Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

It is very rare that I will write more than one review for a book. I wrote one for "Vision of the Annointed" a few years ago, and is by now burried in the heap of 5 star reviews below. In it, I praised Sowell for walking us through some of the rhetorical tricks used predominantly by the left wing (though since reading the book, I've become sensitive to the 'right' using similar arguments). I stand by that review. So why am I writing a new one? I've recently picked up the book again after 2 or so years and have read through some - not all - of the chapters again and...it really hit me. The most important thing about this book is not simply the 'expose of the left'; rather, the predominant message seems to be about how the left (and I would argue, the right) ignore why 'tradeoffs' have to be made. To put it more philosophically, the politicians dream is the policy that has no downsides. Sowell realizes that in a nation of many millions, every policy has negatives and that politicians should, instead of being focused on perfection, should be focused on taking the most gain for the least loss. This, Sowell says, is capitalism and markets. Yes, there are some losers. But there will be more winners and less losers through markets than there will through a regulatory state. Now, let's put Sowells argument into modern context (the issue that made me pick the book up again). Lately, companies have been moving overseas and this, says the dems (and to a lesser degree the reps) is a problem. The solution being proposed? Let's pass laws to keep them here. The problem with that is that it ignores the real problem (by refusing to look at tradeoffs). The real reason companies have been moving is that they are so regulated both in what they can produce and how much it costs to hire workers (what, with minimum wages, increased benefits and such). Liteally, any company that didn't go overseas where they can produce cheaper goods with more freedom would be a fool. So there you have a Sowellian dilemma: either we can keep wages extraordinately high and regulations tight, while accepting the fact that companies are going to move in revolt, or we keep more companies here by accepting a bit of deregulation and decrease in payroll expenditure. WE CAN'T HAVE BOTH even though BOTH parties are trying to deny economic fact in favor of utopianism by telling us that we can. (This, of course, is not an example Sowell gives in his book, but the idea is there throughout the chapters, the one on how Nader hurts consumers being one of the best). My point in this is simply to give a taste of what Sowell's big point is (one that I think has been lost in the excitement of bashing lefties). My first review also failed to pick it out through the excitement but the more I think about what is wrong with much policy today, the more I'm convinced that Sowell pegged it here: good gains require a willingness to take small losses.