What do you think?
Rate this book
Don't Buy It: The Trouble with Talking Nonsense about the Economy
After everything that’s happened, how is it possible that conservatives still win debates about the economy? Time and again the right wins over voters by claiming that their solutions are only common sense, even as their tired policies of budgetary sacrifice and corporate plunder both create and prolong economic disaster. Why does the electorate keep buying what they’re selling? According to political communications expert Anat Shenker-Osorio, it’s all about language—and not just theirs, but ours.
In Don’t Buy It Shenker-Osorio diagnoses our economic discourse as stricken with faulty messages, deceptive personification, and, worst of all, a barely coherent concept of what the economy actually is. Opening up the business section of most newspapers or flipping on cable news unleashes an onslaught of economic doomsaying that treats the economy as an ungovernable force of nature. Alternately, by calling the economy “unhealthy” or “recovering” as we so often do, we unconsciously give it the status of a living being. No wonder Americans become willing to submit to any indignity required to keep the economy happy. Tread lightly, we can’t risk irritating the economy!
Cutting through conservative myth-making, messaging muddles, and destructive misinformation, Shenker-Osorio suggests a new way to win the most important arguments of our day. The left doesn’t have to self-destruct every time matters economic come to the fore—there are metaphors and frames that can win, and Shenker-Osorio shows what they are and how to use them.
Don’t Buy It is a vital handbook for seizing victory in the economic debate. In the end, it convincingly shows that radically altering our politics and policies for the better is a matter of first changing the conversation—literally.
In Don’t Buy It Shenker-Osorio diagnoses our economic discourse as stricken with faulty messages, deceptive personification, and, worst of all, a barely coherent concept of what the economy actually is. Opening up the business section of most newspapers or flipping on cable news unleashes an onslaught of economic doomsaying that treats the economy as an ungovernable force of nature. Alternately, by calling the economy “unhealthy” or “recovering” as we so often do, we unconsciously give it the status of a living being. No wonder Americans become willing to submit to any indignity required to keep the economy happy. Tread lightly, we can’t risk irritating the economy!
Cutting through conservative myth-making, messaging muddles, and destructive misinformation, Shenker-Osorio suggests a new way to win the most important arguments of our day. The left doesn’t have to self-destruct every time matters economic come to the fore—there are metaphors and frames that can win, and Shenker-Osorio shows what they are and how to use them.
Don’t Buy It is a vital handbook for seizing victory in the economic debate. In the end, it convincingly shows that radically altering our politics and policies for the better is a matter of first changing the conversation—literally.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published September 1, 2012
35 people are currently reading
400 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
October 21, 2017
Anat Shenker-Osorio takes on a number of issues with the way that liberals and progressives communicate. She argues that the Left is often clear on what it’s against, but is seldom clear about what it is for. The Left gets bogged down with long explanations instead of short sound bytes. The Left is polite and civil and consequently looks weak and defensive. And many on the Left “continue to operate under the long-disproven notion that simply conveying well-researched truths will persuade; we cling to the notion that facts are our best friends and will set us free” (35).
When it comes to communicating about the economy, she continues, the Left often lapses into using the communication frames of conservatives.
“What conservatives make sure we imbibe—though rarely through overt directives—is the notion that people and nature exist primarily to serve the economy. Thus, the only valid measure of success is economic growth. If this comes at the expense of air quality, leisure time, life expectancy, or happiness, that’s fine—all of these are secondary” (18).
Conservatives’ language reflects the metaphor that the economy is some omnipotent being which has agency and which we cannot manipulate. Lack sacrificing to a god, we as workers must appease the economy with our labor. In order for the Left to advance its economic policies, we have to describe how the economy works. That involves demystifying. As Shenker-Osorio puts it, “The economy is nothing more than the sum of our collective endeavors” (45). To argue economic policy, we have to demonstrate cause and effect in the economy. We have to state with confidence that when we implement X economic policy, we will achieve Y outcome.
Our messaging on the Left must use metaphors for the economy that accurately reflect the fact that the economy is something we drive. For that reason, the author suggests that we use the metaphors of an object in motion or a vehicle to describe the economy.
Similarly, we must show that the actions and policies of conservatives block the economy from moving forward. By assigning blame to actor, it reinforces the understanding that the economy only changes for the fact that it is mutable by humans. If we don’t assigning blame to the rightful opponents, then we allow people to fall back on the now hegemonic conservative view that people are to blame themselves for being poor.
“Where conservatives see personal fault, most others are quick to name misfortune. Poverty is an accident of birth, a twist of fate, a string of band hands played out over a lifetime. For example, Whitney Tilson, a director at Democrats for Education Reform, states, ‘Poor children can accomplish great things in spite of the cards they have been dealt.’ This sentiment is widespread. Nobel laureate in economics James Heckman argues, ‘The accident of birth is the greatest source of inequality. In fact, we commonly call the poor the ‘less fortunate.’ The pesky facts tell a very different story. The poor are neither unmotivated nor unlucky. To put it plainly: they’re being screwed” (109).
Similarly, we repeat the phrase that people “lose their homes.” As Shenker-Osorio writes: “Even I, who lose my keys on a weekly basis, have never managed to misplace my house. People do not lose their homes. Lenders seize them—evicting grandmothers and forcing fathers to tell school kids their rooms are no longer their own” (143). And yet another example: “To paraphrase Ellen Bravo of 9 to 5, ‘people say women earn less than men because they don’t ask for more money. Women earn less than men because men pay them less’” (146).
She points out that if no opponents are to blame, then nothing needs to be done to the economy. “‘The unemployment rate rose’ and ‘The dollar fell’ suggest that these figures are self-propelled. This belies the human actions (or failure to act) lying behind observed outcomes” (139). “In considering just how we frame our talk about wages, we would do better to talk about them as returns to workers for the value they’ve created. Wages are a share of the profits workers generate… ‘Over the last thirty years business has given workers less and less of the wealth they created,’ or ‘Over the last thrity years CEOs have confiscated and hoarded more and more of the wealth their workers created’” (141).
Like when they communicate about the economy, conservatives also mystify when they communicate about the government, as if it is an entity that is not comprised of people: “When we fail to see government as made up of people, it’s harder to hold those in power accountable…Consider the portion of our government that consistently receives positive reviews; it’s also one of the few whose members are named as people. I’m speaking, of course, of the military or—more aptly—‘our brave men and women in arms.’” “Van Jones often remarks that he’s never met a ‘public sector worker.’ Neither have I. The people we know are teachers, firefighters, public health nurses, and police officers. By calling them what they really are, Jones is conveying something the spokespeople for the armed forces intuitively grasp: it’s much easier to vilify a category that it is to generate distaste for actual people” (145).
The author provocatively points out that we do damage when we deliberately evoke our opponents’ worldview to appeal to where we think people are when arguing our own policies.
For example, when defending women’s right to choose, we shouldn’t repeat what some defenders have done when they say “government out of my uterus.” Because “without government to help train new obstetricians at public medical schools and to ensure access to the procedure for all women, abortion has become—for-may—a right we can’t exercise” (183). Shenker-Osorio reminds us that “it was never true that government had no role to play in women’s reproductive care” (183).
Even when the Left does communicate with the right frames, the tone is too weak:
“While progressives tread lightly and seek not to offend, conservatives turn up the volume full blast on even the most outlandish of their opinions. They do not meet people where they are. They plant a flag where they’d like people to go and start a march there…This way, each subsequent time they introduced the idea, it would sound less and less crazy. As a result, more ‘moderate suggestions that wouldn’t have even been up for debate a decade ago, like raising the retirement age and capping benefits, now sound like sensible centrism that Democrats would embrace before it’s too late” (184-185).
In this way, the Left’s communication strategies can cede ground to the Right. As an alternative, Shenker-Osorio cites Ryan Clayton’s in saying that “a winning message is one that engages the base, persuades the middle and provokes the opposition to reveal its true colors. We too need to offer red meat if we want the diehards in our movement to desire to repeat our messages” (186).
I actually think that in the Trump moment (this book was written in 2012) the Left is doing this. The social movements led by Black Lives Matter, Fight for $15, Our Revolution, and the Democratic Socialists of America are engaging, persuading, and provoking. It’s the centrist Democrats who need some help….
When it comes to communicating about the economy, she continues, the Left often lapses into using the communication frames of conservatives.
“What conservatives make sure we imbibe—though rarely through overt directives—is the notion that people and nature exist primarily to serve the economy. Thus, the only valid measure of success is economic growth. If this comes at the expense of air quality, leisure time, life expectancy, or happiness, that’s fine—all of these are secondary” (18).
Conservatives’ language reflects the metaphor that the economy is some omnipotent being which has agency and which we cannot manipulate. Lack sacrificing to a god, we as workers must appease the economy with our labor. In order for the Left to advance its economic policies, we have to describe how the economy works. That involves demystifying. As Shenker-Osorio puts it, “The economy is nothing more than the sum of our collective endeavors” (45). To argue economic policy, we have to demonstrate cause and effect in the economy. We have to state with confidence that when we implement X economic policy, we will achieve Y outcome.
Our messaging on the Left must use metaphors for the economy that accurately reflect the fact that the economy is something we drive. For that reason, the author suggests that we use the metaphors of an object in motion or a vehicle to describe the economy.
Similarly, we must show that the actions and policies of conservatives block the economy from moving forward. By assigning blame to actor, it reinforces the understanding that the economy only changes for the fact that it is mutable by humans. If we don’t assigning blame to the rightful opponents, then we allow people to fall back on the now hegemonic conservative view that people are to blame themselves for being poor.
“Where conservatives see personal fault, most others are quick to name misfortune. Poverty is an accident of birth, a twist of fate, a string of band hands played out over a lifetime. For example, Whitney Tilson, a director at Democrats for Education Reform, states, ‘Poor children can accomplish great things in spite of the cards they have been dealt.’ This sentiment is widespread. Nobel laureate in economics James Heckman argues, ‘The accident of birth is the greatest source of inequality. In fact, we commonly call the poor the ‘less fortunate.’ The pesky facts tell a very different story. The poor are neither unmotivated nor unlucky. To put it plainly: they’re being screwed” (109).
Similarly, we repeat the phrase that people “lose their homes.” As Shenker-Osorio writes: “Even I, who lose my keys on a weekly basis, have never managed to misplace my house. People do not lose their homes. Lenders seize them—evicting grandmothers and forcing fathers to tell school kids their rooms are no longer their own” (143). And yet another example: “To paraphrase Ellen Bravo of 9 to 5, ‘people say women earn less than men because they don’t ask for more money. Women earn less than men because men pay them less’” (146).
She points out that if no opponents are to blame, then nothing needs to be done to the economy. “‘The unemployment rate rose’ and ‘The dollar fell’ suggest that these figures are self-propelled. This belies the human actions (or failure to act) lying behind observed outcomes” (139). “In considering just how we frame our talk about wages, we would do better to talk about them as returns to workers for the value they’ve created. Wages are a share of the profits workers generate… ‘Over the last thirty years business has given workers less and less of the wealth they created,’ or ‘Over the last thrity years CEOs have confiscated and hoarded more and more of the wealth their workers created’” (141).
Like when they communicate about the economy, conservatives also mystify when they communicate about the government, as if it is an entity that is not comprised of people: “When we fail to see government as made up of people, it’s harder to hold those in power accountable…Consider the portion of our government that consistently receives positive reviews; it’s also one of the few whose members are named as people. I’m speaking, of course, of the military or—more aptly—‘our brave men and women in arms.’” “Van Jones often remarks that he’s never met a ‘public sector worker.’ Neither have I. The people we know are teachers, firefighters, public health nurses, and police officers. By calling them what they really are, Jones is conveying something the spokespeople for the armed forces intuitively grasp: it’s much easier to vilify a category that it is to generate distaste for actual people” (145).
The author provocatively points out that we do damage when we deliberately evoke our opponents’ worldview to appeal to where we think people are when arguing our own policies.
For example, when defending women’s right to choose, we shouldn’t repeat what some defenders have done when they say “government out of my uterus.” Because “without government to help train new obstetricians at public medical schools and to ensure access to the procedure for all women, abortion has become—for-may—a right we can’t exercise” (183). Shenker-Osorio reminds us that “it was never true that government had no role to play in women’s reproductive care” (183).
Even when the Left does communicate with the right frames, the tone is too weak:
“While progressives tread lightly and seek not to offend, conservatives turn up the volume full blast on even the most outlandish of their opinions. They do not meet people where they are. They plant a flag where they’d like people to go and start a march there…This way, each subsequent time they introduced the idea, it would sound less and less crazy. As a result, more ‘moderate suggestions that wouldn’t have even been up for debate a decade ago, like raising the retirement age and capping benefits, now sound like sensible centrism that Democrats would embrace before it’s too late” (184-185).
In this way, the Left’s communication strategies can cede ground to the Right. As an alternative, Shenker-Osorio cites Ryan Clayton’s in saying that “a winning message is one that engages the base, persuades the middle and provokes the opposition to reveal its true colors. We too need to offer red meat if we want the diehards in our movement to desire to repeat our messages” (186).
I actually think that in the Trump moment (this book was written in 2012) the Left is doing this. The social movements led by Black Lives Matter, Fight for $15, Our Revolution, and the Democratic Socialists of America are engaging, persuading, and provoking. It’s the centrist Democrats who need some help….
July 11, 2013
The book is focused on the spin and messaging of economic and political ideas according to which side is using them, with the conservative side being the target of this avowed progressive writer. The writer, a communication expert, is doing an excellent job at analyzing the political language and its conveyed meanings, but the share of the economics analysis itself is less than 20% of the book content, which unfortunately is leaving not much meat. She is attacking the irrational belief that words can change reality, similar to the beliefs in the virtues of positive attitude so dear to Americans, to solve problems (I remember that in 1970’s a French minister, criticized for lacking a positive attitude, was appropriately responding to his critics: “even with the best positive attitude the grass will not grow faster”), or religious miracles so dear to the Catholic Church, despite the lack of evidence to support any of them. But she makes quite clear the point that words nevertheless can pervert the perception of reality by ordinary people who are manipulated in acting against their own interests, therefore the democrats must use this tool better than their opponents, the republicans, if they want to win the political argument.
The famous Talleyrand, “the prince of diplomats”, has said that “speech was given to man to disguise his thoughts”, but today Americans have gone even further, using metaphors to publically deceive about the facts, shamefully becoming very adept to this, from President to the car salesman, as to make Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, green with envy. In essence, the use of carefully chosen metaphors is meant to lie and deceive about facts, and the author is complaining only that republicans are better at this than democrats, and pleads for democrats to become at least equal, if not better, at using cunning metaphors to brain wash people in the right direction. She seems to believe, ‘talking about our fellow Americans”, that they are unable to see the crude truth unless cooked by professional manipulators, and seems not to realize that any misleading story has short legs, does not go far, and is not the solution to anything good. At least I was thought in school to believe so.
Thomas Paine, “the equal of Washington in making liberty possible” according to Edison among many other great men, has used only plain English worlds in his “Common Sense” to convey the truth, not metaphors, because truth is powerful enough to dispense with verbiage tricks, a crunch good only for helping lies. Paine’s words and their truth have been sufficient to start a revolution of the American people. How it happened that nowadays truth is no longer enough, have the Americans changed so much? What about the immorality of “lying by pretending nothing happened” pinpointed by Mark Twain and prevalent in our media today?
Coming down to the avowed subject of the book, how to fight the inequality in US, I have to agree with the principle that everyone is getting what he/she deserves: to me, the American people do not deserve better because they have never really fought for better opportunities (in F.D.R. era the reforms came from the top, not from the bottom). By contrast, for example, the French people had countless times revolted against their government: the Great Revolution of 1789, the 1830 and 1848 revolutions, the Commune of Paris of 1872, the Popular Front of 1930’s (similar to the F.D.R. era), the 1986 youth rebellion, etc., and the results are here to show: a real democracy, the number one quality health care in the world (public and for everyone, including the immigrants), 30 working days minimum vacation (plus 9 legal holidays, like when I was a fresh immigrant in Germany in 1992 working a week of only 37 hours), colleges tuition free, a less unequal society, an earlier retirement age (60 versus 66), a happier and longer life (81 versus 78 years in US), a more relaxed and less crime ridden life, etc. And I am sure the French will again take to the streets if the actual capitalism system fails them, will abolish it, and replace it with a new economy. To me, changing metaphors to foster reforms, like the author advocates in this book, will never do the trick for the American people.
In conclusion, the book is an interesting reading about nowadays pathologic use of language (to me, worse that the defunct communist “wooden language“), by media and politicians, through spinning and cunning metaphors, but not really an economics book, as the title suggests.
The famous Talleyrand, “the prince of diplomats”, has said that “speech was given to man to disguise his thoughts”, but today Americans have gone even further, using metaphors to publically deceive about the facts, shamefully becoming very adept to this, from President to the car salesman, as to make Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, green with envy. In essence, the use of carefully chosen metaphors is meant to lie and deceive about facts, and the author is complaining only that republicans are better at this than democrats, and pleads for democrats to become at least equal, if not better, at using cunning metaphors to brain wash people in the right direction. She seems to believe, ‘talking about our fellow Americans”, that they are unable to see the crude truth unless cooked by professional manipulators, and seems not to realize that any misleading story has short legs, does not go far, and is not the solution to anything good. At least I was thought in school to believe so.
Thomas Paine, “the equal of Washington in making liberty possible” according to Edison among many other great men, has used only plain English worlds in his “Common Sense” to convey the truth, not metaphors, because truth is powerful enough to dispense with verbiage tricks, a crunch good only for helping lies. Paine’s words and their truth have been sufficient to start a revolution of the American people. How it happened that nowadays truth is no longer enough, have the Americans changed so much? What about the immorality of “lying by pretending nothing happened” pinpointed by Mark Twain and prevalent in our media today?
Coming down to the avowed subject of the book, how to fight the inequality in US, I have to agree with the principle that everyone is getting what he/she deserves: to me, the American people do not deserve better because they have never really fought for better opportunities (in F.D.R. era the reforms came from the top, not from the bottom). By contrast, for example, the French people had countless times revolted against their government: the Great Revolution of 1789, the 1830 and 1848 revolutions, the Commune of Paris of 1872, the Popular Front of 1930’s (similar to the F.D.R. era), the 1986 youth rebellion, etc., and the results are here to show: a real democracy, the number one quality health care in the world (public and for everyone, including the immigrants), 30 working days minimum vacation (plus 9 legal holidays, like when I was a fresh immigrant in Germany in 1992 working a week of only 37 hours), colleges tuition free, a less unequal society, an earlier retirement age (60 versus 66), a happier and longer life (81 versus 78 years in US), a more relaxed and less crime ridden life, etc. And I am sure the French will again take to the streets if the actual capitalism system fails them, will abolish it, and replace it with a new economy. To me, changing metaphors to foster reforms, like the author advocates in this book, will never do the trick for the American people.
In conclusion, the book is an interesting reading about nowadays pathologic use of language (to me, worse that the defunct communist “wooden language“), by media and politicians, through spinning and cunning metaphors, but not really an economics book, as the title suggests.
February 20, 2022
There was some really good advice in there, but the whole thing really could have been 10-20 pages, rather than almost 200.
Here's the advice so that you don't have to suffer through the padding like I did:
Don't compare the economy to something natural, like a body, weather or a moral system.
Do compare the economy to something person-made, like a vehicle.
Something person-made, like "barrier" is the best metaphor to use when talking about financial inequality in society. This metaphor is much better than the word "gap" which implies financial inequality is natural or impossible to change.
Progressives should use direct address "you" when talking to an audience and explaining policies. Conservatives do and it's very effective.
Also, name who does what ie. Men pay women less rather than "women are paid less" or someone evicted this family rather than "this family lost their home". The section on active voice and framing is really good and starts on page 140.
Overall, Anat Shenker-Osorio's "Words to Win By" podcast is 100 times better than this book, and definitely worth listening to if you want political communications advice.
Here's the advice so that you don't have to suffer through the padding like I did:
Don't compare the economy to something natural, like a body, weather or a moral system.
Do compare the economy to something person-made, like a vehicle.
Something person-made, like "barrier" is the best metaphor to use when talking about financial inequality in society. This metaphor is much better than the word "gap" which implies financial inequality is natural or impossible to change.
Progressives should use direct address "you" when talking to an audience and explaining policies. Conservatives do and it's very effective.
Also, name who does what ie. Men pay women less rather than "women are paid less" or someone evicted this family rather than "this family lost their home". The section on active voice and framing is really good and starts on page 140.
Overall, Anat Shenker-Osorio's "Words to Win By" podcast is 100 times better than this book, and definitely worth listening to if you want political communications advice.
November 5, 2017
This is not a book about the economy; it is a book about propaganda. It is also a reflection on how Americans accept and expect to be coerced by language. After all, we are constantly bombarding with advertising, targeting our vulnerabitlites with half-truths, trying to coerce us into buying products. We accept this as normal. This book reveals the machinations of political speech, which according to Shenker-Osorio, has been mastered by conservatives. However, Shenker-Osorio employed this very tactic while titling her book. I had no idea that this book would not be about the economy, and I felt manipulated into thinking that it would be about the economy and economic reporting. I also took exception to some of her critiques of how the economy works. She seems to believe that the economy can be totally controlled. The power of emotion is ridiculed, even though the stock market is riddled with emotions. It is apparent to me that Shenker-Osorio is not an economist. Her over-simplicfications are startling. I do think that economic policies are the only tangible method for dealing with economics, and that they may have an affect on some economic outcomes, but not to the degree that she advocates.
Most of the book is about progressive policies: what they should be, how much better they are than conservatives, and how to sell these policies to Americans. Economics is only one of the many policies discussed.
In short, if you want to read about how wonderful progressives are, and how evil conservatives are, this is the book for you. If you want to read about how to manipulate language to make your point, you will enjoy this book. I think that the book should have been titled, "How the Evil Conservatives' Use of Metaphors Is Better than the Intelligent and Humane Progressives Use of Metaphors."
Most of the book is about progressive policies: what they should be, how much better they are than conservatives, and how to sell these policies to Americans. Economics is only one of the many policies discussed.
In short, if you want to read about how wonderful progressives are, and how evil conservatives are, this is the book for you. If you want to read about how to manipulate language to make your point, you will enjoy this book. I think that the book should have been titled, "How the Evil Conservatives' Use of Metaphors Is Better than the Intelligent and Humane Progressives Use of Metaphors."
May 21, 2020
Once again, Anat Shenker-Osorio has blown my mind! 🤯 The economy is always one of the most important issues in politics come election time, yet progressives don’t have a cohesive vision for what that looks like, let alone how to communicate that vision with our values. She points out the ways by which we disadvantage our cause by adopting conservative talking points, and I feel stupid for not having seen those myself but they’re so ingrained in how we talk about the economy. And then she lays out simple but powerful ways for us to start communicating in such a way that will build support for our policies. Must read for every progressive out there.
July 9, 2018
Solid message, but this 200-pager could gave easily been reduced to 20.
December 10, 2021
Metaphors have power...And the metaphors we use to describe our economy can make trouble for us all. Is the economy a body, sick and needing to heal? Is it just an object in motion, bobbing around? Is it a constructed object for which humans are responsible? Shenker-Osorio says the best metaphor for us to use is an object in motion that we constructed: A vehicle. Think of all the ways we can expand on that as we talk...
She talks about how fast we blame the government when bad things happen...seldom do we focus our ire on the right target...Wall Street, financial elites. The government is neither hero nor villain. They DO have a role in regulating the mess that is our financial world.
She talks at length about inequality...and offers unhelpful and helpful metaphors...inequality is a BARRIER...a wall. Something someone else erects to keep others from opportunities. It's not a gap, a summit...It is a barrier of access. This centers our attention on the process of how the barriers were built, and how they can be deconstructed.
She quoted a study of people asked whether they planned to vote in an upcoming election, or whether they intended to BE a voter. Guess which question was highly related to actual voting?
She tells us to stop using the passive voice...Speak directly TO others.
She lists four policies she would like to implement:
Create less work for each, more work for all...flexible working hours, supplemented by unemployment
Base student-loan repayment plans on your earnings...This will allow people to follow their passions...into teaching, social work, without crushing debt.
Ensuring the right to live in your house...if someone loses their home in a default, allow them to live in the home and pay rent.
Make manufactured inequality expensive...adjust corporate tax so it's based on the ratio of CEO pat to their average workers...
Yes, she's a progressive and proud of it. Yes, she gets the power of our words and our intentions.
She talks about how fast we blame the government when bad things happen...seldom do we focus our ire on the right target...Wall Street, financial elites. The government is neither hero nor villain. They DO have a role in regulating the mess that is our financial world.
She talks at length about inequality...and offers unhelpful and helpful metaphors...inequality is a BARRIER...a wall. Something someone else erects to keep others from opportunities. It's not a gap, a summit...It is a barrier of access. This centers our attention on the process of how the barriers were built, and how they can be deconstructed.
She quoted a study of people asked whether they planned to vote in an upcoming election, or whether they intended to BE a voter. Guess which question was highly related to actual voting?
She tells us to stop using the passive voice...Speak directly TO others.
She lists four policies she would like to implement:
Create less work for each, more work for all...flexible working hours, supplemented by unemployment
Base student-loan repayment plans on your earnings...This will allow people to follow their passions...into teaching, social work, without crushing debt.
Ensuring the right to live in your house...if someone loses their home in a default, allow them to live in the home and pay rent.
Make manufactured inequality expensive...adjust corporate tax so it's based on the ratio of CEO pat to their average workers...
Yes, she's a progressive and proud of it. Yes, she gets the power of our words and our intentions.
October 26, 2018
The writing was insufferable. Anat spent so much time lecturing, lambasting, and deconstructing other people's words that I lost my patience. I skipped ahead to try to figure out what Anat is actually recommending and found her recommendations to be absolutely buried inside pages and pages of petty point-scoring prose. I got more out of reading Adam's review below than out of the book. If Adam's page number citations are correct, Anat's meaningful recommendations mostly occur in the 43 pages between pages 143 and 186. (It's a 256 page book!) Too bad that Anat couldn't leave the point-scoring aside long enough to provide the kind of positively-framed and simple "let's do this" guide that we really need.
May 1, 2020
A really critical view of the narrative of people when using terms such as “crisis” or anything else. The messages are unfavorable because terms such as “change” to flatten the perception. It’s all about terminology, phrasing and so on.
October 27, 2025
The most interesting part of this book was exploring the words often used to describe "the economy" and how the reflect and define how with view the purpose of economic activity and what we value in society. It is something I never really thought about.
January 26, 2023
Petition for Anat to record her voice for an audiobook version! I loved how her humor came through.
August 11, 2023
Mid. Incapable of identifying the problems with progressive politics. Mildly insightful about comms principles.
July 6, 2019
Explaining our economy
Anat provides clear convincing language to explain how the economy can be led by ordinary people for the betterment of the majority instead of the very few. She uses clear terms to deflate the myth that the economy operates by the "magic" of unfettered unregulatuion. Her humor is wickedly funny.
Anat provides clear convincing language to explain how the economy can be led by ordinary people for the betterment of the majority instead of the very few. She uses clear terms to deflate the myth that the economy operates by the "magic" of unfettered unregulatuion. Her humor is wickedly funny.
February 8, 2015
Awesome, super important book! I am a liberal (radical?), and Anat makes such a compelling point about how we talk about the economy. We seem to have ceded so much ground to the dominant narratives, which Shenker-Osario clearly and cleanly shows to be heavily conservative in nature and metaphor. We need to revise our language! This is important! So grateful for this book.
Alongside my adoration of this book, I have two related observations: 1) the book does not touch too explicitly on race, and 2) the book doesn't explicitly discuss all the institutional factors that also lean heavily against liberals in the public discourse. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to revise and hone our language, but I think we also need to situate this in a context in which money buys and controls airtime.
Alongside my adoration of this book, I have two related observations: 1) the book does not touch too explicitly on race, and 2) the book doesn't explicitly discuss all the institutional factors that also lean heavily against liberals in the public discourse. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to revise and hone our language, but I think we also need to situate this in a context in which money buys and controls airtime.
November 1, 2014
Works strongly with the George Lakoff "Metaphors We Live By" insofar as we reduce discussing the economy to slapping ill considered labels on it and fail to notice the entailed metaphorical presuppositions that come with said labels. The book is more at a 3.5; but, overall I did not find it as strong as Lakoff's own books nor as penetrating as "Bowling Alone". The author glances at the need for sustained dialog; yet just misses showing how to accomplish real, reflective dialogs amongst disparate views. Still an fine read.
October 15, 2012
Shenker-Osorio provides concrete guidance for how we notoriously verbose liberals should clean up our language when it comes to talking about the economy. We can still be smarty pants, but she builds the case for her guidance by showing how we've made a bit of a metaphorical muddle in our descriptions and explanations about what we want the economy to do and mean in 21st Century America.
Also, she's very funny and readable, so you can edify yourself and have a few laughs.
Also, she's very funny and readable, so you can edify yourself and have a few laughs.
March 11, 2016
An excellent book arguing economic progressives need to be aware of and break out of the prevailing discourse that has people serving the Economy.
It's an American book, but is just as relevant in any other country with a fiat currency and politicians who push an austerity line and claim we can't afford social equity - and that's most of us.
It's an American book, but is just as relevant in any other country with a fiat currency and politicians who push an austerity line and claim we can't afford social equity - and that's most of us.
January 4, 2013
Mind and speech altering read on how humans communicate. Breaks cognitive learning/understanding down and provides frameworks to examine our language through. One of those books I will read again and again.
March 29, 2013
Anat is a badass. I love her dry humor throughout the book. For anyone interested how to talk about the economy simply and effectively, this is a MUST read. I never thought I'd laugh out loud when reading a book about the economy. Loved it.
November 19, 2013
So-So. Preaching to the choir about how the language of economics and related political pressure is very much related to language use and manipulation of people through the use of emotionally charged words
February 11, 2014
Great insights written clearly, and yet while the book is short, it felt little padded. And yet there are very few books that actually directly guide my professional life and this is one, so hard to begrudging a bit of padding. Everyone should read it, even if they can skim a little after a while.
November 19, 2012
The Frank Luntz of the left that no one's heard of yet. Shenker-Osorio breaks down why the way we've been talking about the economy is precisely why we've been losing the argument.
Read
June 7, 2014Anat is a damn engaging public speaker with sharp analysis and practical ideas. Book didn't really do it for me though, v focused on US economic justice narratives.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews