Scan barcode
bittersweet_symphony's review against another edition
4.0
The principles are sound but many of the examples are outdated—not inaccurate—which makes the material a bit more difficult to engage with. Especially for those under 30.
I'd love to read a truly updated version.
I'd love to read a truly updated version.
chloekg's review against another edition
4.0
A necessary lesson in capitalist argumentation, it's almost more of a tool, and its usefulness depends solely on who holds it.
zaggeta's review against another edition
4.0
Clearly written and well-argued, this is an excellent entry-level introduction to classical liberal and libertarian positions.
lipsandpalms's review against another edition
4.0
I'm convinced a smaller government with fewer regulations is necessary for economic prosperity in the US. There are pros and cons to both the free market system and bureaucracy but I'd prefer a world where each person receives what they have worked for instead of what they are entitled to. You cannot put behavior into law, but you can create incentives.
That being said, I do agree with environmental regulations. The idea of a reverse income tax and a school voucher system are interesting. I'll have to see what the cons of these concepts are.
That being said, I do agree with environmental regulations. The idea of a reverse income tax and a school voucher system are interesting. I'll have to see what the cons of these concepts are.
spaddy29's review against another edition
4.0
I didn’t agree with everything in this book, but it did make me think more carefully about my own thoughts on the roles and responsibilities of government, market, and other actors.
icgerrard's review against another edition
3.0
I would be lying if I said I didn't learn anything by reading this book. I learned to clearly articulate what the Federal Reserve does and is for. That's about it. And that is the only thing that barely bumped him up from 2.5 stars to 3. He made some good points about lobbying influences, and the negative income tax is interesting even if I am not sure it's better than social programs. So credit should be given where credit is due.
However, more overpowering is his unabashed use of straw men and bad examples. For instance, there is the cringe-worthy section on how the existence of "welfare queens," a fundamentally racist stereotype based on one woman that courtesy of Reagan was supposedly believed to be a cultural trend, basically proves his points about how government social programs are a bad way to actually help those who need it. There are also his repeated objections to mandatory busing, which aged poorly as well. Plus, there is his unwavering conviction that minimum wage laws unequivocally hurt the worker, and that unions are basically evil and destructive. And maybe I'm too young to understand this, but why does he hate the post office so much? Also, he is just plain wrong when he says that labor protection laws with rules about hours worked in a day/week and child labor laws were superfluous because society was already operating by those rules anyway. Perhaps the most unbelievable part of the book was his suggestion that we essentially insert a right to work/freedom of contract amendment into the constitution. I hope we never see the day...
Above all though, perhaps I am just too biased against him from the outset, but I did not come away even moderately convinced that it is inherent to government programs and efforts to fail to achieve their goals. He has plenty of examples, but for every example he gives, how many other programs were great? I thought that this was in fact the main subtext of his whole book - big government is not only bad because it removes freedom of choice, but bad because it can't even achieve what it wants to. This latter point just wasn't made convincingly as far as I was concerned.
The argument seemed to be a combination two things. First, a belief that since government cannot have all possible relevant information, therefore we should leave things to the free market to do better since it incorporates all possible information through the mechanism of price without trying. Two, even if the government could have enough information, people will never be able to stay focused on humanitarian goals, but their self interest will interfere. To the first, what about the things the free market doesn't want to do? Or what about the things that the free market does want to do, but wants to provide inequitably? And to the second, this is true in some cases, not in others. I don't find the idea that some people won't stay focused on the public good as a sufficient reason to abandon trying to provide public goods.
Perhaps I am too idealistic. Probably a good book to read, regardless.
However, more overpowering is his unabashed use of straw men and bad examples. For instance, there is the cringe-worthy section on how the existence of "welfare queens," a fundamentally racist stereotype based on one woman that courtesy of Reagan was supposedly believed to be a cultural trend, basically proves his points about how government social programs are a bad way to actually help those who need it. There are also his repeated objections to mandatory busing, which aged poorly as well. Plus, there is his unwavering conviction that minimum wage laws unequivocally hurt the worker, and that unions are basically evil and destructive. And maybe I'm too young to understand this, but why does he hate the post office so much? Also, he is just plain wrong when he says that labor protection laws with rules about hours worked in a day/week and child labor laws were superfluous because society was already operating by those rules anyway. Perhaps the most unbelievable part of the book was his suggestion that we essentially insert a right to work/freedom of contract amendment into the constitution. I hope we never see the day...
Above all though, perhaps I am just too biased against him from the outset, but I did not come away even moderately convinced that it is inherent to government programs and efforts to fail to achieve their goals. He has plenty of examples, but for every example he gives, how many other programs were great? I thought that this was in fact the main subtext of his whole book - big government is not only bad because it removes freedom of choice, but bad because it can't even achieve what it wants to. This latter point just wasn't made convincingly as far as I was concerned.
The argument seemed to be a combination two things. First, a belief that since government cannot have all possible relevant information, therefore we should leave things to the free market to do better since it incorporates all possible information through the mechanism of price without trying. Two, even if the government could have enough information, people will never be able to stay focused on humanitarian goals, but their self interest will interfere. To the first, what about the things the free market doesn't want to do? Or what about the things that the free market does want to do, but wants to provide inequitably? And to the second, this is true in some cases, not in others. I don't find the idea that some people won't stay focused on the public good as a sufficient reason to abandon trying to provide public goods.
Perhaps I am too idealistic. Probably a good book to read, regardless.
misshgtraveling's review against another edition
4.0
It's taken me three goes at this book to finally finish it. I found myself getting too mad at our current outlook to continue. As per usual, Milton Friedman brought a lot to think over. Glad I finally finished it.
litcontours's review against another edition
3.0
Good to know the roots of the small conservative gov't movement during the high inflation of the 70s. Not particularly eye opening or deeply researched.
There were a few interesting takes on 'basically this social problem' is just a simple economic one. (E.g. you put a minimum wage floor: It doesn't allow for less educated teenagers to get lower paying jobs, which causes necessary discrimination of hires.) But again, not deeply researched and chalked up to the _hidden economic force_ of Adam Smith.
There were a few interesting takes on 'basically this social problem' is just a simple economic one. (E.g. you put a minimum wage floor: It doesn't allow for less educated teenagers to get lower paying jobs, which causes necessary discrimination of hires.) But again, not deeply researched and chalked up to the _hidden economic force_ of Adam Smith.
mdrfromga's review against another edition
5.0
Exceptionally clear arguments about how economic policies inhibit or allow freedom. Much more than just a cursory review, this book gives a thoughtful and multi-sided view of the subjects.