What I Just Read

Huckleberry Finn is really two books: a good one and a bad one. The good one, the first fifteen or sixteen chapters, is engaging, original and beautiful. The second book, the bad one, is hackneyed, inorganic, farcical, and in places nearly unreadable.  It feels like the overall work was written by two different people, which in fact it more or less was: the Mark Twain of 1876, fresh off the tremendous success of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, and the Mark Twain of seven years later, cramped with financial stress and writer's block. Thus the back two-thirds of the book feels more like a collection of vaguely related short stories than a coherent novel, with random characters entering and exiting the stage to resuscitate an increasingly cadaverous plot. Twain is even forced to wedge Tom Sawyer back into the story late in the book, thanks to one of American literature's least plausible coincidences. It brings to mind Virginia Woolf's famously condescending remark about the no...

I'd like to accomplish two things with this review of a book that, frankly, isn't worth a close read. First, I'll briefly point to the specific sections of the book readers can skim to extract most of the book's value--see the next paragraph for that part. Second, I want to use this book--which is the macroeconomic prediction equivalent of a man with a hammer--to expose the "expert prediction" game and illustrate how dangerous it is to credulously follow so-called expert predictions, especially when it comes to stock markets and economics. We'll start with what to skip and skim. A time-constrained reader can extract 99% of the value of the book by skimming parts 3 and 4 (pages 209-331) and studying the two charts on pages 330 and 331, which spell out all the dos and don'ts for surviving deflation. Readers might also consider reading Chapter 15 for its discussion of the Kondratieff wave concept, a useful mental model for thinking about cyclicality in a...