What do you think?
Rate this book
Equality: What It Means and Why It Matters
In this compelling dialogue, two of the world¡¯s most influential thinkers reflect on the value of equality and debate what citizens and governments should do to narrow the gaps that separate us. Ranging across economics, philosophy, history, and current affairs, Thomas Piketty and Michael Sandel consider how far we have come in achieving greater equality. At the same time, they confront head-on the extreme divides that remain in wealth, income, power, and status nationally and globally.
What can be done at a time of deep political instability and environmental crisis? Piketty and Sandel agree on much: more inclusive investment in health and education, higher progressive taxation, curbing the political power of the rich and the overreach of markets. But how far and how fast can we push? Should we prioritize material or social change? What are the prospects for any change at all with nationalist forces resurgent? How should the left relate to values like patriotism and local solidarity where they collide with the challenges of mass migration and global climate change?
To see Piketty and Sandel grapple with these and other problems is to glimpse new possibilities for change and justice but also the stubborn truth that progress towards greater equality never comes quickly or without deep social conflict and political struggle.
What can be done at a time of deep political instability and environmental crisis? Piketty and Sandel agree on much: more inclusive investment in health and education, higher progressive taxation, curbing the political power of the rich and the overreach of markets. But how far and how fast can we push? Should we prioritize material or social change? What are the prospects for any change at all with nationalist forces resurgent? How should the left relate to values like patriotism and local solidarity where they collide with the challenges of mass migration and global climate change?
To see Piketty and Sandel grapple with these and other problems is to glimpse new possibilities for change and justice but also the stubborn truth that progress towards greater equality never comes quickly or without deep social conflict and political struggle.
128 pages, Hardcover
First published January 21, 2025
65 people are currently reading
5,813 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Piketty
96?books2,336?followersThomas Piketty (French: [t?ma pik?ti]; born May 7, 1971) is a French economist who works on wealth and income inequality. He is the director of studies at the ?cole des hautes ¨¦tudes en sciences sociales (EHESS) and professor at the Paris School of Economics. He is the author of the best selling book Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2013), which emphasizes the themes of his work on wealth concentrations and distribution over the past 250 years. The book argues that the rate of capital return in developed countries is persistently greater than the rate of economic growth, and that this will cause wealth inequality to increase in the future. To address this problem, he proposes redistribution through a global tax on wealth.
Piketty was born on May 7, 1971, in the Parisian suburb of Clichy. He gained a C-stream (scientific) Baccalaur¨¦at, and after taking scientific preparatory classes, he entered the ?cole Normale Sup¨¦rieure (ENS) at the age of 18, where he studied mathematics and economics. At the age of 22, Piketty was awarded his Ph.D. for a thesis on wealth redistribution, which he wrote at the EHESS and the London School of Economics under Roger Guesnerie.
After earning his PhD, Piketty taught from 1993 to 1995 as an assistant professor in the Department of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 1995, he joined the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) as a researcher, and in 2000 he became director of studies at EHESS.
Piketty won the 2002 prize for the best young economist in France, and according to a list dated November 11, 2003, he is a member of the scientific orientation board of the association "? gauche, en Europe", founded by Michel Rocard and Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
In 2006 Piketty became the first head of the Paris School of Economics, which he helped set up. He left after a few months to serve as an economic advisor to Socialist Party candidate S¨¦gol¨¨ne Royal during the French presidential campaign. Piketty resumed teaching at the Paris School of Economics in 2007.
He is a columnist for the French newspaper Lib¨¦ration, and occasionally writes op-eds for Le Monde.
In April 2012, Piketty co-authored along with 42 colleagues an open letter in support of then-PS candidate for the French presidency Fran?ois Hollande. Hollande won the contest against the incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy in May of that year.
In 2013, Piketty won the biennial Yrj? Jahnsson Award, for the economist under age 45 who has "made a contribution in theoretical and applied research that is significant to the study of economics in Europe."
Piketty specializes in economic inequality, taking a historic and statistical approach. His work looks at the rate of capital accumulation in relation to economic growth over a two hundred year spread from the nineteenth century to the present. His novel use of tax records enabled him to gather data on the very top economic elite, who had previously been understudied, and to ascertain their rate of accumulation of wealth and how this compared to the rest of society and economy. His most recent book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, relies on economic data going back 250 years to show that an ever-rising concentration of wealth is not self-correcting. To address this problem, he proposes redistribution through a global tax on wealth.
Piketty was born on May 7, 1971, in the Parisian suburb of Clichy. He gained a C-stream (scientific) Baccalaur¨¦at, and after taking scientific preparatory classes, he entered the ?cole Normale Sup¨¦rieure (ENS) at the age of 18, where he studied mathematics and economics. At the age of 22, Piketty was awarded his Ph.D. for a thesis on wealth redistribution, which he wrote at the EHESS and the London School of Economics under Roger Guesnerie.
After earning his PhD, Piketty taught from 1993 to 1995 as an assistant professor in the Department of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 1995, he joined the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) as a researcher, and in 2000 he became director of studies at EHESS.
Piketty won the 2002 prize for the best young economist in France, and according to a list dated November 11, 2003, he is a member of the scientific orientation board of the association "? gauche, en Europe", founded by Michel Rocard and Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
In 2006 Piketty became the first head of the Paris School of Economics, which he helped set up. He left after a few months to serve as an economic advisor to Socialist Party candidate S¨¦gol¨¨ne Royal during the French presidential campaign. Piketty resumed teaching at the Paris School of Economics in 2007.
He is a columnist for the French newspaper Lib¨¦ration, and occasionally writes op-eds for Le Monde.
In April 2012, Piketty co-authored along with 42 colleagues an open letter in support of then-PS candidate for the French presidency Fran?ois Hollande. Hollande won the contest against the incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy in May of that year.
In 2013, Piketty won the biennial Yrj? Jahnsson Award, for the economist under age 45 who has "made a contribution in theoretical and applied research that is significant to the study of economics in Europe."
Piketty specializes in economic inequality, taking a historic and statistical approach. His work looks at the rate of capital accumulation in relation to economic growth over a two hundred year spread from the nineteenth century to the present. His novel use of tax records enabled him to gather data on the very top economic elite, who had previously been understudied, and to ascertain their rate of accumulation of wealth and how this compared to the rest of society and economy. His most recent book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, relies on economic data going back 250 years to show that an ever-rising concentration of wealth is not self-correcting. To address this problem, he proposes redistribution through a global tax on wealth.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
January 28, 2025
This is less a book than the transcript of a conversation between the two authors. The question and answer format works really well.
As for the contents? It's short, it's smart, and it's semi-accessible. I can't say that I understood everything discussed, but I really liked what I got.
As for the contents? It's short, it's smart, and it's semi-accessible. I can't say that I understood everything discussed, but I really liked what I got.
February 1, 2025
I appreciated this book, an edited transcription of a conversation, outlined beforehand by the two scholars to ensure they explored certain topics in which they have different opinions, or nuances. I found the conversation thought-provoking and sections of the dialogue giving reason for a reader from the center-left or left areas of the political spectrum to pause and begin to consider their culpability in the rise of the nationalist conservative right.
it was also clear that this was only one insightful conversation among two men and many more need to be had among many more people (and they are happening) to figure out what the future of the left might require. Piketty and Sandel discuss approaches to dealing with inequality in incomes, education, health care, etc but the lift is heavy and likely to require tremendous upheaval (my sense of Piketty's position). I found myself in agreement with Sandel's point that establishing community with moral grounding as a part of any other solutions to inequality is urgently needed to provide a counter the tribal anti-immigrant, anti-intelligentsia sense of community established among supporters of Trump and his like.
A quick read if one wants it to be, but also worth slowing the pace at points to ponder the implications and underlying issues with some of the statements made by these two distinguished me. I'm glad I read it. Likely will revisit it. I hope similar books among sane thinkers on these topics may be forthcoming.
it was also clear that this was only one insightful conversation among two men and many more need to be had among many more people (and they are happening) to figure out what the future of the left might require. Piketty and Sandel discuss approaches to dealing with inequality in incomes, education, health care, etc but the lift is heavy and likely to require tremendous upheaval (my sense of Piketty's position). I found myself in agreement with Sandel's point that establishing community with moral grounding as a part of any other solutions to inequality is urgently needed to provide a counter the tribal anti-immigrant, anti-intelligentsia sense of community established among supporters of Trump and his like.
A quick read if one wants it to be, but also worth slowing the pace at points to ponder the implications and underlying issues with some of the statements made by these two distinguished me. I'm glad I read it. Likely will revisit it. I hope similar books among sane thinkers on these topics may be forthcoming.
February 9, 2025
Good book on a discussion between the two academics. Makes me interested to read more from both. Interesting arguments put forward on how to reduce inequality.
March 11, 2025
This is not really a book, but more an eassy. An interview between the two men.
Although they cover great topics and ideas around equality and what it means for the current politcal landscape, it did not not reach a final conclusion.
I must say that their discussion on meritocracy did change the way i viewed the topic.
Although they cover great topics and ideas around equality and what it means for the current politcal landscape, it did not not reach a final conclusion.
I must say that their discussion on meritocracy did change the way i viewed the topic.
February 27, 2025
When I found out that Sandel and Piketty had written a book together, I was immediately curious. After all, they come from different normative traditions: Sandel from communitarianism and Piketty from socialism. Yet they share a common goal¡ªgreater equality. However, their approaches to achieving it differ a bit.
Sandel focuses on restoring a sense of community within nations. He argues that part of the issue of dignity inequality stems from the elite looking down on the less educated. He suggests that if we pay more attention to the common good, inequality in other areas¡ªsuch as access to basic services and political equality¡ªwill naturally decrease as well. A key part of his vision is ensuring that everyone, including those with lower education levels, has a greater say in politics and that public services improve, so that the wealthy and the poor once again interact in daily life. His thoughts on meritocracy are also impressive and highlight a possible contributing factor to populism.
Piketty, on the other hand, believes that tackling economic inequality should be the first step. As long as wealth gaps remain vast, the rich will continue to buy power and look down on others. To counter this, he proposes radical economic reforms, such as income and wealth taxes of up to 90% on the highest earners, a globally distributed corporate tax (as a form of compensation for colonial exploitation and environmental damage caused by wealthy nations), and giving employees at least 50% voting rights in companies. Sounds extreme? It is. But Piketty argues that even more drastic changes have happened before. He points out that in the early 20th century, average tax rates were around 10%, whereas later they increased to about 50%. In his view, the most socialist periods were actually the most successful¡ªuntil left-wing parties let the free market take over and abandoned their working-class base. Now, they seem more like elite parties rather than true representatives of labor.
One of Piketty¡¯s proposals that I find interesting was his idea of an international treaty for a minimum corporate tax rate. Right now, countries struggle to raise corporate taxes because companies can always threaten to move to a tax haven (made me thinkt of ASML¡¯s recent threats). But if all countries set a minimum rate, that argument loses its power, and governments would have more control over big corporations. This would also help create more political equality. Because, as Piketty himself acknowledges, the money needed for equality cannot just come from ¡°ordinary¡± people¡ªvoters simply won¡¯t agree to that. ¡°Take it from the big corporations¡± is the more common saying.
Okay, that was my content-focused brain dump. Now, about the book itself: it¡¯s basically a written transcript of a conversation between Sandel and Piketty. Literally that. They gave a lecture in Paris on inequality, and this book is just a typed-out version of that discussion. And honestly, that does a disservice to their ideas. I¡¯ve read previous works from both authors, so I was able to follow the discussion easily, but I also knew how much was missing. Such a complex topic, analyzed from different normative perspectives, squeezed into just over 100 pages? It doesn¡¯t do justice to the depth of their thinking and research.
I suspect the book is meant to convince people of the need for new policies to promote equality¡ªit¡¯s currently ranked #2 at Bruna in Maastricht, so it¡¯s clearly attracting attention. But does it actually succeed in making that case? I have my doubts. For me, it was an interesting summary of their ideas, and it was cool to see them engage together. But truly persuasive? And comprehensive? I don¡¯t know¡
Sandel focuses on restoring a sense of community within nations. He argues that part of the issue of dignity inequality stems from the elite looking down on the less educated. He suggests that if we pay more attention to the common good, inequality in other areas¡ªsuch as access to basic services and political equality¡ªwill naturally decrease as well. A key part of his vision is ensuring that everyone, including those with lower education levels, has a greater say in politics and that public services improve, so that the wealthy and the poor once again interact in daily life. His thoughts on meritocracy are also impressive and highlight a possible contributing factor to populism.
Piketty, on the other hand, believes that tackling economic inequality should be the first step. As long as wealth gaps remain vast, the rich will continue to buy power and look down on others. To counter this, he proposes radical economic reforms, such as income and wealth taxes of up to 90% on the highest earners, a globally distributed corporate tax (as a form of compensation for colonial exploitation and environmental damage caused by wealthy nations), and giving employees at least 50% voting rights in companies. Sounds extreme? It is. But Piketty argues that even more drastic changes have happened before. He points out that in the early 20th century, average tax rates were around 10%, whereas later they increased to about 50%. In his view, the most socialist periods were actually the most successful¡ªuntil left-wing parties let the free market take over and abandoned their working-class base. Now, they seem more like elite parties rather than true representatives of labor.
One of Piketty¡¯s proposals that I find interesting was his idea of an international treaty for a minimum corporate tax rate. Right now, countries struggle to raise corporate taxes because companies can always threaten to move to a tax haven (made me thinkt of ASML¡¯s recent threats). But if all countries set a minimum rate, that argument loses its power, and governments would have more control over big corporations. This would also help create more political equality. Because, as Piketty himself acknowledges, the money needed for equality cannot just come from ¡°ordinary¡± people¡ªvoters simply won¡¯t agree to that. ¡°Take it from the big corporations¡± is the more common saying.
Okay, that was my content-focused brain dump. Now, about the book itself: it¡¯s basically a written transcript of a conversation between Sandel and Piketty. Literally that. They gave a lecture in Paris on inequality, and this book is just a typed-out version of that discussion. And honestly, that does a disservice to their ideas. I¡¯ve read previous works from both authors, so I was able to follow the discussion easily, but I also knew how much was missing. Such a complex topic, analyzed from different normative perspectives, squeezed into just over 100 pages? It doesn¡¯t do justice to the depth of their thinking and research.
I suspect the book is meant to convince people of the need for new policies to promote equality¡ªit¡¯s currently ranked #2 at Bruna in Maastricht, so it¡¯s clearly attracting attention. But does it actually succeed in making that case? I have my doubts. For me, it was an interesting summary of their ideas, and it was cool to see them engage together. But truly persuasive? And comprehensive? I don¡¯t know¡
March 20, 2025
This is a nice short book which can be read in one or two days, but this is something which can also deceive you because the themes in the book require quite a bit of study and can lead to many tangents. For this reason, I wanted to write a longer-than-usual review because I believe it's worth it.
First, both authors need no introduction, but I would like to compare and contrast them in this discussion, although not with any competitive objective (this is definitely not a debate anyway).
Starting with Michael Sandel, he is my favorite political philosopher alive; in my view, he is the single best explainer in the world right now. There is basically no one else that can structure, and then articulate, his thoughts so concisely and coherently, not only in writing, but also in impromptu conversations (like this one). This involves basically most of what we've come to know as contributing to understanding: identifying contradictions, poking holes, pinpointing necessary and sufficient conditions, bringing forward different perspectives, clarifying resemblances and differences, and of course a good use of logic in arranging premises such that one can easily derive conclusions. It's honestly unbelievable how he does this, especially at this age. Sandel leads most of the discussion---and you have to be grateful whenever this happens---which helps the reader get some clarity.
Piketty, when it comes to clarity of thought, is not as good as Sandel. This is understandable because, as I said, I don't think anyone is. But his contribution here comes mostly from his insights. Piketty offers unique insights and interpretations, more so than Sandel in my opinion (although this may be a side-effect of the fact that I'm much more familiar with Sandel's work than Piketty's, and so I basically had already heard all of Sandel's arguments already). Ultimately, it's Piketty's insights and proposals which make this book worth buying (anyway if you care about Sandel's opinion, you'd be much better off reading The Tyranny of Merit, the Moral Limits of Markets, or Democracy's Discontent)! That said, most, if not all, of the work that is required of you into understanding this book will be in figuring out what Piketty said (I'm not saying it's always difficult, but it's usually subtle and too much is assumed).
Now, let me talk more about the content. If could summarize the differences in metanlity of the two authors, it would be that Piketty wants to just take the hammer and pound in the nail, whereas Sandel proposes solutions that will hopefully make the hammer fall naturally on to the nail (or which at least will make the nail resist less). I'm not making a value judgement between the two, but I think it's useful to think about that as you read the book. To make this a bit more concrete, I think that, as you read the text---especially Piketty's arguments---, it would be useful to keep in mind the distinction between equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. Here's an example (Piketty is speaking):
Now, which kind of equality is this? Is admitting a poor student to an Ivy League university giving them an opportunity which they would not otherwise have (and maybe it wouldn't even be a possible scenario), or is this a case of equality of outcome where basically one may argue that "equal opportunity" should only apply to young age and you can't have student A from a rich family and student B from a poor family both get into Princeton (the same outcome) regardless of their comparative merit? You get to decide; I'm just pointing out that I think it's a useful question to keep in mind.
To finish off, I would like to comment on some specific parts of the book.
(1). Piketty makes an interesting comment (twice actually; once in Chapter 1, p. 6, another in Chapter 7, p. 73, and we can even say that his statements on p. 118 are related), which basically goes like this:
To be honest, I'm not sure what Piketty means here. I could think of two possible interpretations: (a) Wealth inequality leads to time inequality, where I can spend only one hour of my time and have enough money to live for the rest of the year. I can now use this free time (i.e., a whole year) for political action and participation, whereas you have to go to work every day, and thus you'll participate way less. This creates a political imbalance in which rich have more of a say in what happens. (b) Wealth inequality leads essentially to a form of slavery. I can hire you and pay you to work for me for an entire year just by sacrificing (the equivalent of) one hour of my work/time. And for that entire year, I can tell you what to do.
(2) In Chapter 4, they have a discussion about populism which is pretty vague, and evidently it's because they mean different things when they talk about populism. The problem is that they both talk about how populism is and has been used in public discourse, but neither defines it. I'm afraid this happens because, as with most people---including experts---, they don't seem to have a clear definition of populism in mind. So, if you want to make anything worthy out of this discussion, I highly recommend Mudde's Populism: A Very Short Introduction. He presents the single best definition---and demarcation (!) from other terms---of the term "populism" I've ever come across.
(3) In Chapter 8, Sandel asks Piketty: "Is there a good principled reason not to have open borders?". In my opinion, Piketty evades the question (I won't post the whole 2 pages for clarity), which I think is evident from the fact that Sandel asks again: "So, at the moment, do rich countries have a right to keep out migrants from poor countries who want to come?". To this Piketty gives a slightly better answer, but at the end of the day he still evades the question. That was a bit disappointing because it's the only place in the book where a question goes unanswered.
(4) Piketty's analysis on Le Pen and Sarkozy is so on point and clearly given.
(5) They discuss identity and in some sense what we refer to as identity politics, but if you're looking for a discussion on issues like: Woke culture, LGBTQ rights, feminism and masculinity, then FYI there's none of that.
(6) The Rousseau excerpts Sandel brought in Chapter 9 (how cheeky Sandel is; of all political philosophers, he brought Rousseau, who, like Piketty, was French), his interpretation, and Piketty's response are great. By the way, the two excerpts are from the Second Part of the Discourse, paragraphs 1 and 17 (also, FWIW, Sandel's doesn't use Scott's translation).
Edit: The reason I'm giving it 4 stars is because there's nothing that unique in the book.
First, both authors need no introduction, but I would like to compare and contrast them in this discussion, although not with any competitive objective (this is definitely not a debate anyway).
Starting with Michael Sandel, he is my favorite political philosopher alive; in my view, he is the single best explainer in the world right now. There is basically no one else that can structure, and then articulate, his thoughts so concisely and coherently, not only in writing, but also in impromptu conversations (like this one). This involves basically most of what we've come to know as contributing to understanding: identifying contradictions, poking holes, pinpointing necessary and sufficient conditions, bringing forward different perspectives, clarifying resemblances and differences, and of course a good use of logic in arranging premises such that one can easily derive conclusions. It's honestly unbelievable how he does this, especially at this age. Sandel leads most of the discussion---and you have to be grateful whenever this happens---which helps the reader get some clarity.
Piketty, when it comes to clarity of thought, is not as good as Sandel. This is understandable because, as I said, I don't think anyone is. But his contribution here comes mostly from his insights. Piketty offers unique insights and interpretations, more so than Sandel in my opinion (although this may be a side-effect of the fact that I'm much more familiar with Sandel's work than Piketty's, and so I basically had already heard all of Sandel's arguments already). Ultimately, it's Piketty's insights and proposals which make this book worth buying (anyway if you care about Sandel's opinion, you'd be much better off reading The Tyranny of Merit, the Moral Limits of Markets, or Democracy's Discontent)! That said, most, if not all, of the work that is required of you into understanding this book will be in figuring out what Piketty said (I'm not saying it's always difficult, but it's usually subtle and too much is assumed).
Now, let me talk more about the content. If could summarize the differences in metanlity of the two authors, it would be that Piketty wants to just take the hammer and pound in the nail, whereas Sandel proposes solutions that will hopefully make the hammer fall naturally on to the nail (or which at least will make the nail resist less). I'm not making a value judgement between the two, but I think it's useful to think about that as you read the book. To make this a bit more concrete, I think that, as you read the text---especially Piketty's arguments---, it would be useful to keep in mind the distinction between equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. Here's an example (Piketty is speaking):
[A] proposal [...] by Daniel Markovits, [...] who would basically say the following to Ivy League institutions: "You do what you want, but at the end of the day I want you to have at least half of your students coming from the bottom two-thirds of the country in terms of parental income.["]
Now, which kind of equality is this? Is admitting a poor student to an Ivy League university giving them an opportunity which they would not otherwise have (and maybe it wouldn't even be a possible scenario), or is this a case of equality of outcome where basically one may argue that "equal opportunity" should only apply to young age and you can't have student A from a rich family and student B from a poor family both get into Princeton (the same outcome) regardless of their comparative merit? You get to decide; I'm just pointing out that I think it's a useful question to keep in mind.
To finish off, I would like to comment on some specific parts of the book.
(1). Piketty makes an interesting comment (twice actually; once in Chapter 1, p. 6, another in Chapter 7, p. 73, and we can even say that his statements on p. 118 are related), which basically goes like this:
[With inequality of income, you also have] inequality in purchasing time over the time of others. So, if by spending the equivalent of one hour of my income, I can buy your entire year of work, that implies kinds of social distance in human relations that raise very serious concerns and questions. [...] [This is] really a question of dignity because [...] you believe you can dictate what others can do with their time.
To be honest, I'm not sure what Piketty means here. I could think of two possible interpretations: (a) Wealth inequality leads to time inequality, where I can spend only one hour of my time and have enough money to live for the rest of the year. I can now use this free time (i.e., a whole year) for political action and participation, whereas you have to go to work every day, and thus you'll participate way less. This creates a political imbalance in which rich have more of a say in what happens. (b) Wealth inequality leads essentially to a form of slavery. I can hire you and pay you to work for me for an entire year just by sacrificing (the equivalent of) one hour of my work/time. And for that entire year, I can tell you what to do.
(2) In Chapter 4, they have a discussion about populism which is pretty vague, and evidently it's because they mean different things when they talk about populism. The problem is that they both talk about how populism is and has been used in public discourse, but neither defines it. I'm afraid this happens because, as with most people---including experts---, they don't seem to have a clear definition of populism in mind. So, if you want to make anything worthy out of this discussion, I highly recommend Mudde's Populism: A Very Short Introduction. He presents the single best definition---and demarcation (!) from other terms---of the term "populism" I've ever come across.
(3) In Chapter 8, Sandel asks Piketty: "Is there a good principled reason not to have open borders?". In my opinion, Piketty evades the question (I won't post the whole 2 pages for clarity), which I think is evident from the fact that Sandel asks again: "So, at the moment, do rich countries have a right to keep out migrants from poor countries who want to come?". To this Piketty gives a slightly better answer, but at the end of the day he still evades the question. That was a bit disappointing because it's the only place in the book where a question goes unanswered.
(4) Piketty's analysis on Le Pen and Sarkozy is so on point and clearly given.
(5) They discuss identity and in some sense what we refer to as identity politics, but if you're looking for a discussion on issues like: Woke culture, LGBTQ rights, feminism and masculinity, then FYI there's none of that.
(6) The Rousseau excerpts Sandel brought in Chapter 9 (how cheeky Sandel is; of all political philosophers, he brought Rousseau, who, like Piketty, was French), his interpretation, and Piketty's response are great. By the way, the two excerpts are from the Second Part of the Discourse, paragraphs 1 and 17 (also, FWIW, Sandel's doesn't use Scott's translation).
Edit: The reason I'm giving it 4 stars is because there's nothing that unique in the book.
February 25, 2025
When I read Equality. What It Is and Why It Matters, I was immediately drawn into the dialogue between Thomas Piketty and Michael Sandel. Their combination of economic and philosophical insights makes this book a compelling and thought-provoking work. However, the interaction between their perspectives is not always balanced. Piketty remains committed to economic redistribution as the solution, while Sandel places greater emphasis on moral and political dimensions. As a result, certain structural questions regarding the feasibility of their ideas remain unanswered.
This book is more than just a dry academic treatise. The conversational format makes it accessible and encourages reflection. However, this accessibility sometimes comes at the expense of depth. The authors draw inspiration from the work of Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, adding another layer of insight, but at times, they fall into repeating familiar arguments. For readers already familiar with Piketty and Sandel¡¯s work, the book serves as a deepening of their dialogue, whereas newcomers may find the lack of concrete strategies a shortcoming. The fact that the book is only 156 pages makes it accessible and digestible but also limits space for thorough analysis and counterarguments.
One of the most striking insights is how Piketty and Sandel connect three forms of inequality: The first is Economic inequality ¨C the uneven distribution of income and wealth, which has grown significantly since the 1980s. The second is Political inequality ¨C how wealth translates into political power and influence, leading to skewed decision-making. Last but not least, there is Social inequality ¨C the lack of recognition and dignity for people with fewer resources and less power.
What struck me was how clearly Piketty demonstrates that economic inequality reinforces the other two. As a result, people become increasingly alienated from politics and turn to populism. This is a painful reality that many Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ reviewers also noted, as they recognized these mechanisms in their own countries and lives. However, the book does not sufficiently explore the deeper causes of this trend: why has the left failed to offer a convincing alternative? The book identifies the consequences of neoliberal policies but remains relatively silent on the internal shortcomings of progressive movements and their inability to engage voters.
A key theme in the book is the role of the free market and how center-left parties have relinquished their power. Sandel explains how faith in Adam Smith¡¯s ¡®invisible hand¡¯ has placed power in the hands of multinationals and financial markets, thereby shrinking the policy space for national governments and even the EU. This has led to stagnant wages and job insecurity, a deterioration of the public sector, and a growing divide between citizens and politics.
This is all painfully familiar. As I read, I reflected on recent debates about tax reforms and how even the smallest progressive measures are immediately opposed by entrenched interests. The frustration many people feel about this is evident throughout the book. However, I missed a more in-depth analysis of how these power structures have become so dominant and how they could be effectively dismantled. The book states that neoliberal ideology is dominant but offers little insight into how this has historically developed and what power dynamics sustain it.
Piketty and Sandel propose concrete solutions to tackle inequality. First, there is decommodification: essential sectors such as healthcare and education must be protected from market forces. Many Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ readers found this idea compelling, as it feels like a necessary correction to current trends. However, the question remains whether this is feasible in a world where economic interests dominate and where there is structural resistance from both the private sector and politics. Second, there is progressive taxation: the wealthy should contribute their fair share, something that was once standard in the U.S. but now seems unthinkable. History shows that this can work, provided it is implemented at a broad international level. Yet, implementation remains an open question. How do we prevent capital flight? How do we build political consensus in an increasingly polarized world?
What I found inspiring is that the authors do not dwell on abstract theories. They provide concrete examples and reference previous periods when progressive tax policies were effective. Still, the big question remains: how do we achieve this in a world where power is so unequally distributed? The nuance missing here is that these solutions cannot exist in isolation; without structural political change, tax reform is merely a temporary fix.
One of the most fascinating insights was the reference to Herbert Marcuse. He warned that capitalism has the ability to absorb and commercialize protest movements. This raises the question of whether change from within is possible. In Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ reviews, I saw this skepticism echoed: many readers found the analysis convincing but questioned whether there will ever be the political will to truly address inequality.
Sandel and Piketty suggest that the climate crisis could be the decisive factor. The way the economy handles environmental challenges could be the catalyst for larger reforms. This made me wonder: is this the crisis needed to bring about real change? At the same time, I question whether we are caught in a vicious cycle where we continually wait for the ¡®ultimate crisis¡¯ to force change, while powerful economic players find ways to maintain their influence.
My conclusion is that Equality. What It Is and Why It Matters is one of the most impactful books I have read recently. It does not provide easy answers but challenges readers to reflect on the foundations of our society. However, the book remains too abstract and optimistic in many areas. It identifies the symptoms of inequality and presents plausible solutions, but it is vague on their practical feasibility. Those looking for a detailed action plan or concrete strategies to curb the power of multinationals and elites will find few answers here.
I would recommend this book to anyone interested in economics, philosophy, and politics, but with the caveat that it is primarily a starting point for thought¡ªnot a manual for change.
This book is more than just a dry academic treatise. The conversational format makes it accessible and encourages reflection. However, this accessibility sometimes comes at the expense of depth. The authors draw inspiration from the work of Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, adding another layer of insight, but at times, they fall into repeating familiar arguments. For readers already familiar with Piketty and Sandel¡¯s work, the book serves as a deepening of their dialogue, whereas newcomers may find the lack of concrete strategies a shortcoming. The fact that the book is only 156 pages makes it accessible and digestible but also limits space for thorough analysis and counterarguments.
One of the most striking insights is how Piketty and Sandel connect three forms of inequality: The first is Economic inequality ¨C the uneven distribution of income and wealth, which has grown significantly since the 1980s. The second is Political inequality ¨C how wealth translates into political power and influence, leading to skewed decision-making. Last but not least, there is Social inequality ¨C the lack of recognition and dignity for people with fewer resources and less power.
What struck me was how clearly Piketty demonstrates that economic inequality reinforces the other two. As a result, people become increasingly alienated from politics and turn to populism. This is a painful reality that many Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ reviewers also noted, as they recognized these mechanisms in their own countries and lives. However, the book does not sufficiently explore the deeper causes of this trend: why has the left failed to offer a convincing alternative? The book identifies the consequences of neoliberal policies but remains relatively silent on the internal shortcomings of progressive movements and their inability to engage voters.
A key theme in the book is the role of the free market and how center-left parties have relinquished their power. Sandel explains how faith in Adam Smith¡¯s ¡®invisible hand¡¯ has placed power in the hands of multinationals and financial markets, thereby shrinking the policy space for national governments and even the EU. This has led to stagnant wages and job insecurity, a deterioration of the public sector, and a growing divide between citizens and politics.
This is all painfully familiar. As I read, I reflected on recent debates about tax reforms and how even the smallest progressive measures are immediately opposed by entrenched interests. The frustration many people feel about this is evident throughout the book. However, I missed a more in-depth analysis of how these power structures have become so dominant and how they could be effectively dismantled. The book states that neoliberal ideology is dominant but offers little insight into how this has historically developed and what power dynamics sustain it.
Piketty and Sandel propose concrete solutions to tackle inequality. First, there is decommodification: essential sectors such as healthcare and education must be protected from market forces. Many Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ readers found this idea compelling, as it feels like a necessary correction to current trends. However, the question remains whether this is feasible in a world where economic interests dominate and where there is structural resistance from both the private sector and politics. Second, there is progressive taxation: the wealthy should contribute their fair share, something that was once standard in the U.S. but now seems unthinkable. History shows that this can work, provided it is implemented at a broad international level. Yet, implementation remains an open question. How do we prevent capital flight? How do we build political consensus in an increasingly polarized world?
What I found inspiring is that the authors do not dwell on abstract theories. They provide concrete examples and reference previous periods when progressive tax policies were effective. Still, the big question remains: how do we achieve this in a world where power is so unequally distributed? The nuance missing here is that these solutions cannot exist in isolation; without structural political change, tax reform is merely a temporary fix.
One of the most fascinating insights was the reference to Herbert Marcuse. He warned that capitalism has the ability to absorb and commercialize protest movements. This raises the question of whether change from within is possible. In Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ reviews, I saw this skepticism echoed: many readers found the analysis convincing but questioned whether there will ever be the political will to truly address inequality.
Sandel and Piketty suggest that the climate crisis could be the decisive factor. The way the economy handles environmental challenges could be the catalyst for larger reforms. This made me wonder: is this the crisis needed to bring about real change? At the same time, I question whether we are caught in a vicious cycle where we continually wait for the ¡®ultimate crisis¡¯ to force change, while powerful economic players find ways to maintain their influence.
My conclusion is that Equality. What It Is and Why It Matters is one of the most impactful books I have read recently. It does not provide easy answers but challenges readers to reflect on the foundations of our society. However, the book remains too abstract and optimistic in many areas. It identifies the symptoms of inequality and presents plausible solutions, but it is vague on their practical feasibility. Those looking for a detailed action plan or concrete strategies to curb the power of multinationals and elites will find few answers here.
I would recommend this book to anyone interested in economics, philosophy, and politics, but with the caveat that it is primarily a starting point for thought¡ªnot a manual for change.
March 1, 2025
While I found Sandel's contributions insightful, Piketty's sections felt long-winded and full of digressions. Ultimately, I¡¯d recommend skipping this book and going straight to Sandel¡¯s works ¡ª Justice, The Tyranny of Merit, and What Money Can¡¯t Buy.
Key takeaways:
- Monetary inequality leads to social distancing ¡ª breaking down informal relationships in local communities.
- The idea of decommodifying the economy ¡ª some essentials like education and healthcare should be rights, not dictated by the market.
- Progressive taxation ¡ª the wealthy should pay more, recognizing they didn¡¯t succeed entirely on their own.
- Commerce and money can corrode certain values, cheapening intrinsic worth.
- Sandel's perspective on Trump's rise: He framed Democrats as the party of market "winners," and the 2008 financial bailout reinforced this, rewarding elites while leaving many behind.
- Markets as an escape hatch ¡ª they allow us to bypass messy, necessary debates about values. But we should get into it!!
- The tyranny of merit ¡ª a dangerous belief among elites that they deserve their success, while others equally deserve their struggles.
- The toxic cycle of hubris and humiliation ¡ª the winners' arrogance and the losers' sense of worthlessness.
- Universities as sorting machines ¡ª reinforcing credentialism and social division.
- Rawls vs. Sandel ¡ª Sandel builds on Rawls by emphasizing our mutual indebtedness and the importance of community.
- Sandel's proposal: invest in civic infrastructure ¡ª build public spaces that foster shared experiences and social bonds.
- The Global North vs. South ¡ª highlighting historical exploitation and the idea that the ultra-rich should pay a "tax" to support the Global South.
- Reframing tax evasion as unpatriotic ¡ª a betrayal of civic duty.
- Recognizing that economic dislocation doesn¡¯t just harm finances ¡ª it also damages dignity and fuels a lack of respect for those left behind.
- The importance of honoring the dignity of work.
Key takeaways:
- Monetary inequality leads to social distancing ¡ª breaking down informal relationships in local communities.
- The idea of decommodifying the economy ¡ª some essentials like education and healthcare should be rights, not dictated by the market.
- Progressive taxation ¡ª the wealthy should pay more, recognizing they didn¡¯t succeed entirely on their own.
- Commerce and money can corrode certain values, cheapening intrinsic worth.
- Sandel's perspective on Trump's rise: He framed Democrats as the party of market "winners," and the 2008 financial bailout reinforced this, rewarding elites while leaving many behind.
- Markets as an escape hatch ¡ª they allow us to bypass messy, necessary debates about values. But we should get into it!!
- The tyranny of merit ¡ª a dangerous belief among elites that they deserve their success, while others equally deserve their struggles.
- The toxic cycle of hubris and humiliation ¡ª the winners' arrogance and the losers' sense of worthlessness.
- Universities as sorting machines ¡ª reinforcing credentialism and social division.
- Rawls vs. Sandel ¡ª Sandel builds on Rawls by emphasizing our mutual indebtedness and the importance of community.
- Sandel's proposal: invest in civic infrastructure ¡ª build public spaces that foster shared experiences and social bonds.
- The Global North vs. South ¡ª highlighting historical exploitation and the idea that the ultra-rich should pay a "tax" to support the Global South.
- Reframing tax evasion as unpatriotic ¡ª a betrayal of civic duty.
- Recognizing that economic dislocation doesn¡¯t just harm finances ¡ª it also damages dignity and fuels a lack of respect for those left behind.
- The importance of honoring the dignity of work.
February 23, 2025
75% done but feel that this transcript of a May 2024 conversation on equality between Sandel & Piketty is painfully dated for US readers as of February 2025. Reading it isn't without merit (pun kinda intended) for those, like me, who have not studied economics. What is amusing, however, is the deep dive into education equality and steps to bridge the gap since the US is now considering eliminating DoE, ergo, any idea seems preposterous... though I did find the lottery idea fascinating. Will update this mini review if there is a strong finish.
**updated 3.5 stars
I stand with previous thoughts after finishing the book. The final few pages delve into identity as one of the three ideologies that seem to be causing friction in achieving the goal of equality. It felt a bit simplistic and siloed. This feeling was reinforced by Sandel's example of his encounter with an Iowan in an elevator while they both were vacationing in Florida. The Iowa woman had asked Sandel where he was from and he replied Boston. She proceeded to state that she was from Iowa and went on about Iowans not being uneducated but in a manner that was very defensive. Sandel used this to emphasize his points about folks in rural areas feeling that they are being criticized and are viewed less than because of where they reside. While I understood his argument, I believe that identity politics are far more nuanced and a wide net cannot be cast. As a person who is also from Iowa, I've never felt inferior when traveling and meeting folks from larger urban areas. Granted, I never brag about IA being a place to visit (and it has gotten so much worse since our state is determined to be ruled by the folks behind Project 2025) yet, people are people and our intelligence manifests in many different ways. Anyhoo, I'd like to see a follow-up in May 2025 because the equality question has risen in complexity in the US in the last 30 days. ~
**updated 3.5 stars
I stand with previous thoughts after finishing the book. The final few pages delve into identity as one of the three ideologies that seem to be causing friction in achieving the goal of equality. It felt a bit simplistic and siloed. This feeling was reinforced by Sandel's example of his encounter with an Iowan in an elevator while they both were vacationing in Florida. The Iowa woman had asked Sandel where he was from and he replied Boston. She proceeded to state that she was from Iowa and went on about Iowans not being uneducated but in a manner that was very defensive. Sandel used this to emphasize his points about folks in rural areas feeling that they are being criticized and are viewed less than because of where they reside. While I understood his argument, I believe that identity politics are far more nuanced and a wide net cannot be cast. As a person who is also from Iowa, I've never felt inferior when traveling and meeting folks from larger urban areas. Granted, I never brag about IA being a place to visit (and it has gotten so much worse since our state is determined to be ruled by the folks behind Project 2025) yet, people are people and our intelligence manifests in many different ways. Anyhoo, I'd like to see a follow-up in May 2025 because the equality question has risen in complexity in the US in the last 30 days. ~
February 2, 2025
Worth the listen but it really isn't a book, more two guys talking. Topics are covered in a very shallow manner. Lots of topics. Nothing covered very well.
From the book: we need to invest more money into higher education because more money will eventually lead to higher quality. Since the 80s we have not increased this higher education investment and the balance of quality will be limited to an elite few.
From my perspective: Higher Education is a bit of money racket, costing the individual more than ever. Individuals are not seeing a return on the money spent to their income. They don't get better paying or better career jobs. One one hand he suggests higher education is a great thing and we should spend more money on it but he doesn't say why or what really is the value. Is that a problem with Federal Investment into Education or a combination of Education not teaching labor skills and skyrocketing costs? I don't know but I'd like to.
Democratize Businesses. My perspective: Not sure that has been proven except in a couple of places. Hierarchy generally has been more successful. CEO remuneration wasn't covered.
My wife and I like to go to talks like this. You know the type where the moderator wants to be as sharp as the speakers instead of getting to some ah ha moments. It is interesting to listen too but lacks the focus.
Worth the listen? sure.
From the book: we need to invest more money into higher education because more money will eventually lead to higher quality. Since the 80s we have not increased this higher education investment and the balance of quality will be limited to an elite few.
From my perspective: Higher Education is a bit of money racket, costing the individual more than ever. Individuals are not seeing a return on the money spent to their income. They don't get better paying or better career jobs. One one hand he suggests higher education is a great thing and we should spend more money on it but he doesn't say why or what really is the value. Is that a problem with Federal Investment into Education or a combination of Education not teaching labor skills and skyrocketing costs? I don't know but I'd like to.
Democratize Businesses. My perspective: Not sure that has been proven except in a couple of places. Hierarchy generally has been more successful. CEO remuneration wasn't covered.
My wife and I like to go to talks like this. You know the type where the moderator wants to be as sharp as the speakers instead of getting to some ah ha moments. It is interesting to listen too but lacks the focus.
Worth the listen? sure.
March 5, 2025
****.5
Interesting conversation between two smrt dudes, covering a range of topics in a short accessible manner.
They start by defining three types of inequality: financial (income/wealth), political power, class/social standing (honour, respect, dignity), and then delve into each by examining the problems and considering some solutions.
They touch on the priorities of society, that too often does a terrible job in assigning value. For instance, why does hedge manager earn 5000x as much as a doctor or teacher? Let alone a blue collar worker, who were essentially shut out of the neoliberal prosperity in the past few decades. Which led to the rise of nationalism and populism and political figures on the both the left and right like Bernie Sanders and trump.
Along the way they manage to cover a lot of ground, talking about everything from college admissions to climate change and immigration.
I'm not sure if I'm ready to tackle Piketty's 1200 page tome, but do plan on reading more by both of them.
Interesting conversation between two smrt dudes, covering a range of topics in a short accessible manner.
They start by defining three types of inequality: financial (income/wealth), political power, class/social standing (honour, respect, dignity), and then delve into each by examining the problems and considering some solutions.
They touch on the priorities of society, that too often does a terrible job in assigning value. For instance, why does hedge manager earn 5000x as much as a doctor or teacher? Let alone a blue collar worker, who were essentially shut out of the neoliberal prosperity in the past few decades. Which led to the rise of nationalism and populism and political figures on the both the left and right like Bernie Sanders and trump.
Along the way they manage to cover a lot of ground, talking about everything from college admissions to climate change and immigration.
I'm not sure if I'm ready to tackle Piketty's 1200 page tome, but do plan on reading more by both of them.
February 21, 2025
Una conversaci¨®n muy interesante sobre temas de equidad en el siglo XXI.
Nunca hab¨ªa le¨ªdo/escuchado nada de Piketty, pero me agrado mucho que tiene su postura democr¨¢tica socialista firme. S¨ª volver¨ªa a leer algo de ¨¦l.
Como Piketty es economista, la participaci¨®n de Sandel, fil??sofo, permite que haya una interacci¨®n y discusi¨®n m¨¢s accesible para el ciudadano promedio (yo). Se abre la discusi¨®n a temas que son m¨¢s ¡°f¨¢ciles¡± de comprender a base de experimentos de pensamiento, temas como dignidad humana, distanciamiento social, comunidad, sentimientos nacionalistas, meritocracia, presi¨®n acad¨¦mica y laboral etc etc
Est¨¢ cortito y me hubiera gustado que se profundizara m¨¢s, sobre todo en el tema del distanciamiento social, pero tmb ese el punto, es solo una conversaci¨®n base.
Nunca hab¨ªa le¨ªdo/escuchado nada de Piketty, pero me agrado mucho que tiene su postura democr¨¢tica socialista firme. S¨ª volver¨ªa a leer algo de ¨¦l.
Como Piketty es economista, la participaci¨®n de Sandel, fil??sofo, permite que haya una interacci¨®n y discusi¨®n m¨¢s accesible para el ciudadano promedio (yo). Se abre la discusi¨®n a temas que son m¨¢s ¡°f¨¢ciles¡± de comprender a base de experimentos de pensamiento, temas como dignidad humana, distanciamiento social, comunidad, sentimientos nacionalistas, meritocracia, presi¨®n acad¨¦mica y laboral etc etc
Est¨¢ cortito y me hubiera gustado que se profundizara m¨¢s, sobre todo en el tema del distanciamiento social, pero tmb ese el punto, es solo una conversaci¨®n base.
Read
February 21, 2025ÍâËͲèLINE:77buyaǫž³½ÐС½ãTG: zhou741̨ž³ÂÃß[³ö²î¾Æµê½ÐС½ã·þ„ÕÕýÃÃÍâ¼s
ÍâËͲèLINE:77buyaǫž³½ÐС½ãTG: zhou741̨ž³ÂÃß[³ö²î¾Æµê½ÐС½ã·þ„ÕÕýÃÃÍâ¼s
ÍâËͲèLINE:77buyaǫž³½ÐС½ãTG: zhou741̨ž³ÂÃß[³ö²î¾Æµê½ÐС½ã·þ„ÕÕýÃÃÍâ¼s
ÍâËͲèLINE:77buyaǫž³½ÐС½ãTG: zhou741̨ž³ÂÃß[³ö²î¾Æµê½ÐС½ã·þ„ÕÕýÃÃÍâ¼s
ÍâËͲèLINE:77buyaǫž³½ÐС???TG: zhou741̨ž³ÂÃß[³ö²î¾Æµê½ÐС½ã·þ„ÕÕýÃÃÍâ¼s
ÍâËͲèLINE:77buyaǫž³½ÐС½ãTG: zhou741̨ž³ÂÃß[³ö²î¾Æµê½ÐС½ã·þ„ÕÕýÃÃÍâ¼s
ÍâËͲèLINE:77buyaǫž³½ÐС½ãTG: zhou741̨ž³ÂÃß[³ö²î¾Æµê½ÐС½ã·þ„ÕÕýÃÃÍâ¼s
ÍâËͲèLINE:77buyaǫž³½ÐС½ãTG: zhou741̨ž³ÂÃß[³ö²î¾Æµê½ÐС½ã·þ„ÕÕýÃÃÍâ¼s
ÍâËͲèLINE:77buyaǫž³½ÐС½ãTG: zhou741̨ž³ÂÃß[³ö²î¾Æµê½ÐС½ã·þ„ÕÕýÃÃÍâ¼s
ÍâËͲèLINE:77buyaǫž³½ÐС½ãTG: zhou741̨ž³ÂÃß[³ö²î¾Æµê½ÐС½ã·þ„ÕÕýÃÃÍâ¼s
ÍâËͲèLINE:77buyaǫž³½ÐС½ãTG: zhou741̨ž³ÂÃß[³ö²î¾Æµê½ÐС½ã·þ„ÕÕýÃÃÍâ¼s
ÍâËͲèLINE:77buyaǫž³½ÐС½ãTG: zhou741̨ž³ÂÃß[³ö²î¾Æµê½ÐС½ã·þ„ÕÕýÃÃÍâ¼s
ÍâËͲèLINE:77buyaǫž³½ÐС½ãTG: zhou741̨ž³ÂÃß[³ö²î¾Æµê½ÐС½ã·þ„ÕÕýÃÃÍâ¼s
ÍâËͲèLINE:77buyaǫž³½ÐС½ãTG: zhou741̨ž³ÂÃß[³ö²î¾Æµê½ÐС½ã·þ„ÕÕýÃÃÍâ¼s
ÍâËͲèLINE:77buyaǫž³½ÐС???TG: zhou741̨ž³ÂÃß[³ö²î¾Æµê½ÐС½ã·þ„ÕÕýÃÃÍâ¼s
ÍâËͲèLINE:77buyaǫž³½ÐС½ãTG: zhou741̨ž³ÂÃß[³ö²î¾Æµê½ÐС½ã·þ„ÕÕýÃÃÍâ¼s
ÍâËͲèLINE:77buyaǫž³½ÐС½ãTG: zhou741̨ž³ÂÃß[³ö²î¾Æµê½ÐС½ã·þ„ÕÕýÃÃÍâ¼s
ÍâËͲèLINE:77buyaǫž³½ÐС½ãTG: zhou741̨ž³ÂÃß[³ö²î¾Æµê½ÐС½ã·þ„ÕÕýÃÃÍâ¼s
ÍâËͲèLINE:77buyaǫž³½ÐС½ãTG: zhou741̨ž³ÂÃß[³ö²î¾Æµê½ÐС½ã·þ„ÕÕýÃÃÍâ¼s
ÍâËͲèLINE:77buyaǫž³½ÐС½ãTG: zhou741̨ž³ÂÃß[³ö²î¾Æµê½ÐС½ã·þ„ÕÕýÃÃÍâ¼s
ÍâËͲèLINE:77buyaǫž³½ÐС½ãTG: zhou741̨ž³ÂÃß[³ö²î¾Æµê½ÐС½ã·þ„ÕÕýÃÃÍâ¼s
February 2, 2025
"Oh wow, another book lecturing us on why 'equality' is the most important thing ever¡ªbecause clearly, centuries of human history and basic reality just didn¡¯t get the memo. Overflowing with moral posturing and the usual utopian wishful thinking, Equality: What It Means and Why It Matters is a masterclass in stating the obvious while ignoring inconvenient facts. If you enjoy being told what to think by someone who assumes you're a moral troglodyte, this one's for you."
February 4, 2025
I'm a fan of both authors and their work, and I'm actively interested in anti-hierarchical perspectives of all kinds. I can't say I encountered a lot genuinely new to me in this small book, but I found the conversational format readable and engaging, and I enjoyed their back-and-forth. If you aren't familiar with their work or perspectives, this is a decent introduction, although you may want to refer to their previous works to fully flesh out the arguments.
February 4, 2025
This very short (3 hour) dialogue between Sandel and Piketty is interesting in a way that a pretty good podcast is enlightening. It was already available on YouTube in 20 min segments so to release it in audiobook form and have different audio-narrators read the transcript was odd. Still, engaging conversation.
February 24, 2025
hey. You guys know how I love this guy¡¯s books but they¡¯re really dense? Well, this one¡¯s not like that. And it¡¯s more not like that than any of his books that are ¡°not like that¡± (¡°that¡± being him) are not like that. Not like that even less so than his other books which are only 8 hours are not like the ones that are 30+ hours. It¡¯s accessible and informative. Check it out!
January 31, 2025
It was O.K., but it was less a conversation between them than Sandel interviewing Piketty. That was fine, especially since Piketty was promoting some of Sandel's books. Some very interesting ideas discussed.
March 3, 2025
This book is a must-read for anyone looking to transform their life, offering practical insights and powerful strategies for personal and professional growth. Its wisdom challenges old habits, inspires action, and provides a clear path toward meaningful change.
March 9, 2025
Het zijn interessante idee?n die Piketty en Sandel hier met elkaar uitwisselen, maar ze zijn het wel heel erg met elkaar eens. Het was denk ik interessanter geweest als ze elkaar intellectueel wat meer hadden kunnen uitdagen. Niet alles wat ze zeggen is namelijk vanzelfsprekend.
March 6, 2025
Niet echt gepakt hierdoor. Het is slim en klinkt mooi, maar het wordt toch weinig concreet.
March 10, 2025
Fijn dialoog tussen twee grote moderne denkers.
March 20, 2025
Short. If you are familiar with Piketty's work there won't be anything new in here for you.
April 1, 2025
I will read literally everything Michael Sandel has to say/write.
March 9, 2025
The conversation between the 2 authors is available online. The book is just a transcript
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.