So I finally completed Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

It's funny.  I pre-ordered the book, like many people.  Eager anticipation of one of the most highly anticipated books ever!  I started reading.  Got a couple hundred pages through.  And then it sat on the shelf.  I'm one of those people with the rare talent of being able to postpone anything.  I daresay it is related to procrastination.  But it's a step above, since you actually stop in the middle of something enjoyable.  It sat for many months, til last week, when I went out of town.  I am a much better reader when there are no distractions from home.

Anyways, it was a good book.  If you haven't read it and intend to, please go no further.  I will have SPOILERS!  Well not big ones.  But there will be some, oh yes.

Let me start with the bad side.  Unlike the Harry Potter fanatics, I actually don't blindly enjoy these books.  There were a few things that annoyed me.  First of all, it seemed that Rowling invented the last two books to pretty much stand on their own.  Yeah, there were some things the led up to them, but the horcrux thing plus the deathly hallows solely came out of the last two books.  In the first five books, it seemed as if You-Know-Who was more like that-bad-guy-you-could-never-get-rid-of in cartoons.  You know: Wile E. Coyote, Gargamel, Megatron, etc.  Then all of the sudden, Harry gets a clue and starts figuring out the bad guy.  In Rowling's defense, I guess she needed a way to wrap it all up.  Maybe it's because the first couple books were way too simple; she just didn't have much of a story arc to work with.

The other big thing that bugged me about Deathly Hallows was that there was too much explicit explanation.  Yes, everyone wants to understand what happened and see all the loose ends get wrapped up.  But do you have to make it so obvious?  Like the pensieve scene.  It just seemed that the plot got so complex that it needed a long-winded, complex resolution as well.  Maybe this one time, this story would be better suited as a movie, since you could easily do a  dream-sequence-that-reveals-everything.

Now that I've had a chance to whine, let me talk about the good things.  It was still quite an enjoyable novel.  Rowling did a great job tying all the components of the Harry Potter universe into the last book.  It seemed like every good guy and bad guy you met ended up in the book.   It incorporated parts of past books, like the Room of Requirement and Dumbledore's Army.  The final battle was epic and spectacular.  It was a true fight between good and evil, and everyone showed up.  Reminded me of the final battle in LoTR.  I can't wait to see a movie version of that battle.

Harry did a lot of growing up too.  And it was about time.  It got a bit annoying seeing him stumble about all the time.  He was like a wizardly Inspector Gadget.  But in this book (and the previous one), he and his friends actually think strategically.  Harry figures out the complex relationships and lore regarding You-Know-Who.  And he won over enough people through his actions and his defiance of the bad guys that they would come join him in the final battle.

So, a couple of annoyances aside, Deathly Hallows was a fine ending to a fine series of books.  The books are kinda strange as a series - they don't really fit together.  The first ones are simple and cater to young children.  The last ones are dark and complex, probably way above most 10 year olds' heads.  I guess they show a good transition from childhood to adulthood.  And thus it ends, with Harry walking away in the sunset.  Oh wait - there's an epilogue.... maybe it's not all over... JK Rowling is gonna make more money!!!

A review of Naked Economics

Ok ok ok, I guess I should post something if I'm going to have a blog.  So here we go.  I figured I should start out with a review of Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science, since it was what got me thinking of blogging.  Amazon has a bunch of reviews of this book.  But you should really read mine, cuz I am cool.

Naked Economics is an introduction to economics.  As the title suggests, it introduces economics in an down-to-earth and interesting way.  Instead, it's a 250-page paperbook book that is clear, concise, and witty.  Charles Wheelan writes for The Economist.  Unlike long-winded, formula-ridden college textbooks, Naked Economics reads like a magazine you would find at the hair salon.

What does it cover?  From the table of contents: markets, incentives, the role of government, information, productivity and human capital, financial markets, organized interests, national economies, the Fed, trade and globalization, and development economics.  Ok, these topics may sound a bit stuffy.  But each topic is covered in an engaging way.  Wheelan uses lively yet relevant examples to explain all these topics.  Examples include how difficult it is to open a business in Mozambique, how a Chicago congressman found federal funds to build a parking garage for the Chicago Museum of Science & Industry, why we are ok with giving our money to a bank teller we've never met, why Bill Gates is richer than we are, how Wheelan's condo association prevented the city of Chicago from building an El stop next door, and a civil case in India that finally got to court after both parties had died.

Wheelan also brings up some controversial examples.  Ethanol subsidies in the U.S., the protests against the World Trade Organization, the globalization of labor (including NAFTA), and may more.  One could conclude that this guy is biased (aside from being a capitalist), based on his commentary on these issues.  The funny thing is that on one page, you could think he's really conservative, while on another page you could think he's a socialist.  How could this be?  Because he's just using these as examples to illustrate the topics he's explaining.  He states that economics simply tells you how all these things are related.  Policy is often a matter of opinion and preference, rather than an economic truth.  For example, a classic economic tradeoff is between taxes and providing public services.  Economics won't tell you how much you should tax and how much to fund services; it just tells you that if you consistently spend more than you collect, you're in trouble.

So how did Naked Economics affect me?  First of all, I learned a bit about economics.  But more importantly, the concepts were very relevant to my own thoughts and values.   Some ideas were reinforced.  I've had to re-evaluate some others.  Let me list a few things that came to mind:

• I thought that powerful interest groups were just an American phenomenon.  Who knew that they are predicted by economic theory?
• Why I don't consider myself a conservative, liberal, or moderate when it comes to economics anymore
• How so many Americans have such strong feelings on topics (like taxes or government "intervention") but they have no clue about economics
• Maybe the U.S. isn't as bad to live in as I once thought - just because other countries could be even worse off
• The Fed won't be able to prevent a recession this year.  Only the government can, but it probably won't, because it would involve massive spending

The list goes on and on!  Juicy stuff, eh?  Well, I worded some of them to sound controversial.  But you'll have to wait to read more - I will dedicate future blog entries to these topics.  Stay tuned!