Review of "P.J. O'Rourke on The Wealth of Nations"

Despite having a philosophy minor and an interest in economics, I just couldn't bring myself to read Wealth of Nations, so I've taken the easy way out and read famed satirist O'Rourke's take on this quintessential text. It was a pleasant read, but I can't say that I got as much out of it for my own purposes as I have from some other recent works, probably because Wealth of Nations focus on macroeconomic issues (why property rights, global free trade, paper money, etc. matter).

A few things, however, did lodge in my brain as possible applications.

1) I wonder at times when I attend conferences whether it's in my institution's best interests for me to present about the wonderful things we are doing. Won't that just help my competition? Smith's answer, I think, would be the "global free trade" argument that if higher education as a whole becomes stronger because we all share "best practices" with each other, then my institution as well will be better off. Plus, if it were all about "knowing" the right information, then the "doing" part wouldn't be so hard.

2) I've been pressing for a lot of "bottom up" innovation at JBU instead of top-down strategic planning. I can't find too many other CAOs who are following this same path, however, so I wonder whether this approach has that much long-term value. My initial experiences have been mixed with a lot of people looking at these requests for innovation proposals as just more paperwork. If much of the "bottom" isn't interested in participating, does that obviate the "bottom up" strategy? Smith would seem to argue when he talks about property rights that over the long-run, the bottom up approach will be much more effective, both because of "buy-in" and also because the changes that do happen are more likely to be ones that will really matter as opposed to something that someone up on top just dreamed up. He's certainly right at the macroeconomic level, but we'll see whether this logic also applies at a small organization like ours.

3) Even great minds such as Smith speak a lot of nonsense. O'Rourke has great fun with some of Smith's oddities and his misfires regarding various political trends. In the immediate wake of Solzhenitsyn's death, I've seen a lot of similar statements about his writing (some eccentric ideas thrown into the mix of his searing and profound truths). It's always a good reminder of our fundamental fallen condition to see that even the great writers are often wrong.