In a world brimming with diverse phenomena and heated debates, R. R. Reno’s book, The Return of the Strong Gods, delves into a myriad of topics, including insights on economics. However, Reno’s exploration of economic concepts is somewhat disheartening.
Delving into the complexities of economic inequality, Reno wisely defers some assertions to economic theorists for debate. Yet, some of his claims seem out of touch, such as his mischaracterization of “animal spirits” in the economy as advocating for deregulation. In reality, “animal spirits” are often cited as a rationale for regulation to stabilize the economy, a principle articulated by John Maynard Keynes.
Economists may cringe at Reno’s confident statements, like his proposal that Apple relocate its production to the United States without considering the intricate dynamics of international supply chains. Furthermore, Reno’s critique of open-society thinking misses the mark, as open trade is often seen as advantageous trade by economists. His failure to engage with opposing views weakens his arguments, leaving essential economic discourse unexplored.
Misinterpretations of F. A. Hayek’s work further diminish the book’s credibility. Reno attributes views to Hayek that contradict the economist’s actual stance on maintaining strong social norms. This cherry-picking of ideas distorts the essence of Hayek’s philosophy, revealing a lack of depth and understanding in Reno’s analysis.
Reno’s tendency to read his own theories into prominent thinkers like Hayek and Milton Friedman raises doubts about the book’s accuracy. An analogy from Michael Crichton, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect, underscores the importance of critically evaluating each argument presented, highlighting the fallibility of sweeping generalizations.
Much like Bilbo Baggins’ sentiment in The Fellowship of the Ring, Reno’s intellectual stretch resembles butter spread over too much bread – thin and strained. While offering some nuggets of truth and value, the book falls short of presenting a cohesive and compelling case.
In conclusion, engaging with Reno’s ideas prompts reflection and critical analysis, even amidst the book’s shortcomings. The value lies in challenging assumptions and seeking a deeper understanding, ultimately enriching the discourse on complex societal issues. While not without flaws, the book sparks valuable introspection and remains a thought-provoking read.
Leave feedback about this