Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem

by Jay W. Richards

Christianity generally sees capitalism as either bad because it causes much of the world's suffering, or good because God wants you to prosper and be rich. But there is a large, growing audience of evangelical and mainline Christians who are deeply uneasy about how to follow Jesus's mandate to care for the poor and the environment while living with the excesses of capitalism. Now, a noted Christian scholar argues that there is a middle view that reveals Christianity cannot only accommodate capitalism, but Christian theology can help explain why capitalism works. By highlighting the most common myths committed by Christians when thinking about economics, such as 'capitalism is based on greed and over consumption' or 'if someone becomes rich that automatically means someone else will become poor,' Money, Guilt, and God equips readers to take practical steps in their own lives to conduct business, worship God, and serve others without falling into the 'prosperity gospel' trap.

Genres: Economics, Politics, Business, Nonfiction, Christian, Christianity, Religion

272 pages, Hardcover

First published May 9, 2009

About the author

Jay W. Richards has served in leadership positions at the Discovery Institute and the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty, and is currently a Visiting Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

He has written many academic articles, books, and popular essays on a wide variety of subjects, from culture, economics, and public policy, to natural science, technology, and the environment. His previous books include The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery, with Guillermo Gonzalez (Washington DC: Regnery Publishers, 2004); The Untamed God: A Philosophical Exploration of Divine Perfection, Immutability and Simplicity (InterVarsity Press, 2003); Are We Spiritual Machines?: Ray Kurzweil vs. the Critics of Strong Artificial Intelligence, as editor and contributor (Discovery Institute Press, May 2002); and Unapologetic Apologetics: Meeting the Challenges of Theological Studies, as editor and multiple contributor, with William Dembski (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, February 2001).

Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem (HarperOne, May 2009), seeks to explain the market economy to people who don’t like economics, and defend it against its religious critics.

Richards is also executive producer of several documentaries, including The Call of the Entrepreneur, The Birth of Freedom, and The Effective Stewardship Curriculum (Acton Media and Zondervan, 2009). He has been featured in several television-broadcast documentaries, including The Call of the Entrepreneur, The Case for a Creator, The Wonder of Soil, and The Privileged Planet, based on his book with astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez.

A self-described “shameless generalist,” he has academic specialties in philosophy, theology, and political science, including extensive research in formal logic.
He has a B.A. with majors in Political Science and Religion, an M.Div. (Master of Divinity) and a Th.M. (Master of Theology), with a thesis on social philosopher Michael Polanyi (from whom F.A. Hayek got his concept of “spontaneous order”). He also has a Ph.D. (with honors) in philosophy and theology from Princeton Theological Seminary. While at Princeton, he helped restart and edit the Princeton Theological Review, and led extracurricular apologetics seminars during his four years there.

His work has been covered (and sometimes harshly criticized) in The New York Times (front page news, science news, and editorial), The Washington Post (news and editorial), The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, Nature, Science, Astronomy, Sky and Telescope, The Scientist, Physics Today, California Wild (California Academy of Science), New Scientist, The Chronicle of Higher Education, American Enterprise, Congressional Quarterly Researcher, Human Events, American Spectator, First Things, Science & Spirit, Science & Theology News, Christianity Today, Crisis, National Catholic Register, World, Breakpoint, American Atheist, World Socialist of the International Committee of the Fourth International, and many other academic and popular outlets.

He has been interviewed for stories in print publications not just in the U.S., but also in Germany, Switzerland, France, New Zealand, Canada, Spain, and the UK.

Jay Richards has lectured at scores of academic conferences as diverse as the Evangelical Theological Society and the Western Economic Association, on scores of college and university campuses, at many public policy meetings, and on several occasions has lectured to members of the U.S. Congress and U.S. congressional staff.

Reviews

[W. Littlejohn · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is laced with ironies. And not good ones, either. (By the way, I will admit up front that I did not finish this book.  I made it to the halfway point, and then determined that to continue, with no promise that I would ever be offered a coherent argument, was merely an act of self-flagellation. If you think that the second half would disprove anything I say in here, do let me know).  The author repeatedly adopts the stance, so attractive to American audiences, as the champion of common-sense over against the obfuscations of intellectuals, who spin webs of fantasy and idealism out of touch with reality. But he does this while remaining consistently at the realm of abstraction, hypotheticals, and straw men, never deigning to come down to earth and engage economic realities. Sometimes this equals blatant falsehood, like where Richards asserts that “government spending as a portion of GNP has grown exponentially in recent decades.” The actual growth? 12% (from 18.4% to 20.6%) over fifty years, and actually a decline in the last twenty. (You can see all the details here)

On a larger scale, it means that Richards never actually touches down to earth and tells us what he is talking about. What is “capitalism”? Since he never tells us, he can simply duck and hide from opponents as needed--whenever their attacks hit home, he can conveniently claim that as "not-capitalism," and whenever there is something good that the modern world has given us, he can claim it for capitalism.  This is common enough in books of this genre, as is the tendency to camp out in abstractions and hypotheticals.  We find here almost no real grappling with modern economic realities, but rather platitudes about how an ideal free market functions in principle, and how wealth need not in principle be a zero-sum game.  

Throughout, though, he writes in homely and down-to-earth style, in order to strengthen the impression of common sense over against the distorting sophistications of the academics.  If he used such rhetoric as an aid to clear and cogent logic, it might work, but when it is used to mask the absence of logic, it just makes him look like a demagogue.  Here's a case in point: "The Ten Commandments--a sort of summary of all God's laws--take private property for granted.  For instance, the eighth commandment, the one against stealing, implies that we may have property.  Otherwise, there would be nothing to steal, and the commandment would make no more sense than an order not to fraternize with four-headed Jube Jube monsters.  (No, I don't know what they are, either.  I just know they don't exist.)"  As I've pointed out before, the eight commandment taken alone merely implies the existence of fixed property relations of some kind--it says nothing about what form those should take--capitalist, distributist, communitarian, or even socialist!  Perhaps Richards hopes that his readers will be so distracted by Jube Jube monsters that they won't notice the logical lacuna.  

The same complaint can be made against Richards's extensive use, early on, of a first-person narrative.  He was once an idealistic socialist, he confides in us, back when he was a teenager and it was cool to be radical.  He used to be convinced of all this rubbish, but then when he started looking at real facts, he learned better, and grew to embrace capitalism.  This, presumably, is to help his case, by conveying to the reader that this is not some ideologue, but someone who knows the other side inside and out, and has rejected it for sound intellectual reasons.  However, given that he never deigns to share any of these sound intellectual reasons with us, but resorts to straw men and logical loop-de-loops to make his case, this personal testimony just makes him look naive and impressionable.  

Despite the promises of the title and the back cover, Richards does not really attempt in this book to argue positively for capitalism, and certainly not to offer a theological argument for it (inasmuch as Scripture appears, it is generally only as something that Richards defends himself against). All he really attempts to do is to show that capitalism “is not the problem,” by means of refuting eight “myths” about why capitalism is bad. Rather than deal with Richards's responses to these as such, I wanted to respond by pointing out five fallacies that pervade his argument through the first few chapter.  The first three are primarily methodological, the latter two primarily substantial.  I will call them The Dystopia Fallacy, The Tweaking Fallacy, The Not-Necessarily Fallacy, The Coercion Fallacy, and The Theft Fallacy.

1) The Dystopia Fallacy
In this fallacy, Richards picks the worst possible example of an alternative to capitalism, and uses it as a bogeyman to scare people away from imagining that there could be alternatives.  The first chapter does this on a grand scale, and in the most fantastically cliched fashion: Look at the massive evils done by countries that were professedly Marxist!  Ergo, capitalism is better than all the alternatives.
For this argument to work, it would require at least these four assumptions:
1) Marxism is the only alternative to capitalism.
2) The countries in question practiced Marxism effectively.
3) The evils that these countries wrought were directly due to their Marxism.
4) Similar evils have not been wrought by countries trying to impose capitalism on unwilling populations.

In fact, I think, all four of these assumptions are invalid, though I will omit the reasons here to avoid exceeding my character limit (you can find them in the blog post version of this review).

This sort of fallacy continues throughout the book so far as I have read, using, for instance, examples of a really poorly-conceived and poorly-executed government policy to "prove" that government intervention in the "free market" is always bad; or quoting out-of-context and poorly-worded complaints against capitalism to prove that all forms of opposition to capitalism result from fuzzy thinking.  Meanwhile, he routinely chalks up all the marvels of modern life to free-market capitalism without any argument. This is nothing but post hoc, ergo propter hoc--we had capitalism, now we have the microwave; clearly the latter must come only from the former.  

He is correct, in short, to claim that modern capitalism need not be perfect, only that it needs to be better than any viable alternatives.  But to demonstrate that it, at its best, is better than one particular alternative at its worst, doesn't get him very far to proving it better than the alternatives.  To be fair, he either needs to compare really bad examples of anti-capitalism with really bad examples of capitalism, or really good examples of anti-capitalism with really good examples of capitalism.  Otherwise, it's nothing but propaganda.

2) The Tweaking Fallacy
This is a common approach among free-marketeers.  What they do is they set up some idealized scenario of a well-functioning market, and then hypothesize one particular change in policy that is intended to make things work better.  Unsurprisingly, the change upsets the system, and ends up doing more harm than good.  But most intelligent people agitating for change don't just want to make one little change in the system; they want to make a lot of changes, building on one another.  Or they want to change the assumptions inherent in the system.  
An example of Richards' use of this fallacy (again, quite cliched) is with respect to minimum wage.  If you raise the minimum wage in a well-functioning market, argues Richards, you will increase unemployment, and thus make things worse off on the whole.  Fair enough.  But any responsible initiative to raise the minimum wage would gauge the possible impact of a wage hike on employment (which, depending on the current wage level, might not actually be much at all), and would take steps to avert ill effects.  Or a distributist might propose ways to remodel the entire system so as to both raise wages and employment levels (as quite persuasively argued by John Medaille in Toward a Truly Free Market).

The tweaking fallacy can be conveniently combined with the dystopian fallacy, as Richards illustrates with the minimum wage issue.  He imagines a scenario in which the minimum wage was raised to $1,000 an hour and shows us how bad the effects would be.  Presumably, then, we are to assume that the effects of a smaller raise would be bad too, in the same way, only to a lesser extent.  But logic does not support such an assumption, and the "argument" thus serves only the purpose of alarmist rhetoric.

3) The Not-Necessarily Fallacy
In this, another favorite tactic of Richards's, the logic of the argument runs like this: Opponents of capitalism say that capitalism makes the rich richer at the poor's expense.  This complaint assumes a zero-sum game--that wealth is never created, only transferred.  But this is not always the case.  Let me show you some examples of how free exchange can make both parties wealthier.  
Ergo, capitalism is a zero-sum game, ergo, the rich do not get rich at the poor's expense.  The problem here of course is that almost no critic of capitalism is so daft as to complain that it is always a zero-sum game.  Everyone recognizes that of course it is quite possible for business to actually add net value to everyone concerned, and that this happens all the time, and is much of the reason for the prosperity of the world today.  But do all resources work that way?  Well, no.  Some resources, like land, are fixed and cannot be created.  Some markets--many financial markets, for instance--are essentially zero-sum markets.  

Now, if some significant parts of the system are zero-sum, then it is quite possible, indeed likely, that many people do get wealthy at the expense of others.  It is not always win-win.  And in general, those already most powerful will succeed in entrenching their position at the expense of those less powerful.  The only way Richards could refute the zero-sum complaint would be by demonstrating that all transactions in a capitalist system end up benefiting both parties, and that is manifestly false.  Instead, he confines himself to showing that it is not necessarily true that someone gets rich at another's expense, and therefore concludes that it is necessarily untrue, which is about as straightforward an inversion of logic as you can get. 

4) The Coercion Fallacy
I have written on this before at great length, so hopefully I can be brief.  Richards frequently makes his case by indulging in a sense of moral outrage at the coercion of government coercing people to do stuff, even for good ends, and of course he repeatedly defends the free market by insisting that it is, of course, free.  Whatever you don't like about it, at least it doesn't force people to do stuff, but lets everyone meet on an equal level, and exchange what they want less of for what they want more of.  Everything is completely voluntary.  

In a modern world that has exalted freedom as the highest virtue, this sort of argument is taken to settle the question--better for people to do bad things freely than good things under compulsion, seems to be the idea.  Of course, once closely examined, this popular moral presupposition breaks down, but we'll leave that issue aside.  The more immediate objection is of course that it is not really accurate to speak of all government policies as "coercion" unless one presumes radical individualism.  There is a such thing as corporate decision-making, the public will, and all that.  Or there used to be, at any rate; perhaps there isn't anymore in the United States.  A corporate decision is only coercive to the extent that the recalcitrant make it so.  But let's even leave that issue aside.  

The most immediate objection, one that is so obvious that only the most propagandist ideology can ignore it, is that it is absurd to talk about perfectly "free" contracts and agreements in a marketplace constrained by inequality and scarcity.  In a contract between an employer who lives in a mansion with security guards, and is making a 20% profit margin, and 1,000 job applicants who are facing starvation if they can't find some kind of employment, it would be absurd to speak of the two parties as being equally "free," or even to speak of the job applicants as free at all in any meaningful sense of the word.

Rather than face up to such real-world realities, Richards insists on making his argument in terms of idealized test scenarios and hypotheses--like the "trading game" that his sixth-grade teacher made his class play once upon a time, swapping toys until everyone ended up with something better than they started with.  "An exchange that is free on both sides, in which no one is forced or tricked into participating, is a win-win game.  It's a positive-sum game." But this hypothetical marketplace is one without exploitation (preying on someone's physical needs to get them to do something you want), manipulation (preying on someone's emotional needs to get them to do something you want), or deception (ensuring that the other party does not know the relevant facts of the transaction), all of which are institutionalized in many modern capitalist markets.  

In short, I continue to insist that if the defenders of capitalism are to rest the vast majority of their case for the goodness of the market and the wickedness of state intervention on the "freedom" in the former and the "coercion" in the latter, they must provide some meaningful definition of these terms that actually fits the real world. Otherwise, why should we listen to them?

5) The Theft Fallacy
Related to the "Coercion" fallacy is of course the "Theft" fallacy--the repeated rhetorical assertion that any redistribution or contro of private resources by the government is "confiscation" or "theft."  I'm sure you know the sort of thing I am talking about, but here's a sample quote: "Every government has to collect taxes to fund services beneficial to all--to maintain courts, protect citizens from domestic and foreign predators, enforce traffic law and contracts, and so forth.  We have a right to protect ourselves from aggressors, for instance, so we can delegate that right to government. We don't have the right to take the property of one person and give it to another.  Therefore, we can't rightfully delegate that function to the state.  Delegated theft is still theft."  

As I've argued before, this argument collapses on its own terms.  Almost any "legitimate" government function breaks down when pressed.  Some citizens have enough mobile capital that if an enemy should attack the US, they could easily pack up and move to London with few adverse consequences, so why is it worth their while to pay tax dollars to defend less affluent citizens.  Maybe they are staunchly pacifist or at least feel that America's enemies have been stirred up by acts of aggression that such citizens have bitterly opposed.  They didn't support the actions that created the enemies, so why should they have to pay for the cost of restraining those enemies.  Or what about those of us who live in inner cities and walk everywhere.  Why should we have to pay for the maintenance of the roads and traffic laws?  If societies cannot enact policies that benefit some people more directly than others, then they can't enact any policies.  Such a reductio ad absurdum suggests that there is a fundamental philosophical flaw in the assumptions behind this "theft" accusation.  

And sure enough, there is.  The assumption is that private property somehow exists in a vacuum--it is sacrosanct, unconditioned, absolute, timeless.  It pre-exists any society and therefore society has no claims on it.  This assumption turns out to be utterly incoherent once held up to the light of day (and Richards himself discards it in a later chapter when it suits his argument to articulate property differently).  On the contrary, property is, if not a product of society (which I would suggest it ultimately must be from an ethical standpoint), at the very least always conditioned by society.  To say that society has no claims on private property is about as coherent as saying that parents have no claims upon their children.  

Now one can argue that there are limits upon these claims--limits of justice and limits of prudence.  If there were no rules restraining society's claims on private property, private property would be meaningless.  But conversely, if there were no rules at all regarding society's claims on private property, then private property would be meaningless.  The relationship is a subtle and dynamic one, not one that is easily defined by throwing around terms like "theft" whenever it is rhetorically convenient.

And that last criticism could sum up my critique of the whole book.  Richards acts as if this is a debate between ignorant idealists and people who take economic realities seriously.  But in saying this, it feels like he is critiquing himself.  Economies are subtle and dynamic, and the real world that we operate in is quite different than the fantasy one that Richards has constructed for us with the aid of fuzzy logic and empty rhetoric.

[William · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is a book written to enable Christians to turn their back on the poor and sick without feeling any guilt. If I would list every instance in which the author gets something wrong, misrepresents a concept, or just plain out right misleads the reader, I would have to write a document that would be longer than the book itself.
There are a number of instances in which the author makes outrageous claims without any substantiation. For example on page 23, he refers to the communal living of the early church claiming that it was done because the Christians had probably come from long distances and it was necessary to provide for them. This is a ridiculous assertion that has no substantiation. He also claims that because Adam Smith believed in God that the invisible hand was actually the hand of God. Of course he provided nothing to support this.
He also tells us that if you read Adam Smith “incorrectly” that you will think that he says that capitalism is based on selfishness. He never really tells the reader what is the correct way to read Smith and why that is the correct way. He does tell the reader that when Smith Says “in spite of the selfishness of the butcher” Smith really means “if the butcher is selfish.” So, I guess the correct way to read Smith is to redefine the English language to fit your own personal view of the world.
He gets a number of things blatantly wrong. For example, he explains that markets are not a zero sum game. He then goes on to define a zero sum game. Using his description of a zero sum game, markets are most definitely one. Let’s say that you sell bread. There is only so much bread that can be sold in the world. Even if every person in the world spent every dollar they had on bread, the market is still finite. There are only so many people in the world with only so much money. Every loaf of bread that I sell is one less that my competitors can sell. The same is also true the other way around, if person A buys 100 loaves of bread in a day, when he buys those loaves from my competitors my market is now 100 loaves of bread smaller. How many loaves of bread I sell compared to my competitors is my market share. As my share goes up the share of others in the market goes down. My goal of course is to have as close to 100% as I can possibly get which is another way of saying that my goal is for all my competitors to have a 0% share.
Now of course the author will say that I am forgetting the concept of market growth. Let’s take that same bread market, let’s say that it grows by 10% every year. My goal as a good business man is not to have my business grow by a simple 10%, which is keeping pace with market growth, but to grow my business by more than 10% which of course means that I am taking away business from my competitors.
None of this is to say that business men who attempt to dominate a market are evil. What it does say is that the author of the book either doesn’t understand how markets truly work or he is intentionally misleading his reader. I will not judge the author since I don’t know him. I will, however, tell you not to listen to what this author has to say; it is incorrect in its presentation of how economies work as well as being theologically unsound.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best books I have read in some time. What a good business. A detailed review to follow.

[Jeff Irwin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book has remarkable insights into the nature of wealth creation. Each chapter debunks a myth associated with capitalism and shows why it really is the best system in a fallen world and should be better understood by Christians.

[Doug · Rating 1 out of 5]

Though many things this book says are true, if you step out of its well-worn grooves of debate and take a broader look, it stands out as very secular, even pagan, for a professedly Christian book. This is fairly common for political conservatism. Though Christian political conservatives trumpet a biblical antithesis in many other areas of life, when it comes to politics they just give up and bow to the Enlightenment way, especially the American way (I did the same thing for several decades).

Christian conservatives in church tend to talk large about grace, salvation by grace, and Christ as the only way of grace. No one, they would rightly say, can please God apart from Christ, the only way. Yet, when it comes to economics and creating wealth they talk like Pelagians. When it comes to discussing the best social order in books like Money, Greed, and God Christ is wholly unnecessary and superfluous. Christ is frosting. They even say that capitalism saves nations (to echo that revealing title from that other much-praised conservative book How Capitalism Saved America by DiLorenzo).

In Money, Greed, and God, Richards reveals his default secularism in such blatant claims as: “Wealth is created when our creative freedom is allowed to prosper in a free-market environment undergirded by the rule of law and suffused with a rich moral culture” (8), and “the only known way to create widespread wealth is through capitalism” (57). Notice, any country can do this, pagan or Christian or Muslim or secular. No antithesis. No need for Christ. No need for grace. No need for the Spirit. Just laws and codes and moralism create this wonderful “divine” blessing of wealth.

Richards’ tough, graceless economic Pelagianism comes out even more clearly in his concluding “Ten Tough Steps” that include more and more legal prescriptions: “maintain the rule of law,” focus government on law, “formal property system,” no “undue regulation,” “belief in the truth that the universe is purposeful,” “right cultural mores,” and “work hard” (209, 210). For him, God’s social blessing comes through law and work. Conservatives have never come to grips with Paul’s radical, new-world declaration that “if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.” (Gal. 3:21). Now, that’s a statement for social ethics.

If we step back even farther from Richards’ book, we find its basic assumption is that our chief social goal is to create wealth: “only the creation of wealth can alleviate poverty, and capitalism is the best engine for creating wealth” (58, note again, we’re spreading the capitalist “engine” not Christ). But is this really the chief social end for Christ’s kingdom? Where does Jesus talk like that? The prophets? The apostles? How come they missed such a huge part of Christian living? Instead, Richards lauds the entrepreneur for whom “money in hand is a means, not an end, even if one of the possible ends is more money. They risk actual wealth in the hope of multiplying it” (128). Multiplying money? More money as an end?

Jesus repeatedly described his kingdom in terms of the cross, taking up the cross daily, suffering, and self-denial. In fact, Jesus’ kingdom can be gloriously characterized as a kingdom of self-denial. So how is the pursuit of a nice middle class life and all its technological gadgets, the creation and multiplication of wealth, an obvious instance of the ethic of self-denial? I speak as the chief of sinners here, but can we at least not see the clash between the two social systems? If one were to ask someone to imagine a “kingdom of self-denial,” one simply wouldn’t think of the last four centuries of capitalism. Capitalism doesn’t have self-denial as its end, and yet Paul repeatedly tells us that the cross is the center of the Christian ethic, social and individual, all while warning “those who desire to be rich” (1 Tim. 6:9). “Desire.” These people need not be greedy; they just desire the comforts of wealth like most of us. Capitalism and the cross head in completely different directions. Now, as a longtime conservative, I know how to minimize and marginalize these sorts of claims; we’re experts at missing the weightier matters of the law. Also, since conservatives are actually deeply statist, their response to these sorts of objections is automatically to assume that I’m defending some form of state socialism. Nonsense. Think outside the Cold War. But a kingdom of self-denial does show up in the book of Acts: “nor was there anyone among them who lacked, for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them....and they distributed to each as anyone had need” (Acts 4:34,35). A kingdom of self-denial doesn’t try to explain away the apostle John’s exhortation as guilt-manipulation and ingratitude: “whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?” (1 John 3:17). It’s not complicated, it’s not the state, and it’s not capitalism.

This point about a social ethic of the cross also undoes Richards’ denial that capitalism is based on greed. He gives us the standard line that it need not be driven by selfishness but only nice and smiley self-interest. And, of course, self-interest is outward looking; we seek to care for our family outside of us. (Aside: Can’t a whole family be a selfish unit, too?) But for Jesus, self-interest isn’t good enough. It’s not self-denial. Jesus asks us to create a kingdom, a social order in which we give and serve and “hope for nothing in return” (Lk. 6:35; Richards minimizes this passage on 155). Jesus isn’t just talking about loans; He’s talking about a whole orientation toward life, an orientation alien to the engine of capitalism which lives off a self-interest that requires something in return. Isn’t Jesus crazy? He must be wrong. But it’s because of such “crazy” claims that the world finds the cross utter foolishness (1 Cor. 1:23). Embracing a dominant, cutting-edge, positive-thinking capitalism certainly won’t get charged with foolishness. Detractors may hate it, but they know it works for the few. It’s not folly, but the cross is folly. Richards gives this revealing dismissal: “Any system that requires everyone always to act selflessly is doomed to failure because it’s utopian” (122). Well, why not just say it: Christ is a fool.

In contrast to a utopia of self-denial, Richards urges us to that quirky Renaissance defeatism that we should give up on sanctification; in other words, vices magically lead to social virtues – the invisible hand of the market. I’m always surprised at how easily conservatives swallow this one (myself included). Adam Smith didn’t make this up. It was a strange little theory at the beginning of the Enlightenment, and somehow “the invisible hand” became gospel truth. Of course, it doesn’t appear in Scripture anywhere. God isn’t satisfied with letting sin reign. It’s a leftover of that magical impersonalism that runs the universe without Christ, but it makes us feel good, and it relieves us of the tremendous burden of delivering the poor: the invisible hand will get them their own stuff someday.

So many of Richards’ economic arguments fail because he’s clueless about the actual history of capitalism. Despite a vast and growing literature, the conservative-pollyanna case for “Western success” always conflates free markets and capitalism. Yes, the West got rich from capitalism but not from free markets. Free markets don’t make anyone rich, and they rarely if ever show up in the history of capitalism. To get really rich, Western rich, you need massive state intervention. Find one billionaire or millionaire who got rich via a free market, and history will show you state privileges, subsidies, transfers, special protections, and more. The rich know that free markets are for losers, the poor. No rich Western nation got that way without massive state manipulations and wealth transfers. Richards betrays his ignorance of this basic history when he points to Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and WalMart as free market successes. Puh-lease. If we’re honest with history, then we can see that capitalism is the history of state intervention on behalf of the rich, and that has indeed been extremely successful over the centuries. But it’s just a variation of socialism. When the Iron Curtain fell, one lame form of socialism died and one more effective form of socialism won. Let’s not be so painfully naïve as to call this a victory of free markets. That’s just old state propaganda for gullible conservatives.

[Shae · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good factual rebuttal to common objections to Capitalism from the "religious" Left.

[Ebookwormy1 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Money, Greed, and God is a solid economics text examining the capability of free enterprise to societal prosperity. However, it is the “…and God piece” delivered through examination of economic principles from a Christian perspective that distinguishes this text from other economics stalwarts, which Richards freely quotes and cites.

Before I get into a detailed review, I should note that I read the 2019 ten-year anniversary edition that contains updated material. Having read this version (and not the first), it appears that readers discovering this material will want to secure a copy of the updated 2019 version.

The book is organized around the examination of 8 Myths or criticisms of free enterprise. After presenting the argument and a response from the field of economics, Richards takes the extra step of crafting theological perspective by examining not only the Biblical text but also the history and practice of Christian faith. I appreciate that he interacts with the three main branches of the Christian church through history: Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant.

Permit me 6 highlights/ ideas that stood out to me as profound.

1) Richards assertion that economics is governed by natural laws just like physics is rationally stated. It provided a metaphysical/ spiritual perspective on economics that I previously considered the much more disembodied idea of “common sense.”

2) Richards applies Genesis 1:28 “Be fruitful and multiply” to the field of economics and wealth. Richards makes the ideas that multiplication of wealth for the Kingdom can be fruitful and spiritual fruitfulness can multiply wealth concrete. The foundation of his argument in natural laws as revealed in Genesis successfully confronts the health/ wealth/ charismatic heresy that often entangles such a discussion.

“How is wealth created? Paradoxically, the key source of material wealth in modern market economy is immaterial. It’s spiritual. When we can exercise our creative freedom, we can create new value, new wealth, for ourselves and others. This creative freedom should be no surprise to Christians. We believe that human beings are made in God’s image – the imago Dei. Our creative freedom reflects the divine image. This is one of the least appreciated truths of economics.” (Money, Greed and God, Richards, 2019).

3) I was delighted to see Richards cite The Black Book of Communism as a refutation of the Nirvana Myth (Chapter 1), which is the idea that there is a perfect economic system humanity should implement instead of free enterprise. Deeply moved by the suffering of the citizenry of the Communist world, I read The Black Book of Communism through tears. “The communists tried to draw heaven down to earth. They brought up hell instead.” (Money, Greed and God, Richards, 2019).

The Black Book of Communism, Courtois, Paczkowski et. al., 1999
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds,” said Alexander Solzhenitsyn, “and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.” (as quoted in Money, Greed and God, Richards, 2019).

4) Richards’ discussion of Ayn Rand in the context of The Greed Myth (believing the essence of free enterprise is greed, Chapter 5) covers not only her contribution to understanding free enterprise, but also how her atheism limited her insight into economic solutions.

Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand, 1957
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

5) Chapter 7 “Hasn’t Christianity Always Opposed Capitalism?” The historical overview of Jewish and Christian teaching on usury and how modern banking is similar/ different is both mentally stimulating and spiritually challenging.

6) Chapter 8 “Are We Going to Use Up All the Resources?” makes a strong case that the battle between liberalism and statism, while ultimately everlasting and spiritual, is being fought in the shrewd world of economics. Richards ties together environmentalism, education, and climate battles as arising from variance in economic principles.

However, I have some problems. I wish Richards had not titled his chapters by the myths he is seeking to debunk. This simply reinforces dead-end Marxian thinking instead of illuminating the path forward. In addition, the spiritual principles – the solid anchors for any foundation – are invisible to titling that is organized by contemporary errors. Richards states early that “I used to spend time trying to reclaim the word capitalism. Given its baggage and history, though, I now avoid it when I can. That’s why, in the following pages, I often refer to free enterprise, the market economy, the free market, or economic freedom, depending on context.” Yet he continues to use capitalism in his statement of the Chapter titles and many of the passages I highlighted. I would rather he lead the way in using “free enterprise” and ditch the capitalism after his initial discussion.

In the Conclusion, Richards provides a chart entitled “The Top Ten Ways to Alleviate Poverty; or, Creating Wealth in Ten Tough Steps.” He states, “Just in case you don’t have a photographic memory and are already forgetting the details, let’s boil them down to the top ten ingredients in any complete recipe for creating wealth and alleviating poverty. Then, for reference, you won’t have to read the whole book again. You can just flip straight to this page.” (Money, Greed and God, Richards, 2019). This is somewhat helpful. But the ten principles are not aligned directly to the myths, so you still have to freestyle your response to an interlocutor. Finally, there is neither summary of the Christian principles taught in the book nor attempt to systematize a Christian/ Biblical perspective on economic principles; I would have loved a list of 10 points. This was severely disappointing.

Nonetheless, I recommend Money, Greed and God to all Christians interested in economics. It is the best I’ve found at integrating faith and practice. Have any GoodReads bookworms found a similarly themed resource they prefer?

UPDATE Spring 2022:
After completing Money, Greed & God (10th Anniversary Edition, Richards, 2020, I read two books on entirely different fields of inquiry which brought this book integrating economics and faith to mind. The first was Fight Like Jesus, which is Jason Porterfield’s study of Jesus in Holy Week. The second was Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, which examines nutrition, health and the North American food industry. To see how Richards’ work influenced interaction with these titles, see my reviews via the links:

The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Fight Like Jesus, Jason Porterfield, 2022
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

---

This review by Tim Challies was helpful to me in determining to read this book. He lists the 8 myths Richards covers with their flaws, as well as offering some commentary on his reaction to the presentation as a whole.

Challies, Tim. "Money, Greed & God" Challies.com, August 29, 2009.
https://www.challies.com/book-reviews...

----

I appreciated this summary of the arguments and videos of Richards discussing the content from Justin Taylor at the Gospel Coalition. However, you will only get the Myths and economic principles, not summary of Christian perspectives.

Taylor, Justin. “Money, Greed and God: Why Capitalism is the Solution and Not the Problem” TheGospelCoaltion.com, May 13, 2009.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/bl...

Justin Taylor wrote….
“….And here is the table of contents, setting forth the case that Richards seek to make, disspelling a number of popular myths:
1. Can’t We Build a Just Society? Myth no. 1: The Nirvana Myth (contrasting capitalism with an unrealizable ideal rather than with its live alternatives)
2. What Would Jesus Do? Myth no. 2: The Piety Myth (focusing on our good intentions rather than the unintended consequences of our actions)
3. Doesn’t Capitalism Foster Unfair Competition? Myth no. 3: The Zero-sum Game Myth (believing that trade requires a winner and a loser)
4. If I Become Rich, Won’t Someone Else Become Poor? Myth no. 3: The Materialist Myth (believing that intellect cannot create new wealth)
5. Isn’t Capitalism Based on Greed? Myth no. 4: The Greed Myth (believing that the essence of capitalism is greed)
6. Hasn’t Christianity Always Opposed Capitalism? Myth no. 5: The Usury Myth (believing that charging interest on money is always exploitive)
7. Doesn’t Capitalism Always Lead to an Ugly Consumerist Culture? Myth no. 7: The Artsy Myth (confusing aesthetic judgments with economic arguments)
8. Are We Going to Use Up All the Resources? Myth no. 8: The Freeze Frame Myth (believing that things always stay the same—for example, assuming population trends will continue indefinitely or treating “rich” and “poor” as static categories)
9. Conclusion: Working All Things Together for Good
10. Appendix: Is the “Spontaneous Order” of the Market Evidence of a Universe without Purpose?

[Michael A. · Rating 1 out of 5]

I read a section and it was typical neoliberal/conservative garbage. You can pretty much guess the arguments he makes for each section if you've ever been into a political debate before.

[Alex McEwen · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was a weird read. It wasn’t quite an academic economic work or a theological treatise. Instead, it primarily presents a first person narrative in defense of ultra-libertarian freemarket ideology. From the outset, Richards asserts that he's advocating for the virtues of capitalism, but the version he advocates is so extreme that it bears little to no resemblance to anything we would recognize as capitalism today. Employing a classic equivocation fallacy, Richards introduces each chapter with a seemingly reasonable premise, and uses the reasonable premise to promote a dialectic of extreme laissez faire economic principles. While I generally find capitalism more compelling than communism or socialism, I would hesitate to associate my name with or endorse this book.

I found the argument to be reductionist at best and deliberately manipulative at worst. Right from the start, Richards’ argument hinges on the reductionist notion of a dichotomy between capitalism and communism. He portrays capitalists as down to earth, homey, Christian individuals, while painting communists as evil, intellectual atheists. However, these terms are difficult to essentialize, as they exist on a spectrum alongside numerous other economic theories. Richards fails to define either term, enabling him to defend a seemingly reasonable form of capitalism while contrasting it with the most extreme and vile form of communism.

The book follows a format where Richards presents nine general myths about economics and then proceeds to refute them. The first myth discussed is the Nirvana theory, which posits that communists advocate for an idealized version of communism rather than its actual implementation. Richards argues that modern capitalism must be compared to modern communism, supporting his argument with facts and figures depicting modern communism as murderous and atheistic. However, this oversimplification is problematic, as Richards ultimately ends up comparing an idealized version of capitalism to the worst manifestations of communism. Later in the book, Richards argues that it's unfair to label Ayn Rand a capitalist because she was an atheist and was born in Russia. Ultimately Richards goes on to argue that greed should not be associated with capitalism, because it’s part of the human condition, and would exist apart from capitalism. If this is the case, then why call communism murderous? Wouldn’t murder therefore exist apart from communism? The argument ends up coming off as incredibly disingenuous.

I don’t believe the work was written to convince noncapitalists of capitalism's virtues but rather to persuade moderate capitalists to adopt Richards’ peculiar form of extreme libertarianism. The subsequent eight chapters follow a similar pattern: Richards presents a reasonable claim, such as his claim that not every capitalist is inherently greedy or corrupt, but then he follows it with absurd assertions, like celebrating income disparity as part of God's divine plan and justifying usury as a necessary part of a free market.

While the book does present compelling arguments for the fundamental tenets of capitalism, Richards’ false dichotomy leads him to conclude that if these tenets hold true, radical libertarianism must also be valid. While I agree that not every capitalist is inherently greedy, I take issue with turning a blind eye to usury to defend any economic system. Similarly, while I acknowledge that capitalism can be beneficial when properly regulated, I strongly disagree with celebrating extreme income inequality and ignoring the associated greed and corruption.

For a more robust defense of capitalism, I recommend reading Bastiat’s “The Law” or Kuyper’s “Economics.” Capitalism can indeed be beneficial when governed by boundaries and safeguards to ensure its safety and efficiency. However, advocating for laissez faire capitalism, as Richards does, risks leading it down the path of sin, much like any other economic system left unchecked.

[Jason Isaacs · Rating 4 out of 5]

In “Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism is the solution and not the problem” Jay Richards details and refutes eight common myths about capitalism. Richards is responding to the mounting arguments that the values of Christianity and capitalism are incongruous: a person cannot be a Christian and accept an economic system based on a profit incentive. He rebuts these claims through a combination of philosophic inquiry and personal experience.

Richards tackles some of the most common issues involved in many discussions about capitalism, including: comparing the results of capitalism to an unrealized utopia; the unintended consequences of good intentions; believing that trade is a zero sum game rather than win-win; and, whether or not greed is the primary motivator of capitalism. Richards recounts how his attitude and beliefs about free markets have changed since he was younger. He works through the arguments with a willingness to say how his thinking has developed. As a result, he can sympathize with those who believe that other economic systems resonate with an underlying moral sentiment; he challenges his readers to apply critical thinking to this sentiment and consider where the arguments lead.

Readers will enjoy how Richards presents his arguments. Each chapter is a conversation about the major arguments, rather than a dissertation of all germane and tangential issues. His writing style is very conversational; rather than defaulting to an academic and abstracted voice, he engages his readers and works through each of these arguments in an accessible way. Critics will sharpen their proverbial pencils on how much time he spent on one topic at the expense of another, and ask why he was not more specific about other points. Remember that Richards is providing a summary retort to the common myths and helping his readers think through the foundational arguments.

There is a surprise “extra” in the appendix section, which was my favorite part to read. Richards compares Adam Smith’s concept of the “invisible hand” with F.A. Hayek’s theory of Spontaneous Order. In “The Wealth of Nations,” Smith demonstrates that markets function in a certain order; this observation leads him to describe an “invisible hand” that directs the workings of the market in certain ways. Later, F.A. Hayek countered his claim by saying that markets are manifested through a spontaneous ordering; in other words, order is created out of chaos. Richards teases out the tension of these ideas and presents both of them in a “side by side” way which allows readers to understand how these ideas overlap and how they differ.

I will conclude with a note on the title: I think a more accurate subtitle for the book is “Why Christians can support free market capitalism.” The main thrust of Richard’s argument demonstrates how Christians can be consistent in their faith and support free markets. Following the teachings of the Bible does not preclude a person from supporting capitalism; he maintains that support for capitalism is needed in order for economic growth in the United States and around the world.

[Simon · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a great book! Everyone should read this, because it is a sensible, careful, thoughtful, Christian account of what capitalism is, and what is possible with it. It answers the common objections with clarity, and makes a great case for free-market capitalism, as well as showing that it is consistent with Christianity and the proceeding worldview. In fact, it shows how capitalism just fits with a faith in Christ.

[Mike Kolsky · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Christian defense of capitalism.

I enjoy a lot of the philosophy of Ayn Rand, but could never wrap my head around her insistence that selfishness and greed are virtues. They are not. Richards is very clear: selfishness and greed are NOT virtues, but capitalism is the only economic philosphy that succeeds and treats people justly in spite of greed. The only way a greedy businessman can succeed is to provide quality products at decent prices that customers choose.

[Brad Belschner · Rating 1 out of 5]

I skim-read this, and didn't find anything beyond the same old capitalist responses that I'm used to.
I considered reading it more thoroughly for the purpose of writing a critical review, but then Bradford Littlejohn did it before me (see here).

[Sarah Myers · Rating 1 out of 5]

W. Bradford Littlejohn's review:

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...


'Nuff said.

[Randall Hartman · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author’s foray into economic systems was a youth-ministry and college-fueled embrace of communism, or at least socialism. However, as he explored more deeply he realized that many of the objections by Christians to capitalism were because critics “confuse a caricature of capitalism with the real thing...too many Christian leaders feel free to ignore the basic facts of economics.”

He lays out three steps necessary to get a right understanding of economics generally and capitalism, communism, socialism, or any other system specifically:
1. We have to think...to clear out the fuzz and fog in our thinking.
2. Separate good questions from common economic mistakes - he identifies 8 myths that explain almost every mistake Christians make in economics
3. Think about capitalism as Christians - how the tenets of capitalism do or don’t align with Christian ethics and worldview

The author posits that there is no contradiction between capitalism and Christian ethics. “Wealth is created when our creative freedom is allowed to prosper in a free-market environment undergirded by the rule of law and suffused with a rich moral culture.” This recognizes, respects, and honors the image of God in all people. “When we have all the facts before us, then, we discover that...a good Christian can be, indeed should be, a good capitalist.” This is the thesis he sets out to support in the book, and which I believe he does convincingly if we examine the evidence in an open-minded fashion (increasingly rare in 2020).

[Carina Shephard · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read for school. Written in a very conversational tone but has a lot of good points. Would recommend.

[Gene · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good book, and perhaps much needed, but for some reason not all that I had hoped it would be. The book begins well and even reminds me a lot of one of my favorite books of all time: Free to Choose by Milt and Rose Friedman. But somewhere it falls far short of that and in a way that I just can't quite put my finger on. Perhaps I expected the book to be the kind of thing I could loan to a Christian friend of different political perspective and hope that it could change his mind. When I finished the book, as much as it reinforced my belief in the morality of free exchange, I don't think it would make believers out of skeptics.

Perhaps there are just too many holes in his analogies. For instance, the classroom experiment in which students each receive a toy and are free to exchange them with anyone and everyone's satisfaction increases because the perceived value of the possessions of those doing the trading increases. Well, that works with toys. But what if each classmate not only wants things, what if he needs things to survive? And what if the initial distribution of toys leaves some students only with things they and everybody in the class would not want to have? The real-life scenario is more like what I've just described than it is like a classroom of 6 billion students freely exchanging toys.

The book was not well edited. I was surprised to be told on p.98 that the word "capitalism" comes from the Latin "caput" which means "head" and told the same thing again in a different way on p.100. That and a handful of either grammar errors or typos made me think less of the process that put the book together.

The summary at the end of the book that deals with God's providence and the market system seemed irrelevant and the appendix dealing with Hayek's theory regarding order not necessarily coming from design seemed similarly off-target.

The good and convincing thing in the book is that Richards was himself a leftist who bought into the typical criticisms of a free-market economy, so he knows what beliefs he needs to confront. Also, he readily admits that there is much more to life and to human happiness than prosperity and economics. And maybe I'm old enough to see that, too, so that even Milt and Rose couldn't get me as excited about capitalism now as they did when I was in middle school watching their video series on PBS and reading their book.

[Brian]

For most of this book I was open-minded and willing to suspend my judgment and I have not got the economic information or smarts to tell whether he is right or wrong, but he referred one too many times to his own personal experience as a former utopian. I sympathize. I have been through that and probably still am in some unsavory respects, but it shows he's not an expert speaking from oodles of knowledge and research, but from his own layman view of the basic arguments. That's already problematic, but then on top of that the tone he adopts throughout the rest of the book is one of a person drawing from his own former-crusader college experience. He just doesn't strike me as a Johnson or a Lewis or any other author who's reason, insight, or tastes make him particularly good to be leading this cause.

To be fair, he is attacking something that's really out there, and certainly the state cannot manage an economy in the way he paints it, a free-market does not MAKE consumer culture (even if it creates a strong temptation), eating organic is a luxury (if not a health-myth), and his discussion of some sophomoric Biblical exegesis may benefit some. The thing I do not believe is that Richards has considered the arguments from the more subtle critics of capitalism and corporations, and if so, he's handed the uniformed something to be morally indignant about without warrant.

I repeat: I don't know whether it's true or not, but he leaves too many prisoners to fortune, even if he's right. I withhold stars though, because I don't know whether he's on the side of the angels.

[Alan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This has been one of the most enlightening economics books that I've ever read. Particularly since it was written with the Christian perspective in mind, I found this economic apologetic in defense of capitalism to be tremendously refreshing. In my experience, most people are completely illiterate as far as economics is concerned. Many people prefer the 'sound bytes' that they hear on the media, from Marxist professors, or from the most popular celebrity without caring to challenge their Leftist approach.

This is certainly a thoughtful response to the anti-capitalist status quo. Easily read and understood so that anyone could pick up the book at a popular level and understand it without difficulty. Economics is a fascinating topic, particularly now given the economic state of affairs that the US is currently in. I'd highly recommend reading this book, despite whatever presuppositions that you may have.

[Michael Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

Our current culture "believes" that Capitalism is bad. This belief is propagated by leftist professors and politicians looking to "do good" for others. The problem is that Capitalistic societies have done so much for the societies that actually practice it. The complaints seem to be coming from people who don't like capitalism but don't have a good alternative. In other words, I've never met a socialist or leftist who advocates for same, they only say how bad capitalism is. Only children make arguments like that.

That being said, you should always read both sides of an argument. But think about this, if someone says that capitalism is bad, ask them what the alternative is. Even though right now in the U.S., socialism seems to be the belief du jour, the problems that everyone seems to espouse are caused by government intervention, not an open market.

But read this book. It is very well thought out and it is written by a former 'true believer' in socialism.

[Josiah DeGraaf · Rating 3 out of 5]

On the one hand, this book does a good job in defending capitalism and the free market with regards to the responsibilities of the government, and Richards raises a lot of good points. I appreciated a lot of his thoughts in many of the different myths that he debunked. However, like other economic thinkers, Richards also falls into the trap of valuing economic efficiency above all else in the private/individual realm as well. I agree that when we give to charity, we want to avoid hurting people with our giving. But we can't use that as an excuse not to give either. And we can't use the lack of efficiency in giving as an excuse not to give either. Capitalism is the solution to how a government should run things. But that doesn't mean it's the solution to how Christians ought to act in their private lives. Economic efficiency is good. But it's not the highest value.

Rating: 3-3.5 Stars (Good).

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was preaching to the choir but I would suggest it is one of the better treatise on the topic of Christianity and economic policy. I think many would see capitalism as a "frenemy" when it comes to a Christian worldview. Richards does a wonderful job seating the blame for the failed economic systems where it belongs; in the attempted manipulation and intervention by government. Richards doesn't advocate full fledged Libertarianism, but recognizes the dangers of a few "experts" making financial decisions that affect the populous.

Christians shouldn't be ashamed of capitalism. The truth is we haven't really ever seen capitalism allowed to work. It is constantly manipulated to suit one agenda over another. The Christian shouldn't divinize capitalism either. Even a perfect capitalist society won't lead to utopia. We have to have eyes for the world to come and work to make this world as just and fair as possible. Capitalism is just a tool in the tool box.

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a must read for everyone, a very concise guide to thinking correctly about capitalism, money, greed and how all of this works for the believer. The analogies he uses are top notch. The explanations he gives for economic principles are simple and understandable unlike some of the more scholarly approaches to economics. Though he sites many different schools of thought.

He commits to the idea that Christians can enjoy the fruits of capitalism without feeling guilty. He believes that its harmful to everyone to desire the government dole because capitalism provides the best paradigm for everyone to increase their standard of living even the poor.
This may have been my favorite non fiction book of the year, in todays age you can hardly hurt yourself by understanding more about economics and how it impacts you and the world around you.

[Melissa Henderson · Rating 5 out of 5]

I highly recommend this book, as it dissolves the mainstream media's invented conflict between capitalist and Catholic values. This book takes all the things I believe to be true about being a good Christian and patriot (YES they go together!!!) and puts it together so beautifully... in such a way to promote a meaningful, thoughtful defense to free market capitalism and the limited role of government.

[Wade Stotts · Rating 5 out of 5]

Does a great job refuting common economic myths that typically disguise themselves as simple Christian piety, while also giving a positive Christian case for the morality of capitalism.

No matter your thoughts on capitalism, this book is worth a read.

Also contains a helpful critique of Ayn Rand's defense of selfishness.

If you have ever found yourself both enamored of and repulsed by the works of Ayn Rand, check this book out.

[Angela · Rating 4 out of 5]

felt like I got a good crash course in economics and made me think twice about a lot of things that I believe and why I believe them . . .

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just what you want it to be: the basics done right. Easily readable, clear, and wise.

Also read Summer 2010.

[Rita · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very much enjoyed this. One of the shortest, easily read books on economics ever, I would guess.

[Dayo Adewoye · Rating 5 out of 5]

A clear and powerful defence of the free market from a Christian perspective.

[Amy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really well written, highly recommended. Can't wait to Skype the author this afternoon!