I’m about halfway through Debt and enjoying it so far, but that Adam Smith line, The Wizard of Oz being weirdly recognized as a Sliver/Gold standard allegory and the history of the creation of IBM were all odd enough to make wonder about the rest of the book.
L. Frank Baum's The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, however, is not only a child's tale but also a
sophisticated commentary on the political and economic debates of the Populist Era.1 Previous
interpretations have focused on the political and social aspects of the allegory. The most important of
these is Littlefield ([1966] 1968), although his interpretation was adumbrated by Nye (1951), Gardner and
Nye (1957), Sackett (I960), and Bewley ([1964] 1970). My purpose is to unlock the references in the
Wizard of Oz to the monetary debates of the 1890s. When the story is viewed in this light, the real reason
the Cowardly Lion fell asleep in the field of poppies, the identity of the Wizard of Oz, the significance of
the strange number of hallways and rooms in the Emerald Palace, and the reason the Wicked Witch of
the West was so happy to get one of Dorothy's shoes become clear. Thus interpreted, the Wizard of Oz
becomes a powerful pedagogic device. Few students of money and banking or economic history will
forget the battle between the advocates of free silver and the defenders of the gold standard when it is
explained through the Wizard of Oz.
Which editon are you reading? I thought the garbled IBM/Apple story was removed from later editions. Anyways, it was just a failed attempt adding some colour. I wouldn't ascribe too much importance to it.
I had forgotten about the Wizard of Oz bit! I don't recall if it was meant as an aside or it was meant to support a larger point about public opinion of bimetallism.
The bulk of the middle section of the book is mostly just meh. The final chapter though is something to behold! It's comically bad.
The book remains fairly popular in certain circles. If not for anything else, read it so you can politely refute the person who brings it up at a party.
I think I have the 2014 version. I don't think the IBM story itself is too important, but it does make me a bit more skeptical about other things that I have little firsthand knowledge of. As a comparison I remember reading a local newspaper article about something I happened to be involved in and the details were a bit off, making me wonder about the other articles I had no prior knowledge of.
The Wizard of Oz bit is mostly color, but he relates it to the difficulty state-money theorists have had in coming up with similar narratives, and also that the myth of barter has persisted for lack of a similar anthropological myth for money.
