What do you think?
Rate this book
Equal Is Unfair: America's Misguided Fight Against Income Inequality
We’ve all heard that the American Dream is vanishing, and that the cause is rising income inequality. The rich are getting richer by rigging the system in their favor, leaving the rest of us to struggle just to keep our heads above water. To save the American Dream, we’re told that we need to fight inequality through tax hikes, wealth redistribution schemes, and a far higher minimum wage.
But what if that narrative is wrong? What if the real threat to the American Dream isn’t rising income inequality—but an all-out war on success?
In Equal is Unfair, a timely and thought-provoking work, Don Watkins and Yaron Brook reveal that almost everything we’ve been taught about inequality is wrong. You’ll discover:
• why successful CEOs make so much money—and deserve to
• how the minimum wage hurts the very people it claims to help
• why middle-class stagnation is a myth
• how the little-known history of Sweden reveals the dangers of forced equality
• the disturbing philosophy behind Obama’s economic agenda.
The critics of inequality are right about one thing: the American Dream is under attack. But instead of fighting to make America a place where anyone can achieve success, they are fighting to tear down those who already have. The real key to making America a freer, fairer, more prosperous nation is to protect and celebrate the pursuit of success—not pull down the high fliers in the name of equality.
But what if that narrative is wrong? What if the real threat to the American Dream isn’t rising income inequality—but an all-out war on success?
In Equal is Unfair, a timely and thought-provoking work, Don Watkins and Yaron Brook reveal that almost everything we’ve been taught about inequality is wrong. You’ll discover:
• why successful CEOs make so much money—and deserve to
• how the minimum wage hurts the very people it claims to help
• why middle-class stagnation is a myth
• how the little-known history of Sweden reveals the dangers of forced equality
• the disturbing philosophy behind Obama’s economic agenda.
The critics of inequality are right about one thing: the American Dream is under attack. But instead of fighting to make America a place where anyone can achieve success, they are fighting to tear down those who already have. The real key to making America a freer, fairer, more prosperous nation is to protect and celebrate the pursuit of success—not pull down the high fliers in the name of equality.
258 pages, Hardcover
First published April 5, 2016
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 76 reviews
September 10, 2020
Is income inequality really something the United States should focus on? Are income inequality alarmists and progressives like Joseph Stiglitz, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders really correct that their proposals: high taxes, free healthcare, redistribution will help the poor and close the wealth gap between the rich and the poor? The answer is no. In this book by economics professor Yaron Brook and Don Watkins, Brooks and Watkins put to rest the myth that income inequality is hurting the poor or holding back growth. I am far from an objectivist but this arguments presented here were quite solid.
May 9, 2016
As I read Equal Is Unfair, I tried to approach it from two angles: first, as the Ayn Rand fan that I am, and second, as someone unsure about the inequality debate but leaning toward "equality," looking for information to challenge their gut instinct.
As a Rand fan, there's nothing new here. In their previous collaboration, Free Market Revolution, Brook and Watkins did a good job of taking Rand's ideas, placing them in historical and cultural context, and then exploring how these ideas would improve the country (and the world), rather than hurting it. Here, they're on the defensive. They want to argue against "economic equality," as defined by inequality advocates, using a combination of Objectivist principles and Austrian school economic theory. It's all fine as far as it goes, but there is a lot of repetition and a definite "preaching to the choir" problem throughout.
That led me to wonder: who is the audience for this book? Equal Is Unfair is littered with quotes from "liberal" economists like Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman; amazingly, the ones I spot-checked were in context (amazing not so much that Brook and Watkins would intentionally mislead, but because these economists can come to the exact same conclusions as the Austrian school, and yet largely go on to say, "But it doesn't matter if this is true--it doesn't feel like it should be"). In addition to quoting leftists who agree with their economic points while disagreeing about what to do with the data, Brook and Watkins heighten their areas of agreement with "the left," among other things expressing a genuine sympathy for the working poor (and the opportunity so-called "equality" measures destroy) and a genuine hatred for corporate welfare.
This makes me think the book is actually designed to make the case to "liberals" rather than "conservatives" or Rand acolytes. If that's the case, it's a much-needed intellectual contribution to an increasingly divided and divisive political world. Unfortunately, it's hamstrung by a title that could never appeal to someone on the left--even a fence-sitter unsure about ideas of economic equality--and the concluding chapters, which shift drastically into what amounts to intellectual name-calling as the authors build to their fever-pitch conclusion.
As a former leftist who embraced Rand's ideas of liberty (meaning, true freedom and equality for all, not freedom and equality for some at the expense others; meaning, I'm still a liberal at heart, but one of the classical variety now that I see the destructive principles of far too many "liberals"), I feel the concluding chapters would be far too insulting to a "liberal" even if they agree with the preceding arguments. Which, then, returns me to the question: who is this book for? If it regurgitates ideas classical liberals and/or libertarians and/or Objectivists are already familiar with, what does it add? If it wants to reach out to "liberals" to demonstrate why this policy of economic equality will actually impede liberty, then why does it end with a barrage of insults toward an admittedly flawed but, to most of its advocates, deeply held worldview?
Overall, the book makes a few very strong arguments, but in the end it does little more than preach to a choir that's heard the same sermon every Sunday for 60 years.
As a Rand fan, there's nothing new here. In their previous collaboration, Free Market Revolution, Brook and Watkins did a good job of taking Rand's ideas, placing them in historical and cultural context, and then exploring how these ideas would improve the country (and the world), rather than hurting it. Here, they're on the defensive. They want to argue against "economic equality," as defined by inequality advocates, using a combination of Objectivist principles and Austrian school economic theory. It's all fine as far as it goes, but there is a lot of repetition and a definite "preaching to the choir" problem throughout.
That led me to wonder: who is the audience for this book? Equal Is Unfair is littered with quotes from "liberal" economists like Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman; amazingly, the ones I spot-checked were in context (amazing not so much that Brook and Watkins would intentionally mislead, but because these economists can come to the exact same conclusions as the Austrian school, and yet largely go on to say, "But it doesn't matter if this is true--it doesn't feel like it should be"). In addition to quoting leftists who agree with their economic points while disagreeing about what to do with the data, Brook and Watkins heighten their areas of agreement with "the left," among other things expressing a genuine sympathy for the working poor (and the opportunity so-called "equality" measures destroy) and a genuine hatred for corporate welfare.
This makes me think the book is actually designed to make the case to "liberals" rather than "conservatives" or Rand acolytes. If that's the case, it's a much-needed intellectual contribution to an increasingly divided and divisive political world. Unfortunately, it's hamstrung by a title that could never appeal to someone on the left--even a fence-sitter unsure about ideas of economic equality--and the concluding chapters, which shift drastically into what amounts to intellectual name-calling as the authors build to their fever-pitch conclusion.
As a former leftist who embraced Rand's ideas of liberty (meaning, true freedom and equality for all, not freedom and equality for some at the expense others; meaning, I'm still a liberal at heart, but one of the classical variety now that I see the destructive principles of far too many "liberals"), I feel the concluding chapters would be far too insulting to a "liberal" even if they agree with the preceding arguments. Which, then, returns me to the question: who is this book for? If it regurgitates ideas classical liberals and/or libertarians and/or Objectivists are already familiar with, what does it add? If it wants to reach out to "liberals" to demonstrate why this policy of economic equality will actually impede liberty, then why does it end with a barrage of insults toward an admittedly flawed but, to most of its advocates, deeply held worldview?
Overall, the book makes a few very strong arguments, but in the end it does little more than preach to a choir that's heard the same sermon every Sunday for 60 years.
February 6, 2017
This book was nothing more than a defense of individualism at the expense of the greater good. The government was the bad guy for trying to hold us all back from success by making rules to help benefit the underprivileged in an effort to make things more equal. According to the author, we are all given the same chance at succeeding in America and anyone who is still complaining things aren't fair are part of the problem and happy living in a welfare state. The book's conclusions were trite and gross. I wanted to read this with an open mind and yet the pervasive railing against government interference, lazy welfare people, and the belief that somehow when businesses are freed up from government rule they will benefit and take care of our communities was a little hard to swallow.
February 5, 2017
I'm giving this book a 4.5/5 rating. I think everyone out there who thinks wealthy people are the problem should read it, though they won't.
Short summary: this book talks a bout the dangers of continuing on our current path. Look past the agenda of equalization and see the actual effects that has on our overall societal prosperity. Recognize that anything society or governments do to slow down economic expansion hurts the middle class and the poor disproportionately. This is not supposition or political point of view. It is economic fact and has been proven time and time again. This book calls out crony capitalism as the true enemy of economic freedom and cautions us from giving the government even more power.
I get a bit ranty past this point, so you might as well stop reading this review now. Thanks for your time :)
Capitalism is the most powerful force for economic equality that has ever been seen. This book shows how that works and why it works. While certain political parties will attack this thought as "failed trickle down economics," the crazy thing is that there is no basis to the idea that trickle down economics is a failure. Time and time again prosperity economics has been proven to help everybody and equalize the playing field for everyone.
But, it's an interesting world we live in today, here in America. For some reason the media has chosen sides and there is a huge shift in how things are presented compared to how it used to be (the 70's and 80's). One major effect of this is that there appears to be a war on success. If you are successful, that's something to be ashamed of if you share the point of view of the general media. Only one side of the economic debate gets played (the Keynesian) and for that reason, many people think that makes all other economic models or points of view wrong.
But this is actually ridiculous. In many ways. Most importantly because the empiric data shows the Keynesian model is only effective for short periods of time and that the Chicago school or Austrian school economic models are much more accurate representations of how things actually work. Especially over time. But they have a disadvantage in that they don't fit the agenda of pushing for larger government and more governmental power/control.
The real problem, as laid out well, is not capitalism, but Crony Capitalism. Where those who have tons of money and power use those resources to get special favors from their governments. And that is rampant in our system. But the answer isn't to give the government more power. It's to take that power away. Curtail lobbying jobs. Put in place term limits. Eliminate golden parachutes for senators who take campaign contributions from corporations and industries for years and then enact laws that please their masters. And when their constituents finally wise up and kick them out of office, they go to work for those industries lobbying the new senators for 7 figures annually.
That is the problem. This book does a good job at calling that out.
Short summary: this book talks a bout the dangers of continuing on our current path. Look past the agenda of equalization and see the actual effects that has on our overall societal prosperity. Recognize that anything society or governments do to slow down economic expansion hurts the middle class and the poor disproportionately. This is not supposition or political point of view. It is economic fact and has been proven time and time again. This book calls out crony capitalism as the true enemy of economic freedom and cautions us from giving the government even more power.
I get a bit ranty past this point, so you might as well stop reading this review now. Thanks for your time :)
Capitalism is the most powerful force for economic equality that has ever been seen. This book shows how that works and why it works. While certain political parties will attack this thought as "failed trickle down economics," the crazy thing is that there is no basis to the idea that trickle down economics is a failure. Time and time again prosperity economics has been proven to help everybody and equalize the playing field for everyone.
But, it's an interesting world we live in today, here in America. For some reason the media has chosen sides and there is a huge shift in how things are presented compared to how it used to be (the 70's and 80's). One major effect of this is that there appears to be a war on success. If you are successful, that's something to be ashamed of if you share the point of view of the general media. Only one side of the economic debate gets played (the Keynesian) and for that reason, many people think that makes all other economic models or points of view wrong.
But this is actually ridiculous. In many ways. Most importantly because the empiric data shows the Keynesian model is only effective for short periods of time and that the Chicago school or Austrian school economic models are much more accurate representations of how things actually work. Especially over time. But they have a disadvantage in that they don't fit the agenda of pushing for larger government and more governmental power/control.
The real problem, as laid out well, is not capitalism, but Crony Capitalism. Where those who have tons of money and power use those resources to get special favors from their governments. And that is rampant in our system. But the answer isn't to give the government more power. It's to take that power away. Curtail lobbying jobs. Put in place term limits. Eliminate golden parachutes for senators who take campaign contributions from corporations and industries for years and then enact laws that please their masters. And when their constituents finally wise up and kick them out of office, they go to work for those industries lobbying the new senators for 7 figures annually.
That is the problem. This book does a good job at calling that out.
November 8, 2016
As an Objectivist who has been participating in the inequality debate in one form or another since Occupy Wall Street occurred, I must say that an entrance into the debate by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins is most welcome. That said, I've given the book three stars out of five because it only began to participate in the discussion, and because as well-written as the book is I can't give a book that is so offhandedly dismissive of huge swathes of discourse on the subject a higher review than that.
My greatest concern prior to getting the book is that from its very title, "Equal Is Unfair," it is poised to make a straw-man argument - that all critics of inequality believe that to mean perfect equality is the only fair outcome. In that vein, Brook and Watkins are poised to argue against collectivism as would be expected by fellows of the Ayn Rand Institute, but it is not great positioning for participating in the discussion. This is not made easier by their insistence on referring to their argument's opponents as "inequality alarmists," following in the same linguistical vein that has been used in recent years to dismiss all discussion of global warming as simply being due to "alarmists" making false claims. At the book's conclusion, on page 205, it's explained why this is not a straw man argument - "Achievement is unequal, and so equal is unfair." This requires framing their argument as one against collectivism rather than as part of the broader discussion about income inequality, describing all of their opponents thusly: "This is the key thing to realize about the inequality alarmists. They regard economic inequality as inherently unfair [...] in the end, they are skeptical of the propriety of *any* inequality." These "alarmists" are also defined as authoritarians, and even if some are that does not mean that *all* are; by arguing that their opponents should be dismissed out of hand, they weaken their own argumentation and fail to pursue rich veins of inquiry.
Likewise, all it takes is one word to dissolve huge swathes of opposing argumentation rather than discuss it, as was done by adding "supposedly" when discussing the basic model of 'how economics works' without presenting an alternative model or theory.
The bulk of the book discusses how wealth is created and the epistemology of Ayn Rand's philosophy, and does so quite well in an accessible fashion to a reader who is not already knowledgeable about the subject. That said, there is more to discussing income inequality than discussing the root of economic activity and the requirement for a positive work ethic. Even someone who agrees with the authors on much of the material discussed in their book can find fault - because of what the book does not contain rather than what it does.
By dismissing all participants in the argument over income inequality as proto-communist leftists advocating for collectivism in their moral philosophy, a real exploration of our current economic failings is not undertaken... slavery is shuffled off-stage with a "this is a separate and worthwhile discussion," but its economic effects still echo generations after their emancipation and those generations' inequality under the law also continues after 1865. Economic inequality based on racial breakdown is part of the inequality argument, it can't simply be dismissed. This is also a key missing piece to the "crab-pot phenomenon" that is discussed frequently, beginning on page 77: "When people are taught that they cannot succeed through their own efforts, those who accept that notion will naturally come to resent those who try to succeed through their own efforts, creating the crab-pot phenomenon that drags so many people down."
Having dismissed slavery and the history of racism as not cogent to their discussion, they miss its key effect here: that this may be a survival mechanism, not a hatred of the good simply for being good. Given our history of Jim Crow laws and unequal treatment under the law up to and including lynchings, some communities have developed a very rational response to individual members trying hard to succeed because, within living memory, those members were lynched rather than rewarded with broad vistas of opportunity for having escaped their dire circumstances. By bypassing the actual inequality discussions being had, the authors fail to participate in the racial and gender inequality debates that do not fit their model of individualistic positive opportunity.
While it is fair to dismiss both Hillary Clinton's and President Omaba's repetition of Senator Warren's speech as vacuous and heavy-handed, by simply describing her with the broad brush of a collectivist authoritarian they miss the line of her argumentation: that some things are provided to the community as a whole because the community is all the richer for it and the free market would not provide it, such as police and fire departments, necessitating taxes as part of a social compact. Warren makes a specific argument, something in the line of how to account for true costs that were paid for previously by the community and are beneficial to the firm, but her argument is dismissed as collectivistic without addressing it further. Addressing it further would leave open the ability to discuss governmental overreach and question whether the free market would in fact break down when filling the role of education or road building, but instead her comment is described as a "rant" and boiled down to an essence Obama and Clinton *did* fall into but Warren did not, that success was all luck and no skill. The Objectivist view of taxation would have been fruitful to include here, but instead a point is hammered home about the ideology of income inequality "alarmists" that doesn't actually fit.
The discussion of CEO pay is incomplete, in that their argumentative framework does not notice a phenomenon described in the seminal work "The Modern Corporation And Private Property," that ownership of shares of stock does not necessarily include an effective property right to exert control over the firm - control can be difficult to define, may not require much in the way of an ownership stake via a variety of laddered structures, and existing incumbents control most of the tools used to frame any possible discussions of making changes. The phenomena of CEOs appointing boards who then vote for pay for top earners is real, but largely undiscussed here - as is the fact that the size of the largest corporations may be larger than the size of some nation-states, which is creating real tensions on our path towards globalization.
This would have been a useful point to introduce a commonly-discussed graph that I would go so far as to say a book discussing income inequality cannot escape: the comparison of productivity growth versus wage growth over time, which shows tight coordination from 1947 when the data began to be collected until about 1972, then decouples and wage growth is effectively stagnant while productivity growth continues at its prior historical rate of about 2% a year. *This* would open discussion into the broader difficulties our changing economy is facing: when productivity no longer requires people, individual labor as the root of production and our entire system of voluntary trade runs into difficulty if ownership rights of capital stocks are not widely distributed.
And that is where I think "Equal Is Unfair" does not go far enough; having mastered a positive vision for individual economic behavior, it never steps back to consider the macroeconomics of income inequality, having essentially dismissed them early on with a single "supposedly." Whether we're discussing Keynes or Friedman, both are examining the same macroeconomic phenomena from different frames of reference - but "what money is" and how it comes into existence is not questioned and the Federal Reserve and monetary policy lie outside of the scope of the work. This prevents the authors from exploring the question of whether it would be rational for an individual to willingly cede a portion of their earnings while they are working in order to put into place larger market structures that would pursue economic stimulus when necessary to prevent economic contraction, and how such could be built on a voluntary basis out of market structures without requiring the government and taxation.
There is much still to be explored, and it is my sincere hope that the authors continue to probe the questions of income inequality in a future work. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that they are familiar with the arguments made by their opponents or that any argument their opponents might make might convince them to explore further. Epistemology and moral philosophy have been powerful tools in presenting their positive vision for how to remove shackles in order to unbind our economy, but they are not actually economics - further participation in the income inequality debate would prove revelatory to them, as it did to me, opening a whole host of new questions that are not so easily answered.
My greatest concern prior to getting the book is that from its very title, "Equal Is Unfair," it is poised to make a straw-man argument - that all critics of inequality believe that to mean perfect equality is the only fair outcome. In that vein, Brook and Watkins are poised to argue against collectivism as would be expected by fellows of the Ayn Rand Institute, but it is not great positioning for participating in the discussion. This is not made easier by their insistence on referring to their argument's opponents as "inequality alarmists," following in the same linguistical vein that has been used in recent years to dismiss all discussion of global warming as simply being due to "alarmists" making false claims. At the book's conclusion, on page 205, it's explained why this is not a straw man argument - "Achievement is unequal, and so equal is unfair." This requires framing their argument as one against collectivism rather than as part of the broader discussion about income inequality, describing all of their opponents thusly: "This is the key thing to realize about the inequality alarmists. They regard economic inequality as inherently unfair [...] in the end, they are skeptical of the propriety of *any* inequality." These "alarmists" are also defined as authoritarians, and even if some are that does not mean that *all* are; by arguing that their opponents should be dismissed out of hand, they weaken their own argumentation and fail to pursue rich veins of inquiry.
Likewise, all it takes is one word to dissolve huge swathes of opposing argumentation rather than discuss it, as was done by adding "supposedly" when discussing the basic model of 'how economics works' without presenting an alternative model or theory.
The bulk of the book discusses how wealth is created and the epistemology of Ayn Rand's philosophy, and does so quite well in an accessible fashion to a reader who is not already knowledgeable about the subject. That said, there is more to discussing income inequality than discussing the root of economic activity and the requirement for a positive work ethic. Even someone who agrees with the authors on much of the material discussed in their book can find fault - because of what the book does not contain rather than what it does.
By dismissing all participants in the argument over income inequality as proto-communist leftists advocating for collectivism in their moral philosophy, a real exploration of our current economic failings is not undertaken... slavery is shuffled off-stage with a "this is a separate and worthwhile discussion," but its economic effects still echo generations after their emancipation and those generations' inequality under the law also continues after 1865. Economic inequality based on racial breakdown is part of the inequality argument, it can't simply be dismissed. This is also a key missing piece to the "crab-pot phenomenon" that is discussed frequently, beginning on page 77: "When people are taught that they cannot succeed through their own efforts, those who accept that notion will naturally come to resent those who try to succeed through their own efforts, creating the crab-pot phenomenon that drags so many people down."
Having dismissed slavery and the history of racism as not cogent to their discussion, they miss its key effect here: that this may be a survival mechanism, not a hatred of the good simply for being good. Given our history of Jim Crow laws and unequal treatment under the law up to and including lynchings, some communities have developed a very rational response to individual members trying hard to succeed because, within living memory, those members were lynched rather than rewarded with broad vistas of opportunity for having escaped their dire circumstances. By bypassing the actual inequality discussions being had, the authors fail to participate in the racial and gender inequality debates that do not fit their model of individualistic positive opportunity.
While it is fair to dismiss both Hillary Clinton's and President Omaba's repetition of Senator Warren's speech as vacuous and heavy-handed, by simply describing her with the broad brush of a collectivist authoritarian they miss the line of her argumentation: that some things are provided to the community as a whole because the community is all the richer for it and the free market would not provide it, such as police and fire departments, necessitating taxes as part of a social compact. Warren makes a specific argument, something in the line of how to account for true costs that were paid for previously by the community and are beneficial to the firm, but her argument is dismissed as collectivistic without addressing it further. Addressing it further would leave open the ability to discuss governmental overreach and question whether the free market would in fact break down when filling the role of education or road building, but instead her comment is described as a "rant" and boiled down to an essence Obama and Clinton *did* fall into but Warren did not, that success was all luck and no skill. The Objectivist view of taxation would have been fruitful to include here, but instead a point is hammered home about the ideology of income inequality "alarmists" that doesn't actually fit.
The discussion of CEO pay is incomplete, in that their argumentative framework does not notice a phenomenon described in the seminal work "The Modern Corporation And Private Property," that ownership of shares of stock does not necessarily include an effective property right to exert control over the firm - control can be difficult to define, may not require much in the way of an ownership stake via a variety of laddered structures, and existing incumbents control most of the tools used to frame any possible discussions of making changes. The phenomena of CEOs appointing boards who then vote for pay for top earners is real, but largely undiscussed here - as is the fact that the size of the largest corporations may be larger than the size of some nation-states, which is creating real tensions on our path towards globalization.
This would have been a useful point to introduce a commonly-discussed graph that I would go so far as to say a book discussing income inequality cannot escape: the comparison of productivity growth versus wage growth over time, which shows tight coordination from 1947 when the data began to be collected until about 1972, then decouples and wage growth is effectively stagnant while productivity growth continues at its prior historical rate of about 2% a year. *This* would open discussion into the broader difficulties our changing economy is facing: when productivity no longer requires people, individual labor as the root of production and our entire system of voluntary trade runs into difficulty if ownership rights of capital stocks are not widely distributed.
And that is where I think "Equal Is Unfair" does not go far enough; having mastered a positive vision for individual economic behavior, it never steps back to consider the macroeconomics of income inequality, having essentially dismissed them early on with a single "supposedly." Whether we're discussing Keynes or Friedman, both are examining the same macroeconomic phenomena from different frames of reference - but "what money is" and how it comes into existence is not questioned and the Federal Reserve and monetary policy lie outside of the scope of the work. This prevents the authors from exploring the question of whether it would be rational for an individual to willingly cede a portion of their earnings while they are working in order to put into place larger market structures that would pursue economic stimulus when necessary to prevent economic contraction, and how such could be built on a voluntary basis out of market structures without requiring the government and taxation.
There is much still to be explored, and it is my sincere hope that the authors continue to probe the questions of income inequality in a future work. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that they are familiar with the arguments made by their opponents or that any argument their opponents might make might convince them to explore further. Epistemology and moral philosophy have been powerful tools in presenting their positive vision for how to remove shackles in order to unbind our economy, but they are not actually economics - further participation in the income inequality debate would prove revelatory to them, as it did to me, opening a whole host of new questions that are not so easily answered.
April 16, 2016
One sign of the deterioration of a culture is the corruption of language. One outstanding example of that corruption can be seen clearly in the destruction of the concept of “equality” in our political discourse. Historically political equality meant that we are all equal before the law. Today, that political meaning has been packaged with a number of other meanings, which are in contradiction with that original meaning.
What about the concept of equality of opportunity? Is this concept compatible with the original meaning? This book shows clearly that it is not. What about equality of wealth, or income equality, intelligence, or any kind of genetic advantages? How about the advantage of the being born in the US? Does moral justice require that everyone be equalized under any and all circumstances? Is this what is meant by social justice?
All of these issues and their philosophical, political, and economic foundations are examined, in definitive terms, in this important book. Everyone who is concerned about what a great many of the intellectuals today are trying to perpetrate in furtherance of a nihilistic ideology should read this book as intellectual ammunition in defense of their lives, and in the preservation of the values that made this the greatest country in history.
What about the concept of equality of opportunity? Is this concept compatible with the original meaning? This book shows clearly that it is not. What about equality of wealth, or income equality, intelligence, or any kind of genetic advantages? How about the advantage of the being born in the US? Does moral justice require that everyone be equalized under any and all circumstances? Is this what is meant by social justice?
All of these issues and their philosophical, political, and economic foundations are examined, in definitive terms, in this important book. Everyone who is concerned about what a great many of the intellectuals today are trying to perpetrate in furtherance of a nihilistic ideology should read this book as intellectual ammunition in defense of their lives, and in the preservation of the values that made this the greatest country in history.
February 1, 2017
Lots of great concepts in this book, like the idea that people aren't completely helpless, shouldn't be treated that way, and that most people can be trusted with their own wealth. We live in a society that promotes jealousy rather than celebrates and encourages success. We have stacked the deck in favor of established, successful businesses, rather than encouraged innovation. Final thought: every time you make excuses for my lack of success, every time you blame it on those who have found it, you belittle my human potential. A really cool read for independent thought.
September 8, 2017
This is one of the backlash books post-Picketty. The basic premise is this: the American Dream is about rewarding ability, praising effort, can-do spirit and risk taking. The authors posited that Inequality Alarmists (pro-equality scholars) are just proto-communists. They explained that we are all unequal in birth circumstances, ability, drive, luck etc. To be successful, we need to work hard, take risks and create value and wealth for everyone. No one forces us to use Microsoft and Google, but the millions who use them make the owners rich, deservedly. They explain that the much-maligned finance people provide value and create wealth by giving opportunities and resources to entrepreneurs. Quoting Collins, they suggested that luck has nothing to do with whether companies are successful for not.
On the other hand, they explained Ayn Rand's philosophy in many parts of the book. Basically we have our rights to prosperity and no one should be able to take any part away from us. They explained that only by respecting thia Freedom to prosper would everyone's prosperity increases. They explained that though there is so much inequality, everyone's living standards had improved over the last century and people still want to come to America for the opportunities she provides. Thus anyone plans that tax the very successful to give to the poor are not right.
The authors suggest removing all social welfare for the poor but also remove all subsidies and tax breaks for the rich. They do not think that the government should help the poor and unfortunate at all. They should instead be left to the poor. Anyone who suggest otherwise are just jealous of the rich and are the same as Pol Pot who killed millions in Cambodia.
The authors suggested that helping the poor actually victimise them!
Wow. I agree with the part about the rich deserve their riches but to say that they should not part with anything to help the poor, is just hard to stomach. Taken to the extreme, it will result in a heartless society just like a fully equal society will. Of course we need a balance of capitalism but also compassion of the poor.
On the other hand, they explained Ayn Rand's philosophy in many parts of the book. Basically we have our rights to prosperity and no one should be able to take any part away from us. They explained that only by respecting thia Freedom to prosper would everyone's prosperity increases. They explained that though there is so much inequality, everyone's living standards had improved over the last century and people still want to come to America for the opportunities she provides. Thus anyone plans that tax the very successful to give to the poor are not right.
The authors suggest removing all social welfare for the poor but also remove all subsidies and tax breaks for the rich. They do not think that the government should help the poor and unfortunate at all. They should instead be left to the poor. Anyone who suggest otherwise are just jealous of the rich and are the same as Pol Pot who killed millions in Cambodia.
The authors suggested that helping the poor actually victimise them!
Wow. I agree with the part about the rich deserve their riches but to say that they should not part with anything to help the poor, is just hard to stomach. Taken to the extreme, it will result in a heartless society just like a fully equal society will. Of course we need a balance of capitalism but also compassion of the poor.
October 10, 2016
It's refreshing to know that logic and reasoning is not completely lost in today's intellectuals. I enjoyed this book start to finish. It basically serves as an expose` on the misguided attempts of the egalitarians to chop us all down to an equally pathetic playing field. The authors of this book champion the individual mind and all that it can accomplish and admonish the collectivist that would have us all held down so the least of society's contributors and achievers do not feel left behind.
It is scary to think that there are so many people working towards the egalitarian ideal society. If you think this is a good idea, just examine modern Cuba, or Pol Pot's Cambodia, where everyone is truly equal.
No thanks for me. I will take my equal opportunity and unequal results any day of the week. I go to bed happy at night that my future is in my own hands and no one else's. If I am not happy with my station in life, I can roll up my sleeves and improve it. I also have the choice to not improve it. It is the choice that makes life worth living.
It is scary to think that there are so many people working towards the egalitarian ideal society. If you think this is a good idea, just examine modern Cuba, or Pol Pot's Cambodia, where everyone is truly equal.
No thanks for me. I will take my equal opportunity and unequal results any day of the week. I go to bed happy at night that my future is in my own hands and no one else's. If I am not happy with my station in life, I can roll up my sleeves and improve it. I also have the choice to not improve it. It is the choice that makes life worth living.
May 17, 2018
This book sets a lot of issues related to Income inequality in America and the problems that a capitalist system could run into , in perspective. I like the author's explanation of how economic inequality and political inequality differ.
Its easy to agree with most of the points described in this book . I would definitely give it 4 stars.
Its easy to agree with most of the points described in this book . I would definitely give it 4 stars.
June 12, 2023
"A rational concept of fairness is grounded, not in equality, but in treating people as they deserve. There is a sense in which this requires equality. It is, as Aristotle said, just to treat equal things equally. But for the same reason, he added, we must treat unequal things unequally. Achievement is unequal, and so equal is unfair."
September 23, 2020
Boken är en motkraft till rådande narrativ om ekonomiska ojämlikheter i USA (och resterande delar av världen. Narrativet, framfört av “the inequality critics”, innehåller en rad punkter som bär på en hög grad igenkänningsfaktor i Sveriges kollektivistiska klimat:
Möjligheten för varje medborgare att röra sig uppåt i samhällstrappan kräver kraftiga, statliga ingrepp i form av omfördelningspolitik, istället för avregleringar och mer ekonomiska friheter för företag och arbetstagare.
Det ideala ligger vid “tryggheten” att få en välfärdscheck, inte vid den individuella framgången av att tjäna sitt uppehälle (och, vad som ses tabubelagt, att vara stolt över det). Den moraliska rättvisan ligger inte i att få (och det endast) man har gjort sig förtjänt av, utan att alltid få sina behov tillfredsställda på någon annans bekostnad; oavsett vem och för vilket pris.
Nyckeln till framgång, social som ekonomisk, är att tacka välfärdsstaten för (FDR och LBJ:s projekt i USA) och det största tänkbara hotet mot jämlikhet är en strypt, laissez-faire inriktad stat - vilket kräver individuellt ansvar.
Detta narrativ, som författarna presenterar en antites till, utgör bokens röda tråd där Brook och Watkins granskar de vanligaste argumenten från progressiva vänsteranhängare. De väcker en kritik och oro över följande:
1. Minimilöner: 1A) Berövar arbetstagarens frihet (och ansvar) att kunna avgöra vilken lön som passar en bäst. 1B) Rånar en lågutbildad människans största konkurrensfördelar: möjligheten att acceptera en lägre ingångslön än vad en med lån för utbildning har att göra och därmed få jobbet. 1C) Med en höjd minimilön, som enligt författarna är föreslagen på en ökning med 100% (7,25 till 15%), kommer endast vissa arbetstagare få en förhöjd lön, då resten antingen avskedas då företagen inte har råd att behålla alla anställda (eftersom deras nya, lagstadgade, löner inte motsvarar deras marknadsvärde) samt att det blir ännu svårare för den lågutbildade personen eller för invandraren med, initiala, språksvårigheter att finna jobbtillfällen.
2. Fackföreningar. 2A) Brook och Watkins poängterar att fackföreningar i sig är inget problem och det finns sitt egenvärde i att föra kollektiv förhandling, givet att deltagandet är frivilligt både hos arbetstagaren men också arbetsgivaren. 2B) Problematiken ligger kring ”Pro-union legislation” som ger fackförbunden ett ”politiskt privilegium”, som inte hör hemma på en fri marknad. Facken får en tvingande makt över arbetsgivare och icke fackliga arbetare då arbetsgivarna blir tvingade ”to choose between caving in to some of these demands and facing costly and time-consuming litigation”. De icke fackliga arbetarna får en mindre lön än andra, som inte är bedömt av marknadens funktioner (därav ej rättfärdigade). 2C) I och med ”artificiellt” (påtvingade) högre löner inom vissa sektorer så kommer det minska produktionen (då processen blir dyrare utan att produktionen har ökat så leder det till färre anställda) vilket gör att produkterna i slutändan blir dyrare, både i absoluta termer men även relativt till vad man tjänar för de som inte vill vara med i facket. Allt detta för att facken har den politiska makten att tvinga på arbetsgivare dessa krav.
3. ”The fixed pie & group pie assumptions, där den förstnämnda anser att mängden välstånd är statiskt och därav är fördelningen ett nollsummespel och den andra antar att välståndet är något ”samhället” har tillsammans, som i sin tur har fördelats orättvist. Båda dessa kräver progressiv fördelningspolitik. 3A) Även fast dessa uppfattningar representerar två olika retoriker inom den kollektivistiska falangen så är författarnas motfråga densamma: Hur skapas välstånd? Svar: Genom produktion. Vem skapar det? Individen i en intellektuell process genom att skapa nya idéer som revolutionerar våra liv, skriver författarna. Med att produktionen växer med nya idéers, så växer även pajen (Harari kallar det för en mirakelkaka) I och med det faktum att välstånd skapas och ägs av individer, blir det då moraliskt att eftersträva ekonomisk jämlikhet? 3B) Fattigdom är inte samma sak som ojämlikhet, då fattigdom är det ursprungliga och välstånd skapas (och växer). Med den premissen menar Brook och Watkins att statens uppdrag är att försäkra varje medborgares möjlighet till att kunna skapa välstånd, genom individuella rättigheter etc. Att försäkra sig om en ekonomisk jämlikhet blir ett absurt mål i sammanhanget, skriver dem. För att säkerställa det, måste man först, som stat, ta från producenten (mot ens vilja) för att sedan kunna fördela. -
4. Välfärdsstaten som göder infantiliserade medborgare:
”You don’t have to learn how to become more valuable if you want to earn more - the government will mandate a minimum wage. You don’t have think about how to save and invest - the government will provide you a guaranteed old-age pension. You don’t have to bother setting aside an emergency fund - the government will guarantee you unemployment benefits. You don’t have to think about whether a product is useful or safe - the government will judge for you. You don’t have to investigate whether a bank is making prudent decisions - the government will insure your deposits. You don’t have to think about how to educate your children - the government will decide what ideas and values they should be taught. You don’t continually innovate to stay ahead of the competition - the government will protect your company or industry from competition. You will be guaranteed security without having to bother using your mind (...) The worst evil of the paternalistic regulatory-welfare state is that, in attempting to protect people who don’t take responsibility for their lives from the consequences of their own passivity, it sacrifices the responsible individual, who is no longer free to make his own decisions and live on his own terms. If the government gets to decide what the minimum wage is, you don’t get to decide that itäs in your interest to accept a lower wage. If the government gets to decide that you have to cough up 12.4 percent of your income for Social Security, you don’t get to decide what to do with that money or how to plan for your retirement…”
Vidare presenteras fräscha koncept som Ayn Rands ”pyramid of ability” som en komplettering (och substitut) till den träiga, och någorlunda motbevisade teorin om ”trickle-down economics” och inverterar Marx teorier om arbetarens centrala roll i produktionen och hans mervärde.
Produktionen av välstånd är fundamentalt ett intellektuellt projekt, då vad som skapar välstånd är nya idéer. Idéerna genererar hästlängder mer välstånd och vinst än vad simpelt kroppsarbete gör, vilket inte Marx förstod. Utifrån Ayn Rands “Pyramid of Ability” ses dem med de främsta förmågorna som motorn i samhällets utveckling och skillnaden mellan en innovatör och en arbetare och varför de värderas olika på marknaden förklaras såhär:
A factory worker makes a real difference: he helps turn a pile of parts into a TV or a toaster. But the end product of his work goes no further. It provides particular goods destined for particular customers. But the man who supplies an idea is able to raise the productivity - and the standard of living - of an unlimited number of other men. It was his contribution that created the factory, that invented the television, that designed the assembly line, and that thereby made it possible for a factory worker of modest ability to produce TVs, earn a wage, and live better than kings did a few hundred years ago”.
Rand menar att mannen högst upp i pyramiden bidrar till allas förbättrade levnadsstandard och får endast pengar i utbyte för det. Han får ingen intellektuell bonus utifrån hans egna mentala åstadkommande som kan bespara han dyrbar tid, som för mannen längst ned i pyramiden som får ta del av alla geniers intellekt som förändrar världen framför honom - utöver en lön som gör hans liv materiellt bättre än en kung för några hundra år sedan, skriver dem. Ett citat till från Rand beskriver ytterligare att i proportion till den ”mentala energin” som innovatören har lagt ner, så får han en lite procent av sitt värde tillbaka ur en pengaaspekt - oavsett vad han tjänar - i hänsyn till hur han påverkar världen. Men den vanliga arbetaren tjänar en enorm summa pengar utifrån den proportion han bidrog till processen av innovation. Detta är ett totalt underkännande av Marx idé om mervärdet, som hela den lib. socialistiska/anarkosyndicalistiska rörelsen (vilket är en allt mer växande rörelse) bygger på: arbetarägda företag (kooperativ) för att få en mer human och rättvisare fördelning av resurserna. Ur Rands perspektiv blir detta en absurd idé.
Brook och Watkins presenterar i slutet en paketlösning på fem punkter vilket skulle enligt de revolutionera världen vilket handöar i kort om att minska statens storlek drastiskt. Utöver det som står bjuder de på en snygg genomgång om myten kring dem svenska välfärdsstaterna, med Sverige i fokus; att lobbyism inte är cronyism per se, då företagen har en rätt att försvara sig mot destruktiva policies och till sist anekdoter kring framgångsrika personer likt Jobs, Wozniak och Bill Gates. Boken upplevs som saklig och en väldig bra brygga till hur ”högerindividualister” tänker.
5+
Möjligheten för varje medborgare att röra sig uppåt i samhällstrappan kräver kraftiga, statliga ingrepp i form av omfördelningspolitik, istället för avregleringar och mer ekonomiska friheter för företag och arbetstagare.
Det ideala ligger vid “tryggheten” att få en välfärdscheck, inte vid den individuella framgången av att tjäna sitt uppehälle (och, vad som ses tabubelagt, att vara stolt över det). Den moraliska rättvisan ligger inte i att få (och det endast) man har gjort sig förtjänt av, utan att alltid få sina behov tillfredsställda på någon annans bekostnad; oavsett vem och för vilket pris.
Nyckeln till framgång, social som ekonomisk, är att tacka välfärdsstaten för (FDR och LBJ:s projekt i USA) och det största tänkbara hotet mot jämlikhet är en strypt, laissez-faire inriktad stat - vilket kräver individuellt ansvar.
Detta narrativ, som författarna presenterar en antites till, utgör bokens röda tråd där Brook och Watkins granskar de vanligaste argumenten från progressiva vänsteranhängare. De väcker en kritik och oro över följande:
1. Minimilöner: 1A) Berövar arbetstagarens frihet (och ansvar) att kunna avgöra vilken lön som passar en bäst. 1B) Rånar en lågutbildad människans största konkurrensfördelar: möjligheten att acceptera en lägre ingångslön än vad en med lån för utbildning har att göra och därmed få jobbet. 1C) Med en höjd minimilön, som enligt författarna är föreslagen på en ökning med 100% (7,25 till 15%), kommer endast vissa arbetstagare få en förhöjd lön, då resten antingen avskedas då företagen inte har råd att behålla alla anställda (eftersom deras nya, lagstadgade, löner inte motsvarar deras marknadsvärde) samt att det blir ännu svårare för den lågutbildade personen eller för invandraren med, initiala, språksvårigheter att finna jobbtillfällen.
2. Fackföreningar. 2A) Brook och Watkins poängterar att fackföreningar i sig är inget problem och det finns sitt egenvärde i att föra kollektiv förhandling, givet att deltagandet är frivilligt både hos arbetstagaren men också arbetsgivaren. 2B) Problematiken ligger kring ”Pro-union legislation” som ger fackförbunden ett ”politiskt privilegium”, som inte hör hemma på en fri marknad. Facken får en tvingande makt över arbetsgivare och icke fackliga arbetare då arbetsgivarna blir tvingade ”to choose between caving in to some of these demands and facing costly and time-consuming litigation”. De icke fackliga arbetarna får en mindre lön än andra, som inte är bedömt av marknadens funktioner (därav ej rättfärdigade). 2C) I och med ”artificiellt” (påtvingade) högre löner inom vissa sektorer så kommer det minska produktionen (då processen blir dyrare utan att produktionen har ökat så leder det till färre anställda) vilket gör att produkterna i slutändan blir dyrare, både i absoluta termer men även relativt till vad man tjänar för de som inte vill vara med i facket. Allt detta för att facken har den politiska makten att tvinga på arbetsgivare dessa krav.
3. ”The fixed pie & group pie assumptions, där den förstnämnda anser att mängden välstånd är statiskt och därav är fördelningen ett nollsummespel och den andra antar att välståndet är något ”samhället” har tillsammans, som i sin tur har fördelats orättvist. Båda dessa kräver progressiv fördelningspolitik. 3A) Även fast dessa uppfattningar representerar två olika retoriker inom den kollektivistiska falangen så är författarnas motfråga densamma: Hur skapas välstånd? Svar: Genom produktion. Vem skapar det? Individen i en intellektuell process genom att skapa nya idéer som revolutionerar våra liv, skriver författarna. Med att produktionen växer med nya idéers, så växer även pajen (Harari kallar det för en mirakelkaka) I och med det faktum att välstånd skapas och ägs av individer, blir det då moraliskt att eftersträva ekonomisk jämlikhet? 3B) Fattigdom är inte samma sak som ojämlikhet, då fattigdom är det ursprungliga och välstånd skapas (och växer). Med den premissen menar Brook och Watkins att statens uppdrag är att försäkra varje medborgares möjlighet till att kunna skapa välstånd, genom individuella rättigheter etc. Att försäkra sig om en ekonomisk jämlikhet blir ett absurt mål i sammanhanget, skriver dem. För att säkerställa det, måste man först, som stat, ta från producenten (mot ens vilja) för att sedan kunna fördela. -
4. Välfärdsstaten som göder infantiliserade medborgare:
”You don’t have to learn how to become more valuable if you want to earn more - the government will mandate a minimum wage. You don’t have think about how to save and invest - the government will provide you a guaranteed old-age pension. You don’t have to bother setting aside an emergency fund - the government will guarantee you unemployment benefits. You don’t have to think about whether a product is useful or safe - the government will judge for you. You don’t have to investigate whether a bank is making prudent decisions - the government will insure your deposits. You don’t have to think about how to educate your children - the government will decide what ideas and values they should be taught. You don’t continually innovate to stay ahead of the competition - the government will protect your company or industry from competition. You will be guaranteed security without having to bother using your mind (...) The worst evil of the paternalistic regulatory-welfare state is that, in attempting to protect people who don’t take responsibility for their lives from the consequences of their own passivity, it sacrifices the responsible individual, who is no longer free to make his own decisions and live on his own terms. If the government gets to decide what the minimum wage is, you don’t get to decide that itäs in your interest to accept a lower wage. If the government gets to decide that you have to cough up 12.4 percent of your income for Social Security, you don’t get to decide what to do with that money or how to plan for your retirement…”
Vidare presenteras fräscha koncept som Ayn Rands ”pyramid of ability” som en komplettering (och substitut) till den träiga, och någorlunda motbevisade teorin om ”trickle-down economics” och inverterar Marx teorier om arbetarens centrala roll i produktionen och hans mervärde.
Produktionen av välstånd är fundamentalt ett intellektuellt projekt, då vad som skapar välstånd är nya idéer. Idéerna genererar hästlängder mer välstånd och vinst än vad simpelt kroppsarbete gör, vilket inte Marx förstod. Utifrån Ayn Rands “Pyramid of Ability” ses dem med de främsta förmågorna som motorn i samhällets utveckling och skillnaden mellan en innovatör och en arbetare och varför de värderas olika på marknaden förklaras såhär:
A factory worker makes a real difference: he helps turn a pile of parts into a TV or a toaster. But the end product of his work goes no further. It provides particular goods destined for particular customers. But the man who supplies an idea is able to raise the productivity - and the standard of living - of an unlimited number of other men. It was his contribution that created the factory, that invented the television, that designed the assembly line, and that thereby made it possible for a factory worker of modest ability to produce TVs, earn a wage, and live better than kings did a few hundred years ago”.
Rand menar att mannen högst upp i pyramiden bidrar till allas förbättrade levnadsstandard och får endast pengar i utbyte för det. Han får ingen intellektuell bonus utifrån hans egna mentala åstadkommande som kan bespara han dyrbar tid, som för mannen längst ned i pyramiden som får ta del av alla geniers intellekt som förändrar världen framför honom - utöver en lön som gör hans liv materiellt bättre än en kung för några hundra år sedan, skriver dem. Ett citat till från Rand beskriver ytterligare att i proportion till den ”mentala energin” som innovatören har lagt ner, så får han en lite procent av sitt värde tillbaka ur en pengaaspekt - oavsett vad han tjänar - i hänsyn till hur han påverkar världen. Men den vanliga arbetaren tjänar en enorm summa pengar utifrån den proportion han bidrog till processen av innovation. Detta är ett totalt underkännande av Marx idé om mervärdet, som hela den lib. socialistiska/anarkosyndicalistiska rörelsen (vilket är en allt mer växande rörelse) bygger på: arbetarägda företag (kooperativ) för att få en mer human och rättvisare fördelning av resurserna. Ur Rands perspektiv blir detta en absurd idé.
Brook och Watkins presenterar i slutet en paketlösning på fem punkter vilket skulle enligt de revolutionera världen vilket handöar i kort om att minska statens storlek drastiskt. Utöver det som står bjuder de på en snygg genomgång om myten kring dem svenska välfärdsstaterna, med Sverige i fokus; att lobbyism inte är cronyism per se, då företagen har en rätt att försvara sig mot destruktiva policies och till sist anekdoter kring framgångsrika personer likt Jobs, Wozniak och Bill Gates. Boken upplevs som saklig och en väldig bra brygga till hur ”högerindividualister” tänker.
5+
July 10, 2017
This past spring I attended a debate held by Chicago Ideas Week between Dr. Yaron Brook, the executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and Dr. James Galbraith, an economist and professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, on the topic “Is Equal Fair?” Where it was a debate about a heady topic, there was a good connection with the audience on the subject of equality and inequality in our society.
As someone who owned his own business and believes my success and failures are my own doing, despite all outside factors and influences, I personally take a more conservative look at this topic. That being said, I came into this debate with an open mind and was interested in hearing both sides to see how either could influence my thinking. In my humble opinion, Brook won this debate not only on substance but in style and how he presented complex economic models in simple terms.
After the debate I bought a copy of the book Brook co-authored with Don Watkins, an Ayn Rand Institute fellow, titled Equal is Unfair as I was interested in reading more on the points Brook made during the debate. As I expected, it is a very comprehensive book, with economic charts and data. However, it has an interesting and engaging narrative that explains well to the non-numbers person like myself without taking anything away from the topic.
As I read Equal Is Unfair, there were a few overarching takeaways I took from it, including:
Nothing Is Ever Equal – Other than a well-formed math equation, it is hard to say that all things are truly equal in the world, or can be. Many people have advantages in one area over others where they may have disadvantages in other areas with the same people. Especially in an ever-changing world, it’s hard to predict everything and keep things in equal, especially when there are unpredictable and unanticipated forces that may come along and have a negative impact, at first, and from which someone may recover or not.
By artificially trying to make something equal that naturally isn’t, it is simply going against a tide that is hard to maintain. Rather, do you look for another way, a Plan B, to gain advantage as compensation? For myself, I don’t look at being equal as the end goal.
What Do You Really Want? – The idea of equality is discussed in the book, as it was in the debate, to bring people in line with others who have better access to resources or information. To this end, I think to myself… is the goal for everybody to be equal, or to have the opportunity to be all the want to be?
Consider the Ripple Effect – Efforts to make all things equal may have unforeseen consequences, such as costs incurred or diverted, that have to be paid for somehow from somewhere. Anything new will have an impact on time and resources which are not infinite.
Whatever side you are on this issue or whatever your political and societal positions are on the topic of equality, I recommend reading Equal Is Unfair for a unique point of view on this topic.
(This was originally posted on The Hot Iron blog at thehotiron.com)
As someone who owned his own business and believes my success and failures are my own doing, despite all outside factors and influences, I personally take a more conservative look at this topic. That being said, I came into this debate with an open mind and was interested in hearing both sides to see how either could influence my thinking. In my humble opinion, Brook won this debate not only on substance but in style and how he presented complex economic models in simple terms.
After the debate I bought a copy of the book Brook co-authored with Don Watkins, an Ayn Rand Institute fellow, titled Equal is Unfair as I was interested in reading more on the points Brook made during the debate. As I expected, it is a very comprehensive book, with economic charts and data. However, it has an interesting and engaging narrative that explains well to the non-numbers person like myself without taking anything away from the topic.
As I read Equal Is Unfair, there were a few overarching takeaways I took from it, including:
Nothing Is Ever Equal – Other than a well-formed math equation, it is hard to say that all things are truly equal in the world, or can be. Many people have advantages in one area over others where they may have disadvantages in other areas with the same people. Especially in an ever-changing world, it’s hard to predict everything and keep things in equal, especially when there are unpredictable and unanticipated forces that may come along and have a negative impact, at first, and from which someone may recover or not.
By artificially trying to make something equal that naturally isn’t, it is simply going against a tide that is hard to maintain. Rather, do you look for another way, a Plan B, to gain advantage as compensation? For myself, I don’t look at being equal as the end goal.
What Do You Really Want? – The idea of equality is discussed in the book, as it was in the debate, to bring people in line with others who have better access to resources or information. To this end, I think to myself… is the goal for everybody to be equal, or to have the opportunity to be all the want to be?
Consider the Ripple Effect – Efforts to make all things equal may have unforeseen consequences, such as costs incurred or diverted, that have to be paid for somehow from somewhere. Anything new will have an impact on time and resources which are not infinite.
Whatever side you are on this issue or whatever your political and societal positions are on the topic of equality, I recommend reading Equal Is Unfair for a unique point of view on this topic.
(This was originally posted on The Hot Iron blog at thehotiron.com)
January 7, 2022
This was the most recent book I read by authors who follow Ayn Rand’s philosophy. I’ve heard Yaron Brook speak a few times in videos, but this was the first book I’ve read by him. Watkins and Brook argue for individualism and capitalism through the lens of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of objectivism. I’m pretty left-leaning but also know the importance of hard work, and as a recovering addict who had to get my life together, I believe in working to becoming self-supporting. But on the other hand, I’m a huge critic of our current state of capitalism and believe in social programs to help more people have true equality of opportunity. I must say that when I went into this book, I thought I was going to disagree with it from cover to cover, but I didn’t. I can honestly say that although I disagree with a lot of the opinions of the authors, they have made some of the best arguments I’ve read from this perspective.
Where I disagree with this book is that we’d lack innovation if we made our society more equal. And there’s a lot to be said about the fact that the authors use the same three or four billionaires as their examples throughout the book to say, “See, you can work hard and be fine.” They leave out a lot of the issues with capitalism and our currently rigged system. But where I agree with them is that hard work is important. I do think they’re wrong about a lot of things such as they believe we should completely eliminate any form of welfare, and their most silly view is that we should get rid of all forms of regulation and antitrust laws. I believe there are ideas from this book we on the left can use to figure out a way to help people while also ensuring that they know how to help themselves.
If you’re someone on the right, you probably already agree with most of this book. But I really think more people on the left should read this book. Like me, you’ll disagree with a lot of it, but you will find a lot of parts where you say, “Well, they do make a good point about this.”
Where I disagree with this book is that we’d lack innovation if we made our society more equal. And there’s a lot to be said about the fact that the authors use the same three or four billionaires as their examples throughout the book to say, “See, you can work hard and be fine.” They leave out a lot of the issues with capitalism and our currently rigged system. But where I agree with them is that hard work is important. I do think they’re wrong about a lot of things such as they believe we should completely eliminate any form of welfare, and their most silly view is that we should get rid of all forms of regulation and antitrust laws. I believe there are ideas from this book we on the left can use to figure out a way to help people while also ensuring that they know how to help themselves.
If you’re someone on the right, you probably already agree with most of this book. But I really think more people on the left should read this book. Like me, you’ll disagree with a lot of it, but you will find a lot of parts where you say, “Well, they do make a good point about this.”
April 1, 2016
Should we care about income inequality? Is inequality a threat to the American dream? The authors (both from the Ayn Rand Institute) argue that no, we shouldn't care and no, the American dream is based on political equality for all, the freedom of every individual to pursue his values and to succeed or fail based on his or her ability. Wealth and progress is created by the thought of free men and women. This leads to economic inequality as those who create more earn more, yet everyone is better off, thanks to new inventions, a higher standard of living, etc. Because wealth is created, one man's fortune does not dcome at anyone else's expense. "Achievement is unequal, so equal is unfair".
According to the authors, "The inequality alarmists are working to turn America into a land inhospitable to opportunity", because the only way to achieve equality would be to level everybody down to the lowest common denominator and punishing those who rise higher than others. Egalitarianism, the authors conclude, "is evil because, in any dose, it amounts to waging war on human values, achievements, virtue, independence, intelligence, wealth, opportunity, everything that makes human life and happiness possible."
The authors conclude that economic equality and political equality are incompatible and that only by securing political equality and individual rights can the American dream be saved and progress continue. I'm not an objectivist and don't agree with everything the authors say, but the book is interesting and a well written defense for individualism.
Disclaimer: I received a free ebook copy in exchange for an honest review.
According to the authors, "The inequality alarmists are working to turn America into a land inhospitable to opportunity", because the only way to achieve equality would be to level everybody down to the lowest common denominator and punishing those who rise higher than others. Egalitarianism, the authors conclude, "is evil because, in any dose, it amounts to waging war on human values, achievements, virtue, independence, intelligence, wealth, opportunity, everything that makes human life and happiness possible."
The authors conclude that economic equality and political equality are incompatible and that only by securing political equality and individual rights can the American dream be saved and progress continue. I'm not an objectivist and don't agree with everything the authors say, but the book is interesting and a well written defense for individualism.
Disclaimer: I received a free ebook copy in exchange for an honest review.
February 1, 2017
Disclaimer: I fundamentally disagree with most of the opinions of the authors.
However, this is not why I'm giving it only one star. I (tried to) read it with an open mind, trying to understand a different point of view. My biggest gripe with the book is that its reasoning is very weak.
The authors are very defensive and for most of the book are attacking extreme arguments and positions from its opposition, which they call inequality alarmists or egalitarians. Here is the thing though: attacking opposing extremist arguments does not make your own extremist arguments valid or true by default!
Egalitarians are accused of using fallacies and deception, and this is what the authors end up doing as well. Many times they cite correlations implying there is some sort of causation, appeal to truisms (of course freedom is a good thing!), make bold claims backed by anything other than opinions, and even go to the absurd of undermining the use of science to make discussions more rational.
This book is not a complete garbage though. It does a good job of pointing how (some) inequality per se is not necessarily always a bad thing. It also does a good job of pointing the downsides of too much regulation and too much power on the hands of the government. It did give me a better understanding of the minds of objectivists, American libertarians and conservatives.
For people that already agree with the opinions of the authors (and are a big fan of Ayn Rand's ideas), I can see the book resonating with them, like an echo chamber.
For others, not a lot to see here.
However, this is not why I'm giving it only one star. I (tried to) read it with an open mind, trying to understand a different point of view. My biggest gripe with the book is that its reasoning is very weak.
The authors are very defensive and for most of the book are attacking extreme arguments and positions from its opposition, which they call inequality alarmists or egalitarians. Here is the thing though: attacking opposing extremist arguments does not make your own extremist arguments valid or true by default!
Egalitarians are accused of using fallacies and deception, and this is what the authors end up doing as well. Many times they cite correlations implying there is some sort of causation, appeal to truisms (of course freedom is a good thing!), make bold claims backed by anything other than opinions, and even go to the absurd of undermining the use of science to make discussions more rational.
This book is not a complete garbage though. It does a good job of pointing how (some) inequality per se is not necessarily always a bad thing. It also does a good job of pointing the downsides of too much regulation and too much power on the hands of the government. It did give me a better understanding of the minds of objectivists, American libertarians and conservatives.
For people that already agree with the opinions of the authors (and are a big fan of Ayn Rand's ideas), I can see the book resonating with them, like an echo chamber.
For others, not a lot to see here.
July 10, 2017
Equal Is Unfair is something I would encourage anyone to read regardless of party affiliation, political leanings, or stance on the debate over income inequality.
Watkins and Brook have created a comprehensive attack on the traditionally accepted premise that income inequality is per se evil and must be overcome. They challenge the common conception on CEO Pay, union laws, the minimum wage and so much more. The remarkable thing about this work is that it is not done in the typical fashion of addressing each issue at the surface and attempting to discredit their opponents by straw-man arguments. Rather, Watkins and Brook take their opponents own words and premises and challenge them directly as well as their philosophical underpinnings.
This book is important precisely because the authors challenge conventional wisdom and its basis in clear and concise language. Disagree with them or their conclusions if you will, but have the courage to read, digest, and then challenge them after a full and fair hearing of their perspective. It is through books like this that the level of public discourse is raised and our conversations made more insightful by reading new voices on topics which we believe to already be settled. If politics or economics interests you I would recommend this as your next read!
Watkins and Brook have created a comprehensive attack on the traditionally accepted premise that income inequality is per se evil and must be overcome. They challenge the common conception on CEO Pay, union laws, the minimum wage and so much more. The remarkable thing about this work is that it is not done in the typical fashion of addressing each issue at the surface and attempting to discredit their opponents by straw-man arguments. Rather, Watkins and Brook take their opponents own words and premises and challenge them directly as well as their philosophical underpinnings.
This book is important precisely because the authors challenge conventional wisdom and its basis in clear and concise language. Disagree with them or their conclusions if you will, but have the courage to read, digest, and then challenge them after a full and fair hearing of their perspective. It is through books like this that the level of public discourse is raised and our conversations made more insightful by reading new voices on topics which we believe to already be settled. If politics or economics interests you I would recommend this as your next read!
July 24, 2016
Sure, this book is preaching to the choir when it comes to me, but I think the authors did a fine job of laying out the pro-capitalist, pro-individualist arguments that should be self-evident but apparently aren't in our society. It's not going to convert the Bernie supporters of the world who believe a huge pot of wealth just magically exists without being created, and should be equally distributed to all with no regard to personal contribution (I was taught we used to fight real wars against people who thought like that), but for someone looking for an alternative point of view to the predominant narrative that exists in our society, I would recommend this work.
I particularly enjoyed the statistics about Scandinavia, long the golden child of socialists everywhere, that showed how practically all of the economic growth in the countries came during the free, capitalistic years and since they have reverted back to the socialist state, their GDP/capita has actually fallen quite a bit. Somehow that was apparently always left out of the pamphlets handed out to liberal arts majors at the Occupy rallies.
I particularly enjoyed the statistics about Scandinavia, long the golden child of socialists everywhere, that showed how practically all of the economic growth in the countries came during the free, capitalistic years and since they have reverted back to the socialist state, their GDP/capita has actually fallen quite a bit. Somehow that was apparently always left out of the pamphlets handed out to liberal arts majors at the Occupy rallies.
November 4, 2016
This a manifesto for libertarian market ideology. The book makes the case for upholding justice, as understood by classical liberalism, over modern forms of social justice. The main problem I found with this book is that it tried to be several books in one. It tried to combine academic arguments with philosophical arguments with political ones with rhetoric. Many of the arguments are easily refutable but there are some real gems of research, such as the dissecting of Thomas Piketty. Another thing that was good about the book was the genuine arguments levelled against crony capitalism. But no sooner did the book gain momentum then it slid back into weak and childish philosophical arguments and quotations from Ayn Rand and the like. To me it read like a very well researched but poorly editec book.
July 12, 2016
There are few things I despise more than the ignoramuses who run around screaming and crying about income inequality. In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with it, and it is to be expected in a free society. Watkins and Brook lay out a brilliant well-sourced argument using both economics and philosophy against the income inequality alarmists throughout the book. At the core of this discussion is the fundamental issue of what we value as people and society. Are we collectivists who attack success and freedom, or do we celebrate individual achievement and allow those of ability to live free to make our lives better?
August 16, 2018
An excellent book that basically describes the differnces between Capitalism and Socialism. Part of the book explains why striving for eqaul pay for all, which includes raising the minimum wage and putting severe taxes on the "super rich", is bad for the country in the long run. The book include several example of countries who tried to equalize everything but ended up failing. e.g., China, Cambodia, and Cuba. Certainly thought-provoking and would make for an excellent debate in a mixed group of conservatives and liberals.
February 22, 2017
As a (growing) closet socialist who remains sympathetic to certain capitalist values, every so often I feel the need to engross myself in the libertarian argument. Watkins is firmly entrenched in the Ayn Rand camp, and therefore champions the values of ethical egoism and individualism. For those familiar with Ayn Rand's philosophy, while society at large has tended to criticize and reject her philosophy in premise (no surprise since it works to decentralize government power), there is little question that her development of objectivism (and its dedication to rational thought) has found a place in both libertarian and conservative thought over the years.
Watkins brings nothing new to the table when it comes to Ayn Rand, save for some modern statistics. He argues against collectivism and enforced social reform (which remain expressions of failed efforts in Watkin's eyes) by upholding individualism as the truest expression of ethical progress, even recognizing it as the only true solution to the problem of poverty. In this view, the idea of income equality is something of a lie, a misrepresentation being sold under the guise of big-government (thus the anarchist tendencies), and all one needs to do is look at the statistics (as he does in efforts to expose the shortcomings of the Nordic social model American socialists tend to admire and desire to emulate). These assertions, as with all good Ayn Rand based philosophy, are wrapped up in the ideology of ethical egoism, maintaining that the best way to protect individual rights (as a whole) is by elevating the rights of the individual above social reform. Further, he goes on to declare that, what suffers the most in societies which place collectivist agendas over individual right (to pave their own path in life) is equality itself. The only way for all people to truly be equal is for government to protect ones freedom to achieve success outside of government control and government influence.
To truly align oneself (or to consider) the merit of this philosophy (and thus Watkins argument), one is forced to relegate altruism to the sidelines. This is where I continue to find my greatest struggle with Ayn Rand's philosophy. Watkins is sensible in exposing altruism as something of a contradiction of thought and belief in many of our modern social constructs. For him (I believe), the greatest expression of the moral and ethical undertones that altruism projects would be to allow it to flourish honestly and organically (as he argues it always tends to do in a society where freedom of the individual to choose and achieve their own success actually exists). And yet, Watkins never seems to acknowledge (in a book that is largely a critique of socialism and altruism) the contradiction that exists within his own philosophy. His form of individualism, after all, only works (in a moral and ethical sense) if altruism preexists. If it didn't, his rampant sense of personal responsibility (for ones life and circumstance) would follow a dangerous path of potential exclusion and oppression of the weak. His failure to face these limitations is most clear in the passages where he dances around moral obligation while also trying to champion the exclusivity that individualism can sometimes create. The best he can offer is inferring that of course we should still care for the less privileged, but then fails to say how or when that would be appropriate. The only clear thing is that it he draws a line at doing so at the expense of what he calls the greater good (freedom and liberty for all). Here he persistently denies any assertion that the presence of the rich and the successful necessarily undermines the place of the poor, and even argues that social systems do the same thing in reverse, and thus undermine the basic tenants of equality. Equality, after all, is an unfair premise at its core, and an unnecessary (and damaging) value to uphold. It simply cannot be achieved outside of accepting that, in a land based on true freedom and liberty, some will be more successful, some will be less, and this should be nothing to fear or to denigrate.
Much of the statistical focus in the book focuses on the ways in which the great American experiment (and America exists as an experiment for a reason, he would argue) has actually elevated the quality of life for all citizens. It is misleading, then, to point to the existence of poverty and measure it against other socialist structures in which the quality of life for life must be measured differently. In reality, even those who are impoverished in American have far more than other societies do in general, and the gratitude we owe for this reality is the individualism that he trumpets. Which is really what this philosophy boils down to- if we get hung up on the push for equality, we will inevitably find ourselves going around in a never ending circle that pretends to inhibit the progressiveness and growth that American society has represented (and patting ourselves on the back while doing so) while also taking for granted the stuff this has afforded society as a whole.
I feel obligated, finally, to speak to this from the position of my faith. As a Christian, I happen to agree with the attention he gives to the problem of equality/inequality. In my own faith, equality must not the primary value, this much I share with Watkins. But this is also where I diverge. In my own faith it is the opportunity to give up my individual rights that becomes the greatest value. Ironically, this is also what continues to fuel my sympathy for capitalist tendencies. I have a very different vision of altruism that guides my life than the libertarians allow (at least on the right), but I have a different motivation than the socialists tend to foster (when it comes to the issue of human rights). I cringe when I read the inherent responsibility that we must bear for the places that we find ourselves in this world and the social status we are inclined to achieve to be deemed successful. I resist this form of personal responsibility in Equal is Unfair. But I also resist a society in which equality becomes the greater goal. For me, rights are necessary (and the only true responsibility we should bear) when it is addressing oppression. But it becomes dangerous and misguided when it ends up becoming a value in and of itself that is applied to other realms of life. When we pursue equality for equalities sake, it tends to mimic the same philosophy it rejects when applied to realm of the privileged- my right to be, to become what I want. This is where collectivism can tend to marry to the philosophy it rejects, and actually work against its own declaration of equality, and this is a part of the contradiction of values (within the collectivist ideals) that Watkins exposes. Maybe this is why I keep coming back to this line of reasoning every so often. It is a tension that no single ideology to truly address, and in some sense it is my faith that allows me to live within this tension, for which I am grateful. But it is a tension that always remains difficult to navigate no matter which side of the political spectrum we find ourselves on. To this end even books like this, in which I have many issues, can help foster dialogue, and even for those who resist individualism, the freedom to have this dialogue is something we should never take for granted.
Watkins brings nothing new to the table when it comes to Ayn Rand, save for some modern statistics. He argues against collectivism and enforced social reform (which remain expressions of failed efforts in Watkin's eyes) by upholding individualism as the truest expression of ethical progress, even recognizing it as the only true solution to the problem of poverty. In this view, the idea of income equality is something of a lie, a misrepresentation being sold under the guise of big-government (thus the anarchist tendencies), and all one needs to do is look at the statistics (as he does in efforts to expose the shortcomings of the Nordic social model American socialists tend to admire and desire to emulate). These assertions, as with all good Ayn Rand based philosophy, are wrapped up in the ideology of ethical egoism, maintaining that the best way to protect individual rights (as a whole) is by elevating the rights of the individual above social reform. Further, he goes on to declare that, what suffers the most in societies which place collectivist agendas over individual right (to pave their own path in life) is equality itself. The only way for all people to truly be equal is for government to protect ones freedom to achieve success outside of government control and government influence.
To truly align oneself (or to consider) the merit of this philosophy (and thus Watkins argument), one is forced to relegate altruism to the sidelines. This is where I continue to find my greatest struggle with Ayn Rand's philosophy. Watkins is sensible in exposing altruism as something of a contradiction of thought and belief in many of our modern social constructs. For him (I believe), the greatest expression of the moral and ethical undertones that altruism projects would be to allow it to flourish honestly and organically (as he argues it always tends to do in a society where freedom of the individual to choose and achieve their own success actually exists). And yet, Watkins never seems to acknowledge (in a book that is largely a critique of socialism and altruism) the contradiction that exists within his own philosophy. His form of individualism, after all, only works (in a moral and ethical sense) if altruism preexists. If it didn't, his rampant sense of personal responsibility (for ones life and circumstance) would follow a dangerous path of potential exclusion and oppression of the weak. His failure to face these limitations is most clear in the passages where he dances around moral obligation while also trying to champion the exclusivity that individualism can sometimes create. The best he can offer is inferring that of course we should still care for the less privileged, but then fails to say how or when that would be appropriate. The only clear thing is that it he draws a line at doing so at the expense of what he calls the greater good (freedom and liberty for all). Here he persistently denies any assertion that the presence of the rich and the successful necessarily undermines the place of the poor, and even argues that social systems do the same thing in reverse, and thus undermine the basic tenants of equality. Equality, after all, is an unfair premise at its core, and an unnecessary (and damaging) value to uphold. It simply cannot be achieved outside of accepting that, in a land based on true freedom and liberty, some will be more successful, some will be less, and this should be nothing to fear or to denigrate.
Much of the statistical focus in the book focuses on the ways in which the great American experiment (and America exists as an experiment for a reason, he would argue) has actually elevated the quality of life for all citizens. It is misleading, then, to point to the existence of poverty and measure it against other socialist structures in which the quality of life for life must be measured differently. In reality, even those who are impoverished in American have far more than other societies do in general, and the gratitude we owe for this reality is the individualism that he trumpets. Which is really what this philosophy boils down to- if we get hung up on the push for equality, we will inevitably find ourselves going around in a never ending circle that pretends to inhibit the progressiveness and growth that American society has represented (and patting ourselves on the back while doing so) while also taking for granted the stuff this has afforded society as a whole.
I feel obligated, finally, to speak to this from the position of my faith. As a Christian, I happen to agree with the attention he gives to the problem of equality/inequality. In my own faith, equality must not the primary value, this much I share with Watkins. But this is also where I diverge. In my own faith it is the opportunity to give up my individual rights that becomes the greatest value. Ironically, this is also what continues to fuel my sympathy for capitalist tendencies. I have a very different vision of altruism that guides my life than the libertarians allow (at least on the right), but I have a different motivation than the socialists tend to foster (when it comes to the issue of human rights). I cringe when I read the inherent responsibility that we must bear for the places that we find ourselves in this world and the social status we are inclined to achieve to be deemed successful. I resist this form of personal responsibility in Equal is Unfair. But I also resist a society in which equality becomes the greater goal. For me, rights are necessary (and the only true responsibility we should bear) when it is addressing oppression. But it becomes dangerous and misguided when it ends up becoming a value in and of itself that is applied to other realms of life. When we pursue equality for equalities sake, it tends to mimic the same philosophy it rejects when applied to realm of the privileged- my right to be, to become what I want. This is where collectivism can tend to marry to the philosophy it rejects, and actually work against its own declaration of equality, and this is a part of the contradiction of values (within the collectivist ideals) that Watkins exposes. Maybe this is why I keep coming back to this line of reasoning every so often. It is a tension that no single ideology to truly address, and in some sense it is my faith that allows me to live within this tension, for which I am grateful. But it is a tension that always remains difficult to navigate no matter which side of the political spectrum we find ourselves on. To this end even books like this, in which I have many issues, can help foster dialogue, and even for those who resist individualism, the freedom to have this dialogue is something we should never take for granted.
Read
December 13, 2019 «Это необычная книга, которая откроет вам глаза и повысит вашу осведомленность об этом политически заряженном предмете. Вы узнаете, как и почему «неравенство» во многом является мифом, и что ключ к более высоким доходам заключае��ся в том, чтобы сделать себя более продуктивным на протяжении всей своей жизни ». - Брайан Трейси, автор книги« Нет оправданий »!«Резкое, хорошо написанное, столь необходимое и мощное противоядие от пагубной« мудрости »о неравенстве доходов. Настоящая проблема не в свободных рынках, а в произвольной государственной власти. Впечатляющее достижение». Стив Форбс, главный редактор, Forbes Media«Есть много очень хороших книг и статей, разоблачающих экономические ошибки, лежащие в основе недавних призывов к более агрессивному государственному перераспределению богатства. Но никто не разоблачает ошибочную этику, лежащую в основе таких призывов, так же эффективно, как «Равное» Дона Уоткинса и Ярона Брука «Несправедливо». Защитники свободных рынков должны вернуть себе высокую моральную почву от своих противников, занимающихся перераспределением, и эта книга предоставляет только те боеприпасы, которые необходимы для работы », - Джордж Селгин, директор Центра монетарных и финансовых альтернатив в Институте Катона«Уоткинс и Брук написали лучшее изложение классического« Атласа плечами »Айн Рэнд, которое я мог представить в« Равном, несправедливо ». Это необходимо прочитать каждому, кто интересуется направлением Америки в последние несколько лет. Американская мечта находится под угрозой, и эта книга ясно и лаконично объясняет мотивы нападавших и защиту, которую мы все должны обеспечить. Отличная работа! »- Дэвид Л. Сокол, председатель совета директоров Teton Capital, LLC.Эта книга похожа на оазис в пустыне. В LAST голос разума ломает предрассудки, презумпции и откровенные искажения, лежащие в основе истерических криков борцов за неравенство ». - Марк Пеллегрино, звезда Lost, Dexter, Supernatural и Quantico
«В наши дни под привлекательным знаменем« равенства »выдвигается больше плохих идей, чем что-либо еще в наши дни. Если вас соблазнили думать, что это ключ к личному или материальному прогрессу, эта книга - ваше противоядие. Прочитайте его от корки до корки, и вы никогда больше не увидите человечество, экономику или государственную политику одинаковыми ». - Лоуренс В. Рид, президент Фонда экономического образования«Равное несправедливо разрушает мифы левых и демонстрирует, что кампания против неравенства в доходах фактически является нападкой на концепцию« страны возможностей »- уникального чувства жизни Америки. Как показывают Уоткинс и Брук, разум и свобода, а не раздаточные материалы и высокие налоги, являю��ся основой человеческого прогресса. И производство, а не перераспределение, является источником процветания человека ». - Джон Эллисон, бывший президент и генеральный директор Cato Institute, а также бывший президент и генеральный директор BB & T«Существует два основных подхода к политическим ответам на неравенство: повышение или выравнивание. Выравнивание имеет тенденцию продвигать идею о том, что в обществе существует постоянный круг благосостояния, а распределение является функцией удачи, в то время как повышение способствует продвижению идеи о том, чт�� богатство должно создаваться людьми, которые осознают выгоды от торговли и выгоды от инноваций, и как такое распределение является функцией вознаграждения за превосходный талант и понимание того, как удовлетворить требования других на рынке. Человеческое превосходство должно быть признано прежде, чем оно может быть вознаграждено, и таланты должны быть отмечены, а не объяснены как следствие удачи. В «Равном и несправедливом» Уоткинс и Брук обеспечивают убедительную защиту человеческого совершенства и истинного капитализма, который выявляет лучшее в человечестве и раскрывает творческий гений человека в искусстве, науке и торговле. Настоятельно рекомендуется ». - Питер Беттке, профессор экономики и философии в университете Джорджа Мейсона; профессор BB & T по изучению капитализма, вице-президент по исследованиям и директор программы углубленного изучения философии, политики и экономики Ф. А. Хайека в Центре Мерката при ГМУ«Споря о неоспоримых фактах, Уоткинс и Брук срывают вершины устоявшейся мудрости на зло неравенства доходов и виновности в 1%. Сегодняшние односторонние дебаты о неравенстве в доходах сводятся к зависти к политике, а не к логике или фактам, как эти авторы демонстрируют в своей взрывной и занимательной книге «Равное несправедливо: дезинформированная борьба Америки против неравенства в доходах». Эта книга показывает, почему мотив прибыли благороден, и показывает, что вмешательство правительства во все сферы нашей жизни, а не неравенство в доходах, - это то, что действительно угрожает американской мечте. Обязательно прочитайте для тех, кто желает процветания большему количеству людей в мире ». - Мэллори Фактор, автор бестселлеров Нью-Йорк Таймса и Большой Палатки, участник и профессор FoxNews, Оксфордский университет и Букингемский университетПоследняя книга Дона Уоткинса и Ярона Брука «Равное несправедливо» - очень необходимый и тщательно продуманный пример попытки добиться политического консенсуса о том, что государство должно сосредоточиться на искоренении «неравенства». Правительству не нравятся конкретные задачи, такие как создание вовремя по бюджету. Правительство процветает, когда убеждает избирателей требовать невозможного. Зачем? Потому что каждая неудача становится аргументом в пользу более централизованной власти. - Гровер Норквист, президент, американцы за налоговую реформу
об авторе
Дон Уоткинс, один из самых ярых противников государства всеобщего благосостояния, является соавтором вместе с Яроном Бруком национального бестселлера «Революция свободного рынка: как идеи Айн Рэнд могут покончить с большим правительством». Г-н Уоткинс, сотрудник Института Айн Рэнд, изучает неравенство, реформу социального обеспечения, государство всеобщего благосостояния и моральные основы капитализма. Обозреватель Forbes.com с 2010 по 2013 год, его работы также были опубликованы в The Guardian, USA Today, Forbes, The Christian Science Monitor, Investor's Business Daily, The Daily Caller, FoxNews.com и многих других публикациях.
«В наши дни под привлекательным знаменем« равенства »выдвигается больше плохих идей, чем что-либо еще в наши дни. Если вас соблазнили думать, что это ключ к личному или материальному прогрессу, эта книга - ваше противоядие. Прочитайте его от корки до корки, и вы никогда больше не увидите человечество, экономику или государственную политику одинаковыми ». - Лоуренс В. Рид, президент Фонда экономического образования«Равное несправедливо разрушает мифы левых и демонстрирует, что кампания против неравенства в доходах фактически является нападкой на концепцию« страны возможностей »- уникального чувства жизни Америки. Как показывают Уоткинс и Брук, разум и свобода, а не раздаточные материалы и высокие налоги, являю��ся основой человеческого прогресса. И производство, а не перераспределение, является источником процветания человека ». - Джон Эллисон, бывший президент и генеральный директор Cato Institute, а также бывший президент и генеральный директор BB & T«Существует два основных подхода к политическим ответам на неравенство: повышение или выравнивание. Выравнивание имеет тенденцию продвигать идею о том, что в обществе существует постоянный круг благосостояния, а распределение является функцией удачи, в то время как повышение способствует продвижению идеи о том, чт�� богатство должно создаваться людьми, которые осознают выгоды от торговли и выгоды от инноваций, и как такое распределение является функцией вознаграждения за превосходный талант и понимание того, как удовлетворить требования других на рынке. Человеческое превосходство должно быть признано прежде, чем оно может быть вознаграждено, и таланты должны быть отмечены, а не объяснены как следствие удачи. В «Равном и несправедливом» Уоткинс и Брук обеспечивают убедительную защиту человеческого совершенства и истинного капитализма, который выявляет лучшее в человечестве и раскрывает творческий гений человека в искусстве, науке и торговле. Настоятельно рекомендуется ». - Питер Беттке, профессор экономики и философии в университете Джорджа Мейсона; профессор BB & T по изучению капитализма, вице-президент по исследованиям и директор программы углубленного изучения философии, политики и экономики Ф. А. Хайека в Центре Мерката при ГМУ«Споря о неоспоримых фактах, Уоткинс и Брук срывают вершины устоявшейся мудрости на зло неравенства доходов и виновности в 1%. Сегодняшние односторонние дебаты о неравенстве в доходах сводятся к зависти к политике, а не к логике или фактам, как эти авторы демонстрируют в своей взрывной и занимательной книге «Равное несправедливо: дезинформированная борьба Америки против неравенства в доходах». Эта книга показывает, почему мотив прибыли благороден, и показывает, что вмешательство правительства во все сферы нашей жизни, а не неравенство в доходах, - это то, что действительно угрожает американской мечте. Обязательно прочитайте для тех, кто желает процветания большему количеству людей в мире ». - Мэллори Фактор, автор бестселлеров Нью-Йорк Таймса и Большой Палатки, участник и профессор FoxNews, Оксфордский университет и Букингемский университетПоследняя книга Дона Уоткинса и Ярона Брука «Равное несправедливо» - очень необходимый и тщательно продуманный пример попытки добиться политического консенсуса о том, что государство должно сосредоточиться на искоренении «неравенства». Правительству не нравятся конкретные задачи, такие как создание вовремя по бюджету. Правительство процветает, когда убеждает избирателей требовать невозможного. Зачем? Потому что каждая неудача становится аргументом в пользу более централизованной власти. - Гровер Норквист, президент, американцы за налоговую реформу
об авторе
Дон Уоткинс, один из самых ярых противников государства всеобщего благосостояния, является соавтором вместе с Яроном Бруком национального бестселлера «Революция свободного рынка: как идеи Айн Рэнд могут покончить с большим правительством». Г-н Уоткинс, сотрудник Института Айн Рэнд, изучает неравенство, реформу социального обеспечения, государство всеобщего благосостояния и моральные основы капитализма. Обозреватель Forbes.com с 2010 по 2013 год, его работы также были опубликованы в The Guardian, USA Today, Forbes, The Christian Science Monitor, Investor's Business Daily, The Daily Caller, FoxNews.com и многих других публикациях.
May 29, 2016
While I'm a strong supporter of many of the ideas in this book, in some ways the writing oversimplifies or strikes at strawmen. It smacks of preaching to the choir. For those who open this book with strong progressive beliefs, they will likely find the language too rhetorical or taking too many things for granted to be convincing.
June 30, 2017
Did not have a patience to read through.
Keep repeating Robinson Crusoe did not really help with the reasoning. The current economic environment is much more complex than the world that Robinson Crusoe was stuck with.
Ok, I understand market works in many cases, but my issue is with authors' style, not their perspectives.
Keep repeating Robinson Crusoe did not really help with the reasoning. The current economic environment is much more complex than the world that Robinson Crusoe was stuck with.
Ok, I understand market works in many cases, but my issue is with authors' style, not their perspectives.
May 6, 2016
This is an incredible book!
August 29, 2018
Not sure how to feel about this book. Brooks and Watson illustrate many examples of how the welfare state inherently creates the opposite (although according to this book...they never highlighted a successful example of people who were on gov assistance temporarily only to become high earning, tax paying citizens, which causes me to give pause about their intent.)
Fundamentally the title of the book rings true but it should be "Equalities of Outcomes is Unfair". The one thing I have a major problem with this book is the repeated line that if you're a white male then this country is not fair to you. Which sounds crazy to me. How can white males feel like they are the marginalized people in a country run by white males? I mean, I can see how things like affirmative action can feel like their whiteness is considered a detriment to the college demographics. And they are right. But we didn't start like this...AA was created for a reason. I guess the question is, do we stil need it? If yes, then how often do we have to address this question before it is not required. Or is AA here to stay forever?
The truth of the matter is the USA is still the best country to live in especially if you want to work hard and create goods and services for the market. This is still the best place to chase prosperity! God bless America!!!
Fundamentally the title of the book rings true but it should be "Equalities of Outcomes is Unfair". The one thing I have a major problem with this book is the repeated line that if you're a white male then this country is not fair to you. Which sounds crazy to me. How can white males feel like they are the marginalized people in a country run by white males? I mean, I can see how things like affirmative action can feel like their whiteness is considered a detriment to the college demographics. And they are right. But we didn't start like this...AA was created for a reason. I guess the question is, do we stil need it? If yes, then how often do we have to address this question before it is not required. Or is AA here to stay forever?
The truth of the matter is the USA is still the best country to live in especially if you want to work hard and create goods and services for the market. This is still the best place to chase prosperity! God bless America!!!
April 2, 2018
Equal is Unfair did not meet expectations. The premise of the book is that American economic and freedom successes derive from the market-driven rewards of its capitalistic economic system, which rewards hard-work, good life decisions, abilities, perseverance, desire and risk. This same system automatically creates inequalities in terms of economic outcomes. The authors argue that this inequality is a societal good as it drives resources to society's most productive uses....raising the standard of living for the entire country, including those in the lowest economic strata. In fairness the author recognizes the need for a safety net. However, Mr. Watkins views are too extreme for my comfort level and his writing tone is uncomfortable at times as he seems bitterly opposed to any attempts to improve the lives of those in the lower income strata. And he is far too critical with any governmental solution to economic problems. Mostly, Unequal is Unfair lacks the intellectual strength and beautiful writing of Ayn Rand, whom he quotes frequently.
August 7, 2017
The authors kept setting up ridiculous straw men, and then exulting over how ridiculous these people were. But they never provided any evidence for their claims, and the times I looked up their references they didn't support the way they were used. It was a pointless read, which is a shame because there are interesting things to talk about in this space, but Watkins and Brooks don't seem able to understand how to do that.
For example, dismissing slavery when extolling the individualistic purity of colonial America is a bit "other than that, how was the play, Mrs Lincoln?" Or using advertising copy as evidence that upward mobility was easy in the 1800s. That's about the level these guys work at consistently throughout the book. A newspaper article describing how money from family abroad leaves darker Cubans behind is mocked as complaining about inequality. Facts are just facts, guys. Sorry if they don't sound like an Ayn Rand novel.
For example, dismissing slavery when extolling the individualistic purity of colonial America is a bit "other than that, how was the play, Mrs Lincoln?" Or using advertising copy as evidence that upward mobility was easy in the 1800s. That's about the level these guys work at consistently throughout the book. A newspaper article describing how money from family abroad leaves darker Cubans behind is mocked as complaining about inequality. Facts are just facts, guys. Sorry if they don't sound like an Ayn Rand novel.
February 13, 2020
Fascinating analysis of what the socialists want for our country and what it means for you, whether rich, middle-class or poor. No country has ever implemented a socialist form of government and thrived. Rather, they have sunk decidedly into a place where none of us would want to live. Watkins gives all the details of why socialism, Marxism or progressivism is the worst thing that can happen to your country; a scary thought right now with Bernie Sanders winning the first two caucuses (2/13/20). He also points to where we are right now as a result of eight years of Obama, how you can't do what Steve Jobs or Bill Gates did due to government regulations, interference and threats and despite the best efforts of President Trump. Well worth the read although fair warning that it'll make you sick to your stomach. Also, some of it is a little hard to understand if you aren't familiar with economics and finance. But, you owe it to yourself and your votes to try.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 76 reviews