Social Justice Fallacies

by Thomas Sowell, Brad Sanders (Narrator)

The quest for social justice is a powerful crusade of our time, with an appeal to many different people, for many different reasons. But those who use the same words do not always present the same meanings. Clarifying those meanings is the first step toward finding out what we agree on and disagree on. From there, it is largely a question of what the facts are. Social Justice Fallacies reveals how many things that are thought to be true simply cannot stand up to documented facts, which are often the opposite of what is widely believed.

However attractive the social justice vision, the crucial question is whether the social justice agenda will get us to the fulfillment of that vision. History shows that the social justice agenda has often led in the opposite direction, sometimes with catastrophic consequences.

More things are involved besides simply mistakes. All human beings are fallible, and social justice advocates may not necessarily make any more mistakes than others. But crusaders with an utter certainty about their mission are often undeterred by obstacles, evidence or even fatal dangers. That is where much of the Western world is today. The question is whether we will continue on heedlessly, past the point of no return.

6 hrs. 9 min.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Economics, History, Philosophy, Sociology, Audiobook

7 pages, Audible Audio

First published September 5, 2023

About the author

Thomas Sowell is an American economist, social philosopher, and political commentator. He is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. With widely published commentary and books—and as a guest on TV and radio—he became a well-known voice in the American conservative movement as a prominent black conservative. He was a recipient of the National Humanities Medal from President George W. Bush in 2002.
Sowell was born in Gastonia, North Carolina and grew up in Harlem, New York City. Due to poverty and difficulties at home, he dropped out of Stuyvesant High School and worked various odd jobs, eventually serving in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean War. Afterward, he took night classes at Howard University and then attended Harvard University, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1958. He earned a master's degree in economics from Columbia University the next year and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago in 1968. In his academic career, he held professorships at Cornell University, Brandeis University, and the University of California, Los Angeles. He has also worked at think tanks including the Urban Institute. Since 1977, he has worked at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he is the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy.
Sowell was an important figure to the conservative movement during the Reagan era, influencing fellow economist Walter E. Williams and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. He was offered a position as Federal Trade Commissioner in the Ford administration, and was considered for posts including U.S. Secretary of Education in the Reagan administration, but declined both times.
Sowell is the author of more than 45 books (including revised and new editions) on a variety of subjects including politics, economics, education and race, and he has been a syndicated columnist in more than 150 newspapers. His views are described as conservative, especially on social issues; libertarian, especially on economics; or libertarian-conservative. He has said he may be best labeled as a libertarian, though he disagrees with the "libertarian movement" on some issues, such as national defense.

Reviews

[Rain · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thomas Sowell grew up in a segregated North Carolina. His father passed away right before he was born, leaving his mother struggling to feed her family. Sowell dropped out of high school to help support his family, and later served in the US Marine Corps. He eventually went back to school in the evenings at Harvard, received his masters degree from Columbia University, and his doctorate at University of Chicago.

He is an economist, calmly stating well-researched facts. He is not here to change your opinion, and he doesn’t really seem to care if you agree with him. He simply shows you the hard data to prove that he is right.

This is a cerebral book. Filled with calmly stated facts that are backed up with case studies, each one carefully labeled so that if you were curious, you can delve further into the details.

I am so used to media personalities yelling over the top of one another to get their point across, it is refreshing to have a viewpoint calmly stated and explained. Sowell is anything but flashy, and it’s refreshing.

[Scottsdale Public Library · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have just started a degree in economics and picked this book up because I have read articles by Thomas Sowell, a renowned economist, for a couple of decades but none of his books. Big mistake on my part. As this is my first Sowell book, I can guarantee I will be picking up a few more.

What is fascinating about SJF, is that Sowell, like any economist, is all about the numbers, even while tackling the most challenging cultural and economic issues. More important, he tackles issues over time to make trends visible. There aren’t many problems, if any, whose challenges aren’t understood by examining current information. His long view, historical view, is truly enlightening. His conclusions often fly in the face of today’s opinion factories on both sides of the aisle.

Another nicety, and my favorite prejudice, the book is short and to the point. What could have been a wordy tome by a more erudite economist, is easily understood and very accessible for anyone.

For those interested in public policy this is a must read. Actually, now that I think about it, this book is for anyone that reads the news and wonders whether the opinion offered is accurate. -Tom L.

[Garrick Andres · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is truly groundbreaking and paradigm changing. It stands as one of the finest works addressing falsehoods and the misuse of data concerning issues of inequality, affirmative action, and race. Packed with a wealth of meticulously researched facts and figures, it effectively dispels numerous myths about inequality. I genuinely believe that individuals who support critical race theory, affirmative action, or more radical, egalitarian Marxist ideologies on race will undergo a profound transformation in their perspective after reading this book. Thomas Sowell provides a comprehensive and expansive examination of inequality and society as a whole, drawing from years of dedicated research and his life as an academic. I must admit that Sowell stands as one of the most brilliant minds of our era. Having anticipated this book for quite some time, I can confidently say that it has not disappointed me, and I predict it will have a similarly transformative impact as Steven Pinker's "Enlightenment Now."

In addition, it's worth noting that this book also effectively dismantles genetic determinism and racist views. With the depth of its analysis and the thorough debunking of various misconceptions, I don't think any more can be said; this settles the debate definitively. This really is one of the best books I've ever read.

[Thom · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had not heard of Thomas Sowell, who Wikipedia describes as a Libertarian-Conservative. That comes across in this book, which many reviewers describe as a rehash of his earlier works (more than 45 books). He describes himself as an economist, and I was looking forward to reading about market justifications for his point of view.

The goal of the book, stated in the frontispiece, is to define the terms used for social justice and the examine which can stand up to the documented facts (and which are the opposite of what is believed). The facts, at least in chapter one, are fairly solid, though I question some of the authors sources that find women paid the same as men.

I was hoping the author would come around to wealth differences, the major economic injustice of our time. He did in the third chapter, but not convincingly. As an economist, he knows that terms like "income" are not a good definition - a look at the "income tax" of the extremely wealthy demonstrates this clearly. After reading the The 1619 Project: A New Origin Story, I was really hoping Sowell would discuss inheritance differences between black and white Americans, but this was never touched. I find it very unconvincing to discuss "wealth" and "poverty" without looking at historical starting points and inheritance.

The least convincing arguments in the book were related to various social efforts put forth over the last 100+ years. In each case, the author finds facts where things didn't work and argues that this shows that none of this will work - a very Libertarian point of view. Taxation of the rich doesn't work, so why try it? The minimum wage is bad, so why have it? Payday loans, sex education, minority college admissions, and others are hit with this broad brush.

An example - he rails against preferential college admissions for minorities (they will be over their head, set up to fail) without mentioning privileged descendants of the rich and alumni, who suffer the same bad start?

The worst problem with this book is that no alternatives are given - this book is tearing down without building up, no answers provided.

I would far rather read a discussion which encompasses history, attempts which fail, and suggestions for ideas which could work. T.R. Reid's A Fine Mess: A Global Quest for a Simpler, Fairer, and More Efficient Tax System is a good example of that - and a far less partisan approach.

In my opinion, and in terms of goodreads, this book was just okay. I spent a month reading it, off and on, and thinking about what I would write here.

[Bill Powers · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thomas Sowell is an American Treasure! At age 93, he is still putting out superbly relevant thought pieces on the key issues of the day. In Social Justice Fallacies, Sowell applies his usual "take no prisoner" logic, detail, history, economics, and in-depth research to support his thinking. He goes after today's "woke, everything is racist" culture to outline in detail why these social-justice policies have not, are not, and will not work.

Sowell's work should reach a much broader audience, but it does not fit the left-leaning liberal media narrative. It will be to the detriment of our society if we fail to heed his warnings.

For those who embrace critical thinking and freedom of thought, I highly recommend Social Justice Fallacies by Thomas Sowell.

[Josiah Edwards · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book written by a 92 year-old economist who's been correcting the same statistical and social-philosophical fallacies since the 70s and 80s would be expected to be out of touch, frustrated and angry, and if they were a bit senile we wouldn't blame them. But Thomas Sowell explains with grace, patience and clarity relevant data that continues to be ignored. Whether you hold hard opinions on social justice issues (on either side and all between the aisle) or feel there's too much information all over the place to even know, Sowell offers in-depth research presented in a palatable format.

P.S. if you've read your fair share of Sowell books there's plenty of repeated data and information. Yet no matter how many I read, there's always some additional research or points that he makes that expands my understanding.

[Gab · Rating 1 out of 5]

Apparently correlation DOES equal causation!

This entire book only passes muster to those predisposed to agree with the author. Thats fine, but it’s not something to be billed as persuasive or revolutionary thinking. There is simply no actual address to any particular “social justice claim” or real engagement with ideas beyond the oft repeated “everyone knows racism was worse in the 1950s.”

Lots of statistics will impress but are never actually engaged with. Again—no address to how correlation is not causation. If you think it is in a particular case, as Sowell does, make the case! I imagine people think these points are hard to argue with, but that’s simply because there is nothing here to argue with except what the reader is left to infer: that somehow minimum wage laws are the cause of black teen unemployment and that Miranda Rights are the cause of a spike in the homicide rates.

Sowell never addresses any of the ways in which a good faith critic would disagree with him. He’s not required to—but it would certainly give his points more credence.

Overall Sowell uses studies and data in a way anyone with a statistical education knows is deceiving. It’s not rage-batey enough to be entertaining or intellectual enough to be actually engaging.

[Thomas George Phillips · Rating 4 out of 5]

Professor Sowell is a man of letters who grew up in segregated south. In 1972 he left the Democrat Party and switch to an Independent. Since then he has written numerous books questioning the tactics of the Democrat Party and its history of discriminating against blacks in the south.

This latest book is no exception. The Professor outlines his argument with some historical detail and others as empirical. There is much for the reader to digest with all the facts and figures; so he can be a bit dry for some. But all considered it's worth a reader's time.

[Amy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thomas Sowell gets straight to the point in this latest book of his. There is no finger pointing to the current administration or recent news articles. He barely even mentions COVID. Consistent with all his works, he simply names and addresses different claims currently in the cultural psyche about what social justice requires.
Full of statistics and really thought-provoking arguments, his topics range from minimum wage laws to the racist origins of the SAT to the results of treating "the wealthy" as a homogeneous group.
Another great work from Sowell that I definitely recommend.

[Barry · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you’ve never read Sowell before, you’re likely to learn that much you thought you knew about economics and discrimination is actually wrong, and you’ll be better off for the experience. But if you’ve already read several of his books this may feel like a rehash of his previous work.

[Jake · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sowell confronts the social justice agenda as an economist. He gets very irritated at other economists who behave unscientifically. Then he does the same thing. Lots of apples compared to oranges. My opinion is that economics is not a science. I’ve yet to see an economist who doesn’t start with their conclusions and choose the data to fit, as is done here. Sowell kept repeating a data point that I’ll use as an example. Black married couples make more than white single parents. What is he trying to (dis)prove here? Two is more than one? Anyways…

[Jeremiah Lorrig · Rating 4 out of 5]

Always wise, I love how the author insists on facing the difficult realities of society and says that we need data driven solutions not just good intentions.

While some of this book is a rehash of other works by the author, it is timely and focused on improving actual dialogue on deeply divisive issues facing our society.

[Armin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thomas Sowell is a national treasure and the info in this book is invaluable. The problem is that most of it was already covered in a variety of his other books. I was really hoping for new info, more contemporary examples, and a better narrator.

[Gijs Limonard · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author explains the inherent inconsistencies and even self-defeating claims of the social-engineering movement called 'social justice' or its more current incarnation in the 'woke' movement. Refreshingly, the tone of the text is matter-of-factly, almost dry; devoid of the usual ardent rhetoric; he acknowledges that societal inequalities exist and need to be discussed and addressed. At the same time he emphatically rams home the point that parsing these isssues along the sundry axes of perceived oppression (race, gender, income, weight, ethnicity, nationality; the list is endless) resulting in an ever evolving and contested victimhood hierarchy is not the way forward.

[Walter Ullon · Rating 5 out of 5]

TL;DR: Sowell's "Social Justice Fallacies" is a critical examination of the social justice movement and its foundational assumptions. It is an exquisitely researched, cogent weighing of well-meaning (albeit somewhat harmful) ideas in the face of cold, hard facts. Sowell argues that many of the movement’s principles are rooted in misunderstandings of economics, history, and human behavior. His core thesis is that social justice initiatives tend to focus on achieving equality of outcomes rather than equality of opportunity, overlooking key factors like personal responsibility, cultural differences, historical context, and other circumstances not owing to systemic patterns of oppression. Some highlights below.

Misunderstanding Inequality: Sowell argues that social justice advocates often misinterpret the causes of inequality. Rather than viewing disparities as natural outcomes of differing talents, efforts, backgrounds, historical precedents, and decisions, many social justice theorists assume these differences stem from systemic oppression or discrimination. Sowell asserts that this focus on unequal outcomes without understanding the underlying causes results in misguided policies that fail to address the root issues​.

For these he cites economic studies of populations who are largely homogeneous (i.e. wholly "White") but who nevertheless suffer from inequities in outcomes due to some of the factors mentioned above.

Most surprising to me, was the revelation that even within the same family, with access to the same environment and resources, the first-born child tends to be overly represented in most measures of achievement (such as receiving prestigious scholarships, admittance to elite institutions, success in highly-competitive professions, etc.). Here, neither racism nor systemic bias is to blame, but rather a simple behavioral pattern on the part of the parents, who are able to focus all of their attention on this single child. Also eye-opening were the statistics on the incidence of pathologies and teen pregnancies in households with a single parent.

Affirmative Action and Its Unintended Consequences: One of Sowell’s most scathing critiques is aimed at affirmative action policies, which he argues often harm the very people they are intended to help. For example, he discusses how race-based college admissions can lead to a "mismatch" problem, where students are admitted to institutions where they struggle academically because they do not match the academic standards. This can lead to higher dropout rates and long-term negative impacts on those students' careers​.

Fallacies of Systemic Solutions: Sowell criticizes the assumption that government interventions, like wealth redistribution or regulations aimed at correcting perceived injustices, can effectively fix social problems. He emphasizes that such policies frequently ignore the complexity of human behavior and can lead to unintended economic consequences.

For instance, efforts to redistribute wealth through higher taxes may disincentivize investment and innovation, ultimately harming economic growth​.

The “Chess Piece” Fallacy: A key idea Sowell discusses is what he calls the "chess piece fallacy," which assumes that people in society can be moved around like chess pieces by policymakers to achieve desired outcomes. He criticizes this view as overly simplistic, arguing that human beings have their own agency, motivations, and reactions to policies. The fallacy lies in thinking that outcomes can be engineered without considering individuals' diverse responses to incentives and constraints​.

Personal Responsibility vs. Systemic Blame: A recurring theme in the book is Sowell’s defense of personal responsibility. He argues that much of the social justice movement’s focus on external factors, like systemic racism or institutional biases, ignores the role of individual choices. Sowell contends that while systemic issues do exist, they should not be used as blanket explanations for all disparities, nor as excuses to avoid addressing personal accountability​.

Disclaimer: this is my first book by Sowell, hence the rating might be more biased owing to novelty.

[Julius · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thomas Sowell cuestiona, desde una perspectiva liberal, los presupuestos filosóficos y económicos de la justicia social, y lo hace negando la mayor: que todos seamos iguales. Nada hay más desigual, afirma, que la naturaleza, los factores geográficos, la demografía etc. Eso no quiere decir que no se deba luchar contra la segregación racial o las discriminaciones de sexo, pero resulta ilusorio imponer la igualdad mediante una agenda que, a su juicio, puede derivar en «ingeniería social» y que, a la postre, no siempre soluciona las injusticias sino que las agrava. El autor desmonta, a lo largo del ensayo, las cuatro falacias de la justicia social: las falacias de la igualdad de oportunidades, las falacias raciales, las falacias a la hora de aportar soluciones y las falacias del conocimiento.

Según Sowell, en el mundo ideal rousoniano del que bebe la justicia social, todos deberían tener los mismos resultados, independientemente de la clase o raza. La experiencia nos dice que no es así. Y ello no se debe a la discriminación ejercida por las mayorías dominantes contra las minorías, sino a un cúmulo de factores, incluidos la libertad humana y el azar. Pero la justicia social reduce «la búsqueda de causas a una búsqueda de culpables». Así, movimientos como el Black Lives Matter sostiene que las mayores tasas de pobreza de los negros son principalmente producto del persistente «racismo sistémico».

Pero esta «justicia social woke» olvida otros factores no menos influyentes. Por ejemplo, las familias monoparentales de EEUU, independientemente de que sean blancas o negras, tienen una tasa de pobreza superior a las familias compuestas por parejas casadas. La trayectoria del propio Sowell, afroamericano y de origen humilde, sirve para desmontar determinados tópicos sobre el racismo en Norteamérica. Huérfano desde niño, no terminó el bachillerato y pudo matricularse en la universidad, gracias a una ley que beneficiaba a los veteranos de guerra como él, y con el tiempo llegó a ser un prestigioso académico.

A la hora de buscar soluciones, la justicia social recurre a los «decisores sustitutos» de la sociedad, es decir a élites expertas que aplican recetas creyendo que «pueden mover a las personas como se mueven las piezas de ajedrez», según el símil de Adam Smith. El ejemplo más gráfico es la confiscación y redistribución de la riqueza, «núcleo de la agenda de la justicia social». Según ésta, «las subidas de impuestos y los ingresos fiscales se mueven automáticamente en la misma dirección, cuando a menudo se mueven en la dirección opuesta». No menos contraproducentes son otras medidas de los «decisores sustitutos» como el control de precios; el «impuesto» de la inflación; o la legislación del salario mínimo. Debido al conocimiento que acumulan, las élites expertas creen ser los que mejor saben lo que le conviene a la sociedad, pero no siempre sus políticas son acertadas.

Y no es que no tengan razón los defensores de la justicia social al detectar lo que está mal, indica Sowell. El problema es el apriorismo ideológico y la falta de realismo que hace que, en muchos casos, sea peor el remedio que la enfermedad. Una irónica pregunta lo deja en evidencia. ¿Queremos que los pilotos de las aerolíneas sean elegidos por representar a diversos grupos demográficos o preferimos volar en un avión cuyo piloto sea capaz de llevarnos sanos y salvos a nuestro destino?

5 estrellas, y pasa a ser uno de mis libros de cabecera. Para releer y replantearse ciertos mantras, aunque no estés de acuerdo del todo con el autor.

[Vicenzo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Se lo recomendaría a Yolanda Díaz.
Los resultados de las políticas que buscan la igualdad, muchas veces empeoran la situación de partida.
Sowell demuestra con datos que:
- el SIM perjudica a la mano de obra joven (por lo menos en EEUU)
- el número de graduados de minorías raciales baja cuando las universidades aprueban medidas de discriminación positiva (que, por cierto, empezó Kennedy).
- el precio de la vivienda sube cuando se aprueban leyes que buscan "topar", como se dice ahora, los precios.
- el número de ETS sube cuando se implantan en los colegios programas de educación sesual.
- la raza (en este caso negra) no es predictor de pobreza. Los municipios más pobre de USA son de blancos, entre otros muchos datos relevantes que ofrece.
- las desigualdades dependen mucho más de factores incontrolables por el ser humano: clima, geografía, historia, tradición,...
Muy interesante el concepto de "conocimiento significativo" y de "decisores sustitutos".
Un torpedo documentado y ágil contra la línea de flotación de políticas socialistas o que buscan aumentar el papel del Estado en la sociedad.
Me quedo con esta frase: el pueblo que busca la igualdad de resultados por encima de la libertad, se acaba quedando sin igualdad y sin libertad.

[Cory · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great analysis of the current issues and also a master class on logic and argumentation. Very helpful book!

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you've read any Sowell before, it's likely that you're not going to find much new in this book. That said, I like Sowell, and I think that a lot of what he has to say is important. So I enjoyed this book. But it's essentially a repackaged presentation of a number of old ideas.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm not sure how to "rank" or "review" this. It's very good. I imagine if someone has never read Thomas Sowell--or been forced to really think through the economics or logic of "social justice"--then one will be reading with mouth agape by about page five. However, if you are familiar with his writing, then this will seem like a greatest hits package. Much of this book was covered in more detail in "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" and/or "Discrimination and Disparities."

His key theme is the limitations of knowledge and power. "The painful reality is that no human being has either the vast range of consequential knowledge, or the overwhelming power, required to make the social justice ideal become a reality." [One may reasonably ask, "Well, we can at least try, can't we?" HIs response would essentially be, "Well, no. Read my quote again."]

[Anna · Rating 1 out of 5]

1.5
this guy needs a stats class and to learn how to make logically coherent arguments. cultural geography thing was kinda valuable but one wrong step and its eugenics. ignores the existence of social structures, also never addresses any of the philosophical foundations/moral ideas behind social justice which is what i thought this would do . overall very much missed the point :/

[Zee · Rating 2 out of 5]

Predictable and rehashed Sowellian factbait that enables his followers to play a fool’s game they end up winning as much as those they criticize, ironically for many of the same reasons. Responding to fallacies with your own ain’t it.

[Kristen B · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eminently readable and illuminating, Sowell examines the empirical outcomes of various well-meaning policies such as the minimum wage, affirmative action, sex education in schools, and higher tax rates on “the rich”. He puts each one into categories of fallacies that explain why they failed to achieve their aims.

I’ve listened to Thomas Sowell before, but this is the first book of his I’ve read. I doubt it will be the last! Though it is an economics book, I did not at all find it boring. The most interesting parts for me were on ‘Chess piece fallacies’ (people are not inert chess pieces that the government can move around at will to “arrange” society as it sees fit) and ‘Knowledge fallacies’ (the body of consequential knowledge in a society is widely spread among a population at large, not concentrated in elite intellectuals, who often think they have the right to act as surrogate decision makers for others on all sorts of matters they know little about).

As Thomas Sowell has said elsewhere, he likewise demonstrates in this book: the three questions that destroy most ideas on the Left are:

1. Compared to what?
2. At what cost?
3. What hard evidence do you have?

In conclusion, I enjoyed this book tremendously and highly recommend it to anyone interested in social policy.

[Jaron Wallace · Rating 4 out of 5]

I got this from the teacher that recommended me the other book written by the same author. It was very interesting just not quite as good or as complete as the economically focused book. All in all, a really interesting read.

[Melissa · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5 because well, it's an academic book? Can academic books really be amazing like Goodreads declares? :) But I'll probably talk about it to people, which makes it a 5 star in my Goodreads star rankings.

I was a little afraid the reading level of this book would be rather dense because I've heard Thomas Sowell speak, but it's surprisingly readable and is only 130 pages of text.

I'll be making my kids read this before they leave the house, hopefully making them much better prepared voters than the average citizen, like he says somewhere in the book something akin to, if you don't know what people's "facts and stats" are based on, the platitudes that appeal to the emotion based on what feels like "facts" can trick you. Clever word play is not necessarily wisdom, factual, or right. Politicians are good at this. Something may sound nice, but doesn't mean it works. In fact, the very opposite thing that you expect to work might truly be what will help. What they propose that sounds nice could very well make everything worse.

He often made reference to Edmund Burke's quote "Preserving my principles unshaken, I reserve my activity for rational endeavours." You might have an ideal you wish was true of the world, but some endeavors can't make it happen just because you want it to, so why waste time, energy, money, etc. on something that doesn't work in the end? Even if it feels like the right way to do something, if it doesn't help, but the "wrong" way does, don't die on a sanctimonious hill. (This thought sort of goes back to the John Stossel book I just read, I love his contrarian reporting--calling out things for not working, because though things might sound nice, if it's not accomplishing good, then why are we doing it?).

A lot of politicians and people in general want the feel good of virtue signaling, maybe even working to do what WE think will make life better for others, but if we don't pay any attention to if what they/we say and do actually helps the thing they/we say are worrisome, then we can easily be doing more harm than good with a self pat on our back that's nothing more than self-adulatory theater.

"But cleverness is not wisdom, artful insinuations are no substitute for factual evidence,
if your goal is knowing the facts. But, if your goals are political or ideological, there is no question that one of the most politically successful messages of the twentieth century was that the rich have gotten rich by taking from the poor.....the far larger point is that a prevailing social vision does not have to produce any factual test, when rhetoric and repetition can be sufficient to accomplish their aims, especially when alternative views can be ignored and/or suppressed. It is that suppression which is a key factor--and it is already a large and growing factor in academic, political and other institutions in our own times."

"The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false." Paul Johnson

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

9.5/10

[Rodrigo Jungmann · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mais um livro fabuloso de Thomas Sowell. Como sempre, ele mostra rigor intelectual e a linguagem precisa e clara tão rara entre outros intelectuais.

[Toni · Rating 5 out of 5]

Love reading Sowell's thoughts. Many of the points of this new book he has covered in more detail elsewhere. Again he denounces the arrogance of crusading intellectual elites, who's policies harm more than hurt. Examples include the damage of affirmative action, to the explosive unemployment among the poor caused by minimum wage laws, to the harm done to society as a whole by taking opportunities away from the most qualified in a quixotic attempt to equalize outcomes.

One new topic in this book is the damage done by schools in sexual education which has skyrocketted the rates of STDs and teenage pregnancies especially among the poor.

[Christian · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have always enjoyed Sowell’s writing. Agree or disagree, he lays his points out with incredible clarity and detail, making it easy to follow the train of logic (even if it derails at times), providing a healthy base of statistics to back his claims, and generally being someone with whom you could imagine having an actual debate, filled with respect, ceded points, and nuance.

Below I am going to paste the many notes I took as I tooled around the forest listening to this audiobook with my dogs:

What are the true core points he is making?
- The core flaw in the cause of social justice is that ultimate victory is not defined, and may even be undefinable when it comes to nearly every variable or discrepancy we see socially with which the movement concerns itself.
- Where did the social justice movement go wrong (in the author’s eyes)? Certainly not in their vision for a better world, especially one with so many resources distributed so unequally, causing so much needless suffering in our world. However, overcoming the shortfalls of both the knowledge required, and the power required by surrogate third parties to make decisions that will benefit everyone is somewhat of a utopian dream. Best, in the eyes of Sowell, to create the conditions to let individuals with the most knowledge about, and power over, their own situations make the decisions.
- Once you give power to somebody, it takes extreme effort to take it back. Thus, caution is required when taking any power from the individual. And it is hard to see, just when looking at the past century, any cases where power given to others to make decisions for their fellow citizens has not gone awry to some degree
- Difference in in outcomes do not necessarily indicate injustice, generally, they are differences in preference, climate, or culture
- Differences in outcomes cannot automatically be assumed to be due to power differences of the majority over subordinated minorities
- Statistics would indicate that the smaller the sample size, the lower the chance of expected representation within any group. Such as a specific company representing the exact demographic layout of the United States population, for example.
- Geography matters. Take a single example of the European coastline, being many thousands of kilometers longer than the African coastline in total. This is because the twists and turns of the land create so much surface area with water, combined with much better ports compared to the smooth African coastline, but it was a natural setting for advanced shipping and commerce to develop. Adam Smith pointed out this difference in the 18th century, and also rejected the racial inferiority of Africans.
- Historical progressives have talked about "arranging" the social order, and here the language matters. Governments do not 'arrange' situations, they compel by force.
- Raising tax rates for the rich does not necessarily correlate with an increase in taxable income, especially in democracies, where the rich have options to put their money in tax exempt vehicles, move their assets out of the taxable territory, or move themselves out of the taxable territory.
- Just because economists have many sins on their heads from the mistakes of the last five or six centuries does not mean we can toss out the baby with the bathwater. Fundamental economic forces will always be at work regardless of the specific method or intensity of capitalism at play at any given moment.
- Each person has an island of knowledge amidst a sea of ignorance. Some islands are larger than others, but this fact underlies the entire conservative claim that experts should not make decisions for others, since they are merely barking orders from a (hopefully) larger island. Knowledge is not fungible, knowledge in one domain does not transplant to other domains, so being an expert in one field should give you no authority and other fields outside of your domain (looking at you Nobel Prize Winners). This humility is at the core of conservative thought according to the author.
- Pursuing ideals at all costs has been tried in the past with great pain and misery as the result. We should have the highest ideals, tempered with the greatest practical realities and knowledge for our policy proposals.
- Thinkers like Frederick Hayek did not criticize those promoting justice and social justice. He applauded their ideals, and noted that their personal characters were without fault. He simply criticized the practicality of their policy suggestions to achieve those ideals.
- The author makes the case that the specific vocabulary choices made by both sides of the aisle have become so different that the same words can be used to talk past each other. These word choices matter deeply, so defining them carefully is his goal. The word 'merit' is a good example. The word when first used simply meant the skill or qualifications to do a certain task, combined with the work required to earn the reward. However, as early as the 1800s progressives have added a moral quality to this word, adding on an element of injustice in how those skills were even first acquired due to different (unequal) life circumstances.
- Concerning education: even if every single thing that somebody was being indoctrinated with was objectively correct, and was proven to be so long into the future, that would still be a violation of rights and freedom of thought that would be intolerable.
- Just because virtue in the business world is certainly no higher than in the fields of academia government, or any other sector of society, and in fact, maybe much worse, that does not mean that the answer is immediately to give power to bureaucrats that pay, very few, if any, of the consequences that they inflict upon society when they are wrong. Those who put policies in place almost never pay a cost if they are misguided.

Where I think he’s right (or mostly right)
- On the gender income gap: when looking at equivalent groups, single women who have worked continuously since college into their 30s, and men who have worked continuously since college into their 30s, women are found slightly to out-earn men in that category.
- When looking at groups as a whole, taking race as an example, the average age of Japanese Americans is 52, where the average age of Hispanic Americans is 28. We would expect them just based on experience and developed life capabilities for these groups to have wildly different outcomes, because of the different stages of life they are in on average.
- The assumption that the author makes is that all human potentialities are the same at birth. In this he is on the same page as the progressives. They even agree on the fact that in the womb, during childhood, and then growing up in the larger cultural and socioeconomic milieu will have effects on these children. The only place where they really disagree is when discussing how those differences equate to what defines equality of opportunity, and the disparate outcomes we see. And then obviously the social policies which would have to be put in place to close those gaps, or even the need to do so.
- The author states that when it comes to Africa, geography matters more than history. This is an extremely bold claim to make. Yes, Europe, waterways and coastline make it ideal for Maritime, trade and power, but centuries of oppression, extraction, and colonialism have to take the edge here (and by take the edge, I mean, create a yawning chasm between the two)
- Nature, well-being, imbalance, overall, only achieves that balance through wild and shifting inequalities. The issue is not the inequality itself, just the social structures. humankind has put in place to artificially stop that change from happening from one generation to the next. (For example, the United States, being very low on indicators of achieving the American dream.)
- We should have the respect for children born today, to not hand them a prepackaged list of grievances against another baby of a different race born on the same day. We should at least give them a chance to work it out better than we have.
- Of course, with an incredible number of caveats, a lower tax rate on a higher tax base is greater than a higher tax rate on very few dollars. However, we saw during the Bush tax cuts that when tax rates fell, overall revenues also fell even as the economy grew.
- When expected tax revenue does not materialize after an increase to the tax rate, the shortfall must be dealt with by printing money, resulting in inflation. This inflation is essentially a regressive tax, since it affects those lower on the economic scale more harshly than those at the top based on their consumption.
- A fool can put on his own coat better than a wise man can put it on for him

Where I think he’s wrong or lacks nuance:
- simply excusing the under representation of women in Silicon Valley due to differences in the number of computer science degrees that are handed out in the United States. Every year is not looking far enough up the chain. This is where you must also tangle with the writers and social commentaries, who have pointed out that gender expectations start nearly from day one. It is a false reliance on quantitative data used in this manner when you do not properly look at the true source of end discriminations.
- Everything said about gender representation above, can also be applied to the income gap, making sure that you are actually looking at people in the same circumstances, not looking just at the groups as a whole.
- I fear this is going to be a recurring theme in this book. Simply pointing out that the differences in racial make up of the tech sector as a whole is due to people’s choices long before does not make that equal opportunity. This is where this analysis falls. Severely short, he has not taken into account any historical injustice that may have played on the present day, nor is there any reference to other social biases that push us in any given direction since childhood, compounded with socioeconomic differences.
- In short, Thomas Sowell’s definition of equality of opportunity is too limited.
- He makes some convincing points that historical inequalities in the ancient world could largely be chalked up to geography and the availability of the suburban, for example. However, in the modern world, well geography still matters, we have overcome many of these limitations, such as by building railroads to cheaply transport overland, where previously only large bodies of water, could be crossed at low cost. In the last 300 years we could have spread this technology across the world economically and fairly, but the entrenched racism and discrimination prevented these technologies from making it across the world, leading to that being a larger factor than the underlying geography at this stage of modernity.
- In the discussion around the minimum wage laws, fundamentally economics does, indeed, as the author points out, point to the fact that a higher price will lower demand, causing unemployment. But when you have an economy that has multiple jobs per person, unemployed, by forcing the living wage higher, which must be paid, don’t you actually increase the likelihood of all of those unfilled jobs actually being filled at some point if each one could support an actual human?
- In the discussion around minimum wage laws and unemployment, the author seems to be over, relying on quantitative data, and not looking for the underlying factors found in the qualitative data. There were massive cultural shifts happening during this. Which cannot be explained, simply looking at the numbers, overtime and attributing all of them to economic forces.
- Even though the author does a good job of pointing out that many of the most alarming statistics on wealth inequality are somewhat mitigated when taking into account, the statistical anomalies, what it still reflects is an increasing “winner takes all” nature of our economy. Even though people are mobile throughout their lives, what does it say morally that the shift to the highest earners, taking a larger percentage of the total pie is only increasing over time? A tough question.
- The author many times equates being trapped in a situation with choosing to be in that situation (a false economic 'choice' these people are making)


Other interesting facts and my commentary:
- in the ancient world, the cost of transporting something across the length of the Mediterranean Sea, a distance of 2000 miles, was cheaper than transporting something overland just 75 miles.
- Western Europeans benefited from an unbelievable amount of geographical luck, resource, bounty, and other positive features that they chalked up to their own superiority. Had the roles been reversed Alany race would have succeeded there eventually. The question we should be asking is why did it take so long and how come it was so unefficiently done?
- Yes, there is a God, and if there is an afterlife, where all people works together, and if it looks anything like the Earth does today, but in a perfected form, I am insanely interested to see what the economics of that world look like. Whether they are the same just applied to everyone or if there are Differences and richness to the diversity of economic systems that work with different people.
- One study found that over half of all US adults will, at some point in their lives be in the top 10% of income earners in the United States. Most discussions of wealth inequality glosses over the churn between income brackets that people go through over the course of their lives.
- Only 5% of the people in the lowest income bracket in 1975 stayed in that bracket over the course of their lives, the rest moved into higher brackets.
- When following people over the course of 10 years, those in the bottom, quintile of income, saw their incomes rise 91% over the course of those 10 years. While those in the top quintile saw their income fall by 26% over the same period .
- The number of people in the lowest quintile of income is 42 million according to the bureau of labor statistics. While the highest quintile has a group numbering 84 million, leading to an exaggeration of the differences in income as a built-in feature.
- Statistics can lie. To use a single example, using family household income instead of per capita income would show stagnant wages, simply because family size is decreasing.
- regarding affirmative action, students are found to graduate in higher rates, resulting in more lawyers, doctors, etc., when they are placed in schools with other students who match their academic qualifications. It seems to me that we should not expect to meet a shifting goal line of proportional representation, when the investments made in eliminating genuine roadblocks to minorities achieving success in higher education are like planting trees. Those investments are absolutely the right call, and we should nurture them, but they are slow growing, and may take generations to come to full fruition.

[Jeff Yoak · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is fantastic. Many of the basic points won't be new to those critical of modern notions of what is called equity and such, but Sowell has an amazing talent for unearthing detail and nuance beyond what most of us could do and to present in a wonderfully engaging way. Beyond seeing what is wrong with claims as to why the explanations of certain phenomena are wrong, there is deep insight here into real causes of various disparities and differences between groups.