2024/08/23

RC Series Bundle: On Dialogue: Volume 76 : Bohm, David: Amazon.com.au: Books

RC Series Bundle: On Dialogue: Volume 76 : Bohm, David: Amazon.com.au: Books


Kindle
$28.21
Available instantly

Paperback
$29.99

Other sellers on Amazon
New & Used (12) from $29.99$29.99








Read sample

Follow the author

David BohmDavid Bohm
Follow





RC Series Bundle: On Dialogue: Volume 76 Paperback – 1 September 2004
by David Bohm (Author)
4.5 4.5 out of 5 stars 215 ratings





Edition: 2nd
See all formats and editions
























Never before has there been a greater need for deeper listening and more open communication to cope with the complex problems facing our organizations, businesses and societies. Renowned scientist David Bohm believed there was a better way for humanity to discover meaning and to achieve harmony. He identified creative dialogue, a sharing of assumptions and understanding, as a means by which the individual, and society as a whole, can learn more about themselves and others, and achieve a renewed sense of purpose.


Report an issue with this product





Review


"Finally, although not a book about education per se, the summer of 2017 is a fine time to read David Bohm’s 'On Dialogue' (1996). Bohm, a theoretical physicist, wrote this short, striking text in response to a ‘general feeling that communication is breaking down everywhere, on an unparalleled scale’. The book is a brilliantly penetrating analysis of the way that people habitually talk at cross purposes, blocking and distorting the meaning of what others are trying to say. ‘Assumptions or opinions are like computer programs in people’s minds’, he writes. ‘Those programs take over against the best of intentions - they produce their own intentions.’ Bohm’s reflections on how to ‘listen to the whole of what is said’ and how to ‘create something new’ in dialogue with others remain highly resonant." -Matt Lloyd-Rose, social researcher, NGO leader and writer.
About the Author
David Bohm (1917-92). Renowned physicist and theorist who was one of the most original thinkers of the second half of the twentieth century.

Product details
Publisher ‏ : ‎ Routledge; 2 edition (1 September 2004)
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Paperback ‏ : ‎ 144 pages
ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0415336414
ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0415336413
Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 12.9 x 0.84 x 19.79 cmBest Sellers Rank: 421,767 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)117 in Philosophy of Science
253 in Philosophy Reference (Books)
1,770 in Science Essays & Commentary (Books)Customer Reviews:
4.5 4.5 out of 5 stars 215 ratings




About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.

Follow







Top reviews

Top reviews from Australia

There are 0 reviews and 1 rating from Australia


Top reviews from other countries

Amazon カスタマー
5.0 out of 5 stars GoodReviewed in Japan on 30 May 2021
Verified Purchase

Very good

Report

Monica w. Kanyi
5.0 out of 5 stars Five StarsReviewed in Canada on 4 September 2014
Verified Purchase

well written

Report

Amazon Customer
5.0 out of 5 stars Bohm dialogue is the best mechanism to put them to testReviewed in India on 14 March 2016
Verified Purchase

Bohm lived in last century, yet Bohm dialogue is the need of the hour, particularly so given the chaotic and violent world we are living in. Ideas, dogmas and faith lead to such destruction. Bohm dialogue is the best mechanism to put them to test, if only we are ready to allow others to question our conclusions.

Report

Tobias
5.0 out of 5 stars Great book, pathetic cover designReviewed in Germany on 10 September 2015
Verified Purchase

Great book, pathetic (cover) design.
Probably done by an 8 year old with Microsoft Paint.
This edition was published in 2004! What were they thinking?!

Report

Glenn A. Carleton
5.0 out of 5 stars Better understand how we communicate (or not) with each otherReviewed in the United States on 29 November 2013
Verified Purchase

The preface from Peter Senge is itself well worth the read on its own, I am a fan of Peter too. Bohm has impacted so many great thinkers, including the Dali Lama. His books are not easy to read, I normally can get in one or two pages and have to put it down to reflect. This book, and others he wrote like it, create an awareness of one's mental processes, and that of others. That awareness can literally enhance your ability to think and communicate clearly. For me, as I read the "best practices" for communicating, it tells me there is no near-term hope for the deteriorating communications we have in our society today, especially in politics. This book has the blueprint our country needs to start working together and not only understanding each other, but to use interactions with others to think more clearly. If you do not like books that explain in detail how our minds work, suggest not getting, it is not an easy read.

Report
See more reviews


===
On Dialogue

David Bohm
4.08
1,097 ratings113 reviews
Never before has there been a greater need for deeper listening and more open communication to cope with the complex problems facing our organizations, businesses and societies. Renowned scientist David Bohm believed there was a better way for humanity to discover meaning and to achieve harmony. He identified creative dialogue, a sharing of assumptions and understanding, as a means by which the individual, and society as a whole, can learn more about themselves and others, and achieve a renewed sense of purpose.

===

On Dialogue

Never before has there been a greater need for deeper listening and more open communication to cope with the complex problems facing our organizations, businesses and societies. Renowned scientist David Bohm believed there was a better way for humanity to discover meaning and to achieve harmony. He identified creative dialogue, a sharing of assumptions and understanding, as a means by which the individual, and society as a whole, can learn more about themselves and others, and achieve a renewed sense of purpose.

144 pages, Paperback

First published October 31, 1996

236 people are currently reading
2,331 people want to read

About the author

David Bohm

57 books401 followers
David Joseph Bohm (December 20, 1917 – October 27, 1992) was an American scientist who has been described as one of the most significant theoretical physicists of the 20th century and who contributed innovative and unorthodox ideas to quantum theory, neuropsychology and the philosophy of mind.

Ratings & Reviews

My Review

Profile Image for Sejin.
3 reviews
Want to read.
Rate this book

Friends & Following

No one you know has read this book. Recommend it to a friend!

Community Reviews

5 stars
460 (41%)
4 stars
362 (32%)
3 stars
195 (17%)
2 stars
65 (5%)
1 star
15 (1%)
Displaying 1 - 10 of 113 reviews
Profile Image for Sunny.
776 reviews52 followers
February 5, 2017
Mind, blown. This was game changing and paradigm shifting. I love books that make me look at something that I thought I had fully understood from a completely different angle. It’s like taking a knockout punch from an angle you just didn’t expect to get hit from to using a boxing analogy. It’s about having dialogues as supposed to discussing things. Interestingly Bohm talked about the link between the word percussion, concussion and discussion – all hitting type activities. A discussion then becoming something that you hit from different angles where as a dialogue being almost a scarf that you put your thoughts on and then wrap between yourself and the other person you are talking to; you don’t pull or tear or hit this scarf. You wear it and take time to digest the warmth of the others' words. You may not agree with them but you stay in the moment and put analysis and point making to one side and take time to really absorb the message the other person is trying to say. It reminded me of Fernando Flores’ quote about the art of listening being about nurturing and growing a figurative flower that grows between you and the other; at the end of each conversation have you listened to the extent that the flower has grown or shrunk? How has the other person who is supposedly listening to you helped this little rose between you grown or shrunk?
Bohm was a physicist that worked with Einstein and come up with lots of other theories related to crazy physics stuff that is way beyond my limited ken but this really hit the mark – yes this could go a long way ... from solving the Palestinian peace process challenge to solving the challenges you may have with your partner.
Here are some of the best bits from the book:
• Bohm talked about communication being like a couple out in the middle of nowhere, lost but each with the same map (language) but on different parts of the terrain (context). They are talking but from different points of view and trying to locate one another in the process.
• “Everything requires attention, really. If we ran machines without paying attention to them, they would break down. Our thought, too, is a process, and it requires attention, otherwise it's going to go wrong.”
• “During the past few decades, modern technology, with radio, TV, air travel, and satellites, has woven a network of communication which puts each part of the world in to almost instant contact with all the other parts. Yet, in spite of this world-wide system of linkages, there is, at this very moment, a general feeling that communication is breaking down everywhere, on an unparalleled scale”
• “The hunter-gatherers have typically lived in groups of twenty to forty. Agricultural group units are much larger. Now, from time to time that tribe met like this in a circle. They just talked and talked and talked, apparently to no purpose. They made no decisions. There was no leader. And everybody could participate. There may have been wise men or wise women who were listened to a bit more–the older ones–but everybody could talk. The meeting went on, until it finally seemed to stop for no reason at all and the group dispersed. Yet after that, everybody seemed to know what to do, because they understood each other so well. Then they could get together in smaller groups and do something or decide things.”
• “‘Is it absolutely necessary? So much is being destroyed just because we have this notion of it being absolutely necessary.’ Now if you can question it and say, ‘Is it absolutely necessary?’ then at some point it may loosen up. People may say, ‘Well, maybe it’s not absolutely necessary.’ Then the whole thing becomes easier, and it becomes possible to let that conflict go and to explore new notions of what is necessary, creatively. The dialogue can then enter a creative new area.””
• PROPRIOCEPTION - “We come back to the realization that the thing which has gone wrong with thought is basically, as I said before, that it does things and then says or implies that it didn’t do them—that they took place independently, and that they constitute “problems.” Whereas what you really have to do is stop thinking that way so that you can stop creating that problem. The problem is insoluble as long as you keep on producing it all the time by your thought. Thought has to be in some sense aware of its consequences, and presently thought is not sufficiently aware of its consequences. In neurophysiology it is called proprioception, about the body.”
• “The object of a dialogue is not to analyse things, or to win an argument, or to exchange opinions. Rather, it is to spend your onions and to look at the opinions. TO LISTEN TO EVERYBODY'S OPINIONS, TO SUSPEND THEM, AND TO SEE WHAT ALL THAT MEANS. If we can see what all of our opinions mean, then we are sharing a common content, even if we don't agree entirely. If we can see them all, we may then move more creatively in different direction …. If each of us in this room is suspending then we are all doing the same thing. We are looking at everything together. the content of our consciousness is essentially the same"
• "If you know a person very well, you may pass him on the street and say, "I saw him." If you are asked what the person was wearing, however, you may not know, because you didn't really look. You were not sensitive to all that, because you saw that person through the screen of thought. And that was not sensitivity.”
• “Thought pervades us. It’s similar to a virus—somehow this is a disease of thought, of knowledge, of information, spreading all over the world. The more computers, radio and television we have the faster it spreads.So the kind of thoughts that’s going on all around begins to take over in every one of us without our even noticing it its spreading like a virus and each one of us is nourishing that virus.”
• “You say I am going to look at myself inwardly but the assumptions are not looked at”
• “If somebody says something to you causing you to react 2 / 3 seconds later a needle jerks - it takes that time for the impulse to work to work its way down from the brain through the nervous system … now the person said something to you 2 /3 seconds ago but you don’t see the connection. You don’t connect it and you say “there is a deep gut feeling which is a sign that I’m justified in being angry” you use the feeling to justify the anger and you say “here is an independent gut feeling which shows that I’m perceiving something. it shows that my anger is right.” Which is a clear indicator of wrongunism.
Profile Image for John David.
348 reviews332 followers
April 14, 2014
David Bohm, the author of “On Dialogue,” was apparently recognized as one of the greatest theoretical physicists of the twentieth century. Despite my background in physics, I’d never heard of his contributions to the field, and I’d certainly never heard of his contributions to other fields, including … well, whatever you could call this book. Is it philosophy? Communications? I know it’s not an attempt at literary theory, but some of it seems to resemble it. It fancies itself a visionary way of reimagining and reawakening the power of human communication, but much of it sounds like New Age occultism – spooky and obscurantist, weird and much of it frankly unfounded.

Bohm thinks that following his recommendations will result in a kind of enhanced, unbiased conversation (which he insists on calling “dialogue”) between people that will help foster a common sense of humanity, and that our dialogue with one another has been irrevocably tainted by personal ambition and unexamined prejudices. Because we have these presuppositions, we can only engage in “conversations” (which is somehow very different from dialogue, which is the idealized type of human interaction). How conversation is different from dialogue is never really discussed. The way we can reestablish this most meaningful type of human connection is by letting go of these ambitions and prejudices.

He says that dialogue should ideally begin with no set purpose, no leader, and no hidden assumptions or opinions which will only serve to make you defensive during the course of the dialogue. Now, gentle reader, there is a difference between suspending opinions which might be culturally or religiously biased, which is something I would completely understand doing to open a dialogue fully up, and what Bohm is asking us to do in this book. He seems to want us to sit and listen to absolutely anyone say anything they sincerely believe. But the problem with sincerity is this: it and four dollars will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Considering that Bohm is a scientist and is ostensibly on the hunt for something resembling truth about the physical world, this is somewhat disheartening to read. Do I need to suspend my judgments about the absurdity of Holocaust denial when I speak to someone who actually denies historical reality? Or fail to adduce the evidence that the Earth is roughly spherical to a flat Earther while engaged in a conversation with one? For someone who thinks that the scientific endeavor is something other than an utterly futile one, how can someone genuinely think these things? To request that we listen to varying opinions, measure their respective amounts of evidence, and adopt the one that has the most explanatory power all the while maintaining a cool head about those who have very different ideas from our own is a very good idea. Actually engaging people with ridiculous, patently false ideas is another. Not only is it silly, but it’s dangerous. There are some people who should be disabused of their false ideas. In fact, if that’s not the main point of dialogue, it should be one of its major reasons for existing. To say that dialogue shouldn’t be used for the purpose of convincing people of things we know to be true is detrimental to the idea of any kind of human interaction, especially if you believe that some things are true and some things aren’t.

This is mostly a collection of ad hoc work, with only a couple of pieces having been previously published elsewhere. Most of what I spoke about above is found in the first piece, “On Dialogue.” The subsequent pieces serve to expound upon the first in minor, tangential ways, and none of them seemed as egregious as what was set forward in the first piece. If this is the kind of uncritical work that Bohm is known for, I think I can safely bypass his other stuff and regard him for what he is: a physicist who should stick to doing what he knows best.
Profile Image for Jake.
240 reviews49 followers
November 28, 2019
By some strike of fortune I happen to have skimmed part of another one of Bohm’s books and as such I am slightly introduced to his manner of thought - which lets me know I dont know what I am reading. While I have a temptation to speak, I will wait until I have read a bit more of his writings to throughly analyze his thinking. What I can say for now is that his writings appear to convey a deeper underlying philosophical framework on the nature of reality as a whole (yes, that grand) and as such I can say a very limited set of things on this exact book despite that I have an impression that I understand what he is saying.

From an initial impression, it seems that this book is on discovering the nature of truth via open discussion. He seems to believe that fundamentally if people were to talk and listen to one another that all disagreements would be resolved. He further things that innovation in science, politics, technology and whatever have you in social structures comes about from a smooth transition of information between parties. This is not cybernetics.
There is something deeper going on here.
He at times uses words like fragments and references his other books- which makes me believe Im not getting the full picture

Nevertheless there is a truth in his words and an idealistic naïveté which I must elaborate on.

The truth exists in that honest communication would resolve a great deal of issues that we presently have within the world - assuming of course that the parties have the proper information of course. If it were the case for example that congress or some other body of polity were to talk out their disagreements they may be able to find a practical resolution. Of course issues in communication leading to conflict exist not only on the political level but down to our day to day interpersonal relationships. Witha. Country abound in an expanding divorce rate one may for ask how many marriages would be saved for example if the could could simply talk it out?

Which of course leads to where he is, in my view, naive. Can open communication answer all questions and always bring about peace?
This is something im not so sure about. Bohm presents an example of where he thinks communication could have aided a relationship : between Einstein and Bohr.

It is well known by many physicists and historians thereof that Bohr advocated a Copenhagen interpretation of the universe (or one indeterminate) while Einstein stood by a mechanical view of the universe. Einstein, it is said, maintained the universe must be deterministic. He held by the tradition of the western determinist like Laplace- that if all the particles and their forces of the known universe were to be placed on a page - a sufficiently complex mathematician could espouse their history and future.

Bohr stood by that modern quantum mechanics have changed this, and shown it to be incorrect, while Einstein maintained in his classically spinozian way that “God does not play dice with the universe”.


Bohm (an acquaintance of the two- albeit one that was superficial )maps the decay of their relationship as they were unable to reconcile their differences. He suggests- if they were only able to talk it out they would find peace.

Which makes one wonder. Are there times where dialogue breaks down- in where two groups, or two people can no longer speak without fighting and disagreeing fundamentally. What then do we do? He seems to think peace will be find and a truth may come about, I do not think this is always the case. If so there may be hope for such institutions as the American bipartisan state which finds themselves in a whirlwind of conflict. I hope he is correct.

But then again, as I mentioned in the start I don’t truly understand bohm.


This serves to be a thought provoking book and I advocate anyone interested in the nature of communication give it a read
Profile Image for Morgan Blackledge.
743 reviews2,376 followers
October 11, 2020
This is an oft cited, highly revered classic.

I’ve been meaning to read it for a long time.

And as is the case with so many classics.

It was WAY ahead of its time.

And so.

I can forgive the prolix and groping nature of the text.

And yes.

The core insight of the book is simple and profound.

That being.

There is a form of dialog that lacks agenda beyond connection, communication and honest exploration.

It’s transformative and healing.

It’s the fundament of authentically good therapy.

And when done well, it’s a genuine spiritual practice.

That being said.

Throughout much of this text.

The honest reader may find that they simply have no fucking idea what the actual fuck Bohm is fucking yammering about.

If you’re an educated reader in the domains of behavioral neuroscience, and cognitive psychology, you’re apt to be very frustrated by many of the claims.

Yes it’s an older text.

But frankly speaking.

Bohm was a physicist.

And much of the text deals with psychological and philosophical matters.

While he does an admirable job.

He’s a curious, creative and strong critical thinker.

The insights lack the discipline and clarity of a skillful and trained philosopher or psychologist.

This review is sure to draw ire (if anyone actually reads it).

I’m super sorry if I offend.

And in the high likelihood I’m missing something.

Please straighten me out.

Anyway.

I’m giving it a 3⭐️⭐️⭐️ until otherwise convinced.

Sorry about it 😕
Profile Image for Alex Lee.
937 reviews126 followers
March 11, 2016
This is a difficult book to classify. Although its written by a physicist, its really about the nature of being a human individual attempting to understand how to fit into the world.

Bohm at times, reaches into a near mystical state, not really scientific but more philosophical and religious when he describes how our expectations characterize our experience. He could be more philosophically explicit, but this may detract from what is already a very succinct text.

By extension these ideas can be related to the way in which groups also reason out ideology.

Nonetheless Bohm suggests using a group calibration of thought in order to bring about awareness as to how our experiential underpinnings force us to view the world in a way that is not our own. We often live our lives according to ideas we got from somewhere else. Sometimes they are misunderstandings that we extrapolate as morals. Other times they are partial ideas adopted from some authority figure in our past. Either way the worlds we construct are often inappropriate or at least misleading as to the full context of where we are and what we are doing. As a result, we are often at the mercy of thought itself -- we live in a world not constructed for us (for our benefit) and yet we constantly construct this world even identifying completely with it for the purposes of finding our place... a place that may not be to our benefit.

Often individuals deal with situations by reacting to their thought and the switching the order of their thinking. Their reactions become justifications for the thought they originally had, even though their justifications are reactionary. This is both the subject of Kant's Critique of Judgement (teleological thinking) and what Nietzsche was attempting to outline in his books about culture. Deleuze in Nietzsche and Philosophy shows more directly how Nietzsche considered culture to be created nearly of completely reactive forces... impulses and ideas that would limit our ability to be active so that we can be in service to a greater null. We become domesticated through out ideas and then cannot create a new world.

Bohm isn't proposing an overman kind of resolution. Instead he believes we should speak with others in a rigid methodology utilizing dialogue in order to come to understand the underpinnings of our reactive assumptions. When we can successfully pull them out we will see how irrational our assumptions are, and we can begin to create a new community. For a community is not founded on imposing will but by the collective synthesis of a completely new common will. When we find where we can identify with one another we will come that much close to healing the world we live in. Especially with politics as it is today and with communication how it is, we do not talk with those outside our group because we seek to enforce the veracity of our ideas. In such a forced presentation no one listens. We lose the ability to be a nation or a whole group and with that loss of communication we lose not only community but our shared lifeworld -- which requires a collective goal for everyone.

Very interesting book. Bohm is equally hard on scientists as they also present teleological thinking when it suits their favorite theories. I heartily recommend this tiny book to everyone!
Profile Image for Blackdogsworld.
66 reviews12 followers
March 11, 2018
ผมคิดว่าเนื้อหาที่เกี่ยวข้องกับชื่อของหนังสือจริง ๆ คือ บทที่ 1-2 ซึ่งกล่าวถึงแนวคิดและกระบวนการ Dialouge นอกนั้นเหมือนเป็นการพูดถึงมุมมองของโบห์มในเรื่องความคิดและเรื่องอื่น ๆ ทำให้อ่านแล้ว รู้สึกว่าเนื้อหาไม่ค่อยกลมกลืนเท่าไหร่ และค่อนข้างมีความซับซ้อน ในประเด็นที่เกี่ยวข้องกับธรรมชาติและผลกระทบของความคิดนี้ ผมคิดว่างานของกฤษณมูรติอธิบายได้ง่ายและชัดเจนกว่า อย่าง��รก็ตาม มันอาจไม่ใช่จุดมุ่งหมายหลักของหนังสือเล่มนี้ แต่หากมองว่าจุดมุ่งหมายหลักคือการนำเสนอเกี่ยวกับ Dialouge ก็ยังทำได้ไม่ค่อยชัดเจนนักอยู่ดี
Profile Image for Phakin.
474 reviews157 followers
July 16, 2020
Need more time and more basic knowledge, this book was very tough. Yet I think it was quite interesting despite the fact that I didn't even understand how can "a dialogue" work especially in such specific situation. By the way, Bohm's explanation on the relation between a 'tacit knowledge' and our actions was so touching.

If I say that this book "convinced" me to keep on examining my "self"... Did Bohm achieve his aims?



WHAT MONEY CANT BUY: The Moral Limits of Markets : SANDEL, MICHAEL J.: Amazon.com.au: Books

WHAT MONEY CANT BUY: The Moral Limits of Markets : SANDEL, MICHAEL J.: Amazon.com.au: Books

Kindle
$15.99
Available instantly

Hardcover
$44.98

Paperback
$31.20








Follow the author

Michael J. SandelMichael J. Sandel
Follow





WHAT MONEY CANT BUY: The Moral Limits of Markets Paperback – 2 April 2013
by MICHAEL J. SANDEL (Author)
4.4 4.4 out of 5 stars 1,719 ratings






In What Money Can't Buy, renowned political philosopher Michael J. Sandel rethinks the role that markets and money should play in our society.

Should we pay children to read books or to get good grades? Should we put a price on human life to decide how much pollution to allow? Is it ethical to pay people to test risky new drugs or to donate their organs? What about hiring mercenaries to fight our wars, outsourcing inmates to for-profit prisons, auctioning admission to elite universities, or selling citizenship to immigrants willing to pay?

In his New York Times bestseller What Money Can't Buy, Michael J. Sandel takes up one of the biggest ethical questions of our time: Isn't there something wrong with a world in which everything is for sale? If so, how can we prevent market values from reaching into spheres of life where they don't belong? What are the moral limits of markets?

Over recent decades, market values have crowded out nonmarket norms in almost every aspect of life. Without quite realizing it, Sandel argues, we have drifted from having a market economy to being a market society.

In Justice, an international bestseller, Sandel showed himself to be a master at illuminating, with clarity and verve, the hard moral questions we confront in our everyday lives. Now, in What Money Can't Buy, he provokes a debate that's been missing in our market-driven age: What is the proper role of markets in a democratic society, and how can we protect the moral and civic goods that markets do not honor and money cannot buy?






Read less


Product description

Review


"Michael Sandel's What Money Can't Buy is a great book and I recommend every economist to read it, even though we are not really his target audience. The book is pitched at a much wider audience of concerned citizens. But it taps into a rich seam of discontent about the discipline of economics.... The book is brimming with interesting examples which make you think.... I read this book cover-to-cover in less than 48 hours. And I have written more marginal notes than for any book I have read in a long time." --Timothy Besley, Journal of Economic Literature

"Provocative. . . What Money Can't Buy [is] an engaging, compelling read, consistently unsettling and occasionally unnerving. . . [It] deserves a wide readership." --David M. Kennedy, Democracy

"Brilliant, easily readable, beautifully delivered and often funny. . . an indispensable book on the relationship between morality and economics." --David Aaronovitch, The Times (London)

"Sandel is probably the world's most relevant living philosopher." --Michael Fitzgerald, Newsweek

"In a culture mesmerized by the market, Sandel's is the indispensable voice of reason.... What Money Can't Buy. . . must surely be one of the most important exercises in public philosophy in many years." --John Gray, New Statesman

"[An] important book. . . Michael Sandel is just the right person to get to the bottom of the tangle of moral damage that is being done by markets to our values." --Jeremy Waldron, The New York Review of Books

"The most famous teacher of philosophy in the world, [has] shown that it is possible to take philosophy into the public square without insulting the public's intelligence. . .[He] is trying to force open a space for a discourse on civic virtue that he believes has been abandoned by both left and right." --Michael Ignatieff, The New Republic

"[Sandel]is such a gentle critic that he merely asks us to open our eyes. . . Yet What Money Can't Buy makes it clear that market morality is an exceptionally thin wedge. . . Sandel is pointing out. . . [a] quite profound change in society." --Jonathan V. Last, The Wall Street Journal

"What Money Can't Buy is the work of a truly public philosopher. . . [It] recalls John Kenneth Galbraith's influential 1958 book, The Affluent Society. . .Galbraith lamented the impoverishment of the public square. Sandel worries about its abandonment--or, more precisely, its desertion by the more fortunate and capable among us. . .[A]n engaging, compelling read, consistently unsettling. . . it reminds us how easy it is to slip into a purely material calculus about the meaning of life and the means we adopt in pursuit of happiness." --David M. Kennedy, Democracy: A Journal of Ideas

"[Sandel] is currently the most effective communicator of ideas in English." --The Guardian

"Michael Sandel is probably the most popular political philosopher of his generation. . .The attention Sandel enjoys is more akin to a stadium-filling self-help guru than a philosopher. But rather than instructing his audiences to maximize earning power or balance their chakras, he challenges them to address fundamental questions about how society is organized. . . His new book [What Money Can't Buy] offers an eloquent argument for morality in public life." --Andrew Anthony, The Observer (London)

"What Money Can't Buy is replete with examples of what money can, in fact, buy. . . Sandel has a genius for showing why such changes are deeply important." --Martin Sandbu, Financial Times

"One of the leading political thinkers of our time.... Sandel's new book is What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets, and I recommend it highly. It's a powerful indictment of the market society we have become, where virtually everything has a price." --Michael Tomasky, The Daily Beast

"To understand the importance of [Sandel's] purpose, you first have to grasp the full extent of the triumph achieved by market thinking in economics, and the extent to which that thinking has spread to other domains. This school sees economics as a discipline that has nothing to do with morality, and is instead the study of incentives, considered in an ethical vacuum. Sandel's book is, in its calm way, an all-out assault on that idea.... Let's hope that What Money Can't Buy, by being so patient and so accumulative in its argument and its examples, marks a permanent shift in these debates." --John Lancaster, The Guardian

"Sandel is among the leading public intellectuals of the age. He writes clearly and concisely in prose that neither oversimplifies nor obfuscates.... Sandel asks the crucial question of our time: 'Do we want a society where everything is up for sale? Or are there certain moral and civic goods that markets do not honor and money cannot buy?'" --Douglas Bell, The Globe and Mail (Toronto)

"Deeply provocative and intellectually suggestive.... What Sandel does...is to prod us into asking whether we have any reason for drawing a line between what is and what isn't exchangeable, what can't be reduced to commodity terms.... [A] wake-up call to recognize our desperate need to rediscover some intelligible way of talking about humanity." --Rowan Williams, Prospect

"There is no more fundamental question we face than how to best preserve the common good and build strong communities that benefit everyone. Sandel's book is an excellent starting place for that dialogue." --Kevin J. Hamilton, The Seattle Times

"Poring through Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel's new book. . . I found myself over and over again turning pages and saying, 'I had no idea.' I had no idea that in the year 2000, 'a Russian rocket emblazoned with a giant Pizza Hut logo carried advertising into outer space.'. . . I knew that stadiums are now named for corporations, but had no idea that now 'even sliding into home is a corporate-sponsored event.'. . . I had no idea that in 2001 an elementary school in New Jersey became America's first public school 'to sell naming rights to a corporate sponsor.' Why worry about this trend? Because, Sandel argues, market values are crowding out civic practices." --Thomas Friedman, New York Times

"An exquisitely reasoned, skillfully written treatise on big issues of everyday life." --Kirkus Reviews (starred review)

"In his new book, Michael Sandel --the closest the world of political philosophy comes to a celebrity -- argues that we now live in a society where 'almost everything can be bought and sold.' As markets have infiltrated more parts of life, Sandel believes we have shifted from a market economy to 'a market society, ' turning the world -- and most of us in it -- into commodities. And when Sandel proselytizes, the world listens.... Sandel's ideas could hardly be more timely." --Rosamund Urwin, Evening Standard (London)






































About the Author
Michael J. Sandel teaches political philosophy at Harvard University. His books What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets and Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? were international best sellers and have been translated into 27 languages. Sandel's legendary course "Justice" was the first Harvard course to be made freely available online and has been viewed by tens of millions. His BBC series "The Public Philosopher" explores the philosophical ideas lying behind the headlines with participants from around the world.

Product details
Publisher ‏ : ‎ MACMILLAN USA; Reprint edition (2 April 2013)
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Paperback ‏ : ‎ 256 pages
ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0374533652
ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0374533656
Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 13.84 x 1.65 x 20.83 cmBest Sellers Rank: 455,440 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)80 in Exports & Imports (Books)
359 in Philosophy of Good & Evil
914 in Business Ethics (Books)Customer Reviews:
4.4 4.4 out of 5 stars 1,719 ratings




About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.

Follow

Michael J. Sandel



Michael Sandel teaches political philosophy at Harvard University. He has been described as a “rock-star moralist” (Newsweek) and “the world’s most influential living philosopher.” (New Statesman) Sandel’s books--on justice, ethics, democracy, and markets--have been translated into more than 30 languages. His legendary course “Justice” was the first Harvard course to be made freely available online and has been viewed by tens of millions. His BBC series “The Global Philosopher” explores the ethical issues lying behind the headlines with participants from around the world.










Top reviews

Top reviews from Australia


Tom

5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent bookReviewed in Australia on 23 December 2019
Verified Purchase
Excellent book. A must read for everyone.




HelpfulReport

Ray Fun Godfrey-Yik

4.0 out of 5 stars Interesting readReviewed in Australia on 8 March 2017
Verified Purchase
Michael does an excellent job of summarising the implications of commercialisation from theoretical concepts of fairness, coercion and corruption and provides concrete examples of them in everyday life (e.g. Skyboxes that seperate the rich from the poor)

The book is interesting in that it rarely delves too deeply into the theoretical, and instead provides examples of the moral implications of markets every day - whether it's watching the first class jump the line on a flight, advertising populating the door of a bathroom cubicle, or watching the ongoing debate on immigration. Well worth a read if you're looking to have a better lens to view clashes between economic rationalism and idealism.

====
From Australia
Tom
5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent book
Reviewed in Australia on 23 December 2019
Verified Purchase
Excellent book. A must read for everyone.
Helpful
Report
Ray Fun Godfrey-Yik
4.0 out of 5 stars Interesting read
Reviewed in Australia on 8 March 2017
Verified Purchase
Michael does an excellent job of summarising the implications of commercialisation from theoretical concepts of fairness, coercion and corruption and provides concrete examples of them in everyday life (e.g. Skyboxes that seperate the rich from the poor)

The book is interesting in that it rarely delves too deeply into the theoretical, and instead provides examples of the moral implications of markets every day - whether it's watching the first class jump the line on a flight, advertising populating the door of a bathroom cubicle, or watching the ongoing debate on immigration. Well worth a read if you're looking to have a better lens to view clashes between economic rationalism and idealism.
One person found this helpful
Helpful
Report
From other countries
Adilson Rodrigues Pires
5.0 out of 5 stars To what extent can ethics and morals limit profits?
Reviewed in Brazil on 4 October 2021
Verified Purchase
I haven't reached the half of the book yet, but I like the situations that the author poses about the various ways of attracting money, with or without concern for ethics. Today we live in the world of competition and the vision given in the book is very good.
Report
Translated from Portuguese by Amazon
See original ·Report translation
Alabama53
5.0 out of 5 stars It's worth reading
Reviewed in Germany on 26 October 2014
Verified Purchase
A really worth reading book that makes me feel like more from the author. Classical economic theory assumes that commodification, the becoming commodities of a good by offering it for sale, does not alter the properties of the good .
Marketing is merely increasing economic efficiency. The author refutes this assumption.
Report
Translated from German by Amazon
See original ·Report translation
Eduardo
5.0 out of 5 stars Philosophical analysis in simple language
Reviewed in Mexico on 5 May 2017
Verified Purchase
The author has the ability to take deep subjects and explain them in a clear and pleasant way. Recommended for those who like the in-depth approach to this topic.
Report
Translated from Spanish by Amazon
See original ·Report translation
CP
5.0 out of 5 stars Values and moral principles vs market efficiency
Reviewed in Canada on 5 December 2020
Verified Purchase
The author, Michael Sandel, has taught and written about values and moral principles throughout his Harvard career. This book covers some subjects (e.g life insurance, health care) where market efficiency may conflict with societal values in some circumstances, which the author explores. One example: The author asks if paying kids for reading books may not induce the wrong attitude towards reading (linking book reading to a market transaction, as opposed to a way to knowledge). The book is more an exploration of various questions involving market mechanisms and societal values, rather than a formal theory of the potential flaws of a market approach.
2 people found this helpful
Report
A. E. Rountree
5.0 out of 5 stars Outstanding
Reviewed in France on 4 June 2017
Verified Purchase
Professor Sandel is on the mark and just in time with this pithy assessment of the encroachment of money motives in our daily lives. His thinking is refreshingly clear and direct, as is his writing.
Report
Ajay Sojitra
5.0 out of 5 stars Masterpiece exploring conflict between Markets and Morals
Reviewed in India on 3 July 2020
Verified Purchase
Must read to understand the existing confilcts betweeen morality and markets. And also how in past the market, in almost all the cases, has been able to modify the morals to its own will.

The Author sites all the possible examples to make home the point that eventhough most economists consider good unaffected by the markets, but in reality the market corrupt the goods and the values to make its way in hetherto unpaved areas.

And a debate is necessary to what extent we are willing to give way to market to modify the morals.

As always Micheal Sandale will not disappoint you. Best book which exploree this conflict.

Just go for it. You will know that Micheal Sandale is famous for all the right reasons.

Truely "A Rockstar" in Western Philosophy.
4 people found this helpful
Report
Cliente Amazon
5.0 out of 5 stars My Book of the Year
Reviewed in Spain on 18 December 2017
Verified Purchase
As always, it's a pleasure to read Michel Sandel. An easy-to-read book with solid arguments and clear examples.
Report
Translated from Spanish by Amazon
See original ·Report translation
====
Book Review: What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets
September 14, 2012 • Commentary
By Tom G. Palmer
This article appeared in Reason on September 14, 2012.
TOP
What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets
By Michael F. Sandel
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2012, $27.00 256 pages

Michael Sandel knows something about money. After all, the Harvard political philosopher exchanges his ideas for money—a lot of money, in fact. Now Sandel has written a book (available for $27) about what things should not be for sale.

Sandel’s basic warning goes like this: Markets—by which he means the use of prices expressed in money—lead inevitably to commodification, which “corrupts” and “crowds out” the moral norms that should otherwise guide our interactions. In What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets, Sandel looks upon other people’s purchases and frowns. Important things in life—tickets to rock concerts, private medical consultations, access to shorter airline check-in lines—are being exchanged for money, he reports. “The reach of markets, and market-oriented thinking, into aspects of life traditionally governed by nonmarket norms is one of the most significant developments of our time,” he writes, necessitating “a public debate about what it means to keepmarkets in their place.”

Although Sandel is fuzzy on the specifics, he wants an enlightened debate to determine whether other people should be allowed to use prices when they cooperate or allocate scarce goods. “Democracy does not require perfect equality, but it does require that citizens share in a common life” he writes. “And so, in the end, the question of markets is really a question about how we want to live together.” Let’s see where that takes us.

What Sandel offers as a moral/​philosophical analysis of this alleged problem amounts to little more than an exploration of his own moral intuitions, unencumbered by critical self-scrutiny. Thus, “Treating religious rituals, or natural wonders, as marketable commodities is a failure of respect. Turning sacred goods into instruments of profit values them in the wrong way.” This flat assertion may come as news to much of organized religion.

Synagogues regularly sell seats for the Days of Awe, or High Holy Days, which helps finance religious activities. One of my great aunts, a conservative French Catholic, sent me cards when I was a boy that said she had given money to an order of nuns to pray for me. Sikhs pay for scholars to read from their holy book. The candles one lights in Catholic cathedrals when saying a prayer are priced (not given away free); guests at traditional Polish weddings pin paper money on the dress of the bride in exchange for a dance. Do these practices show a lack of respect for religion and the sacrament of marriage? Should the collective “we” (Sandel uses the term a great deal in all of his books) prohibit the use of money to allocate synagogue seats, prayers, holy readings, candles, and dances with the bride? Or should those decisions be made by members of the respective synagogues, churches, and temples?

Sandel never once in his book entertains the idea that maybe we should let people sort such matters out for themselves, without having the decision made for them by “us.” Instead, his own tastes are presented as suitable for everyone else. There’s a serious danger with such intuitive collectivism: It disguises restatements of one’s own unacknowledged and unexamined prejudices as a philosophical investigation and then imposes them on everyone else.

For Sandei, not deciding collectively on “competing conceptions of the good life” does not leave such questions undecided. Instead, “It simply means that markets will decide them for us” This statement is both ominous and incoherent. “Markets” are not some kind of omnipotent, singular, malevolent intelligence. When people exchange goods and services we use the term market. When the exchanges take place through the medium of money, the exchange ratios of goods against money are called prices. Sandel confuses prices with markets and then suggests that the question of whether something should be exchanged on markets will be “decided” by markets, which is a singular bit of confusion.

Sandel at least recognizes that a common alternative to pricing is waiting in line. But bizarrely, he seems rather fond of queues. He devotes a chapter to “Jumping the Queue,” with subsections on “Markets Versus Queues” and “The Ethic of the Queue,” and quotes approvingly a writer who moans that “gone are the days when the theme-park queue was the great equalizer, where every vacationing family waited its turn in democratic fashion.” Sandel claims there are two arguments favoring prices over queues: “a libertarian argument… that people should be free to buy and sell whatever they please, as long as they don’t violate anyone’s rights,” and a utilitarian economic argument. He then proceeds to ignore the libertarian argument while misunderstanding the economic.

Sandel acknowledges that “as markets allocate goods based on the ability and willingness to pay, queues allocate goods based on the ability and willingness to wait.” Moreover, “there is no reason to assume that the willingness to pay for a good is a better measure of its value to a person than the willingness to wait.” Sandel thinks he has scored a fatal blow against the economic case for markets here, but what he doesn’t get is that the price mechanism provides a decentralized system of signals and incentives that help us to better coordinate our behavior. Consider that a longer queue without prices sends no signal to producers to make more of the product for which people are queuing. Using prices, rather than queues, has the advantage of disseminating information about supply and demand. Sandel sees no coordinating advantages to price allocation and bemoans “the tendency of markets to displace queues and other nonmarket ways of allocating goods.” He describes substitution of prices for queues as “places that markets have invaded.”

Sandel is right that the use of prices can have disadvantages, which is the core insight of Ronald Coase’s theory of the firm. If market pricing is so great, why are there firms? Because using the price system has costs. Firms, teams, and organizations are islands of nonprice allocation and coordination in a wider sea of price allocation. Price coordination co-exists with nonprice coordination. The issue is not which system will award scarce goods to those who value them the most but which will coordinate behavior better in which situations. Sometimes it’s queues and sometimes it’s prices, and sometimes it’s both. (I’m in a Starbucks now, and the system here is first come, first served, probably because it would be too costly to have an auction on who gets served first. Still, the coffee is exchanged for money).

Bakers of communion wafers generally sell them to churches for money. The churches provide them as part of a sacrament for which the faithful queue. Whether to use prices or queues and at which point is really none of Sandel’s business.

Sandel is not only rhapsodic about queues but again invokes the collective we when he states: “Of course, markets and queues are not the only ways of allocating things. Some goods we distribute by merit, others by need, still others by lottery or chance.” He’s not just pro-queue but rather strongly against prices, which seem to him somehow dirty (“corrosive”) as a coordinating mechanism. Never addressed is whether some of “us” should be allowed to work out for ourselves our own solutions, without having one imposed on all. Sandel explains that some things “can’t be bought,” e.g., friendship. Aristotle may beg to differ; the Greek philosopher discussed “friendship for advantage” in Book 8 of the Nicomachean Ethics, declaring it one kind of friendship, though not the highest. Still, we may insult friends when we reward a favor with money; sometimes “the monetary exchange spoils the good being bought.” That sounds right to me, if not all that original or deep.

Still, Sandel doesn’t seem to have thought very hard about these things. His research skills have discovered that there is “a company in China” that you can pay to write an apology, and that at TheP​er​fect​Toast​.com you can purchase a prefab wedding toast. “Apologies and wedding toasts are goods that can, in a sense, be bought,” he writes. “But buying and selling them changes their character and diminishes their value.” Perhaps. But so what? Drug store companies have been selling syrupy Hallmark cards for decades. I don’t use them. Like Sandel, I speak and write for a living. Unlike Sandel, I understand that not everyone else does. Among the many items Sandel believes are “degraded” when exchanged for money are human kidneys. Of course, allowing people to offer money for voluntarily donated kidneys may save lives (or “ease the gap between supply and demand” as Sandel delicately puts it), but it “taints” the goods exchanged. Making it illegal to exchange kidneys for money may be costing thousands of people their lives, but, hey, it satisfies our-which is to say, Professor Sandel’s–desire to avoid tackiness.

In a book full of praise for the moral virtues of nonmonetary exchanges, there is only one concession to the advantages of markets: “As the cold war ended, markets and market thinking enjoyed unrivaled prestige, understandably so,” Sandel graciously concedes. “No other mechanism for organizing the production and distribution of goods had proved as successful at generating affluence and prosperity.”

It’s something, but it ain’t much. In contrast, nonmarket norms, such as queuing, subsistence hunting, need, chance, and honor (mostly unaccompanied by any specific mechanisms of allocation), are consistently praised as “higher.” That’s a remarkably obtuse approach. There is a long tradition of thinkers, from Montesquieu and Voltaire to Milton Friedman and Deirdre McCloskey, that has focused attention on the moral virtues of markets, not merely their ability to produce wealth.

Sandel is surrounded by market exchanges that enhance his life, but all he can see is corruption, corrosion, and degradation. Never is the price system praised for displacing an inferior moral norm. It seems that whatever form of interaction is displaced by a price system must be better, higher, nobler. Au contraire! Markets punish and eventually push out tribalism, confessionalism, racism, cronyism, and many other traditions. And good riddance.

It’s not as if this point has never been made. “Commerce is a cure for the most destructive prejudices; for it is almost a general rule, that wherever we find agreeable manners, there commerce flourishes,” Montesquieu wrote in 1748, ”and that wherever there is commerce, there we meet with agreeable manners.” Sandel never acknowledges that intellectual tradition.

As Milton Friedman (who Sandel dismisses without engaging) once noted, “no one who buys bread knows whether the wheat from which it is made was grown by a Communist or a Republican, by a constitutionalist or a Fascist, or, for that matter, by a Negro or a white. This illustrates how an impersonal market separates economic activities from political views and protects men from being discriminated against in their economic activities for reasons that are irrelevant to their productivity—whether these reasons are associated with their views or their color.”

Prices, contra Sandel, “corrode” many nonmarket norms that we are better off without. Markets promote color blindness, punctuality, mutual respect, the “double thank you” of voluntary exchanges, and peace. Somehow those virtues don’t make it into Sandel’s musings on the moral limits of markets. What Money Can’t Buy will titillate with its examples of odd things some people buy and sell. But it fails to provide moral guidance to how we should behave (other than not fooling ourselves by thinking we can buy true friendship), and it gives even less insight into the roles that prices and markets play in our lives.

About the Author
Media Name: palmer-cropped.jpg
Tom G. Palmer
Executive Vice President for International Programs, Atlas Network; Director, Cato University; and Senior Fellow, Cato Institute
===

Book Review: What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets by Michael Sandel
4 comments | 29 shares
In What Money Can’t Buy, Sandel examines one of the biggest ethical questions of our time and provokes a debate that’s been missing in our market-driven age: What is the proper role of markets in a democratic society, and how can we protect the moral and civic goods that markets do not honour and money cannot buy? Gil Shidlo feels that Sandel brings the issue to be debated and raises it in a way each one of us feels fully equipped to voice concerns.

What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. Michael Sandel. Allen Lane. May 2012.

Find this book:  

Yet again, Michael Sandel, one of the most relevant  philosophers of our times, forces us to take a closer look at moral aspects of our lives. Following the success of his previous book Justice, What Money Can’t Buy pushes us to re-examine attitudes, values and norms which govern social and civic life.

Though many of us seem troubled by commodification of certain aspects of social and civic life, most of us tend to accept it in order to avoid a public debate. Like many relevant philosophers before him, Michael Sandel, a professor of politics at Harvard, is trying very hard to reform us and turn us from mere acquiescent individuals into full participants in the shaping of social and civic life. He pushes us to voice our concerns and debate them without deflecting from the importance of morality in the choices we make.

What Money Can’t Buy looks closely at the moral implications for a society where virtually everything is for sale and where market economy is used to allocate everything from health to education to public safety and criminal justice. Michael Sandel gives examples from various US states: in California a non-violent offender can pay for a prison cell upgrade; in other states single drivers can pay for use of car pool lanes; 24/7 access to your doctor can be bought for $1500 a year and above; admission of your child to a top US university; fast track at airport security; paying for people to stand in line for you to attend a Congressional hearing.

The problem is compounded further when markets are no longer inert. What commodification does is create a greater inequality and stronger possibility of corruption by not only putting price on goods but also altering attitudes towards certain type of goods. The book suggests that if markets in social goods are no longer inert, some of the good things in life are corrupted and we have debased their moral value and by it endangered the existence of orderly society. This, in turn, raises the need to look closely at these goods and try to find different ways to value them without stripping them of their moral or political value.

The debate raised by this book is forcing us to recognize that civic duty may not be treated as private property and as such cannot be given monetary value. Where commodification takes place it is highly likely to create greater inequality and corruption and this in turn jeopardizes the existence of orderly society.

Sandel describes new ways of making money if you cannot afford the services mentioned in the book. One can rent space on one’s body to advertise; or serve as a human guinea pig for a big pharmaceutical company; or work for a line-standing company for those lacking in time but wishing to attend a free concert or hear the Pope. Even young children get paid nowadays – second grade children in Texas schools get paid $2 to read a book; obese people are paid to lose weight in a targeted time frame. One can even try and profit by buying the life insurance policy of an elderly person. In this case, we would pay the premium while the person is alive and collect the death benefit. While the objective of a life insurance was to help the family survivors in this case the investor profits more if a person dies sooner. Thus, life insurance is an example of how market values can change the character of an industry. Michael Sandel writes how Walmart (the largest retail company in the world) took this concept one step forward. It insured the lives of hundreds of thousands of its employees and every time one of them died Walmart benefited from it rather than the family of the deceased.

It seems there is hardly any service or good which one cannot buy in this new market society. The list of what money cannot buy is rather short – for example friendship; a Noble Prize or an Olympic Prize (although some medals have been sold the honor of being awarded the prize cannot be sold).

But the fact that we acquiesce to these new practices where everything may be monetarily quantified is seriously questioned in this book. There are some critics who think the book does not go far enough by adopting a more prescriptive approach. In my view, Sandel fully fulfills what any scholar would have liked to see, and even takes it one full step forward – he brings the issue to be debated and raises it in a way each one of us feels fully equipped to voice concerns. There is no need to be a scholar or a philosopher of some stature to question attitudes, values and norms. Michael Sandel has brought all different elements of society to face the problem, debate it and stop society from unraveling. I truly applaud a scholar, who has successfully taken a philosophical debate outside of the confined space of a classroom, in a manner that gives all of the participants the power to affect change.

Watch Michael Sandel’s discussion on The Moral Limits of Markets

[jwplayer mediaid=”3283″]

——————————————————————————————-

Gil Shidlo took his PhD in political science at the LSE. After working in academia and international organizations, his main interests have focused on investing in stock markets. He contributes regularly to Moneynews.com as well as the Financial Intelligence Report. Most recently he has been studying the increasing role of private equity funds in taking over formerly government assets and companies on both side of the Atlantic. Read more reviews by Gil.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About the author

Blog Admin