Ryan, Debi, and Toren Cragun's Blog

Author:
Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner

Publisher:
William Morrow

Date of Publication:
2006

ISBN:
0061234001

Rating:
8

Summary:
It was only a matter of time before I picked this book up. Sociologists don’t, generally, seem to be that enamored of our more famous cousins (there is a Nobel Prize in Economics but not in Sociology), but this book got a lot of press and even a lot of play in Sociological circles, so I figured I should read it. I’m glad I finally did as it is an intriguing book and it illustrates just how one might go about packaging social science in such a way that it makes it engaging reading for the general public.

So what does the book have to say about economics and social life? As the authors write, there is no general unifying theme except maybe to say that social issues can be addressed using empirical data, which is, in a nutshell, the unifying theme of the social sciences in general. Other than that general theme, the book jumps from idea to idea, bringing empirical data and social scientific analysis to bear on a number of issues. The authors present data and theories on all of the following:

• The drop in crime rates in the 1990s was due primarily to the passage of Roe v. Wade in 1973 and not to: innovative policing, more extensive use of capital punishment, nor the economic boom of the 1990s (though more police and more prisons probably played a role). I was initially very skeptical of this claim, but I do think the authors muster enough evidence to indicate that it has to at least be taken seriously. The basic argument is that by legalizing abortion, women who would not have previously been able to get abortions – primarily the lower and working classes – are more likely to get abortions. As a result, these lower class and working class women are less likely to have offspring (or fewer offspring), and, because their offspring have a greater likelihood of committing crime (not for genetic reasons but for sociological reasons – class, stratification, disparity, poor parenting, lack of supervision, etc.), the potential pool of criminals actually began to shrink. Ergo, there were lower crime rates about 20 years after Roe v. Wade when the kids of these women would have been coming of age and beginning their turbulent, high crime years. I’m still a bit skeptical of this claim, but, after reading this, I think there may just be something to it. I think more international comparisons are needed to bolster this theory.
• The authors claim real estate agents do not have your best interest in mind when they are trying to sell your home. Given our recent home purchasing and selling attempts (which isn’t how social science is done, I know), I found this argument extremely compelling. According to the authors, real estate agents encourage their clients to take the first good offer that comes along rather than waiting for the best offer. When they are selling their own homes, however, they wait, on average, an additional 10 days and usually end up with better offers as a result. The reason: an extra couple of thousand dollars may mean a lot to the home buyer or seller, but given the percentages real estate agents earn, they don’t translate into substantial earnings (e.g., about $150 for a $10,000 increase in price). As a result, they would rather get the sale then wait to get a small increase in profit. There is a confounding factor here that the author doesn’t address that I think probably explains some of this disparity: I may be mistaken on this, but I’m guessing that real estate agents tend to upgrade homes within the same market rather than moving to new locations, which is what many of their clients are doing. Because they are upgrading they can afford to wait. People moving for a new job can rarely afford to wait to sell their home. Ergo, real estate agents don’t have to move right away and can therefore hold out for a good offer. Even so, I think the authors are generally right – real estate agents aren’t really looking out for their clients’ best interests, but their best interests (there are some notable exceptions to this, I’m sure).
• Another idea the authors address is the idea that money makes no difference in campaigns; some candidates are just liked while some are not liked. According to their analysis, it makes almost no difference how much money you spend on a campaign, other factors have greater appeal – charisma, looks, etc. Additionally, the authors note that about $1 billion is spent every year on campaigns in the U.S., which seems like a lot of money. However, that is the equivalent of what Americans spend every year on chewing gum, which kind of puts things in perspective. The authors also frame this as “the cost of democracy,” which seems a bit disingenuous, but a reasonable assertion at some level.
• The authors also ask some very intriguing questions that lead to engaging insights. For instance, “What do school teachers and sumo wrestlers have in common?” The answer: they both cheat. When schools engage in high stakes testing (high stakes being teachers’ positions and salaries are contingent on test scores, e.g., No Child Left Behind), teachers tend to cheat – around 5%, give students answers or corrects their tests. The authors used a large data set from the Chicago school districts along with some algorithms to detect cheating teachers. It’s actually a very fascinating analysis that is quite compelling. It is also a pretty damning argument as far as educational policy is concerned – high stakes testing leads to cheating, not better education. How, then, do sumo wrestlers cheat? It’s more collusion than anything, but basically it boils down to throwing matches when their opponent needs a win and they don’t (the argument is pretty complicated, but makes sense). A large percentage of the elite sumo wrestlers in Japan actually collude in throwing matches. Ergo, both school teachers and sumo wrestlers cheat.
• The authors also draw extensively on the research of other economists and even sociologists (hooray!) to illustrate economic principles. Some of this borrowed research focuses on life in gangs in Chicago and is absolutely fascinating. The author gained access to the financial log book of a gang via a sociologist who worked closely with a gang in Chicago and ran some analyses on the data. He found that the foot soldiers in the gang make less than minimum wage. Additionally, they have a 1 in 4 chance of dying over a 6 year period as a member of a gang (which is, technically, higher than the chance of dying if you are on death row, where fewer than 1 in 4 inmates are put to death in a 6 year period). If they make so little money and take such big risks, what’s the motivation? It turns out that the leaders of gangs make a lot of money. The immediate leader of the gang studied by this sociologist was bringing in close to $8,000 per month, which means he was making almost $100,000 per year. He also had a bachelor’s degree and ran the gang like a business. The leaders above him, who made up the elite of the elite, brought in close to $500,000 per year. Ergo, the chance of making a lot of money is one major motivation for joining a gang, despite the terrible initial pay and the substantial risks of violence, death, and imprisonment.
• The authors also look at educational and financial outcomes for children and find both some enlightening and disturbing things. There are a number of factors that don’t matter for child success in education, including: recently moving into a better neighborhood, the mother not working between birth and kindergarten, spanking, the child watching television, frequently taking the child to museums, and participation in Headstart. What, then, does correlate with better educational outcomes for children? Having your first child after thirty correlates with better educational outcomes, most likely because people who do this have spent some time preparing themselves both educationally and economically, which means they value those things and pass that on to their children. Educational attainment and socioeconomic status are both important and are transmitted to children. Having lots of books in one’s home is also a significant correlate, but reading to one’s children is not (the explanation here is complicated; if you want details, read the book). An idea discussed here that is undoubtedly one of the more controversial ones in the book is that adopted kids tend to do worse in school. The reason has less to do with the act of adoption than with genetics (which is where the controversy comes in). The parents of kids who are put up for adoption tend to come from lower social classes, have lower educational attainment, and there seems to be something of a genetic component to their level of intelligence. In contrast, parents who adopt tend to be more educated and have a higher socioeconomic class. The “success” of the adoptive parents can attenuate some of the genetic limitations of adopted children, but that attenuation is not seen early in life – adopted children still tend to not do as well in school. But by the end of their secondary education they end up having pretty good educational and economic outcomes, in large part thanks to the influence of their adoptive parents. One of the more intriguing points the authors make in relation to educational outcomes of children is that reading parenting books is basically useless. First, they often give contradictory advice that is almost never based on empirical research. But, more importantly, any advice they give is going to come too late – the factors that predict educational success are already set by the time you start reading the books. Ergo, the books will have a minuscule influence, at best.
• Finally, the authors talk about names and how they relate to status. The issue is a combination of both race and class differences – different names are popular among different races and classes. The classic argument is that there is later life discrimination based upon people’s names (and there is a substantial body of literature indicating this does happen). But the point the authors make is that those names reflect status differences in and of themselves. Using a massive data set from the state of California covering the last 40 or so years, an economist found that popular names change and vary by race and class (and gender, of course, but that almost goes without saying). Intriguingly, among whites, popular names start in the upper classes than filter down to the lower classes. Once a name becomes ubiquitous among the lower classes, the upper classes pick new names they like. For blacks, on the other hand, it is only in the last 15 to 20 years that there has been a push for very unique names that, some argue, reflect African heritage. The authors ultimately argue that, even though there may be some discrimination based on names later in life, the names themselves reflect status differences.

Review:
Okay, that was a bit detailed. So, I’ll make my review relatively short. It was a little awkward having the book jump from topic to topic, but the insights themselves are intriguing and make for interesting reading. Additionally, the book is well-written and engaging. I already pointed out a few areas where I’m a bit skeptical, but most of the research discussed is outside my particular area of expertise, so I’m hesitant to be any more critical (I’ll happily leave that to the real experts on these issues).

One idea mentioned by the authors did, indirectly, relate to the research I do, so I have to discuss it. The authors stated that economics is the study of incentives, of how people get what they want. If that is true, then it won’t necessarily work for studying religion, as it isn’t always about what people want but rather what they are raised with (i.e., what they get). Of course, this criticism of economics (assuming the definition is accurate), is a general criticism as well. Whenever socialization plays a role in life outcomes, which it clearly does with things like religion, educational attainment, and even criminal behavior, economic models will not be able to explain all of the behavior. Let me give just a quick example from religion that illustrates this idea. A boy, Todd, is born into a highly religiously committed Mormon family and is socialized into the Mormon religion (Christian Smith’s recent book indicates the chances of Todd sharing his parents beliefs and values are higher than 80%, at least through about age 18). So, Todd adopts all of the leitmotifs of the religion and is a devout Mormon. Then, come about age 22 he marries and begins having kids. He didn’t work all that hard in school and is now stuck working in construction, where he makes about $30,000 per year. His religion tells him to have as many kids as he feels he can have and not to put them off. It also tells him that his wife shouldn’t work. So, he has four kids and his wife stays home to raise them. Given his income, he is living barely above the poverty level. What’s more, if he wants to remain a Mormon in good standing he has to give 10% of his income to the religion, usually calculated pre-taxes. That takes away an additional $3,000 of his income. With all of these stresses, he is barely making ends meet, and certainly not living a comfortable life. This isn’t the life he wants. Then he starts studying his religion and finds some things he doesn’t like (e.g., the exploits of the early leaders and different doctrines that seem questionable). As a result of these findings he decides he no longer believes. But Todd, now 30, is stuck. If he leaves the religion, his wife, who doesn’t share his new ideas, will leave him, taking the kids with her. In what sense can the question, “How does this reflect incentives or people getting what they want?” explain Todd’s situation? How do you quantify Todd’s devotion to his wife and family? How do you translate that into numbers? There probably is some intangible, subjective line of stress or suffering which, if crossed, will push Todd to leave the religion anyway, but how would an economist predict it? In short, life isn’t always about what we want. Often it’s about the hand of cards we are dealt from our parents (e.g., socialization). Certainly there are incentives involved in life, but they aren’t always quantifiable. This is particularly true in something like religion. (I apologize for the lengthy example, but this is something I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about and thought others might find it interesting.)

One other thing I have to point out that is more humorous than insightful is that, in the discussion of baby names, three names came up that I had heard about from a relative. My brother-in-law’s wife (does that, technically, make her my sister-in-law, or not?), in a name-down with Debi, threw out a couple of names that were absolutely hilarious. Now, don’t take this the wrong way; I’m not trying to make fun of anyone’s name. But, at some level, you just have to admit that some names are over-the-top ridiculous and funny. Debi mentioned she met someone with the name Yomajesty (as in, Your Majesty). My sister-in-law said she had heard two names that were unbeatable: Lemonjello and Orangejello. Yes, that is “lemon jello” and “orange jello,” but they are pronounced a little differently than you might think. Here’s my phonetic spelling, “le mahn ghello” and “or ahn ghello.” These are, in fact, names discovered in the baby name database from California, which also happens to be where my sister-in-law currently lives. So, she may, in fact, have run into these two kids. But, she may also have heard the names from someone who read this book. The name to beat all names, though, is this one, “Shithead.” I kid you not, that is a name someone gave to their child. Of course, they pronounced it a little differently as well, “shi teed,” but still – someone’s a total ass for giving their kid that name. Anyway, I just thought this was funny – I heard these names before reading the book from a source that didn’t mention the book. And when they mentioned them in the book I cracked up, again…

Overall, Freakonomics is a good little read. It isn’t a primer on economics, but it does make the subject intriguing, and hopefully will give the lay reader a little more insight on what social scientists do. It is worth reading if you get a chance, but don’t expect any thematic coherency in the topics addressed and be prepared to be a little shocked.

Author:
Barak Obama

Publisher:
RH Audio

Date of Publication:
2006

ISBN:
0739334085

Rating:
7

Summary:
In the interest of informing myself about the current political candidates, I picked up this book by Democratic front runner, Barak Obama. I’d heard a lot about him but wanted to get to know his views a little better. I think this book does a pretty good job of introducing him as a candidate.

The book covers a variety of things. First, it talks about how he got into politics. Senator Obama started out as a community organizer in the Chicago area before going to law school. He met his wife during an internship during law school. He eventually ended up teaching law at the University of Chicago before he went full time into politics. He began as a state representative then turned to the national political scene. All of that is detailed in the book.

Additionally, Senator Obama talks about his political views and his political vision for the future. It’s kind of challenging to corner Mr. Obama on his political views, but if I had to give a two word summation it would be “moderate progressive.” He recognizes the need for compromise (he’s not a fundamentalist in any sense of the word), but wants some progressive changes, including: universal health care, access to jobs and welfare reforms, stronger unions, fiscal responsibility for the government, and better international diplomacy. In all of that, he recognizes that you must compromise in politics, or you’ll never get anything done. Perhaps the most compelling message of the book is that Senator Obama sees his political adversaries as people who have reasoned arguments for their positions, just like he does. If you dismiss the opposition as crazy, you’re never going to get anywhere. Recognizing their wants and desires will get you a lot further than dismissing them.

Review:
I have to admit up front I find Senator Obama’s arguments compelling and I think he is a charismatic individual who is qualified to lead this country. That doesn’t mean I’ll vote for him; a lot has to happen before that is even an issue. But there were a few problems in the book that I think warrant discussion.

First, I think he overstates the strength of evangelicals in the U.S. Certainly evangelical Christians are a forced to be reckoned with, with a good 15% to 25% of the vote. But evangelical Christians also don’t necessarily vote as a bloc, I believe their strength is ebbing, and I think their numbers are slowly declining. So, while he does a little pandering to the evangelicals, I think his time would be better spent focusing on progressives and moderates, people with whom he has the most in common.

While I’m discussing religion I also want to mention his discussion of his own religious views. He talks about his religious conversion so euphemistically and vaguely that it almost seemed to me like nothing actually happened. He probably did formally join a Christian religion at some point, but I’m inclined to believe it was predominantly for political reasons. I don’t know that I should doubt his sincerity outright, but he comes across more as a closet agnostic than anything else – he doesn’t talk about his faith as though he “absolutely believes it all to be true” but rather in the sense that it might be true and would be good if it was, but he is also very tolerant of secular positions and even seems to embrace them. I probably shouldn’t criticize him on this front; if he really is a closet agnostic, he has more of my interests in mind than those of openly religious individuals. And, considering open agnosticism or atheism is a one way ticket out of politics, this is probably as close as seculars are going to get in this day and age to having political representation at the national level. So, he seems a little disingenuous, but I’m okay with that.

Another point related to religion that I found less than compelling in this book was Senator Obama’s belief that young people have a desperate desire for a sense of purpose. I think most people like to have a sense of purpose, but I don’t see any real evidence indicating a wholesale return to religion among young people. Sure, adolescents are about as religious as their parents are (see Smith and Denton’s 2004 book), but after adolescents, parental religion isn’t even correlated with adult religion. Children leave religion in droves after about 18. Are they looking for a sense of purpose? I’m not inclined to think so, though many probably will eventually try to find one. So, using this as the basis of some of his arguments just doesn’t seem founded in the empirical literature.

Another sociological faux pas is Senator Obama’s comparison of families today with families of the 1950s. He pushes this idea particularly hard for blacks, claiming the ideal black family was the black family from the 1950s. As Stephanie Coontz illustrated in her amazing book, The Way We Never Were, the 1950s family was both an anomaly and a facade. Thanks to a variety of changes – major wars, economic and technological advances, migration, marketing, etc. – the family of the 1950s was just weird. Today, nuclear families – a husband, wife, and two kids – are a minority, not the majority. Nuclear families never were an overwhelming majority. And, even when they were common in the 1950s they were not a panacea – many women were oppressed, depressed, and angry and fathers actually spent less time with their kids. I understand the attraction of make believe nostalgia, but I’m not a fan of propaganda techniques in politics. There was no “heyday” of the nuclear family. The family is ever changing and malleable; there is no hard and fast form that is the ideal, and that is what makes the concept so lasting. (He does, however, get the reason behind women working outside the home in increasing numbers partially right – economic pressures, not some “decline” in family values and not even feminism.)

I want to return, briefly, to the point I made above, that Senator Obama appears to be a moderate who is willing to compromise and able to empathize. He makes a number of great points about conservatives, in general, and the Bush administration, in particular. Specifically, he addresses the claim that both of these groups are fascists. While I’m no fan of either conservatives or the Bush administration, I think Senator Obama is right on this point – we are a far cry from Naziistic fascism. Let’s just hope we stop traveling down that road soon. Another attractive characteristic of the Senator is that he admits he doesn’t have all the answers. This ties into the same point as he realizes that government should not be monopolistic in favor of the ruling party. Republicans are, yes, people too (gasp!), and their perspectives are needed as they represent the beliefs of a large segment of the population. Even if we think they are crazy, we need to try to understand their views so we can work with them.

Overall, I thought this was a generally insightful and engaging read. It does a good job of introducing the Senator and his views. It also has a certain appeal for those of us wondering just how we can bring the two ends of the culture war spectrum together to enact meaningful change. Compromise is essential. Those unwilling to do so (fundamentalists), can’t actually be tolerated for the safety, security, and sanity of the rest of us. (I know that sounds bad, but it is what it is.)

Author:
John Perkins
Publisher:
Plume
Date of Publication:
2005
ISBN:
0452287081
Rating:
3
Summary:
I picked this up (as an audio book) after hearing an interview with the author on NPR. I was really excited about the book as I believed it was going to go into depth about how large corporations, in conjunction with the federal government of the United States, use loans and development packages to manipulate and control foreign governments. I also thought it was going to be full of amazing stories about the “hits” of the author. I was partially right on the first count, less so on the second.

The book begins with the author, John Perkins, describing how he ended up getting involved in international economic forecasting. He got a Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration from Boston College in the 1960s (or 1970s, I don’t remember the exact dates), then spent a few years in the Peace Corps working in South America, where he picked up Spanish. After that, via some connections through his spouse at the time and the NSA, he was recruited by an “engineering” firm in Boston, Chas T. Main, that is similar to Halliburton in that it often bid for contracts with foreign governments.

Perkins then explains that his job at the company was to develop relatively fictitious economic forecasts for these countries so as to support the contracts and loans the countries wanted from different development banks, including the World Bank. The contracts were extremely lucrative for Perkins, his company, and the U.S. Government, which, Perkins claims, basically used the ridiculously large loans to bludgeon the governments of these countries into step with American interests.

The basic premise is that Perkins was specifically trained (cloak and dagger style) to do whatever was necessary to make the loans possible. The idea being, once the loan was in place to the foreign government wouldn’t be able to pay back the loan. And, of course, the loans were always contingent upon the foreign governments hiring U.S. contractors to do almost all of the work, keeping the money in the hands of U.S. corporations, who bribed the federal government to sponsor all of this. Once the foreign government defaulted on the loan, it would become beholden to the U.S. government and would essentially have to do its bidding – whether that meant cheaper imports to the U.S. or voting in accordance with the U.S.’s demands at the UN, the idea was basically “empire building” through economic warfare rather than traditional warfare.

Of course, Perkins also claims that economic warfare was just the first assault – if that failed, there were two additional options – CIA assassinations (he calls them “the jackals”) or traditional war. He cites numerous instances when leaders of countries “mysteriously” died in helicopter and plane crashes after refusing to cooperate with the U.S. on these loans, as well as the invasion of Panama to bolster his claims.

Ultimately, Perkins decides that his role in this enormous conspiracy to make the U.S. an empire is unethical, so he leaves. He went on to start his own energy and consulting company and write a number of books on New Age religion, shamanism, and pop-psychology. Eventually he decided he was distanced enough from his former role that he felt he could write this book, describing his role in burdening several countries with unbearable debt, including: Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Ecuador, and Panama.
Review:
I really was excited to read this book as the interview I heard with him made it seem as though this was an insider who decided to rat out a corrupt and unethical system. But as I listened to the book, I became increasingly disappointed. There are a lot of problems…

First and foremost, many of the stories the author tells seem so far-fetched as to be not quite believable. Don’t get me wrong, I think there probably is a lot of unethical finagling of loans and debts to bring countries in line. That basic claim probably has some merit. I don’t know how much, and reading this book didn’t give me a good sense of how much, but it probably happens. We know, in fact, there is corruption in international contracts, as seen in Iraq with the no bid contracts of contracting companies like Halliburton. So, there is reason to believe this kind of thing happens. But the way John Perkins describes things makes me skeptical of at least some of his claims.

Interestingly, this is actually a two-fold criticism of the book. When the book does seem believable (e.g., meeting with foreign leaders, talking with other business people, etc.), what he describes seems utterly believable and, in fact, very quotidian. It’s basically like he is describing a boring business meeting – no high drama cloak and dagger at all. About ¼ of the book describes these kinds of boring meetings. When he does start describing cloak and dagger type stuff (e.g., secret meetings with dissidents and revolutionaries, secret training from other hit men, etc.), it just doesn’t seem believable. I don’t want to claim that Mr. Perkins is a liar, but an exaggerator? Probably. For instance, he tells one story about a puppet show he attended in Indonesia where the puppeteer depicted Richard Nixon as devouring countries, including Indonesia, with the intention of controlling them. It was as though this puppeteer had all of the insights of John Perkins as he performed the puppet show, which is awfully convenient if you are trying to make a point about the mistreatment of people in developing countries by the federal government of the U.S.

Additionally, the author depicts himself as having a nagging conscience about what he is doing from day one. His depiction of his own activities is generally positive, as though he was the one moral character afloat in a sea of immoral, greedy assassins. I don’t buy it. I think he is depicting his past in a way that corresponds better with how he thinks about himself today, a tendency we all have. By the end of the book I was utterly disappointed; I couldn’t tell what was true and what was not. (As a help to readers, check out this short entry in Wikipedia on the book, which describes the book as classic “conspiracy theory”: .

Strangely, while I think he exaggerates much of what he claims happened, he also doesn’t ever talk about the results of his machinations. He says he set up Indonesia, Ecuador, Panama, and even Saudi Arabia to be controlled by the U.S., but he never says what happened. Why? I understand he was writing to describe his (alleged) role in setting up the loans, but why not describe what resulted from his efforts. Oh, and get this: Perkins only worked at Chas T. Main for about seven years in the 1970s. He left the company at the beginning of the 1980s and basically got out of the “hit man” game. Apparently seven years in a field is all the time you need to know how everything works. He published this memoir about 25 years later; I wonder just how good his memory is…

In addition to the big criticism of just not knowing what was and was not true, there are a lot of other problems. For instance, there is a lot of preaching in this book. I’d say at least half of the book is Mr. Perkins going on and on about what he thinks is right and wrong (his system is based on the convenience moral philosophy of, “whatever I do and did is right, whatever I didn’t do or don’t do is wrong). This, in turn, means that probably less than half the book actually describes his exploits as an economic hit man. Since I didn’t read the book to be preached to, I wasn’t all that impressed with this part of the book. Add the ½ preaching to ¼ boring stories about quotidian business life, and what you are left with is ¼ of a book made up of cloak and dagger stories that are of questionable accuracy and authenticity. Disappointment indeed.

So what is all his preaching about? Well, he’s definitely anti-corporations. I recognize this is a tricky issue, especially for me, a sociologist, to consider. Many liberals and progressives in the U.S. today are very anti-corporatism. I can understand the reasons and I empathize with some of these ideas. Corporations, according to this line of thinking, are: greedy, with their own interests at heart; they are inconsiderate of people’s wants and needs; they are corrupting; they destroy culture and traditions; they exploit and manipulate; they are too powerful. I think it is accurate to say there are corporations that have done each of the above, and that is, in my opinion, not a good thing. But I also have to recognize the enormous benefits that stem from large corporations. I’m typing this on a laptop built by Acer, a multi-national corporation with offices and manufacturing centers all around the world. No matter how hard you try to get around it, the only groups with the resources to build a laptop are large corporations. The only groups with the resources to manufacture and produce much of what we use to criticize corporations are multi-national corporations. Without them, we would not have many of the conveniences and even necessities of modern life. Mom and pop stores don’t have the resources to make LCD screens, laptops, solar cells, etc. That takes corporations. Are they perfect? No. Max Weber and Karl Marx saw the imperfections over 100 years ago. But are they necessary? Unless we all want to go back to living like undeveloped aboriginal groups, then yes, they are necessary. The only other option at present is communism, but what is that if not a corrupted variation of corporatism? (I am, of course, referring to the various forms of communism that have actually been implemented, not to Karl Marx’s understanding of communism that did not include an elite ruling class). So, Mr. Perkins, who actually ran a large corporation of his own, has jumped on the anti-corporatism bandwagon.

He also attacks education. Well, it’s not so much an attack as it is a dismissal. As I mentioned in the summary, Mr. Perkins has a bachelor’s degree in Business Administration. At one point in the book he goes off on one of his many diatribes, this one talking about how he knows far more about economics than almost any PhD ever will because he lived and participated in the manipulation of macro economics. Ergo, a PhD is basically worthless because all you deal with is theories, not the reality of macro economics. The irony in this, of course, is that he continuously harps about how he does have a bachelor’s degree in Business Administration, as though that makes him qualified to do what he did. I again got the sense that whatever Mr. Perkins had or did was basically the best and ideal thing. Whatever he didn’t have or didn’t do was not a good thing. Ergo, if you have a BA in Business, you’ve gone as far as you need. Any thing more than a BA, according to Mr. Perkins, and all you’re good for is doing the bidding of the people with BAs. Seems a little short-sighted and naäve to me, but then, I have a PhD. He’s biased; I’m biased…

As if his BA in Business Administration wasn’t enough to qualify him to write this book (along with his experience as an economic hit man, of course), he also seems to think that his previous pop-psychology and New Age books about Shamanism make him qualified to write a book about macro economics. In my opinion, they go far beyond making him qualified; they reveal his tendencies and proclivities – Mr. Perkins writes these books not to educate people but to make money. And how are you going to sell copies of a (supposedly) non-fiction book about macro-economics? Why, how else but to embellish it and turn it into a diatribe against multi-national corporations. His previous “experience” writing books like “The World is As You Dream It” don’t increase my confidence in him as an author. If anything, they have the opposite effect. The world isn’t as you dream it; life doesn’t magically adjust to what we want. Anyone who claims it does is probably selling you something, like a book filled with preaching and exaggerations…

The book wraps up with an epilogue filled with platitudes and recommendations for the future. Mr. Perkins is full of ideas of what people should do. “Do as I say, not as I do” comes to mind here. This is especially ironic given the fact that Perkins made hundreds of thousands of dollars (if you can believe him) fiddling around as an economic hit man. He got his, now he doesn’t want anyone else to do it. Hmmm…. Does that seem hypocritical to anyone else? His ideas are pretty lame and the epilogue would have been better spent talking about what resulted in the countries where he worked.

Lest people come away from the book thinking it is completely awful, I want to point out one idea I thought was actually kind of insightful, in a weird way. Mr. Perkins talks about how he sees the business people of today as a new kind of army – they travel around the world doing the bidding of multi-national corporations and think of themselves as upstanding citizens. In fact, and this is a fact of corporations regardless of your view toward corporations, what those people are doing is spreading economic exploitation. I don’t know that there is any way around that exploitation, but what makes this idea kind of intriguing is the point Mr. Perkins makes about these individuals being viewed as upstanding, moral individuals, even though they are spreading exploitation and doing the bidding of their corporate overlords. Like I said, this is probably inevitable and I don’t have a good alternative, but it is a little disturbing when you think about it this way: the exploiters are the moral ones…

Overall, I don’t recommend this book. I think it is apparent enough from a close reading of the news that corporations and governments collude to benefit each other. Mr. Perkins doesn’t really add much to that understanding, not even great cloak and dagger stories. Add to that his preaching, New Age and pop-psychology platitudes and anti-education and anti-corporatism attitudes and this just isn’t worth the time or money. It’s an interesting idea, but ineptly excuted.

(Note: I listened to this book as an MP3.)

Dave Barry’s Money Secrets: Like: Why Is There a Giant Eyeball on the Dollar?

Author:
Dave Barry

Publisher:
Brilliance Audio

Date of Publication:
2006

ISBN:
1597371653

Rating:
7

Summary:
Dave Barry tackles many of the most common financial questions people have… using humor, sarcasm, and satire. The topics he addresses range from: investing in the stock market to buying a home to how to perform well as a CEO. The real irony, of course, is that despite his humorous treatment of all of these topics, the book basically does reflect a pretty accurate understanding of many of these financial issues: (1) the average layperson is very likely to get screwed financially over the course of their life, (2) wealthy people will remain wealthy but probably become even more wealthy, and (3) poor people may as well give up hope now.

Review:
I’m a regular reader of Dave Barry’s columns and have always found his writing witty and entertaining. Barry has a keen ability to paint normal human behavior with the brush of humor. Barry’s style of humor is well-suited for this topic, even if the book isn’t uproariously hilarious throughout (it’s pretty funny, but not consistently funny).

As I mentioned above, the real irony in this book is that, despite blatantly poking fun of these topics, Barry is often right about them. For instance, Barry explains that paper money only has value because we all agree to behave as though it has value – which he considers to be laugh-out-loud hilarious in and of itself (and, in a sense, it is). He is, of course, right – that is the only reason paper money and electronic currency have value. His explanation of the economy (that no one really understands how it works – especially economists) is also pretty accurate. Barry takes on popular “financial gurus,” like Suze Orman, as well. I loved his satirical treatment of her books, which he ultimately points out is how Suze Orman makes her money – by selling people books, not by doing what she tells them to do (why else would she be writing these books?). Barry skewers CEOs as bumbling morons (literally, he uses the word “moron” dozens of times). He talks about how office furniture must give off “moron-rays” as there is no other explanation for how: (1) CEOs make such stupid decisions; (2) corporate boards decide to keep these CEOs despite their stupid decisions; and (3) CEOs make so much money. According to Barry, the only explanation is moron-ray emitting office furniture. Barry also skewers stockbrokers, who only give one piece of advice, ever, “Buy stocks” (because they’re stockbrokers, of course!) and stock analysts who basically have no idea why stocks go up or down and are about as good at predicting stock price changes as psychics are at actually reading your mind. Barry’s thoughts on the stock market: You’re better off betting your money at a casino than on the stock market. At a casino you know your odds; in the stock market you have no idea if there are even odds and even less of an idea what might happen to your money.

I think my favorite chapter – probably because it is currently relevant to one of my major preoccupations at the moment – is Barry’s advice on buying a house, “Don’t buy an old house, it will fall apart. Don’t buy a new house, it will fall apart.” In short, don’t buy a house – or, at least, don’t expect any house you buy to actually make you money. Barry details all the many ways he has lost money on both old and new homes, illustrating that it really doesn’t matter what you buy, homes are expensive to own.

Overall, for a good laugh at the rather ridiculous sphere of life we call “money management,” this book is worth picking up. As with most of Dave Barry’s humor you have to know what he is talking about in order to get the humor. As a result, the book won’t really teach anyone anything, but it is mildly entertaining.

(Note: I listened to this book as an mp3 on my iPod.)

The Truth (with Jokes)

Author:
Al Franken

Publisher:
Penguin Group

Date of Publication:
2005

ISBN:
0786561785

Rating:
8

Summary:
Back when Al Franken was on Air America and it was streamed online for free, I used to listen to him regularly. I don’t agree with all of his political positions (“some” is more accurate), but he does have at least one additional attraction: he really is quite funny. Combining politics and humor made his show appealing and I enjoyed it. This book came out about the time I was listening to him regularly (almost two years ago now) and I have wanted to read it ever since. I finally found a little bit of time, so here’s what I thought…

The book has two aims: (1) explain how George Bush won in 2004, and (2) illustrate how terrible the Bush Administration is (in particular) and Republicans are (in general). Franken’s arguments concerning number one boil down to three components – fear, smears, and queers. The first part should be fairly apparent – the Republicans used fear as the primary component of their campaign. In the run-up to the 2004 Presidential election, the Bush Administration tried to cast the decision between Kerry and Bush as a decision for or against terror. To do so they invoked fear, or as Franken puts it, “And that is almost literally the choice that Bush offered America’s voters on November 2, 2004: Vote Republican, or be ripped apart by dogs.” (p. 33). It wasn’t actually dogs, but more along the lines of “mushroom clouds” (actual quote) and terrorism (no need to quote; this was the 2004 Republican platform).

The second component Franken illustrates by dissecting the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads and claims. He basically illustrates that their claims were bald-faced lies and clearly were designed to smear Kerry. The most unfortunate thing about these claims is that so many people took them seriously and it actually seemed to work.

Finally, while accurately minimizing this component, Franken also points out that a hot-button issue was on the ballot in many states – amendments to state constitutions banning gay marriage. Franken draws on the work of political scientists to illustrate that these amendments did, in fact, have some influence on conservative voter turnout and that may have helped push Bush over the edge in pulling out a victory (though the other two components were more probably more important).

The second aim of the book is actually more implicit, as he does this just in passing. For instance, Franken attacks the current situation in Iraq and places the blame squarely on the Bush Administration, “If you’re curious why Iraq is in the crapper, it’s because everyone one of these eminently reasonable recommendations fell not on deaf ears, but on ears into which fingers had been deliberately inserted.” (p. 398). The recommendations to which Franken is referring are the many plans and ideas suggested by consultants and the military during the planning for the war. Franken builds a fairly persuasive argument to indicate that the Bush Administration quite literally ignored all of this advice, resulting in the quagmire that is now Iraq.

Review:
I read Barak Obama’s latest book “The Audacity of Hope” shortly after reading this one (but obviously before writing this review). The tones are quite different and I think reading Obama’s book has led me to soften my views on Franken’s book somewhat. Don’t get me wrong, I still agree with a lot of what Franken writes and I think his analysis is pretty accurate in a lot of ways, but I also see the merit to Obama’s more centrist and empathetic perspectives.

That said, Franken has finally done what I think most future political writers are going to have to do: he turned to the scientific community to support his arguments. For instance, Franken draws on social psychological research in Terror Management Theory to bolster his argument that fear-mongering, particularly death-related thoughts, leads people to prefer charismatic/visionary leaders (e.g., Bush) over task-oriented or relationship-oriented leaders (e.g., Kerry). In terms of beliefs, thoughts of death also lead people to favor preexisting cultural worldviews (e.g., conservatism) as opposed to more liberal or radical worldviews (e.g., liberalism). The fact that Franken actually cites some peer-reviewed literature was encouraging. He doesn’t claim to be an expert, but he does at least recognize the importance of basing his claims on empirical science and not just on opinions. It was a breath of fresh air in an otherwise empiricism-absent political arena.

For most individuals who keep up with the news and current events, much of the information in this book won’t be surprising (and by keeping up with the news and current events I mean reading something other than the Wall Street Journal and watching something other than Fox News). But a few of the things Franken noted surprised me. For instance, Bush claimed the loss of 3 million jobs from 9/11; the Bureau of Labor Statistics put the number at 125,637 (pp. 56-57). The fact that a politician misstated numbers isn’t surprising (this isn’t something unique to Republicans, of course), but I just hadn’t heard the BLS numbers before. The most surprising datum, however, was this one about post-conflict casualties in former wars, “Bush partisans like to point out that after World War II, it took years to form democratic governments in Germany and Japan. What they won’t tell you is that the total number of post-conflict American combat casualties in Germany, Japan, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo is zero, a number invented by Arab mathematicians like Ahmed Chalabi.” (p. 466; I like the joke at the end, too). I had heard that post-conflict occupations in Germany and Japan took a long time (a lot longer than four years), but I had not heard that there had been no casualties. Making this comparison, then, is really like comparing apples with oranges and is a disingenuous comparison for Republican spinners to make.

Overall, I think Franken does a good job of building and supporting his arguments. While he is probably overly partisan (he seldom criticizes Democrats, who certainly aren’t immune to criticism), he does make a lot of good points. And, he’s funny (in fact, laugh-out-loud funny at times). As is often the case in the U.S. (as Barak Obama points out in his excellent book), the people who read this book are more than likely going to be people who agree with it to begin with. That’s unfortunate, as it does have some compelling arguments. But at least Franken’s choir-directed preaching is laden with jokes, which does make the book well worth reading.