On The Wealth of Nations (Books That Changed the World) (2024)

Some of Smith's most interesting and influential ideas channeled through the wit and insight of O'Rourke.
This is either a substitute for or prelude to reading Smith's bible of economic theory and observations, I haven't decided which yet. But it's remarkable how relevant Smith's ideas are to this day. Don't fall into the trap of discarding the pith of Wealth of Nations because of your politics. Smith's writing, though appropriated most recently by the American Right, are apolitical and transcend the current dismal state of fractured debate, giving plenty of thought for liberals and conservatives alike.

I read every word of this book. Or at least my eyes swept over them all. Try as I might, even with O'Rourke's humor I just couldn't make sense of it. My take-aways: Smith was an absent-minded, brilliant, likable guy; a teacher; a bachelor; a bit schizophrenic in his philosophies. But I wouldn't know, because I really couldn't make sense of anything he wrote, as quoted by O'Rourke whose commentary only served to muddle things up more. The one thing I do know -- I'll not attempt to read The Wealth of Nations, but will leave it to the serious philosophers and economists in our midst.

If you're like me, you've long had an itching curiosity to read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations (Modern Library Classics). But after picking up his 1000-page tome and thumbing through a few sections, your itch is soon forgotten. After all, how much is there to say about 18th century economics? And, though the undisputed economic bible, how come the only quoted text I've regularly come across is a few short excerpts about an invisible hand? This well-respected and identifiable excerpt surely has my veneration, but for diving into economics, doesn't there have to be an easier, more modern means for doing so? Of course there is, but this inevitable conclusion has always left me asking whether Adam Smith was still, well, relevant. P.J. O'Rourke has given us a gift by explaining why he is.

Wielding his dry wit and characteristic humor, O'Rourke clears a path through not only Smith's characteristic work, but his lesser-known The Theory of Moral Sentiments (Penguin Classics) as well. Presenting both in terms of why they (1) should be read together and (2) should be regularly referenced when analyzing current policy, O'Rourke's buoyant style adds a bit of levity to an otherwise dense subject. Even with the occasional flippant remark and incisive jab at modern day politics though, this is still a serious book. Concentration, reflection, and, in my case reiteration, were necessary to absorb the essential ideas, and thus leaves me wondering: if a synopsis and introduction to an 18th century text requires a fair amount of work, how much more difficult is the source material?

Likely very difficult, which makes this reader long for a much-needed reading guide to traverse an unrecognised economics yester-world. While giving some helpful tips, O'Rourke isn't the tour guide I wanted him to be. Neither does he suggest any shortcuts for getting to Smith's essential high points without slogging through fifty pages of colonial era corn laws. Both disappointing, and while O'Rourke does point the reader to the best versions of the original text, some useful secondary materials, and some pithy Scottish quotes to encourage you onward, a syllabus for reading Smith in so many lessons is what I really longed for. Unfortunately, it isn't to be found here. Leaving me itching more than ever to read Smith, but not inclined to scratch.

Read because after his Eat the Rich I could not believe PJ was really that witless. Well, it turns out he’s not, he can write competently enough, although not without gratuitous jabs: "Even intellectuals should have no trouble understanding Smith’s ideas.” In this On the Wealth of Nations he wants to mould Adam Smith into an archetype for the 21st-century compassionate free-market libertarian. It's not a long book, but it is still just dull, and in setting up his hero as a present-day model, PJ makes a giant category error.

Smith lived from 1723-1790. Now, some aspects of the 18th Century translate almost seamlessly into our own times. Music must be the prime experience that we still appreciate without making any allowances at all for that age; religious tolerance and dress likewise seem to resonate very well with today’s ideas and concepts. But economics? Consider that in the 18th century:
* Governance was based on hereditary ownership of gobs of land,
* Asset Transfers involved matrimony or smallish wars,
* Corporations were not yet Persons,
* The Oil Sector prospected with harpoons and flensing knives,
* Offshore Investment was marked X on a pirate map,
* and the number of Multinationals was: 1 (the East India Company, but what a rapacious one it was).
In short, the economic past is a foreign country; they did things differently there.

So from this alien economic landscape PJ attempts to extract a modern spiritual, not just economic, guide. It just doesn’t work. And it is frankly a little embarrassing to watch the contortions he has to go through to make his hero into a millennial libertarian.
Needless to say I did not finish this, although I think I am finished with PJ O’Rourke.

In these "interesting" economic times, everyone would benefit from the one-two punch of P.J. O'Rourke's "On The Wealth of Nations" for a historic basis of modern economics and "Eat The Rich" as the pragmatic practice of economics in today's world (okay, the world of 1999, when the book was written). Incredibly informative and funny as hell, you won't realize how much you learned until you're done laughing. This former Rolling Stone counterculture author is less Karl and more Groucho, but his research is impeccable and his observations are hard to refute.

This is an entry in the Books That Changed the World series from Atlantic Monthly Press, in which various pundits produce short and accessible interpretations of the type of fat, difficult book we all know we should read but just can't seem to get around to (Das Kapital, The Origin of Species...) Call it a sort of a high-brow Cliff Notes series. This one is from conservative curmudgeon P.J. O'Rourke, tasked with making Adam Smith's prolix masterpiece comprehensible to mopes like me, and in addition to doing so admirably, it's pretty funny. ("Never complain that the people in power are stupid. It is their best trait.")
The Wealth of Nations is one of the founding documents of modern economics and an extended argument for the superiority of what came to be called capitalism. The political left sneers at it, preferring Marx's turgid obscurantism, but as O'Rourke shows, Smith's philosophy was based on common decency and practical wisdom. If, like me, you can't see making time to slog through the original, this brief introduction will allow you to fake it with panache at co*cktail parties.

"The man of System...is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; as is often so enamored with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it..He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess board." TMS (A.Smith) pg 232

P.J. Comments on the above quote from Smith. "Barbwire always seems to be needed to keep the chessmen on their squares."

Most of the chapters deal with the subject matter of each part of the Wealth of Nations, adding a few more chapters on the inquiry of the book, info. about Smith, background of the times, and some general info. on The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Reading economics is not always a pleasureful task but the funny and pithy way in which PJO sets it up, helps me feel more assured of conquering Adam Smiths foundational text.

How many of you have actually made it through Adam Smuth's Magnus opus? I'll wait...hellooo out there? Good. Somebody has.
For the rest of us, there's PJ O'Rourke. Sometimes we have to send a martyr up ahead to suffer for the rest of us. Adam Smith's theories were brilliant, and he sounds like a simply lovely person, but his writing is excruciating. If you like lots of words, you'll get your money's worth with "Wealth." Buy 500 pages, get 300 free! Even the editions with the tiny print are like bricks.
O'Rourke explains that "The 18th century was a time for clarity of expression--a respite from the euphuistic blithering that went before and the romantic blather that would come after. But the Enlightenment style was, though clear, diffuse. A digression, if worthy-seeming, was not considered a distraction...And the pace of reading was more leisurely in the 1700s. There wasn't much on tv."
One must remember that Smith's was pioneering work in those days. There was no such thing as an "economist"; if used at all, the word would likely to apply to the sort of person who reused tin foil and washed and reused plastic forks. Data was sketchy and hard to come by. Smith frequently makes a long argument and then turns around and contradicts himself. As modem behavioral economists are revealing, economics is not a hard science. People do not always spend money "rationally." Writes O'Rourke, "Smith's genius was to establish economics as a scientific discipline distinct from the unruly jumble of the mental and material worlds that we encounter in the actual economy. But it doesn't take much of an economic encounter to bring every other scientific discipline jumbling down on our heads. Consider the psychology, sociology, political science, and mechanical engineering involved when we find that our five-year-old has left Wal-Mart with an unpaid-for My Little Pony. Adam Smith was as willing as my crying child and I are to stray from strictly economic points."
"On The Wealth of Nations" is entertaining. But it's not the laugh fest of some of O'Rourke's other books (Eat the Rich). It's actually really, painlessly, educational.
One notable advantage to reading this book. The author quotes passages from Smith extensively. The reader can thus claim, truthfully, when asked "have you read The Wealth of Nations"? that Yes, one has read PARTS of it.

Adam Smith's A Wealth Of Nations is something I've always wanted to read but known I wouldn't make it through it. Even reading a sentence of Smith is grueling. So when I heard one of my favorite authors was doing a cliffs notes version, I was so excited to get my hands on it.

The main deficiency in the work is O'Rourke's constant references to current events and scandals. They make sense now, but what about when my kids read this in 10 years? A lot will go over their heads.

I was also disappointed that Adam Smith wasn't right about everything. But he was right about the main thing: Be humble when approaching economics. Theorizers, Smith wrote, can become "intoxicated with the imaginary beauty of this ideal system" until "that public spirit which is founded upon the love of humanity" is corrupted by a spirit of system that "inflames it even to the madness of fanaticism." As O'Rourke says, "If we think we have a theory that untangles the economic skein, we are kittens with a ball of yarn--killer kittens if we want to tie up others with that yarn and drown them in the well of idealism."

Chapter 7 was the most eye-opening, exciting thing I've read in a long time. Adam Smith explains how western civilization went from feudalism to freedom. Yeah, you think it was Braveheart and Joan of Arc? The Black Plague? The Reformation? The EU? Nope. It was centuries of serfs quietly deciding to pay taxes in an annual lump sum to the king and engaging in free trade. They realized that peaceful cities and laws that protected private property were good for trade, so they played lords and princes off each other to keep their freedom and property. Then of course they started selling silks and crystal to the powerful politicians who decided they'd rather have a great wardrobe than a standing army and voila! The local lord is no better than a rich tradesman, except he has an old drafty castle to live in.

O'Rourke points out: "A good head for business is a middle-class invention. The ancient Greeks and Romans, for all their genius, didn't have it. Otherwise they would have abandoned slave labor with its health benefit and pension plan burdens. They would have freed the slaves, turned them into customers, and outsourced the unskilled jobs to Sogdiana and Gaul."

Reading the 900 pages of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" just seemed daunting. So I did the next best thing: I had someone else summarize it for me. O' Rourke's book actually not only summarized all 5 books of "The Wealth of Nations," but provided a complete guide to understanding both Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations," as well as his "Theory of Moral Sentiments." Smith actually wrote works for the betterment of society, and Smith's 2 works were actually part of an unfinished trilogy on the topic. "Theory of Sentiments" deals with how our ability to sympathize and imagination allows us to design morals and better ways of living. "Wealth of Nations" deals with how free trade, specialization of labor, and pursuit of self-interest create wealth among people. Smith's famous work is actually a positive description of how countries create wealth, and how governments can interfere with wealth formation; it is not a full-fledged defense of capitalism. In fact, most people would be surprised to find that Smith supported consumer rights, and railed against the evil corruption of profit seekers. However, Smith for the most part supports the idea that wealth is a product of freedom and property protection, and that goevernment interference for the most part seems to make things worse. The book also gives an economic history of Early Europe, as well as a biography of Adam Smith.
O' Rourke is a humorist by trade, and he does a decent job of making the reader laugh while picking up the finer points of Adam Smith's works, though some of the jokes seem dated. Humorously, he also dedicated a chapter on why the "Wealth of Nations" is so long. O' Rourke also has a strong libertarian slant, and it makes me suspicious of whether he might have romanticized Smith a bit as to make his book appeal to libertarian ideals. However, it is an entertaining summary, and probably better than merely taking your econ teacher's word on what "Wealth of Nations" actually says.

I picked this book up as a white flag of surrender. If I ever read Adam Smith's original work, it won't be any time soon. Still, it seems like a good time to have at least a reasonable knowledge of economics and market theory, and this is a breezy, short read that claims to cover the gist of what Smith was really getting at.

Of course, because it's PJ O'Rourke, it's as much about O'Rourke himself and his personal prejudices as it is about showing how modern conventional wisdom has distorted Smith's original thesis. There is an awful lot of bridge-to-nowhere references and jokes about high school that don't inform the greater points Smith (and O'Rourke) are trying to make. PJ O'Rourke was one of the funniest writers of the 1970's, but you know, that was a long time ago.

O'Rourke claims he wrote this after reading the original "Wealth of Nations" and finding it woefully misunderstood by contemporary thinkers. He writes in the foreward about believing that Adam Smith had spent too much time wandering off point, editorless and in love with his own voice. Thing is, even at less than 200 pages (the "Philosophical Dictionary" tacked on at the back is so obviously put there for padding that it belongs on a Geocities page), that criticism is kind of rich coming from PJ O'Rourke.

By no means is this a précis for the ages; there really is a disproportionate amount of celebutante bashing in this, and he doesn't go more than a couple of pages without managing a completely left-field swipe at someone that's not central to anything from Smith's time or ours (or his). But if what you're looking for is a basic first-try primer at understanding what Adam Smith was getting at in one of the most significant and influential philosophical works of the last 500 years, then this will at least clear that bar.

This was truly an entertaining read, despite my earlier comments; you just have to get used to the author's style. He interjects passages with his own quips, and the resulting back-and-forth settles into a good rhythm.

Adam Smith wrote two books, The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations. They are incredibly large, and tedious to read. But if CliffsNotes are responsible for sucking the life out of vibrant works of art, then this book is the polar opposite. It makes economic theory fun.

O'Rourke has put together a concise, amusing, and engrossing summary of both of Adam Smith's works. Examining not just the core of his writings but also the economic context in which they developed and the thoughtfulness of the man behind them, he leaves you with a deep reverence for the man. Smith predicted the outcome of the American Revolution before it really "happened" and advocated for free markets at a time when nobody believed they could work. He railed against the mercantilism of his era, and O'Rourke does not hesitate to show us where Smith's writings against protectionism apply to modern politics.

Most importantly, though, this book takes you through the depth of consideration Adam Smith gave to all matters, whether economic, political, or spiritual. He distrusted any one school of philosophy or theory to provide all the answers. He could be described as a libertarian - if that term had meant anything in the 18th century - and held very progressive views on the role of faith in life. If anything, On The Wealth of Nations made me want to learn more about this man who saw so far ahead of his own time.

I'm usually a fan of P. J. O'Rourke but this one felt a bit like a contractual obligation book.

At times he was trying and failing to be funny, at other times he was trying to write a commentary on Adam Smith and/or Wealth of Nations but it was unclear if he had even read the book. He doesn't seem to have enough material for a whole book and there's a lot of padding, including a final chapter that's just a lot of random Adam Smith quotes. Overall, it's less informative than reading the Wikipedia article on Adam Smith and lacks the humor and interest of O'Rourke's more enjoyable earlier books like "Parliament of whor*s" or "Holidays in Hell". Not recommended.

I really enjoyed the book, even though I expected it to be funnier. PJ O'Rourke interpreted and discussed Adam Smith's the Wealth of the Nation in his own words. I had never read Wealth, though I would like to attempt it once I find a bit more time to devote to it (not that it would be the longest book I've ever read, but I think the older English language might take me a while.) So, I took O'Rourke's interpretations as they were.

It amazed me how much of what Smith saw wrong about the English society then was very much applicable to the modern days. One impression that I took away from reading this book was that Smith was a man of moral, not necessary an economist by trade. I didn't get the impression that he was so much a strong proponent of capitalism, but rather he strongly valued property rights; that you should be able to keep what you earn. No one should have the rights to take them away from you. That was why Smith was also strongly against slavery.

O'Rourke said, "... Smith was a philosopher. Moral Sentiment and Wealth may offer a program for practical thinking, but they do not offer a practical program. They certainly do not offer a practical political program, as Smith's advice on politics showed." I thought that Smith believed that we should help each other be better together as a whole. That is, if you make it to the top, you shouldn't forget the little people beneath you. Obviously, that doesn't work in the real world, where capitalism can lead to larger inequality. He also was not convinced that property rights didn't come without some cautions.

Overall, it was a good book. It had some thought provoking parts.

Many parts of O'Rourke's summary of 'The Wealth of Nations' was interesting, but maybe because I had to take Economics, I felt that the information presented from the actual 'Wealth of Nations' was simple common sense (in a capitalistic society, at least), which is what Adam Smith meant it to be, really. Because modern economics is basically based off of what Smith had said, there weren't very many "Aha!" moments, which I was sort of hoping for.

The significance of 'Wealth' is astounding, though, considering that Smith hadn't really seen his "common sense" (not theory) in action. But now we know it to work (most of it). O'Rourke summarizes the main points in one great sentence: "The United States would prove Adam Smith's own thesis: wealth depends on division of labor; division of labor depends on trade; trade depends on natural liberty; therefore, Freedom=Wealth."

Really, the most enjoyable part to me was when O'Rourke summarizes parts of 'The Theory of Moral Sentiments.' That is much more up my alley.

O'Rourke does a decent job of presenting the material of 'Wealth' in a sometimes funny or clever way, but some of his allusions and quick examples to make witty points or to clarify Smith's arguments, I'll admit, were over my head (either because I'm too young to understand a few references or because I'm just too dumb). He does have a good sense of humor and I am slightly intrigued by him and may read another of his books if I have nothing better to read. Seriously, who can resist a book about the government titled 'Parliament of whor*s'?

This book was like a tribute album. Let me explain. You buy a tribute album and are excited because you like the band being tributed and/or you like the band doing the tribute. Either way it is somewhat of a disappointment because the songs aren't like the originals that you liked or the band playing it does not sound like the style you liked.

That is how this book is. I like PJ O'Rourke but I felt he was held back by having to talk about Adam Smith's book. The most enjoyable part was when he was able to comment on Adam Smith's life.

I think a better book to read would be older PJ books or The Wealth Of Nations with footnotes.

The chapter reviewing the rise of Western Civ is perhaps the most concise and accessible description of World History around.

Great summary

There aren't many classic books I have no interest in reading, but Adam Smith's THE WEALTH OF NATIONS is definitely one of them. Yes, it changed the world, but that's small comfort when you consider how ungodly long, hopelessly out of date, and occasionally self-contradictory the book is.
Thank God for P.J. O'Rourke, who boils down its 1,200+ page count into something far more manageable and a million times more fun. The end result is like a Harold Bloom manuscript that got punched up by Dennis Miller. It's perhaps the only time another writer has reminded me of G.K. Chesterton, and that's high praise indeed!
Oddly enough, I wasn't a fan of O'Rourke until now. The first book of his that I read (THE CEO OF THE SOFA) was just OK, and the second (DON'T VOTE, IT JUST ENCOURAGES THE BASTARDS) made me tap out after the first few chapters. So, I went into ON THE WEALTH OF NATIONS never guessing it'd end up on my "favorites" shelf.
But since I've never actually read Adam Smith, I can't comment with expert certainty on how well O'Rourke handles the original source material. All I can say is that O'Rourke seemingly does a magnificent job in distilling everything in THE WEALTH OF NATIONS that remains applicable to modern readers, while jettisoning those coma-inducing passages on such things as the fluctuating price of silver during the 1700s. O'Rourke obviously admirers Smith (both as a man and an economist) but that doesn't prevent him from being critical whenever criticism is warranted. For example, Smith had an unfortunate tendency to undercut his own arguments, and the fact that WEALTH pre-dated the triumph of American-style democracy meant that his views on democratic government were uninformed by historical example. Libertarians might be surprised to learn that Smith considered certain kinds of government intervention to be in a country's best economic interests, while Democrats might be surprised that the phrase "invisible hand" appears in the book only once.
O'Rourke deftly illustrates how Smith's ideas have fared over the years, and he provides a brief but interesting biographical sketch of Smith's life. Perhaps most importantly, the whole thing is seasoned with a degree of humor that keeps a smile plastered on your face throughout. Which isn't generally the case in a book on economics.

P.S.: It's probably best not to go with the audiobook on this one. Not only is the sound quality a bit below average, but the narrator reads all of O'Rourke's jokes in a total deadpan. I'm sure he does a great job on all those Tom Clancy novels that seem to be his bread and butter, but trying his hand at something this comedic was a mistake.

To style this work as a commentary and then to impart no actual information (and to obscure any possible edification via the excerpted and cited original work) would be bad enough; but to approach the work from so heavy a bias, and then to judge Adam Smith's efforts on a pass/fail basis according to that worldview is of no more value than the eructation of a roach.

Mr O'Rourke was unable to refrain from his (to him) pithy bon mots long enough to allow any sort of coherency to appear in his work. It was occasionally amusing to see a 2006-vintage Libertarian trumpet about the inevitable triumph of financial market deregulation (about to lead us all on to greater wealth). But even that was not enough to de-embitter the taste of P.J.'s presumption at literally making lists, such as (paraphrased): 'Here Adam Smith conformed with the Cato Institute's lobbying policy, and thus he was very enlightened'; and 'But here Adam Smith thought that labor-value is a thing, and didn't know that we and Fox News would prefer the Austrian School of so-called-economists, and so he was obviously very dense.'

To so willfully misunderstand the milieu and intents of Adam Smith is quite discouraging in one who is supposed to write a meaningful work about him. What else is a blindered demagogue to do, though? When the Free Market Fetishist finds that his bible does not in fact prefigure his narrow view--well: panic and obdurance must ensue if the small mind at the helm is unable or unwilling to expand.

If one has a chance to read P.J.'s book or a similar commentary penned by a warm bucket of spit--prefer the latter. On a happier note, Nicholas Phillipson's "Adam Smith: An Enlightened Life" is so much more obviously better and worthy of one's time that I will refer all questioners to that tome until further notice.

"A central bank is the institution that controls the supply of a country's money. This would be a straightforward matter if it weren't for three facts: Money is imaginary. Banking doesn't involve money. And a central bank isn't a bank."

That sentence may give you some sense of the wit of P.J. O'Rourke - read this book to hear much more. It was surprisingly lighthearted (at least surprisingly for someone like me who had never read O'Rourke), but it also served its purpose - I now feel like I have some understanding of Adam Smith, a philosopher I have never read personally in any length (and "Wealth of Nations" is 1200 pages long if you'd like to read the largely unread edition I own).

The biggest surprise for me regarding Adam Smith is that the fellow didn't really conceive of himself as a philosopher - that is, he didn't think he was devising a philosophical system and then convincing everyone else to follow it. Rather, he was a practical man. He had, he thought, a good understanding of human nature, and using that understanding he walked down the roads of what would come to be known as economic thought and pondered what the results of different proposals would be. And he concluded that, as a rule, economic progress depended upon the pursuit of self-interest (which we all already engage in), division of labor, and freedom of trade, and that just about any state interference designed to improve that progress (tariffs, quotas, etc.), wouldn't. (Just about - state protection of private property rights and secure contracts is quite important.)

That's the quick summary - but every other page contained another quotation I wanted to highlight. But drat, I was reading a library copy. All to say - definitely a recommended, and enjoyable, read.

P. J. O’Rourke, author of Eat the Rich, Parliament of whor*s and Give Peace a Chance, has written a satirical take on Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. And if anything calls for humor it is economics. O’Rourke’s book is part of the Grove Press series Books That Changed the World.

Smith’s, The Wealth of Nations, a seminal work of economic writing by the 18th century moral philosopher, weighs in at 1211 pages, more than most of us want or care to read. On the Wealth of Nations at a comparative slight 242 pages is like an expanded Cliffsnotes.

The best section may be the appendix "An Adam Smith Philosophical Dictionary" where O’Rourke takes liberties with Smith and gives a modern take on many of the tenets of The Wealth of Nations. Here are a couple to whet your appetite:

Clothes, Advice to Work-Shy Young Layabout Wearing Silly

As it is ridiculous not to dress, so is it not to be employed, like other people. – Wealth, book 1

Culture, Popular, Further Thoughts upon

Drowsy stupidity, in civilized society, seems to benumb the understanding of almost all the inferior ranks of people. – Wealth, book 5

Hilton, Paris, the Numerous Feuds of, Explained

Rivalship and emulation render excellency, even in mean professions, an object of ambition, and frequent occasion the greatest exertions. – Wealth, book 5

Poor but Happy

The vices of levity are always ruinous to the common people. – Wealth, book 5

Enjoy! --Maeve

From ICPL Staff Picks Blog

Taken as an analysis of Smith's "On The Wealth of Nations", PJ O'Rourke's entry into this proposed series is uneven and light. Topics are treated more for humor, and he seems to vary between updating the sarcasm already present (and arguably better presented) in Smith's original, and subverting Smith's intent to support injected humor drawn from modern circ*mstance.

Take this instead as lighthearted entertainment, and a noted humorist's treatment of Smith's life and philosophy through the lens of his seminal work, tinted by his contemporaries, politics, family, upbringing, and his other work, "On The Theory of Moral Sentiments", and you'll enjoy it more. I found the insight offered by the looks into Smith's various correspondences fascinating! I especially enjoyed the account of his friendship with David Hume (and Hume's toying with Smith in the letter describing how Smith's latest work had been received) surprisingly relatable and quite funny!

My suggestion for the best way to read this book is to read Smith's original (try it at least) and then absorb O'Rourke's missive as a witty perspective on a great work and its author. The second best would be to at least follow up on every footnote, and use O'Rourke's rather breezy approach as a launching point for some deeper dives into the original. To read this book, and to claim to then understand either the tome or the author upon which O'Rourke bases it, is the worst disservice to Smith, to O'Rourke, and to yourself.

After moving from Houston to Tyler, I finally got a new public library card. While I was browsing around, I came across this book in a small display the library had on books about current affairs. I have read O'Rourke's books in the past; I enjoyed his Parliament of whor*s very much, so I figured this might be a good bet. If nothing else, it would be a nice way to get exposure to Adam Smith's big book with some sense of humor thrown in. We'll see how it goes.
* * * *

Well, now that I finished reading it, I was not too impressed. On the one hand, it does give a decent overview of Smith's work. On the other hand, the book is mostly a way for O'Rourke to expose his conservative and capitalist views. Smith was by no means perfect, so to speak, so in a way, O'Rourke is doing a bit of a PR job. There is some humor throughout the book, but if you want to get an example of O'Rourke's humor, this book is really not it. Having said that, if you have not read Smith's work, and you likely won't, this is a pretty easy way to get an idea of the book's content and significance. The last chapter has a nice biographical note of Smith that puts the book in context.

Part of an on-going series presenting Books That Shook The World (The "Qur'an", "Das Kapital", etc.), this exploration of Adam Smith's magnum opus is enlivened by O'Rourke's trademark humour and a writing style that veers toward the colloquial and accessible. Despite this popularization, he plumbs the wisdom of Smith's theories, always mindful of their historical context as well as their relevance to present conditions. Smith's is a heavy work but O'Rourke leavens his text with humour: "Chapter 9: "The Wealth of Nations, Book 4, Continued: Adam Smith versus the Ideological Swine When They Were Still Cute, Squealing Piglets"; "Smith disproved the ...theory in several dull pages. He could have saved himself the effort with one well-chosen word, but 'bullsh*t' didn't come into use as an expletive until the early twentieth century."; "There's an important difference between absentminded and scatterbrained - the difference, for example, between the foreign policies of Britain and France."

You may not agree with O'Rourke's (or Smith's) thoughts on economic theory, money, free trade, mercantilism, government (and they both have many) but you cannot help but be engaged by either/both.

I saw P.J. O'Rourke promoting this book on THE DAILY SHOW. I realized it might be the one book in existence which might give me a sense of economics, so I made the economy of buying it.
This book is about a book, that being Adam Smith's THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. O'Rourke has a very clear mind. He gets and gives the gist of Adam Smith. I felt my intelligence increase as I read his recontextualization of Smith's great work. I was imagining things, I'm sure. What I was NOT imagining was the elation I felt reading O'Rourke's cogent prose.
However, what could have been a timeless summary of THE WEALTH OF NATIONS will, unfortunately, date quickly, because O'Rourke, after making a perfectly good point, often throws in a reference to today's (or, as in the case of his Rosalyn Carter joke, yesteryear's) news. I literally didn't grasp the premise of some of the jokes. It wasn't that Adam Smith was remote, it was that O'Rourke was.
That said, his delight in conveying Smith's message is real. Read it before you forget who Kenneth Starr was.

Brief walk through Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. I felt that the author did a good job of combining the themes of Smith's earlier work The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations into a larger narrative and how they both reflected Smith's worldview about how humanity can better itself.

A synopsis like this also underscores the importance of reading the source text (I'll get there someday), because with a book as notable as this one, the meaning tends to be twisted and the passages are taken out of context by others who have also not read the book and might be surprised by its contents. For example, although I'm sure libertarians can talk about the invisible hand all day, they might be surprised that Smith favored things like progressive taxation.

A few months back author and blogger Russell Roberts asked his readers a thought provoking question concerning the wealth of a talented, resourceful Nepalese man vs. that of a lazy, unskilled American. He later answered himself beautifully and gave me one of the best economic lessons I have ever received. If I had already read O'Rourke's splendid summation of The Wealth of Nations I could have scored well on the question in one simple sentence, "wealth depends on division of labor; division of labor depends on trade; trade depends on natural liberty; therefore Freedom = Wealth (pg. 129)." This book is filled with witty wisdom that I won't easily forget. It was my first O'Rourke book but I now plan on reading many more.

Having not read The Wealth of Nations, I am not competent to comment on the adequacy of O'Rourke's treatment of the book. But it does appear to me that this might well be a more useful (and enjoyable) introduction to the work than might more commonly be met with.

O'Rourke is honest enough to admit his own inadequacies for the task, but he certainly appears to have done his homework, and made use of the right kinds of friends. There are a couple of introductory chapters, a chapter on The Theory of Moral Sentiments (which I have read) and then successive chapters on the five parts of the work. O'Rourke concludes with a brief biographical chapter on Smith, and a chapter on the history of the work since. As an Appendix, there is a collection of quotes from Smith put together in a sort of brief dictionary.

O'Rourke's treatment gives us plenty of Smith, as well as much of O'Rourke's own acerbic comments, either in praise or in blame. A quick, but informative read that probably repays repeat reading.

After enjoying quote after quote from O'Rourke in other people's essays, I finally decided to read one of his books. I settled on the wealth of nations because I enjoy reading and discussing economics, haven't read every word of Wealth of Nations (I never intend to), and my wife objected to adding a book with the word whor*s in the title to her cart on Amazon (Parliament of whor*s was in my wish list).

The book was what I expected - a quick and enjoyable read with thoughtful chapters, all peppered with plenty of humor. O'Rourke has plenty of criticism of Adam Smith, which I had not anticipated, lending a little more credibility to O'Rourke's point of view. He mentions favorably the Austrian school of economics, which pleased me, and explains why I agreed with nearly every argument he gave for or against Smith's work.

I would recommend this book to anyone who has a very basic understanding of economics and a sense of humor.