Scan barcode
adamtad's review against another edition
5.0
Is this a book with the best ideas in the world? No. Are its solutions desireable and practical? No. However, I still give this book 5 stars as it introduces new ideas and a way of thinking about problems that I had previously not engaged with. I frequently find myself thinking about the ideas of this book and examining problems with the lens it provides.
chenglin's review against another edition
4.0
Well-written book with ideas worth being exposed to. The ideas become less interesting and well-refined in the later chapters of the book, but the case for COST (in some applications) and QV are well laid out. I would have liked more discussion from the authors about worst-case scenarios for their proposals, specifically the potential for abuse by the powerful/wealthy.
jpowerj's review against another edition
1.0
Absolutely the most insufferable book I have read in years, and I have an ulterior motive to like it since I'm cited in it. Somehow despite living in the US, on earth, for several decades, the authors have not gotten the memo that RICH PEOPLE IMMEDIATELY GET TO WORK RIGGING ANY SOCIAL STRUCTURE THE MOMENT IT COMES INTO EXISTENCE. And that the one and only solution that has consistently worked historically is CLASS STRUGGLE. Instead of recognizing this to any degree whatsoever, the authors instead propose a bunch of mechanism design concoctions that are ~10x more complicated than our current economic market designs, and thus ~10x easier for the rich to rig while the poor suffer what they must.
bub_9's review
4.0
I love that this is both pragmatic (not in the sense that any of these ideas might be implemented, because I for sure do not see that happening, but merely in that it adopts some very concrete comparisons that help us to understand that these proposals are not that unreasonable at all) and daring (fresh!), and also visionary in its broad scope. But I do wonder about certain ideas - for e.g. with the COST, how are we gonna determine assets that aren't tangible? Small quibbles like that mean I can't embrace its manifesto wholeheartedly. Worth reading, though, but it is definitely quite challenging.
rossbm's review against another edition
4.0
(read as physical book)
The authors advance 4 "radical" market solutions that they suggest will decrease inequality and increase growth. The first two proposals are the strongest:
- COST: a tax on property based on its declared value, with the catch that the owners have to sell it at the declared value to anyone willing to pay; and
- Quadratic voting: where people are allocated a certain budget of "credits" that they can allocate for against issues, with the number of votes being the square of the credits spent
These two proposals are quite exciting, especially the tax. Canada is facing a housing shortage that is leading to sky high valuations. A strong property tax might resolve the issue.
The other two proposals, on immigration and being paid to generate data, seem less well though out and less exciting.
Overall, a good book with some really good nuggets that are worth learning about and potentially advocating for.
The authors advance 4 "radical" market solutions that they suggest will decrease inequality and increase growth. The first two proposals are the strongest:
- COST: a tax on property based on its declared value, with the catch that the owners have to sell it at the declared value to anyone willing to pay; and
- Quadratic voting: where people are allocated a certain budget of "credits" that they can allocate for against issues, with the number of votes being the square of the credits spent
These two proposals are quite exciting, especially the tax. Canada is facing a housing shortage that is leading to sky high valuations. A strong property tax might resolve the issue.
The other two proposals, on immigration and being paid to generate data, seem less well though out and less exciting.
Overall, a good book with some really good nuggets that are worth learning about and potentially advocating for.
clay1st's review against another edition
3.0
This book is a compilation of ideas of how we could radically transform our economy through property rights reform / immigration labour market policy reform / tax reform / democracy reform / AI and automation. What's lacking is any real analysis of whether these ideas would work or be of the better than alternatives. I really wish the Authors had picked just one idea and actually had a think about whether the policy would work.
Sadly, instead the authors substitute counter-assertion for substantive and unbiased analysis throughout... In proposing a tax on human capital the author counter-asserts "some might say this is akin to slavery" without addressing the genuine tyrannical absurdity of their proposal at all.
3 stars because it'd be good food for thought if you've never heard of any of the ideas within.
Sadly, instead the authors substitute counter-assertion for substantive and unbiased analysis throughout... In proposing a tax on human capital the author counter-asserts "some might say this is akin to slavery" without addressing the genuine tyrannical absurdity of their proposal at all.
3 stars because it'd be good food for thought if you've never heard of any of the ideas within.
chrisyakimov's review against another edition
3.0
There seem to be some amazing ideas in this. Quadratic Voting seems particularity pertinent, relevant and necessary. But there is some …hmm … perhaps overly simplified thought, too. Combined with the subtle but palpable zeal the authors have for their ideas, it can be challenging to stay critical and to discern what was, in essence, fluff or flawed, an experience that left me not trusting my own interest in the ideas I did think were sound (or my own capacity to evaluate them).
I think you get much of what these two present (though not all) in Jaron Lanier’s “Who Owns The Future?”— among the most prescient and intelligent critiques of digital global capitalism available.
I think you get much of what these two present (though not all) in Jaron Lanier’s “Who Owns The Future?”— among the most prescient and intelligent critiques of digital global capitalism available.
jasonfurman's review against another edition
5.0
A brilliant, provocative work that is somewhere along the spectrum between economics and science fiction. The book is framed around a critique of economics that belies its central thrust—which is the unsparing discussion of how various systems straight out of mechanism design but often untethered from any psychological/historical/enforcement/implementation considerations could help make highly rational, utility/profit-maximizing agents better off.
Each chapter develops and presents a specific proposal: (1) abolishing private property and instead making all physical capital and tangible possessions effectively available for rent at any time by anyone that wants them; (2) shifting to “quadratic voting” where people have a budget for votes and can cast a limited number of them; (3) a new immigration system whereby everyone could bring an immigrant to the country to work here; (4) a rule to limit the largest asset managers from owning multiple competitors in an industry; and (5) a new system whereby users of Facebook, Google and other “siren servers” would pay people for the data they generate.
The chapters can be read independently of each other but they have a common form (a science fiction vignette about a future society organized along the idea, a political/economic/philosophical/historical grounding for the idea, the economics of the idea, responses to objections, and in some cases a smaller version of the idea to start with). More importantly, they have a common thrust which is to assume people are rational, assume essentially nothing about history or the status quo, and ask how the economy/society could be reconstructed in a radical fashion to give primacy to markets as a way to provide incentives, collect and transmit information, and make collective decisions—but without private property.
The book is strong and deep on the economic rationale for its ideas but weak on the objections and tradeoffs and in some cases even on the motivation. Take the opening idea, COST, that all people should declare the value of all of their property, pay a 7% annual tax on it, and anyone else could buy it at cost. This is intended to create a mechanism for the accurate revelation of value because too high and you pay more taxes but too low and you risk it being bought out. But what problem exactly is this solving? Just about the only problem identified by the authors is the hold up problem (or “monopoly problem” in their language), whereby a transportation line doesn’t get built because the last person refuses to sell their house for anything less than the full surplus. It is hard to believe, however, that this is the major reason for the misallocation of capital that Posner and Weyl lament and it seems like an awful lot of effort to solve the problem. Also, how would you shift from the current system to this? How would you force people to disclose all of their complicated assets? Do we care about privacy? How would uncertainty about future ownership affect investment incentives? How would people handle the complexity of the system when they already make systematic errors about much easier financial decisions, like retirement savings? Etc. This is just a few of the points one could ask about one of the chapters.
One point to add, largely unrelated to the core chapters, one of the parts of the book I found interesting and novel was the reformulation of some economic issues in terms of computation/computer science instead of economics/math. For example, the discussion of how hard it would actually be to solve the equations you would need to for central planning—along with speculation about what would happen if this ever became possible.
Overall, I think there is an important space for books like Radical Markets, there may be a few relatively small applications (spectrum licenses, more effective polling), but worth continuing to think bigger thoughts on the very small chance something with a big payoff does happen to work out. Plus, I like speculative fiction—and this can be read as an outstanding exemplar of the genre.
Each chapter develops and presents a specific proposal: (1) abolishing private property and instead making all physical capital and tangible possessions effectively available for rent at any time by anyone that wants them; (2) shifting to “quadratic voting” where people have a budget for votes and can cast a limited number of them; (3) a new immigration system whereby everyone could bring an immigrant to the country to work here; (4) a rule to limit the largest asset managers from owning multiple competitors in an industry; and (5) a new system whereby users of Facebook, Google and other “siren servers” would pay people for the data they generate.
The chapters can be read independently of each other but they have a common form (a science fiction vignette about a future society organized along the idea, a political/economic/philosophical/historical grounding for the idea, the economics of the idea, responses to objections, and in some cases a smaller version of the idea to start with). More importantly, they have a common thrust which is to assume people are rational, assume essentially nothing about history or the status quo, and ask how the economy/society could be reconstructed in a radical fashion to give primacy to markets as a way to provide incentives, collect and transmit information, and make collective decisions—but without private property.
The book is strong and deep on the economic rationale for its ideas but weak on the objections and tradeoffs and in some cases even on the motivation. Take the opening idea, COST, that all people should declare the value of all of their property, pay a 7% annual tax on it, and anyone else could buy it at cost. This is intended to create a mechanism for the accurate revelation of value because too high and you pay more taxes but too low and you risk it being bought out. But what problem exactly is this solving? Just about the only problem identified by the authors is the hold up problem (or “monopoly problem” in their language), whereby a transportation line doesn’t get built because the last person refuses to sell their house for anything less than the full surplus. It is hard to believe, however, that this is the major reason for the misallocation of capital that Posner and Weyl lament and it seems like an awful lot of effort to solve the problem. Also, how would you shift from the current system to this? How would you force people to disclose all of their complicated assets? Do we care about privacy? How would uncertainty about future ownership affect investment incentives? How would people handle the complexity of the system when they already make systematic errors about much easier financial decisions, like retirement savings? Etc. This is just a few of the points one could ask about one of the chapters.
One point to add, largely unrelated to the core chapters, one of the parts of the book I found interesting and novel was the reformulation of some economic issues in terms of computation/computer science instead of economics/math. For example, the discussion of how hard it would actually be to solve the equations you would need to for central planning—along with speculation about what would happen if this ever became possible.
Overall, I think there is an important space for books like Radical Markets, there may be a few relatively small applications (spectrum licenses, more effective polling), but worth continuing to think bigger thoughts on the very small chance something with a big payoff does happen to work out. Plus, I like speculative fiction—and this can be read as an outstanding exemplar of the genre.