What do you think?
Rate this book
No One Makes You Shop at Wal-Mart: The Surprising Deceptions of Individual Choice
We live in a culture of choice. But, in an age of corporate dominance, our freedom to choose has taken on new meaning. Upset with your local big box store? Object to unfair hiring practices at your neighbourhood fast food restaurant? Want to protest the opening of that new multinational coffeeshop? Vote with your feet!
What if it's not that simple?
In No One Makes You Shop at Wal-Mart , Tom Slee unpacks the implications of our fervent belief in the power of choice. Pointing out that individual choice has become the lynchpin of a neoconservative corporate ideology he calls MarketThink, he urges us to re-examine our assumptions . Slee makes use of game theory to argue that individual choice is not inherently bad. Nor is it the societal fix-all that our corporations and governments claim it is. A spirited treatise, this book will make you think about choice in a whole new way.
What if it's not that simple?
In No One Makes You Shop at Wal-Mart , Tom Slee unpacks the implications of our fervent belief in the power of choice. Pointing out that individual choice has become the lynchpin of a neoconservative corporate ideology he calls MarketThink, he urges us to re-examine our assumptions . Slee makes use of game theory to argue that individual choice is not inherently bad. Nor is it the societal fix-all that our corporations and governments claim it is. A spirited treatise, this book will make you think about choice in a whole new way.
256 pages, Paperback
First published July 30, 2006
5 people are currently reading
365 people want to read
About the author
Tom Slee
9 books26 followersTom Slee writes about technology, politics, and economics and in the last two years has become a leading critic of the sharing economy. He has a PhD in theoretical chemistry, a long career in the software industry, and his book No One Makes You Shop at Wal-Mart is a game-theoretical investigation of individual choice that has been used in university economics, philosophy and sociology courses. He lives in Waterloo, Canada.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
February 26, 2019
A critique of market logic & the valorisation of individual choice as a means of guaranteeing optimal outcomes, using game theory as well as real-world examples. Has a (soft) left perspective but meant for a popular audience. A decent summary of arguments against rational choice theory, though nothing super new if you already agree with the core premise.
May 27, 2011
When I first picked up this book, I expected it to be something of a companion-book to The Wal-Mart Effect (my review here). Imagine my surprise, then, to find that it was nothing of the sort. Instead, No One Makes You Shop at Wal-Mart is a discussion of game theory and economics. It challenges the common assumption of "MarketThink" (the author's term), which posits that if everyone is making free choices in a free-exchange market, then everyone individually and society collectively will have the best possible outcome. Slee argues that this is not necessarily true -- that people may be making the best, rational choices and still wind up with a bad outcome.
Through progressively more complex examples, Slee shows how this can be so. The simplest and most well-known example is the Prisoner's Dilemma, in which we have the paradoxical result that even when both players of the game make the best, most rational decision, they are left collectively and individually worse off than they might have been. This is because the "equilibrium point" of the game is not necessarily the best outcome. The free-loader problem works similarly -- if I drop my coffee cup in the park on my way to work, I'm happier (no need to carry that pesky coffee cup, and the park is still mostly clean), but if everyone followed this rationale, we'd all be less happy (the park is trashed!).
Slee shows that sometimes the need to fit in with a group is such that everyone might choose an option they dislike. (Everyone might personally prefer Adidas to Nikes, but if our peer group is wearing Nikes, that's what we'll pick.) He also shows that success might have little to do with quality and more to do with chance. (If you want to go to a packed, hopping nightclub, you'll go to one that's already packed and hopping, even if the relatively empty club down the street has obectively better food, drinks, and service.) Finally, he notes that exploitation can happen even in a free market, if you have players with unequal power. (It could technically be said that selling a kidney for immigration papers is a free exchange, but it's also exploitative.)
All told, No One Makes You Shop at Wal-Mart discusses one of my more favorite topics: the areas in which traditional economics fall short. It does it well, with good examples and interesting conclusions. But if you're looking for a book about Wal-Mart, you're going to be disappointed.
Through progressively more complex examples, Slee shows how this can be so. The simplest and most well-known example is the Prisoner's Dilemma, in which we have the paradoxical result that even when both players of the game make the best, most rational decision, they are left collectively and individually worse off than they might have been. This is because the "equilibrium point" of the game is not necessarily the best outcome. The free-loader problem works similarly -- if I drop my coffee cup in the park on my way to work, I'm happier (no need to carry that pesky coffee cup, and the park is still mostly clean), but if everyone followed this rationale, we'd all be less happy (the park is trashed!).
Slee shows that sometimes the need to fit in with a group is such that everyone might choose an option they dislike. (Everyone might personally prefer Adidas to Nikes, but if our peer group is wearing Nikes, that's what we'll pick.) He also shows that success might have little to do with quality and more to do with chance. (If you want to go to a packed, hopping nightclub, you'll go to one that's already packed and hopping, even if the relatively empty club down the street has obectively better food, drinks, and service.) Finally, he notes that exploitation can happen even in a free market, if you have players with unequal power. (It could technically be said that selling a kidney for immigration papers is a free exchange, but it's also exploitative.)
All told, No One Makes You Shop at Wal-Mart discusses one of my more favorite topics: the areas in which traditional economics fall short. It does it well, with good examples and interesting conclusions. But if you're looking for a book about Wal-Mart, you're going to be disappointed.
April 19, 2012
When it comes to popular economics books, some people will find themselves interested primarily in works about the failures of the market (and/or the virtues of the public sector), and some are more oriented towards books on the shortcomings of the government (and/or the superiority of the private sector). This crude liberal/conservative conceptual divide probably captures a majority of readers of non-technical, non-academic books out there; and while like most dichotomies it's maybe a little regrettable, in that the world is too complex for solid red team/blue team splits on a big complicated issue like markets vs. government, it's harder than it should be to find a work intended for a popular audience that doesn't seem like it's shilling for a Team in one way or the other.
Slee's No One Makes You Shop at Wal-Mart isn't one of those books. It could be accused of being in the anti-market camp, due to widespread use of the term "MarketThink" for a hyper-libertarian viewpoint he dislikes, but I don't see it that way. MarketThink, in his telling, is the conviction that markets, as collections of nominally competitive corporations, constitute the best organizing principle for the overwhelming majority of social goals and activities. While Slee uses the term slightly perjoratively, he doesn't exaggerate or caricature its proponents; in fact he is scrupulous about presenting its commonly-used prescriptions of deregulation, privatization, and commercialization in order to ask and answer the many facets of a deceptively simple question - why, if few people seem to like or actually prefer Wal-Mart to other stores, do Wal-Marts keep moving and displacing those stores, and then getting business from the very people who claimed they disliked them?
Game theory, along with some social psychology, features very heavily as an explanation for this seeming inconsistency, with practical illustrations of many concepts like prisoner's dilemmas with multiple equilibria, arms races, asymmetric information, collective action, externalities, free riders, network effects, increasing returns, monopoly power, transaction costs, and the relevance of search, experience, and credence goods. Above all are the distinctions between actual preferences (such as not to have a Wal-Mart at all) and choices (once a Wal-Mart is built, you may as well shop there), and between mere money (which might be maximized by shopping at a Wal-Mart) and actual utility (a far subtler concept, which might not). Scholars whose work features prominently in somewhat abbreviated form are George Akerlof, Richard Dawkins, Jane Jacobs, Mancur Olson, John Maynard Smith, Thomas Schelling, and Joe Stiglitz.
I was interested in this book because my home city of Austin has a complicated relationship with Wal-Mart: several years ago, the company wanted to build a superstore on the ruins of Northcross Mall, which was once-prominent but then-decrepit. Activists banded together to prevent the store from being built; after a multi-year delay, they failed at stopping the store but did force it to downsize and make other concessions to the neighborhood. Were these activists deluded, essentially subsidizing inefficient old stores and a run-down old mall at the cost of driving up everyone's prices and forcing them to drive farther for the goods they needed? Or were they trying to preserve a distinctive neighborhood with unique local stores, lower traffic, pollution, and crime in their area, and do something about Wal-Mart's well-known troublesome labor and environmental practices? The reason why I don't see this book as taking a "side", per se, is that while it does admittedly oppose extreme right-wing viewpoints, it's primarily interested in expanding the way that people think about questions that involve complicated sets of tradeoffs.
Urban issues can be very complex, and seemingly-simple choices to pursue one set of goals like maximizing economic activity can work against goals like ensuring quality of life and sustainability. While it's certainly possible to strangle the economy by putting in too many roadblocks to development, and indeed nothing in this book argues against the many virtues of free trade and entrepreneurship, it's in the essence of a well-functioning democracy to ponder the consequences of big decisions and question whether what seems like a sure-fire bet - turn a ghost mall into a place people actually want to shop - might have other hidden costs. Some day fights against Wal-Mart will be ancient history, but the issues in this book are applicable at all times and places, and you will find very few guides as lucid and cogent.
Slee's No One Makes You Shop at Wal-Mart isn't one of those books. It could be accused of being in the anti-market camp, due to widespread use of the term "MarketThink" for a hyper-libertarian viewpoint he dislikes, but I don't see it that way. MarketThink, in his telling, is the conviction that markets, as collections of nominally competitive corporations, constitute the best organizing principle for the overwhelming majority of social goals and activities. While Slee uses the term slightly perjoratively, he doesn't exaggerate or caricature its proponents; in fact he is scrupulous about presenting its commonly-used prescriptions of deregulation, privatization, and commercialization in order to ask and answer the many facets of a deceptively simple question - why, if few people seem to like or actually prefer Wal-Mart to other stores, do Wal-Marts keep moving and displacing those stores, and then getting business from the very people who claimed they disliked them?
Game theory, along with some social psychology, features very heavily as an explanation for this seeming inconsistency, with practical illustrations of many concepts like prisoner's dilemmas with multiple equilibria, arms races, asymmetric information, collective action, externalities, free riders, network effects, increasing returns, monopoly power, transaction costs, and the relevance of search, experience, and credence goods. Above all are the distinctions between actual preferences (such as not to have a Wal-Mart at all) and choices (once a Wal-Mart is built, you may as well shop there), and between mere money (which might be maximized by shopping at a Wal-Mart) and actual utility (a far subtler concept, which might not). Scholars whose work features prominently in somewhat abbreviated form are George Akerlof, Richard Dawkins, Jane Jacobs, Mancur Olson, John Maynard Smith, Thomas Schelling, and Joe Stiglitz.
I was interested in this book because my home city of Austin has a complicated relationship with Wal-Mart: several years ago, the company wanted to build a superstore on the ruins of Northcross Mall, which was once-prominent but then-decrepit. Activists banded together to prevent the store from being built; after a multi-year delay, they failed at stopping the store but did force it to downsize and make other concessions to the neighborhood. Were these activists deluded, essentially subsidizing inefficient old stores and a run-down old mall at the cost of driving up everyone's prices and forcing them to drive farther for the goods they needed? Or were they trying to preserve a distinctive neighborhood with unique local stores, lower traffic, pollution, and crime in their area, and do something about Wal-Mart's well-known troublesome labor and environmental practices? The reason why I don't see this book as taking a "side", per se, is that while it does admittedly oppose extreme right-wing viewpoints, it's primarily interested in expanding the way that people think about questions that involve complicated sets of tradeoffs.
Urban issues can be very complex, and seemingly-simple choices to pursue one set of goals like maximizing economic activity can work against goals like ensuring quality of life and sustainability. While it's certainly possible to strangle the economy by putting in too many roadblocks to development, and indeed nothing in this book argues against the many virtues of free trade and entrepreneurship, it's in the essence of a well-functioning democracy to ponder the consequences of big decisions and question whether what seems like a sure-fire bet - turn a ghost mall into a place people actually want to shop - might have other hidden costs. Some day fights against Wal-Mart will be ancient history, but the issues in this book are applicable at all times and places, and you will find very few guides as lucid and cogent.
October 3, 2017
Over the years I have read a number of books on economics; both of the popular and academic variety. Very few were as interesting and illuminating as 'No One Makes You Shop at Wal-Mart'.
At its core, the book is an inditement of what the author terms 'MarketThink', a belief that the Free Market generates 'the best' outcome, and more importantly, is representative of our preferences. If we shop at Walmart is must, so MarketThink insists, be because that is what we prefer to do.
Through a series of Game-Theory exercises, Tom Slee demonstrates how both these Thesis and their attendant economic and political conclusions are demonstrably not true. Granted free choice and rationality, sometimes we end at a choice that would, in fact, be less optimal than others.
The Prisoners Dilemma, Herd Behaviour, Power Imbalances, and above all the issues of Entanglement; how our choices are rarely independent but interrelated to others choices, all go to demonstrate how the simple ideas of the Market not only fail in real life, but how relying on them can result in diminished public goods and losses of things that are important to us.
At its core, the book is an inditement of what the author terms 'MarketThink', a belief that the Free Market generates 'the best' outcome, and more importantly, is representative of our preferences. If we shop at Walmart is must, so MarketThink insists, be because that is what we prefer to do.
Through a series of Game-Theory exercises, Tom Slee demonstrates how both these Thesis and their attendant economic and political conclusions are demonstrably not true. Granted free choice and rationality, sometimes we end at a choice that would, in fact, be less optimal than others.
The Prisoners Dilemma, Herd Behaviour, Power Imbalances, and above all the issues of Entanglement; how our choices are rarely independent but interrelated to others choices, all go to demonstrate how the simple ideas of the Market not only fail in real life, but how relying on them can result in diminished public goods and losses of things that are important to us.
December 16, 2015
The best primary on game theory, coordination problems, tragedies of the commons, etc. (and by extension, the limits of the simplistic microecon narrative) I've come across. If those terms are familiar to you already, there's probably nothing new here, but if they're not and you're curious, this is a great place to start, and the bibliography gives a good guide for where to go next.
March 25, 2020
Naprawdę chciałem polubić tę książkę. Zaczyna się bowiem od obietnicy przyłożenia wniosków płynących z dylematu więźnia do wolnorynkowej filozofii poszanowania indywidualnych wyborów konsumenckich. Dylemat więźnia wygląda następująco: policja przesłuchuje oddzielnie dwóch członków gangu. Podejrzewają ich o udział w przestępstwie, za które grozi wysoki wyrok, ale nie mają na to wystarczających dowodów. Mają za to dowody, żeby skazać obu na krótkie więzienie za drobne wykroczenie. Przesłuchują więc obu, próbując skłonić któregoś do współpracy. Jeśli jeden z nich wsypie drugiego, a drugi będzie milczał, ten pierwszy dostanie nadzwyczajne złagodzenie kary i zostanie puszczony wolno, milczek trafi zaś do więzienia na długie lata. Jeśli obaj zaczną mówić, trafią do więzienia na nieco krócej (dostaną niższy wyrok za współpracę). Jeśli obaj będą milczeć, dostaną po króciutkim wyroku za wykroczenie. Dopóki trwa rozgrywka, żaden z więźniów nie wie, co postanowił drugi.
Z dylematu więźnia można wyciągnąć kilka ciekawych wniosków. Po pierwsze, w każdym rozdaniu najbardziej racjonalną decyzją wydaje się zdrada: jeśli mój partner będzie milczał, puszczą mnie wolno (gdybym milczał jak on, dostałbym krótki wyrok za wykroczenie). A jeśli on też sypnie, dostanę kilka lat (gdybym milczał, dostałbym kilkanaście). Po drugie, ta pozornie racjonalna decyzja przynosi mi zysk “prywatny" (skrócenie mojego wyroku), zaś optymalna strategia (obaj milczymy) przynosi zysk “publiczny” - suma długości naszych wyroków jest najkrótsza z możliwych. Po trzecie, najlepszy wynik osiągnę w sytuacji, w której ja postąpię zgodnie ze swoim interesem (sypnę), a mój wspólnik się poświęci (będzie milczał).
Te obserwacje w bardzo ciekawy sposób można przełożyć na sytuacje w życiu codziennym, w których bierze dużo więcej osób, np. na transport publiczny. Najlepiej po mieście jeździ mi się samochodem, jednak tylko wtedy, gdy wszyscy inni wybrali zbiorkom - czyli ja postępuję zgodnie z własnym interesem, a cała reszta zgodnie z interesem publicznym. Widać jednak od razu, że ta pozornie optymalna dla mnie strategia w rzeczywistości nie działa, jest utopijna (w tym miejscu pozdrawiam wszystkich libertarian). Ale żebym poświęcił swój prywatny zysk (przejazd samochodem) i wybrał opcję, w której wszyscy lepiej wyjdziemy (zbiorkom), trzeba wywrzeć na mnie presję - czy to przez opłaty za parkowanie, czy to przez ograniczanie wjazdu do centrum.
Tak działa też tytułowe kupowanie w Walmarcie - najlepiej, jeśli tylko ja będę wygodnie i tanio kupował w hipermarkecie albo w sieci, a cała reszta będzie zaopatrywać się w tych małych lokalnych sklepikach, które tak lubię i które dodają kolorytu mojej dzielnicy.
Niestety, autorowi “No One Makes You Shop at Walmart” zabrakło odrobiny naukowego rygoru i systematyczności, i ta książka nie rozwija owych wątków, nie dorzuca np. zrealizowanych rozwiązań zmuszających mieszkańców wielkich miast do przesiadania się do mniej uciążliwych dla ogółu środków transportu lub politycznych metod ochrony drobnego handlu. Zamiast tego Slee odjeżdża w nieciekawe dygresje i m.in. próbuje wtłoczyć dylemat więźnia w krytykę GMO, co mu okropnie nie wychodzi. Przywołuje przy tym Vandanę Shivę, którą oględnie przedstawia jako fizyczkę. To prawda, Shiva jest fizyczką, ale to trochę jak nazywanie Janusza Mikke znanym brydżystą - ma taki epizod w życiorysie, ale nie z tego słynie (poglądy Shivy na GMO zatrącają o naukowy denializm).
Z dylematu więźnia można wyciągnąć kilka ciekawych wniosków. Po pierwsze, w każdym rozdaniu najbardziej racjonalną decyzją wydaje się zdrada: jeśli mój partner będzie milczał, puszczą mnie wolno (gdybym milczał jak on, dostałbym krótki wyrok za wykroczenie). A jeśli on też sypnie, dostanę kilka lat (gdybym milczał, dostałbym kilkanaście). Po drugie, ta pozornie racjonalna decyzja przynosi mi zysk “prywatny" (skrócenie mojego wyroku), zaś optymalna strategia (obaj milczymy) przynosi zysk “publiczny” - suma długości naszych wyroków jest najkrótsza z możliwych. Po trzecie, najlepszy wynik osiągnę w sytuacji, w której ja postąpię zgodnie ze swoim interesem (sypnę), a mój wspólnik się poświęci (będzie milczał).
Te obserwacje w bardzo ciekawy sposób można przełożyć na sytuacje w życiu codziennym, w których bierze dużo więcej osób, np. na transport publiczny. Najlepiej po mieście jeździ mi się samochodem, jednak tylko wtedy, gdy wszyscy inni wybrali zbiorkom - czyli ja postępuję zgodnie z własnym interesem, a cała reszta zgodnie z interesem publicznym. Widać jednak od razu, że ta pozornie optymalna dla mnie strategia w rzeczywistości nie działa, jest utopijna (w tym miejscu pozdrawiam wszystkich libertarian). Ale żebym poświęcił swój prywatny zysk (przejazd samochodem) i wybrał opcję, w której wszyscy lepiej wyjdziemy (zbiorkom), trzeba wywrzeć na mnie presję - czy to przez opłaty za parkowanie, czy to przez ograniczanie wjazdu do centrum.
Tak działa też tytułowe kupowanie w Walmarcie - najlepiej, jeśli tylko ja będę wygodnie i tanio kupował w hipermarkecie albo w sieci, a cała reszta będzie zaopatrywać się w tych małych lokalnych sklepikach, które tak lubię i które dodają kolorytu mojej dzielnicy.
Niestety, autorowi “No One Makes You Shop at Walmart” zabrakło odrobiny naukowego rygoru i systematyczności, i ta książka nie rozwija owych wątków, nie dorzuca np. zrealizowanych rozwiązań zmuszających mieszkańców wielkich miast do przesiadania się do mniej uciążliwych dla ogółu środków transportu lub politycznych metod ochrony drobnego handlu. Zamiast tego Slee odjeżdża w nieciekawe dygresje i m.in. próbuje wtłoczyć dylemat więźnia w krytykę GMO, co mu okropnie nie wychodzi. Przywołuje przy tym Vandanę Shivę, którą oględnie przedstawia jako fizyczkę. To prawda, Shiva jest fizyczką, ale to trochę jak nazywanie Janusza Mikke znanym brydżystą - ma taki epizod w życiorysie, ale nie z tego słynie (poglądy Shivy na GMO zatrącają o naukowy denializm).
December 20, 2018
It starts slow but gets good quick!
Each chapter opens as a basic primer on the game theory and economics behind free market capitalism and neoliberal thought. (Or, as Slee dubs it, MarketThink, a presumable riff off CrimethInc.) It then proceeds to dismantle the built-in assumption that empowering individual choice necessarily results in better social outcomes. Every page has real examples, every chapter practical takeaways for daily life.
As a die-hard individualist, I struggle with having seen the world and needing to reconcile my propaganda infused education with my experience that a healthy and prosperous society is born from a balance between liberty, markets, and civics. That balance is neither easy nor peaceful; it's a balance of power. This book deflated my puffed up confidence in certain structures resulting in certain outcomes.
So, yay!
I have only a few criticisms:
First is with the presumed epistemology, if I may say that? The book takes the position that game theory provides overly simplistic models for the world we live in, and that MarketThink relies upon this worldview. Thereupon the book uses game theory against itself in a form of discursive Judo. However, the book also takes no pause to point out that no actor truly follows the conclusions of MarketThink; for example, "big business" pushes for regulation in order to externalize costs. In short, MarketThink is a strawman.
In the chapter on herd choice in cooperation games, there's a page on network effects in technology. The now classic and almost obligatory struggle between Betamax and VHS is raised; as are Windows, Word, Yahoo and Amazon. Keep in mind, this book was published in 2006. Today in 2018, the Windows and Word businesses long ago peaked; Yahoo is a valueless brand name, eclipsed by Google; only Amazon remains— but as a very different business. This doesn't detract from the core argument around network effects; it only awkwardly reminds us that no product or market niche is forever.
The concluding paragraph's recontextualisation of Jane Jacob's is almost worth the price of entry alone:
Four stars, because what I really want is an even better version of this book.
Each chapter opens as a basic primer on the game theory and economics behind free market capitalism and neoliberal thought. (Or, as Slee dubs it, MarketThink, a presumable riff off CrimethInc.) It then proceeds to dismantle the built-in assumption that empowering individual choice necessarily results in better social outcomes. Every page has real examples, every chapter practical takeaways for daily life.
As a die-hard individualist, I struggle with having seen the world and needing to reconcile my propaganda infused education with my experience that a healthy and prosperous society is born from a balance between liberty, markets, and civics. That balance is neither easy nor peaceful; it's a balance of power. This book deflated my puffed up confidence in certain structures resulting in certain outcomes.
So, yay!
I have only a few criticisms:
First is with the presumed epistemology, if I may say that? The book takes the position that game theory provides overly simplistic models for the world we live in, and that MarketThink relies upon this worldview. Thereupon the book uses game theory against itself in a form of discursive Judo. However, the book also takes no pause to point out that no actor truly follows the conclusions of MarketThink; for example, "big business" pushes for regulation in order to externalize costs. In short, MarketThink is a strawman.
In the chapter on herd choice in cooperation games, there's a page on network effects in technology. The now classic and almost obligatory struggle between Betamax and VHS is raised; as are Windows, Word, Yahoo and Amazon. Keep in mind, this book was published in 2006. Today in 2018, the Windows and Word businesses long ago peaked; Yahoo is a valueless brand name, eclipsed by Google; only Amazon remains— but as a very different business. This doesn't detract from the core argument around network effects; it only awkwardly reminds us that no product or market niche is forever.
The concluding paragraph's recontextualisation of Jane Jacob's is almost worth the price of entry alone:
Societies, like cities, have difficulties in abundance. It is a prerequisite for successfully overcoming these difficulties that we recognise the complexity of the world we live in. Doing so demands that we reject the worldview and prescriptions of MarketThink and recognize that the "right to individual choice" is a fool's gold. A reliance on individual choice will lead us not to broadly based prosperity, but instead to ever-increasing inequality and the loss of those things that we hold in common."
Four stars, because what I really want is an even better version of this book.
December 28, 2010
Tom Slee, as the cover of his book puts it, is "a writer, researcher, activist, and software professional" who lives in Canada. At age 46 he decided to write a popular economics book focusing on market failure. He claims that the mainstream worldview, which he calls MarketThink, is that markets driven by individual choices can solve problems and improve life in all domains of the society, and he wrote this book to argue that this is false. I don't know what makes Slee think this worldview is mainstream; it certainly is not in Canada or in the United States; the Libertarian party is marginal in the United States, and so is the Ron Paul phenomenon within the Republican party. Economists have known about the need to remedy market failures at least since the 1950s. My favorite example comes from Steven Landsburg's The Armchair Economist; Landsburg heard it from economist Walter Oi. In early 20th-century China, teams of six bargemen often hauled barges with goods, and were paid if they arrived on time, and not paid if they didn't. Each bargeman thought, "Why should I be pulling the barge if the others aren't; no matter what I do, we won't make it on time?" The solution was for the six men to hire the seventh with a whip. I have no problem with the government being the collectively hired whip man that punishes polluters or overfishers or forces everyone to pay for fundamental research. I am less convinced by Slee's arguments against school choice, and for the restriction of the workweek and limitations on advertising. I think it is funny that Slee gives Yahoo! as an example of a company that insured itself against competition by being the first useful Internet portal, illustrating his thesis that consumer choice is not everything; in 2006 this was already very much not true because of consumer choice.
On the inner cover of the book it says, "Between the Lines gratefully acknowledges assistance for its publishing activities from the Canada Council for the Arts, the Ontario Arts Council, the Government of Ontario through the Ontario Book Publishers Tax Credit Program and through the Ontario Book Initiative, and the Government of Canada through the Book Publishing Industry Development Program." Now, is it in the publisher's vested interests to bring out a book on market failures, or a book on government failures?
On the inner cover of the book it says, "Between the Lines gratefully acknowledges assistance for its publishing activities from the Canada Council for the Arts, the Ontario Arts Council, the Government of Ontario through the Ontario Book Publishers Tax Credit Program and through the Ontario Book Initiative, and the Government of Canada through the Book Publishing Industry Development Program." Now, is it in the publisher's vested interests to bring out a book on market failures, or a book on government failures?
June 21, 2016
Slee does a fantastic job illustrating how personal choice, the core tenet of MarketThink, is not the cure-all that right-wing capitalists make it out to be. Rather, he argues, we need collective action and government regulation to protect the interests of the powerless consumer. Maintaining a tone that is neither indignant nor provocative, Slee encourages us to open our eyes to the fact that no choice we make is made in a vacuum.
I enjoyed learning about how game theory can be applied to reveal natural economic realities. The hypothetical examples and references to outside sources were well-placed. The book reads somewhat like something from Malcolm Gladwell, but with more focus and much less reliance on anecdotes.
I'd recommend this book to anyone who wants to see the hidden forces that motivate our everyday decisions and take a healthy step backward from the simplistic worldview of MarketThink.
I enjoyed learning about how game theory can be applied to reveal natural economic realities. The hypothetical examples and references to outside sources were well-placed. The book reads somewhat like something from Malcolm Gladwell, but with more focus and much less reliance on anecdotes.
I'd recommend this book to anyone who wants to see the hidden forces that motivate our everyday decisions and take a healthy step backward from the simplistic worldview of MarketThink.
November 21, 2016
157. No One Makes you shop at Walmart by Tom Slee
I was under the impression that this book was about Walmart itself, but it was an examination of choice itself and how we use and misuse it. From littering, going to a club, buying Adidas versus Nikes, or even getting a divorce, we have choices. However, we are ruled by MarketThink. The author uses game theory to show how these choices are limited and affected by the choices of others. I found the putting of a number on a feeling of satisfaction to be unsettling, rather like the “rate the beauty of this sunset” posts on Facebook. The author uses game theory, and I don’t have the intellectual skills to understand some of his examples. I also feel that he did not adequately discuss the fact that choices are made for us, and some of the things that we would like to choose are not being made available to us.
I was under the impression that this book was about Walmart itself, but it was an examination of choice itself and how we use and misuse it. From littering, going to a club, buying Adidas versus Nikes, or even getting a divorce, we have choices. However, we are ruled by MarketThink. The author uses game theory to show how these choices are limited and affected by the choices of others. I found the putting of a number on a feeling of satisfaction to be unsettling, rather like the “rate the beauty of this sunset” posts on Facebook. The author uses game theory, and I don’t have the intellectual skills to understand some of his examples. I also feel that he did not adequately discuss the fact that choices are made for us, and some of the things that we would like to choose are not being made available to us.
July 9, 2010
Really never judge a book by it's cover. When I picked this up I guessed I had grabbed a book that would be full of opinion, instead I got a book about the philosophy of choice showing, not telling, me why we can be "free to choose" this or that but it doesn't mean we can actually get what we want. A big eye opener for everyone living with liberalist economic policy.
November 29, 2013
This book upends many of our accepted beliefs about choice. A must-read for anyone who wants to understand the fundamental problems with free-market capitalism.
July 3, 2009
I've read Tom Slee's blog for a while, and I'm glad I finally got his book. It's similar to Rock, Paper, Scissors: Game Theory in Everyday Life in concept, but as you can tell from the titles, Slee presents an interesting selection of problems as well as a game theory lens on solving them. Where Rock, Paper, Scissors feels at times like a parade through the social “weird news” hits of recent history, Slee builds an arc through each class of problem, up from the basic prisoner's dilemma until the big social problems he raises are explained.
December 19, 2015
I really, really wanted to get behind this book, but after two chapters, I admittedly called it quits. There was very little compelling evidence to not shop at Wal-Mart or to debunk the idea of personal choice; instead, it featured hypothetical scenarios. I may try again at some point (as it's possible the scenarios did build to a crescendo), but I'm turned off.
October 24, 2019
Great book - a very useful introduction to game theory, alternatives to free market thinking, collective action problems, free-rider problems, herd problems and more. Full of examples and mostly well-written, if a little light on solutions.
March 20, 2019
An overview of some basic elements of game theory.
November 24, 2021
My main take-away from this book is a realization of how many decisions that seem personal and individual to me add up with others actions to create (sometimes inadvertent or unwanted) trends.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews