OK, but not entirely sure what the point was.

The author has some interesting thought points and I enjoyed some chapters of this more than others, but I think it could have been explained in far less time. It felt like a very, very long essay. Perhaps it was better on paper than listening.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Economic History

If this book wasn’t for you, who do you think might enjoy it more?

It is an interesting period piece - the last two years have been so dynamic with regard to economics, that many of the premises on which Altman bases his predictions have already shifted, some as he said they would, many not so. And then, where would economics be without the unforeseen effects of certain vectors?

This I could have forgiven, but I was frequently reduced to incredulity by Altman's blind spot - he is American, and in his writing, it is clear that he sees:

a) The economy of the USA continuing to dominate the world economic landscape into the forseeable future, and

b) The unassailable superiority of the USA over all comers. That the USA is essentially bankrupt, with over $16.5 Trillion in debt (Bloomberg.com) and a number of Cities and Town Councils having already declared bankruptcy does not appear to concern Altman.

c) The 'Grow Baby, Grow' paradigm of 20th Century capitalism continuing unabated. That we have hit Peak Credit and Peak Oil (refer to the IEA 2008 report) is again never considered - its just business as usual.

d) Environmental constraints to growth are no real issue either. He believes that we can simply engineer a way around them, when he does scarcely mention them at all. When your ecological services go offline, your economy, which is a subset of factors within your physical environment, will go offline too. This is never considered or discussed

I could go on, but won't.

What could Daniel Altman have done to make this a more enjoyable book for you?

Taken off his tie, kicked off his shoes, gone on holiday OUTSIDE of the USA and taken a more objective look at the world economy, outside of the (very narrow) paradigm through which he appears to see it.

How could the performance have been better?

The choice of narrator was strange, with a high whiney voice. I assumed it was the author, until I read more closely, and realized it was not. I would certainly have gone for an actor with a deeper voice.

What character would you cut from Outrageous Fortunes?

Not relevant

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!