Economics

Knowledge And Decisions

Knowledge And Decisions

  • Downloads：1008
  • Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date：2021-08-03 10:21:08
  • Update Date：2025-09-06
  • Status：finish
  • Author：Thomas Sowell
  • ISBN：B099FGQFYB
  • Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
  • Download

Summary

This reissue of Thomas Sowell's classic study of decision making， which includes a preface by the author， updates his seminal work in the context of The Vision of the Anointed。 Sowell， one of America's most celebrated public intellectuals， describes in concrete detail how knowledge is shared and disseminated throughout modern society。 He warns that society suffers from an ever-widening gap between firsthand knowledge and decision making--a gap that threatens not only our economic and political efficiency but our very freedom。 This is because actual knowledge is being replaced by assumptions based on an abstract and elitist social vision of what ought to be。 Knowledge and Decisions， a winner of the 1980 Law and Economics Center Prize， was heralded as a landmark work and selected for this prize "because of its cogent contribution to our understanding of the differences between the market process and the process of government。" In announcing the award， the center acclaimed that the "contribution to our understanding of the process of regulation alone would make the book important， but in reemphasizing the diversity and efficiency that the market makes possible， [this] work goes deeper and becomes even more significant。"

Download

Reviews

Ken Mattes ，

A 2012 publication by Thomas Sowell describes his perspective in the concepts of “Knowledge and Decisions”In two parts （Social institutions and Trends and Issues respectively）。Part One contains six chapters （role ofKnowledge， decision-making process， economic trade-offs， social trade-offs， political trade-offs and an overview）Part Two contains four chapters （historical trends， trends in economics， trends in law and trends in politics）。Well worth the time and considering the material present in t A 2012 publication by Thomas Sowell describes his perspective in the concepts of “Knowledge and Decisions”In two parts （Social institutions and Trends and Issues respectively）。Part One contains six chapters （role ofKnowledge， decision-making process， economic trade-offs， social trade-offs， political trade-offs and an overview）Part Two contains four chapters （historical trends， trends in economics， trends in law and trends in politics）。Well worth the time and considering the material present in text or audio book。 。。。more

Bill Berg ，

https://beingbeliefbehavior。blogspot。。。。 https://beingbeliefbehavior。blogspot。。。。 。。。more

David ，

Knowledge And Decisions by Thomas Sowell is a reissue of his classic study of decision making， which includes a preface by the author， updates his seminal work in the context of The Vision of the Anointed。 Sowell， one of America's most celebrated public intellectuals， describes in concrete detail how knowledge is shared and disseminated throughout modern society。 He warns that actual knowledge is being replaced by assumptions based on an abstract and elitist social vision of what ought to be。 Kn Knowledge And Decisions by Thomas Sowell is a reissue of his classic study of decision making， which includes a preface by the author， updates his seminal work in the context of The Vision of the Anointed。 Sowell， one of America's most celebrated public intellectuals， describes in concrete detail how knowledge is shared and disseminated throughout modern society。 He warns that actual knowledge is being replaced by assumptions based on an abstract and elitist social vision of what ought to be。 Knowledge and Decisions， a winner of the 1980 Law and Economics Center Prize， was heralded as a landmark work and selected for this prize "because of its cogent contribution to our understanding of the differences between the market process and the process of government。" In announcing the award， the center acclaimed that the "contribution to our understanding of the process of regulation alone would make the book important， but in reemphasizing the diversity and efficiency that the market makes possible， [this] work goes deeper and becomes even more significant。" Anytime you tackle a book by Thomas Sowell， you know your brain is about to have a workout; Knowledge and Decision fulfills that expectation！ 。。。more

Andy ，

This insightful book details information， incentives， and institutions。 Sowell expands on many points previously explored by FA Hayek， including how these subjects shape our everyday lives， and how the governments of various countries have often aimed for lofty goals only to disrupt relatively efficient systems which have evolved over millennia。

Bacon Sandwich ，

This book is DENSE。 Not light reading。People can acquire knowledge in a variety of ways， not limited to what is already held to be true （culture， religion）， as well as deliberate reasoning。 Points out the difference between opinions and facts – something can become a fact if it validates a hypothesis。 Someone can know how to do something from experience， like milking a cow， oftentimes moreso than someone can “know” something from reading a book。 Everything economizes knowledge – instinct is know This book is DENSE。 Not light reading。People can acquire knowledge in a variety of ways， not limited to what is already held to be true （culture， religion）， as well as deliberate reasoning。 Points out the difference between opinions and facts – something can become a fact if it validates a hypothesis。 Someone can know how to do something from experience， like milking a cow， oftentimes moreso than someone can “know” something from reading a book。 Everything economizes knowledge – instinct is knowledge so that we do not burn or hurt ourselves， or others。 Culture compacts knowledge into conditions that make it conducive for us to live。 These forms of knowledge impart valuable information on how to live， such that humans are not subject to “analysis paralysis” given that they have to make numerous decisions every day。 There is a difference between “knowledge” a。k。a。 knowing and one’s “reasoning” process – one can know many things， but have poor reasoning， or vice versa。 In the social sciences， there is no good authentication process a lot of the time; thus， the question is， does the idea sound plausible enough， to enough people？ Many forms of knowledge are easily authenticated （I。e。 did a boy return from the cow with a pail of milk）。 Thus， there exists an issue between authenticating knowledge and time。 If you can write an essay about how to milk a cow， that does not mean you know how to milk a cow。 Points to the kinds of decisions we have to make in life – some are a “package deal”， while others can occur piece by piece， or incrementally。 Some costs are so great to reverse that we will not undergo a decision – the cost of being bound by a precedent can deter the initial decision （I。e。 marriage）。 Business firms and products economize knowledge – as dad says， bring order to chaos。 An example of this is a polaroid camera vs。 An elaborate camera with a body， lens， etc。 The knowledge of the engineer is economized into the product， and sold to the masses， not requiring the knowledge of the photographer。 This is the specialization that is present in our modern economy， from products to people。 We moved from a society where the individual provides for himself （in theory， I。e。 the farmer， the small businessman）， to where a lot of people’s fate is our of their own control， to some level。 This is also reflected in the political realm， where a lot of the things that decide people’s fate is out of their hands （I。e。 globalization）; the “locus of decision making” has moved away from the individual and the family， and toward government and administration。 As “capitalists” have become a smaller class， it gives the appearance that decisions by them originated with capitalists， and thus serve only their interests。 Points again to the role of middlemen， but much of that outcry is against people who actually distribute things from the higher uses to the lower， I。e。 dividing up property for use by the masses; when the wealthy really value “nice neighborhoods” or “untouched wilderness”。 In this sense， the developer and the commercial interests are actually in the interest of the many， not the few。 Points to political policies and their inherent difficulty; short term benefits vs。 Long term consequences don’t align well with the short-term rewards desired by the politician。 Also， there is a tendency to judge processes vs。 End results， I。e。 the malevolent intentions of “big business” vs。 Lifting people out of material poverty， or judging the poor state of minorities as evidence that it is all because of a racist system。 If you have processes with no effective feedback from the individuals impacted （those who received the consequences）， the process is not effective。 Points to other structures of business than the corporation which are available to people; coops， partnerships， etc。 People with supremacy of values must be offended by market forces， where people make their own decisions for whatever reasons， be they religious or racist; self-righteous observers can see “chaos” and “Waste” by imposing their own value systems on others。 Prices convey knowledge， knowledge that is distorted via controls on prices， a control that also alters incentives – many transactions that would have occurred will no longer occur -- I。e。 someone who was not hired， or a house that was never lived in。 In an economy， knowledge is only useful if it can be effectively applied; actually milking the cow。 Points to the choices made by “decision making units”， which are the individual people who make up the society – society is not a decision making unit as a whole。 Points to inflation as a form of redistribution。 Many people engage in speculation in the course of their normal life -- I。e。 farmers speculate on the future price of a crop， even having a child is a form of speculation as it relates to the happiness it may or may not bring you。 Points to the very high failure rate of businesses， yet people analyze mostly in terms of the success of “for profit” businesses （which can wind up being not for profit）。 Ideas of how to do things better are crucial to the advancement of society – how to make a business more efficient， etc。 Points to Disney and how his success was in his ideas of his comics， and that Disney himself was not superfluous even when they tried to do the same thing as Disney the animator in his early career without Disney himself。 What often happens with progress is that the economy can grow as a result; horse and buggy meant lost jobs， but then there were many more jobs for people to make cars。 Rewarding “merit” is to reward a subjective estimate of input， vs rewarding tangible results。 Demography and age in particular can distort statistics on race and achievement。 “Dedication to high and selfless ideals can be no more effectively demonstrated than by trading off financial gains in the interest of such ideals。” Culture can limit people’s actions; guilt， pride， shame and honor can be powerful forces that guide society along， without having to resort to law enforcement。 Evolution is a process; it is not planned， as an economy （does not have） to be; Adam Smith did not think the capitalists good， nor did Karl Marx。 But Smith thought the overall outcome was good， the “invisible hand。” Unplanned processes may reward those who are not the most deserving; it just gives us all the best results possible; the “best” fish can die if their lake dries up。 Says one of the issues of cultures side by side is it can lead to misunderstandings， higher levels of defenses， and a disproportionate ability to create intergroup conflict via the most bigoted members。 Telling voters that what they want is not possible or realistic is not a good strategy for winning elections。 “Progress” may look at history and insist that it was the insistence of better things， rather than technology/organizational advances over time， which has led to the progress。 The natural fact of groups and incumbent interests is that they can organize， they are entrenched; those groups which are not incumbents or do not exist will have a hard time forming a coalition together。 Thus， bureaucracy will bar together to defend itself， and it grows in perpetuity， even past the point of diminishing returns， for the sake of its own existence; limits of knowledge to people outside the group make this possible。 If our rights are made so impossible via various transaction costs， they are not really rights at all。 To a political decision maker， what matters is how his current decisions impact his chances for higher prospects elsewhere， or reelection。 Thus， incumbents of all forms will favor policies which favor themselves， and not those who are not incumbents already。 Incumbents can try to legislate their way out of failure， be they a business or a group of people。 It is hard for voters to connect the costs of a particular policy with a long-run change occurring a decade later， or more。 Businesses can evolve; governmental mandates oftentimes cannot， requiring that the government agency become mere bloat to support its own existence and meaning， as concerned for by the people who work there。 Government does not need to produce a profit， thus there is a lack of guidance in that sense， and there can always be more “need”， for more whatever it is， or more people。 “The lifeblood of politics is popular emotion， and categorial declarations capture that emotion。 No one is going to man the barricades for a little more of A and a little less of B。。。 competition among political groups。。。 promotes exaggerated hopes and fears—and sometimes deeds。” “Whatever the optimal rate of change for a given political entity。。。 that optimal rate for a given political practitioner or party is likely to be greater， since he can gain as the … champion。。。 by his divisiveness。” Incentives and constraints on bureaucracy remain the same unless systems are changed; replacing one group of people with another will generally produce similar results。 The lifecycle of a regulatory agency can change as zealots who wanted change are replaced with bureaucrats as the agency takes a real form; thus， the incentives presented attract different kinds of people。 Insurgent groups may “betray” ideals once they have access to new information that they did not have before。 “The desire to judge systemic results morally can be seen in the medieval practice of attributing plagues to sins which had aroused the anger of God， or the modern practice of attributing unhappy systemic results in general to the moral failings of a personified ‘society’。” Whatever system， desires may remain unsatisfied; Sowell does not accept that all “problems" can be “solved。” “A state without the means of some change is without the means of its preservation” -Edmund Burke。 Socially optimal results requires considering the damage done to traditional institutions via government programs -- I。e。 compulsory school attendance， welfare， etc。 The efficiencies that can lead bulk stores to sell cheaper – the fact there are not as many transportation costs – are real efficiencies。 Costs are also sunk; economic decisions are made going forward， such as if you have a bunch of product you cannot unload。 Thus， were the antitrust and competitive price laws of the 70s productive？ Minimum wage laws produce a higher quality employee， but then many people （often of color） are left out of the job marketplace。 The costs of living in a small town are isolated from the rest of people; a stamp still gets your letter to an address， etc。 “Jitneys” （the name for a nickel） were a way to carpool and catch a ride; they got regulated against to protect public transportation， the incumbents – a market carpool was very efficient （vs。 Non market carpools， which can’t just pick someone up at the side of the road）。 Being “pro incumbent” is a practical political position， as incumbents are organized。 Assigning property rights， as to a radio frequency， is a social gain， but the ability to assign it inherently leads to corruption。 “Needs” of society relate to the price of things – if price of housing goes down， demand for it can go up， as people stop doubling up in rooms， etc。 Thus， where does the demand end， vs。 A subjective standard of “need”。 Property rights contain a set of options with them; the value of property thus related to the rights that are associated with it。 Capping profit “rates” can just lead to institutions bloating to try to get money in other ways （expenses， payroll count， etc）。 Occupational licensing acts to reduce the quantity of new practitioners， and results in higher prices， to “protect” the public。 Pervasive class bias can be seen in protecting the environment， against those developments and things which cater to the masses。 “Apparently the trade off between convenience and aesthetics is different for those with less money and older cars。。。 zoning allows some people to impose their values and life style on others who may not share the values or be able to afford the lfie-style。” （auto repair shops and houses comingling）。 The point of antitrust is to protect competition in the market， and to keep firms from reducing the options available to consumers。 Thus， partial market share or concentration is not a valid reason for antitrust。 “Everyone is entitled to a living” - Patman （Sowell says this comes at the expense of the consumer）。 We can get rid of failing schools by letting people pass; what does a “high school degree” then mean in operational terms？ People do not know their own tradeoffs until they have to actually do it; subjective judgments， I。e。 would you sell your fridge or your car to be able to afford food。 You can say what you would do， but that is not what you do if you actually have to。 People perceive the physical production of something to be that only thing which generates economic value; getting something from A to B is considered “exploitation。” （see cries of angry people at guy who bought up a bunch of hand sanitizer to sell online）。 Abuse of power is pervasive across economic systems; it is not a defining characteristic of capitalism。 Abuse of power is abuse of power。 Administrative agencies and regulations have overtaken the government， sometimes rendering rights moot; expansion of government reduces its representativeness。 Hypotheses used as axioms is not good reasoning; discrimination definitely plays a role in outcomes for minorities， but it is not considered to what extent other causes play a role; this is a big part of the victimization approach。 “Freedom is precisely the right to behave contrary to the values， desires or beliefs of others。 To say that this right can never be absolute is only to say that freedom itself can never be absolute。” Questions how poor the American poor are really， calling consumption into question。 “If prosperity could come only from the united efforts of upright and noble-minded people， all of mankind would still be sunk in poverty。” James Baldwin says Americans are “the most dishonorable and violent people in the world” without considering Nazis and Russians。 “Moralism is fatal to freedom” a former friend of Robespierre。 。。。more

Daniel Park ，

Essential。

Camilla ，

I rated this highly because of how well written it was and because of how important the content was。 It's still quite a mental workout to get through。 Sowell covers a myriad of topics， but one of the main themes of his book is that political and social decisions in America are based upon incorrect premises。 A lot of what he said seemed like paradoxes， like the disadvantages of school integration （he talked about the individuals who underwent physical abuse and mental trauma after being forced to I rated this highly because of how well written it was and because of how important the content was。 It's still quite a mental workout to get through。 Sowell covers a myriad of topics， but one of the main themes of his book is that political and social decisions in America are based upon incorrect premises。 A lot of what he said seemed like paradoxes， like the disadvantages of school integration （he talked about the individuals who underwent physical abuse and mental trauma after being forced to go to a new school as part of the initiative to integrate all American public schools--his point wasn't that segregation was good but that individual choice to attend specific schools should have trumped the desire intellectuals had for pushing out a noble initiative at the expense of individual students）。 Sowell also covered the broad sweeping interests of that class of political affiliates known as intellectuals （to include journalists） who like to make social reform but who don't have the specific， esoteric knowledge required to understand the full repercussions of their sweeping reform。 Intellectuals， by Sowell's definition， have general knowledge， whereas most social programs require incredibly specific knowledge in order to determine the best course of action。 He also discredited false concepts that continue to grow in popularity even today， such as the concept of "social" darwinism （as something separate from biologic darwinism） and Malthusian economics and even that the Great Depression was helped by the New Deal rather than lengthened and economically exacerbated by it。There really was so much to unpack in this book， and way more was covered than I am doing justice by this paltry review， but I say again that is is an important book。 It discusses themes and concepts that will help shape my political perspective now that I have a slightly better understanding of the many factors that contribute to an ultimate decision。 。。。more

Erik ，

Solid discussion of the usual mix of Sowell ideas and examples through a Hayekian distributed knowledge/decision making frame。 Lots of discourse on changes in American judicial power over tile。

Teresa ，

This book is brilliant， but then again you already know that because it says "by Thomas Sowell" on the cover！ And even though the reader of the audiobook， Robertson Dean， does a tremendous job， I agree with another reviewer who recommends the print version， simply because the material is very complex at times and you may want to mull over certain things。 This book is very long， and if you're not at the top of your game intellectually， possibly a bit tedious at times。 I'm weak in the area of econ This book is brilliant， but then again you already know that because it says "by Thomas Sowell" on the cover！ And even though the reader of the audiobook， Robertson Dean， does a tremendous job， I agree with another reviewer who recommends the print version， simply because the material is very complex at times and you may want to mull over certain things。 This book is very long， and if you're not at the top of your game intellectually， possibly a bit tedious at times。 I'm weak in the area of economics and not as sharp as I used to be， so I admit I struggled at times。 But I learned some solid principles about the "cost of information" that will enrich my thinking on many subjects。 I came late to Sowell and now can't get enough of his genius。 。。。more

Ahmad Ismail ，

I recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand the reason stated political and social intentions somehow never come to pass。 It is because those who take the power to make decisions （the intelligentsia） do not have anywhere near enough knowledge to choose wisely even if they are not corrupt。

Matthew Mechtly ，

This book is at such a high level early on that I had to go over several sections multiple times; however， it genuinely changed the way I think about the costs of information in economics。

Cara ，

One of the finest books I've ever read from Sowell with immense wisdom laid out in this tome。 I had to go back and read certain parts again because some of his arguments were so profound that it took me awhile to absorb， digest and then think of how it had undoubtedly changed my perception on things。 Forces reflection on decisions made throughout our modern civilization and how it has brought us to where we are today。 It may be three decades old， but still remarkably relevant today。 One of the finest books I've ever read from Sowell with immense wisdom laid out in this tome。 I had to go back and read certain parts again because some of his arguments were so profound that it took me awhile to absorb， digest and then think of how it had undoubtedly changed my perception on things。 Forces reflection on decisions made throughout our modern civilization and how it has brought us to where we are today。 It may be three decades old， but still remarkably relevant today。 。。。more

Alex Salo ，

One of the best books I've ever read！ It's like an econ & law 101 for decision making， figuring out politics and understanding what's going on in the world， and specifically America。 This book goes over the fundamentals， leaving （mostly） the judgements to the reader。 At times， reading the pages of this book gave me direct answers for the questions I have had in the recent years due to the recent events - the playbook did not change， evidently， since 1980s。 That's just fascinating how relevant th One of the best books I've ever read！ It's like an econ & law 101 for decision making， figuring out politics and understanding what's going on in the world， and specifically America。 This book goes over the fundamentals， leaving （mostly） the judgements to the reader。 At times， reading the pages of this book gave me direct answers for the questions I have had in the recent years due to the recent events - the playbook did not change， evidently， since 1980s。 That's just fascinating how relevant the themes covered there are。 Now， be warned， it's not an entertainment book - while it's written in a simple language and with a nice style， you just can't read it too quickly because it takes a lot of some mental power to process the material （of course depending on your starting level）。 The good thing though is that you really don't need to finish， or even read from the beginning - chapters are fairly self contained， and you'll get the return by even just reading one。Now to the substance。 The basic idea that Sowell advocates is: let's no be blinded by the agenda when talking about the decision making。 Let's not be fooled by the programs/institutions named by their "hoped for" results - e。g。 program for "affordable housing" does not automatically lead to the outcomes that the name of the program hopes for - just like a starting entrepreneur can't have a guarantee that their "for profit" business will actually earn any profits - we should look at the empirical evidence when making the decisions。Another thread is about how the processes help to build a sustainable organizations。 Specifically， how the constitution， with its separation of concerns， outlines *who* should make decisions of what kind and under what incentives and constraints。 Then， Sowell goes into detail on how this principle had been muddled over the 20th century， and to what effect。 One particular phenomenon is the "Affirmative Action"， which makes helps to explain so many things we observe happening today。 Finally， there is a large section on the role of "intellectuals" in the politics。 I find this bit the most controversial， but it's still fascinating to read about。 Basically， Sowell argues that intellectuals have historically favored the centralized governments and accumulation of power， which led to the biggest catastrophes in history （fall of Roman Empire， French revolution， Nazi and Communist regimes）。 Furthermore， intellectuals typically ignore the critique by dismissing it and don't engage in testing of the hypotheses - in other words， they come up with "solutions" to "problems" based on whatever ideology happens to be in vogue at the time - be it the racism at the beginning of the century， or the "social justice" of the more recent times。 Sowell points out the "more justice for all" is a contradictory term， as increase in justice in one domain reduces it in the other - the perfect justice is a tyranny - the real question is what's the best tradeoff and when the efforts for "more justice" lead to diminishing or even negative returns？In the summary of the book， Sowell praises the very modern inventions - free market economy and a constitutional democracy - as the tools that by design assume the humans are only humans， and that the only rational expectations from them is the greed， sin， and strive for power and money。 However， both market economy and constitutional democracy create such a structure of incentives and constrains that the very greed and strive for power acts as the system of checks and balances that ultimately leads to the sustained superior outcomes。 In other words， we wouldn't need the government， were we the angels， and we would not need the constitution， were we governed by angels。 Alas， neither is the case。 The only downside of this book， in my view， is that Sowell completely ignores the good parts of the government policies， intellectuals etc， which makes him appear biased - he does not event attempt to analyze which attempts have brought a positive change， and why。 That said， I believe the readers are capable of doing that for themselves， while thinking about more fundamental topics covered in this book is too often completely obscured by the modern （mis）information。 。。。more

Jeremy ，

Brilliant。

David Peixoto ，

Awesome content。 Is there anyone alive who knows so much about history， human behavior and real life economy as he does？ From the Roman Empire （Gibbon） to the French Revolution， all can be clearly related to what we can see as current trends in politics， laws and economics。 Unfortunately what not even Thomas Sowell seems to know is how the US can resume its original spirit， lost while growing loosely its government apparatus during the last hundred years。

Dennis ，

A monumental work。 Very interesting， though it took me a couple weeks to finish the entire book。 The author makes a lot of great points and underlines them with numerous， easy-to-understand examples。 Not an easy read， but worth it I think。 4。5 stars

Ben Sherman ，

One of the densest books I have ever read。 But I liked it， I already read several books by Thomas Sowell。 Before I started reading， I came across a quote: “Too much knowledge is an agony”， and when I read， this quote did not go out of my head， and I agree with it， too much knowledge can be beneficial in accepting decisions， and sometimes vice versa。 One of the densest books I have ever read。 But I liked it， I already read several books by Thomas Sowell。 Before I started reading， I came across a quote: “Too much knowledge is an agony”， and when I read， this quote did not go out of my head， and I agree with it， too much knowledge can be beneficial in accepting decisions， and sometimes vice versa。 。。。more

Jerry ，

I hesitated to listen to this audio book due to its sheer length and because I know how densely packed Sowell's arguments and statistics are。 But Dean Robertson is a top notch reader （I like him at 1。75x speed）， and in the library audio app it's easy to skip back 15 seconds at a time when I can't keep up。 It's easy to see how this book won the Law & Economics Center Prize。 Tradeoffs are always at play in decision-making， and Sowell teases them out in breadth and depth。 One big takeaway is the gr I hesitated to listen to this audio book due to its sheer length and because I know how densely packed Sowell's arguments and statistics are。 But Dean Robertson is a top notch reader （I like him at 1。75x speed）， and in the library audio app it's easy to skip back 15 seconds at a time when I can't keep up。 It's easy to see how this book won the Law & Economics Center Prize。 Tradeoffs are always at play in decision-making， and Sowell teases them out in breadth and depth。 One big takeaway is the great cost that falls on everyone by those who think they ought to make decisions for others （political， economic， social， and so on）。 。。。more

Lorenzo Barberis Canonico ，

I def vibe with the idea that economics is about decision-making， and can thus offer insights into many political and business matter。 The role processes， individual decisions， and feedback play into effectively managing resources under risk and uncertainty was the central premise of the book。 Now， I am not sure how we got from discussion about the dysfunctional nature of bureaucracy into the Civil War being a major blowback to Federalism and Brown v Board of Education being the beginning of the I def vibe with the idea that economics is about decision-making， and can thus offer insights into many political and business matter。 The role processes， individual decisions， and feedback play into effectively managing resources under risk and uncertainty was the central premise of the book。 Now， I am not sure how we got from discussion about the dysfunctional nature of bureaucracy into the Civil War being a major blowback to Federalism and Brown v Board of Education being the beginning of the end for decentralized decision-making…。At times I was not clear on whether Sowell was trolling in order to be provocative given how much time he spends hating on pretentious liberals。 It was def a great Econ book， but it dripped of weird political positions on issues that felt ancillary to the central subject of the book。 I will give full overview of my thoughts on Sowell once I’m done with the two other books。 He’s def a brilliant thinker， but some of his ideas are just plain weird。 It’s not just what he believes in that is weird: it’s the fact that he cares so much about making claims over subjects that seem tangential。 He seems excessively concerned with dismantling flawed liberal ideologies that he ends up in weird places。 。。。more

Adam Marischuk ，

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 t 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。 。。。more

Mwansa ，

A very good good book though I have to admit that Thomas Sowell lost me a handful of times as I read him。 Overall it was a very good experience and I look forward to reading more of his canon。 I would narrow down the books theme to the question of who is qualified to make certain decisions given the reality that knowledge has initial and incremental costs。 Thomas Sowell goes in depth to show that the pursuit of increasing knowledge in order to make a specific decision is not always cost effectiv A very good good book though I have to admit that Thomas Sowell lost me a handful of times as I read him。 Overall it was a very good experience and I look forward to reading more of his canon。 I would narrow down the books theme to the question of who is qualified to make certain decisions given the reality that knowledge has initial and incremental costs。 Thomas Sowell goes in depth to show that the pursuit of increasing knowledge in order to make a specific decision is not always cost effective。 This brings about the need to tag and sort things and even people。 We do this naturally in the vast majority of cases （a brilliant feat of human ingenuity， albeit unknown ingenuity but brilliant nonetheless）。The book shows how knowledge， it's limitations and a poor choice over who should make what decisions has affected trends in History， Law and Politics。 He does this so well that you begin to use his process to understand how things have gotten to where they are in your culture and context as well。 He ends the book with what I would call a scathing indictment of the intellectuals。 He properly defines them and then explains how their involvement has been a sort of Trojan horse in the decision making field and has caused a lot of things to go haywire。 I would encourage anyone with access to this book to read it。 It is brilliant！ 。。。more

DIlp ，

wow。。。。there is an explanation to most things you would dismiss as chance。。nicely done and narrated

Ryan Schmitt ，

I've read a number of books by Thomas Sowell; although he is obviously a brilliant systematizer （cf。 A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles）， I didn't fully appreciate what a gifted economic theorist he was until now。 This book has a very small number of core ideas:1。 The consequences of knowledge being unevenly distributed and inherently costly to produce， transmit， and verify2。 Systemic analysis in terms of processes， incentives， and constraints， as contrasted with s I've read a number of books by Thomas Sowell; although he is obviously a brilliant systematizer （cf。 A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles）， I didn't fully appreciate what a gifted economic theorist he was until now。 This book has a very small number of core ideas:1。 The consequences of knowledge being unevenly distributed and inherently costly to produce， transmit， and verify2。 Systemic analysis in terms of processes， incentives， and constraints， as contrasted with so-called "intentional" explanations3。 The role of unarticulated knowledge versus articulated rationality4。 The contrast between incremental and categorical decision-makingLike "Economics in One Lesson，" the book can seem repetitive at times， because the same core ideas are being applied systematically throughout the text in order to analyze a vast spectrum of social， political， legal， and corporate issues。 Despite this work being nearly forty years old now， only a handful of the issues discussed seem dated today （such as street crime， and Cold War military spending）; the great majority of this book's wisdom and insight is evergreen， with readily apparent implications for today's world。Like anything Sowell has ever written， it is impossible to get bored while reading this book。 Brilliant aphorisms frequently come out of nowhere （for example: "'Distributive justice' as a social goal means 'distributors' justice' as an institutional process。"）， and complex ideas are conveyed with a clarity that not one writer in ten thousand can equal。 Not since Human Action: A Treatise on Economics has a single book had such a significant effect on how I view the world。 。。。more

Jack Greenrose ，

Having read quite a few Thomas Sowell books by now， and liking them all， I'm quite surprised that this book may just be above them all。 Why？ It's just so beyond well-written that no review can do it justice。 If you feel like modern societies have been overtaken by both institutional and decentralized lunacy even though， in theory， there is more knowledge easily available than ever in human history， and you ask yourself how people still can act in such a deeply irrational manner， you need to read Having read quite a few Thomas Sowell books by now， and liking them all， I'm quite surprised that this book may just be above them all。 Why？ It's just so beyond well-written that no review can do it justice。 If you feel like modern societies have been overtaken by both institutional and decentralized lunacy even though， in theory， there is more knowledge easily available than ever in human history， and you ask yourself how people still can act in such a deeply irrational manner， you need to read this book。 You may or may not agree with Sowell's politics， but once you begin to understand the terrible incentive structures that guide our institutions， the world just opens up before you。 This book is pure lucid wisdom。 。。。more

Leib Mitchell ，

Book ReviewKnowledge and Decisions5 stars plus"Knowledge and Decisions，" a study of feedback mechanisms， is fundamentally an answer to two questions: 1。 What does it mean to "know" something？ 2。 What is the appropriate decision making unit for a given process？ （And how does the nature of the process change with different decision making apparatus？） The first time I read this book was in 2002， and at the time I did not have quite enough perspective in order to understand just how profound it is。 Book ReviewKnowledge and Decisions5 stars plus"Knowledge and Decisions，" a study of feedback mechanisms， is fundamentally an answer to two questions: 1。 What does it mean to "know" something？ 2。 What is the appropriate decision making unit for a given process？ （And how does the nature of the process change with different decision making apparatus？） The first time I read this book was in 2002， and at the time I did not have quite enough perspective in order to understand just how profound it is。 （It was published on the Basic Books imprint， and they have been a label that has published very good books for a very long time。） Successive rereadings over the next 19 years have shown me just how weighty this book is: 1。 Sowell won a Law and Economics Center Prize for this it。 2。 The specific cases that he describes have resonances to things that happened decades after the publication of this book。 Some things have not gone out of date in the nearly four decades since the book was published。 （For example， Regulatory Agencies in the United States are just as out of touch with reality and they have been and are just as obstructive/destructive now as before）。 And the thematic architecture that is exposited here can readily be applied to later events。*******Of the book: 383 pages of prose with 1，000 references works out to just a little bit over 2。6 references per page。 There are 10 chapters， at the rate of 38 pages for an average chapter。 （Chapter length range is from 4-76 pps。） It is not necessarily an easy read。 ******"The entire book is profound， and it doesn't really do me any good to try to synopsize it。 Instead， I will give random examples of some of the more interesting things as quickly as they come to mind: -The political process and the economic process are two very different things。 The former is unresponsive and slow， and the second is fast and immediately coercive。 （Government run programs lose money hand over fist and yet don't go out of business。 But， businesses cannot ignore customer requirements for too many quarters if they want to stay in business。） -Democracy is not necessarily a way to bring freedom to large numbers of people。 （The Jim Crow laws were passed by Democratic/democratic legislatures。） -Societies that are "rationally ordered" by philosophers and intellectuals have been some of the most bloody。 （He brings the French Revolution and following Reign of Terror as examples--although the Great Leap Forward in China would have worked just as well for this purpose。） -Many civilizations have had substandard performance over a very long period of time not because of poor leaders of the right type， but because of leaders of a type that were categorically inappropriate。 （Confucian scholar-officials had disdain for the merchant class， but the merchant class created the many wealthy Overseas Chinese diasporas。 And China proper was almost carved up by people that lagged them in having a writing system by over 1，000 years。 ） -"Society" is a poor metaphor for concrete， specific and limited decision making units that control certain specific processes。 -Prices are the ultimate （nonverbal） feedback mechanism， and to use price controls is just an attempt to shoot the messenger。 （He uses the examples of rent controls in New York City， and those morons have not figured out why that is a bad idea decades later） -A process that works very well and predictably does not necessarily need a huge number of words to describe it。 Conversely， a huge number of words does not necessarily create any process that has a basis in reality。 （The author's examples here are Marx and Trotsky， and if words could have created ideal Communism， they have spilled enough to ink to do just that。） -Public television does not live under the threat of going out of business and that explains how they have a full schedule of programming of things that no one watches。 （Have you ever wondered why the British sitcom "Are You Being Served？" stayed on public TV for so many years even though no one in the United States had ever heard of that TV show？ Or， why so much of the programming on public television is British TV shows that you've never heard of？） There is， however， much much more that can only be appreciated by reading it oneself。******* Verdict: I strongly recommend this book--even at the new price。 。。。more

Mike ，

As always a lot to learn in this book and well worth the read。 Sowell will get you thinking about things that you never thought about before。

Bryan ，

Another great book by Thomas Sowell。 Many of the issues today have been going on since this was first written almost 40 years ago。 He makes the solid case for smaller government， and the free market approach。 By showing many examples of unintended consequences for government programs that end up creating a bigger problem than originally existed， he shows how the "cures" actually are the problems。 He also discusses how non elected officials and shadow government agencies have created far more law Another great book by Thomas Sowell。 Many of the issues today have been going on since this was first written almost 40 years ago。 He makes the solid case for smaller government， and the free market approach。 By showing many examples of unintended consequences for government programs that end up creating a bigger problem than originally existed， he shows how the "cures" actually are the problems。 He also discusses how non elected officials and shadow government agencies have created far more laws than those who officially run the country， and have a disturbing amount of power in certain areas。 Given this was written 40 years ago， and the size of bureaucracy has increased significantly since that time， it is a dire warning of what is to come。 。。。more

Sotiris Makrygiannis ，

Intellectuals exist in order to promote their own wit， ok that was nice :）the book is very deep and extensive， mathematics spoken with words and explains the thinking behinds many decisions。 I wonder if he forgot anything， if he did we will see a new edition soon。However， must say that this is not a book for listening but for reading， so don't buy the audiobook but the actual paper version。 Intellectuals exist in order to promote their own wit， ok that was nice :）the book is very deep and extensive， mathematics spoken with words and explains the thinking behinds many decisions。 I wonder if he forgot anything， if he did we will see a new edition soon。However， must say that this is not a book for listening but for reading， so don't buy the audiobook but the actual paper version。 。。。more

С。 Р。 ，

（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 насочв （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 по-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。 。。。more

Satkirath Singh ，

A great book for an undistorted and rigorous account of the importance of markets and their analogues in the legal and political fields。 The book's central thesis - that knowledge is costly， argues forcefully the importance of economising on knowledge so that it may be used most effectively and ultimately aims to show how interference in transactions that are normally left free to respond to supply and demand will result in misallocations of scarce resources （with knowledge itself being among th A great book for an undistorted and rigorous account of the importance of markets and their analogues in the legal and political fields。 The book's central thesis - that knowledge is costly， argues forcefully the importance of economising on knowledge so that it may be used most effectively and ultimately aims to show how interference in transactions that are normally left free to respond to supply and demand will result in misallocations of scarce resources （with knowledge itself being among those scarce resources）。 Many critics against the free-market and decentralised decision making in general either attack strawmen or try to moralise what is inherently amoral。 Those critics would do well to read this book。 。。。more

Reference

google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Knowledge And Decisions

hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=Knowledge And Decisions&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft

The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,Knowledge And Decisions&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0