I purchased this book because I saw Chrystia doing an interview about the topic. Starts with a survey of plutocrats in the past to establish a basis for comparison but quickly devolves into an apologist's vantage of plutocrats and oligarchs, a trend that continues past half the book. I was a bit discouraged with the tone, but I decided to finish it. She finally returned to the tone I expected, albeit more politically correct and nuanced treatment than I would have liked.
As I listened to the audiobook version, I'll mention that the narrator did a good job reading the material, notwithstanding the mispronunciation of several words, most notably "specious" and employing the rendering of "conservatorship" with a long A vowel sound; this, whilst technically correct is awkward and uncommon, so perhaps an overly pedantic choice over the more typical pronunciation with a short A or schwa sound."
The content of this book is indispensable, and the narration of the audiobook suits the writing style. If you are looking for help and formulating your writing, and are confused by some of the ambiguous usage advice, you may find resolution and an ally.
This is well-Delivered and interesting content. Although Groysberg's focus is narrow, he shines light on information useful for other hiring managers and job seekers alike. He points out the difference in the ways men and women consider new job opportunities based at least to some extent on their perspective on personal skills versus social networking and infrastructure support. Though I'd like to see a broader study, he does a good job explaining why he chose sell side analysts and concedes that these reasons limit applicability in different spheres.
Not that I should be surprised at the anti-Marx sentiment given that this was produced in 1988, but this was more about Marx and his ideas, some of which were central to Das Kapital. I was more of an apologists response to Capitalism. Having recently, finished listening to Marx' Capital, I decided to give this a chance. It seems that the primary motivation was to discredit certain aspects of Marx' thought and without always providing appropriate context. At least the closing statement was that the "Communists in Russia had little to do with Marxism."
I kept drifting to wonderng whether I had just downloaded a text to speech version of Wealth of Nations. It was intolerable.
Report Inappropriate Content