Per Molander, a Swedish consultant for the World Bank, the OECD, the European Commission and the Swedish government, writes a book for folks who have some education in economics and philosophy and political science. I don't think that's what he wanted.
I think he wanted a book that just any educated person could pick up and understand the inevitability of inequality in any market system, the impossibility of any static Utopian solution and then some real solutions that mitigate the inequality. I sympathize, we don't have ready language for these ideas. There are times he is clear and speaks in language most of us could get, other times he's referring to so many different authors and their points of view that if one hadn't had courses on those folks, one would get lost (like I did.) He can get very general; I happen to know plenty about Christianity and its history and he makes some dumb generalizations. What does that mean for when he generalizes about other faith traditions? Or philosophy? And then he tries to cover the liberal and conservative traditions each in their own chapter, but he's unclear as to what exactly those traditions are (warranted, yes, they are to complex and even self-contradictory, ever-morphing categories.) He could have just generalized and confessed to doing as such or written a much longer book. But then there is the Swedish way of social democracy, the chapter on which where he offers his solutions; he's succinct and clear on this stuff and I liked this chapter a lot.
And there was, indeed, a lot to like. He communicates the impossibility of creating static one-time-fits-all solutions. He demonstrates the impossibility of any static state market and the inevitability of markets giving ever and ever greater bias toward the winners in negotiations.
I wanted a book that gets to the basic core of human interactions that allow for, use, even need! inequality among individuals within human communities. And then for reasons to mitigate, methods to foster and evidence of the value of equality among individuals within human communities. Sometimes he gets there, other times he hasn't quite stretched himself to get to the actual fundamental issue. There is more biological, psycho-social stuff to dig into! And then we need clear maxims that convey the truths in political settings.
BTW, Molander's in dialogue with Piketty, and feels that Piketty's solutions of taxing at the level of capital are insufficient to mitigate inequality.
I want to read more on this and welcome suggestions.