Worth reading whether you're liberal or conservative. Some great things to ponder with lots of research and studies to back it up. Great discussion points to bring up at dinner with relatives. *wink* ( )

The ideas in this book match up with a lot of opinions I already held, so I'm pre-disposed to like it, but I really appreciated the historical perspective, especially the fact that Nixon got a UBI bill through the house, but it failed in the senate. I had no idea we were ever that close.

This seems like a good book to hand other people who are curious why I support UBI, shorter work weeks, etc. ( )

I wish..✨ ( )

In the past, Bregman argues, the problem was people were poor, ugly, sick and stupid. In the present, the problem was that people have lost their dreams. All of the dreams that were possible in the past have been realized, and nowhere is that more true than in the US, where the per capita income and life expectancy have skyrocketed in just the last two hundred years. Per capita income is up 50-fold and life-expectancy has doubled. But instead of settling, we need new dreams of an even brighter future.

Just that message alone is a refreshing antidote to the mounting concern that society is crumbling over the past month and a half. Bregman then pitches the book on providing evidence for three utopian ideas: a universal basic income (UBI), a 15 hour work week and open borders.

Like most probable readers, I was already pretty familiar with UBI (an idea that I thought I invented several years ago before finding out about the Manitoba mincome experiment) and I thought I knew pretty much the basic primer, but I didn't know about Nixon's failed UBI proposal. Bregman also provides the most optimistic statistical analysis of UBI and how its sustainable that I've ever seen (more on that later), making it sound like an actually feasible idea. This section, prima facie, really lives up to the "for realists" segment, focusing on studies supporting the financial sustainability of UBI, and I thought that this was the strongest (and bulkiest) section.

In contrast, the Open Border section is pretty short, basically: countries that accept immigrants make more money than those that don't; immigrants, and in particular refugees are less likely to be involved in crime, and any criminal activity is predicted by socioeconomic status and that immigrants are more likely to return to their home country in open borders (and that the more we've militarized the US-Mexico border, the higher percentage of undocumented immigrants that stay here, so that clearly fits well with the plan for a Wall.) It all makes sense, but is a pretty anemic chapter.

Finally, the fifteen hour work week is more fleshed out, and there's some good thought processes there (i.e. that working longer hours decreases productivity, especially in creative jobs and that there are fewer good jobs than there are people) but there's not a lot of hard data.

Honestly, I thought the book's best ideas weren't the ostensible main ideas but were things that came up in the interstitial pages:
1. Is GDP actually a good measure and what can we use instead that would be more congruent with cultural values? Let's get rid of productivity and efficiency as goals, and concentrate on creativity and innovation, which is less metric-able
2. So many people are doing "bullshit" jobs, where they move around money, but don't do any societal or personal good. 1/3 of Americans think their job is pointless and doesn't bring them satisfaction. Let's get rid of dumb jobs and use the money to subsidize actually important work, like teachers and social workers, paid for by taxes on the financial industry.
3. Social good can be measured, just like anything else, and can be optimized by using randomized controlled trials to try out new ideas and see how much good they bring.

And finally, as a balm to my anxiety about what the best way to respond to the growing decline of political liberalism, Bregman has a strategy: use Politics as a way to move the Overton window to the left: for too long, the Global Right has been moving more and more right, while the progressive parties talk about compromises and being reasonable. But each new rightwing extremist defines deviance down, so what we perceive as moderation shifts further and further right. Bregman encourages readers to use the statistics he presents to calmly and logically argue back in the other direction, and convince politicians to run on truly progressive agenda.

So the downsides? I've hinted at a couple of them: like many books that seem to have started as a collection of essays, I found Utopia for Realists a little disorganized, and at times disjointed. I found I had to read large chunks at a time, or I would get lost because Bergman will revisit ideas that he previously explored without noting that it was discussed in a prior chapter. I thought the three sections were a little artificial -- the topics relate to each other, and the information between the Big Ideas, I thought was as worthy of fleshing out, and perhaps one chapter per concept would have provided an internal structure that the book seemed to lack. Finally, and perhaps my biggest criticism is that Bergman told, rather than showed the statistics, and for a book that prides itself on being "for realists" and data-driven, I wanted to see the data. In at least three different spots, Bergman talks about data showing one thing, than being reanalyzed and showing another. That's normal for such highly charged, politicized topics, but as a reader with a strong mathematical background, I wanted more evidence about why I should believe the reanalysis over the original results: what was the statistical error? What other analyses have been done?

Overall, though, I thought Utopia for Realists was a fresh take on the topic of how to make the world a better place. I liked that Bergman focused on some concrete ideas, and looked to bring in evidence for each, within the context of a philosophical idea to dream bigger. Often with books like this, I wonder who the intended audience is, but I think with the stated goal of encouraging liberals to use data to shift the Overton window, Bergman answers that question and it's a good answer: this book isn't intended to change the minds of people who are opposed to UBI or a 15 hour workweek or open borders (or housing first, or direct cash assistance, or randomized controlled trials of social justice), but to change the minds of people who are in favor of all of those things, but afraid to look impractical. I'm still not totally convinced, but I feel better than I did before reading it. ( )

Went through 3 of the books main points (universal basic income, 15-hour workweek, and open borders) and how all of these things would contribute to overall growth for people worldwide (and not just economic growth) and the elimination of extreme poverty. ( )

Went through 3 of the books main points (universal basic income, 15-hour workweek, and open borders) and how all of these things would contribute to overall growth for people worldwide (and not just economic growth) and the elimination of extreme poverty. ( )

I krátká knížka dovede vyprovokovat k přemýšlení, a hned zkraje můžu potvrdit, že Bregmanova Utopie pro realisty takovou knihou je. Bregman se v ní nezabývá utopií obecně, neřeší jak by takový utopický svět měl vypadat, zaměřuje se vcelku střídmě na tři kroky, které by podle něj ze současný svět k utopii přiblížili. Jeho představa vlastně překvapivě zrcadlí to, co je již dnes běžné například pro ty, kteří dnes mají dost peněz na to, aby mohli žít jen z jejich úročení: hodně volného času, bezpracný výdělek a volný pohyb po celém světě.

Nejpřesvědčivější je Bregman v oblasti nepodmíněného příjmu. Je to ostatně oblast, ve které ze všech tří zkoumaných témat proběhlo nejvíce výzkumů, z nichž autor úspěšně těží. Ačkoli je myšlenka nepodmíněného příjmu na první pohled spíše socialistická, je pro mě jakožto pro zastánce minimálního státu paradoxně nejlákavější. Spleť zákonů a pravidel určujících, kdo a za jakých podmínek si zaslouží státní příspěvky a ve kterých případech vzniká nárok na úlevu z daní, nabízí nahradit jedním plošným příspěvkem. Vyměnit stovky stran zákonů, tisíce stran vyhlášek a miliony hodin práce státních a obecních zaměstatnců za něco, co lze v principu shrnout do jedné věty, je prostě krásná představa a velice doufám, že někdy dospěje i do našich končin světa.

Ve zbylých dvou tématech je Bregmanova argumentace poněkud slabší. Zatímco s principem otevřených hranic v zásadě souhlasím, nevidím cestu k realizaci už jen proto, že nikdy nebude ve světě existovat dost dobré vůle. Patnáctihodinový pracovní týden je pak podobně lákavý, jeho cesta však jistě musí vést přes řadu mezikroků a dnes si jen těžko dovedu představit, že bychom se v dohledné době dostali alespoň ke třiceti hodinám. Zůstává navíc otázkou, o co bychom byli jako lidstvo ochuzeno, pokud by se patnáctihodinovou pracovní dobou řídil opravdu každý, včetně těch mohykánů průmyslu, kteří se právě neúnavnou prací dostali na míle před své konkurenty a posunuli lidské poznání a možnosti o krok dál. Jejich budoucí zaměstnanci by však kratší pracovní dobu jistě ocenili a nejen proto tak zůstává Bregman argumentačně silný i v této části knihy.

Pokud mi tedy na Utopii pro realisty něco chybí, je to snad jen trochu praktičnosti. Bregman o svých cílech píše přesvědčivě, jenže již neradí, kudy k nim vede cesta. Jak přimět populistické politky k otevření hranic? Jak provést tak radikální změnu státních sociálních systémů, která by je připravila na nepodmíněný příjem? Chápu, asi chci od útlé knížky moc, jenže dokud se ti, kteří ve skutečnosti činí rozhodnutí (ať již politici či jejich prostřednictvím voliči) sami od sebe nezačnou rozhodovat čistě racionálně, zůstává Bregmanova Utopie pro realisty utopií pro snílky. ( )

As the name implies, this book is about “small” steps that could be made to make our society better, the core ones being (in the author’s mind) Universal Basic Income, 15-hour workweeks, and globally open borders.

He makes cases for these, but he also gets sidetracked quite a bit.

My only gripe is the narrow view of history but if you’re staying a “realist” it might make sense to stick to the popular historical narrative of “civilization constantly moving forwards” and also stick to the most recent 200 years or so, as he does.

Still, good read overall. ( )

Only three concepts: 15-hours workweek, universal basic income and transparent state's borders. Expecting much more. ( )

Excelente livro sobre renda básica universal. Explora a história das práticas envolvidas, origens dos desentendimentos e má fama da distribuição direta de renda. Dá exemplos de tentativas políticas de implementação (por exemplo, no governo Nixon dos EUA) e de locais de implementação parcial (por exemplo, caso dos moradores de rua no Canadá). Mostra de modo convincente as vantagens que tal sistema proveria socialmente. A distribuição direta de renda permite economizar em áreas diversas dos gastos públicos, em que os problemas originam justamente por parte da população não ter dinheiro. O resultado total de todos os cuidadores e serviços para pessoas em situação de risco excede a de dar dinheiro para que elas mesmas saiam dessa situação. Ademais, faria diminuiria uma série de problemas, como o do subemprego (poucos aceitariam e isso geraria demanda para logística melhor e automação bem utilizada), da falta de empregos (não seria estritamente necessário trabalhar), e dos inúmeros empregos inúteis ou semi-inúteis e ineficientes (pois entre fazer nada no trabalho ou fazer algo fora dele parece clara a escolha). Ademais, remodelaria as relações, muitas vezes abusivas, de hierarquia no local de trabalho, por permitir negociação efetiva entre funcionário e patrão em algum nível (o funcionário podendo recusar sem ter risco de passar fome por não ter dinheiro). ( )

Nem vesztegetnék sok szót arra, ami ebben a könyvben van. Garantált alapjövedelem, 15 órás munkahét, munkaerő szabad áramlása, tőzsdei tranzakciók megadóztatása… csupa olyan dolog, amiről már biztos hallottunk harangozni (aki nem, az guglizzon, vagy kérdezzen rá). Talán a vállunkat is vonogatjuk, ha szóba kerülnek, hogy „szép, szép, egy szebb jövőben, esetleg, feltéve, de meg nem engedve, ám most semmi realitása”. Amennyiben pedig közgazdász végzettségűek vagyunk, tutira egy rakás ellenérvünk is akad (mégpedig jó ellenérvek), miért alkalmazhatatlanok ezek az eszközök. (Jó ellenérvek persze arra is voltak, miért NE adjunk szavazati jogot a nőknek vagy a feketéknek, mi több, 150 éve még evidenciának vették, hogy a gazdaság attól műkődik, hogy minél kevesebb bért fizetünk a munkásainknak, és az alkoholizmus egyetlen hatásos gyógyszere, ha halálra dolgoztatjuk a delikvenst. Aki pedig mást állít, az holdkóros. Ennyit a jó ellenérvekről, meg a járt útról, amit járatlanért el ne hagyj.) Na mindegy. A lényeg, hogy eszemben sincs Bregman állításait a közgazdaságtan mérlegén megmérni – nincs is meg hozzá a szükséges apparátusom. De ettől függetlenül: ez a könyv minden (amúgy megítélésem szerint viszonylag mérsékelt) populizmusával, vélelmezhető finom leegyszerűsítéseivel megvett engem.

Mert igazából nem is magukon a konkrét javaslatokon van a hangsúly. Hanem hogy egyáltalán legyenek javaslatok. Az apró korrekciók ígérete nem menti meg a kiüresedéstől a demokratikus gondolatot – határozott, vállalható ideák kellenek. Ma, amikor a jobboldal képes tömegeket mozgósítani úgy, hogy csak negatív céljai vannak*, hol van az a Nagy Pozitív Cél, amit a többiek fel tudnak mutatni? Én azt mondom, Bregman elképzelései pont alkalmasak arra, hogy ezt a szerepet betöltsék.

Jó, hát erre lehet azt mondani, hogy az effajta ködkergetés katasztrófába torkollhat. De 2009-ben (a hitelválság mélypontján) a Goldman Sachs alkalmazottai annyi célprémiumot vittek haza, mint amekkora a Föld 224 000 000 legszegényebb emberének a vagyona. És ha valaki szerint EZ nem elég nagy katasztrófa, akkor igazán nem tudom, mi kell még neki. Egy radioaktív savmocsár a kert végébe? Ráadásul ha a robottechnika ilyen ütemben fejlődik, akkor az alapjövedelem alternatívája nem az lesz, hogy minden marad a régiben, hanem a tömeges munkanélküliség, úgyhogy nem árt aggódni egy kicsit. Szóval Bregman szuggesztív pacák, engem meggyőzött. És őszintén áhítom, hogy minél több embert győzzön meg a továbbiakban is – úgyis botrányosan fiatal, van ideje rá. Mert ha javaslatai politikai akarattá válnak, akkor – és ebben nagyjából biztos vagyok – a szakma is megtalálja a módját, hogy a gyakorlati alkalmazás mikéntjét kidolgozza.

* Mert mit ígér a mai jobboldal (amit amúgy teljesen félrevezető jobboldalnak hívni, hisz már rég nem az – de ez egy mellékszál, jegeljük)? Hogy „Nem leszünk gyarmat!”, meg hogy nem kellenek a bevándorlók. Csupa „nem”. De akkor mi „igen”? Nem leszünk gyarmat, oké, de akkor mik leszünk? És senki ne jöjjön azzal, hogy a szuverenitás pozitív cél – mert mindaddig, amíg nem esik szó arról, hová akarunk szuverén módon eljutni, a szuverenitásra való hivatkozás csak retorikai szájfény a hatalom húsos ajkain. ( )

Very interesting ideas and statistics. As much as I would love to see a basic income for a variety of reasons, my own being a less stressful transition in a career change, "my jury" is still out on whether it will be abused more than the author suggests. Covid monthly payments, CERB In Canada, albeit poorly initiated by the government, showed some people's true nature with easy money. None the less, definitely worth reading Rutger's thoughts and opinions. ( )

The 'how we can get there' part promised in the title seems almost entirely lacking, boiling down essentially to 'don't give up'. Apart from that this is a mostly interesting summary of historical experiments with radical progressive policies and bemoaning their abandonment. The title is far more exciting than the content. ( )

Yeah. Utopia for anything, any reason or topic always sounds good. Do you know how many descriptions like the one this book has here I’ve read over many decades from authors dating back centuries? Do you know how many were right or proven right? Yeah, I do. The answer would be NONE! Why? Cause no matter how brilliant they may seem or even be, these concepts and theories are little but pipe dreams. Fantasy. Let’s give the kids of the world some hope, some premise and promise, something to dedicate their lives too ... and then not deliver. Again and again. Over and over.

An obvious example or two. One of the most obvious: Marx and Engels' semi-brilliant (in theory) deconstruction of economic and political systems to even the playing field for the common man via communism (Marxism). It would be Utopia for the workers. Naturally most western capitalists will gleefully say it was BS, didn’t work out and died the ugly death it deserved. And despite their misguided arrogance, on the whole they’re technically right — in terms of the original and most influential communist system, with the collapse of the Soviet Union (and with China then sliding into a more Sinese type capitalist-centric system while retaining the power elements found throughout the history of typical communist countries), it might seem like communism was inferior to anything else, most notably capitalism. It didn’t work.

But before the Reagan worshippers get too frenzied, while hundreds of books have been written on this so I don’t need to, let’s look at two big, fairly related points. One, did Marxist communism fail to be Utopian, if even fair or safe, because it was a horrible theory, terrible idea, total BS? No. Here’s the truth about nearly every Utopian theory or premise ever thought up and advocated on nearly any subject at all throughout human history. They’re virtually all mere pipe dreams. Cannot and will likely never fulfill their promise, no matter how promising. Because they’re crackpot theories and promises? No, not necessarily and not in the case of communism. The problem is few people ever really take into account the one consistent variable nearly always at the root of any Utopian failure: human nature. Yeah, it’s so simple that it should easily be obvious every time but mankind has this bad habit of rarely learning from past mistakes. Marx actually had some really good ideas. Like the author of this book. Yet Marx’s theories, when implemented - just as surely would seem to be the case with the author - were doomed to fail because not only are people different, but what seems reasonable, rational, logical, FAIR to huge numbers of people will ultimately typically die from within because despite any original good intentions, the fact is it’s impossible to stop power-hungry tyrants, autocrats, dictators, murderers, greedy, fascist EVIL people from being involved or becoming involved, or from falling victim to the lure or power and riches, that despite the original terms used in many such efforts and movements, they're just semantics and largely meaningless. The Marxist Bolsheviks rebelled against the czar for the people, yet Stalin would become the most famous of the genocidal madmen there to destroy the Utopian dream Marx had described — because he could (with the aid of men like Yezhov and Beria). And he wanted to and took advantage of opportunities and lied and murdered and the term communism was always used but did it fail cause Marx was an idiot? No. Because at heart, much of human nature is evil and those people who “go to the dark side” (Did I get the Star Wars reference right?) abuse that as well as the huge number of people trying to make an honest, sustainable life of it, only to be crushed under the boot of tyranny. (Additionally, the Stalinist interpretation of Marx's communism was rather warped -- thus the war against Trotsky and the edging Lenin out so he could take over...)

However if you think capitalism is the obvious “winner” in this competition, think again. Those who have pushed the fantasy that it can be Utopian if you only pull yourself up by your bootstraps, work your damn ass off (and vote for the “right” political party) and then the American Dream will be possible for all is an even bigger pile of shit because while Marx and his colleagues were naively Ernest, those pushing this capitalist equation to obtain the American Dream, dating further back than “trickle down economics” - a theory so transparent in its lies, non-logic, hypocrisy and true goals, that the fact that so many chump Americans are still spouting bullshit like “America: Love It or Leave It” shows how pathetically stupid, naïve and easily manipulated we are -- and sadly that’s not limited just to Americans. (And Reagan isn't to blame. It's hard to pinpoint an actual individual or group of individuals responsible for foisting this dramady onto the American worker, thus forever using the stick and carrot routine which never fails to work brilliantly. Many attribute this "conspiracy" to powerful men such as JP Morgan, the Rockefellers, some of the major financial leaders (often theorists love to throw in the Rothschild family, which hasn't been proven but can't be discounted), but led by a mysterious visitor from Europe who, it was alleged, was. a Rothschild representative. When the Jekyll Island retreat resulted in the invention of a central bank, later to be called the Federal Reserve, or the Fed (and there are a dozen of them around the country, not just one...) -- (an interesting aspect to this is the Fed never was and is not still a government agency or government anything, yet many people don't know that. Why does a largely private bank control the country's currency, interest rates, print the money, etc., on behalf of the government and the people when it is not at all related to that very government? Who then is benefitting from this little scenario? And when researching history combined with some reflection, it's interesting to ponder about how a few mysterious but very rich and powerful men controlling the Fed have ultimate power over the country, if not the world, because with the simple unanticipated move by them, such as a serious loan rate change, a devaluation of the dollar, etc., the Fed can create recessions at will, can end them equally, conceivably start wars and more -- and yet they're not a part of the government despite being potentially more powerful.) that venture has and does beg the question or perhaps confirms the suspicions some people have of a "conspiracy" of rabid capitalists controlling various countries with the future goal of that dreaded phrase we hate so much and which I won't bother writing here, but just think of the Euro as the first major step in that direction. And since I'm off topic with popular theories about the advent of a capitalist plot to create sheeple who lack critical thinking abilities and will do what they're told by the authorities -- something Orwell wrote about with horror, something that our educational systems have embrace, and something that has succeeded brilliantly and that's not me -- I've read interviews with top CEOs in journals like Forbes where they complain they can't hire college graduates worth a damn anymore because everyone is a specialist, no longer generalists, and virtually all lack critical thinking skills, thus limiting them in the workplace. And to get through this aside, the other main popular conspiracy theory with any credibility is the ole Skull and Bones one, which many people laugh off without bothering to research the details of the Russel Trust or the Bavarian intellectuals who influenced those early Yale men, their colleagues who returned from Germany to found the University of Chicago, Princeton Theological Seminary (I think) and Johns Hopkins University and take on the role of the first presidents, who then installed said German immigrant academic intellectuals at their institutions and elsewhere, all allegedly influenced heavily by a bizarre Bavarian psychologist and it gets really crazy sounding, but when you do the research and find that Prescott Bush was a major player (who financed the Nazis throughout WW2, following Henry Ford), as well as a Dulles or two, both Bundy brothers, possibly two of the most powerful, devious and evil Americans of the twentieth century as McGeorge Bundy worked his magic on Kennedy and Johnson to get and keep the US in a southeast Asian unwinnable war while William rode shotgun at the CIA, and it gets crazier sounding when you dig deeper, but allegedly a S&B elite has run for president every cycle since Carter with possibly one exception, and certain Yale devotees were delighted to note that when W ran against Kerry, both candidates were Skull and Bones men, so they couldn't lose no matter who won...

So after admittedly getting way off track on those potential initial starts at creating a capitalist system to ultimately do what it's done, when I have the audacity to make a critical remark about US corporations being equal to people to enable the rich and powerful to buy elections, at best I get verbally attacked. Yet typically the atmosphere changes when I ask a simple question, which might be followed up with a couple more — “So, how’s capitalism working out for ya? You personally and your family? Are there any businesses or jobs left in your community and do the jobs even pay enough for you to have enough money in the bank if you have an unanticipated car emergency, like a wreck, requiring, say, $500 to get it fixed?

To answer that question, just in case you think it’s theoretical, the answer to people having jobs paying well enough to have $500 for an unanticipated emergency the next month is NO. Look it up if you don’t believe me. The average American (and this isn’t even “average” as it’s actually the vast majority) doesn’t have enough money to pay rent, buy a new set of tires, etc., for just one simple future month and the middle class that is now a distant memory has (had) to learn some hard lessons...and I would keep writing for hours, but I’ve already been doing this for several hours on a mobile device (takes me longer now that I'm old and feeble) and I’m tired and my arthritis is killing me (LOL!), so I’m just going to have to end prematurely. Capitalism, like Marxism, sounds good in theory, but like communism, in practice the Utopia of the American Dream is a lie and a pipe dream for over 90% of the people. Because of human nature, again. The sharks want power and money and see millions of suckers out there (who sadly and pathetically buy into their little game) and lie and manipulate to STILL ensure people are forever getting fucked by US capitalism will be willing to fight to the death against a critic despite their being victims of the very oppressive system they defend! So does capitalism work? Sure, if you have obscene wealth and power and are cutthroat and heartless enough to be hypocritical to your (typically American) religion and to betray and screw your fellow man just to keep edging toward the top, while the rest of us are now in such bad situations that the literal majority of US bankruptcies are for excessive medical bills but yet the powerful know we’re so stupid we’ll vote against our own interests in refusing to do what every other first world nation on earth does — act ethically enough to provide at least basic health coverage to their citizens for free. Even the tiny Republic of North Macedonia, which didn’t even exist as recently as 1990, provides free healthcare to its citizens. Jesus allegedly talked about aiding and caring for the sick and the poor more than any other topic in the Gospels. Yet today’s power brokers, often white well off evangelical “Christians,” are adamantly opposed to anything their messiah ever said, especially when it comes to helping or aiding the sick and poor. They want the sick and poor to basically die as they annually try to kill off the few pathetic “entitlements” Americans have while instead they focus on two topics — abortion and homosexuality — to the point of violence and murder (WWJD), despite the fact that Jesus cared so very much about these two most important issues that he NEVER felt compelled to even ever mention them at all, while aiding the sick and poor are mentioned over 160 times. Obviously his priorities were out of place for current American so-called "Christians." Or maybe since they're representatives and witnesses of their god and their religion, this whole Jesus peace and love bullshit is just that -- hypocritical bullshit. Because the vermin have come out of hiding, already despised for their judgmental persecution of everyone else in the world while always claiming to be the only victims in America (I grew up in a hardcore fundie home and heard that brainwashing crap every day). They no longer feel the need to hide the fact that not only have they not read their "holy" book, but they don't give a shit about it anyway, or like the Jews and Muslims, they might actually consider following it, rather than attacking and in some cases killing anyone who won't convert -- just like the Taliban. Funny how life works sometimes.

A point in that last huge chunk on capitalism was merely to give an example of people buying into Utopian bullshit and just displaying the rampant hypocrisy of it all. One could go on to mention many of the naïve Utopian ideals of the 1960s and ‘70s — flower power, free love, the thousands of communes, protesting the war, etc. — but just to end this with one last thought, American students protested the Vietnam war by the hundreds of thousands, claiming it was an immoral war and shouting about standing together with their South Vietnamese brothers in solidarity, which had an idealistic, somewhat Utopian narrative. Until it didn’t. Once “our boys” came home (to be ignored, abandoned, abused, criticized, thrown to the wolves), our great “solidarity” kinda disappeared since the Americans were gone and it was just poor little yellow/brown men against other poor little yellow/brown men and I guess the protestors shifted showing their solidarity by disappearing, shutting up, moving on to other things like the fight for the rights of oppressed American minorities (valid) while South Vietnam got crushed and essentially disappeared two years later. Did the solidarity protesters even care? One of the implicit points of this last example is that those hypocritical protesters were Boomers who took For Granted the American Dream OWED them (there's a great book on that and I think I reviewed it here) as they went on to switch from Ginsberg and free drugs and sex to ‘80s Reagan Republicans, with many joining the Moral Majority and many more buying into the decade of greed — these, the hippies who rejected a traditional oppressive capitalist society guilty of colonial imperialism and genocide, living off the land in communes, many replacing currency with barter. A decade later, they were rich Wall Street tycoons before breaking into politics to work on destroying the country from the inside out, year by year regardless of party.

This book's author wants to talk about good, generous wages, 15-hour work weeks, a new dynamic, a type of Utopia. I applaud that. While trying to decide whether to laugh my ass off or roll my eyes as another potentially great idea will be left to crash and burn once again, if it even approaches getting off the ground to begin with.

3.5 for decent, enthusiastic book/comments. A 1 for naïveté due to apparent lack of study and analysis of (recent) history, among other crucial topics. Ultimately a 1 because despite being an intriguing fantasy, it’s unfortunately little more than that and there are far too many fantasies better than this one. Yes, I'm sadly that jaded. Not recommended. ( )

It's been a long time that a book challenged my core ideals. That forced me to think about them.

Do I agree with everything Rutger proposed? No but he did made me think about the why.

Also I had so many conversations with my partner about this. I discovered he's more of socialist then I am. He's also weirdly optimistic about the idea of an Utopia. Which is weird because of the two of us I get called the positive one. We do have very different backgrounds so maybe that's why... But I'm more nature oriented and he is more people oriented.

It was a fascinating read. And I'm really glad I gifted this to my partner and then read it first. ( )

One part summary of the ideas behind Basic Income, one part standard leftist/neoliberal open borders, etc. I'd be fine with ideas I disagree with in a book if the author presented them well, but in this case it was argument-by-anecdote on a lot of points, as well as completely ignoring large segments of cost. There are better books about Basic Income, and the rest of it wasn't really worth it. ( )

The last 2/3 chapters have some of the most eye-opening stats I have heard. And massive respect the author for reflecting on their own bias and judgements. ( )

https://nwhyte.livejournal.com/3560304.html

Originally published in Dutch with the title Gratis geld voor iedereen (Free Money for Everyone), this is a provocative and polemical book on how to fix the problems of the world today, pre-COVID. I found it a bit of a mixed bag. I am undecided tending negative on a universal basic income, which is the biggest single idea in the book; it is interesting that, on Bregman's account, all the academic studies showing that it doesn't work have been faked and all those showing that it does have not. I did find the story of how Nixon almost got it passed by the US Congress pretty fascinating (and it also demonstrates the hurdles faced by UBI supporters in even framing the argument).

I was actually a bit disappointed by the chapter on migration, where Bregman like me is fundamentally libertarian, because I wished he had argued the point harder and with more direct reference to the misreadings of the recent migration crisis. On the other hand, I was very sympathetic to the chapter on ideas and changing the world, and in particular his scorn for what he calls "underdog socialists" who are more interested in winning the argument than winning actual votes. The same could and should be said for internet slacktivists.

A breezy and sparky read. ( )

It's all quite sound but kept me asking: so what? Not the manual it sells itself as on cover. ( )

Went through 3 of the books main points (universal basic income, 15-hour workweek, and open borders) and how all of these things would contribute to overall growth for people worldwide (and not just economic growth) and the elimination of extreme poverty. ( )

Short review: it's garbage.

Longer review, originally posted at http://sandymaguire.me/blog/utopia-for-realists/:

Rutger Bergman's Utopia for Realists is a book whose primary thesis is that we should have a guaranteed minimum income (GMI).

I must admit, I was pretty sold on a guaranteed minimum income before reading this book. I hadn't thought too much about it, besides the fact that lots of smart people I know say it's a good idea, and that obviously we're going to need a solution to what happens to humans after we automate away all of the jobs.

After reading this book, I am significantly less on-board with the idea.

What it boils down to is that Utopia for Realists isn't very good. If these are the best arguments for a GMI, well... let's hope that they're not the best arguments for a GMI.

I can't make up my mind on whether this book is merely incompetent or actively dishonest.

For example, the book discusses the Speenhamland system, which it describes as an early form of GMI, and then discusses a contemporary report which described it as a failed experiment. But then Utopia for Realists turns around with the sentence "more recent research has revealed that the Speenhamland system was actually a success." A description of how the original study was supposedly flawed, but no citation to back it up. No reference to which "more recent research" reveals resounding success. There are lots of other citations in the book. Why not one here?

Utopia makes some other bold claims without backing them up; here's a few that bothered me enough to mark them down:

"Ultimately, the perfect, self-regulating market proved an illusion."
"The historian Brian Steesland... emphasizes that, had Nixon's plan gone ahead, the ramifications would have been huge... No longer would there be such a thing as the 'deserving' or 'undeserving poor' [no citation]"

There was another time I wanted to check a source. The book makes a case for "giving housing/money to homeless people is cheaper than dealing with the consequences of not" via a case study. I'm willing to believe this; prevention is usually a better strategy than treatment. OK, fine. What I wanted to check was the cost breakdown; Utopia describes the project as costing $217 million, and being responsible for getting 6,500 people off of the streets over nine years. This struck me as being exorbitantly expensive, and I wanted to check their methodologies and math.

The given citation for this "unmitigated success" was to a random pdf on the Utrecht municipal website which doesn't exist anymore. I didn't try any harder than this to find the document. The citation describing the experiment points to a Dutch news site (that Google annoyingly refuses to translate) that looks more like an op-ed than anything official, but more damningly, doesn't provide any links closer to the original source.

Bregman's grasp of economics is pretty tenuous. For example:

From a certain perspective, [Bastiat] says, breaking a window sounds like a fine idea. "Imagine it costs six francs to repair the damage. And imagine that this creates a commercial gain of six francs---I confess there's no arguing with this reasoning. The glazier comes along, does his work, and happily pockets six francs..." [emphasis mine]

No arguing? Except that the glazier charges a fair price to replace the window, so he is only marginally better off after replacing the window, but the world has lost one window and the owner is the worse-off for it.

He goes on:

Unlike the manufacture of a fridge or a car, history lessons and doctor's [sic] checkups can't simply be made "more efficient."

This is absurdly stupid. We've all taken classes that were long-winded and boring. The quality of a teacher has a huge bearing on how efficiently we learn from them. Websites like Khan Academy are teaching entire university courses in a fraction of the time it would take to do through the usual channels. Doctors' checkups can and have been made more efficient; it's not an accident that doctors carry stethoscopes and have access to MRI machines.

But Bergman persists:

... the government is gobbling up a growing share of the economic pie... this phenomenon is now known as "Baumol's cost disease," basically says that prices in labor-intensive sectors such as healthcare and education increase faster than prices in sectors where most of the work can be more extensively automated... shouldn't we be calling this a blessing, rather than a disease? After all, the more efficient our factories and our computers, the less efficient our healthcare and education need to be; that is, the more time we have left to attend to the old and infirm and to organize education on a more personal scale.

When you're obsessed with efficient and productivity, it's difficult to see the real value of education and care. Which is why so many politicians and taxpayers alike see only the costs. They don't realize that the richer a country becomes the more it should be spending on teachers and doctors.

No no no no no no. Cost disease doesn't say "we spend too much on healthcare and education." It says "we spend too much on healthcare and education on the margin." Which is to say that in less cost-diseased countries, spending an additional $1,000 will buy you a lot more than the same additional $1,000 in a more cost-diseased place.

Cost disease is the phenomenon that we're paying more to get less. For example, Thailand has a booming dentistry industry among Australians because you can get the same quality work done for significantly less money. This isn't "exploiting Thai workers" nor is it "taking jobs away from Australians"---it's just Australian cost disease.

A significantly smaller portion of the book describes the fifteen-hour workweek is an ideal one. Sure! Sounds good! But, Bergman says, "breaking the vicious cycle [of the 40 hour workweek] will require collective action---by companies, or better yet, by countries."

I don't get this one. If you want to work less than 40 hours, just... work less than 40 hours? Nobody is forcing you, except your spending habits. As it happens, life is actually pretty cheap. Find a small apartment, share it with some roommates, and eat a lot of rice. You can definitely manage to do it for less than $800 a month if you're willing to shop around---and especially if you're willing to move.

The secret is to just not spend money. That means stop eating lavish meals. Don't get a pet. Don't buy a vehicle. Stop drinking and smoking and give up whatever other vices you have that cost a bunch of money. It sounds dumb, but the secret to not working very much is to not need a lot of money.

And then use your extra time to learn how to do something valuable so that you can work even less.

At the end of the day, I get the strong impression that this book was written backwards. Bergman very clearly believes in his cause, and has worked backwards trying to find arguments that support it---as evidenced by the sloppy citation work, numerous straw-men and gross-misunderstanding of the arguments against his point of view.

It's a particularly bad sign when a book is so bad that it makes people on your side agree with you less after reading it. Give this one a miss, but if you're looking for a significantly better resource championing MGI, look no further than Slate Star Codex's take on same.
( )

What this book lacks in ideological correctness it makes up for in readability. I wanted to get behind this book, but it is too lacking in useful or correct labor economic theory.
If you want to read a book about a Westerner who cannot conceive of a world better than his, and who wants to help everyone else in the entire world live the life he thinks they should, read this book. If you want a true picture of the state of the world and the labor market, go with Angus Deaton's "The Great Escape" instead. Deaton is much more credible, and almost as readable. As a bonus, his style foregoes the cheap curses and doesn't purposely appeal to the lowest common denominator.
I do not think this book will age well. ( )

This title raised my hackles when I saw it but I decided to keep an open mind, give the author a chance, and carefully read the book cover to cover.

My initial opinion is born out: The author simply ignores scarcity economic theory and affordability. More importantly there is no mention of the environmental consequences. But then there never is in this type of book. (At present, without the author's three innovations, the U. S. population is increasing at one percent a year which means it will double in seventy.) ( )

This is a timely, brilliant and important book arguing, not against capitalism, but making the case for adaptions that are vital if society is to face the challenges facing us and thrive. He makes cases for specifics such as Universal Basic Income, a fifteen-hour workweek, open borders, and more, but also challenges us to confront our values, most importantly the ridiculously out of proportion worth that we as a society we give to jobs which don't create any value ( investment banks, speculators of all kinds, much of the service industries that don't actually provide any services ) compared to those things that are vital, fulfilling or actually create wealth. The best example he gives is the contrasting strikes of garbage collectors in New York in 1968 which brought that great city to its knees in ten days ( leaving 100, 000 tons of trash on the streets ) and that of bank workers in Ireland two years later, who the country managed without for six months with almost no effect on the nation's economy.



Bergman, and his translator, write with clarity and concision and his arguments are based entirely on facts and numbers, but this doesn't mean it lacks passion. ( )

The book discusses topics as Basic Income and shorter work weeks. Although I agree about the results it would have, I'm sadly more adamant we'll get there any time soon. Rutger cites numerous studies to back up his claims, but there is a lot of complexity he's not taking into account. All-in-all I enjoyed the book and will probably read his next one when it gets translated into english, but regarding the use of "realist" in the title of this one I must disagree on. ( )