What do you think?
Rate this book
Uguaglianza. Che cosa significa e perché è importante
Giustizia sociale, meritocrazia, ricchezza e Piketty e Sandel si confrontano sulle radici della disuguaglianza e sulle strade per superarla. Un dialogo illuminante che offre nuove prospettive sul futuro della democrazia e del diritto a un mondo più equo.
Thomas Piketty e Michael J. Sandel rispondono a questa domanda in un dialogo appassionato su economia, giustizia sociale e democrazia. La meritocrazia premia davvero il talento o rafforza le disuguaglianze? Il denaro influenza troppo la politica? È possibile creare un sistema più equo senza rinunciare alla libertà? Dalla tassazione progressiva al welfare, dal populismo alla crisi climatica, fino alle sfide poste dalle migrazioni di massa, due delle voci più influenti del nostro tempo analizzano il rapporto tra ricchezza e potere e propongono nuove idee per una società più giusta. Osservare Piketty e Sandel affrontare questi e altri problemi significa intravedere nuove possibilità di cambiamento e giustizia, ma anche accettare la verità ostinata che il progresso verso una maggiore uguaglianza non arriva mai rapidamente né senza profondi conflitti sociali e lotte politiche.
Thomas Piketty e Michael J. Sandel rispondono a questa domanda in un dialogo appassionato su economia, giustizia sociale e democrazia. La meritocrazia premia davvero il talento o rafforza le disuguaglianze? Il denaro influenza troppo la politica? È possibile creare un sistema più equo senza rinunciare alla libertà? Dalla tassazione progressiva al welfare, dal populismo alla crisi climatica, fino alle sfide poste dalle migrazioni di massa, due delle voci più influenti del nostro tempo analizzano il rapporto tra ricchezza e potere e propongono nuove idee per una società più giusta. Osservare Piketty e Sandel affrontare questi e altri problemi significa intravedere nuove possibilità di cambiamento e giustizia, ma anche accettare la verità ostinata che il progresso verso una maggiore uguaglianza non arriva mai rapidamente né senza profondi conflitti sociali e lotte politiche.
119 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 21, 2025
200 people are currently reading
9283 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Piketty
92 books2,524 followersThomas Piketty (French: [tɔma pikɛti]; born May 7, 1971) is a French economist who works on wealth and income inequality. He is the director of studies at the École des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS) and professor at the Paris School of Economics. He is the author of the best selling book Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2013), which emphasizes the themes of his work on wealth concentrations and distribution over the past 250 years. The book argues that the rate of capital return in developed countries is persistently greater than the rate of economic growth, and that this will cause wealth inequality to increase in the future. To address this problem, he proposes redistribution through a global tax on wealth.
Piketty was born on May 7, 1971, in the Parisian suburb of Clichy. He gained a C-stream (scientific) Baccalauréat, and after taking scientific preparatory classes, he entered the École Normale Supérieure (ENS) at the age of 18, where he studied mathematics and economics. At the age of 22, Piketty was awarded his Ph.D. for a thesis on wealth redistribution, which he wrote at the EHESS and the London School of Economics under Roger Guesnerie.
After earning his PhD, Piketty taught from 1993 to 1995 as an assistant professor in the Department of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 1995, he joined the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) as a researcher, and in 2000 he became director of studies at EHESS.
Piketty won the 2002 prize for the best young economist in France, and according to a list dated November 11, 2003, he is a member of the scientific orientation board of the association "À gauche, en Europe", founded by Michel Rocard and Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
In 2006 Piketty became the first head of the Paris School of Economics, which he helped set up. He left after a few months to serve as an economic advisor to Socialist Party candidate Ségolène Royal during the French presidential campaign. Piketty resumed teaching at the Paris School of Economics in 2007.
He is a columnist for the French newspaper Libération, and occasionally writes op-eds for Le Monde.
In April 2012, Piketty co-authored along with 42 colleagues an open letter in support of then-PS candidate for the French presidency François Hollande. Hollande won the contest against the incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy in May of that year.
In 2013, Piketty won the biennial Yrjö Jahnsson Award, for the economist under age 45 who has "made a contribution in theoretical and applied research that is significant to the study of economics in Europe."
Piketty specializes in economic inequality, taking a historic and statistical approach. His work looks at the rate of capital accumulation in relation to economic growth over a two hundred year spread from the nineteenth century to the present. His novel use of tax records enabled him to gather data on the very top economic elite, who had previously been understudied, and to ascertain their rate of accumulation of wealth and how this compared to the rest of society and economy. His most recent book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, relies on economic data going back 250 years to show that an ever-rising concentration of wealth is not self-correcting. To address this problem, he proposes redistribution through a global tax on wealth.
Piketty was born on May 7, 1971, in the Parisian suburb of Clichy. He gained a C-stream (scientific) Baccalauréat, and after taking scientific preparatory classes, he entered the École Normale Supérieure (ENS) at the age of 18, where he studied mathematics and economics. At the age of 22, Piketty was awarded his Ph.D. for a thesis on wealth redistribution, which he wrote at the EHESS and the London School of Economics under Roger Guesnerie.
After earning his PhD, Piketty taught from 1993 to 1995 as an assistant professor in the Department of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 1995, he joined the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) as a researcher, and in 2000 he became director of studies at EHESS.
Piketty won the 2002 prize for the best young economist in France, and according to a list dated November 11, 2003, he is a member of the scientific orientation board of the association "À gauche, en Europe", founded by Michel Rocard and Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
In 2006 Piketty became the first head of the Paris School of Economics, which he helped set up. He left after a few months to serve as an economic advisor to Socialist Party candidate Ségolène Royal during the French presidential campaign. Piketty resumed teaching at the Paris School of Economics in 2007.
He is a columnist for the French newspaper Libération, and occasionally writes op-eds for Le Monde.
In April 2012, Piketty co-authored along with 42 colleagues an open letter in support of then-PS candidate for the French presidency François Hollande. Hollande won the contest against the incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy in May of that year.
In 2013, Piketty won the biennial Yrjö Jahnsson Award, for the economist under age 45 who has "made a contribution in theoretical and applied research that is significant to the study of economics in Europe."
Piketty specializes in economic inequality, taking a historic and statistical approach. His work looks at the rate of capital accumulation in relation to economic growth over a two hundred year spread from the nineteenth century to the present. His novel use of tax records enabled him to gather data on the very top economic elite, who had previously been understudied, and to ascertain their rate of accumulation of wealth and how this compared to the rest of society and economy. His most recent book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, relies on economic data going back 250 years to show that an ever-rising concentration of wealth is not self-correcting. To address this problem, he proposes redistribution through a global tax on wealth.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 134 reviews
July 25, 2025
Piketty & Sandel in conversation: Who wouldn't agree that equality needs to be a fundamental value of society, because everything else erodes the trust in democracy, a form of government based on the belief that every vote counts, and counts the same. The problem is how we can strive for that ideal of equality though, and the text itself shows the pitfalls: Here, two members of the global intellectual elite (and I greatly appreciate both of their works, especially Sandel's ideas) argue that the working class needs to be represented more in parliaments, because only members of a class can represent the interests of class properly - well, Mike & Tom, so all of your lobbying for the working class during your entire careers in economy (Piketty) and moral philosophy (Sandel) was futile, then? (Spoiler alert: no.)
Don't get me wrong: A parliament needs to represent the population, reflecting its diversity. The thing is though: If we want to fund our states better, we need to tax the rich and international corporations in a multinational effort, yes, but we also need to strengthen the organization of the state, and it's not meritocracy that's the problem here, Mr. Sandel, it's the lack of meritocracy and the dependence on tribalism. Being a member of a party - any party - is not a qualification in itself. But when the knowledge that a person will shut up and back a party member higher up no matter what (meaning: a secure vote within party politics when it comes to the distribution of power) is more important than qualification, work ethic, and especially the will to point out flaws, then we're fucked.
What I'm saying is that the belief in the problem solving power of the state, its ability to redistribute wealth is an illusion when the state is made up of party opportunists. IMHO, Sandel and Piketty do look at the voting public, but fail to sufficiently ponder how the ones they vote for organize the administration - that's where trust is lost, too, and it's not given enough attention that without a functioning, competent bureaucracy that puts the interest of the public that pays for it first, nothing will change. It's just going to be about power and personal interest, which is the opposite of equality. Why would a system that runs on that, ahem, "morale", re-distribute money, chances, access? How would the people that get the top jobs in such a manner save the economy, when they have no clue about the neuralgic issues? And the ones who are qualified have build up a wall of resentment due to how the system is run? And most importantly: What is more sturdy, a time-limited vote, or an administration made up of people who mostly will sit there their whole lives?
I often feel like discussions around identity politics and class inequality (both important topics!) miss the mark, because they are too meta, and they need to get down to the nitty-gritty, where action is or should be taken.
Don't get me wrong: A parliament needs to represent the population, reflecting its diversity. The thing is though: If we want to fund our states better, we need to tax the rich and international corporations in a multinational effort, yes, but we also need to strengthen the organization of the state, and it's not meritocracy that's the problem here, Mr. Sandel, it's the lack of meritocracy and the dependence on tribalism. Being a member of a party - any party - is not a qualification in itself. But when the knowledge that a person will shut up and back a party member higher up no matter what (meaning: a secure vote within party politics when it comes to the distribution of power) is more important than qualification, work ethic, and especially the will to point out flaws, then we're fucked.
What I'm saying is that the belief in the problem solving power of the state, its ability to redistribute wealth is an illusion when the state is made up of party opportunists. IMHO, Sandel and Piketty do look at the voting public, but fail to sufficiently ponder how the ones they vote for organize the administration - that's where trust is lost, too, and it's not given enough attention that without a functioning, competent bureaucracy that puts the interest of the public that pays for it first, nothing will change. It's just going to be about power and personal interest, which is the opposite of equality. Why would a system that runs on that, ahem, "morale", re-distribute money, chances, access? How would the people that get the top jobs in such a manner save the economy, when they have no clue about the neuralgic issues? And the ones who are qualified have build up a wall of resentment due to how the system is run? And most importantly: What is more sturdy, a time-limited vote, or an administration made up of people who mostly will sit there their whole lives?
I often feel like discussions around identity politics and class inequality (both important topics!) miss the mark, because they are too meta, and they need to get down to the nitty-gritty, where action is or should be taken.
January 28, 2025
This is less a book than the transcript of a conversation between the two authors. The question and answer format works really well.
As for the contents? It's short, it's smart, and it's semi-accessible. I can't say that I understood everything discussed, but I really liked what I got.
As for the contents? It's short, it's smart, and it's semi-accessible. I can't say that I understood everything discussed, but I really liked what I got.
February 1, 2025
I appreciated this book, an edited transcription of a conversation, outlined beforehand by the two scholars to ensure they explored certain topics in which they have different opinions, or nuances. I found the conversation thought-provoking and sections of the dialogue giving reason for a reader from the center-left or left areas of the political spectrum to pause and begin to consider their culpability in the rise of the nationalist conservative right.
it was also clear that this was only one insightful conversation among two men and many more need to be had among many more people (and they are happening) to figure out what the future of the left might require. Piketty and Sandel discuss approaches to dealing with inequality in incomes, education, health care, etc but the lift is heavy and likely to require tremendous upheaval (my sense of Piketty's position). I found myself in agreement with Sandel's point that establishing community with moral grounding as a part of any other solutions to inequality is urgently needed to provide a counter the tribal anti-immigrant, anti-intelligentsia sense of community established among supporters of Trump and his like.
A quick read if one wants it to be, but also worth slowing the pace at points to ponder the implications and underlying issues with some of the statements made by these two distinguished me. I'm glad I read it. Likely will revisit it. I hope similar books among sane thinkers on these topics may be forthcoming.
it was also clear that this was only one insightful conversation among two men and many more need to be had among many more people (and they are happening) to figure out what the future of the left might require. Piketty and Sandel discuss approaches to dealing with inequality in incomes, education, health care, etc but the lift is heavy and likely to require tremendous upheaval (my sense of Piketty's position). I found myself in agreement with Sandel's point that establishing community with moral grounding as a part of any other solutions to inequality is urgently needed to provide a counter the tribal anti-immigrant, anti-intelligentsia sense of community established among supporters of Trump and his like.
A quick read if one wants it to be, but also worth slowing the pace at points to ponder the implications and underlying issues with some of the statements made by these two distinguished me. I'm glad I read it. Likely will revisit it. I hope similar books among sane thinkers on these topics may be forthcoming.
February 27, 2025
When I found out that Sandel and Piketty had written a book together, I was immediately curious. After all, they come from different normative traditions: Sandel from communitarianism and Piketty from socialism. Yet they share a common goal—greater equality. However, their approaches to achieving it differ a bit.
Sandel focuses on restoring a sense of community within nations. He argues that part of the issue of dignity inequality stems from the elite looking down on the less educated. He suggests that if we pay more attention to the common good, inequality in other areas—such as access to basic services and political equality—will naturally decrease as well. A key part of his vision is ensuring that everyone, including those with lower education levels, has a greater say in politics and that public services improve, so that the wealthy and the poor once again interact in daily life. His thoughts on meritocracy are also impressive and highlight a possible contributing factor to populism.
Piketty, on the other hand, believes that tackling economic inequality should be the first step. As long as wealth gaps remain vast, the rich will continue to buy power and look down on others. To counter this, he proposes radical economic reforms, such as income and wealth taxes of up to 90% on the highest earners, a globally distributed corporate tax (as a form of compensation for colonial exploitation and environmental damage caused by wealthy nations), and giving employees at least 50% voting rights in companies. Sounds extreme? It is. But Piketty argues that even more drastic changes have happened before. He points out that in the early 20th century, average tax rates were around 10%, whereas later they increased to about 50%. In his view, the most socialist periods were actually the most successful—until left-wing parties let the free market take over and abandoned their working-class base. Now, they seem more like elite parties rather than true representatives of labor.
One of Piketty’s proposals that I find interesting was his idea of an international treaty for a minimum corporate tax rate. Right now, countries struggle to raise corporate taxes because companies can always threaten to move to a tax haven (made me thinkt of ASML’s recent threats). But if all countries set a minimum rate, that argument loses its power, and governments would have more control over big corporations. This would also help create more political equality. Because, as Piketty himself acknowledges, the money needed for equality cannot just come from “ordinary” people—voters simply won’t agree to that. “Take it from the big corporations” is the more common saying.
Okay, that was my content-focused brain dump. Now, about the book itself: it’s basically a written transcript of a conversation between Sandel and Piketty. Literally that. They gave a lecture in Paris on inequality, and this book is just a typed-out version of that discussion. And honestly, that does a disservice to their ideas. I’ve read previous works from both authors, so I was able to follow the discussion easily, but I also knew how much was missing. Such a complex topic, analyzed from different normative perspectives, squeezed into just over 100 pages? It doesn’t do justice to the depth of their thinking and research.
I suspect the book is meant to convince people of the need for new policies to promote equality—it’s currently ranked #2 at Bruna in Maastricht, so it’s clearly attracting attention. But does it actually succeed in making that case? I have my doubts. For me, it was an interesting summary of their ideas, and it was cool to see them engage together. But truly persuasive? And comprehensive? I don’t know…
Sandel focuses on restoring a sense of community within nations. He argues that part of the issue of dignity inequality stems from the elite looking down on the less educated. He suggests that if we pay more attention to the common good, inequality in other areas—such as access to basic services and political equality—will naturally decrease as well. A key part of his vision is ensuring that everyone, including those with lower education levels, has a greater say in politics and that public services improve, so that the wealthy and the poor once again interact in daily life. His thoughts on meritocracy are also impressive and highlight a possible contributing factor to populism.
Piketty, on the other hand, believes that tackling economic inequality should be the first step. As long as wealth gaps remain vast, the rich will continue to buy power and look down on others. To counter this, he proposes radical economic reforms, such as income and wealth taxes of up to 90% on the highest earners, a globally distributed corporate tax (as a form of compensation for colonial exploitation and environmental damage caused by wealthy nations), and giving employees at least 50% voting rights in companies. Sounds extreme? It is. But Piketty argues that even more drastic changes have happened before. He points out that in the early 20th century, average tax rates were around 10%, whereas later they increased to about 50%. In his view, the most socialist periods were actually the most successful—until left-wing parties let the free market take over and abandoned their working-class base. Now, they seem more like elite parties rather than true representatives of labor.
One of Piketty’s proposals that I find interesting was his idea of an international treaty for a minimum corporate tax rate. Right now, countries struggle to raise corporate taxes because companies can always threaten to move to a tax haven (made me thinkt of ASML’s recent threats). But if all countries set a minimum rate, that argument loses its power, and governments would have more control over big corporations. This would also help create more political equality. Because, as Piketty himself acknowledges, the money needed for equality cannot just come from “ordinary” people—voters simply won’t agree to that. “Take it from the big corporations” is the more common saying.
Okay, that was my content-focused brain dump. Now, about the book itself: it’s basically a written transcript of a conversation between Sandel and Piketty. Literally that. They gave a lecture in Paris on inequality, and this book is just a typed-out version of that discussion. And honestly, that does a disservice to their ideas. I’ve read previous works from both authors, so I was able to follow the discussion easily, but I also knew how much was missing. Such a complex topic, analyzed from different normative perspectives, squeezed into just over 100 pages? It doesn’t do justice to the depth of their thinking and research.
I suspect the book is meant to convince people of the need for new policies to promote equality—it’s currently ranked #2 at Bruna in Maastricht, so it’s clearly attracting attention. But does it actually succeed in making that case? I have my doubts. For me, it was an interesting summary of their ideas, and it was cool to see them engage together. But truly persuasive? And comprehensive? I don’t know…
June 29, 2025
O livro é a transcrição de um diálogo entre ambos os acadêmicos.
É uma boa chance de ter um visão geral da posição de ambos sobre temas como igualdade e justiça.
Mas se quiser algo mais aprofundado (e interessante), sugiro começar pelos livros de ambos os autores. São bem mais ricos!
É uma boa chance de ter um visão geral da posição de ambos sobre temas como igualdade e justiça.
Mas se quiser algo mais aprofundado (e interessante), sugiro começar pelos livros de ambos os autores. São bem mais ricos!
July 30, 2025
Zeer boeiend gesprek tussen twee belangrijke denkers van onze tijd. Interessante invalshoek om gelijkheid niet enkel vanuit sociaaleconomische positie en politieke participatie te beschouwen maar ook in termen van erkenning/waardigheid en in relatie tot elkaar. Veel werk aan de winkel voor links!
August 31, 2025
A short essay in the form of an edited transcript of two thinkers talking about equality. While both authors present nothing truly new to people familiar with their work, there is some insights to be gained. The attempt to give an overview of the components of equality and the effects of commodification on equality are as compact as can be, and thus a great introduction into this topic.
Although true disagreement and discussion is rare, the most riveting parts are where the two disagree. When Piketty challenges Sandel on not taking a strong position on equal representation in universities and politics, ideas are tested. This shows both the descriptive nature of Sandel and the directive ideas of Piketty; I’d love for the two to clash more and tie these together in a coherent view. Helas, that asks too much of the few pages of this essay.
So, while engaging the text somehow seems too civil or restrained to bring forth new conceptions not found elsewhere in the respective works of Sandel and Piketty. May this text be an enticing entry point for many!
Although true disagreement and discussion is rare, the most riveting parts are where the two disagree. When Piketty challenges Sandel on not taking a strong position on equal representation in universities and politics, ideas are tested. This shows both the descriptive nature of Sandel and the directive ideas of Piketty; I’d love for the two to clash more and tie these together in a coherent view. Helas, that asks too much of the few pages of this essay.
So, while engaging the text somehow seems too civil or restrained to bring forth new conceptions not found elsewhere in the respective works of Sandel and Piketty. May this text be an enticing entry point for many!
August 4, 2025
Curto e interessante, é uma leitura leve, mas que ajuda a desconstruir alguns preconceitos sobre igualdade e que apresenta algumas sugestões sobre o que podemos fazer para reduzir a desigualdade crescente a nível local e global.
December 28, 2025
cortito y amigablemente denso. pulling no punches en cuanto a la contribución de los partidos de “izquierda” hacia el auge de la derecha y la excusa frecuente de esperar a un consenso multinacional antes de poner en práctica políticas progresistas. desmercantilización, impuestos, socialismo como proyecto vivo en vez de algo congelado en el siglo pasado.
February 9, 2025
Good book on a discussion between the two academics. Makes me interested to read more from both. Interesting arguments put forward on how to reduce inequality.
August 8, 2025
Why is this a book? it's a transcription of conversation between two people. It could have been a video or audio link to this convo. There is no need to have books made out of conversations. Maybe dialectic? How about people make books that transcribe each episode of Joe Rogan. Bruh, this shouldn't be a trend.
The only idea that I thought okay this could be interesting that one of the guys suggested that 50 percent of the shares of a company should be in the hands of the workers. A cool idea.
The only idea that I thought okay this could be interesting that one of the guys suggested that 50 percent of the shares of a company should be in the hands of the workers. A cool idea.
March 11, 2025
This is not really a book, but more an eassy. An interview between the two men.
Although they cover great topics and ideas around equality and what it means for the current politcal landscape, it did not not reach a final conclusion.
I must say that their discussion on meritocracy did change the way i viewed the topic.
Although they cover great topics and ideas around equality and what it means for the current politcal landscape, it did not not reach a final conclusion.
I must say that their discussion on meritocracy did change the way i viewed the topic.
July 7, 2025
Adorei este livro, recomendo bastante para quem quer entender melhor a desigualdade atualmente,como ela se desenrola e como em pleno século XXI a sociedade ainda apresenta grande desigualdade entre as pessoas. É um bela conversa entre o Sandel e Piketty, onde abordam temas importantíssimos como a meritocracia, globalização, populismo, economia, entre outros, com a finalidade de encontrar uma explicação para desigualdade e até soluções para combate-la.Ao terminar este livro, é bom referir ,que fiquei com muita vontade de explorar as obras dos dois.
March 20, 2025
This is a nice short book which can be read in one or two days, but this is something which can also deceive you because the themes in the book require quite a bit of study and can lead to many tangents. For this reason, I wanted to write a longer-than-usual review because I believe it's worth it.
First, both authors need no introduction, but I would like to compare and contrast them in this discussion, although not with any competitive objective (this is definitely not a debate anyway).
Starting with Michael Sandel, he is my favorite political philosopher alive; in my view, he is the single best explainer in the world right now. There is basically no one else that can structure, and then articulate, his thoughts so concisely and coherently, not only in writing, but also in impromptu conversations (like this one). This involves basically most of what we've come to know as contributing to understanding: identifying contradictions, poking holes, pinpointing necessary and sufficient conditions, bringing forward different perspectives, clarifying resemblances and differences, and of course a good use of logic in arranging premises such that one can easily derive conclusions. It's honestly unbelievable how he does this, especially at this age. Sandel leads most of the discussion---and you have to be grateful whenever this happens---which helps the reader get some clarity.
Piketty, when it comes to clarity of thought, is not as good as Sandel. This is understandable because, as I said, I don't think anyone is. But his contribution here comes mostly from his insights. Piketty offers unique insights and interpretations, more so than Sandel in my opinion (although this may be a side-effect of the fact that I'm much more familiar with Sandel's work than Piketty's, and so I basically had already heard all of Sandel's arguments already). Ultimately, it's Piketty's insights and proposals which make this book worth buying (anyway if you care about Sandel's opinion, you'd be much better off reading The Tyranny of Merit, the Moral Limits of Markets, or Democracy's Discontent)! That said, most, if not all, of the work that is required of you into understanding this book will be in figuring out what Piketty said (I'm not saying it's always difficult, but it's usually subtle and too much is assumed).
Now, let me talk more about the content. If could summarize the differences in metanlity of the two authors, it would be that Piketty wants to just take the hammer and pound in the nail, whereas Sandel proposes solutions that will hopefully make the hammer fall naturally on to the nail (or which at least will make the nail resist less). I'm not making a value judgement between the two, but I think it's useful to think about that as you read the book. To make this a bit more concrete, I think that, as you read the text---especially Piketty's arguments---, it would be useful to keep in mind the distinction between equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. Here's an example (Piketty is speaking):
Now, which kind of equality is this? Is admitting a poor student to an Ivy League university giving them an opportunity which they would not otherwise have (and maybe it wouldn't even be a possible scenario), or is this a case of equality of outcome where basically one may argue that "equal opportunity" should only apply to young age and you can't have student A from a rich family and student B from a poor family both get into Princeton (the same outcome) regardless of their comparative merit? You get to decide; I'm just pointing out that I think it's a useful question to keep in mind.
To finish off, I would like to comment on some specific parts of the book.
(1). Piketty makes an interesting comment (twice actually; once in Chapter 1, p. 6, another in Chapter 7, p. 73, and we can even say that his statements on p. 118 are related), which basically goes like this:
To be honest, I'm not sure what Piketty means here. I could think of two possible interpretations: (a) Wealth inequality leads to time inequality, where I can spend only one hour of my time and have enough money to live for the rest of the year. I can now use this free time (i.e., a whole year) for political action and participation, whereas you have to go to work every day, and thus you'll participate way less. This creates a political imbalance in which rich have more of a say in what happens. (b) Wealth inequality leads essentially to a form of slavery. I can hire you and pay you to work for me for an entire year just by sacrificing (the equivalent of) one hour of my work/time. And for that entire year, I can tell you what to do.
(2) In Chapter 4, they have a discussion about populism which is pretty vague, and evidently it's because they mean different things when they talk about populism. The problem is that they both talk about how populism is and has been used in public discourse, but neither defines it. I'm afraid this happens because, as with most people---including experts---, they don't seem to have a clear definition of populism in mind. So, if you want to make anything worthy out of this discussion, I highly recommend Mudde's Populism: A Very Short Introduction. He presents the single best definition---and demarcation (!) from other terms---of the term "populism" I've ever come across.
(3) In Chapter 8, Sandel asks Piketty: "Is there a good principled reason not to have open borders?". In my opinion, Piketty evades the question (I won't post the whole 2 pages for clarity), which I think is evident from the fact that Sandel asks again: "So, at the moment, do rich countries have a right to keep out migrants from poor countries who want to come?". To this Piketty gives a slightly better answer, but at the end of the day he still evades the question. That was a bit disappointing because it's the only place in the book where a question goes unanswered.
(4) Piketty's analysis on Le Pen and Sarkozy is so on point and clearly given.
(5) They discuss identity and in some sense what we refer to as identity politics, but if you're looking for a discussion on issues like: Woke culture, LGBTQ rights, feminism and masculinity, then FYI there's none of that.
(6) The Rousseau excerpts Sandel brought in Chapter 9 (how cheeky Sandel is; of all political philosophers, he brought Rousseau, who, like Piketty, was French), his interpretation, and Piketty's response are great. By the way, the two excerpts are from the Second Part of the Discourse, paragraphs 1 and 17 (also, FWIW, Sandel's doesn't use Scott's translation).
Edit: The reason I'm giving it 4 stars is because there's nothing that unique in the book.
First, both authors need no introduction, but I would like to compare and contrast them in this discussion, although not with any competitive objective (this is definitely not a debate anyway).
Starting with Michael Sandel, he is my favorite political philosopher alive; in my view, he is the single best explainer in the world right now. There is basically no one else that can structure, and then articulate, his thoughts so concisely and coherently, not only in writing, but also in impromptu conversations (like this one). This involves basically most of what we've come to know as contributing to understanding: identifying contradictions, poking holes, pinpointing necessary and sufficient conditions, bringing forward different perspectives, clarifying resemblances and differences, and of course a good use of logic in arranging premises such that one can easily derive conclusions. It's honestly unbelievable how he does this, especially at this age. Sandel leads most of the discussion---and you have to be grateful whenever this happens---which helps the reader get some clarity.
Piketty, when it comes to clarity of thought, is not as good as Sandel. This is understandable because, as I said, I don't think anyone is. But his contribution here comes mostly from his insights. Piketty offers unique insights and interpretations, more so than Sandel in my opinion (although this may be a side-effect of the fact that I'm much more familiar with Sandel's work than Piketty's, and so I basically had already heard all of Sandel's arguments already). Ultimately, it's Piketty's insights and proposals which make this book worth buying (anyway if you care about Sandel's opinion, you'd be much better off reading The Tyranny of Merit, the Moral Limits of Markets, or Democracy's Discontent)! That said, most, if not all, of the work that is required of you into understanding this book will be in figuring out what Piketty said (I'm not saying it's always difficult, but it's usually subtle and too much is assumed).
Now, let me talk more about the content. If could summarize the differences in metanlity of the two authors, it would be that Piketty wants to just take the hammer and pound in the nail, whereas Sandel proposes solutions that will hopefully make the hammer fall naturally on to the nail (or which at least will make the nail resist less). I'm not making a value judgement between the two, but I think it's useful to think about that as you read the book. To make this a bit more concrete, I think that, as you read the text---especially Piketty's arguments---, it would be useful to keep in mind the distinction between equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. Here's an example (Piketty is speaking):
[A] proposal [...] by Daniel Markovits, [...] who would basically say the following to Ivy League institutions: "You do what you want, but at the end of the day I want you to have at least half of your students coming from the bottom two-thirds of the country in terms of parental income.["]
Now, which kind of equality is this? Is admitting a poor student to an Ivy League university giving them an opportunity which they would not otherwise have (and maybe it wouldn't even be a possible scenario), or is this a case of equality of outcome where basically one may argue that "equal opportunity" should only apply to young age and you can't have student A from a rich family and student B from a poor family both get into Princeton (the same outcome) regardless of their comparative merit? You get to decide; I'm just pointing out that I think it's a useful question to keep in mind.
To finish off, I would like to comment on some specific parts of the book.
(1). Piketty makes an interesting comment (twice actually; once in Chapter 1, p. 6, another in Chapter 7, p. 73, and we can even say that his statements on p. 118 are related), which basically goes like this:
[With inequality of income, you also have] inequality in purchasing time over the time of others. So, if by spending the equivalent of one hour of my income, I can buy your entire year of work, that implies kinds of social distance in human relations that raise very serious concerns and questions. [...] [This is] really a question of dignity because [...] you believe you can dictate what others can do with their time.
To be honest, I'm not sure what Piketty means here. I could think of two possible interpretations: (a) Wealth inequality leads to time inequality, where I can spend only one hour of my time and have enough money to live for the rest of the year. I can now use this free time (i.e., a whole year) for political action and participation, whereas you have to go to work every day, and thus you'll participate way less. This creates a political imbalance in which rich have more of a say in what happens. (b) Wealth inequality leads essentially to a form of slavery. I can hire you and pay you to work for me for an entire year just by sacrificing (the equivalent of) one hour of my work/time. And for that entire year, I can tell you what to do.
(2) In Chapter 4, they have a discussion about populism which is pretty vague, and evidently it's because they mean different things when they talk about populism. The problem is that they both talk about how populism is and has been used in public discourse, but neither defines it. I'm afraid this happens because, as with most people---including experts---, they don't seem to have a clear definition of populism in mind. So, if you want to make anything worthy out of this discussion, I highly recommend Mudde's Populism: A Very Short Introduction. He presents the single best definition---and demarcation (!) from other terms---of the term "populism" I've ever come across.
(3) In Chapter 8, Sandel asks Piketty: "Is there a good principled reason not to have open borders?". In my opinion, Piketty evades the question (I won't post the whole 2 pages for clarity), which I think is evident from the fact that Sandel asks again: "So, at the moment, do rich countries have a right to keep out migrants from poor countries who want to come?". To this Piketty gives a slightly better answer, but at the end of the day he still evades the question. That was a bit disappointing because it's the only place in the book where a question goes unanswered.
(4) Piketty's analysis on Le Pen and Sarkozy is so on point and clearly given.
(5) They discuss identity and in some sense what we refer to as identity politics, but if you're looking for a discussion on issues like: Woke culture, LGBTQ rights, feminism and masculinity, then FYI there's none of that.
(6) The Rousseau excerpts Sandel brought in Chapter 9 (how cheeky Sandel is; of all political philosophers, he brought Rousseau, who, like Piketty, was French), his interpretation, and Piketty's response are great. By the way, the two excerpts are from the Second Part of the Discourse, paragraphs 1 and 17 (also, FWIW, Sandel's doesn't use Scott's translation).
Edit: The reason I'm giving it 4 stars is because there's nothing that unique in the book.
November 7, 2025
The book consists of a brief conversation between an economist and a philosopher. They both agree on a fundamental level that the widening gap between the few who have accumulated enormous amounts of wealth and power and the relatively powerless majority is the main threat to our liberal democracy — one that will shape the future of our very understanding of governance.
To tackle the rising inequality, they propose a range of measures, from the decommodification of entire sectors such as education and healthcare, to the progressive taxation of the rich on income and wealth, and the compression of salary scales to reduce inequality.
A very insightful and thought-provoking conversation.
To tackle the rising inequality, they propose a range of measures, from the decommodification of entire sectors such as education and healthcare, to the progressive taxation of the rich on income and wealth, and the compression of salary scales to reduce inequality.
A very insightful and thought-provoking conversation.
August 18, 2025
El libro es un compendio de conversaciones entre los autores sobre distintos temas sobre todo de economía y ética, de actualidad y con una mirada hacia el siglo XX. Es un libro que se lee en tres ratos, probablemente porque se trata de transcripciones de un debate oral, en los que por definición no se puede profundizar demasiado, y por tanto se tratan los distintos temas de manera superficial. No en vano, he echado de menos una explicación clara de qué entienden los autores por igualdad. Eso no quita que los autores traen a colación ideas bastante interesantes. Por una parte se trata de una lectura bastante ligera, por otra considero que el lector estará desubicado si no conoce de antemano lo principal de los trabajos de los autores. Por ejemplo, se habla sobre la importancia de la progresividad fiscal, y esto es algo que Piketty fundamenta en sus investigaciones. O también, los autores debaten sobre diversos sistemas de admisión en la universidad, tendente a incluir alumnos de rentas más bajas, aludiendo a los trabajos de Sandel sobre el concepto de mérito. En definitiva, una obra entretenida y esquemática pero prescindible.
January 21, 2026
A written interview, divided into chapters to set themes. but it's overall just a longer conversation. Sandel and Piketty talk about inequality, work, and the failure of the liberal left to address working class people with a clear internationalist socialist lense. As Sandel says in the end, the interview is a ride through economics, philosophy and political theory. It's not more than that conversation between two interesting intellectuals, and I enjoyed the read.
July 26, 2025
A transcription of a conversation between two of the most recognized thinkers on the left right now. Together, they jump through different issues spanning from decommodifying universal goods - as education or health care - to globalization and migration flows, with equality as their common thread, and all of that without losing the pace, making this 100-ish pages sort of essay a delightful lecture that you don't want to finish.
May 2, 2025
Very accessible and interesting.
July 27, 2025
In a better world this would have been a recording of the two actually in dialog and would have included a Q&A after, but this short audio book (narrated by two other dudes) was still interesting and thought provoking!
August 2, 2025
Interessante inzichten, moeilijk format, gesprek in boekvorm werkt niet erg goed. Soms ook wel wat teveel elkaars boeken bewieroken. Iets te weinig kritisch weerwoord
September 19, 2025
When Piketty speaks I’m sat
May 1, 2025
Enlightening short discussion about the economic, political and dignity aspects of equality
June 26, 2025
Grinded through this little guy in T1 at JFK. Given the wealth of Piketty’s other work, it’s easy to take for granted the creativity and knowledge base this guy is working with. Even in an area I would like to think I’m fairly locked in on, he (and Sandel) continues to frame social problems and offer solutions with impressive precision and focus. This is an instant recommendation for anyone interested in reading more politics not only because of its content, but its conversational style (it’s a transcript of a talk they had a few month ago) is wildly accessible.
December 27, 2025
Very helpful short read, especially after reading Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century and Sandel’s Tyranny of Merit. It was a good reminder on the relationship between economic and political institutions, various causes of the inequalities that present themselves in all aspects of people’s lives, and how to move forward.
December 28, 2025
plutôt bien mais je crois qu'en fait je l'avais déjà lu mais m'en rappelais pas, ça m'a agacée.
C'est une conversation entre les 2, pas mal mais ça a aussi des inconvénients, un peu difficile à suivre parfois j'ai trouvé.
C'est une conversation entre les 2, pas mal mais ça a aussi des inconvénients, un peu difficile à suivre parfois j'ai trouvé.
February 25, 2025
When I read Equality. What It Is and Why It Matters, I was immediately drawn into the dialogue between Thomas Piketty and Michael Sandel. Their combination of economic and philosophical insights makes this book a compelling and thought-provoking work. However, the interaction between their perspectives is not always balanced. Piketty remains committed to economic redistribution as the solution, while Sandel places greater emphasis on moral and political dimensions. As a result, certain structural questions regarding the feasibility of their ideas remain unanswered.
This book is more than just a dry academic treatise. The conversational format makes it accessible and encourages reflection. However, this accessibility sometimes comes at the expense of depth. The authors draw inspiration from the work of Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, adding another layer of insight, but at times, they fall into repeating familiar arguments. For readers already familiar with Piketty and Sandel’s work, the book serves as a deepening of their dialogue, whereas newcomers may find the lack of concrete strategies a shortcoming. The fact that the book is only 156 pages makes it accessible and digestible but also limits space for thorough analysis and counterarguments.
One of the most striking insights is how Piketty and Sandel connect three forms of inequality: The first is Economic inequality – the uneven distribution of income and wealth, which has grown significantly since the 1980s. The second is Political inequality – how wealth translates into political power and influence, leading to skewed decision-making. Last but not least, there is Social inequality – the lack of recognition and dignity for people with fewer resources and less power.
What struck me was how clearly Piketty demonstrates that economic inequality reinforces the other two. As a result, people become increasingly alienated from politics and turn to populism. This is a painful reality that many Goodreads reviewers also noted, as they recognized these mechanisms in their own countries and lives. However, the book does not sufficiently explore the deeper causes of this trend: why has the left failed to offer a convincing alternative? The book identifies the consequences of neoliberal policies but remains relatively silent on the internal shortcomings of progressive movements and their inability to engage voters.
A key theme in the book is the role of the free market and how center-left parties have relinquished their power. Sandel explains how faith in Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ has placed power in the hands of multinationals and financial markets, thereby shrinking the policy space for national governments and even the EU. This has led to stagnant wages and job insecurity, a deterioration of the public sector, and a growing divide between citizens and politics.
This is all painfully familiar. As I read, I reflected on recent debates about tax reforms and how even the smallest progressive measures are immediately opposed by entrenched interests. The frustration many people feel about this is evident throughout the book. However, I missed a more in-depth analysis of how these power structures have become so dominant and how they could be effectively dismantled. The book states that neoliberal ideology is dominant but offers little insight into how this has historically developed and what power dynamics sustain it.
Piketty and Sandel propose concrete solutions to tackle inequality. First, there is decommodification: essential sectors such as healthcare and education must be protected from market forces. Many Goodreads readers found this idea compelling, as it feels like a necessary correction to current trends. However, the question remains whether this is feasible in a world where economic interests dominate and where there is structural resistance from both the private sector and politics. Second, there is progressive taxation: the wealthy should contribute their fair share, something that was once standard in the U.S. but now seems unthinkable. History shows that this can work, provided it is implemented at a broad international level. Yet, implementation remains an open question. How do we prevent capital flight? How do we build political consensus in an increasingly polarized world?
What I found inspiring is that the authors do not dwell on abstract theories. They provide concrete examples and reference previous periods when progressive tax policies were effective. Still, the big question remains: how do we achieve this in a world where power is so unequally distributed? The nuance missing here is that these solutions cannot exist in isolation; without structural political change, tax reform is merely a temporary fix.
One of the most fascinating insights was the reference to Herbert Marcuse. He warned that capitalism has the ability to absorb and commercialize protest movements. This raises the question of whether change from within is possible. In Goodreads reviews, I saw this skepticism echoed: many readers found the analysis convincing but questioned whether there will ever be the political will to truly address inequality.
Sandel and Piketty suggest that the climate crisis could be the decisive factor. The way the economy handles environmental challenges could be the catalyst for larger reforms. This made me wonder: is this the crisis needed to bring about real change? At the same time, I question whether we are caught in a vicious cycle where we continually wait for the ‘ultimate crisis’ to force change, while powerful economic players find ways to maintain their influence.
My conclusion is that Equality. What It Is and Why It Matters is one of the most impactful books I have read recently. It does not provide easy answers but challenges readers to reflect on the foundations of our society. However, the book remains too abstract and optimistic in many areas. It identifies the symptoms of inequality and presents plausible solutions, but it is vague on their practical feasibility. Those looking for a detailed action plan or concrete strategies to curb the power of multinationals and elites will find few answers here.
I would recommend this book to anyone interested in economics, philosophy, and politics, but with the caveat that it is primarily a starting point for thought—not a manual for change.
This book is more than just a dry academic treatise. The conversational format makes it accessible and encourages reflection. However, this accessibility sometimes comes at the expense of depth. The authors draw inspiration from the work of Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, adding another layer of insight, but at times, they fall into repeating familiar arguments. For readers already familiar with Piketty and Sandel’s work, the book serves as a deepening of their dialogue, whereas newcomers may find the lack of concrete strategies a shortcoming. The fact that the book is only 156 pages makes it accessible and digestible but also limits space for thorough analysis and counterarguments.
One of the most striking insights is how Piketty and Sandel connect three forms of inequality: The first is Economic inequality – the uneven distribution of income and wealth, which has grown significantly since the 1980s. The second is Political inequality – how wealth translates into political power and influence, leading to skewed decision-making. Last but not least, there is Social inequality – the lack of recognition and dignity for people with fewer resources and less power.
What struck me was how clearly Piketty demonstrates that economic inequality reinforces the other two. As a result, people become increasingly alienated from politics and turn to populism. This is a painful reality that many Goodreads reviewers also noted, as they recognized these mechanisms in their own countries and lives. However, the book does not sufficiently explore the deeper causes of this trend: why has the left failed to offer a convincing alternative? The book identifies the consequences of neoliberal policies but remains relatively silent on the internal shortcomings of progressive movements and their inability to engage voters.
A key theme in the book is the role of the free market and how center-left parties have relinquished their power. Sandel explains how faith in Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ has placed power in the hands of multinationals and financial markets, thereby shrinking the policy space for national governments and even the EU. This has led to stagnant wages and job insecurity, a deterioration of the public sector, and a growing divide between citizens and politics.
This is all painfully familiar. As I read, I reflected on recent debates about tax reforms and how even the smallest progressive measures are immediately opposed by entrenched interests. The frustration many people feel about this is evident throughout the book. However, I missed a more in-depth analysis of how these power structures have become so dominant and how they could be effectively dismantled. The book states that neoliberal ideology is dominant but offers little insight into how this has historically developed and what power dynamics sustain it.
Piketty and Sandel propose concrete solutions to tackle inequality. First, there is decommodification: essential sectors such as healthcare and education must be protected from market forces. Many Goodreads readers found this idea compelling, as it feels like a necessary correction to current trends. However, the question remains whether this is feasible in a world where economic interests dominate and where there is structural resistance from both the private sector and politics. Second, there is progressive taxation: the wealthy should contribute their fair share, something that was once standard in the U.S. but now seems unthinkable. History shows that this can work, provided it is implemented at a broad international level. Yet, implementation remains an open question. How do we prevent capital flight? How do we build political consensus in an increasingly polarized world?
What I found inspiring is that the authors do not dwell on abstract theories. They provide concrete examples and reference previous periods when progressive tax policies were effective. Still, the big question remains: how do we achieve this in a world where power is so unequally distributed? The nuance missing here is that these solutions cannot exist in isolation; without structural political change, tax reform is merely a temporary fix.
One of the most fascinating insights was the reference to Herbert Marcuse. He warned that capitalism has the ability to absorb and commercialize protest movements. This raises the question of whether change from within is possible. In Goodreads reviews, I saw this skepticism echoed: many readers found the analysis convincing but questioned whether there will ever be the political will to truly address inequality.
Sandel and Piketty suggest that the climate crisis could be the decisive factor. The way the economy handles environmental challenges could be the catalyst for larger reforms. This made me wonder: is this the crisis needed to bring about real change? At the same time, I question whether we are caught in a vicious cycle where we continually wait for the ‘ultimate crisis’ to force change, while powerful economic players find ways to maintain their influence.
My conclusion is that Equality. What It Is and Why It Matters is one of the most impactful books I have read recently. It does not provide easy answers but challenges readers to reflect on the foundations of our society. However, the book remains too abstract and optimistic in many areas. It identifies the symptoms of inequality and presents plausible solutions, but it is vague on their practical feasibility. Those looking for a detailed action plan or concrete strategies to curb the power of multinationals and elites will find few answers here.
I would recommend this book to anyone interested in economics, philosophy, and politics, but with the caveat that it is primarily a starting point for thought—not a manual for change.
June 16, 2025
I have to say that this book is good to listen to, as if you are listening to a video of a conversation on YouTube. The book is an easy read, and good to scratch the surface of what some structuralist arguments are. Ironically, this book made me turn away from Piketty's work. He claims to be an internationalist, but on the next page explains that ethno-nationalism is not a stupid idea, and can be a positive force for creating a sense of community. He also claims that he is not for the global movement of capital, but is open to open borders, which is still a movement of capital due to people bringing money! Piketty now comes off to me as what I call a celebrity academic. Celebrity academics come off as a sense of superiority, create policy suggestions that are not reasonable, but do not care to answer any questions or push back from others. Although Sandel and I are not in the same academic background in political economy, at least he was honest in stating if he does not know something, and does not make bold claims or assumptions. Piketty, after this book, is not an academic whom I would take entirely seriously. Read and you will find out.
February 9, 2025
This book is basically the transcript of a conversation between Piketty and Sandel. It is an analysis of where the world is now in terms of equality and a prescription for a way to improve the situation. Piketty looks at the long picture and is therefore somewhat optimistic about the progress that has been made. The two men also agree that the emphasis on trying to address inequality through emphasis on identity groups has not been helpful and they suggest that focusing on the dignity of every person, and therefore their right to a decent life, is a more promising approach. As I finished the book I, too, felt somewhat hopeful, but a scant two weeks later, the actions of the Trump administration have felt like a giant step backwards and I am left wondering just how reasonable hope for an improvement in equality really is.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 134 reviews