This book is about making decisions that can produce the best and fairest results for society as a whole. Inspired by Hayek's paper "The Use of Knowledge in Society," Sowell argues that the market should be seen as an institution that effectively coordinates knowledge scattered throughout society. It conveys essential information between people to make effective and rational decisions that could benefit everyone, rather than being just a place where consumers and producers exchange physical materials. Once you understand the actual meaning and function of the market process (hopefully by reading this book), your perspective on economic issues - such as minimum wage, rent controls, trade restrictions, or interest rates - will change. I strongly recommend this book to everyone, not just economists but also people from different backgrounds.

However, one downside of the book in my view is that it's a bit hard to read. This is not because Sowell didn't use plain language, but because he explains every concept in incredible detail, which can be boring for some readers.

How can anyone give a Thomas Sowell book only 4 stars? How can anyone give a book described by F.A. Hayek as "wholly original" and Milton Freidman as "brilliant" only 4 stars? How can the winner of the Law and Economics Center Prize receive only 4 stars?

Without a doubt the book was groundbreaking, brilliant and an exceptional example of economic thought applied to real life. But the book is very much in need of an update and is incredibly dense, even for those familiar with much of the history that Professor Sowell uses to illustrate his examples.

Please allow me to explain.

The first half of the book (part 1) is its own book about the role of knowledge in the decision making process and is often quite philosophical and psychological. Professor Sowell does an admirable job first arguing that people (the market) make rational decisions as individuals with the best knowledge they have available because knowledge is not free. Allow me to use an example from my own life. Recently my wife and I decided to buy a car. We did research which cost both time and money online, asked friends, went to a few different dealerships, test-drove a half dozen different vehicles etc. Eventually she got fed-up and left me in the precarious position of making the right decision (for her) because she had other more pressing concerns and obligations. I as well was pressed for time because I needed the vehicle for work. Eventually we reached a place of negative returns on any further investment of time and effort and I made the decision. Did I make the correct decision? Impossible to know today, but if the car breaks down in the next year, I suppose not. Or if the government changes the emissions laws, perhaps not. I could have theoretically avoided this by getting an engineering degree while simultaneously studying to be a mechanic and scouring the minutes of each European Union meeting to guess the trends in vehicle emissions but such an investment would only yield negative returns (cost more than I would save by having to replace the vehicle).

This is a direct shot across the bow of those central planners who assume erroneous decisions are made by irrational people and thus the great masses are in need of some centralized planning on a rational basis to prevent such irrational and wasteful behaviour. I suppose this is why the 1970s Lada was the pinnacle of vehicle engineering.

But additionally, the Government, despite all the perceived waste or maybe because of it, does not make irrational decisions either. Rather, the various government agencies and bureaucracies make completely rational decisions based on much different criteria. The criteria is not only different from that of the free market individuals, but often at odds with the very founding principles of the department. For instance, the bureaucracy makes the perfectly logical decisions to spend its entire budget every year by highering new workers, or risk having the budget slashed, regardless of the pressing need for more workers.

All of these are perfectly rational decisions from the standpoint of the individual Soviet firm, maximizing its own well-being, however perverse the results may be from the standpoint of the Soviet economy.p.215

Here Professor Sowell argues that the most efficient/just system is the system where those closest to the ramifications of the decision are those who make the decision; and this is rarely the Federal government. He could have used the term "subsidiarity" but the term doesn't even appear in the index.

But Part II of the book is less theoretical and focuses on "trends" in economics, law and politics. To call 1980 "trends" is unfortunately now really only interesting from an historical perspective despite the 25 page preface to the 1996 edition. And an historical perspective is very necessary. If one is unfamiliar with the Warren court (boy does he not have anything good to say about it), I suggest reading up on the history of the American Supreme Court before beginning.

This part of the book's general thrust is that governement will continue to expand and curtail freedom, and Professor Sowell thankfully offers no prognostications:

Whether this [the Burger Court as opposed to the Warren Court] particular period is merely a pause in a long march or a time of reassessment for new directions is something that only the future can tell. The point here is not to prophesy but to consider what is at stake, in terms of human freedom.

How much more could be added with the inclusion of Ronald Reagan, the fall of the Soviet Union and the election of Donald Trump? Like with the stockmarket, upswings and downswings belie the general trend upwards.

The book is great but the references are dated and difficult to follow even for an historian. One example which jumps to mind is the government involvement in radio broadcasting and monopolies. The advent of the internet, the netscape/microsoft anti-trust cases, and the recent discussion on hate speech, free speech and social media platforms would make interesting reading in relation to the general theme of government intrusion.

Additionally, there are the odd paragraphs which read like this:

To "solve" some social "problem" is (1) to move the locus of social decision making from systemic processes of reciprocal interaction to intentional processes of unilateral or heirarchical directives, (2) to change the mode of communication and control from fungible and therefore incrementally variable media (emotional ties, money etc.) to categorical priorities selected by a subset of a population for the whole populations, and (3) because of the diversity of human values, which make any given set of tangible results highly disparate in value terms (financial or moral), pervasive uncompensated changes through force are lekely to elicit pervasive resistance and evasion, which can only be overcome by more force-which is to say less freedom. p.337

The above style is rare, but indicative of the full pressure when Professor Sowell opens the faucet a little too much. It is like trying to drink from a firehose.

Sowell imbues every single paragraph with so much information and knowledge with such eloquence making it an extremely rare gift. 'Knowledge and Decisions' discuss the how knowledge is used in making decisions. In discussion of incentives and constrains, gathering knowledge is a cost which places a constraint on those who can bare it. Those who have obtained that knowledge, have an incentive to make it more relevant as that means they earn more money, power, or prestige. In making decisions it matters from where the knowledge gathered to make that decision possible. Local knowledge tends to be sporadic, increasing its costs but have substantial benefits of proper usage of any decision to be made. Centralized decision making without use of local knowledge usually creates only disaster. Feedback was a central theme of the book, as those processes that are more complex and specialist are more insulated from feedback necessary to make it more applicable. The reason government does not often make proper policy decision is due to the lack of feedback from those it imposes it values on. This book tackles huge ideas with such ease. Sometimes the book does have trouble expressing an idea but overwhelmingly it presents ideas in an extremely profound way giving specifics and general examples.

n  The Market as a Natural Phenomena,
or, Economics as a Natural Sciencen

The laws of physics govern the universe. From the galaxies to the quarks, all are subservient to the principles of physical sciences. Chemistry, which is nothing but applied physics, governs the inter-relational characteristics of matter. Biology, which is nothing but applied chemistry, governs genes, heredity, and life itself. The laws of nature, thus, preside over life on Earth. Except that they don’t. There are no laws written in stone. Only theories, that are acceptable because their veracity is proven by deduction and experimentation. Be that as it may, human beings, as a collective, then should be understood through this method of science. After all so much of life on earth is human.

There is hesitance, resistance even, to study humans as only Homo Sapiens. As there should be. We are talking of living breathing people after all. Not ants or rats or whatever else they run experiments on in their laboratories. People are not limited by the laws of nature. Human nature is not governed by natural sciences. So we must have something not as hard as hard sciences: physics, chemistry & biology. Therefore, we have softer disciplines: social sciences or humanities to perform this most important function.

There are criticisms though, shortcomings claimed, of the validity of theories forwarded by such sciences. Psychology, anthropology, sociology, and economics all strive to subsume the scientific methodology but fall short always. All of them fail to furnish results that are as predictable and repeatable as those of the true sciences. Also, all of humanities is outrageously susceptible to ideologies. And as a result they stop being sciences as the inferences are drawn first. The scientific method is then employed to bolster the position held on faith and conviction. A blatant flaw. Unpardonable.

Thomas Sowell cannot resolve this fundamental flaw. He is brilliant of course. But is only a man. A man with ideological convictions and innate beliefs. This book of his is an attempt to present topics lying in the domain of humanities objectively. There are shortcomings in his analysis too, some obvious to even myself. But it is worth a read nonetheless. Several reads in my opinion. Published decades ago, his words still ring true today. And I endorse his theory as it is based on both sound reason and historical evidence. If this much is enough to convince you to read the book then you may stop here. I’ll proceed to write down how I view the intricacies of his writing.

Creating Value

To the fundamental question of “what is value?” there are no simple answers. Great thinkers have struggled to propose a definition wide enough to accommodate all that is valued yet narrow enough to not make the definition itself inane. The truth is that many people value many things in many ways. The answer to the question then would be highly subjective. But given that we live in a society with many others, there has to be some agreement at least to allow for relationships. Mutually beneficial transactions. For which economists have developed the concept of utility. Utility is the usefulness of a goods or service for a person. Although it is still difficult to quantify, we can compare the utility of A, to that of B, for a person. It is dynamic in the sense that the utility of something could increase or decrease with the quantity of that thing already in possession of the person in question. The theory is simple, elegant, and versatile. And so it is a good enough substitute for value. For now.

Imagine all the commodities that you have or want to have. Everything is made of matter, and matter can neither be created nor destroyed. So what we actually value in the commodities is the knowledge that transforms primary materials into useful desired products. Value is created through knowledge. Suffice is to say that only knowledge is valuable. And so it is never free. Ideas and information are not knowledge. Knowledge is a specific type of qualified information that is useful and hence valuable. A tautology as we can all see. But if I could present to you the crux of this book in this review, then what would be the point of the book? As I just mentioned: knowledge is never free. There is a widespread misconception that it is so. There are other misconceptions as well. And this book will rid you of those. The book begins with an elaborate explanation of what is knowledge and how it is created. This part is enlightening and non-controversial. So those in disagreement with Dr. Sowell in general, would not find it jarring to read.

…even the most solid and heavy mass of matter we see is mostly empty space… specks of matter scattered through a vast emptiness have such incredible density and weight, and are linked into one another by such powerful forces that they produce all the properties of concrete, cast iron and solid rock.

…specks of knowledge are scattered through a vast emptiness of ignorance, and everything depends upon how solid the individual specks of knowledge are, and on how powerfully linked and coordinated they are with one another. The vast spaces of ignorance do not prevent the specks of knowledge from forming a solid structure, though sufficient misunderstanding can disintegrate it…

Delivering Value

Now that we've ascertained what is of value, we naturally wish to maximize that. But wait. Our definition is based on subjective utility. I mentioned that we could compare the utility of two different objects to the same person, but what about the utility of the same object to two different persons? For a transaction to take place, the participating parties must value the others' goods more than they value what they offer in exchange. And so there is a semblance of equity in such a mutually beneficial exchange. For this to occur, at scale and at length, knowledge has to be transmitted far and wide and at speed. Knowledge of the usefulness of goods and services on offer and knowledge of the costs to produce the same. This signal of value is the price of the goods or services. Economics has another beautiful explanation behind the origin of price: supply and demand. I won't get into that here but there are a few key points related to this mentioned in the book. Most fail to acknowledge these truths. But they are universal.

It is not the cost that creates value, however. Nor can we make other things valuable by incurring large costs for them...

The inability of the producer to know precisely what the consumer wants is a basic fact of life under any economic system.

The diversity of tastes satisfied by a market may be its greatest economic achievement, but it is also its greatest political vulnerability.

Communicating Value

Given that we are all attempting to maximize value but we also operate under severe constraints, there has to be an optimum. As we can't have it all, we just try to have as much as we can. In other words, we make trade-offs. These decisions are based on knowledge, which we know is scarce and costly. In addition to individuals, decisions have to be made by much larger and more complex units: institutions. The knowledge possessed by these is again diffused and incomplete.

Trade-offs form the fundamental framework of this analysis. In some ways like dialectics is for communists. Dr. Sowell was a fellow traveler in his youth after all. But this is a powerful template. The book presents our world as economic, political, and social trade-offs. And you must read the book to fully comprehend it. This is followed by current trends which have obviously become part of our contemporary history. I'll end my note here. It's messy I know.

Even among contemporary nations, differences in their economic conditions are often far more related to differences in their technological and organizational knowledge than to their respective endowments in natural resources.

The process of transforming current assets into future assets is known in economics as "investments"... so the term "disinvestment" can also apply to moving assets from the future into the present..."

Perhaps the simplest and most psychologically satisfying explanation of any observed phenomenon is that it happened that way because someone wanted it to happen that way.

...in the systematic approach, the outcome does not depend on the individual agents' subjectively pursuing the end result of the system.

Morality is intentional and therefore individual, while purely systemic results are neither just nor unjust, though some results may be preferred to others.

A great followup to Basic Economics, Knowledge and Decisions is a beautiful blend of straight data and research, and Sowell's insightful social and political philosophy. It was one of the more intellectually challenging of Sowell's books, but I was in no way short of passages to underline. Brilliant stuff.

Knowledge And Decisions by Thomas Sowell (1996)

I didn't finish this book. I tried, but it was too hard to follow in audio format. I'm not an economist and some of the language Sowell uses isn't common in everyday conversation. As a result, listening in the car or listening casually is much more difficult. I found that I had to rewind or listen again in order to understand what was being communicated. Let me give an example. Read the following quote outloud and imagine if you were listening to it and did not have the advantage of the punctuation and syntax to help understand his meaning:

“A mere enumeration of government activity is evidence -- often the sole evidence offered -- of "inadequate" nongovernment institutions, whose "inability" to cope with problems "obviously" required state intervention. Government is depicted as acting not in response to its own political incentives and constraints but because it is compelled to do so by concern for the public interest: it "cannot keep its hands off" when so "much is at stake," when emergency "compels" it to supersede other decision making processes. Such a tableau simple ignores the possibility that there are political incentives for the production and distribution of "emergencies" to justify expansions of power as well as to use episodic emergencies as a reason for creating enduring government institutions.”

Having said this, I would agree with many of the reviewers that state this book is packed with great information. My 3 star review is really only a reflection of my audiobook experience. I think reading in print would be a much better experience all around.

If you can only read one book on knowledge and how it affects human decision-making, I would highly recommend Knowledge and Decisions. It is an updated expansion of Friedrich Hayek's famous paper "On the Use of Knowledge in Society", most of the extra material being relevant examples in the fields of economics, history, law, and politics. There is a wealth of facts and data here, and conclusions drawn from those facts will be a challenge to accepted ideologies on the left and the right. This book will force you to think carefully about how the world works, and how certain beliefs about this world can lead to consequences of which nobody could have conceived.

On the other hand, while the writing style is quite readable and to-the-point, it can also be a bit dry. My progress was very slow, mostly because it took a lot of energy to digest all the facts and arguments in this very dense, though relatively short book (many other books covering the topics this book addresses are much longer and much more boring). It is definitely something to be taken carefully with a heavy helping of deep thinking. A multi-grain, high-fiber diet for your brain.

Некоторые полагают: чтобы сделать общество лучше, нужно принять предлагаемые ими экономические, политические и правовые решения. Однако Томас Соуэлл утверждает: нужно договориться не о "решениях", а о том, кто при каких стимулах и ограничениях будет их принимать. Результаты политической деятельности, с его (и большинства экономистов) точки зрения, определяются не заявленными или даже желаемыми целями, а механикой производства этих результатов, как раз тем, кто и с какими целями и информацией в голове делает выбор.

Книга прилагает стандартные экономические понятия (альтернативные издержки, маржинальные издержки, время, убывающая отдача, субъективная ценность и т.п.) к реальности экономической и социальной политики и показывает, что отдача от такого приложения все еще очень высока: в пустыне политических дискуссий даже капля экономики может быть спасительной. Если у вас в списке чтения нет множества книжек с рекомендациями двух Нобелевских лауреатов (в данном случае -- Фридмана и Хайека), не пожалеете, если следующей прочтете эту. Отличное введение в экономику для тех, кому интересна политика.

(Трето четене)
Много, много добра книга. За трети път изслушвам първата й част (В главите от първата част се говори по общо за играта между формирането, събирането и проверката на знанията и взимането на решения.)
Общо взето Том Соуел те хваща за ръката и те научава как да мислиш. Някак си е като математика с думи, вместо с цифри.

Говори се за хората, които взимат решения в нашия свят, но не за тяхния "характер", ами за стимулите, ограниченията и обратната връзка от знания, които оформят и насочват техните решения. За това как много по-лесно се концентрира властта - вземането на решения, но много по-трудно се концентрират знанията, които да оформят и подобряват тези решения. И че най-важното решение не е КАКВО да се направи (по някакъв политически или фирмен проблем), а решението КОЙ ще взима тези решенията и под контрола на какви стимули, ограничения и фийдбек механизми (свързани със знание за проблемите засягащи го) е той.

Говори се и за това какво е знанието, и как се формира то от груба информация, и колко разпръснато е то в нашия свят. Говори се за това как колкото повече напредва цивилизация отделния човек има все по-малко, а не повече знания от всички налични знания, за разлика от първите години на човека, когато сме били ловци и събирачи, където всеки общо взето е трябвало да знае почти всичко необходимо му за да оцелее.

Том в много големи детайли разглежда това и как нарастващото разпръскане на знанията към все повече различни хора - все по-ограничено познание се отразява на нашия свят, на семейството, на обществените групи, на фирми, неправителствени организации, и държавни и политически формирования и как концентрацията на власт все повече се отразява върху качеството и адекватността на решенията, които тази концентрирана власт ще взима. Защото всеки човек може да вземе много по-добри решения в полетата, където е концентрирано собственото му знание в сравнение с решенията спуснати отгоре, където решаващия е бил с много по-малко знания, дори да е бил като цяло "знаещ" човек, дори много "по-знаещ" от обикновения човек взимащ решение. Общо взето дори най-умните и знаещи хора нямат вероятно дори 1 % от функционалното знание които е разпръснато из масата.

Например всички "знаем" как се дой крава, но колко от нас, знаем в такива ДЕТАЙЛИ, че ако ни се даде една крава и празна кофа, ще се върнем с кофа пълна с мляко и издоена крава. И така е общо взето за всяко действие в нашия свят. И когато някой, който няма функционалните знания в дълбочина на един кравар (например) независимо колко ОБЩА култура иначе има, то неговите решения свързани с доенето на кравата вероятно, ще са много по-лоши спрямо решенията на дори един много прост кравар без никаква обща култура.
И тъй като натрупването на всички необходими знания от взимащите решение отгоре е общо взето невъзможно (поне за сега), за това за обществото е по-добре цялостна децентрализация на взимането на решения - общо взето свобода за хората - ТОЧНО обратното на утопичната визия за света, която имат много (и много от най-вече умните хора).
Много хора, особено умни млади студенти тепърва учещи си мислят, че поради своите знания могат да взимат по-добри решения от другите незнаещи хора дори за техния живот. Не че другите хора са лоши или глупави, но просто "докато и те поумнеят" е добре "някои който разбира повече", някой като умния студент или още повече като умният професор временно, докато и те се научат "да са добри хора" да взима той решенията вместо тях.

Например откъде бедни и необразовани родители ще могат да вземат правилно решение за това в кое училище да запишат детето си, ако те самите не са ходили на училище. Ние като умни хора, ще вземем по-добро решение за дете което не познаваме, не сме виждали през живота си, дете с което по никакъв начин не сме обвързани, нито емоционално, нито финансово и чието бъдеще добро или лошо ние няма как да проследим в детайли и за което, за разлика от неговите родители.

Да така казано звучи абсурдно, но страшно много хора, включително и аз като бях на 20 имат такава визия за света. Чак е плашещо.

Да на хартия ни пука за бъдещето на това дете, но на практика самите ние в нашия си живот имаме решения, които са п��-важни за нас и за чието взимане ще прекараме повече време от колкото за това решение което ще определи бъдещето на това непознато дете. Наивно е да се лъжем, че експертите ще вземат по-добро или също толкова добро решение за чуждо дете така както биха взели за собственото си дете. Дори и намеренията да са еднакво добри кой РЕАЛНО има повече познания за нуждите и възможностите на това дете... А това, че родителите му не са ходили на училище не означава, че не знаят важността на училището.

И като си говоря с млади хора много от тях СА с такава визия за света. Говорил съм си и с професори, които са с такава визия за света, които смятат, че света трябва да се управлява и решенията да се взимат от хора като тях - които "знаят". Интересно е как дори тези, които знаят много, забравят колко още страшно много не знаят. Дори професора в случая (от медицинския университет) въпреки знанията си най-вероятно една сестра знае много по-добре как да вземе кръв или да разтвори антибиотик, една лична лекарка знае много повече как да сложи ваксина и да реагира при странична реакция, и един лекар по инфекциозни болести знае много по-добре как да лекува един пациент от професора, който е писал и чел цял живот по темите, но не е виждал пациент през живота си. И пак добре, ако той взима генералните решения. В повечето държавни бюрокрации решенията се взимат от лелички, чийто стимули и ограничения са да запазят работата и отдела си и да излязат в обедна почивка.

Смразяващо е колко глупави са дори "умни" хора. Прав е Том Соуел да каже че "са необходими огромни знания за да може човек да осъзнае своето невежество".
Работата е там, че дори депутатите и министрите да са все професори, философи и интелектуалци тяхното ограничение на знания ще доведе пак до това, че решенията които те ще взимат от наше име, ще бъдат неадекватни. Дори не е до правилните хора. Добрите политици сложени в система с централно управление ще взимат не по-добри, решения от прости депутати. Много вероятно е даже "експертното" правителството да взима ОЩЕ по-лоши решения, тъй като поне депутат - прост човек едва ли ще се набута между шамарите да си създава работа регулирайки неща от които не разбира. Докато професорите "разбират" и няма какво да ги спре в поемането на решенията на обикновените хора от тяхна милост. Просто се замислете колко много нови неща сте научили и си представете колко още нови неща никога няма да научите.

Смешно е как за нещо което е резултат от несъответствие между знания и власт се обвиняват корупция и лоши намерения.

И решението не е да назначим Господ за министър председател, който да наблюдава и да знае всички и да взима всички решения, които да са възможно най-правилни и съобразени с всички. Цаката е просто границите в които хората да са свободни да са широки и всеки да има свободата да вземе най-правилното решение спрямо неговото си положение и знания. Нещо което е много трудно толкова много умни и знаещи хора да осъзнаят.
Държавата я има за да пази законът и редът - да живеем в мир помежду си, а не да взима решения вместо нас. И дори само поддържането на този ред и мир е еволюирал да е разделен в ТРИ самопроверяващи се власти - съд, полиция и правителство. Тези регулиращи се институции ги има за да регулират нещо толкова просто. А не за да правят каквото всеки може сам в свободен пазар да регулира. Така сме се накаляли в бюрокрация, че е шокиращо как въпреки това хората прогресиваме и сме относително свободни. Дано продължи.

С разпръсването на знанието по отделните хора е редно да последва и разпръсване на властта за вземане на решения за това какво да става в нашия свят, а не обратното. Не за друго, ами просто, защото иначе решенията ще са по-лоши и съответно това което става в света ще е по-лошо.

(Второ четене, поне на увода)
ПОПРАВКА - Като преосмислих малко и като изслушах увода няколко пъти още всъщност това е гениална книга! Езикът е малко сложен, но все пак е писана в началото на кариерата на том. 4,5 звезди. Със сигурност ще я изслушам още не веднъж.
_____
3,5 звезди (добра книга, но едва ли ще я прочета цялата пак)
Хубава книга, определено не му е най-добрата. Повечето от тезите за МНОГО по-красиво написани в Интелектуалците и обществото. Но е стара книга. Личи си че човека е много подобрил писателските си умения с годините.

Основната теза в книгата е че най-важният избор който трябва да вземем не е толкова КАКВО политическо решение, КОЙ ще е този който ще взима решенията. Останалите тези за как интелектуаците затворени в своя интелектуален ехо балон се имат за много по мъдри и знаещи от околните и решенията които взимат статистически са по-лоши от колкото дори масата би взела. Ителектуалците са опасни защото се мислят за много по-прави от колкото нормалните хора от НЕинтелектуалната маса. Хората от масата е много по вероятно да загърбят грешна идеология която следват гледайки емпиричните резултати за грешността и, докато интелектуалците си затварят очите за фактите в името на прокарването на идеологиите си за по-добър свят, и по този начин отдалечавайки ни в доста моменти в историята точно от по доброто утре подкрепяйки кръвожадни диктатори, но споделяйки тяхната идеология. В Интелектуалците и обществото обаче много по-добре са написани. В настоящата езикът на моменти е излишно сложен, изреченията прекалрно некрасноречиви. Малко трудна за следене беше на моменти, особено ако човек не е наясно с тезите на автора. Но разбираемо е все пак книгата е от 80те години. Важен е напредъка в следващите му книги. Стщо така слушах тази книга не по пиратски, ами през аудъбъл и стигнах до извода как легалния начин е много по-неудобен. Функционалностите на плеъра на аудъбъл са много по-дървени и малко от тези на Смарт аудиобук плеяра за слушане на пиратски мп3ки. Но все пак за да стимулирам авъора вече съм си купил една негова книга - Основи на икономиката (страхотна книга), а в бъдеще бих си купил и други негови книги, макар да ги слушам пиратски. Наистина автори като Том си заслужава да бъдат спонсорирани куоувайки си лекално книгите им.

This book is not the watertight logical treatise it purports to be, it is highly political. Nevertheless, it presents a clear justification for conservative views based on the following watertight empirical principles: the cost of knowledge, the positive effect of rights on investment, and the universality of the self-interested response to incentives. In many cases the argument proceeds by leaps and gaps, but the use of strong premises is laudable.

Furthermore, the analysis of the impact of intellectuals on society is novel and interesting. By recognizing that people whose role is to summarize and popularize ideas are (1) more skilled in the communication of ideas than the production of ideas, and therefore apt to mistakenly communicate things which are not true or useful and (2) capable of creating plausible justifications for most anything, the analysis explains why intellectuals often have undue influence on policy when measures of process have increased against measures of results: intellectuals are asked to evaluate a process, often newly established by law, and because they build their evaluation upon their personal tastes and preferences, and because measures of process have increased against measures of results, these personal tastes and preferences steer the future direction of the process instead of the results of the progress. Surprisingly, Sowell chooses not to mention that this exact criticism applies to himself and his impact on political decisions in America.

Thomas Sowell is phenomenal. His common sense approach and way with words brings fact based observations to the reader in an extremely understandable fashion. It's hard to follow the intellectual activists when confronted with so much history of their failed ideas. This book is just as relevant today as it was when written decades ago.