John, I think you cut this off shortly before my favorite line in the book, which is when PJ describes the typical experience of attending a New England town meeting as like "being a cell in a plant." An all-timer that has stuck with me ever since I first read the book 20+ years ago.
The three others that I have always remembered are "you can take 10% off the top of anything," the gun-to-the-head method of analyzing spending, and PJ's admonition that it's impossible to "observe Congress on a typical day" because on a "typical day" Congress isn't actually in session. Great, classic stuff.
Also - I think you are right that many of these ideas are taken less seriously than they should be because PJ is so funny. RIP!
John's wit and wisdom shine in this article. P.J. nailed the problem, and it only gets worse. I love that both Republicans and Democrats are arguing that the other party is the whore and fundamentally irresponsible. As always, citizens will pick up the tab after the riots stop. The elected officials running some cities and states can't do basic math, and I doubt they graduated from grammar school. Did I hear someone say New York, Chicago, Los Angeles? David Freeman
P. J. O'Rourke was an amazing satirist. He was able to create humor and education at the same time. I think P. J. would have owned twitter/X without even trying.
A little off topic, but I am intrigued by friends leaning towards socialism. I think the advantage of market economics over socialism has been proven over and over, but maybe the more persuasive argument is how bad US socialism compares to best in class peers. Paris upgraded their metro at $300M per mile, while NYC is pushing $2B. Our cost per student in public schools is at the top but our results are so-so. Other countries offer healthcare for all for less than the per capita (not just per patient) public spending of the US. It seems we suck at socialism. Ergo we have a comparative advantage with capitalism. It’s a different type of argument.
Thank-you for reintroducing P.J. O’Rourke to those that may not familiar with his work. Since nobody wants their to sacrifice to the greater good, I really don't expect to see a balanced budget in my lifetime. Just my humble opinion.
Balancing a budget isn’t hard; eliminating $38 trillion debt is impossible. And an unbalanced budget doesn’t constitute 10 percent of the annual budget as does debt service.
I'm pretty sympathetic to this except I'd approah the expenditure side differently, not how much can I cut, but what is the optimal amount/structure.
Take a tiny example, foreign assistance. The primary goal there (besides humanitarian relief which is OK) should be to promote good economic policies, policies that will make those countries more valuable participants in the world economy which of course is good for US citizens. Now JP can_assume_ the resut of that woud be zero, but how does he know?
Others are indeed easier. The optimal amount of farm subsidies and net cost to the government of disater insurance is zero.
But when all of this is done I just do not believe that it will add up to 6% of GDP. Mainly it does not address the mismatch of social insurance expendiures and revenues from the wage tax (which we shold replace with a VAT even if by some miracle we reuced expenditure to the amounts produced by the wage tax).
And the personal and busines income tax shoud be replced with a progressive personal conumption tax at rates that makes the deficit equal to public investment (acivities with NPV>0).
Unfortunaely I do not know how to make this as funny as JP O'Rourke. :)
PJ had a lot of insights. A lot of contradictory insights, too. He tried too hard to show that he was bounden to no man. PoW is a very entertaining read, but keep in mind that it's wit dressed up as profundity.
P.J. left us far too soon.
John, I think you cut this off shortly before my favorite line in the book, which is when PJ describes the typical experience of attending a New England town meeting as like "being a cell in a plant." An all-timer that has stuck with me ever since I first read the book 20+ years ago.
The three others that I have always remembered are "you can take 10% off the top of anything," the gun-to-the-head method of analyzing spending, and PJ's admonition that it's impossible to "observe Congress on a typical day" because on a "typical day" Congress isn't actually in session. Great, classic stuff.
Also - I think you are right that many of these ideas are taken less seriously than they should be because PJ is so funny. RIP!
John's wit and wisdom shine in this article. P.J. nailed the problem, and it only gets worse. I love that both Republicans and Democrats are arguing that the other party is the whore and fundamentally irresponsible. As always, citizens will pick up the tab after the riots stop. The elected officials running some cities and states can't do basic math, and I doubt they graduated from grammar school. Did I hear someone say New York, Chicago, Los Angeles? David Freeman
P. J. O'Rourke was an amazing satirist. He was able to create humor and education at the same time. I think P. J. would have owned twitter/X without even trying.
He was almost up there with Mark Twain.
Excellent post!
A little off topic, but I am intrigued by friends leaning towards socialism. I think the advantage of market economics over socialism has been proven over and over, but maybe the more persuasive argument is how bad US socialism compares to best in class peers. Paris upgraded their metro at $300M per mile, while NYC is pushing $2B. Our cost per student in public schools is at the top but our results are so-so. Other countries offer healthcare for all for less than the per capita (not just per patient) public spending of the US. It seems we suck at socialism. Ergo we have a comparative advantage with capitalism. It’s a different type of argument.
Thank-you for reintroducing P.J. O’Rourke to those that may not familiar with his work. Since nobody wants their to sacrifice to the greater good, I really don't expect to see a balanced budget in my lifetime. Just my humble opinion.
Simply and exquistely marvelous!
If PJ (PBUH) had written this today, he might have altered the title of "The Three Branches of Government" to Big Whatever, Media, and Federal Judges.
I've never read Parliament of Whores. I will now.
OMFG - this is so SO spot - on!!
Balancing a budget isn’t hard; eliminating $38 trillion debt is impossible. And an unbalanced budget doesn’t constitute 10 percent of the annual budget as does debt service.
I'm pretty sympathetic to this except I'd approah the expenditure side differently, not how much can I cut, but what is the optimal amount/structure.
Take a tiny example, foreign assistance. The primary goal there (besides humanitarian relief which is OK) should be to promote good economic policies, policies that will make those countries more valuable participants in the world economy which of course is good for US citizens. Now JP can_assume_ the resut of that woud be zero, but how does he know?
Others are indeed easier. The optimal amount of farm subsidies and net cost to the government of disater insurance is zero.
But when all of this is done I just do not believe that it will add up to 6% of GDP. Mainly it does not address the mismatch of social insurance expendiures and revenues from the wage tax (which we shold replace with a VAT even if by some miracle we reuced expenditure to the amounts produced by the wage tax).
And the personal and busines income tax shoud be replced with a progressive personal conumption tax at rates that makes the deficit equal to public investment (acivities with NPV>0).
Unfortunaely I do not know how to make this as funny as JP O'Rourke. :)
PJ had a lot of insights. A lot of contradictory insights, too. He tried too hard to show that he was bounden to no man. PoW is a very entertaining read, but keep in mind that it's wit dressed up as profundity.