government and public policies (Book 5). Apart from outlining Smith's thoughts and principles in The Wealth of Nations, O'Rourke includes thoughtful complementary chapters on Smith's important earlier volume The Theory of Moral Sentiments (chapter 3, and frequent asides throughout the volume), and an inquiry into Smith himself (chapter 13). The volume concludes with a tongue-in-cheek dictionary of usage, notes, and a bibliography. Scholars are drawn to Adam Smith for what he said; readers will be drawn to O'Rourke for how he says it. Summing Up: Recommended. General readers; students at all levels; faculty and practitioners. A. R. Sanderson University of Chicago
Copyright American Library Association, used with permission.
Review by New York Times Review
BEFORE we had radio, telephones, television, the Internet and iPods, we had books. Long books. Complicated books. Books that got read, their length and complexity notwithstanding, because before talk shows and chat rooms, what else was there to do? Back then, people like Adam Smith wrote long, long, long volumes like "The Wealth of Nations," which revolutionized economic thought and theory when it was published in 1776. Smith's treatise, as transformational in its own way as the American Revolution, established the intellectual foundation of capitalism, free markets and individual choice, which are taken as givens in American life the same way that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are. Today, however, almost no one other than the obsessed (or the assigned) is likely to read Smith's book, which runs more than 900 pages; the author's convoluted prose makes it seem even longer than that. So the free market in books has produced Smith-lite: P.J. O'Rourke channeling Adam Smith in a work titled "On 'The Wealth of Nations.'" Think of it as a hardcover blog, in which O'Rourke cites Smith's essential points, and riffs while preaching Smithian doctrine. For instance, when O'Rourke discusses one of Smith's passions, free trade, he notes that "at my house I see a 'Made in China' label on everything but the kids and the dogs. And I'm not sure about the kids. They have brown eyes and small noses." This opus is part of a series its publisher calls Books That Changed the World, a description to which we should append, as O'Rourke says, the further title "Works Which Let's Admit You'll Never Read the Whole Of." Due soon are two other oft-cited but rarely-read-in-full classics: The Koran and Darwin's "Origin of Species." It's a very clever, very market-driven thought: getting to know the classics without having to read them. The 1937 Modern Library edition of Smith's work, which O'Rourke cites as his text and I borrowed from my local public library, runs 903 pages, not counting introductions and indexes. Those pages are in small type. Make that very small type. O'Rourke's book, by contrast, runs to fewer than 200 pages before appendixes and notes, and has a typeface and layout suitable for modern eyes. And unlike Smith, O'Rourke is a wonderful stylist. Even if you disagree with his conservative political and economic views, as I sometimes do, you've got to admire his facility with words. Consider the following passage, in which O'Rourke parodies Smith's style while explaining why readers aren't storming bookstores to buy "The Wealth of Nations": "Pretty soon Smith gets enmeshed in clarifications, intellectually caught out, Dagwood-like, carrying his shoes up the stairs of exegesis at 3 a.m., expounding his head off, while that vexed and querulous spouse, the reader, stands with arms crossed and slipper tapping on the second-floor landing of comprehension." Add one more phrase, and that sentence would snap in two of its own weight. Which is, of course, the point. A woodcut from the 19th century depicts Adam Smith and the Industrial Revolution. Before we proceed, a confession. I've been a business writer since 1969, I specialize in unearthing journalistic nuggets buried in lengthy financial documents that even lawyers find dull - and I've never been able to get more than 50 pages into Adam Smith. For several years, I took "The Wealth of Nations" with me on summer vacation, vowing that this time I'd finish it. Alas, I never came close. But over the years, I've read introductions to the book and commentaries about it, listened to discussions of its principles and have even cited some of its points in my own articles. As with the Bible or "Moby-Dick," you don't have to be familiar with the entire work in order to grasp its essence. Smith's thesis, which still resonates today, is that setting people free to pursue their own self-interest produces a collective result far superior to what you get if you try to impose political or religious diktats. Free people allowed to make free choices in free markets will satisfy their needs (and society's) far better than any government can. Finally, Smith believed passionately in free trade, both within countries and between, them. He felt that allowing people and countries to specialize and to trade freely would produce enormous wealth, because freeing people and nations to do what they do best will produce vastly more wealth than if everyone strives for self-sufficiency. Now, let's reduce this theory to microeconomic reality. I can go to my local hardware store, and for $1.79 (plus sales tax), I can purchase a pound of eight-penny nails manufactured in China, thousands of miles from my home. It would take me forever and a day to manufacture my own nails. Instead, I get paid to write articles, which is my specialty, and I can buy a pound of nails for the economic equivalent of a small amount of my time. The store owner, who specializes in helping people like me who'd rather get cheerfulness and good service than go to Home Depot, can use her profit to buy a copy of The New York Times, which helps give the paper the money to pay me for writing about O'Rourke writing about Smith writing about what makes nations wealthy. See? Isn't that simple? This all works out fine for O'Rourke and me and whoever is running the nail-making machine in China; he or she is presumably better off doing that than being a peasant farmer or an unemployed urbanite. However, my ability to purchase cheap China-made nails is unlikely to have worked out well for the people who once made nails in the United States. This is Adam Smith's famous hand of the market at work: it pats specialists like O'Rourke and me on the head, while it gives unemployed blue-collar workers in the Midwest the middle finger. Maybe as a society, the United States saves money by exporting manufacturing jobs and importing so many manufactured goods but I still have trouble believing that it's good for us in the long run. Unlike many free-market devotees, O'Rourke and Smith don't confuse self-interest with greed: "A recurring lesson in 'The Wealth of Nations' is that we shouldn't get greedy," O'Rourke writes. Good for them, because while it may seem a subtle point, self-interest and greed are antithetical to each other. Consider Enron, where cooking the corporate books inflated the stock price, making some book-cookers hugely wealthy. For a while. Ultimately, the scheme came undone, the greedy book-cookers suffered jail sentences, capitalism got a well-deserved black eye. Greed wasn't good - and it sure wasn't smart. I could do without some of O'Rourke's gratuitous insults of various people, almost all of whom seem to be liberals. Despite this peccadillo - some people might say because of it - this book is well worth reading. You'll pick up a few good lines, you'll see a primo stylist at work. And you'll see why Adam Smith is so often quoted but so rarely read.
Copyright (c) The New York Times Company [October 27, 2009]
Review by Booklist Review
Old and weighty as it is, Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations0 remains the seminal work on the fundamentals of economics. Political satirist O'Rourke plumbs the hefty tome, examining the eighteenth-century text in relation to our modern economy, demonstrating the enduring wisdom and application of Smith's work. O'Rourke marvels at Smith's ability to cut to the marrow of economic concepts, the simplicity behind the notion of division of labor and self-interest. Despite the lack of personal introspection shown by authors of Smith's era, O'Rourke finds Smith's sense of humor shining through the long-winded writing typical of the time. In a discourse on the need for imported goods, Smith ponders the trading of French wine for English hardware to avoid an oversupply of pots and pans in the nation. Working without benefit of the graphs and jargon that modern-day economists employ, Smith analyzed the nation's early mercantilism and its benefit to society. In a highly accessible, often hilarious tone, O'Rourke parses Smith's notions of political and economic freedom. Readers well versed and not so well versed in economic theory will enjoy this delightful look at Smith's famous and famously dense work. --Vanessa Bush Copyright 2006 Booklist
From Booklist, Copyright (c) American Library Association. Used with permission.
Review by Publisher's Weekly Review
The famous satirist headlines a new series of Books That Changed the World," in which well-known authors read great books "so you don't have to." While irreverently dissecting Adam Smith's 18th-century antimercantilist classic, The Wealth of Nations, O'Rourke continues the dogged advocacy of free-market economics of his own books, such as Eat the Rich. His analysis renders Smith's opus more accessible, while providing the perfect launching pad for O'Rourke's opinions on contemporary subjects like the World Bank, defense spending and Bill Moyers's intelligence (or lack thereof, according to O'Rourke). Readers only vaguely familiar with Smith's tenets may be surprised to learn how little he continues to be understood today. As O'Rourke observes, "there are many theories in [The Wealth of Nations], but no theoretical system that Smith wanted to put in place, except `the obvious and simple system of natural liberty [that] establishes itself of its own accord." Libertarian that he is, O'Rourke would probably agree that one shouldn't take only his word on Smith. Still, the book reads like a witty Cliffs Notes, with plenty of challenges for the armchair economist to wrap his head around. (Jan.) (c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved
(c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved
Review by Library Journal Review
Best-selling political satirist O'Rourke (Peace Kills) brings his satirical style to bear on 18th-century moral philosopher Adam Smith's life, works, and especially Smith's pioneering economics treatise, The Wealth of Nations. O'Rourke criticizes it as being overly long and, in many places, dull and contradictory. Going beyond merely explaining Smith's ideas, he throws in numerous satirical quips and asides-this is where his attempt to make Smith less tedious becomes tedious itself. For example, during his explanation of Smith's views on government, O'Rourke digresses to remark about political pundits on Fox News. O'Rourke's satire falls flat because when it comes to Smith, he must first explain what he is satirizing. While he seems to have a good grasp of Smith, and this could have been a fine introductory work, in the end it fails. Its audience seems limited to historians of economics who happen to be O'Rourke fans. A better recent title for academic libraries is James Buchan's The Authentic Adam Smith.-Lawrence R. Maxted, Gannon Univ. Lib., Erie, PA (c) Copyright 2010. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.
(c) Copyright Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.
Review by Kirkus Book Review
The opus magnum of the Scottish philosopher who defined free-market economics, usurped by O'Rourke as a matrix for social commentary and humor. Willing in the past to skewer policy disasters on both sides of the Congressional aisle (Peace Kills, 2004, etc.), the conservative satirist displays his softer side in this laudatory consideration of The Wealth of Nations. Adam Smith's 18th-century dilation on the French proto-economic theme of laissez-faire, which advocates a free market self-regulated by self-interest, is still right on the money as far as O'Rourke is concerned. "What Smith wanted us to do," he asserts, "was to use our mental and physical capabilities to render the rulers of mankind as unnecessary and inconsequential as possible." O'Rourke does have a few criticisms of Wealth: Slogging through a 67-page digression on fluctuations in the value of silver over four centuries, he flatly states, is "like reading Modern Maturity in Urdu." He stresses that full appreciation of the Scotsman's thinking requires delving into Theory of Moral Sentiments as a counterpart to Wealth. (O'Rourke doesn't feel that full appreciation includes familiarity with Smith the man, or with his life, about which he admits a paucity of knowledge.) The author credits Smith with proving that the world economy is not a zero-sum game; only "leftists and everybody's little brother," he states, believe that somebody's gain always has to be somebody else's loss. An entertaining alternative to the heavy lifting required in confronting Adam Smith firsthand. Copyright ©Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
