Thomas Piketty and Michael Sandel, Equality: What It Means and Why It Matters (2025)

This slim book (115 pages), which I read for my Zoom book club, is a transcript of a conversation between the two famous authors. It was illuminating, and I liked a lot of what they (especially Sandel) proposed, but I wished they had explored their areas of difference more actively. Picketty is pushing for a reinvigorated, again radical Social Democracy, which will restore a much more progressive tax regime, "decommodify" as much as 80-90% of the economy, and promote much greater North-South international cooperation and even, one day, establish a United States of the World. Sandel emphasized ways to take the sting out of meritocracy - for example, by introducing chance (through lotteries) in selection for top colleges, and by honoring all work. While the two men generally signalled their agreement with each other, the reader unfortunately didn't learn much about potential conflicts between their approaches. Picketty, for example, seems to think we need a much larger share of the population earning a college/university degree, while Sandel seems to want to devalue the credential of a college degree. Sandel's communitarianism seems to entail greater subsidiarity - smaller-scale communities being given more responsibility and strengthened - which would seem to be at odds with Picketty's socialist dream of a world community and government. Finally, Sandel calls for a more judgmental kind of political conversation and community, one that is willing to identify better and worse ways of life. But, I wonder, wouldn't this judgmentalism fuel the flames of populist resentment toward elites?

Gustav Peebles with Benjamin Luzzatto, The First and Last Bank: Climate Change, Currency and a New Carbon Commons (2025)

I am so glad I read this book. Ever since the fall, when I had purchased it at a book launch, I had been meaning to read it. Partly, this was from a sense of obligation. Gustav is a friend - his son Soren and my son Sammy have been best friends since before they could walk. But I was also interested in the topic of the book. For years, I had heard Gustav, who is an economic anthropologist, talking about the project, in particular about the role of “hoards” (which, I admit, I hadn't fully grasped). Though I like to think know something about economics, there is still much I have to learn. I thought Gustav’s anthropological take on economics might be quite different than the more standard fare I was familiar with But I had no idea just how interesting and impressive the book would prove to be. First of all, intellectually, the book’s argument ties together several different fields: currency and banking, commons-based management, climate change, and finally Indigenous and religious wisdom. The result is an original and, in my eyes, persuasive argument. Peebles and Luzzatto propose that carbon be drawn out of the atmosphere (“sky-mined”) and turned into a solid, with the resulting “biochar” serving as the the monetary base/reserves (or “hoard”) of a new currency. They explore the gold standard as a “beta test” for the carbon-backed currency they propose. More generally, they skillfully draw on wide-ranging instances of currency creation and management from around the globe and across time to suggest that, and how, this would work. An essential part of their plan would be that the banks hoarding the biochar and issuing chits upon it would be run as cooperatives - here, too, they look to the extensive literature on “managing the commons” (Elinor Ostrom) to defend and explicate their proposal. So, the basic idea is ingenious, and the reasoning seemed to me very careful and persuasive (admittedly, I am a neophyte in these areas). The main exception I would make is Gustav’s recurring appeals to mysticism and various Gaia-like descriptions of nature as a holistic system. But that’s a minor quibble, and I believe the rest of the argument can stand on its own, without the mysticism. A second thing that impressed me very much was the book’s politics, which are simultaneously bold, creative, and pragmatic. Gustav laments that governments and corporations have woefully failed to address the climate crisis. However, rather than cursing the darkness, Gustav lights a candle, laying out a plan for concerned citizens to take action themselves. His biochar-backed currency would not replace governmental legal tender, but would be a complementary currency (something quite common in history). The cooperative banks would rely on, while also invigorating, that currently somewhat dormant resource, community. Peebles and Luzzatto propose bold reforms, but they repeatedly acknowledge that they don’t have all the answers and that much will be learned only after their carbon currency has been tried out. Their hearts are with the left, but they (gently) urge doctrinaire leftists to think more flexibly and pragmatically. Namely, one shouldn’t leave it at cursing banks, but should turn their power to the advantage of nature and community. As the authors put it, we must “use judo on banking.” Finally, the writing is clear and accessible. At times, it’s elegiac, at times slyly humorous. In short, I was consistently engaged. Ben Luzzatto’s illustrations enrich the text with an alternative, complementary way to imagine a different future. This is an original, well-supported, and potentially quite important book.

Bernard Crick, In Defence of Politics (1962)

This is a stimulating meditation on politics, which Crick defines, borrowing from Aristotle, as the "master science." It is this master science because politics, on Crick's definition, means the hard work of conciliating the plural interests in a given society, a balancing act that is the prerequisite for individual freedom and the pursuit of all other worthwhile activities. Early in my reading, I wondered whether the book wasn't merely a defense of pluralism and "open access socities," which I thought had been made earlier (the Federalist Papers, especially nr. 10) and perhaps more persuasively elsewhere (Mill? Hayek? Popper? North?). As I read on, though, I began to think that Crick's argument was something else - namely, not just a defence of pluralism as a necessary evil, but a positive endorsement of the compromises, empathy, fallibilism, etc. necessary for such conciliation. These original elements came out especially when Crick drew contrasts between politics in his sense, on the one hand, and "ideologies" - whether of Communism, democracy, nationalism, technology - on the other. There were some echoes in the book of Max Weber's "Politics as a Vocation."

Mary Ann Glendon, Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse (1991)

Though written in what now feels like an entirely different epoch, this carefully argued book addresses a problem that still plagues us. Since the 1950s, more and more of our politics has been defined and argued over in terms of individual rights, which ostensibly are absolute, inhere in solitary rights-bearers, and imply no corresponding responsibilities. As a result, Glendon argues, complexity gives way to black-or-white thinking, legal conflict over these all-or-nothing stakes replaces compromise, and politics as the art of negotiation withers. The emphasis on hyperindividualistic rights fostered in our legal system subsequently shapes talk - and thought - in politics and everyday life. Occasionally the book addresses cultural and social changes, for example, the decline of civil society organizations. But mainly Glendon focuses on the early modern philosophical origins of rights talk and, especially, on the decisions of prominent American jurists. British and American law first deviated from continental law in this regard when Hobbes and Locke painted pictures of monadic individuals asserting their rights, while Rousseau retained more of the classical and Biblical traditions that had always paired responsibilities with rights. This distinction was wholly new to me. A further step on the American path to hyperindividualist conceptions of rights was taken by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who argued that law has no basis in morality. An especially valuable part of the book are Glendon's detailed comparisons of American and European or Canadian rulings on issues such as abortion or the legal duty to come to the aid of strangers. Rights Talk nicely complements the work of Michael Sandel, whom Glendon acknowledges as an influence, and other communitarian thinkers.