Over the years, I've met several people who have said they're writing a book. I even looked into it once myself, before deciding that blogging is much easier. So when my friend, Bob Conrad, said he was writing a book I didn't think much of it. Those who know Bob better than I do probably weren't surprised when Bob not only finished writing it, but has now had it published.
The Good, The Bad, The Spin is an interesting look at the convergence of journalism, public relations, and on-line technology. Bob uses short, 1-2 page stories to illustrate the points he's making; many of which are first hand accounts of his own experiences. He also uses stories pulled from recent headlines.
One of the main points of the book is the importance of accuracy. Bob is of a scientific mind and he devotes one section of his book to scientific reason versus commonly held beliefs. I can't say I completely agree with him on the primacy of science. Scientists are human too, after all, but a little research goes a long way. The scientific approach is a good one for people working in PR, but there is still the problem of getting facts through the filter of journalists.
And that brings up a second major point of the book, the need for a greater amount of respect among the various types of communicators. Journalists and PR people tend to be wary of each other. A healthy skepticism is always, I believe, a good thing. Pride and turf wars seem to be more common among professional communicators. There are some good lessons here for us bloggers.
When I finished reading the book, I was a little mystified in that there is no formal conclusion, no over-arching theory of everything. After thinking about it, it makes sense that there isn't one. Technology changes rapidly and the state of communication is very much in flux. How this will develop over time is any one's guess. No matter who you are, or how you interact with the on-line world, this book is a good reminder that the ultimate goal of communication is the dissemination of truth.
Showing posts with label Books. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Books. Show all posts
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Book Review: The Return Of The Great Depression
Ordinarily, I bypass books with prophetic titles. In the case of The Return Of The Great Depression by Vox Day, I was willing to make an exception. I've been lurking on Vox's Blog for years, as well as reading his WND columns, and like most bloggers who have been around for years, he can be counted on to at least be thought provoking. Vox has an eclectic set of interests and his writings are where I was introduced to the Austrian school of economics.
Unlike the Keynesianism, which has made a comeback lately, and the Chicago school of monetarism, which has recently failed, the Austrians place subjectivity as the most important idea when trying to understand an economy. The battle between the scientific, or political economists as Vox calls them, and the philosophical economists, who emphasize logic rather than statistics, seems to me to be the main difference between them all. The Austrians and their offshoots are definitely in the philosophical camp.
As I've grown older, I have come to the realization that nobody really knows anything, so I wasn't too surprised when I got to Chapter 4 entitled, "No One Knows Anything." It is here where Vox's use of logic really shines. He dissects Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Gross National Product (GNP), and Unemployment numbers (U-3, U-6), and shows how subjective these statistics really are. They all begin with a set of assumptions about future events, then categorized by what the economist believes to be already true. Should any one assumption become untrue, or categorization turn out to be misplaced, the statistic will need to be revised. Since these statistics are revised all the time, this chapter should be required reading for anyone who has ever believed anything in the mainstream press.
For the more politically minded, anyone still wondering what all the fuss over Ron Paul was about last year, this book provides the answers. It includes the best argument from the right against Reagan era monetarism that I've ever read. Like Keynesianism, monetarism requires government intervention and top-down management of the economy. For those on the left, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich comes through looking fairly reasonable, while Paul Krugman's critique of Austrian theory is mercilessly dismembered point by point. There is also a nice section on the early development of Austrian theory, it being a response to the German scientific method that was being adopted by 20th Century fascists.
For myself, I tend to gravitate towards the philosophical rather than the scientific for the simple reason that it is easier to understand. That doesn't mean they're right. To his credit, Vox goes out of his way to explain the various ways he could be wrong. This book is an honest and multi-faceted look at our current situation. We may or may not suffer a full blown depression, but one thing is certain; debt can either be paid (deleveraged) or not paid (defaulted). In either case, we have a hard time ahead. Whether it is next year or next decade, at some point the music stops, the dance ends, and the band will want what is due.
Unlike the Keynesianism, which has made a comeback lately, and the Chicago school of monetarism, which has recently failed, the Austrians place subjectivity as the most important idea when trying to understand an economy. The battle between the scientific, or political economists as Vox calls them, and the philosophical economists, who emphasize logic rather than statistics, seems to me to be the main difference between them all. The Austrians and their offshoots are definitely in the philosophical camp.
As I've grown older, I have come to the realization that nobody really knows anything, so I wasn't too surprised when I got to Chapter 4 entitled, "No One Knows Anything." It is here where Vox's use of logic really shines. He dissects Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Gross National Product (GNP), and Unemployment numbers (U-3, U-6), and shows how subjective these statistics really are. They all begin with a set of assumptions about future events, then categorized by what the economist believes to be already true. Should any one assumption become untrue, or categorization turn out to be misplaced, the statistic will need to be revised. Since these statistics are revised all the time, this chapter should be required reading for anyone who has ever believed anything in the mainstream press.
For the more politically minded, anyone still wondering what all the fuss over Ron Paul was about last year, this book provides the answers. It includes the best argument from the right against Reagan era monetarism that I've ever read. Like Keynesianism, monetarism requires government intervention and top-down management of the economy. For those on the left, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich comes through looking fairly reasonable, while Paul Krugman's critique of Austrian theory is mercilessly dismembered point by point. There is also a nice section on the early development of Austrian theory, it being a response to the German scientific method that was being adopted by 20th Century fascists.
For myself, I tend to gravitate towards the philosophical rather than the scientific for the simple reason that it is easier to understand. That doesn't mean they're right. To his credit, Vox goes out of his way to explain the various ways he could be wrong. This book is an honest and multi-faceted look at our current situation. We may or may not suffer a full blown depression, but one thing is certain; debt can either be paid (deleveraged) or not paid (defaulted). In either case, we have a hard time ahead. Whether it is next year or next decade, at some point the music stops, the dance ends, and the band will want what is due.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Book Review: Keynes, The Return Of The Master
It's good practice to pick up a book, from time to time, that you know you're going to disagree with. Knowing why you favor one idea over another requires knowing both. This was the reason why I read Keynes: The return of the master by Robert Skidelsky.
Having already written a three volume biography of Keynes, Skidelsky covers a lot of territory in 193 pages. In order to understand how Keynesianism might help us today, one must first understand Keynes the man, the times in which he lived, and his historical role. Skidelsky does an excellent job with the grand sweep of history and fleshing out Keynes the man. It is only when he is trying to explain today's muddled situation, with floating exchange rates and complex international savings/investment relationships that the book loses its rhythm.
Keynes was not just an economist. He was a philosopher whose main interest was economics. His moral philosophy was conventional, even Victorian by today's standards. He was an unapologetic capitalist who set out to solve what he saw as capitalism's biggest problem; unemployment. He lived at the dawn of modernity, the industrial revolution was in full swing, and the rise of communism and fascism were real threats to capitalist democracies. If a way could be found to maintain low unemployment, it would lead to a more harmonious world.
Among economists, both then and now, Keynes's greatest, and most controversial insight, was realizing the difference between risk and uncertainty. Risk is quantifiable. Risk can be managed using math and science. Our reasoning abilities can be used to predict the future with a fair degree of accuracy. But scientific risk management will only get us so far. Uncertainty is more like an enveloping fog, thick in some parts, thinner in others, always obscuring our expectations of what the future will bring. In a world of uncertainty, we make progress by trial and error, reverting to convention to get us through the mysterious shroud. When the most logical path is hidden and unknowable, scientific reason is of no practical benefit.
This does much to explain our present situation. Our computer models have failed us. Our reasoning abilities have become useless at predicting what is to come next, and so we revert to Keynes. He got us through this before, he can do it again.
There is a lot to like about Keynes. He seems to have been a kindly old gent, a revolutionary and independent thinker. Skidelsky points out that all the schools of economic thought have some amount of real world truth. The economics of capitalism is very much a work in progress. I still think my disagreements with Keynes are still valid, like a high savings rate represents a failure of growth, rather than an increase in real wealth, or that flooding the markets with depreciating cash will produce an overall good. Most of all, like all people of the political left, Keynes tends to assign greed, avarice, and self-interest only to the business class. The political class is assumed to be altruistic and working for the benefit of all. I have to think that if Keynes were alive today, he would be reconsidering that assumption.
I recommend this book for the general reader. Skidelsky writes in plain language and for the most part, treats his adversaries fairly. I would have liked it more if he had spent more time on the collapse of the Bretton-Woods Agreement and the resulting inflation, but maybe he'll have more to say about that in the next one.
Having already written a three volume biography of Keynes, Skidelsky covers a lot of territory in 193 pages. In order to understand how Keynesianism might help us today, one must first understand Keynes the man, the times in which he lived, and his historical role. Skidelsky does an excellent job with the grand sweep of history and fleshing out Keynes the man. It is only when he is trying to explain today's muddled situation, with floating exchange rates and complex international savings/investment relationships that the book loses its rhythm.
Keynes was not just an economist. He was a philosopher whose main interest was economics. His moral philosophy was conventional, even Victorian by today's standards. He was an unapologetic capitalist who set out to solve what he saw as capitalism's biggest problem; unemployment. He lived at the dawn of modernity, the industrial revolution was in full swing, and the rise of communism and fascism were real threats to capitalist democracies. If a way could be found to maintain low unemployment, it would lead to a more harmonious world.
Among economists, both then and now, Keynes's greatest, and most controversial insight, was realizing the difference between risk and uncertainty. Risk is quantifiable. Risk can be managed using math and science. Our reasoning abilities can be used to predict the future with a fair degree of accuracy. But scientific risk management will only get us so far. Uncertainty is more like an enveloping fog, thick in some parts, thinner in others, always obscuring our expectations of what the future will bring. In a world of uncertainty, we make progress by trial and error, reverting to convention to get us through the mysterious shroud. When the most logical path is hidden and unknowable, scientific reason is of no practical benefit.
This does much to explain our present situation. Our computer models have failed us. Our reasoning abilities have become useless at predicting what is to come next, and so we revert to Keynes. He got us through this before, he can do it again.
There is a lot to like about Keynes. He seems to have been a kindly old gent, a revolutionary and independent thinker. Skidelsky points out that all the schools of economic thought have some amount of real world truth. The economics of capitalism is very much a work in progress. I still think my disagreements with Keynes are still valid, like a high savings rate represents a failure of growth, rather than an increase in real wealth, or that flooding the markets with depreciating cash will produce an overall good. Most of all, like all people of the political left, Keynes tends to assign greed, avarice, and self-interest only to the business class. The political class is assumed to be altruistic and working for the benefit of all. I have to think that if Keynes were alive today, he would be reconsidering that assumption.
I recommend this book for the general reader. Skidelsky writes in plain language and for the most part, treats his adversaries fairly. I would have liked it more if he had spent more time on the collapse of the Bretton-Woods Agreement and the resulting inflation, but maybe he'll have more to say about that in the next one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
