What do you think?
Rate this book
The Trouble with Billionaires: Why Too Much Money At The Top Is Bad For Everyone
The glittering lives of billionaires may seem like a harmless source of entertainment. But such concentrated economic power reverberates throughout society, threatening the quality of life and the very functioning of democracy. It's no accident that the United States claims the most billionaires—but suffers among the highest rates of infant mortality and crime, the shortest life expectancy, as well as the lowest rates of social mobility and electoral political participation in the developed world.
Our society tends to regard large fortunes as evidence of great talent or accomplishment. Yet the vast new wealth isn't due to an increase in talent or effort at the top, but rather to changing social attitudes legitimizing greed and government policy changes that favour the new elite. Authoritative and eye-opening, The Trouble with Billionaires will spark debate about the kind of society we want.
314 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 14, 2010
16 people are currently reading
447 people want to read
About the author
Linda McQuaig
26 books81 followersDescribed as ‘Canada’s Michael Moore’ by the country’s National Post, Linda McQuaig is an award-winning investigative reporter and columnist for the Toronto Star. She is the author of seven Canadian bestsellers, which have earned her a reputation as a fierce critic of the establishment.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
September 25, 2014
THE FERAL FILTHY RICH
Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks's "The Trouble With Billionaires" is a superb analysis of the growing levels of inequality in the U.K. over the last thirty odd years. As the title suggests their focus is on the higher end of the income scale: the political decisions that have allowed a few to accumulate perverse levels of wealth, and the myths that have allowed this state of affairs to gain a degree of legitimacy in the public sphere.
Early chapters give an idea of the scale of the problem (Top 1% of UK earners share of total income rising from around 6% in the mid 1970's to over 15% by the time of the Credit Crunch), remind us that "free" markets are generally anything but, not least with regards to the question of executive pay where executives sit on one another's remuneration committees and discover that yes they are worth double digit salary increases year after year after year regardless of company performance.
The 3rd chapter, "Paying for a Civilised Society" takes a step sideways to look at tax and spending, providing statistical proof that there is no correlation between levels of taxation and economic growth thus demolishing the myths that increasing taxation on the rich will cause the economy to tank. And while there is no correlation, negative or positive, between taxation and economic growth the authors do assemble evidence to suggest that there is a correlation between higher taxes and increased equality, gender equality, economic security of workers, social well-being, and lower child mortality amongst other measures. And make the point that the lower tax narrative, whatever has been said at the rhetorical level, is essentially about reducing taxation on the rich.
Chapter 4: "Plutocracy, Climate Change and the Fate of the World" is the books weakest. The comparison pushed, that the CFC/Ozone problem was solved in less neo-liberal times while the Greenhouse gas/Global warming problem has been more or less stalled during the high tide of neo-liberalism doesn't really hold up: the interests holding up action on Global Warming (eg. Oil industry including oil producing countries, automobile industry, etc) are so much larger than the handful of chemical companies primarily involved in producing CFC's. A better approach might have been to tackle the influence of big money in the political process, using the example of Global Warming as one amongst many.
The 5th and 6th Chapters move on to demolishing the myths of the self-made billionaires, firmly situating their wealth accumulation in its social, economic and political context making the point that they are getting off relatively speaking scot-free with regard to returning something (tax) to the societies that there business empires have been built upon. Chapter 7 considers the question of motivation, and undermines the conventional wisdom that large sums of money are required to incentivise excellence whether in sport, business or public service.
Chapter 8: "John Maynard Keynes and the Defeat of Austerity" takes a look at the period of destructive interwar austerity and how Keynesian economics developed and provided a solid foundation for capitalisms post-war golden age, which included a significant lessening of inequality and some of the highest (if not the highest) rates of economic growth amongst mature industrial economies (and not incidentally was a period of relatively high growth for many developing countries). Chapter 9 focusses on the "Triumph of the Welfare State" in the early post war period (1945-1970's) as well as the forces (such as the perversely rich funders of the Institute of Economic Affairs in the UK, and more globally, the Mont Pelerin society) who staged the long fight back for the "liberal" economic ideas that took root in the 1970's and beyond. The book ends by looking at a number of policies that would reduce the grotesque inequalities that have arisen over the last thirty or so years.
McQuaig and Brooks have written an excellent book that achieves a number of worthwhile aims, not least the undermining of the low tax, low government spending nonsense propagated by the current coalition government, on the grounds that this self-serving belief claims as its own: economic efficiency. It also holds its own against other books about our current social-political-economic situation, such as Nicholas Shaxsons "Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men who Stole the World", Pickett & Wilkinsons "The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone" and Richard Brooks's "The Great Tax Robbery", in providing the general reader with an accessible, interesting angle on the major issues facing us a society that the mainstream media has almost completely avoided. Well recommended.
Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks's "The Trouble With Billionaires" is a superb analysis of the growing levels of inequality in the U.K. over the last thirty odd years. As the title suggests their focus is on the higher end of the income scale: the political decisions that have allowed a few to accumulate perverse levels of wealth, and the myths that have allowed this state of affairs to gain a degree of legitimacy in the public sphere.
Early chapters give an idea of the scale of the problem (Top 1% of UK earners share of total income rising from around 6% in the mid 1970's to over 15% by the time of the Credit Crunch), remind us that "free" markets are generally anything but, not least with regards to the question of executive pay where executives sit on one another's remuneration committees and discover that yes they are worth double digit salary increases year after year after year regardless of company performance.
The 3rd chapter, "Paying for a Civilised Society" takes a step sideways to look at tax and spending, providing statistical proof that there is no correlation between levels of taxation and economic growth thus demolishing the myths that increasing taxation on the rich will cause the economy to tank. And while there is no correlation, negative or positive, between taxation and economic growth the authors do assemble evidence to suggest that there is a correlation between higher taxes and increased equality, gender equality, economic security of workers, social well-being, and lower child mortality amongst other measures. And make the point that the lower tax narrative, whatever has been said at the rhetorical level, is essentially about reducing taxation on the rich.
Chapter 4: "Plutocracy, Climate Change and the Fate of the World" is the books weakest. The comparison pushed, that the CFC/Ozone problem was solved in less neo-liberal times while the Greenhouse gas/Global warming problem has been more or less stalled during the high tide of neo-liberalism doesn't really hold up: the interests holding up action on Global Warming (eg. Oil industry including oil producing countries, automobile industry, etc) are so much larger than the handful of chemical companies primarily involved in producing CFC's. A better approach might have been to tackle the influence of big money in the political process, using the example of Global Warming as one amongst many.
The 5th and 6th Chapters move on to demolishing the myths of the self-made billionaires, firmly situating their wealth accumulation in its social, economic and political context making the point that they are getting off relatively speaking scot-free with regard to returning something (tax) to the societies that there business empires have been built upon. Chapter 7 considers the question of motivation, and undermines the conventional wisdom that large sums of money are required to incentivise excellence whether in sport, business or public service.
Chapter 8: "John Maynard Keynes and the Defeat of Austerity" takes a look at the period of destructive interwar austerity and how Keynesian economics developed and provided a solid foundation for capitalisms post-war golden age, which included a significant lessening of inequality and some of the highest (if not the highest) rates of economic growth amongst mature industrial economies (and not incidentally was a period of relatively high growth for many developing countries). Chapter 9 focusses on the "Triumph of the Welfare State" in the early post war period (1945-1970's) as well as the forces (such as the perversely rich funders of the Institute of Economic Affairs in the UK, and more globally, the Mont Pelerin society) who staged the long fight back for the "liberal" economic ideas that took root in the 1970's and beyond. The book ends by looking at a number of policies that would reduce the grotesque inequalities that have arisen over the last thirty or so years.
McQuaig and Brooks have written an excellent book that achieves a number of worthwhile aims, not least the undermining of the low tax, low government spending nonsense propagated by the current coalition government, on the grounds that this self-serving belief claims as its own: economic efficiency. It also holds its own against other books about our current social-political-economic situation, such as Nicholas Shaxsons "Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men who Stole the World", Pickett & Wilkinsons "The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone" and Richard Brooks's "The Great Tax Robbery", in providing the general reader with an accessible, interesting angle on the major issues facing us a society that the mainstream media has almost completely avoided. Well recommended.
April 28, 2013
This book came out one year before the launch of Occupy Wall Street, and no doubt played a part in changing the political conversation in Canada and United States over the past two years. As a result of the Occupy Movement, some themes in the book are already old hat, but still worth revisiting.
The case is well argued that our society was never built on equality, is becoming less so over time, and to our peril. The crash of 2008 is similar to that of 1929 in that a surge in wealth concentration at the top preceded both; however, the second instance does not come with a New Deal recovery plan. Instead, more of the same medicine that produced 2008 is being applied!
The surprise ending invites us to imagine what we could do with our money if we wrested it away from the rich using simple taxation remedies ... if only we could convince ourselves that (despite popular notions) billionaires have no right to run the rest of us into the ground.
The case is well argued that our society was never built on equality, is becoming less so over time, and to our peril. The crash of 2008 is similar to that of 1929 in that a surge in wealth concentration at the top preceded both; however, the second instance does not come with a New Deal recovery plan. Instead, more of the same medicine that produced 2008 is being applied!
The surprise ending invites us to imagine what we could do with our money if we wrested it away from the rich using simple taxation remedies ... if only we could convince ourselves that (despite popular notions) billionaires have no right to run the rest of us into the ground.
June 25, 2011
The take-home message of this book is that after the Reagan-Thatcher revolutions, progressives recklessly abandoned their opposition to the maldistrubution of wealth in society. As a result, conservative neocons have controlled the anti-tax, anti-government narrative since the 1980s. The reckless financial misadventures of Wall Street over the past twenty years convince the author that it's time for progressives once again to voice opposition to the obscene concentration of wealth in the hands of an oligarchic minority, and to promote rational, progressive tax policy as a public good and a badge of citizenship. I agree.
April 14, 2019
One of the most entertaining and provocative books I've read in a long time. I loved it and every person I've shared it with has loved it, too. I want every person I know to read this book and to digest its contents before they vote in the Canadian federal election this fall. For a detailed snapshot of what the book is about and why you should spend time reading it (or, better yet, organize a book club to discuss its contents with other people), I highly recommend this review written by Canadians for Tax Fairness. Bottom line? This book could be a game changer for our democracy and our communities.
November 5, 2023
3.5
"The Trouble With Billionaires" is a pointed critique of the vast wealth disparities shaping our modern societies. The authors include an impressive amount of evidence that backs up familiar anti-capitalist arguments that I was already fluent in. For example, the book shares the sentiment that "inequality is not the result of some natural economic order but the result of policies that have been shaped over decades by the very wealthy to benefit the very wealthy."
However, I do think the book's strength also is its weakness. The sheer amount of info can feel overwhelming, and the narrative sometimes meanders. I would've appreciated a more streamlined approach to explore the central thesis.
Definitively a good read; the urgency of it's argument makes it easy for me to round up to a 4.
"The Trouble With Billionaires" is a pointed critique of the vast wealth disparities shaping our modern societies. The authors include an impressive amount of evidence that backs up familiar anti-capitalist arguments that I was already fluent in. For example, the book shares the sentiment that "inequality is not the result of some natural economic order but the result of policies that have been shaped over decades by the very wealthy to benefit the very wealthy."
However, I do think the book's strength also is its weakness. The sheer amount of info can feel overwhelming, and the narrative sometimes meanders. I would've appreciated a more streamlined approach to explore the central thesis.
Definitively a good read; the urgency of it's argument makes it easy for me to round up to a 4.
December 7, 2012
Excellent read tracing the growth of neoliberal policy.
Interesting points:
- in 1911, wealthy businessman quietly got the US President Taft to allow banks to get into the stock market. This deregulation of the financial sector led to the Roaring Twenties and ultimately the 1929 collapse. The 20's had a lot of similarities to today. Union and labor power was down, meaning workers' wages didn't rise much, which meant people couldn't afford to buy new goods, which meant the corporations started playing money games instead of actually investing money into actual productive things.
- in 1933, Roosevelt put in the Glass-Steagall Act, which kept the banks out of stock trading. He also pushed the top marginal tax rate up to 79%.
-during the postwar period 1945-1980, there was a more egaltarian society, and this ethos of public interest was prevalent.
- the point is made that even billionaires like Bill Gates don't "deserve" their money. In that case, he was in the right place at the right time - born to wealthy parents, went to private schools that had a computer in the late 60's, he built on all the technological societal advances to that point, and he landed a deal with IBM by screwing over Gary Kiddall, who actually built a better operating system.
- we collectively pay for things like police services to enact laws. Without a collective law-abiding society, the rich would not be able to make their huge profits. There is much talk about the self-made man, but none of us are truly self-made and self-reliant.
- in Scandanavia, taxation is 50%, and they also have a per capita GDP similar to the US. However, the per capita GDP is more accurately an average, because the massive billionaires in the US skew the results.
- we don't actually have democracy. We have an oligarchy, where the rich are essentially running the show and using their money to put people into power who will create favorable laws for the rich.
Interesting points:
- in 1911, wealthy businessman quietly got the US President Taft to allow banks to get into the stock market. This deregulation of the financial sector led to the Roaring Twenties and ultimately the 1929 collapse. The 20's had a lot of similarities to today. Union and labor power was down, meaning workers' wages didn't rise much, which meant people couldn't afford to buy new goods, which meant the corporations started playing money games instead of actually investing money into actual productive things.
- in 1933, Roosevelt put in the Glass-Steagall Act, which kept the banks out of stock trading. He also pushed the top marginal tax rate up to 79%.
-during the postwar period 1945-1980, there was a more egaltarian society, and this ethos of public interest was prevalent.
- the point is made that even billionaires like Bill Gates don't "deserve" their money. In that case, he was in the right place at the right time - born to wealthy parents, went to private schools that had a computer in the late 60's, he built on all the technological societal advances to that point, and he landed a deal with IBM by screwing over Gary Kiddall, who actually built a better operating system.
- we collectively pay for things like police services to enact laws. Without a collective law-abiding society, the rich would not be able to make their huge profits. There is much talk about the self-made man, but none of us are truly self-made and self-reliant.
- in Scandanavia, taxation is 50%, and they also have a per capita GDP similar to the US. However, the per capita GDP is more accurately an average, because the massive billionaires in the US skew the results.
- we don't actually have democracy. We have an oligarchy, where the rich are essentially running the show and using their money to put people into power who will create favorable laws for the rich.
Read
August 2, 2011The main point of this book is that income inequality is bad. It gives a historical perspective and makes the argument that current tax rates on the rich are too low.
The most interesting reasoning for why the rich should pay a disproportionately higher share of taxes relates to who benefits from the existing system the most. Basically, the rich need the system to maintain what they have and gain more. If the system were to disappear then we'd all be equal because we'd steal each others stuff and the notion of private ownership woudl be significantly shrunk.
Overall the book has some points considering and a few that seem a bit out there. It's worth a read.
The most interesting reasoning for why the rich should pay a disproportionately higher share of taxes relates to who benefits from the existing system the most. Basically, the rich need the system to maintain what they have and gain more. If the system were to disappear then we'd all be equal because we'd steal each others stuff and the notion of private ownership woudl be significantly shrunk.
Overall the book has some points considering and a few that seem a bit out there. It's worth a read.
May 27, 2019
This book made loads of interesting points but I think it was making too many arguments with too little focus. The book would have benefited from focusing on one argument at a time, in greater detail, with greater focus on what someone who disagrees with her would say, it would lead to a much better well-rounded book.
Moreover, her argument about Bill Gates not deserving his fortune fails because we can apply that logic to anybody on this planet and say that no one deserves anything they get (no matter how small or huge their fortunes are.) Of course, some people have argued this but, intuitively this argument doesn't sit well with many and therefore I don't think it should be used as the primary case against some people having billions. The better argument for this, is to say that even though Bill Gates' fortune largely relies on the progress made by others and him being at the right place at the right time, he still deserves some money for his accomplishments due to the business dealings he made. The real problem and the point we have to put pressure on, is whether he deserves 100 BILLION DOLLARS for it. And the answer is no. A $100 Billion is way too much for anybody to own or need in their live times. No one in this world NEEDS $100 Billion to live, even if they have the most luxurious lifestyles in the world. The point here, is that what is concerning about billionaires is that they have SO MUCH MONEY and McQuaig's main arguments against it is not that convincing.
So, McQuaig's book is an interesting read, but some of her argument fail and most of them are underdeveloped, which left me wanting to seek knowledge about this topic somewhere else, from someone who was more focused and more convincing.
Moreover, her argument about Bill Gates not deserving his fortune fails because we can apply that logic to anybody on this planet and say that no one deserves anything they get (no matter how small or huge their fortunes are.) Of course, some people have argued this but, intuitively this argument doesn't sit well with many and therefore I don't think it should be used as the primary case against some people having billions. The better argument for this, is to say that even though Bill Gates' fortune largely relies on the progress made by others and him being at the right place at the right time, he still deserves some money for his accomplishments due to the business dealings he made. The real problem and the point we have to put pressure on, is whether he deserves 100 BILLION DOLLARS for it. And the answer is no. A $100 Billion is way too much for anybody to own or need in their live times. No one in this world NEEDS $100 Billion to live, even if they have the most luxurious lifestyles in the world. The point here, is that what is concerning about billionaires is that they have SO MUCH MONEY and McQuaig's main arguments against it is not that convincing.
So, McQuaig's book is an interesting read, but some of her argument fail and most of them are underdeveloped, which left me wanting to seek knowledge about this topic somewhere else, from someone who was more focused and more convincing.
May 11, 2020
Definitely a good read about how income inequality is growing, how the super-rich are shaping public policy and perception to benefit them (and only them), and how some basic changes to taxation laws can help build the kind of society that we want.
I really enjoyed this book, and only knocked off a star because I think the authors could have done more to make this book less academic and more accessible to the average reader. They definitely did a good job in some case studies - for example explaining how Bill Gates does not deserve his fortune, talking about money as motivation (or non-motivation) for stories of human excellence like Hank Aaron, and using pornography versus the traditional film industry to talk about how human laws shape the market (and how it’s not actually free). But large chunks of this book were pretty academic, for instance talking about historical perspectives on citizenship and the common good, where I think the theory could have been knocked down a notch.
That said, I would definitely recommend this book (even though it’s now a decade out of date) because of the historical perspectives it provides on wealth and inequality. Ten years after its publication, I can only imagine how much worse the problem is now.
I really enjoyed this book, and only knocked off a star because I think the authors could have done more to make this book less academic and more accessible to the average reader. They definitely did a good job in some case studies - for example explaining how Bill Gates does not deserve his fortune, talking about money as motivation (or non-motivation) for stories of human excellence like Hank Aaron, and using pornography versus the traditional film industry to talk about how human laws shape the market (and how it’s not actually free). But large chunks of this book were pretty academic, for instance talking about historical perspectives on citizenship and the common good, where I think the theory could have been knocked down a notch.
That said, I would definitely recommend this book (even though it’s now a decade out of date) because of the historical perspectives it provides on wealth and inequality. Ten years after its publication, I can only imagine how much worse the problem is now.
March 17, 2017
If you like watered down Cool-Aid Socialism, this is the book for you!
McQuaig basically tates that tax reform is the key to evening out the economic stratification that has grown over the last 50 years. One must wonder however, if the working class will benefit from tax reform at all when it will only be the same corrupt minority in charge of these extra taxes, or if what we all need is a revolution, to free us from the tyranny of corrupt government.
In reflection of Rosa Luxemburg's "Reform or Revolution", she makes the case as to whether reformism is an end worth pursuing, when all it does is accept the current structure and must work within the context of the same bureaucratic order and abide by parliamentary processes, preventing most of us from playing meaningful roles in our civic responsibilities. For instance, our income tax policy book is over 2000 pages in Canada, this essentially alienates the majority of the population that can never read this stuff (no wonder either, we are so dumbed down by education and other garbage that we could care less either, which is also part of the problem). Her ideas really remind me of Orwell's "Animal Farm", where the problem really came at the hands of the animals not claiming the revolution for themselves, but they merely let bureaucracy continue and those animals that had control of this bureaucratic body did not make things any better for the animals on the farm.
All this to say that McQuaig's book provides us with a reformist policy that, in the end, isn't gonna do jack to change a thing. If she wants real change, we need to look at the system in which we operate.
McQuaig basically tates that tax reform is the key to evening out the economic stratification that has grown over the last 50 years. One must wonder however, if the working class will benefit from tax reform at all when it will only be the same corrupt minority in charge of these extra taxes, or if what we all need is a revolution, to free us from the tyranny of corrupt government.
In reflection of Rosa Luxemburg's "Reform or Revolution", she makes the case as to whether reformism is an end worth pursuing, when all it does is accept the current structure and must work within the context of the same bureaucratic order and abide by parliamentary processes, preventing most of us from playing meaningful roles in our civic responsibilities. For instance, our income tax policy book is over 2000 pages in Canada, this essentially alienates the majority of the population that can never read this stuff (no wonder either, we are so dumbed down by education and other garbage that we could care less either, which is also part of the problem). Her ideas really remind me of Orwell's "Animal Farm", where the problem really came at the hands of the animals not claiming the revolution for themselves, but they merely let bureaucracy continue and those animals that had control of this bureaucratic body did not make things any better for the animals on the farm.
All this to say that McQuaig's book provides us with a reformist policy that, in the end, isn't gonna do jack to change a thing. If she wants real change, we need to look at the system in which we operate.
November 11, 2020
An inconsistent book. I thought the execution was all over the place. There are some genuinely good insights, but a lot of sections that are thinly sourced, overly simplistic, or questionably relevant.
Fundamentally, I don't think the lens adopted or unit of analysis chosen are up to the task of dealing with problem under investigation, which is rising inequality and the attendant social, political, and economic challenges that arise. The emphasis on personal taxes is looking entirely in the wrong place. This is an older book, and I think we've rightly moved on in progressive writing about the economy to broader structural questions. McQuaig's most recent book is a good example.
Fundamentally, I don't think the lens adopted or unit of analysis chosen are up to the task of dealing with problem under investigation, which is rising inequality and the attendant social, political, and economic challenges that arise. The emphasis on personal taxes is looking entirely in the wrong place. This is an older book, and I think we've rightly moved on in progressive writing about the economy to broader structural questions. McQuaig's most recent book is a good example.
October 6, 2023
Decent book. Palatable writing style. Linda is obviously passionate which makes the read ever more enlightening. Mcquaig bases her arguments on rationality, arguing for consideration of the antihuman factors of modern capitalism. After finishing the book, I found all of her arguments to be intuitive. It's easy to forget that Adam Smith, often deemed the father of capitalism, was pro-progressive taxation. When we remove or bias, often derived from American propaganda, you may McQuaig as a very agreeable writer. I recommend this book.
July 15, 2024
This was an easier read than I thought but it left much to be desired for me. I'm glad I finally got to read a book that wasn't just full of US stats. The authors did well to depict the landscape of Canada at the time. Although for me it was very opinion based and seemed to have the same argument and solutions people have been saying for decades. I think I was waiting to be shocked after reading this and wasn't.
February 11, 2026
Somewhat dated and very tedious at times the book nonetheless points outs a number of horrendous issue in our political and economic system. The author spends too much time on economic philosophy and too little time on solutions (nothing until the every end of the book).
May 25, 2018
Epic. An evidence-based and multifaceted view of why extreme economic inequality are bad for society, and how tax policy can be used more effectively as a re-distributor of wealth.
October 21, 2018
Must read. Insightful and scathing.
February 15, 2019
Even though some of arguments build ups are border line, to me, I find this book extremely useful to read. It contributes educating me on the topic of wealth inequality.
May 11, 2019
Thoughtful and quick read on Canadian Billionaires.
I found it very interesting.
I found it very interesting.
May 19, 2020
While this book is a little dated now, its analysis of the concentration of wealth at the top of Canadian and American society rings all the more true today.
March 6, 2021
Had to read this for my Sociology 2 class. Never thought it would be so entertaining that I eventually read it again this year.
January 2, 2024
The writing is repetitive and the book takes a while to get to the meat of the argument, but once it does it's an excellent read. Overall, if you can stick with it, you'll end up learning a lot!
February 17, 2025
Great book
September 21, 2013
Gang of Spielers Un-Masked
This book thoroughly de-constructs the priciples of "billionarism" - the system of sloganeering employed to confer legitimacy on the special status billionaires enjoy within our society.
"Gang of spielers" is the term I used in my novel to try to convey the street-hustler aspect of this sloganeering. The authors of this book take a more straightforward approach to de-bunking "billionarist" ideology.
The main thrust of "billionarist" thought is the suggestion that the best thing we can do as ordinary citizens, is to allow billionaires to do whatever they want, and then wait patiently for some of their wealth to drip on to our plate. The book's authors argue most lucidly to the contrary.
This book is an excellent prescription for building an informed citizenry that is capable of making intelligent political decisions.
This book thoroughly de-constructs the priciples of "billionarism" - the system of sloganeering employed to confer legitimacy on the special status billionaires enjoy within our society.
"Gang of spielers" is the term I used in my novel to try to convey the street-hustler aspect of this sloganeering. The authors of this book take a more straightforward approach to de-bunking "billionarist" ideology.
The main thrust of "billionarist" thought is the suggestion that the best thing we can do as ordinary citizens, is to allow billionaires to do whatever they want, and then wait patiently for some of their wealth to drip on to our plate. The book's authors argue most lucidly to the contrary.
This book is an excellent prescription for building an informed citizenry that is capable of making intelligent political decisions.
December 10, 2012
I thoroughly enjoyed this book and in fact, will probably buy a copy and read it again. It was full of information, the kind of stuff I like to be able to talk about and reading it once just wasn't enough. I actually took a few notes as I read. McQuaig lays her argument out well and supports it all. She has done some impressive research to pull this all together.
August 7, 2013
Thoroughly researched, well argued, very accessible information on how changes in tax legislation since the Reagan/Thatcher/Mulroney era have created a haven for the super-rich at the expense of the rest of the population. The rise of this de facto oligarchy tears at the very fabric of democracy. An important book with realistic solutions. Highly recommended.
November 27, 2013
A well-written exposé of Canada's economic situation in the modern era. If you take McQuaig's arguments with a bit of salt, you'll find she makes some serious arguments in favour of evening out the financial playing field amongst Canadian individuals. Never boring, always thought-provoking.
Only a little bit extreme.
Only a little bit extreme.
November 23, 2012
Worthwhile read. I t certainly is timely with the disturbing acceptance of NEO-liberal ideologies that create a world with incredible injustices and wealth disparities that research shows do us great harm as a society.
May 22, 2013
Interesting thesis and probably has some merit but the authors hurt their cause by using way too much hyperbole and ad hominem attacks.
Read
June 11, 2014Tout sur la crise de 1929, et sa re-crise de 2008, ou comment les fortunes aiment se concentrer...
January 2, 2013
Incredibly easy and informative read- solution based book regarding how America is set up to cater to the ultra rich.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews