A clearsighted (if not a little optimistic) but radical perspective on how to make a more just, equitable, and prosperous world through bringing more markets in creative ways to everyday life. This book is not liberatrian, progressive, or conservative, but some spectacular, nuanced, and radical in between.

Is this a book with the best ideas in the world? No. Are its solutions desireable and practical? No. However, I still give this book 5 stars as it introduces new ideas and a way of thinking about problems that I had previously not engaged with. I frequently find myself thinking about the ideas of this book and examining problems with the lens it provides.

A socialist’s ideal

Well-written book with ideas worth being exposed to. The ideas become less interesting and well-refined in the later chapters of the book, but the case for COST (in some applications) and QV are well laid out. I would have liked more discussion from the authors about worst-case scenarios for their proposals, specifically the potential for abuse by the powerful/wealthy.

Absolutely the most insufferable book I have read in years, and I have an ulterior motive to like it since I'm cited in it. Somehow despite living in the US, on earth, for several decades, the authors have not gotten the memo that RICH PEOPLE IMMEDIATELY GET TO WORK RIGGING ANY SOCIAL STRUCTURE THE MOMENT IT COMES INTO EXISTENCE. And that the one and only solution that has consistently worked historically is CLASS STRUGGLE. Instead of recognizing this to any degree whatsoever, the authors instead propose a bunch of mechanism design concoctions that are ~10x more complicated than our current economic market designs, and thus ~10x easier for the rich to rig while the poor suffer what they must.

I love that this is both pragmatic (not in the sense that any of these ideas might be implemented, because I for sure do not see that happening, but merely in that it adopts some very concrete comparisons that help us to understand that these proposals are not that unreasonable at all) and daring (fresh!), and also visionary in its broad scope. But I do wonder about certain ideas - for e.g. with the COST, how are we gonna determine assets that aren't tangible? Small quibbles like that mean I can't embrace its manifesto wholeheartedly. Worth reading, though, but it is definitely quite challenging.

(read as physical book)
The authors advance 4 "radical" market solutions that they suggest will decrease inequality and increase growth. The first two proposals are the strongest:
- COST: a tax on property based on its declared value, with the catch that the owners have to sell it at the declared value to anyone willing to pay; and
- Quadratic voting: where people are allocated a certain budget of "credits" that they can allocate for against issues, with the number of votes being the square of the credits spent

These two proposals are quite exciting, especially the tax. Canada is facing a housing shortage that is leading to sky high valuations. A strong property tax might resolve the issue.

The other two proposals, on immigration and being paid to generate data, seem less well though out and less exciting.

Overall, a good book with some really good nuggets that are worth learning about and potentially advocating for.

This book is a compilation of ideas of how we could radically transform our economy through property rights reform / immigration labour market policy reform / tax reform / democracy reform / AI and automation. What's lacking is any real analysis of whether these ideas would work or be of the better than alternatives. I really wish the Authors had picked just one idea and actually had a think about whether the policy would work.

Sadly, instead the authors substitute counter-assertion for substantive and unbiased analysis throughout... In proposing a tax on human capital the author counter-asserts "some might say this is akin to slavery" without addressing the genuine tyrannical absurdity of their proposal at all.

3 stars because it'd be good food for thought if you've never heard of any of the ideas within.

There seem to be some amazing ideas in this. Quadratic Voting seems particularity pertinent, relevant and necessary. But there is some …hmm … perhaps overly simplified thought, too. Combined with the subtle but palpable zeal the authors have for their ideas, it can be challenging to stay critical and to discern what was, in essence, fluff or flawed, an experience that left me not trusting my own interest in the ideas I did think were sound (or my own capacity to evaluate them).

I think you get much of what these two present (though not all) in Jaron Lanier’s “Who Owns The Future?”— among the most prescient and intelligent critiques of digital global capitalism available.