'Unintended Consequences' by Edward Conrad: already 'the most hated book of the year'?
'Unintended Consequences' by former Bain Capital managing director Edward Conard argues that economic inequality is a good thing rather than a problem.
Both left-leaning and pro-market economists have had some qualms about author Edward Conard's forthcoming book 'Unintended Consequences.'
It’s not due to hit bookstores for another month, but “Unintended Consequences” is already being called “the most hated book of the year,” “a balm for the 1 percent,” and “defense of the rich” 2.0.
Skip to next paragraphRecent posts
-
05.17.13
'The Great Gatsby': Why it draws fans in prison -
05.17.13
Laini Taylor's 'Days of Blood and Starlight' sequel will be released spring 2014 (+video) -
05.17.13
'Behind the Beautiful Forevers' will become a London stage play -
05.16.13
Dan Brown at Lincoln Center: more about his childhood than 'Inferno' -
05.16.13
Ultimate Library aims to beef up hotel literary offerings
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
Perhaps that’s because in “Unintended Consequences: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About the Economy is Wrong,” former Bain Capital managing director (and former colleague of and major donor to presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s campaign) Edward Conard argues that economic inequality isn’t a problem – and in fact, the US could use more of it to spur risk-taking, innovation, and growth.
“Unintended Consequences” “aggressively argues that the enormous and growing income inequality in the United States is not a sign that the system is rigged,” writes Adam Davidson, founder of NPR’s Planet Money podcast, in a New York Times Magazine column that’s been raising a firestorm. “On the contrary, Conard writes, it is a sign that our economy is working. And if we had a little more of it, then everyone, particularly the 99 percent, would be better off.”
“This,” writes Davidson, “could be the most hated book of the year.”
(In a blog posted Wednesday after the NYT piece was published, Conard said he felt misrepresented by the Times story, but acknowledged it was the price one pays to land the cover of the NYT Magazine.)
Crucial to Conard’s argument is the proposition that we, the 99 percent, benefit proportionally from the vast wealth of others. “Most citizens are consumers, not investors,” he told the Times. “They don’t recognize the benefits to consumers that come from investment.” In other words, the vast majority of Americans spend their money on survival and entertainment; the superrich spend only a fraction of their money on personal comforts, the rest “is invested in productive businesses that make life better for everyone,” as Davidson writes in the Times.
Case in point: computers. A few innovators and wealthy investors earned billions improving personal computing and giving rise to the IT industry. Their work, in turn, has helped billions work more effectively and efficiently, making life more productive and growing the economy.









These comments are not screened before publication. Constructive debate about the above story is welcome, but personal attacks are not. Please do not post comments that are commercial in nature or that violate any copyright[s]. Comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence will be removed. If you find a comment offensive, you may flag it.