What do you think?
Rate this book
Рівні серед нерівних.Як добрі наміри знищують середній клас
Повільне зростання середнього класу є серйозним викликом для економіки. Але прості методи перерозподілу доходів неефективні, стверджує автор цієї книжки. Як боротися із нерівністю в умовах ринкової економіки? Чи варто вводити жорсткі обмеження на збагачення найбагатших? Як простимулювати розвиток середнього класу і збудувати інноваційну економічну систему
360 pages, Hardcover
First published September 13, 2016
74 people are currently reading
1572 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews
September 17, 2020
An excellent rebuttal to arguments made by Joseph Stiglitz, Emmanuel Saez, Thomas Piketty, and Paul Krugman. The debate over income inequality rarely ever involved facts and far too often involves rhetoric. Redistribution of wealth, by means of higher taxation or increased transfer spending, would have profound negative consequences on all of us. For example, Conard shows that for every dollar invested by the wealthy into the economy the public gets three dollars. Conard subsequently shows research showing that the top 10% invest 40% of their income. Tons of great other facts as well.
Even if you disagree with Conard’s thesis this is still a provocative book. Even Larry Summers (Obama’s former head economist) and a coauthor that worked with Sitglitz wrote positive reviews for this book.
Even if you disagree with Conard’s thesis this is still a provocative book. Even Larry Summers (Obama’s former head economist) and a coauthor that worked with Sitglitz wrote positive reviews for this book.
September 28, 2017
Should be named Edward’s Canard: a smart, logical guy gets lost in zero-sum and other bad assumptions, while debating his own straw men. This book is just so wrong, it’s a great exercise in practicing critical thinking, instead of just believing whatever self-serving b.s. the elites want your mind to gift them. Truly the high quality of research and writing demonstrates that with selective data and poorly structured logic, even a completely false argument can persuasively prevented. Each presented argument’s heading sounds important and is often correctly proven with data, but each chapter’s collection of arguments come together to mean very little.
I’m brief, there is absolutely no upside of Inequality, and go read Reich, Pinketty, Krugman and many other wiser writers — before you start inflicting misguided thinking on anyone else. Unless like the Koch brothers, you just absolutely MUST believe whatever produces your massive paycheck and feeds your vision of your self-worth.
I should love Conard, because he advocates for high tech silicon valley risk taking, incentivized only because winners take so much. He draws precisely the wrong lesson from SV.
Yes, our (negative balance) trade policy has uplifted the global middle class, but that (and immigration) is only the reason for us wage stagnation IF you have a remarkable failure of imagination. Instead, ask: why do workers compete for poverty wages? Because the system provides no other choice today, not because that is inevitable.
The worst part of reading this: it is not easy to refute it, not even using as many words. Simple but completely wrong can be easier to write than complicated and generative truths. Speculation that something highly positive is both possible and beneficial, is harder to prove than documentation of bad reality as it has been. Just two examples: “the middle class is not hollowing out at all. Consumption - the more relevant measure of prosperity - is more evenly distributed and growing faster for families with the lowest incomes.” Really? Consumption fueled by debt and overwork is a better measure of prosperity that $/hr or total income? What about if people are spending more on essential services (healthcare, debt servicing, housing) than before, without raising their own well being. This stupid argument covers most of a whole “myth busting” chapter. Second, the “mobility has not declined” slides by the point it aims to prove only showing which socioeconomic factors are **not related to social mobility** and then just arguing without data why the rest of the book proves that mobility must eventually improve through supply side risk taking. So terribly argued.
He’s right about some things, such as: 1) we should fire the least effective teachers, and unions are bad for protecting them. 2) high skilled immigration would increase growth. But these correct details don’t at all help prove his main thesis.
Mitt Romney’s praise on the cover just reminds me why America is so lucky he lost, even if that somehow led to a lunatic later.
I read this to be able to argue better with economic flat-earthers. It just reminded me how easy false statements can be “proven” and how hard it is to understand reality. Sigh, my head hurts from wall banging during this reading.
(Finished September 2017, but I don’t want this bullshit to count towards my reading challenge.)
I’m brief, there is absolutely no upside of Inequality, and go read Reich, Pinketty, Krugman and many other wiser writers — before you start inflicting misguided thinking on anyone else. Unless like the Koch brothers, you just absolutely MUST believe whatever produces your massive paycheck and feeds your vision of your self-worth.
I should love Conard, because he advocates for high tech silicon valley risk taking, incentivized only because winners take so much. He draws precisely the wrong lesson from SV.
Yes, our (negative balance) trade policy has uplifted the global middle class, but that (and immigration) is only the reason for us wage stagnation IF you have a remarkable failure of imagination. Instead, ask: why do workers compete for poverty wages? Because the system provides no other choice today, not because that is inevitable.
The worst part of reading this: it is not easy to refute it, not even using as many words. Simple but completely wrong can be easier to write than complicated and generative truths. Speculation that something highly positive is both possible and beneficial, is harder to prove than documentation of bad reality as it has been. Just two examples: “the middle class is not hollowing out at all. Consumption - the more relevant measure of prosperity - is more evenly distributed and growing faster for families with the lowest incomes.” Really? Consumption fueled by debt and overwork is a better measure of prosperity that $/hr or total income? What about if people are spending more on essential services (healthcare, debt servicing, housing) than before, without raising their own well being. This stupid argument covers most of a whole “myth busting” chapter. Second, the “mobility has not declined” slides by the point it aims to prove only showing which socioeconomic factors are **not related to social mobility** and then just arguing without data why the rest of the book proves that mobility must eventually improve through supply side risk taking. So terribly argued.
He’s right about some things, such as: 1) we should fire the least effective teachers, and unions are bad for protecting them. 2) high skilled immigration would increase growth. But these correct details don’t at all help prove his main thesis.
Mitt Romney’s praise on the cover just reminds me why America is so lucky he lost, even if that somehow led to a lunatic later.
I read this to be able to argue better with economic flat-earthers. It just reminded me how easy false statements can be “proven” and how hard it is to understand reality. Sigh, my head hurts from wall banging during this reading.
(Finished September 2017, but I don’t want this bullshit to count towards my reading challenge.)
October 11, 2016
A weak 3.5.
Many parts of the book read as if Conard started with a PowerPoint slide (with bullet points) and then made each separate bullet point its own paragraph without altering the original bullet point phrase. Made the book read awkwardly at times.
Conard's working theory is that the willingness and ability to bear risk (primarily borne by equity) is the predominant resource constraint in the modern economy. Policies derived from the belief that other resource constraints are the reason for slow growth (labor, savings, technology) are misguided and may even be counter-productive.
In the Acknowledgments, Conard's credits this idea to Joe Stiglitz and Bruce Greenwald, specifically their 'Towards a New Paradigm in Monetary Economics'. Stiglitz-Greenwald's thesis is actually more cleanly articulated within their well-known '93 QJE Financial Market Imperfections and Business Cycles. Asymmetrical information and risk aversion lead to a breakdown in risk sharing markets, which is influenced by their ability to take risks (net worth and stock of liquid assets). As firms reduce risk-taking, altered risk distributions make firms more risk averse. Hence, if more firms engage in risk-bearing activities (increasing the dispersion of their earnings), it may increase overall welfare and lead to an upside of inequality. This likely, also, influences his views on the role of financial institutions: 1) It is bad to require banks to hold more equity; 2) it is good to expand the Fed's Lender of Last Resort role.
But, as the Stiglitz-Greenwald paper title indicates, it is a theory of business cycles (or, aggregate fluctuations in wages, prices, and output), not long-term economic growth. So, policy making from these premises may lead to the wrong lessons. Once of these is to force a 'balanced trade' through the imposition of import certificates which would require external agents to purchase goods or services as opposed to financing trade balances through financial flows.
Conard's book contains many interesting insights and data. Alone, those are worth picking up the book for. His discussion of the U.S. corporate tax is probably the best of any popular treatment I've read, including consideration of earnings earned overseas but not yet repatriated.
Many parts of the book read as if Conard started with a PowerPoint slide (with bullet points) and then made each separate bullet point its own paragraph without altering the original bullet point phrase. Made the book read awkwardly at times.
Conard's working theory is that the willingness and ability to bear risk (primarily borne by equity) is the predominant resource constraint in the modern economy. Policies derived from the belief that other resource constraints are the reason for slow growth (labor, savings, technology) are misguided and may even be counter-productive.
In the Acknowledgments, Conard's credits this idea to Joe Stiglitz and Bruce Greenwald, specifically their 'Towards a New Paradigm in Monetary Economics'. Stiglitz-Greenwald's thesis is actually more cleanly articulated within their well-known '93 QJE Financial Market Imperfections and Business Cycles. Asymmetrical information and risk aversion lead to a breakdown in risk sharing markets, which is influenced by their ability to take risks (net worth and stock of liquid assets). As firms reduce risk-taking, altered risk distributions make firms more risk averse. Hence, if more firms engage in risk-bearing activities (increasing the dispersion of their earnings), it may increase overall welfare and lead to an upside of inequality. This likely, also, influences his views on the role of financial institutions: 1) It is bad to require banks to hold more equity; 2) it is good to expand the Fed's Lender of Last Resort role.
But, as the Stiglitz-Greenwald paper title indicates, it is a theory of business cycles (or, aggregate fluctuations in wages, prices, and output), not long-term economic growth. So, policy making from these premises may lead to the wrong lessons. Once of these is to force a 'balanced trade' through the imposition of import certificates which would require external agents to purchase goods or services as opposed to financing trade balances through financial flows.
Conard's book contains many interesting insights and data. Alone, those are worth picking up the book for. His discussion of the U.S. corporate tax is probably the best of any popular treatment I've read, including consideration of earnings earned overseas but not yet repatriated.
April 4, 2020
Listened to on audio, which for some reason comes up as "untitled" without a cover so I'm not marking it as such. Audio was fine. Nothing to write home about.
The sub-title of this book is a bit of a misnomer. The overall focus is on inequality and proposed/enacted economic policies aimed at ending inequality. And as much as those policies impact the middle class, I guess it does discuss how "good intentions undermine the middle class." But maybe one chapter actually discusses this proposition explicitly. Otherwise, the middle class fade into a broader conversation about poverty that actually focuses relatively little on them.
I enjoyed the first six-ish chapters of this book. It primarily focused on current myths or theories about income inequality and how those myths miss the bigger picture. It was nothing mind-blowing, but it grounded the discussion in statistics and offered some good talking points.
The statistics peter out around the 70% mark, however, and the book becomes more of a lecture about policy approaches to help people in poverty. I found this much less compelling. It feels less focused, more like a smorgasbord of economic policy arguments that loosely center around growing the economy.
It surprised me that I did not enjoy this book more. I don't disagree with the author--in fact, I suspect we approach economic issues from a very similar starting point and reach pretty similar conclusions. But I feel like this is a book that won't stay relevant very long. It is one of those policy books aimed at pushing some big picture policy ideas and less the philosophical analysis about the middle class that I expected. Which, perhaps, reveals my true disappointment with this book. I went in expecting When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty without Hurting the Poor...and Yourself and got How Capitalism Will Save Us: Why Free People and Free Markets Are the Best Answer in Today's Economy. Not necessarily bad, just not what I expected.
The sub-title of this book is a bit of a misnomer. The overall focus is on inequality and proposed/enacted economic policies aimed at ending inequality. And as much as those policies impact the middle class, I guess it does discuss how "good intentions undermine the middle class." But maybe one chapter actually discusses this proposition explicitly. Otherwise, the middle class fade into a broader conversation about poverty that actually focuses relatively little on them.
I enjoyed the first six-ish chapters of this book. It primarily focused on current myths or theories about income inequality and how those myths miss the bigger picture. It was nothing mind-blowing, but it grounded the discussion in statistics and offered some good talking points.
The statistics peter out around the 70% mark, however, and the book becomes more of a lecture about policy approaches to help people in poverty. I found this much less compelling. It feels less focused, more like a smorgasbord of economic policy arguments that loosely center around growing the economy.
It surprised me that I did not enjoy this book more. I don't disagree with the author--in fact, I suspect we approach economic issues from a very similar starting point and reach pretty similar conclusions. But I feel like this is a book that won't stay relevant very long. It is one of those policy books aimed at pushing some big picture policy ideas and less the philosophical analysis about the middle class that I expected. Which, perhaps, reveals my true disappointment with this book. I went in expecting When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty without Hurting the Poor...and Yourself and got How Capitalism Will Save Us: Why Free People and Free Markets Are the Best Answer in Today's Economy. Not necessarily bad, just not what I expected.
May 31, 2018
Does this book have a political bias? Yes. But, I would add that I have yet to read a book on economics that does not have a political bias. As it is, I think this is a good book to read along side Paul Krugman's stuff, to balance it out.
So what does a balance of Krugman (left) and Conrad (right) economics look like? Well, I wouldn't say that this book provides enough evidence of it's theories to change opinions, but it does have enough evidence to at least cause people to be skeptical of some popular economic ideas whose probable truth has been greatly exaggerated.
For instance, I was under the impression that it was pretty much proven that low-skilled immigration to the United States has not had a significant negative effect on wages. I got this impression by reading Krugman and Vox, mostly. This book has not convinced me of the contrary, but it certainly has persuaded me that the matter is not as settled as I believed. Conrad takes the reader through the possible confounding issues that prevent economists from getting a clear view on this issue, and makes a worthy point; a statistically significant finding indicates that a variable is significant- an non-statistically significant finding does not indicate the contrary. It may simply mean that the effects of the variable are obscured by other factors. In this case, findings that low-skilled immigration does not seem to have a significant impact on wages is not a sign that we know how immigration effects wages; it means that we have an incomplete picture.
So what does a balance of Krugman (left) and Conrad (right) economics look like? Well, I wouldn't say that this book provides enough evidence of it's theories to change opinions, but it does have enough evidence to at least cause people to be skeptical of some popular economic ideas whose probable truth has been greatly exaggerated.
For instance, I was under the impression that it was pretty much proven that low-skilled immigration to the United States has not had a significant negative effect on wages. I got this impression by reading Krugman and Vox, mostly. This book has not convinced me of the contrary, but it certainly has persuaded me that the matter is not as settled as I believed. Conrad takes the reader through the possible confounding issues that prevent economists from getting a clear view on this issue, and makes a worthy point; a statistically significant finding indicates that a variable is significant- an non-statistically significant finding does not indicate the contrary. It may simply mean that the effects of the variable are obscured by other factors. In this case, findings that low-skilled immigration does not seem to have a significant impact on wages is not a sign that we know how immigration effects wages; it means that we have an incomplete picture.
November 26, 2016
Ed Conard offers a unique and well thought out perspective on the realities of our economy. This is not a defense of keeping the status quo in favor of the wealthy, but a serious strategy for improving opportunity for the working class, increasing social mobility, and actually raising incomes and living standards for the entire economy. Conard continually reminds us innovation and taking thoughtful risks is the only way to grow our economy. Inequality motivates risk taking, while redistributionist policies discourage it. Chapter by chapter, Conrad lays out the arguments for income redistribution, then tears them apart, and finally offers comprehensive policy ideas for accelerating growth for the benefit of all.
November 7, 2021
It was a mistake to listen to this book as an audiobook because I kept wanting to throw my iPhone against the wall as I listened, but I'm happy to report that I resisted and my iPhone survived. I was fascinated by the concept of a book that would argue that massive income inequality is actually good for us and that the extreme unbalanced wealth of the 0.1% is a necessary incentive for proper entrepreneurship. Mr. Conard does make that argument as promised, but though he is smart and articulate, it's a head shaker.
There are a hundred ways that I disagree with Mr. Conard, but let's start with his two basic theses: (i) the one essential requirement of a robust growing economy is encouraging entrepreneurial risk taking, and (ii) we need to have a workforce educated in the fields that he considers appropriate.
I agree that entrepreneurship is essential to a capitalist economy, and for purposes of this discussion, I'll accept that we have a more or less capitalist economy, but the emphasis on "risk taking" doesn't feel right to me. There are only a couple of times where he adds the adjective "prudent" before "risk taking," almost completely ignoring the problems that will inevitably happen when risk taking becomes excessive. And he never once adds the modifier "productive." From my point of view one of the biggest problems in our economy today is the excessive and unproductive risks undertaken by Mr. Conard's own sector of the economy - finance. He shrugs off responsibility for the 2008 financial crisis that was most certainly primarily caused by crazy mortgage backed derivatives and default swaps piled onto a pyramid of risk that was unloaded on the unwary. And even in the tech sector which Mr. Conard focuses on as an engine of growth, there are plenty of "risk takers" who make bets at the expense of others that add nothing to the national wealth whether the punters succeed or fail.
And then there is his idea of an appropriate education, which in his mind has to be vocational. He did attend the vocational business school at my university, Harvard, but perhaps if he had also studied as an undergraduate there he would have come to appreciate the value of a liberal arts education. Mr. Conard tells us that the right kind of education is STEM, STEM STEM. I like engineers. They can be smart and productive. I'm fine for some of them to be in management and government, but I really don't want to live in a country of engineers. We need people who have a broader vision, people who appreciate art and culture, who are humanists, and who used their education to become educated, not to learn a trade. Those are the people who I want to have in charge. I'm fine if they are also scientists and engineers because the best of them have the same breadth of vision that is taught in the humanities and social sciences, but if the emphasis in our educational institutions is only on learning practical science and engineering as a tool for making money, then we will just turn into Eloi and Morlocks a few generations sooner.
There are a hundred ways that I disagree with Mr. Conard, but let's start with his two basic theses: (i) the one essential requirement of a robust growing economy is encouraging entrepreneurial risk taking, and (ii) we need to have a workforce educated in the fields that he considers appropriate.
I agree that entrepreneurship is essential to a capitalist economy, and for purposes of this discussion, I'll accept that we have a more or less capitalist economy, but the emphasis on "risk taking" doesn't feel right to me. There are only a couple of times where he adds the adjective "prudent" before "risk taking," almost completely ignoring the problems that will inevitably happen when risk taking becomes excessive. And he never once adds the modifier "productive." From my point of view one of the biggest problems in our economy today is the excessive and unproductive risks undertaken by Mr. Conard's own sector of the economy - finance. He shrugs off responsibility for the 2008 financial crisis that was most certainly primarily caused by crazy mortgage backed derivatives and default swaps piled onto a pyramid of risk that was unloaded on the unwary. And even in the tech sector which Mr. Conard focuses on as an engine of growth, there are plenty of "risk takers" who make bets at the expense of others that add nothing to the national wealth whether the punters succeed or fail.
And then there is his idea of an appropriate education, which in his mind has to be vocational. He did attend the vocational business school at my university, Harvard, but perhaps if he had also studied as an undergraduate there he would have come to appreciate the value of a liberal arts education. Mr. Conard tells us that the right kind of education is STEM, STEM STEM. I like engineers. They can be smart and productive. I'm fine for some of them to be in management and government, but I really don't want to live in a country of engineers. We need people who have a broader vision, people who appreciate art and culture, who are humanists, and who used their education to become educated, not to learn a trade. Those are the people who I want to have in charge. I'm fine if they are also scientists and engineers because the best of them have the same breadth of vision that is taught in the humanities and social sciences, but if the emphasis in our educational institutions is only on learning practical science and engineering as a tool for making money, then we will just turn into Eloi and Morlocks a few generations sooner.
November 7, 2017
This book will change no one's mind.
It's kind of the opposite of persuasion. If you already believe that redistribution is necessary, you will hate every second of this book. You'll also find it's analysis of poverty and education offensive, and possibly racist.
If you think that redistribution is akin to theft, then you'll find yourself nodding and glad someone put the "whole story" together.
While the author's knowledge and intuition of economics is good, it's not perfect (nobody's is), and it certainly deserves criticism. Those few weaknesses turn out to be fatal flaws for a book with an interesting concept.
The conversation about the positives of inequality needs to happen. This book doesn't pull it off. It feels cold and about what you'd expect from a rich person talking about why it's important not to tax rich people.
It's kind of the opposite of persuasion. If you already believe that redistribution is necessary, you will hate every second of this book. You'll also find it's analysis of poverty and education offensive, and possibly racist.
If you think that redistribution is akin to theft, then you'll find yourself nodding and glad someone put the "whole story" together.
While the author's knowledge and intuition of economics is good, it's not perfect (nobody's is), and it certainly deserves criticism. Those few weaknesses turn out to be fatal flaws for a book with an interesting concept.
The conversation about the positives of inequality needs to happen. This book doesn't pull it off. It feels cold and about what you'd expect from a rich person talking about why it's important not to tax rich people.
December 15, 2019
Ця книга розповідає про явища, які, до певної міри, людина відчуває інтуїтивно. Окрім того, видається, що автор надто захищає 1% американців.
April 2, 2017
In 1964 the world's economy was only as large as China's economy is today. They way things have changed is what this book discusses. Conard explains how the huge jump in wealth and ability to make wealth has changed with technology because people can now access more customers easier. His example is Taylor Swift. She is selling more than the Beatles ever did because the ability to get your hands on her music is easier than it has ever been. You can download from your computer, you can order online and have it shipped, or you can do things the old fashioned way and go to a store and buy it. Where-as Teachers are still only able to service close to the same amount of kids as they did 50 years ago.
Mr. Conard points out that raising minimum wage will have an outcome unlike what most people believe. Conrad states that by raising minimum wage the lowest skilled working will be pushed out altogether for a higher skilled, who now will be working for less money than before. The lowest will be pushed out because where their low skills may have been worth $7.25/hr, they are not worth $10/hr.
Another point Mr. Conard tries to make throughout the book is that the 1% are the ones who innovate. I agree that they can throw down money to help innovators get their products to the next level. But people innovate all the time. Look at the TV show Shark Tank. The Sharks sitting in that room did not come up with the ideas, the innovators are coming up to them for help running the business side of things, or to tap into their knowledge on scaling production.
This book seemed to be well researched and even though many things discussed I do not completely agree with my view of life is not let us get as rich as possible. To me there is more to life than being rich. Mr. Conard may tell me that is only because I am not rich. This could be, but you always have an obligation to society to play the cards you are given and improve as you can along the way.
Mr. Conard points out that raising minimum wage will have an outcome unlike what most people believe. Conrad states that by raising minimum wage the lowest skilled working will be pushed out altogether for a higher skilled, who now will be working for less money than before. The lowest will be pushed out because where their low skills may have been worth $7.25/hr, they are not worth $10/hr.
Another point Mr. Conard tries to make throughout the book is that the 1% are the ones who innovate. I agree that they can throw down money to help innovators get their products to the next level. But people innovate all the time. Look at the TV show Shark Tank. The Sharks sitting in that room did not come up with the ideas, the innovators are coming up to them for help running the business side of things, or to tap into their knowledge on scaling production.
This book seemed to be well researched and even though many things discussed I do not completely agree with my view of life is not let us get as rich as possible. To me there is more to life than being rich. Mr. Conard may tell me that is only because I am not rich. This could be, but you always have an obligation to society to play the cards you are given and improve as you can along the way.
Read
June 15, 2018No stars. I tried to read this book with an open mind. I failed. This is such a right wing screed I felt unclean after a few pages. Turns out Conard is business partners with Mitt Romney. I almost put it down at that point. Unfortunately, I decided to give it another chance. I got as far in the first chapter as his proposition that the 0.1% deserved all the money because they risk their money. The workers, who actually create the wealth, shouldn't share in it because that would diminish the profits to the boss. That was the point at which I stopped reading it. He thinks that paying workers too much stifles innovation and growth. This is a disgusting book. I was sickened at the thought that this is the crap taught in business schools. Grease up the guillotines!
January 24, 2018
Economic inequality has turned very political with little discussion of the economics of inequality. This book puts together a case for a fiscal conservative approach to inequality. Conrad's strategy outlines steps to raise wages and living standards for the entire economy. Innovation and entrepreneurship is vital to growing the economy. Inequality motivates entrepreneurship and innovation. Redistribution of wealth stifles innovation. Many of the arguments are valid but the evidence to support the claim is a bit scant. The analysis repeats assumptions with little empirical support. I look forward to reading more by Edward Conrad.
March 19, 2021
Чи не перша книжка за останні роки з дійсно цікавою і притомною правою критикою нинішнього "пост-пікеттіанського" економічного дискурсу.
Оскільки коментар українською, то не можу не написати про переклад "Нашого формату", бо він, на жаль, дуже розчарував. Буквально кожні 5-10 сторінок зустрічається некоректно перекладена термінологія, яка спотворює міст (іноді навіть робить його протилежним до оригіналу). Свідомий стосовно книжкового ринку і низьких бюджетів, та був би готовий платити в 2 рази більше аби не потрібно було уточнювати певні моменти кожні 20 хвилин читання.
Оскільки коментар українською, то не можу не написати про переклад "Нашого формату", бо він, на жаль, дуже розчарував. Буквально кожні 5-10 сторінок зустрічається некоректно перекладена термінологія, яка спотворює міст (іноді навіть робить його протилежним до оригіналу). Свідомий стосовно книжкового ринку і низьких бюджетів, та був би готовий платити в 2 рази більше аби не потрібно було уточнювати певні моменти кожні 20 хвилин читання.
September 9, 2019
This book was interesting and well researched but it was geared towards those who have a significant background in economics. I learned a lot but there were sections that were so dry and read like a textbook that some of the points went over my head. That said, I appreciated the authors fact based logic and his ability to dissect opposing arguments and demonstrate that conventional economic wisdom is sometimes not wisdom at all.
Read
April 6, 2025Book Review: The Upside of Inequality: How Good Intentions Undermine the Middle Class
Author: Edward Conard
Publisher: Penguin Press
Publication Date: 2016
ISBN: 978-1595231239
Introduction
In The Upside of Inequality: How Good Intentions Undermine the Middle Class, Edward Conard presents a provocative analysis of economic inequality and its implications for American society. Drawing on his experience as a former partner at Bain Capital, Conard argues that the prevailing narrative around inequality oversimplifies a complex economic landscape. He posits that the policies designed to address inequality often hinder economic growth and, paradoxically, undermine the very middle class they intend to support. This book is essential reading for economic policy scholars, practitioners, and anyone interested in the intersection of wealth distribution, economic theory, and social justice.
Content Overview
Conard’s book is divided into several coherent sections that delineate his key arguments regarding inequality:
The Nature of Inequality: Conard begins by defining economic inequality and its historical context in the United States. He challenges the assumption that rising inequality is inherently negative, suggesting instead that it can be a byproduct of economic dynamism.
Economic Growth and Opportunity: The author argues that inequality can foster economic growth by encouraging risk-taking and innovation. He posits that wealthy individuals invest in new ventures, creating jobs and opportunities for others, thereby benefiting society as a whole.
Critique of Good Intentions: A central theme of the book is the critique of policies aimed at reducing inequality. Conard contends that well-meaning interventions, such as higher taxes on the wealthy or excessive regulation, can stifle economic growth and reduce job creation, ultimately harming the middle class.
Case Studies and Evidence: Conard supports his thesis with various case studies and data, illustrating how different economic policies have shaped inequality and opportunity. He examines historical examples to demonstrate how inequality has often accompanied periods of robust economic growth.
Towards a New Understanding of Inequality: In the concluding sections, Conard advocates for a reevaluation of the assumptions surrounding inequality. He calls for policies that promote economic growth without directly addressing wealth redistribution, arguing that a thriving economy will naturally improve conditions for the middle class.
Thematic Analysis
A prominent theme in The Upside of Inequality is the relationship between risk, reward, and economic growth. Conard effectively argues that wealth accumulation is not only a reflection of individual success but also a necessary component for driving innovation and economic progress. This perspective challenges conventional wisdom that views inequality as a strictly negative phenomenon.
Another significant theme is the critique of interventionist policies. By examining the unintended consequences of various policy measures aimed at mitigating inequality, Conard highlights the complexity of economic systems and the need for a more nuanced approach to addressing social issues. This theme resonates with ongoing debates in economic policy regarding the effectiveness of welfare programs and taxation strategies.
Strengths
One of the book’s strengths is its clear articulation of complex economic concepts. Conard’s background in finance and economics allows him to present his ideas with clarity and authority, making them accessible to a broad audience. The use of case studies to support his arguments is particularly effective, providing concrete examples that illustrate his points.
Additionally, Conard’s willingness to challenge prevailing narratives about inequality makes for a thought-provoking read. His arguments encourage readers to reconsider their assumptions and engage critically with the issues surrounding wealth distribution and economic policy.
Critique
While The Upside of Inequality offers a compelling perspective, it may benefit from a more robust engagement with alternative viewpoints. Conard’s arguments predominantly reflect a pro-market stance, which could lead to accusations of oversimplification regarding the systemic issues contributing to inequality. A more thorough exploration of the social dimensions of inequality, alongside economic factors, would enhance the book’s overall depth.
Furthermore, while Conard criticizes interventionist policies, he could provide more specific examples of successful strategies that balance growth and equity. This inclusion would strengthen his arguments and provide a clearer roadmap for policymakers seeking to navigate the complexities of inequality.
Conclusion
Edward Conard’s The Upside of Inequality: How Good Intentions Undermine the Middle Class is a significant contribution to the discourse on economic inequality and policy. Through his incisive analysis and challenging perspectives, Conard invites readers to rethink their views on wealth distribution and its implications for the middle class. This book is recommended for scholars, policymakers, and anyone interested in the intricate relationships between economic growth, inequality, and social policy. By addressing the nuances of this critical issue, Conard encourages a more informed and constructive dialogue about the future of economic policy in America.
Author: Edward Conard
Publisher: Penguin Press
Publication Date: 2016
ISBN: 978-1595231239
Introduction
In The Upside of Inequality: How Good Intentions Undermine the Middle Class, Edward Conard presents a provocative analysis of economic inequality and its implications for American society. Drawing on his experience as a former partner at Bain Capital, Conard argues that the prevailing narrative around inequality oversimplifies a complex economic landscape. He posits that the policies designed to address inequality often hinder economic growth and, paradoxically, undermine the very middle class they intend to support. This book is essential reading for economic policy scholars, practitioners, and anyone interested in the intersection of wealth distribution, economic theory, and social justice.
Content Overview
Conard’s book is divided into several coherent sections that delineate his key arguments regarding inequality:
The Nature of Inequality: Conard begins by defining economic inequality and its historical context in the United States. He challenges the assumption that rising inequality is inherently negative, suggesting instead that it can be a byproduct of economic dynamism.
Economic Growth and Opportunity: The author argues that inequality can foster economic growth by encouraging risk-taking and innovation. He posits that wealthy individuals invest in new ventures, creating jobs and opportunities for others, thereby benefiting society as a whole.
Critique of Good Intentions: A central theme of the book is the critique of policies aimed at reducing inequality. Conard contends that well-meaning interventions, such as higher taxes on the wealthy or excessive regulation, can stifle economic growth and reduce job creation, ultimately harming the middle class.
Case Studies and Evidence: Conard supports his thesis with various case studies and data, illustrating how different economic policies have shaped inequality and opportunity. He examines historical examples to demonstrate how inequality has often accompanied periods of robust economic growth.
Towards a New Understanding of Inequality: In the concluding sections, Conard advocates for a reevaluation of the assumptions surrounding inequality. He calls for policies that promote economic growth without directly addressing wealth redistribution, arguing that a thriving economy will naturally improve conditions for the middle class.
Thematic Analysis
A prominent theme in The Upside of Inequality is the relationship between risk, reward, and economic growth. Conard effectively argues that wealth accumulation is not only a reflection of individual success but also a necessary component for driving innovation and economic progress. This perspective challenges conventional wisdom that views inequality as a strictly negative phenomenon.
Another significant theme is the critique of interventionist policies. By examining the unintended consequences of various policy measures aimed at mitigating inequality, Conard highlights the complexity of economic systems and the need for a more nuanced approach to addressing social issues. This theme resonates with ongoing debates in economic policy regarding the effectiveness of welfare programs and taxation strategies.
Strengths
One of the book’s strengths is its clear articulation of complex economic concepts. Conard’s background in finance and economics allows him to present his ideas with clarity and authority, making them accessible to a broad audience. The use of case studies to support his arguments is particularly effective, providing concrete examples that illustrate his points.
Additionally, Conard’s willingness to challenge prevailing narratives about inequality makes for a thought-provoking read. His arguments encourage readers to reconsider their assumptions and engage critically with the issues surrounding wealth distribution and economic policy.
Critique
While The Upside of Inequality offers a compelling perspective, it may benefit from a more robust engagement with alternative viewpoints. Conard’s arguments predominantly reflect a pro-market stance, which could lead to accusations of oversimplification regarding the systemic issues contributing to inequality. A more thorough exploration of the social dimensions of inequality, alongside economic factors, would enhance the book’s overall depth.
Furthermore, while Conard criticizes interventionist policies, he could provide more specific examples of successful strategies that balance growth and equity. This inclusion would strengthen his arguments and provide a clearer roadmap for policymakers seeking to navigate the complexities of inequality.
Conclusion
Edward Conard’s The Upside of Inequality: How Good Intentions Undermine the Middle Class is a significant contribution to the discourse on economic inequality and policy. Through his incisive analysis and challenging perspectives, Conard invites readers to rethink their views on wealth distribution and its implications for the middle class. This book is recommended for scholars, policymakers, and anyone interested in the intricate relationships between economic growth, inequality, and social policy. By addressing the nuances of this critical issue, Conard encourages a more informed and constructive dialogue about the future of economic policy in America.
February 3, 2023
I'm inclined to agree with the author's positions, but this book did little to convince me further. The analysis is sometimes conclusory, and often based on assumptions presented with less empirical data than one might expect. Nonetheless, the book is useful as an introductory explanation of the fiscally conservative/libertarian "party line" on fiscal and monetary policy.
October 21, 2016
I was sympathetic to the author's basic thesis, but there was no substantive, equilibrium economic analysis in the text--just a lot of soft stories.
April 6, 2017
Conrad had some interesting points but I couldn't get past the almost bullet point writing, repetition and the lack of substance to his analysis.
November 3, 2025
Edward Conard’s The Upside of Inequality: How Good Intentions Undermine the Middle Class is a provocative and unapologetic defense of the American free market system. A New York Times bestseller, the book reflects Conard’s background as a conservative author, political commentator, and former private equity fund manager. In this work, he offers a bold counter-narrative to prevailing critiques of economic inequality, arguing that inequality is not only inevitable but also essential to America’s economic vitality.
At its core, The Upside of Inequality challenges the belief that income disparity signals systemic injustice or impedes long-term growth. Conard asserts that the reward system inherent in the U.S. economy plays a crucial role in fostering innovation and sustaining high economic performance. Rather than being vilified, he contends, this system should be cherished and protected.
One of the central themes in the book is the concept of risk. Drawing on his experience and expertise in fund management, Conard underscores the importance of risk-taking in driving innovation, investment, and entrepreneurship. He argues that America’s willingness to embrace risk gives it a competitive edge over other industrialized nations. Entrepreneurs, who risk both income and assets in their ventures, deserve higher rewards when successful, as compensation for their exposure to failure.6
Conard further explains that to encourage risk-taking among executives, compensation must include performance-based incentives, such as stock options tied to the company's value. Because people are naturally risk-averse, the expected payoff for risk-takers must be significantly higher to make the gamble worthwhile.
Conard also emphasizes the role of stable legal and regulatory environments in reducing risk premiums and attracting investment. A predictable policy landscape, he argues, is essential for securing the kind of long-term capital needed to fuel business growth.
Beyond risk, the book explores how incentives shape individual decisions over both the short and long term. While reduced wages might not immediately affect the output of skilled workers whose choices are limited, such compensation structures could deter future generations from entering high-skilled professions. Conard believes that skilled workers are a limiting factor in the economy, and that incentivizing their development is critical to broader economic health.
Conard uses a range of data and statistical analysis to question widely accepted claims about inequality. In some cases, he presents alternative data to challenge popular narratives. For instance, he disputes the belief that inflated CEO pay in public companies is driven by irresponsible boards acting at the expense of shareholders. He argues that CEO compensation is similar in both public and private firms, implying that market forces—not corporate governance failures—drive pay levels. He also refutes the claim that large corporations suppress wages, noting that such firms tend to pay higher salaries, despite having more pricing power.
In other cases, Conard identifies shortcomings in the data used by his critics. He argues that the stagnation in household income often cited by progressives is misleading, as it fails to account for declining household size; when measured on a per-worker basis, incomes have increased.
Additionally, Conard proposes shifting the focus of metrics in economic debates—for example, assessing CEO compensation not in absolute dollar terms but as a percentage of a company’s market capitalization, a ratio he claims has remained stable over recent decades.
Throughout the book, Conard critiques prominent left-leaning economists such as Joseph Stiglitz and Thomas Piketty, scrutinizing the data they rely on and offering alternative interpretations.
Many of the book’s arguments hinge on America’s economic success relative to other industrialized nations. Conard points to higher GDP per capita, faster growth, and greater innovation as evidence that the U.S. model—unlike European-style redistribution systems—should be preserved, not reformed.
The writing is clear, rational, and well-structured. Each chapter includes a summary, making the argument accessible and easy to follow. Conard’s voice is analytical and data-driven, returning repeatedly to key themes like risk, incentives, and the superiority of the U.S. economic model.
While the book is persuasive and thought-provoking, it does fall short of providing quantitative evidence that fully accounts for all dimensions of inequality. As a result, although it casts serious doubt on dominant progressive narratives, it doesn’t entirely replace them with a fully formed alternative. Nonetheless, The Upside of Inequality is a rare and valuable contribution to the ongoing debate over inequality in America, and its popularity is well-deserved.
At its core, The Upside of Inequality challenges the belief that income disparity signals systemic injustice or impedes long-term growth. Conard asserts that the reward system inherent in the U.S. economy plays a crucial role in fostering innovation and sustaining high economic performance. Rather than being vilified, he contends, this system should be cherished and protected.
One of the central themes in the book is the concept of risk. Drawing on his experience and expertise in fund management, Conard underscores the importance of risk-taking in driving innovation, investment, and entrepreneurship. He argues that America’s willingness to embrace risk gives it a competitive edge over other industrialized nations. Entrepreneurs, who risk both income and assets in their ventures, deserve higher rewards when successful, as compensation for their exposure to failure.6
Conard further explains that to encourage risk-taking among executives, compensation must include performance-based incentives, such as stock options tied to the company's value. Because people are naturally risk-averse, the expected payoff for risk-takers must be significantly higher to make the gamble worthwhile.
Conard also emphasizes the role of stable legal and regulatory environments in reducing risk premiums and attracting investment. A predictable policy landscape, he argues, is essential for securing the kind of long-term capital needed to fuel business growth.
Beyond risk, the book explores how incentives shape individual decisions over both the short and long term. While reduced wages might not immediately affect the output of skilled workers whose choices are limited, such compensation structures could deter future generations from entering high-skilled professions. Conard believes that skilled workers are a limiting factor in the economy, and that incentivizing their development is critical to broader economic health.
Conard uses a range of data and statistical analysis to question widely accepted claims about inequality. In some cases, he presents alternative data to challenge popular narratives. For instance, he disputes the belief that inflated CEO pay in public companies is driven by irresponsible boards acting at the expense of shareholders. He argues that CEO compensation is similar in both public and private firms, implying that market forces—not corporate governance failures—drive pay levels. He also refutes the claim that large corporations suppress wages, noting that such firms tend to pay higher salaries, despite having more pricing power.
In other cases, Conard identifies shortcomings in the data used by his critics. He argues that the stagnation in household income often cited by progressives is misleading, as it fails to account for declining household size; when measured on a per-worker basis, incomes have increased.
Additionally, Conard proposes shifting the focus of metrics in economic debates—for example, assessing CEO compensation not in absolute dollar terms but as a percentage of a company’s market capitalization, a ratio he claims has remained stable over recent decades.
Throughout the book, Conard critiques prominent left-leaning economists such as Joseph Stiglitz and Thomas Piketty, scrutinizing the data they rely on and offering alternative interpretations.
Many of the book’s arguments hinge on America’s economic success relative to other industrialized nations. Conard points to higher GDP per capita, faster growth, and greater innovation as evidence that the U.S. model—unlike European-style redistribution systems—should be preserved, not reformed.
The writing is clear, rational, and well-structured. Each chapter includes a summary, making the argument accessible and easy to follow. Conard’s voice is analytical and data-driven, returning repeatedly to key themes like risk, incentives, and the superiority of the U.S. economic model.
While the book is persuasive and thought-provoking, it does fall short of providing quantitative evidence that fully accounts for all dimensions of inequality. As a result, although it casts serious doubt on dominant progressive narratives, it doesn’t entirely replace them with a fully formed alternative. Nonetheless, The Upside of Inequality is a rare and valuable contribution to the ongoing debate over inequality in America, and its popularity is well-deserved.
February 23, 2020
I will start off by saying that I am not familiar with a lot of economics-based terminology and theories. While I do consider myself to be educated, this topic is out of my comfort zone (although I am very into finances). That being said, my review is certainly biased to be that from the perspective of a layperson.
The book deserves a solid 3.5 out of 5 stars. To be upfront, the reason it lost 1.5 stars is due to it being super technical with both its terminology, but also the way the book introduces topics. I would be absolutely shocked if a layperson could read this book once through and fully understand everything. Maybe this is me expecting an author to “spoon-feed” me my knowledge, but to be honest, I don’t think that is unrealistic. The author wants me to read a book and enjoy it, then they need to better explain topics. Finally, the author was so repetitive with certain phrasing, especially “the economy’s capacity and willingness to take risk” that I wanted to throw this book at a wall sometimes. Like “I GET IT. STOP SAYING IT”. You can hammer information through to someone without constantly repeating the fact/opinion.
Hopefully I can break this book down into something more manageable to understand. The author wants people to understand why the USA economy is what is is today (how we got here), especially in terms of wealth/income inequality. In today’s political climate, inequality is a hot topic, hence why I wanted to read this book to begin with. The book does a fairly good job of explaining that it isn’t the top 1% or even the top 0.1% whose income is growing faster than everyone else’s, but rather the top 0.01%. So, an extremely small number of individuals incomes are growing at a faster rate than the rest of the populations (between 1947 and 2013). This bit of information really helped put things into perspective for me as we constantly hear the “top 5%” or “top 1%” being thrown out into the political conversation. As a side note, I would like to mention that the author includes a very extensive references section when he states his facts so the reader can go and look them up on his/her own if they want to.
Once we understood about the income inequality, the author tries to explain how the current politicians would like to solve this (e.g., redistribution, higher taxes). The author really tries to explain all the “myths” about income inequality and the solutions to it proposed by certain individuals. For example, the author mentions why wage growths are so slow (mainly due to the fact we have more jobs opening up, so wages remain low; it is hard to increase the number of jobs as well as the wages of workers). There are a few chapters dedicated to these exact myths (e.g., investment opportunities are in short supply). A lot of detail is put into these, but in my opinion, unless you are well versed in national economics, you will likely have to read these chapters over a few times to fully understand the information.The author then spends a brief chapter on education (and how it can and cannot help solve this income inequality) and ends with a chapter on real solutions (ones he thinks will work at least). For example, instead of our trade partners buying government debt/bonds, they need to buy American products in order to support our economy.
I can’t go into large detail into all the main conclusions/points of this book, but the one he hit home, mainly due to his repetitiveness, is the fact that our economy is sort of stagnating (thus causing wages to not go up and inequality to grow) due to the “economy’s capacity and willingness to take risk”. Everyone is too scared of another financial crises (like what happened in 2008) and so no one wants to take a big leap of faith into a new innovative business. This causes a lot of the issues we have today and in order to get out of this, we need to take more risk and bear more equity (which we can better obtain from our trade partners).
The book deserves a solid 3.5 out of 5 stars. To be upfront, the reason it lost 1.5 stars is due to it being super technical with both its terminology, but also the way the book introduces topics. I would be absolutely shocked if a layperson could read this book once through and fully understand everything. Maybe this is me expecting an author to “spoon-feed” me my knowledge, but to be honest, I don’t think that is unrealistic. The author wants me to read a book and enjoy it, then they need to better explain topics. Finally, the author was so repetitive with certain phrasing, especially “the economy’s capacity and willingness to take risk” that I wanted to throw this book at a wall sometimes. Like “I GET IT. STOP SAYING IT”. You can hammer information through to someone without constantly repeating the fact/opinion.
Hopefully I can break this book down into something more manageable to understand. The author wants people to understand why the USA economy is what is is today (how we got here), especially in terms of wealth/income inequality. In today’s political climate, inequality is a hot topic, hence why I wanted to read this book to begin with. The book does a fairly good job of explaining that it isn’t the top 1% or even the top 0.1% whose income is growing faster than everyone else’s, but rather the top 0.01%. So, an extremely small number of individuals incomes are growing at a faster rate than the rest of the populations (between 1947 and 2013). This bit of information really helped put things into perspective for me as we constantly hear the “top 5%” or “top 1%” being thrown out into the political conversation. As a side note, I would like to mention that the author includes a very extensive references section when he states his facts so the reader can go and look them up on his/her own if they want to.
Once we understood about the income inequality, the author tries to explain how the current politicians would like to solve this (e.g., redistribution, higher taxes). The author really tries to explain all the “myths” about income inequality and the solutions to it proposed by certain individuals. For example, the author mentions why wage growths are so slow (mainly due to the fact we have more jobs opening up, so wages remain low; it is hard to increase the number of jobs as well as the wages of workers). There are a few chapters dedicated to these exact myths (e.g., investment opportunities are in short supply). A lot of detail is put into these, but in my opinion, unless you are well versed in national economics, you will likely have to read these chapters over a few times to fully understand the information.The author then spends a brief chapter on education (and how it can and cannot help solve this income inequality) and ends with a chapter on real solutions (ones he thinks will work at least). For example, instead of our trade partners buying government debt/bonds, they need to buy American products in order to support our economy.
I can’t go into large detail into all the main conclusions/points of this book, but the one he hit home, mainly due to his repetitiveness, is the fact that our economy is sort of stagnating (thus causing wages to not go up and inequality to grow) due to the “economy’s capacity and willingness to take risk”. Everyone is too scared of another financial crises (like what happened in 2008) and so no one wants to take a big leap of faith into a new innovative business. This causes a lot of the issues we have today and in order to get out of this, we need to take more risk and bear more equity (which we can better obtain from our trade partners).
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 11, 2020
First off, I am a published, conservative economist. I only mention this because I am not a reader angry about the subject material. However, I am disappointed in the economic falsehoods in this text.
Page 1: Claims "large trade surpluses...indirectly necessitated large increases in U.S. borrowing and lending"
Page 2: "I cautioned that holding the banks responsible for bank runs, instead of just loan losses, at a time when they were already reluctant to lend, would slow growth. I recommended strengthening government guarantees of banks and the Fed's ability to function as the lender of last resort but charging banks and borrowers for these guarantees. The Obama administration did the opposite."
Yikes. This author is clearly not an economist. First, trade surpluses and deficits are not harmful whatsoever to economic growth, stability, and they are not the reason for lending. China has massive trade surpluses with the US, yet the US has a vastly higher per capita income. The author fails to acknowledge the Chinese have trillions of dollars of debt too, very comparable to the US's in terms of debt to GDP. Page 2 is a terrifying jumble of nonsense. The author claims that banks need to be insured by the government for their misjudgments, yet he has a chapter called "The Myth That Incentives Don't Matter." Additionally, the Obama Administration did bail out the banks and the fed was the lender of last resort (last resort being questionable). This is an interesting topic for a book, but unfortunately the author does not understand simple economics.
Page 1: Claims "large trade surpluses...indirectly necessitated large increases in U.S. borrowing and lending"
Page 2: "I cautioned that holding the banks responsible for bank runs, instead of just loan losses, at a time when they were already reluctant to lend, would slow growth. I recommended strengthening government guarantees of banks and the Fed's ability to function as the lender of last resort but charging banks and borrowers for these guarantees. The Obama administration did the opposite."
Yikes. This author is clearly not an economist. First, trade surpluses and deficits are not harmful whatsoever to economic growth, stability, and they are not the reason for lending. China has massive trade surpluses with the US, yet the US has a vastly higher per capita income. The author fails to acknowledge the Chinese have trillions of dollars of debt too, very comparable to the US's in terms of debt to GDP. Page 2 is a terrifying jumble of nonsense. The author claims that banks need to be insured by the government for their misjudgments, yet he has a chapter called "The Myth That Incentives Don't Matter." Additionally, the Obama Administration did bail out the banks and the fed was the lender of last resort (last resort being questionable). This is an interesting topic for a book, but unfortunately the author does not understand simple economics.
March 28, 2022
Pretty hard to read, very good points. you could call it pessimistic or realistic, he proposes some hard medicine to swallow, but hard to disagree with his points. Since we'll always have the poor, inequality is really a measure of growth, growth helps everyone. this is not a repeat of "a rising tide helps all boats", it is more the producers produce more benefit for others than the millions or billions they get, i.e. the iPhone benefited society 20x or 1,000x more than it benefited Steve Jobs etc, so stop trying to redistribute from them, the poor would do better if the producers were unleashed. and growth helped all. We already have a highly regressive tax. maybe tax consumption rather than income. trouble for education, and really trying to find ROI and programs that work. Worth the read! Not politically correct but not political, avoids bias and looking for real statistical proof of programs that benefit all. argues there are too many existing examples of unintended, but harmful consequences.
June 23, 2017
Conrad takes the economic view that redistribution of wealth will halt the risk taking behavior of entrepreneurs and businesses, which leads to wealth. It will therefore cause more inequality of wealth. He doesn’t discuss social nets but he does suggest most of our government run programs are antiquated and inefficient. Many have been proven to be non-effective. He has very well thought out and researched solutions for economic growth in the United States. We won’t grow our wealth by taking from some and giving to others. He eviscerates Piketty’s latest book Capital in the 21st Century, which was in my queue to read. Conrad realizes economists look at the same data and walk away with different conclusions on how best to move our country forward. Regardless, it is worth having a civil, respectful conversation about it.
July 6, 2018
I found Conard frequently challenging many of my basic assumptions. I have what I already believe about inequality (it's a top 3 problem in America, we should all be thinking of what to do about it). But Conard has a way of undercutting what I thought I believed, based on his reading of the research (reading of research that I have yet to do.) So while I disagree with the policy implications of what he describes, I appreciate that this book presents an intellectual whetstone. If I think inequality is bad and deserves policy solutions, I had better come up with ways to refute what he argues.
My further review on my website: http://www.bankers-anonymous.com/book...
My further review on my website: http://www.bankers-anonymous.com/book...
September 21, 2019
This was a deep and cogent ride as well as read. The swamp and the shallow silly keep dusting off the same old cliches and easy answers but this author is both brave and relentless in walking us as readers through the thick and thin or argument and enlightenment. One of my best times spent reading each page and pages over sometimes 2 or 3 times just to make sure it fits the facts under good light and careful questions. The best heavy read and when or if taken seriously is a policy and practice game changer.
January 14, 2020
Edward appeared to write from a very conservative perspective. It was very obvious that he favored Republican policies when it comes to corporate tax reduction and government spending reduction. Yet, this book did have some very obvious and practical points to stimulate and to boost the U.S. economy. I believe the book could have been better if it was more condensed and balanced with opposing view points. It is an interesting read, and it is some slither of truth to the title and ultimate drive of this tome.
Dr. James Arthur Williams
Dr. James Arthur Williams
January 10, 2018
Too hard to read for the average person.
Why do the C level executives of “Undercover Boss” give to those they interact with? It is because they recognize that they don’t pay these people enough when compared to what they make.
Arguing that it is actually good for the person whose annual salary is less than the CEOs daily pay is good for that lowly paid employee is obscene.
Why do the C level executives of “Undercover Boss” give to those they interact with? It is because they recognize that they don’t pay these people enough when compared to what they make.
Arguing that it is actually good for the person whose annual salary is less than the CEOs daily pay is good for that lowly paid employee is obscene.
February 20, 2020
Conard makes some cogent arguments. Then he restates them, using the exact same wording, over and over and over and... I was intrigued at first but couldn't finish because it felt like I was being beat to death with a blunt object.
March 3, 2020
Kind of lengthy but the point comes across clearly and the action steps at the end are clear too. Hard to know if it is right because the solutions take 20 years to manifest but at least the author points to data to support him.
October 7, 2018
Conard has few good ideas which get lost in a maze of shaky assumptions, rhetoric, and outright contradictions.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews