A must for anyone who follows the brilliant Dr. Sowell, this book collects a series of his essays and thoughts on politics, race, and common sense. As a special treat he has a section of quotes at the end with gems like "To me, the fact that I have never killed an editor is proof enough that the death penalty deters" and "There are only two types of food- Southern fried chicken and everything else". A reader would be hard pressed to ask for more.

As one would expect from Dr. Sowell's works, this one contains an extraordinary amount of research. Most of the political arguments in the United States center around preferences for minorities, and it seems that many of the proponents feel that this is somehow a uniquely American phenomenon. It is anything but.

What is surprising is the variety of preferences found worldwide. It is probably assumed that preferences are only applied to minorities, but Dr. Sowell details other "versions" of preferences, such as Malaysia's official preferences for the majority members of the population intended to reduce the impact of the Chinese minority.

One would think that people would learn from the lessons of experiences all over the world, but one would never know this without such a well-researched exposition as _Preferential Policies_.

Really, a fascinating read (or listen, if you get the unabridged book on tape as I did). It always amazes me how interesting Thomas Sowell makes a potentiall dry subject. Also good reading: Ethnic America.

In 1990 the Indian Government precipitated riots and episodes of self-immolation with a promise to provide more university places and public service jobs for the lower caste 'untouchables'. Readers of "Preferential Policies" will not find these events surprising because they have happened before in other countries following the introduction of preference policies. Perhaps the most tragic example is the civil war in Sri Lanka.

This book is a historical and comparative study of the strong form of affirmative action whereby the members of supposedly deprived or under-privileged groups become the beneficiaries of government-mandated preferences. These set aside the principles of merit and freedom of choice so that different individuals are no longer judged by the same criteria or subjected to the same procedures.

Sowell describes the various patterns of behaviour and outcomes generated by preferential policies of different kinds. These include preferences for the economically dominant group (South Africa and the old US deep south), majority preferences in economies dominated by minorities (Malaysia, Sri Lanka,) and minority preferences in economies dominated by the majority (contemporary USA and India). The second part of the book explores the errors and muddled thinking which keep preferential policies in place even when they fail to produce the desired effects. Indeed, the very failure of policies which were supposed to be limited and temporary often leads to stronger preference initiatives.

Prior to Sowell's research it appears that hardly anyone paid systematic attention to the gap between the rhetoric and the reality of preference policies. Nor had anybody noticed the depressing similarity in the pattern of events which Sowell records all around the world. Generally the demand for preferential policies comes from well educated, 'new class' members of supposedly disadvantaged groups. The same people also become the main beneficiaries of preference policies which tend to further disadvantage the majority of their bretheren. This was clearly demonstrated in Malaysia where the gap between rich and poor Malays widened in the wake of preference policies for ethnic Malays. A leading advocate of preference conceded the evidence but claimed that the poor Malays preferred to be exploited by their own people.

The most destructive result of preference policies is the polarization of whole societies, as in Sir Lanka, Nigeria (with the attempted Ibo breakaway movement to form Biafra) and some Indian states. The Sri Lankan experience is especially instructive because at the time of independence the Tamil minority and the Sinhalese majority lived side by side in harmony despite their different religions and languages and despite the greater educational and commercial advancement of a section of the Tamils. The elites of both groups tended to be English speaking, mixed freely with each other and were committed to non-sectarian policies. All this changed with one demagogue, S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike. English-speaking, Christian and Oxford-educated, he became a champion of the Sinhalese language, Budhism and preferential treatment for Sinhalese. This resulted in an upset electoral victory for his party in 1956, followed by legislation to make Sinhalese the official language, restriction of the leading teacher-training college to Sinhalese only, and the first of many bloody race riots directed against the Tamils. The downward spiral continued as radical Sinhalese elements demanded stronger forms of preference and groups of Tamils launched a violent secession movement.

If preferential policies do not work, then what is to be done to overcome prejudice and discrimination against particular groups? One way is to rely on market forces backed up by the slow and steady effects of education and example. Of course this process is far too slow and unexciting to satisfy people who would happily see blood shed to realise their dreams. However the power of market forces in this context is that prejudice is free but discrimination has a price. Sowell reports that the streetcar operators in many Southern cities initially defied the 'Jim Crow' legislation that required segregated transport. Something similar has come about in South Africa after some generations of apartheid enabled the 'poor whites' to rise above the black masses, so that some of the Africaners reached the business class.

'Some of the principal beneficiaries of apartheid became its critics, now that their new role as employers forced them to confront the costs of discrimination. The rise of influential business interests within the ruling Nationalist Party has been partly responsible for the slow but widespread erosion of apartheid that began in the 1970s'.

Australia only receives a brief mention as a country where preferential policies 'are still at the stage of optimistic predictions.' If the lessons of this book are assimilated they will remain in that situation. Affirmative action has not yet taken the form of quotas or positive discrimination on a significant scale. Entry to employment and progression on the job are still supposed to reflect merit, and anti-discrimination policies are designed to eliminate unfair hiring and promotion practices. In the US a recent buzzword is 'managing diversity' which means tapping the full potential of all workers in the firm. The aim is to eliminate the confrontational and coercive elements of affirmative action and build a co-operative and creative culture in the workplace.

Turning from the historical record of preferential policies, Sowell examines some of the ideas which support them. He describes these as the illusions of control, knowledge, morality and compensation. Hovering behind them all is one of the great superstitions of modern times, namely the doctrine of Salvation by Political Action. If only people can have the vote, obtain national self-determination, be free of colonial rule etc then utopia is at hand. However one of the great advances in modern politics was the achievement of limited government, and this was essentially a pre-democratic development. This is not to deride the institutions of Parliamentary democracy, merely to warn that they are under increasing strain from the expectations that are placed on State activity (such as preference policies).

I've like Thomas Sowell's books for a while now. I've mainly read Sowell's books from the 1990s like his race trilogy and Inside America's Education System. Race and economics was published in 1975 so itgoes back to his early career. He provides a history about the correlation between, race, ethnicity and economics have played themselves out in America. He first deals with slavery and American blacks to see how slavery affected the American economic system and compares that Latin American and Caribbean slavery. He also looks at how slavery affected American blacks differently from Latin American/Cariibean blacks. Sowell also deals with immigrant ethnic groups like Japanese, Jews, Irish, Italians and Puerto Ricans and look at their development in America and compares them to look at their different developments and cultual beleifs. TO end, Sowell also deals with race and the market and race in governmetn. He looks at how things such as rent controls and minimum wage laws have affected minority groups. He also looks at future possibiliites of race in America looking at different approaches like the conservative approach, the reform approach and militant approach.

Mr. Sowell seems convinced that a typical person's positions on various political topics are in fact dictated by relatively few basic assumptions which the person holds. That is, three or four basic "truths" which you hold will in turn govern your views on dozens of other policy issures.

He makes a very readable and very convincing case, illustrating how this plays out in many of today's "hot" political issues.

This concept - that a few basic assumptions, or one's "vision," drives political views - is one he returns to again and again in his books.

In fact, though I enjoyed Vision of the Anointed and Cosmic Justice, I found them somewhat redundant. This book seems to be a more fundamental treatment of the topic; I'm glad I read it first.

Probably the book that best captures the core of Sowell's thought, this will help crystallize the understanding of anyone who has invested a lot of time in observing the back-and-forth, Crossfire-style, argumentation that usually passes for rational political discussion. The underlying assumptions that promulgate the world-views of our pundits and politicians can be seen here, making for a clearer understanding of how political figures, past and present, have arrived at the choices they have made. While reading on the affirmative action debate, say, or the history of Europe between the World Wars, one can see the opposing visions at work. Sowell is careful - as always, but here more than usual - not to take sides, but merely to present the characteristic behaviors and thought processes of the two "visions." As someone who agrees with Sowell most, but not all of the time, I was pleased with the way he stayed on message. A more opinionated book of his is "The Vision of the Anointed" which I also recommend.

Every college and graduate student should be required to read this book because it so clearly explains the reasons why people hold certain opinions about matters of policy, justice, law, and government. Prof. Sowell does not preach in this book, he shows the relationships between sets of ideas, e.g. why liberals are liberals and why conservatives are conservatives, and why both sides are quite predictable. Other reviewers have said this book is difficult to read; I did not find it difficult, but having some previous knowledge of political ideas, such as found in political science or law or history, certainly helps. Just take your time reading it. For over 10 years I have recommended this book to everyone who showed any interest in what people think and why, because this book gives an education that you don't get in college or law school. What is more, after reading this book you can predict the positions that politicians and activist groups will take on just about any issue. Wonderful reading!

Thomas Sowell has called "Knowledge & Decisions" his "most important and comprehensive work." After completing the book, it nearly impossible to disagree. There are two themes in Mr. Sowell's book. First, knowledge is not a "free good." Knowledge has a cost that isn't universally shared. This truth has important implications. In Mr. Sowell's opinion, capitalism uses knowledge more efficiently and directly than other economic systems. Unfortunately, the link between knowledge and capitalism is also a great political vulnerability. The public can get the economic benefits of capitalism without understanding the economic process. Politicians can exploit economic shortcomings into attacks on the economic process. Every perceived problem - whatever its reality - calls for a political "solution." These political "solutions," however, always give power to those who are removed from the knowledge and feedback mechanisms that undergird real "solutions." Not long ago, for example, the First Lady entrusted herself to radically reform the nation's health care industry. The fact she had no medical training or hadn't even run a drugstore didn't keep her efforts from nearly succeeding. Let us now understand Sowell's second conclusion: When making decisions, the question "who makes the decisions?" is just as important as what gets decided. Most discussion of various issues - from education to health care - overlooks the crucial fact that the most basic decision is WHO makes the decision, under what constraints, and subject to what feedback mechanisms. The great strength of the American Constitution is its system of "checks and balances" and "separation of powers." Here, decisions are made by scores of actors who check each others' ambition. This is different from stating that better decisions will be made when we replace "the bad guys" with "the good guys." When citizens choose to leave power in fewer and fewer hands and then have that power wielded by men who are further and further removed from real life, they are paving the road to despotism. Every citizen wants a better school system for their kids and a better health care system for their parents. But who will wield this power? Washington or local school boards? Who has more expertise on life-or-death matters? Bureaucrats or doctors? Constitutional democracy is a new - and indeed, fragile - form of government. As citizens who lived under Hitler's Germany or Peron's Argentina can attest to, it is easy to give up freedom and hard to get it back. In the second half of Mr. Sowell's book, he documents some disturbing trends in law and politics. These trends run contrary to the two points of Mr. Sowell's book. First published in 1980, there has been a lot of good news since then. Voters are starting to understand the costs of knowledge and the limits of political decision-making. But there is always the temptation to go back to the past. Mr. Sowell's book is an excellent lesson in why we must never travel that path again.

Every serious reader has his own list of the most influential books in his life. This spectacular, monumental volume is second only to "Atlas Shrugged" on mine. "Knowledge and Decisions" has focused my thinking on human social and economic behavior in a way few works before or since have, giving me a clearer outlook and new insight into how societies and economies function. Closely reasoned and meticulously argued, it still finds room for countless small gems of Sowell's ironic wit, making it entertaining as well as enlightening.

The free-market, libertarian conservative viewpoint has found such an eloquent voice in Thomas Sowell that Steve Forbes would do well to choose Sowell (a Forbes columnist) as his running mate in his next stab at the Presidency.

If you like to think, buy this book.

Sowell, an economist by training, assumes the economist's standard definition of a scarce resource: "At zero price, there is greater demand than supply." Nothing special here. Then he applies this axiomatic principle to knowledge and decisions based on knowledge. The fun begins. Page after page, he uses this intellectual insight to shoot sacred cows. I have never read any book that offers a greater number of fascinating insights, page for page, based on a seemingly noncontroversial axiom. Modern social policy and far too much of modern social theory are based on this premise: "Accurate knowledge is, or at least should be, a free good. When it is not, the civil government should coerce people to provide it." It is a false premise, and it produces costly errors -- another implication of his premise that accurate knowledge is not a free resource. Buy this book. Read it. Twice. Maybe more. (As an author, I will say this: Sowell makes brilliant writing look too easy and the rest of us look too lazy.)

On most days Thomas Sowell's articles are the only thing worth reading in my local newspaper. In a time where most news is unenlightening fluff, Sowell preaches common sense and personal responsibility. This collection of writings is Sowell at his best, covering topics ranging from the death penalty to Clarence Thomas.

Anyone who is even slightly aware of Sowell's work knows his particular disdain for the education establishment. The articles on this topic are the best ones in the book, in my humble opinion. Sowell reveals the American educational establishment as the sick fraud....Sowell is unique in his criticism because he has kept plugging away on this topic for years while others drift in and out of the debate.

Sowell also throws lightening bolts at the leftist demagogues that he refers to as "the Anointed". These are the people in the media, educational establishment and the government that are constantly undermining the rights of everyone else in the country through such trendy ideas as safety, political correctness and a host of other ills...I did give this book four stars. This in no way reflects on the quality of the essays, which are excellent, but is due to the number of errors in the text...

..., says Sowell in this book and, really, he is not.

Sowell exercises with mastery and skillfully his favourite "hobby": bashing without mercy the anointed ones (leftists, in the peculiar sowellian vocabulary), giving no truces to their dogmas (lies) on the political, economical, social, racial and educational scenes, dismounting all them one by one.

"Barbarians inside the Gates" is an excellent work, from a leading figure of the movement against political correctness' intelectual dictatorship, constituting ammunition of the highest quality to be employed in the counter-cultural war on leftism.

Thomas Sowell is one of the finest critical thinkers of our time. More than that, he is uniquely able to state his views in a manner that is both comprehensive and concise. Few authors are able to pack as much valuable analysis into each line as Thomas Sowell.

This latest collection of his provocative essays will challenge the presumptions and beliefs of many people, especially in America. Sowell has a special talent for slicing through fallacies, poor research, and "mushy" thinking, and getting to the truth in practically any controversy. He's logical, but at the same time he writes from a 'common sense' perspective that can be readily understood by everyone. Everyone except, perhaps, the "anointed ones."

Covering culture, economics, politics, law, race, and education, the essays in this book will challenge your understanding of the world, as well as your thoughts on how society should deal with the many issues it faces.

A wonderfully written comparision of the successes and failures of various races and cultures. Sowell has no problem pointing out how some races have more "human capital" than others and therefore are historically more successful.

Thomas Sowell has written both about race and economics in other books so it was inteersting to see Sowell combine these tow areas like this. He looks at historical reaosn to look at why certain areas of the world wer bale to acquire wealth while others did not. He looks at how different group's migrations to different parts of the world were similar, similar to the race trilogy. He also looks at the first world and the third world now looking to explain their differences and histories

The message of Thomas Sowell's "The Economics and Politics of Race" is simple and easy to understand: human cultures are not equal and some of them are better than others, their patterns of values having a more decisive role in the social perfomance of their respective members than any alleged, or even real and appaling, discrimination.

Sowell demonstrates that ethnic groups perform differently, even when they are subjected to a similar hostile social condition, like the chinese, the jews or the blacks in the USA, in the beginning of the 20th century.

The reason? A strong commitment, or not, to such values as hardworking, stable family ties and a firm will of improving their own social fate rather than blaming third ones by that same fate.

Similarly, when the pretense source of damage disappears - for example, in societies where certain ethnic groups are largely the majority and "bias" against them is inexistent -, not only their poor social behavior does not vanish, but, contrarily, worsens in a terrible way...

Concluding, culture really matters!

The author presents a solid synopsis and analysis of economic data that span most of Humanity's history. He uses these data to clearly explain complex economic phenomena as an application of simple, seemingly immutable, economic rules. The consequences of failure to account for these rules by policy makers over both time and distance are well described.

The primary review of this book is objectionable. The reviewer erroneously applies the label "conservative" to Dr. Sowell, lamenting the author's expressed point of view. Dr. Sowell writes the book as an economist, not an ideologue, and the book is simply an economic treatment of evidence, devoid of any political bend. What should be clear to the reviewer is that economics is not a belief system, but rather the study of the allocation of scare resources. A study-of employs scientific method and standard statistical techniques to test hypotheses and to draw inferences. This process, done correctly, must be free from ideology. Therefore, while a liberal might very well continue to support rent control as a policy, he does so in lieu of the demonstrated consequences of such policy. One can disagree with a political or philosophical stance; one cannot "disagree" with accumulated evidence.

There are some annoying typographical errors that should have been culled during editing. However, it is a great work overall. I endorse the sentiment that this book should be required reading for anybody that votes, anybody that holds office, and for anybody that has not given substantial thought or study to the subject of economics, yet considers himself educated.

Why are the lights going out in California? Why were there lines at gasoline stations in the '70s? Why is it so difficult to find a decent appartment in NY city? How can nations with less natural resources be so much more wealthy than others? Why can't Russia and China feed it's own people even though they have tremendously rich farmland? Thomas Sowell answers these and a million more questions in this easily read book on economics. This is not a text book! Sowell spent 10 years writting this book that reads like a cross between a public policy paper and a novel!

Economics is the study of the allocation (economization) of SCARCE resourses (time, money, labor, services, natural resources, etc.) with alternate uses. How efficiently a society allocates these scarce resourses utilmately determines the standard of living of it's citizens. When citizens lack the basic understanding of these principles, they typically are indifferent to detrimental governmental action and often actually encourage it! For example, price controls have a history of producing shortages back to the Roman Empire. Why then would politicians continue to institute such disatuours policies? Because there are more consumers (voters who think they benefit) than producer (voters who get punished) and Economists (voters who know the whole thing is a losing proposition).

Dr. Sowell uses copious examples to demonstrate as he makes each point. Early on he uses the example of a Protestant and Chatholic church each pursing a building program. In a free market economy, these churches are bidding against each other for scare building materials. Based on the level of funding, the churches may decide volutarily to scale back on their building programs. But, because the competition is systemic, there is no animosity between the churches. If, however, the government determines the allocation of resources, then the Protestant and Catholic churces come into direct competition with each other and animosity will develop as any extension of resources to one church will be seen as a direct reduction of resources to the other. Additionally, neither will have any reason to scale back voluntarily.

This book will make you look very differently at the economy and consumer choices. It should be mandatory reading for all highschool students. I've been buying this book and giving it to all my family and friends. You should too!

Note: Sowell is from the Monetarist branch of economics as most associated with Miton Friedman (He is the Friedman Fellow of the Hoover Institute). While definitely better than than the long discredited Keynesian wing, I disagree with some of the premises of the monetarists (I am more aligned with the Von Mises theories), but it is irrellevant at this basic level.

Sowell has done an excellent job of presenting economic principles without the mathematical calculations that discourage so many people from understanding market principles. No one should be allowed to graduate from college without this basic understanding of how our economy works. Without this basic understanding you have a major hole in being an educated person. Unfortunately we have a country with a majority claiming they want to get to city A but kept taking the route to city B because they don't know how to read the ecomonic map. This book clearly explains the incentives created from laws, regulations, taxes, price controls, etc. and the many unintended consequences they yield in our economy because lawmakers and voters didn't understand the economic rules of the road that could easily have predicted these consequences. This read is of lifetime value for: (1) an individual (2) and the country as we exercise our collective guidance to politians as voters.

Thomas Sowell demonstrates how anti-intellectual the current intelligensia are and how closed minded. When good intentions are more important than outcomes, a closed belief system results, insulated from real world feedback, with catastrophic results.

Modern political discourse has degenerated into name-calling ("mean-spirited," "reactionary," "racist") without reference to actual merits of a proposed course of action. Until I read Dr. Sowell's discussion of "mascots" and the "benighted," I never understood why organizations like the ACLU display the most passion of the behalf on those who exhibit the most anti-social behavor (Nazis marching in Skokie, drunks yelling obscenities at ballball games): Now I do.

Dr. Sowell's description of the genesis of government "solutions" (a phony crisis, a proposed program whose critics are shouted down and a retroactive redefinition of the program's goals when the critics prove correct) was also a revelation. Read this section and then turn to any N.Y. Times article discussing either global warming or the gender "wage gap" to see this cycle in action today.

If you read the book (and I highly recommend it), look at the Kirkus Review of it for an example of what Dr. Sowell is talking about. Isn't funny how articulate liberal writers are "passionate" and articulate conservative writers are "venomous?"

Wow! What an eye opening experience this book is. Be forewarned that this book will make most American Citizens angry. Dr. Sowell presents common information, even self evident information, to build the compelling distinction between original American founding principle of Liberty and the "annointed" distribution of liberties to their chosen victims. You will learn how the socialists operate to usurp individual and family freedom of choice and supplant it with societal choice (Think "It Takes a Village" - Hillary Clinton)There is nothing new here, F.A. Hayek made a similar case in "The Road to Serfdom" in the 40s when he explained the the motivation for facsism and socialism derive from the same fundamental impulses. However, the information is new and up to date and the presentation current.

Once you read this book, you will understand the canards of Mr. Berkowitz who writes "...[Sowell] shows his readers that his compassion do not lay with his own people even though a disproportionate number are in poverty, jails, stopped by police, in failing schools, high school dropouts, low paid, etc." Mr. Berkowitz never refutes any of Dr. Sowell's arguments, but instead simply calls Dr. Sowell an Uncle Tom (In a backhand sort of way.) Mr. Berkowitz has the "Vision of the Annointed" as you will discover as you proceed through the book.

(...)If the motives of liberals were truly what they say they are, then these positions would never gather the support that they now enjoy from the liberal community. Liberals are not uninformed; they read the same books, newspapers and academic journals as conservatives or libertarians. So why do they so consistently advocate policies whose results are demonstrably contrary to the results they claim to want?

Sowell explains the answer in this wonderful book. The reason, he says, is that the real motives of liberals have nothing to do with the welfare of other people. Instead, they have two related goals: first, to establish themselves as morally and intellectually superior to the rather distasteful population of common people, and second, to gather as much power as possible to tell those distasteful common people how they must live their lives. If a policy moves them closer to those two goals, they will find a reason to advocate it, regardless of how harmful the consequences of that policy may be.

Once you read this book, the dishonest posturing of liberals becomes far more understandable. They engage in a preposterous circular argument: They are wiser and more righteous than others because they "understand" the need for the policies they advocate. In turn, those policies are the correct policies because they are advocated by the wiser and more righteous members of society!

Many of Sowell's conclusions have become clear to me from personal experience. (...)Few liberals will read Sowell's book, because almost all liberals lack the moral and intellectual courage to confront their own motivations. But those few who read it by mistake will find themselves deeply pierced. Liberals are so accustomed to being able to bully their opponents with name-calling and preemption of the entire vocabulary of debate, that they scream with fury when their pretenses are stripped away. (...)

Having said all that, I have to admit that a couple of previous reviewers are right when they accuse Sowell of ignoring the propensity of conservatives to sometimes engage in the same kind of sloppy thinking and self-serving prejudice which he attributes only to liberals. That criticism is fair; Sowell is a conscious partisan. It is only Libertarians (like me, of course! :-) ) who consistently stick to principle.