This has been, so far, my least favourite book from a Marx Memorial Library reading list. It may be that Mr Chang believes capitalism to be an on going system, seemingly never to end, whilst I have positioned myself with those who believe it to be nearing its demise. It may be that, writing in 2010, Mr Chang seems to have genuinely believed that the financial crash of 2008 would see major adjustments to the Neoliberal system whereas, we know that short term brakes put on the 'free economy' were dismantled at the first possible opportunity. Whatever the cause, this plea for a 'play nice' capitalism looks more pie in the sky than to ask for a revolution tomorrow (What are you doing around 6pm tomorrow?).

Having poured so much cold water upon this book, I did find many interesting dissections of free market economics and indeed, the whole of economics.

This book is not a hard read - I managed it within three days - so, I would recommend it but, with reservations. ( )

Good overview of what we really mean when we discuss capitalist markets. The book is formulaic in its structure and because of this cannot go in very deep in many cases. ( )

A good take-down of many of the orthodoxies of current politics, and something I'd recommend to someone who's starting out learning about this stuff. Doesn't really go far enough in its challenges though. I don't expect him to be a revolutionary or anything, but he takes a lot of stuff as given when there's no reason to think so. At one point he says that Finland had "previously had [a] very low level of [income] inequality - perhaps too low"! What does it mean to have "too low" levels of income inequality? Why does he consider this (possibly) a problem? It's not at all obvious and this seems like a somewhat important point in the wider context of the book. Similarly, he quotes Milton Friedman about "markets driving out racism" - despite attacking him elsewhere. There's no real evidence of this. In fact, the example he gives - South Africa considering Japan "honourary whites" - doesn't show this at all and is just a (very typical) example of the flexibility of racist doctrine in the face of various realities. Finally, he says "excessive equalization of outcomes is harmful" - I guess a given from his capitalist beliefs, but again no explanation. Only some orthodoxies can be challenged

That's the main problem with the book. It works within a discourse that puts clear limits on what's acceptable to talk about and doesn't go past them. The closest the book comes to talking about the effect of policies on actual human lives is when it says "working for longer to get more pay isn't always so great". Nothing about the many deaths caused by economic liberalisation in developing countries, even as he attacks said policies. He says he opposes "free-market capitalism" and pins the main problems of such to the last 30 years but - although at the end he lists his principles for some sort of new capitalist society - he doesn't really say what he believes instead. The first essay of the book is about how markets aren't really free and is probably the weakest one in the book - it goes something like "some market restrictions are popular and not taken away. This shows that the market isn't free. Therefore people who want to make the market freer are wrong" or something like that. It's very unpersuasive which is a shame as it seems like it should be a cornerstone of the book. Ultimately it's good but has too many limitations to be of interest as more than an introduction. ( )

All 23 are worth thinking about. ( )

Good rebuttals to a lot of classical liberal/libertarian/free-market stuff I've read in the last few years. He's pro-capitalism, as long as the "market" is controlled to some extent by society for the greater good and is not allowed absolute freedom to go its own way. Very readable and concise. ( )