The Instant Economist

Economics is such an important field of study, yet it is often perceived as too technical and complex for the everyman. Indeed, economics today relies on so much higher-order mathematics and calculus that it is considered the "queen of the social sciences" -- a subject that approaches the rigor and quantifiability of the hard sciences. As such, many economics textbooks of late seem inscrutable to the lay reader because of its various graphs and equations, which itself is surprising in view of the fact that early thinkers in the field could explain complex relationships without invoking such tools.

For this reason, there is plenty of room for accessible books that demistify what economics is all about -- I hear, for instance, that some people swear by Steven Landsburg's The Armchair Ecomist, though my personal favorite is the more recent Naked Economics by Charles Wheelan. The success of such resources lies in their ability not just to simplify the (seemingly) complex but more importantly to shed light on why and how these things are relevant to our daily affairs. It is in this context that Timothy Taylor makes an important contribution with his new book The Instant Economist: Everything You Need to Know About How the Economy Works.

From the title alone, it's obvious that Taylor seeks to achieve two things: to explain the essentials and to do so in a practical way. He manages both quite ably, beginning with the requisite discussion on demand, supply and pricing, and thereafter branching off into weighty topics in macro- and international economics. When he does so, his presentation is often fairly Socratic: he identifies several specific issues (such as the minimum wage), poses an apparently polarizing question about them ("Should it be higher or lower?"), and then proceeds to present both sides, often with some statistics to back up the analysis. As a consequence, readers are left with a very balanced perspective on relevant economic concerns, and are hopefully empowered to make their own judgments accordingly.

Overall, the book's evident practical and macroeconomic bent, focused necessarily on the U.S. economy, works quite well. Yet the part of me that is an graduate student in economics wonders whether The Instant Economist would make appropriate introductory material for economics as a whole. Naturally, I understand the content that Taylor has put together, but sometimes I find this unorthodox to the point of teetering on the far end of the learning curve. For instance, there is an entire chapter dedicated to elasticity -- by no means a subject one often finds in "casual" economics books -- as well as a statistics-driven chapter on Economic Growth. Whether the book's intended audience will find such discussions enticing is certainly open for debate; but if they come away from having read these more interested in the topics, then it will certainly be to Taylor's credit as a professional economist.

Which he surely is. In fact, there are several chapters that I particularly appreciated, having taught undergraduate macroeconomics myself. For example, the chapter on the monetary system (i.e. Federal Reserve, to use the U.S. case) is excellent, and I wish I had it as a reference back in my teaching days. Likewise, Taylor very capably devotes a chapter to exchange rates, and it is positively enviable that anyone can write so clearly about the subject.

The Instant Economist isn't your usual introductory economics book, even for casual reading. It's a little more than that -- a little more advanced, a little more practical, and arguably a little more interesting. For that reason, it's material well worth having a look at in order to delve a little deeper into topics from Econ101, whether you took it last semester or years ago.

[This review is based on a pre-publication proof obtained through NetGalley.]

Shine

At the start of every year, I make it a point to look for a book that can help inspire me for the work that I know will have to be done for the rest of the year. Let's face it: even if you love the work that you do, sometimes it can feel like a struggle just to get out of bed, knowing the challenges, routines, and personalities that you have to deal with. So it always helps to have some source of inspiration, some added jolt of enthusiasm to help right the ship, as it were: something to assist us so we can soldier on and reaffirm for ourselves why we do what we do.

This year, for me, that book was Chris Baréz-Brown's Shine: How to Survive and Thrive at Work.

It's a short book (as these books usually are), one that channels the likes of Paul Arden, Seth Godin, and Hugh MacLeod. But there's something about Baréz-Brown's treatment that amuses, possibly even endears, as it hits the nail on the head and sets the reader on course for an attitude adjustment. Just a few pages into Shine I caught myself smiling; and I'm quite certain the smile was still on my face when I finally put the book down.

So those of you looking for a little work-related pick-me-up, check out Chris Baréz-Brown's new book. It might just inspire you and give you what you need to shine at work for the rest of the year.

[The US Edition of Shine will be published on 31 January 2012; but the UK Edition is available now(!). This review is based on a pre-publication proof obtained through NetGalley.]

Quiet

It would not be an understatement for me to say that I've never been "Mr. Popularity".

I've never quite been a people person. Growing up, I was always the kid who preferred to keep mostly to himself. In general, I find it hard to relate to others (or do they find it difficult to relate to me?), and while I'm capable of making connections in small groups, when faced with larger crowds my mind just seems to shut down. Bright lights, loud noises, hustle and bustle are all anathema to me. Privacy is something I value highly, and my idea of a good time is getting very lost in a good book, or similar experiences best enjoyed in an environment of peace and quiet.

In short, I am a self-confessed introvert. Hence, it shouldn't come as any surprise that I jumped at the chance to read Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World that Can't Stop Talking, Susan Cain's exposition of the societal implications of introversion.

What's interesting about Quiet is that it isn't your token piece extolling the virtues of introversion (although there's that, too). Instead, Cain starts off by presenting a cogent discussion on the cultural underpinnings of introversion and extroversion in modern society, and how the latter came to be accepted as an ideal over the former. According to this thesis, there was a shift from a "culture of character" -- in which traits such as hard work, perseverance, prudence and the like were what society valued -- to a "culture of personality" -- where being outgoing, eloquent and socially adept came to be seen as important characteristics for success. As a result of this subtle cultural shift -- as exemplified by Dale Carnegie's drive to help others to "win friends and influence people" -- extroversion came to be seen as an ideal, the sine qua non for wealth, power, and success.

This paints an incomplete picture, however. True, many individuals who rise to positions of leadership and prominence might be described as extroverts -- or at the very least, we notice them because they are extroverted. But what of the silent majority who are introverts? The qualities often associated with introversion are equally important to achieving professional success and obtaining social esteem, and there are many examples of self-described introverts who have become exemplary leaders (such as Ghandi), businessmen (such as Warren Buffett), and even artists (such as Barbra Streisand). As such, perhaps we ought to look beyond the extrovert ideal to see what sets introverts and extroverts apart, and in the process come to an appreciation of what exactly introverts have to bring to the table.

This is what Cain aspires to offer in Quiet, which is without a doubt a very thoughtful read. That it is a critique of the extrovert ideal is certainly the best reason to pick up the book, by far. But more than this, Quiet is compelling because it goes further by providing insights on introversion and extroversion from the field of neuroscience, as well as useful advice for how introverts and extroverts can make the most of each other's innate traits. Granted, this is not without limitations. Obviously, the studies that Cain describes in her book often rely on people self-reporting themselves as either introverted or extroverted, which is clearly fairly subjective. Additionally, the self-help turn that the book occasionally takes may not be to some readers' liking (this is perhaps what I liked least about the book). But these do not detract from the intelligent discussion that Cain provides in Quiet, on the whole.

Surely, Quiet is a book that will appeal to those who have never been known to be Mr./Ms. Popularity, to those who have always liked to keep mostly to themselves, to the multitudes of self-confessed introverts out there in the world today. But because it's more than just a rah-rah-rah piece for introverts to rally around, it's a book worth paying attention to and learning from -- regardless of what one's individual disposition might be.

[This review is based on a pre-publication proof obtained through NetGalley.]

In-Flight Entertainment 15

On the last trip, was able to catch two movies that I hadn't seen in theaters:

Moneyball. Having read and enjoyed the book by Michael Lewis, I was wondering how Hollywood would turn it into a movie. So now I know: with star power and a script from Aaron Sorkin. Personally, I found the treatment interesting, if not entirely even: the film was an almost biopic-sports underdog story, but with obvious limitations in the material (statistics and number crunching in general do not a blockbuster make). Still, great performances from Brad Pitt -- who looks nothing like Billy Beane and is almost too slick for the role -- and Jonah Hill. Bottomline: it's a film that sports and baseball enthusiasts will enjoy.

What's Your Number. Uh, yeah, I watched this one. It was actually pretty well done for what it was, with perfect roles for Anna Faris and Chris Evans. In my opinion, the filmmakers missed a chance to make this into more than it was, although they do have to be commended for striking a decent balance between the demands of rom-com, raunch, and light drama. Still, I couldn't help but feel all the talent that went into this movie could have been put to better use elsewhere. But I'm just being a stick in the mud. And I guess that's all there really is to say about that.