I really wanted this book to make its case well because I think it has an important thesis. The central idea of this book is that capitalism tends to have a worse reputation than it deserves and democracy had a better. In particular, "capitalism actually tends, all other things being equal, systematically, thought not uniformly, to reward business behavior that is honest, fair, civil, and compassionate" and "actual democracy, [is] notable chiefly for discord, inequality, apathy, hasty compromise, political and policy ignorance, and manipulative scrambling by 'special interests'". Yet despite capitalism's negative perception and democracy's less-than-ideal implementation, Mueller argues that they are still the best system we've found for maximizing good outcomes, and they both do this by emphasizing individual freedom for people to act in their own broadly defined interests.

Mueller also makes an important psychological claim. That both of these systems do pretty well despite a lack of the ideal citizen (for democracy) and in spite of acquisitional greed (for capitalism) is a good thing: "It seems to me that an institution is likely to be fundamentally sound if it can function adequately when people are rarely, if ever, asked to rise above the ignorance and selfishness which with they have been so richly endowed by their creator. Or, putting it a bit more gently, since human beings are a flawed bunch, an institution will be more successful if it can if it can work with human imperfections rather than requiring first that the race be reformed to impossible perfection."

If these arguments could be made well, this would be an excellent work. The problem is that Mueller's arguments were not even bad. They were laughable. A small part of this is because the book was published in 1999[1] and some of the points are dated. Much more importantly, the argument was not substantial. Mueller's main evidence for the positive outcomes of capitalism rely mainly on business advice, not on an analysis of real company outcomes and whether or not they're correlated with moral behavior (à la [b:Good to Great|76865|Good to Great Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't|James C. Collins|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1435813395s/76865.jpg|1094028]). It is certainly compelling that the advice the business leaders give to each other points toward moral behavior being a competitive advantage, but it's hardly evidence that the whole system leans toward moral behavior.

His argument for the imperfections of democracy are even more muddled. He mixes up an argument that democracy is the best possible system (via cherry picked examples) with an argument that focusing on how democracy falls short of the ideal is harmful. His argument borders on Panglossian: democracy has lasted for a couple hundred years now, so how we are doing it must be pretty close to the best it can be and trying to improve things will just make people cynical and so it's bad.

Overall, Mueller shows a lack of robust historical or business analysis. Thus, in the end, he has an interesting thesis -- one that I agree with much of -- but he argues it so badly that I found myself arguing against points I agreed with.


[1] This is, in fact, why I read the book without doing too much background research. In general, I've found that if someone I trust (in this case a newsletter) recommends a book that is a decade or more old, it's probably pretty good. My heuristic was wrong in this case. ( )