If only every politician were forced to read this, we may not live in a world where our leaders seem to have lost all understanding of the fact that we must produce, save and only then spend & invest!
This is more of a polemic than an economic argument. It is well written and quite entertaining, but it is not a clear or useful explanation of anything to do with our economy.
There is nothing to be learned from this book so don't waste your credits. I reccommend The Ascent of Money as a much better book on this topic.
This book contains a rather childish, simplistic and slanted view of our economy. And if you already understand economics on anything but a 8th grade level, you can pretty much skip it. I found that 80% of the information contained in the book is irrefutable, but a solid 20% is the product of faulty right-wing political thinking. Some examples:
The authors say that government is rife with corruption and waste. While corruption and waste do exist in government, it is likely not fair to paint with such a broad brush given the spending cuts and efficiencies that have happened over the past five years. Government spending is down. While corporate corruption seems to be accepted or overlooked by the authors.
The authors state that markets are the best way to make an economy grow. But they conveniently overlook government programs like the GI Bill, the Marshall Plan and the Interstate Highway act that had massive impacts on the US and world economy.
The authors also largely overlook the substantial greed and corruption in the private sector and discount the notion that there is a fundamental imbalance between the haves and have nots in our society largely caused by the people in their own industry. They are very good at pointing to a problem, and assigning blame (and bringing the same old gold standard argument up again), but they have no true thoughts on what to do to make the US economy more vibrant and diverse and equitable. If they think we will go back to 1920s monetary policy, they are mistaken.
And when the authors, who also narrated this book, started imitating the late Teddy Kennedy while portraying a corrupt politician, I had to shut the book off. Pete and Andy, you're no Teddy Kennedy.
I can deal with the whole economy based on fish on a desert island concept, but they take it way too far. And after an hour or so, it just gets annoying. What I can't take for a minute is the same level of simplicity and black and white thinking applied to social economics and the inequality in international markets. This book is too full of faulty thinking and slanted viewpoints to take seriously.
Ansett Refugee from Melbourne, living in Dubai flies the Emirates A380. Author of ON TOUR, TravelsWithAnAirline Pilot. Member since 2004
Lose the fish analogies.
I read a review saying that they were (a) humorous and (b) interacting as they discussed the topic. The review was wrong.
Everything relating to the FISH economy.
Buy Peter's other book CRASH 2.0 and read that. It's instructive, and whilst being a promotional ad for his business - it's worth the listen. As for THIS BOOK? I am gonna ask for my money back.
Husband, Father; Accounting, Tax, Financial Planning (CPA) Professional; Radio Amateur (NJ6A), American Conservative.
This fish story with commentary is worth hearing again and again. For those who understood ecconomics this book may clear away the errors of Keynes modern interpreters. For those who do not or did not understand ecconomics this book will bring enlightenment and a true understanding of ecconomic principles.
This book explains the economy and the history of America's currency and debt in a way that everyone can understand. It's a hard truth to swallow. Although the book doesn't mention or advocate for any political party...if you are a , Democrat, Republican, or otherwise you should read this book one week prior to voting. Every time you go to vote.
This book is a great intro to current problems in economics. It requires knowing a bit of American history and current events in order to have all the necessary context. It also isn't a comprehensive look at economics by any means.