PJ O'Rourke made his name with such classics as Republican Party Reptile and Holidays in Hell. A former student radical turned unrepentant capitalist, he tackles unfunny situations in a humorous way, a kind of Hunter S Thompson for the bourgeoisie.
In Eat The Rich he takes on that most unfunny of topics, economics, and asks the central question: `Why are some countries rolling in it and others flat broke.' To this end he takes us on a tour of the world, from Wall St to Tanzania via Sweden and Russia and also taking a course in basic economics.
Mr O'Rourke is an American and believes passionately in an unfettered free market so his view of the world is skewed by this position. Anybody who doesn't agree with him is dismissed as a whingeing, pinko, tree-hugging commie liberal and that includes the US Democratic Party (which is like calling the Progressive Democrats trotskyists).
His first port of call is Wall St and he comes away from there with the idea of dealers as ubermensch, an idea popularised by Mr Oliver Stone's film Wall Street and Tom Wolfe's Bonfire of the Vanities. Indeed a Nietzschean flavour is apparent throughout.
He then turns his acerbic gaze on Sweden (Good Socialism), the utopia of social democrats the world over. He finds the place boring, its ghettoes too clean and neat and then tells us they can't afford their welfare system anymore because they've forgotten how to work. The incisive analysis is based on the fact that the place is litter-free, apparently this is a sign of an unhealthy economy. Real men (stock exchange dealers) make money, litter and don't do lunch. And also the Swedes are mad. Grateful to escape this nanny state he flees to Hong Kong which he adores. Its loud, its noisy, everybody works hard and it doesn't give a fig for the idea that the free market should be regulated in any way. He is offended by the hand over of the city to the Chinese and suggests that Hong Kong should have bought Britain. His visits to Russia, Cuba and Tanzania follow the same vein.
How much this has to do with economics is hard to figure out. It reads like Holidays in Hell where he went to the world's trouble spots, poked fun and shook his head at what was going on. If only they were like Americans, you can her him think.
However, in his summing up he does tackle that vexatious question of economic success and failure and comes up with the original idea that hard work is the basis of success. Throw in education, responsibility, property rights, rule of law and democratic government and you have the mix just right. He conveniently ignores the fact that while socialism/communism was denying these to half the world the other half was being denied them on the grounds that these ideas were lefty pinko stuff. Ask anybody who lived under Somoza, Pinochet, Noriega or Suharto et al, all good friends of the free market.
His other thread is that the more government stays out of the market and people's pockets the better it is. The rising tide lifts all boats theory is well hammered home, however he ignores the fact that to get people into the boats you need education, housing, food and opportunity, more often than not provided by the state. It's the chicken and egg conundrum which has never been answered completely by either Karl Marx or Milton Friedman.
He finishes by saying the rich are heroes and deserved to be praised. However should you be praised because you have lots of money or what you do with it and how you earned it. Mr George Soros puts his money where his mouth is and reinvests it, others buy impressionist paintings to hang in their hallways. The free market at its best provides good employment for millions. At its worst you lose your house, your job and your savings because somebody somewhere took a punt on the wrong currency or the wrong stock. This he does not tackle.
