CONCEPT
Well, here it is. If you’re a politically-minded artist, and you don’t know much about economics, you really ought to read this.
What does Alan Greenspan do? What is the Federal Reserve Board? What causes inflation and how is it a problem? Why do economists, fiscal conservatives, and others say the things they do?
Mind you, I don’t always agree with the things written here… in fact my political compass is relatively steady (though I think he landed a couple convincing blows regarding selective regulation and international trade). But I think that these are hugely important things to understand, and most of us (even those of us with strong opinions on caplitalism, disenfranchisement, and so forth) don’t know how to talk. The book (about 240 pages long) begins with an overview of basic economic principles, moves through incentives to microeconomics, then gradually works toward macroeconomics via the role of government and trade.
I’ve had many occasions to get into debates with Libertarians, and they typically say something about an unregulated market working to the best of everyone. These conversations are frustrating, becuase I’m at a topical disadvantage.
It’s not that we liberals lack the logical skills to consider and respond… rather, most of us do not have a common economic vocabulary.
I’ll reserve my commentary on Wheelan’s actual points for a later post… it might be more interesting along side Howard Zinn and Barbara Ehrenreich anyway. But I do stongly recommend this book, not just as a good piece of writing (though he does manage to make a textbook a page-turner), but as an essential exercise and test for anyone who’s politically motivated and involved.
And the heart of my recommendation is based not only in the accessibility, clarity, and compactness of the writing, but also its ability to tease out the complexities in any decision affecting the “market economy.” This is actually an effective antidote for a survey that sometimes borderlines on didactic. Charles Wheelan makes problematic statements from time to time, but he’s also equipped his readers with the tools to exercise what they consider healthy skepticism.
I’m not without criticism, writing-wise, however:
1) Economics is about as intense, politically speaking, as theology. While Wheelan takes some care to remain unaligned (at least explicitly) his irreverence has an occasionally muddying effect. Comparing my observations with other readers (on Amazon.com), I found a reference to a statement in which Wheelan refers to Bush as a “mature leader.” In the book, I had taken this comment as largely ironic. The other reader had the opposite interpretation. Because Wheelan avoids stating his predilections, it’s anyone’s guess… but it does seem to distract from the larger point.
Worse, this informality can lead away from the point altogether. For example, Wheelan brings frequent attention (and overt condemnation) to anti-globalization protests in Seattle several years ago. He is forever referring to overturned buses and smashed Starbucks, which is about as reasonable as assuming all CEOs are morbidly obsese and light enormous stogies with 100 dollar bills. A little more restraint would have made his point more powerfully and reasonably.
But otherwise, Wheelan does a good job sitting on the fence or hovering in the clouds, so I give him a B- for political circumspection.
2) Damned if you do. The transition from Micro- to Macro- was smooth enough, but conceptually a big leap. I could’ve used a bit more warning, though I admittedly don’t know how I would’ve handled this better.
3) Damned if you don’t. Some issues were treated a little breezily that would’ve been worth a bit more time.
For example, I have a pretty obvious and straightforward criticism of an implicit reliance on economic growth… it sounds suspiciously like Tetris. A clever player can navigate for a long time using unpredicted shapes in constructive patterns at ever increasing speeds. Over time, however, losing the game is a mathematical certainty. Shouldn’t we expect the economy to fall to the same fate? I suppose so. This “Tetris” scenario is one of several that Wheelan does not even consider, much less address. And yet it seems like a pretty obvious concern.
Other ommissions I would have liked to have seen brought in to the discussion would be a discussion of economics on a purely local or municipal level, a discussions of other systems and their successes and failures (socialism is treated, but only in its negatives; communism is treated, but only as a catastrophe), and at least a mention of the long term effects of surpluses and deficits.
* * * * *
On the whole, and in spite of these criticisms, the book was immensely compelling, and may be more useful in the long run than any book I’ve read this year.
~ Connor