Thoroughly enjoyed this book: based on economic evidence, exploring philosophical concepts, yet very readable. Great dive into the concept of "freedom" and how it has been warped to serve business interests - equating unfettered capitalism with human freedom and - giving the wealthy the "freedom" to exploit others.
When the government can use democratic oversight to protect public well-being and prevent abuse (which isn't socialism or communism - there's still plenty of private enterprise) we move towards prosperity, security, and true liberty for all.
Stiglitz offers us a wider view of freedom that's more in line with human flourishing, liberty, and justice for all in society - not just for the powerful. He demonstrates that without democratic constraints, neoliberal capitalism leads to ruthless, selfish, untrustworthy behavior that makes everyone worse off - including making the economy worse off.
He emphasizes that what has led to totalitarianism, when you look at history, is not government support of the economy, but *lack* of government support/ regulation, which leads to monopolies, extreme economic inequality, financial crises, and a public ready to embrace a dictator to make things right. Milton Friedman and Fredrick Hayek were "the intellectual handmaidens of the capitalists" - promoting ideology with no underlying evidence for their claims.
A comprehensive, deep, yet brief read that is highly necessary for our present moment, where democracy itself is in jeopardy.
The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society
1 1 out of 5 stars | 49 ratings
Price: 15.3
Last update: 06-14-2024
Top reviews from the United States
Kindle Customer
5.0 out of 5 stars
"Freedom" has been warped to serve the powerful - here's the full picture
Reviewed in the United States on May 2, 2024William Orr
5.0 out of 5 stars
Stiglitz Shines
Reviewed in the United States on June 8, 2024
Stiglitz really points out the faults in our democracy and the effect on the American population. He uses solid intelligent and enlightened reason for a more equitable democracy in order to bring back America as a global leader while uplifting the people and populace overall.
quant 42
5.0 out of 5 stars
I just got it, but it looks like a well reasoned alternative to the neoliberal view.
Reviewed in the United States on May 29, 2024
I just got it after reading Dave Leonhard's "Ours was the shinning future" It looks like a well reasoned alternative to the neoliberal view.
Howard
3.0 out of 5 stars
Good book, but with some caveats ...
Reviewed in the United States on April 27, 2024
Many of the ideas, such as those about climate change and other negative externalities, are rightly in the forefront of his recommendations. However, many of the book's recommendations are anti-growth and anti-competitive. Effectively, the book is a prescription for socialist ideas. We are not Finland and never will be. By the way, as those countries populations age- their problems will dwarf ours because we have a more resilient economy. Almost all of what is recommended is funded through income redistribution. Yes billionaires should pay more, but there aren't enough of them- so it eventually reaches everyone-killing economic growth-which is what eventually happens in socialist countries.
Much of the policies outlined in this book are the result of trying to fix the bad policies of the past (NAFTA, China entry into WTO)-negotiated by Clinton- but everyone will pay through income redistribution which destroys incentives and creates a less innovative economy. Yes , Bush initiated NAFTA but it was Clinton and Rahm Emanuel that negotiated the egregious terms.
Much of the policies outlined in this book are the result of trying to fix the bad policies of the past (NAFTA, China entry into WTO)-negotiated by Clinton- but everyone will pay through income redistribution which destroys incentives and creates a less innovative economy. Yes , Bush initiated NAFTA but it was Clinton and Rahm Emanuel that negotiated the egregious terms.
Kindle Customer
5.0 out of 5 stars
Thought provoking
Reviewed in the United States on May 7, 2024
Stiglitz does an admirable job addressing the drift from desiring competitive markets to the focus on free markets. This is an important point in a period when more companies have virtually unlimited market power.
However, his bias against the far right dilutes the focus on extremely important issues
However, his bias against the far right dilutes the focus on extremely important issues
NL
1.0 out of 5 stars
Factually Inaccurate
Reviewed in the United States on April 29, 2024
I was expecting this book to critique the "Washington Consensus" and to establish how neoliberalism or capitalism hasn't worked in the past 40+ years. Also, I was expecting this book to use methods of causal inference to link capitalist institutions and policies to negative outcomes within society. What I didn't expect was for almost every negative phenomenon to be linked to the institutions of capitalism without even establishing a causal mechanism or w/o showing a relationship/association between the two; however, the negative social outcomes weren't established as an effect of capitalism or neoliberalism.
One of the first inaccurate claims Stiglitz makes in this book is that Friedman and Hayek were incorrect to say economic freedom is a necessary condition for political freedom and human rights. The problem is that Hayek and Friedman were correct. Capitalist institutions are robustly linked to political freedom (democracy, for example) and human rights. Lawson & Clark have a paper demonstrating this connection, and Christian Bjørnskov surveyed the literature on capitalist institutions and human rights and found that the majority of papers support the notion that capitalism promotes human rights. De Soysa and Vadlamannati also have a paper that finds a strong association between freer markets and better respect for human rights within a society.
Furthermore, capitalist institutions are linked to lower inequality (not higher inequality), a reduction in global poverty, and improvements in the human development index. Stiglitz made a claim in this book that capitalism decreases social cohesion and shapes people to act in ways that aren't for the good of society. Interesting, given that studies show markets promote universalism in morality and prosocial behavior (prosociality).
There was another interesting facet of this book. He pays lip service to being anti-populist and condemning its authoritarianism, but he has in the past supported several dictatorial populist leaders. He says neoliberalism engenders or promotes a society to adopt populist beliefs through the neative effects it has on the economy. On the contrary, I think Stiglitz directly supporting populist dictators and publicly cheering them on as a public figure is one way populism and authoritarianism can develop within a society.
There were, of course, other problems with this book. He uses a very, very broad definition of externalities doesn't take into account government externalities, he claims Hayek and Friedman assumed perfect information and a perfectly competitive economy (they never did), he disgraces Ostrom's works on the commons, and just gets a lot of things wrong about what Hayek (and Friedman) believed. Bruce Caldwell and Peter Boettke are probably better authorities to critically examine the thought of Hayek.
If he wanted to reclaim the word freedom and establish how neoliberal capitalism has harmed the fabric of society and human freedom/opportunity, he should've established some causal mechanism for that effect & not rely on loose connections between the institutions and the negative result.
One of the first inaccurate claims Stiglitz makes in this book is that Friedman and Hayek were incorrect to say economic freedom is a necessary condition for political freedom and human rights. The problem is that Hayek and Friedman were correct. Capitalist institutions are robustly linked to political freedom (democracy, for example) and human rights. Lawson & Clark have a paper demonstrating this connection, and Christian Bjørnskov surveyed the literature on capitalist institutions and human rights and found that the majority of papers support the notion that capitalism promotes human rights. De Soysa and Vadlamannati also have a paper that finds a strong association between freer markets and better respect for human rights within a society.
Furthermore, capitalist institutions are linked to lower inequality (not higher inequality), a reduction in global poverty, and improvements in the human development index. Stiglitz made a claim in this book that capitalism decreases social cohesion and shapes people to act in ways that aren't for the good of society. Interesting, given that studies show markets promote universalism in morality and prosocial behavior (prosociality).
There was another interesting facet of this book. He pays lip service to being anti-populist and condemning its authoritarianism, but he has in the past supported several dictatorial populist leaders. He says neoliberalism engenders or promotes a society to adopt populist beliefs through the neative effects it has on the economy. On the contrary, I think Stiglitz directly supporting populist dictators and publicly cheering them on as a public figure is one way populism and authoritarianism can develop within a society.
There were, of course, other problems with this book. He uses a very, very broad definition of externalities doesn't take into account government externalities, he claims Hayek and Friedman assumed perfect information and a perfectly competitive economy (they never did), he disgraces Ostrom's works on the commons, and just gets a lot of things wrong about what Hayek (and Friedman) believed. Bruce Caldwell and Peter Boettke are probably better authorities to critically examine the thought of Hayek.
If he wanted to reclaim the word freedom and establish how neoliberal capitalism has harmed the fabric of society and human freedom/opportunity, he should've established some causal mechanism for that effect & not rely on loose connections between the institutions and the negative result.
Jean Hugues Miracle
5.0 out of 5 stars
Perfecto
Reviewed in the United States on April 29, 2024
Llegó antes de tiempo y en perfecto estado.
John
1.0 out of 5 stars
What a load of nonsense
Reviewed in the United States on May 23, 2024
Very biased view of the world. He sees government as the solver of all problems. Is against capitalism, for mass redistribution programs. Sees liberals as always right and conservatives as always wrong. A total load of rubbish.