Customer Reviews

Are the Rich Necessary?: Great Economic Arguments and How They Reflect Our Personal Values

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

As the title indicates, "Are The Rich Necessary" provides thoughtful examination and analysis of an array of topical economic arguments. Further, the author's analysis is supported with that of other key economic thinkers. The result is a great introduction to ecomomic structure and philosophy.

"Are the Rich Necessary?" was probably written in 2006, given that it was publsihed in 2007. But having read it at the end of 2008, after the stock market collapse, mortgage scandals, and immense government financial bailouts, I found that some of the ideas had even more resonance than the author probably intended. Chapters about government intervention in the marketplace and the benefits of central bankers really jump out at a time when the government is literally kicking trillions of dollars into the economy in unprecedented ways.

"Are the Rich Necessary?" doesn't really answer the core question. Instead, it presents point-counterpoint arguments about the benefits of a capitalist system (which the author calls a "profit" system). For a person with a beginner's understanding of economics, the book is probably thought-provoking to a great degree. For a person with a stronger background -- I have an undergrad degree in economics -- the book is a bit elementary. Still, it's nice to have the "big" arguments neatly compiled into one place and to have such pithy quotes an anecdotes from economists and political thinkers through the ages.

Definitely worth buying and reading if you like economics at all.

For anyone who wants to understand what economics is really all about, and how it affects our lives. Definitely not the dry text from my college economics course, instead a very easy read.

Are the Rich Necessary? is not well named. It is actually a collection of economic arguments for and against different ideas. I found this book entertaining and educational. The format of the book is a little bit odd. The author will take one point of view for one chapter, then the other point of view in the next chapter. Sometimes he will give points and counterpoints within the same chapter. He makes a valiant effort to present both sides of the story on each issue, though you can tell which way he is leaning (or maybe you will just be more sympathetic to one argument over another.

The book covers a variety of economic arguments, including the role of the rich, different economic philosophies and whether or not having the Fed is worthwhile (which I had never really thought about, but found his case for dissolving the Fed very reasonable). This book is a great economic primer on many salient economic issues today and should be required reading for everyone. It will help you better understand why people argue for the things that they do. The economics is not too tough, but a little background in economics may be helpful. The only reason it does not get five stars is that it gets a little slow sometimes, but overall it is a short, easy-to-read book (about 250 smaller pages).

I highly recommend to all capable readers.

I bought this book after reading the very positive New York Times review a few weeks ago. I had also seen Mr Lewis on Bloomberg TV and thought he seemed extremely knowledgeable. He is and the book is a real treat - it's provocative because it makes you think about why you think what you think (and I was surprised at the direction these answers led me) and it's pleasurable because Lewis quotes from as many unlikely sources - Jane Goodall and Al Sharpton, to name just two - as likely sources such as John Maynard Keynes.

With a title like Are the Rich Necessary? you have to surmise there will be curves ahead - and there are, and they're fun, but the best curve for me was the learning curve. I learned so much.

Hunter Lewis, a career economist and investment advisor, presents a dialectic of question and answer to a series of fundamental economic questions about the role of the rich in society (eg: do they undermine democracy, as often stated in the press). He comes up with an unexpected conclusion - the best way to optimize the role of the rich is to expand the non-profit sector.In view of the author's considerable activity on non-profit boards, he must have credibility, although his arguments are not clear at some points. Perhaps the most instructive part of the book is chapter 11, his view of the philosophies behind the four fundamental types of economic systems. Overall, a good read but heavy going in parts.

This book provides the purchaser a two-for-one deal. You get both pro and con opinions of capitalism as a viable way to organize society in one book. It's a very interesting read and easy to understand for the novice attempting to decipher opposing economic philosophies. The author presents answers to the great economic questions posed about captialism from opposite viewpoints and lets the reader decide which one seems plausible and aligns with the reader's personal value system. I would highly recommend this to anyone looking for a digest-style book that gives you a lot of knowledge in a 'nutshell'.

This book could have been so much stronger. Hunter Lewis comes to this topic with impressive credentials (having founded Cambridge Associates) as well has his long experience with many non-profit organizations, boards and other pursuits. I give Hunter Lewis a lot of credit for at least asking the question, "Are the Rich Necessary?" The book is simply structured poorly. Perhaps an alternate title might be, "Are 217 footnotes really necessary?" Most of the book is regurgitated quotes and ideas from others. Hunter Lewis spends 276 pages before he finally gets to Part 12 or Chapter 24, where he finally gives his own lite proposal to expand the not-for-profit sector. I applaude Hunter Lewis for trying to answer this question and for his role as a public intellectual, but this book really could have been better. Lastly, the strange font size and pagination (where there are only about 7 words per line) make the book more like reading a very long Biblical passage or something. It would be okay to have wider text.

The author gives the impression of arguing both sides of the question, but what he really does is set up strawmen, so that he can knock them down. He makes a strong case for why the rich are necessary but he doesn't cover any new ground nor add to the debate. This is really an argument for liberals who don't understand economics. Frankly, I bought the book hoping to find a more compelling argument for why the rich aren't necessary. The quotes and facts are, however, a useful compendium of information for those more knowledgeable.

Unfortunately, the author misses perhaps the most compelling argument for not taxing the rich more heavily - the benefits from investments are largely captured by the consumers through lower prices and not by investors who compete against one another to earn the cost of capital. Only the rich can afford to defer consumption and expose their fortunes to the risks of investing. The other 95% of the population is rightly consuming everything they have.

Politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, realize that their constituents are compelled by consumption and not saving and investment, (otherwise voters would already be saving and investing on their own,) and that they, therefore, must promise and deliver legislation that satisfies their constitutes' objective (of increased consumption) if they want to get elected. The Democrats propose that we tax the rich, in effect, redistributing society's saving to consumers for consumption. The Republicans propose to lower everyone's taxes, regardless of government spending.

In the end, we need the rich to save and invest on behalf of society because there is no viable alternative. Consumers "tax" society with 99 cents of consumption for every dollar they agree to save whereas the rich "tax" us much less. We need savings and investment, so it's cheaper to give the incremental dollar to the rich, precisely because they don't need it!

I don't understand Jim Harrigan's comment; the title of the book says it's about economics. Did he buy the book without reading the title?

I myself found the book quite insightful and would highly recommend the book to others.