I liked the last two chapters. The book is not objective. He cleverly points out libertarian successes and socialist failures and dodges the opposite. The numbers give the reader the impression of objectivity, but the comparisons are far from it. Two examples (spoiler alert):

He compared the failures of housing policy in San Francisco (built on a mountainous peninsula prone to earthquakes) to the successes in Houston (flat plain for a 30 mile radius).

He compared the 1% wealthy individuals to 20% poor individuals over a 9-year span. The argument was that many of those wealthy individuals were not in the top 1% after 9 years. Many of those top 1% individuals include athletes, celebrities, CEOs, etc. Do they stay at the pinnacle of their careers for 9 years?

I bought the book to read some objective insight on taxes and the economy. The biggest fallacy in economics is the argument that low tax rates on the wealthy and corporations create jobs and nuture a robust economy. He could have spent 2-3 pages comparing the 1920s cycle of tax cuts, soaring stock market, market crash then unemployment to 2001-2011 but he doesn't mention it. I suppose those weren't exactly libertarian/republican successes.