Scan barcode
sodope's review
4.0
Really good read, a lot of useful info which backs up all the book, even though it's kinda outdated. The only negative thing is that the author is a bit conservative in pretty much all the book. But I'd still recommend this to anyone who's trynna understand some basic economics stuff.
oceanlistener's review
1.0
Most of this book is just bullshit. Mainly, it's pandering to a political ideology while pointing out weaknesses (some fatal, in his defense) of statistics that are bantered around. However, he moves from "here's a weakness in this study" to "my ideology, which disagrees with this study, is now proven right". However, all this book actually does is show that nobody has real data to support their ideologies- Sowell least of all. To pretend that disproving one hypothesis proves another is the height of misuse of the scientific method.
First of all, in a economics text that's being marketed as at least somewhat impartial, I don't expect to hear lengthy diatribes about constitutionality of particular actions. Right away, that should tip everyone off that this is actually political commentary, not economics.
Second of all, right off the bat he implies that it's absurd to worry about preserving any open or green spaces in urban planning, because 95% of this country is still undeveloped. Well, that's great if you live in Alaska. If you take out Alaska and other land that is uninhabitable (like much of the desert and mountains) that number looks very, very different. Who the hell cares how much green space there is in Maine if you live in the park-free suburbs of some city with no urban planning, and have no place to take your children to play?
Clearly, this is a person who thinks only about numbers and not about how people actually live. That's a method that can sometimes lead to interesting and insightful results, but to pretend that it reflects anything like the real-world is naive. It's the kind of thing I would expect from undergraduates in Freshman Econ 101.
The next fallacy presented as truth in this book is that if you have no regulation on building, everything will be cheaper. As "evidence", he compares the Bay Area of California and Houston, Texas. Houston has no regulation and just builds more roads as people move further and further from the city, and housing is cheaper there. Is conclusion is that regulation makes things more expensive.
There is no doubt that regulation makes life in California expensive. What Sowell fails to take into any kind of account is that regulation isn't the only factor. Sometimes, that regulation can make the standard of living so much higher that competition to live there increases- Econ 101 tells us that that should drive up the price. People are willing to pay more to live in the Bay Area because life there is so rad. Pave the whole thing, make it all suburbs (like Houston) and how much would people be willing to pay? But since the bottom-line price is the ONLY important factor in Sowell-land, I guess that would be a win.
Allow me to let you into a little secret: people who have a lot of money to spend on housing tends to be the well-educated professionals. A disproportionate number of them are liberal. Housing is cheap in most of the south because compared to the coasts, it's largely unfriendly to liberals, ethnic minorities, gays, and science. Perhaps a better question is "with the total lack of many regulations in the south, which should make it very attractive to people, why is housing there still so cheap?"
Also fails to take into any kind of account the physical differences in landscape- Houston is flat and has no restrictions on space, unlike much of the mountainous west coast. Reality is a bitch when it interferes with labeling pretend fallacies.
His chapter on income inequality is also bullshit. A big study just came out showing that women right out of college, with no children, are still getting paid less than their male counterparts (equal in major, age, CV, etc). So the "investing in children, paid less in the workplace" thing doesn't hold much water, either. Also, saying that women get to spend their husband's money, so it doesn't matter if the earn less, is beyond insulting.
Another fallacy presented as fact is that the suburbs are equally environmentally friendly as living in the city. Since everyone creates garbage, more people living in the suburbs means more garbage in the suburbs and less in the city. That's true for some factors, but doesn't take into account things like flooding- also an economic disaster as well as often environmental- is hugely due to all of the paving we've done, which doesn't allow water to be absorbed in a natural way. Just one example of millions Sowell chooses not to address in this cherry-picking book.
By the time I was 1/10 of the way through this travesty of a book, I could tell the theme is "ruin it for everyone, and we can all have a shitty quality of life that comes cheap". Maybe he's taking the Walmart model to it's logical conclusion, I don't know. But it's certainly not a place I want to live.
First of all, in a economics text that's being marketed as at least somewhat impartial, I don't expect to hear lengthy diatribes about constitutionality of particular actions. Right away, that should tip everyone off that this is actually political commentary, not economics.
Second of all, right off the bat he implies that it's absurd to worry about preserving any open or green spaces in urban planning, because 95% of this country is still undeveloped. Well, that's great if you live in Alaska. If you take out Alaska and other land that is uninhabitable (like much of the desert and mountains) that number looks very, very different. Who the hell cares how much green space there is in Maine if you live in the park-free suburbs of some city with no urban planning, and have no place to take your children to play?
Clearly, this is a person who thinks only about numbers and not about how people actually live. That's a method that can sometimes lead to interesting and insightful results, but to pretend that it reflects anything like the real-world is naive. It's the kind of thing I would expect from undergraduates in Freshman Econ 101.
The next fallacy presented as truth in this book is that if you have no regulation on building, everything will be cheaper. As "evidence", he compares the Bay Area of California and Houston, Texas. Houston has no regulation and just builds more roads as people move further and further from the city, and housing is cheaper there. Is conclusion is that regulation makes things more expensive.
There is no doubt that regulation makes life in California expensive. What Sowell fails to take into any kind of account is that regulation isn't the only factor. Sometimes, that regulation can make the standard of living so much higher that competition to live there increases- Econ 101 tells us that that should drive up the price. People are willing to pay more to live in the Bay Area because life there is so rad. Pave the whole thing, make it all suburbs (like Houston) and how much would people be willing to pay? But since the bottom-line price is the ONLY important factor in Sowell-land, I guess that would be a win.
Allow me to let you into a little secret: people who have a lot of money to spend on housing tends to be the well-educated professionals. A disproportionate number of them are liberal. Housing is cheap in most of the south because compared to the coasts, it's largely unfriendly to liberals, ethnic minorities, gays, and science. Perhaps a better question is "with the total lack of many regulations in the south, which should make it very attractive to people, why is housing there still so cheap?"
Also fails to take into any kind of account the physical differences in landscape- Houston is flat and has no restrictions on space, unlike much of the mountainous west coast. Reality is a bitch when it interferes with labeling pretend fallacies.
His chapter on income inequality is also bullshit. A big study just came out showing that women right out of college, with no children, are still getting paid less than their male counterparts (equal in major, age, CV, etc). So the "investing in children, paid less in the workplace" thing doesn't hold much water, either. Also, saying that women get to spend their husband's money, so it doesn't matter if the earn less, is beyond insulting.
Another fallacy presented as fact is that the suburbs are equally environmentally friendly as living in the city. Since everyone creates garbage, more people living in the suburbs means more garbage in the suburbs and less in the city. That's true for some factors, but doesn't take into account things like flooding- also an economic disaster as well as often environmental- is hugely due to all of the paving we've done, which doesn't allow water to be absorbed in a natural way. Just one example of millions Sowell chooses not to address in this cherry-picking book.
By the time I was 1/10 of the way through this travesty of a book, I could tell the theme is "ruin it for everyone, and we can all have a shitty quality of life that comes cheap". Maybe he's taking the Walmart model to it's logical conclusion, I don't know. But it's certainly not a place I want to live.
camsand's review
4.0
I’m just finishing this book now so I won’t spoil the ending for you, just kidding. It really is a great book applying basic economic theories to real life situations.
He spends quite a bit of time debunking economic myths and explaining the real reasons why for example, real estate near San Francisco and college tuition are so ridiculously expensive. Basically, it comes down to too much government economic control.
I really do love Sowell’s logical practical approach. It’s great in contrast to raving, emotional talk show hosts. It reminds me of why I am a conservative-because conservative principles work!
Given the fact that Sowell is a conservative and so am I, I would really like to read a liberal equivalent to this book. If anyone has one to suggest I would appreciate it. His arguments seem so straight-forward and indisputable to me, but that’s because I already agree with them. I would like a book to argue the other side as articulately and with as much scholarly effort.
He spends quite a bit of time debunking economic myths and explaining the real reasons why for example, real estate near San Francisco and college tuition are so ridiculously expensive. Basically, it comes down to too much government economic control.
I really do love Sowell’s logical practical approach. It’s great in contrast to raving, emotional talk show hosts. It reminds me of why I am a conservative-because conservative principles work!
Given the fact that Sowell is a conservative and so am I, I would really like to read a liberal equivalent to this book. If anyone has one to suggest I would appreciate it. His arguments seem so straight-forward and indisputable to me, but that’s because I already agree with them. I would like a book to argue the other side as articulately and with as much scholarly effort.
katelyn_reads's review
5.0
Can’t wait to read Basic Economics, 5th ed. And then everything else Sowell has written.
oisin175's review
2.0
There are some good points here, but they largely get overshadowed by the ideological reaching performed by the author in support of a more laissez-faire ideal. It is absolutely true that social policies can have unintended consequences, necessitating a good understanding of the issue and its causes. However, Sowell starts from the premise that the government is largely incompetent and has no real purpose in interfering in agreements between others. His laissez-faire ideal is good if we assume that people act rationally (the vast majority of the time if not always), that people have near perfect information, that perfect competition exists, that externalities do not have a negative impact on third parties, and that all parties to an agreement have equal bargaining power. If any of those assumptions are not true, then asserting the superiority of a laissez-faire system based on its efficiency is not really a sound contention.
Sowell ignores or hand waves away a number of potential motivations for property regulations and zoning. Comparisons of San Francisco and New York to Houston are not really appropriate since there are different pressures for each city. Houston can afford to have no zoning requirements because it started relatively small and underdeveloped and can support a sprawling area. New York is already heavily developed with a high population density and is already quite large, making sprawl less useful. While the price of housing can be linked to supply and demand in these locations, the constraints facing each are not the same. Therefore, simply removing zoning laws is unlikely to significantly lower housing prices in New York, but it will likely increase congestion if density increases. Similarly, building more roads is not a realistic option in a significantly developed city like New York. Further, cities have additional concerns with regard to the capacities on public services and environmental issues that may necessitate zoning restrictions even in the face of rising housing costs. This is a trade-off that is appropriate for a government because it must worry about the well being of groups which may be hindered by individual actions. The unregulated development in Houston also looks less appealing after the devastation of Harvey, especially with the contamination from refineries and the development of flood plains. Finally, Sowell is inconsistent with regard to the value of communities as he condemns eminent domain for destroying communities while also condemning individuals from using zoning regulations to protect communities by noting that individuals don't buy community attributes, they only buy properties. This is a confusing issue since, if community attributes are not bought they shouldn't be considered part of the value of a property, but if they are a valuable asset of a piece of property, then we should allow owners of those properties to protect that asset.
I had two issues with the gender chapter. Firstly, Sowell notes that women may suffer from career discontinuity because of families, which is likely to hurt them in careers like nuclear submarine officer and combat pilot. Women weren't allowed to serve on submarines until 2010 and the first class of female submariners were not assigned to a sub until 2011. The first female nuclear submarine officer was not named until 2018. This may be a pedantic point, but it makes the research seem sloppy. Sowell also asserts that women invest in their husband's career, which explains both the pay disparity for married women and also negates the impact because women get to spend their husband's checks as well. However, he offers no proof that this is indeed what occurs despite spending the book condemning interventionists for failing to empirically prove their beliefs. It is equally plausible that employers pay married women less based on assumptions that they will be less committed to their job and pay married men more based on assumptions that they need to support a family. Unintentional discrimination is, therefore, plausible, and I've offered as much evidence in support of my interpretation as Sowell has for his contention that women invest in their husband.
The income chapter was generally useful to me since I wasn't aware of the overwhelming use of household wealth, though it was a bit confusing because Sowell notes that wealthier individuals are more likely to establish separate households, but then uses evidence to show that, in fact, poorer homes have fewer individuals. It seems like he's arguing against his own evidence here. My one issue is with the idea of high paid executives receiving that compensation because they add significant value to their companies. With the exception of one quote from a Washington Post employee, Sowell doesn't offer any empirical evidence that higher paid executives actually produce better results consistently. I know that "execs are paid their value" is a common talking point from free marketeers, but I've never seen any empirical analysis that actually proves the execs consistently outperform market expectations in a way that would justify that pay.
Sowell does make some interesting points about racial disparities, but he loses it with his claim that the riots in the 60s couldn't have been about racism or economic issues. He seems to imply that the riots were due to some inferiority in black people while failing to even mention the causes of the Watts and Detroit riots, both of which began in response to police actions that were seen as oppressive from organizations which were viewed as racist because of prior interactions. The Kerner Report pointed out significant (though minority) racial animus in the police departments at issue. This, combined with segregation and housing quality disparities due to redlining, created the conditions that resulted in riots. The Kerner report at the time identified all of these issues and was deemed radical because of it. To fail to even mention these issues makes it seem like Sowell just wants to ignore real issues in favor of blaming black culture and it undermines his claims of just following facts.
Sowell makes good points about the importance of internal issues with regard to development. However, he ignores any role that the US and other European powers have had in sustaining and installing corrupt and incompetent leaders in other countries. Iran and much of South America had their governments destabilized and had strongmen supporting the US installed in power. Where strongmen already sympathetic to the US existed, they were supported against popular attempts to remove them. Therefore, saying external factors are less importance is a bit disingenuous since those external factors had significant impact on the important internal factors. As for why Spain and other European powers were able to conquer colonies, it really is inaccurate to say it was all wealth and industriousness. There are substantial historical studies of these issues. For instance, Cortes was able to defeat the Aztecs because he appeared during a festival and was allowed to enter the city since he was not deemed an enemy. By the time his hostile intentions were known it was too late to rally a defense. This was a cultural issue in which the Aztecs trusted others in the area to not engage in secret attacks during these times. Cortes took advantage of it, but it was luck on his part that he ran into this situation. Had the Aztecs been distrustful it's likely that Cortes and his men would have been slaughtered. Similarly, disease paved the way for European colonization of North America by killing 90% or more of Native Americans.
Overall this book raises interesting issues. However, the areas where Sowell omits key contextual information or hand waves away serious concerns undermine his stated goal of following the facts. Sowell himself also fails quite frequently to meet the standard of evidence that he holds others too. He frequently condemns reliance on statistical correlations as evidence before turning around and claiming proof of his position based on statistical correlations. Despite the important issues raised, the ideological lens obscures what could have been an important discussion.
Sowell ignores or hand waves away a number of potential motivations for property regulations and zoning. Comparisons of San Francisco and New York to Houston are not really appropriate since there are different pressures for each city. Houston can afford to have no zoning requirements because it started relatively small and underdeveloped and can support a sprawling area. New York is already heavily developed with a high population density and is already quite large, making sprawl less useful. While the price of housing can be linked to supply and demand in these locations, the constraints facing each are not the same. Therefore, simply removing zoning laws is unlikely to significantly lower housing prices in New York, but it will likely increase congestion if density increases. Similarly, building more roads is not a realistic option in a significantly developed city like New York. Further, cities have additional concerns with regard to the capacities on public services and environmental issues that may necessitate zoning restrictions even in the face of rising housing costs. This is a trade-off that is appropriate for a government because it must worry about the well being of groups which may be hindered by individual actions. The unregulated development in Houston also looks less appealing after the devastation of Harvey, especially with the contamination from refineries and the development of flood plains. Finally, Sowell is inconsistent with regard to the value of communities as he condemns eminent domain for destroying communities while also condemning individuals from using zoning regulations to protect communities by noting that individuals don't buy community attributes, they only buy properties. This is a confusing issue since, if community attributes are not bought they shouldn't be considered part of the value of a property, but if they are a valuable asset of a piece of property, then we should allow owners of those properties to protect that asset.
I had two issues with the gender chapter. Firstly, Sowell notes that women may suffer from career discontinuity because of families, which is likely to hurt them in careers like nuclear submarine officer and combat pilot. Women weren't allowed to serve on submarines until 2010 and the first class of female submariners were not assigned to a sub until 2011. The first female nuclear submarine officer was not named until 2018. This may be a pedantic point, but it makes the research seem sloppy. Sowell also asserts that women invest in their husband's career, which explains both the pay disparity for married women and also negates the impact because women get to spend their husband's checks as well. However, he offers no proof that this is indeed what occurs despite spending the book condemning interventionists for failing to empirically prove their beliefs. It is equally plausible that employers pay married women less based on assumptions that they will be less committed to their job and pay married men more based on assumptions that they need to support a family. Unintentional discrimination is, therefore, plausible, and I've offered as much evidence in support of my interpretation as Sowell has for his contention that women invest in their husband.
The income chapter was generally useful to me since I wasn't aware of the overwhelming use of household wealth, though it was a bit confusing because Sowell notes that wealthier individuals are more likely to establish separate households, but then uses evidence to show that, in fact, poorer homes have fewer individuals. It seems like he's arguing against his own evidence here. My one issue is with the idea of high paid executives receiving that compensation because they add significant value to their companies. With the exception of one quote from a Washington Post employee, Sowell doesn't offer any empirical evidence that higher paid executives actually produce better results consistently. I know that "execs are paid their value" is a common talking point from free marketeers, but I've never seen any empirical analysis that actually proves the execs consistently outperform market expectations in a way that would justify that pay.
Sowell does make some interesting points about racial disparities, but he loses it with his claim that the riots in the 60s couldn't have been about racism or economic issues. He seems to imply that the riots were due to some inferiority in black people while failing to even mention the causes of the Watts and Detroit riots, both of which began in response to police actions that were seen as oppressive from organizations which were viewed as racist because of prior interactions. The Kerner Report pointed out significant (though minority) racial animus in the police departments at issue. This, combined with segregation and housing quality disparities due to redlining, created the conditions that resulted in riots. The Kerner report at the time identified all of these issues and was deemed radical because of it. To fail to even mention these issues makes it seem like Sowell just wants to ignore real issues in favor of blaming black culture and it undermines his claims of just following facts.
Sowell makes good points about the importance of internal issues with regard to development. However, he ignores any role that the US and other European powers have had in sustaining and installing corrupt and incompetent leaders in other countries. Iran and much of South America had their governments destabilized and had strongmen supporting the US installed in power. Where strongmen already sympathetic to the US existed, they were supported against popular attempts to remove them. Therefore, saying external factors are less importance is a bit disingenuous since those external factors had significant impact on the important internal factors. As for why Spain and other European powers were able to conquer colonies, it really is inaccurate to say it was all wealth and industriousness. There are substantial historical studies of these issues. For instance, Cortes was able to defeat the Aztecs because he appeared during a festival and was allowed to enter the city since he was not deemed an enemy. By the time his hostile intentions were known it was too late to rally a defense. This was a cultural issue in which the Aztecs trusted others in the area to not engage in secret attacks during these times. Cortes took advantage of it, but it was luck on his part that he ran into this situation. Had the Aztecs been distrustful it's likely that Cortes and his men would have been slaughtered. Similarly, disease paved the way for European colonization of North America by killing 90% or more of Native Americans.
Overall this book raises interesting issues. However, the areas where Sowell omits key contextual information or hand waves away serious concerns undermine his stated goal of following the facts. Sowell himself also fails quite frequently to meet the standard of evidence that he holds others too. He frequently condemns reliance on statistical correlations as evidence before turning around and claiming proof of his position based on statistical correlations. Despite the important issues raised, the ideological lens obscures what could have been an important discussion.