Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else

Chrystia Freeland

3.66 · Rating details · 2,711 ratings · 367 reviews

In the last few decades what it means to be rich has changed dramatically. Forget the 1%; it's the wealthiest .01% who are fast outpacing the rest of us. Today's colossal fortunes are amassed by the diligent toiling of smart, perceptive businessmen who see themselves as deserving victors in a cutthroat international competition.

Cracking open this tight-knit world is Chry ...more

Get A Copy

Hardcover, 352 pages

Published October 16th 2012 by Doubleday Canada (first published October 1st 2012)

More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Plutocrats, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

The Colbert Report and The Daily Show

129 books — 155 voters

What If? Serious Scientific Answers to Absurd Hypothetical Qu... by Randall Munroe

Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty

Books Rec'd By The Colbert Report

280 books — 137 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 3.66 ·

Rating details

· 2,711 ratings · 367 reviews

More filters

Sort order

Start your review of Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else

Nov 15, 2012 Vince rated it it was ok · review of another edition

Shelves: economics

I feel a little guilty about rating this even though I didn't finish it but it just didn't work for me, and that is why I stopped. I read the first two and a half chapters, about half of chapter 4 and then skimmed chapter 5 and read probably a third or more of chapter 6.

The author definitely knows her subjects well, including knowing many of the plutocrats by name. This is a positive because she doesn't have to speak in the abstract but, it also has its down sides. Many of the chapters just rea I feel a little guilty about rating this even though I didn't finish it but it just didn't work for me, and that is why I stopped. I read the first two and a half chapters, about half of chapter 4 and then skimmed chapter 5 and read probably a third or more of chapter 6.

The author definitely knows her subjects well, including knowing many of the plutocrats by name. This is a positive because she doesn't have to speak in the abstract but, it also has its down sides. Many of the chapters just read as a series of very short anecdotes, often no more than a few paragraphs in length.

She introduces a theme and then uses the anecdotes as examples. Each new person introduced gets a mini-bio including anything unique about them before proceeding to give the theme supporting details. This goes on in series, making for long, much too long, chapters. We really don't need that many examples of how plutocrats hire top lawyers, or consultants, or whatever thus skewing income in support industries too. A couple would have sufficed, but then the chapters would have been much shorter I suppose.

It might have been forgivable if there had been some deep insight on offer but there wasn't much of that; just endless examples.

The final chapter, titled to echo the subtitle of the book, was probably the best. Here we get our most extensive critique of how the plutocrats view the rest of us, their inflated self-worth and fragile egos. I'll probably finish that one at some point. Still, it is a bit much to wade through to get to the good part.

Overall there is much touring the world of the plutocrats but not much about the fall of everyone else part. Her main perspective on that seems to be that just comes with the territory of progress.

In the end I think the author may be a bit too much of a true believer in globalization, and the plutocrats themselves, to offer much of a critique. Yes, the new plutocrats are often smart math and engineering whizzes and are self-made (with the help of elite educations), but is what they do to make their money really always good for society in the first place? You'll get no analysis of that question here. ...more

flag 30 likes · Like · see review

Jan 31, 2014 fourtriplezed rated it it was ok · review of another edition

Shelves: my-non-fiction

There is a good book in here somewhere. The first 3 chapters were very frustrating. Almost an exercise in name-dropping and naming the names dropped and what they ate. Maybe an exaggeration but at times I thought I was reading a series of newspaper items. The last three chapters picked up somewhat as it got a bit more meaty but in the end I am not sure the awards nor the positive reviews were earned. So very very light weight.

flag 22 likes · Like · see review

Mar 22, 2013 Blaise Lucey rated it liked it

Shelves: political-nonfiction

First, readers need to understand one thing: the cover, the name, and the back of the book are a marketing gimmick. For the first hundred pages, at least, there is nothing insightful about plutocrats themselves. Indeed, for many pages, Freeland excitingly glorifies capitalism and its winners. She enjoys referencing herself on many occasions, and just how many people she has talked to who have money, the revelations given to her from people who are celebrities for wealth alone. No crime, of cours ...more

flag 20 likes · Like · see review

Oct 12, 2012 Stephie Jane Rexroth rated it it was ok

This book would have benefited from a second author, a sociologist, political scientist or economist, to transform Chrystia Freeland's interviews into a cohesive thesis. The chapters and subheadings were arbitrary; the book read more like an anthology of short articles on the subject of super-elites.

I suppose it is natural for a journalist to want to let the findings of their investigation speak for themselves. But, the conclusions and suggested solutions are what I seek from new information: w ...more

flag 16 likes · Like · see review

Apr 17, 2013 Nadine Dajani rated it really liked it

This was not as readable as I had hoped - there is quite a but of historical background and unnecessary detail - but it's chock full of interesting tidbits nonetheless. I read this book while on a week-long beach resort vacation so it might not have been the best setting to be reading about economic history, but the fact that I managed to finish it speaks to its merit.
The author provides an interesting theory as to who the Plutocrats really are and why we the masses are less likely nowadays to d This was not as readable as I had hoped - there is quite a but of historical background and unnecessary detail - but it's chock full of interesting tidbits nonetheless. I read this book while on a week-long beach resort vacation so it might not have been the best setting to be reading about economic history, but the fact that I managed to finish it speaks to its merit.
The author provides an interesting theory as to who the Plutocrats really are and why we the masses are less likely nowadays to do away with their heads, French Revolution style, like the masses of yesteryear: today's wealthy have managed to convince us that you get ahead in life based on talent (or merit) as opposed to being born into the right family or having the right connections. Of course, this isn't how things actually work. And when a very smart person applies her talents in the service of enriching herself only, this usually happens to the detriment of society in general - especially in this economy where creativity and innovation are applied to Finance and not to medicine or engineering or even manufacturing.

Plutocrats is great if you want a side of voyeurism with your social study - we get treated to how the rich and mighty live and how they got to be rich in the first place. But a better book about the real social factors behind this and the detrimental effect of the superrich on our world is 'The Trouble with Billionaires' by Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks. The authors are Canadian professors and not well-connected Atlantic journalists which probably explains the lack of fanfare around this little book, but it's no less readable, and is far more informative.

One thing I really hated about Plutocrats is a short, little sentence in the intro disparaging Communism right off the bat as though only morons or social outcasts could ever see the merit in that economic theory. I'm not a Communist either (I have issues with the lack of checks-and-balances in a purely communist system, and other issues) but after reading Plutocrats I wonder why the author is so disparaging of anything other than Capitalism when the form of Capitalism she describes in her own book looks something like Frankenstein's monster. ...more

flag 10 likes · Like · see review

Oct 14, 2012 Joshua S. added it

Shelves: done-with-it

Reading this book made me anxious as a high-middle class, mid-level management wage slave and a father of two. You can find descriptions of what's in the book and analyses of contents elsewhere- I realize she's a journalist and, I suppose, is following her instincts and her training to be 'fair and balanced' in her approach but:

1) I would have liked to have been presented with some concrete actions I can take to slow down or reverse the seeming inexorable ascendance of the %.1 or at least ensure ...more

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Oct 20, 2012 Margie rated it it was ok

Recommends it for: no one

Recommended to Margie by: Bill Moyers

Shelves: society, abandoned, pbs-recommends

My low rating for this book is based on two things: the misalignment between the author's outlook and mine, and the way the author organized the information.

If Freeland had expressed either a negative or positive opinion of the rise of a plutocracy, I would have respected her more. Instead she not only presents it as inevitable, but also seems a bit fawning toward the ultra rich. She doesn't go into a political analysis, which disappointed me. She goes along with their analysis without contribut My low rating for this book is based on two things: the misalignment between the author's outlook and mine, and the way the author organized the information.

If Freeland had expressed either a negative or positive opinion of the rise of a plutocracy, I would have respected her more. Instead she not only presents it as inevitable, but also seems a bit fawning toward the ultra rich. She doesn't go into a political analysis, which disappointed me. She goes along with their analysis without contributing much of her own. This quote from Thomas Wilson, CEO of Allstate, is tossed in without comment:

"I can get [workers] anywhere in the world. It is a problem for America, but it is not necessarily a problem for American business...American businesses will adapt."

I find it hard to read something like that without wanting to comment upon or critique his analysis.

Here's another one that she doesn't comment upon:

"...cutting so-called entitlement spending is a policy which would have a disproportionate impact on the poor, who depend most on these programs - and it is also an idea that plutocrat Pete Peterson has devoted $1 billion of his fortune to advance."

I'm a big time liberal. I'm a tax-and-spend Democrat. So to me, it's a big deal that he's devoting a billion dollars to cutting programs which I believe to be important. Freeland lets it slip right by without comment.

Which brings me to my other point. Freeland tosses data and quotes and anecdotes around with very little organization. There's no through-story to tie it all together. I found it difficult to stay interested because I didn't see the book going anywhere; it just seemed to be more data and quotes and anecdotes.

She also tosses around words and phrases that were unfamiliar to me. I assume that "Middle Kingdom" refers to China, and that "C suite" means corporate suite, but they're never defined. Freeland presents plutocrats as sort of clubby - having much more in common with each other (even across citizenship lines) than with hoi polloi. Her use of words and phrases I was unfamiliar with made me feel as though she was excluding me from 'their' world. Freeland also uses a lot of financial terms I'm unfamiliar with. Obviously the book isn't intended to explain financial transactions, or hedge funds, or short sales. But I wondered who she was writing the book for, if not those of us who want to learn more. Oddly enough, she defines 'high net worth individuals' repeatedly. She also repeats other bits of the book, as though her editor was too bored by the book to follow closely enough to pick up on it.

Freeland tosses out a lot of figures. I'm all in favor of using data to back up one's assertions, but I found it hard to pay attention, hard to care, and hard to put any of the figures into perspective. I would have appreciated at least a few graphs.

I can't recommend the book, which is a shame. She's taken an interesting subject and created an almost unreadable book from it.

...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Oct 21, 2012 Todd Martin rated it it was ok

Shelves: culture-politics, finance

Plutocrats might be described as intelligent, highly educated, self-made, go-getters who have worked hard, innovated and successfully built businesses that create jobs, and benefit the economy. Their products enrich society and create technologies that allow the citizens of third world nations to work their way out of poverty and fashion better lives for themselves and their families. These individuals are compensated well, but fairly, for their achievements. They then use their millions (or bil Plutocrats might be described as intelligent, highly educated, self-made, go-getters who have worked hard, innovated and successfully built businesses that create jobs, and benefit the economy. Their products enrich society and create technologies that allow the citizens of third world nations to work their way out of poverty and fashion better lives for themselves and their families. These individuals are compensated well, but fairly, for their achievements. They then use their millions (or billions in some cases) for philanthropic purposes, giving back to the society that allowed them to succeed by creating novel solutions based on their business acumen to solve the world’s many ills.

Conversely, many see them as manipulative, self-serving strivers who finance political campaigns in an effort to rig the system in their favor. By weakening regulations intended to protect investors and the environment they pose tremendous risk the public and by obtaining lucrative tax breaks they shift the tax burden to those least able to afford it. They are the too-big-to-fail robber barons who privatize profits while socializing losses and liabilities, who use accounting tricks to bolster short term gains that enable them to reap huge bonuses and stock option grants even as their company’s performance falters and employee’s wages stagnate (assuming the working class hasn’t already been downsized). They take huge risks with leveraged capital, reaping the rewards as the bubble grows and getting bailed out when it bursts. They shift jobs to overseas sweatshops creating a permanent indentured class while driving down wages in the US.

In Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Chrystia Freeland looks at the ultra-rich, their personalities, character traits, lifestyles and business. Income inequality has grown significantly since the 1970s. With the US now being the most unequal of the developed nations. This comes despite the fact that productivity has steadily increased, with more goods and services being produced with less labor than ever. When less people produce more goods, you’d expect there to be more money for everyone as profits are shared among fewer individuals. But this is not what is happening. Instead the top 1% are taking a disproportionate share of the pie leaving little left for the rest of society. In fact between 1979 and 2007 the top 1% saw average income gains of 275% vs. just 40% for those in the middle class. We are increasingly becoming a winner-take-all society.

With regards to the book itself, I found it to be a lackluster effort. Freeland relates an endless series of anecdotes but uses them to draw only timid conclusions regarding the broader societal implications of income inequality. In fact, much of the book reads like an extremely dull episode of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous (except that these business tycoons aren’t particularly famous). Secondly, one is left with the impression that she conducted the bulk of her research (at least that which didn't involve a lunch date) using the Google, since the book quite closely follows the format and information summarized much more concisely at Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_i... ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Nov 13, 2014 Owlseyes marked it as to-read

Shelves: capitalism, economy, inequality, one-percent, 0-01

I have watched the interview Matt Taibbi and Chrystia Freeland gave to Bill Moyers. CF spoke about her book. Some notes I’ve taken, ahead:

(a) The topic of the inequality/super-rich (the top 0.01%) is still a taboo, as the debates between M. Romney and B. Obama showed; the think-tanks feel good about approaching “poverty” ,though. The former topic, in the words of CF is “very frightening”.

(b) CF spoke of several phenomena under way: a hammered middle class, the attack of the plutocrats on “ ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Oct 31, 2012 Caren rated it really liked it

Shelves: adult-nonfiction

I wanted to read this book after seeing the author on "Moyers & Company:
http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-sh...

(If you go to the website, notice the "Dig Deeper" link on the left. Mr. Moyers is starting a book club, with this book as his first selection. There is a discussion and will be a chat with the author coming up soon.)

This is a topic which seems to be gathering interest. Charles Murray's book, "Coming Apart", Geoffrey Faux's "The Servant Economy", and other recent books have addressed t I wanted to read this book after seeing the author on "Moyers & Company:
http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-sh...

(If you go to the website, notice the "Dig Deeper" link on the left. Mr. Moyers is starting a book club, with this book as his first selection. There is a discussion and will be a chat with the author coming up soon.)

This is a topic which seems to be gathering interest. Charles Murray's book, "Coming Apart", Geoffrey Faux's "The Servant Economy", and other recent books have addressed the issue of the rising super-rich.
The author is a Canadian journalist who was able to study the rise of an oligarchy at close range while covering Russia after the break-up of the Soviet Union. She seems to have had extraordinary access to plutocrats worldwide and gives a measured account of the inner workings of the very rich. She says our new Gilded Age came about as a result of three factors. First was what she terms the "Washington Consensus" which replaced the Treaty of Detroit (a sort of pact that labor would be granted generous benefits in exchange for fewer work disruptions through strikes). The Washington Consensus (when President Reagan in the USA and Margaret Thatcher in Britain "reined in trade unions, cut social welfare spending, and deregulated the economy", pg 17) was made possible by the fall of communism, which had previously acted as a sort of ideological foil to capitalism. This consensus combined with the technology revolution and globalization to make possible the unfettered rise of the ultra rich. The interesting thing about Ms. Freeland's book is that she is not just looking at the rise of a plutocracy in western industrialized countries, but has included the rising BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) and emerging economies to make this a global phenomenon. Globalized industry, she shows, does not feel itself a part of any individual nation. She quotes GE's Jeff Immelt as saying that the U.S. consumer "is not going to be the engine of global growth. It is going to be the billion people joining the middle class in Asia...". Further, she quotes the CEO of Allstate, Thomas Wilson's, remarks, "I can get [workers] anywhere in the world. It is a problem for America, but it is not necessarily a problem for American business..." (p. 64)
The author included a very provocative quote from that classic economic text, "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith: "The proprietor of land is necessarily a citizen of the particular country in which his estate lies. The proprietor of stock is properly a citizen of the world, and is not necessarily attached to any particular country." (p.67)
Ms. Freeland goes on to say, "But while capital--and capitalists--have gone global, governments and most of their middle-class citizens operate within national boundaries. Figuring out how the plutocrats are connected to the rest of us is one of the challenges of the rise of the global super-elite." (p. 67)
What sort of people rise to the status of the super rich? According to the author, they are pragmatic technocrats.She says the very brainy are rising to the top of both the left and the right. Just as Charles Murray pointed out in his recent book, "Coming Apart", these people move in circles that are insulated from the rest of us. It used to be that an industry captain may have married his secretary; now, he probably met his wife in an Ivy League grad school and, even if only one of them is working, they are both from the very tip-top intellectual class.
In a very telling paragraph Ms. Freeland says: "Indeed, at a time of fierce partisan conflict, one of the striking paradoxes is how much the champions of liberals and conservatives have in common: Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are both disciplined , dogged millionaires who describe their more popular wives as their better halves, hold degrees from Harvard Law School, and have a preference for data-driven arguments rather than emotional ones. Both men struggle to connect with the grassroots of their parties, coming across as cold and robotic. You might call it the cognitive divide--the split between an evidence-based worldview and one rooted in faith or ideology--and it is one of the most important fault lines in America today. To his critics on the right, Obama is a socialist with dangerous foreign antecedents. To his critics on the left, he is a waffler with no real point of view and a craven desire to be liked. But the best explanation is that, like the rest of the rising intellectual class to which he belongs, the president is an empiricist. He wants to do what works, not what conforms to any particular ideology or what pleases any particular constituency. His core belief is a belief in facts." (p.93)
From where are these new intellectual elites pulled? Here are some of Ms. Freeland's comments about that: "Revolution is the new status quo, but not everyone is good at responding to it. My shorthand for the archetype best equipped to deal with it is 'Harvard kids who went to provincial public schools'. They got into Harvard, or, increasingly, its West Coast rival, Stanford, so they are smart, focused, and reasonably privileged. But they went to public schools, often in the hinterlands, so they have an outsider's ability to spot the weaknesses of the ruling paradigm and don't have so much vested in the current system that they are afraid of stepping outside it." (p.146-7)
She relates that some analysts say "that responding to revolution is a biological trait, genetically inherited, and that one way to be sure your society is good at it is to open your borders to immigrants, on the theory that moving to a new country is an example of responding to revolution." (p.147)
I have just scratched the surface of all of the interesting topics explored in this book. My copy is well-marked with lots of underlined passages. I think this well-written book is fascinating and worth the time you'll invest in reading it. I liked one of Ms. Freeland's closing remarks: "...Low taxes, light-touch regulation, weak unions, and unlimited campaign donations are certainly in the best interests of the plutocrats, but that doesn't mean they are the right way to maintain the economic system that created today's super-elite. Elites don't sabotage the system that created them on purpose. But even smart, farsighted plutocrats can be betrayed by their own short-term self-interest into undermining the foundations of their own society's prosperity." (p. 286) ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Dec 24, 2012 David Stephens rated it really liked it

Shelves: economics

In Plutocrats, Chrystia Freeland examines "those at the very top: who they are, how they made their money, how they think, and how they relate to the rest of us." She makes a distinction between the richest 1% and the richest 0.1% because there is a large discrepancy between these two groups that is less frequently noticed than the one between the top 1% and bottom 99%. In fact, she suggests there are two separate economies: one for the rich—a "plutonomy"—and one for the rest of the country. And In Plutocrats, Chrystia Freeland examines "those at the very top: who they are, how they made their money, how they think, and how they relate to the rest of us." She makes a distinction between the richest 1% and the richest 0.1% because there is a large discrepancy between these two groups that is less frequently noticed than the one between the top 1% and bottom 99%. In fact, she suggests there are two separate economies: one for the rich—a "plutonomy"—and one for the rest of the country. And, it is the economic gains made by the plutocracy that have masked weak economic growth for everyone else.

The economy flourishes best for everyone when there is less income inequality and more social mobility. The balance struck between the government and the business world in response to the era of robber barons led to a period of outstanding economic growth (roughly, the 1940s through the 1970s). This balance included banking reform like Glass-Steagall, the New Deal's social welfare programs, and higher taxes on the richest Americans. Unfortunately, these reforms have slowly eroded—though, not on their own—and returned the country to extreme levels of inequality. These deregulations haven't been the only source of trouble, though; globalization and quick advancements in technology have substantially aided this inequality as well.

Freeland takes a level-headed approach to her topic (she is Canadian after all) and doesn't mischaracterize rich financial types as evil schemers who laugh at the plight of the poor. To do this would be to grossly oversimplify an incredibly complex situation, something Freeland does an outstanding job avoiding. Instead, she reasonably dispels some of the unfair myths about plutocrats. She notes how many of the current richest Americans have earned their wealth as opposed to inheriting it as many robber barons did in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. She also defends—to an extent—financial elites who precipitated the crisis of 2008, as they were unable to respond adequately to the changing world economy. The crisis did also involve corruption, but there was more to it than just that.

Even though Freeland uses a pleasant tone, that doesn't mean she lets problematic thinking and situations slide. All too often, plutocrats' views illuminate their separation from the less affluent and point to problems in their thinking. Perhaps, most pernicious is the idea that business interests always coincide with those of the state. However, since financial elites are more a part of isolated international communities than of their country of origin, this is becoming less and less so. On top of that, it is easy for people in general to believe what suits them even when others are clearly suffering as a result. As Duke professor Dan Ariely puts it, "When you have a financial incentive to see reality in a certain way, you will see it that way, not because you're bad, but because you are human."

Overall, this is a balanced look at the world of plutocrats. ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Dec 16, 2012 Sean rated it it was ok

I found this book on plutocrats interesting but mostly composed of loosely related vignettes rather than an all-encompassing thesis rigorously defended by its author and what that I had hoped to find. Yes, the growth in technology and globalization have increased inequality. Yes, you point to the rise of the intellectual class and the importance of human capital. And yes, you describe the plutocrats and how they ascended. But I wanted the author to tie it all together in a coherent thesis that o ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Oct 30, 2018 Charles Haywood rated it liked it

From the cover, I expected this book to be a lightweight documentary version of "Crazy Rich Asians," offering painfully amusing stories about the foibles of the super-rich, accompanied by cautions about the negative effects of such behavior upon the rest of America. Plus, the picture of private jets in the driveway attracted me as a vision of my hoped-for future, since I am comfortably in the 0.1%, and much of my time is spent struggling to reach yet higher. Instead, this book is a pretty dense, ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Oct 27, 2012 Al rated it really liked it

Henry Ford said that mass production required mass consumers. This was his way of saying that his success was dependent on the existence of a successful society. I think he also understood that gains made by adding value to society will lift the boats of everyone for the most part.

The problem comes in when those at the top "arrive." They almost certainly try to set up barriers for others in order to maintain their privileged positions (think Citizens United). This is when the whole system beco ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Jul 15, 2013 Sera rated it liked it

Recommended to Sera by: Book Page Magazine

Shelves: audio, non-fiction, library

3.5 stars

This book pretty much confirmed what I already thought:

*The game is rigged against those of us who don't fall into the 0.1% of the top 1% of wealthiest in global society, known as the "Plutocrats".

*The Plutocrats live in a bubble of self-entitlement that has extended to the point where this group of people feels that they can do better for society than any government.

*Much of the wealth that this group has earned comes from both illegal and legal corruption. They are not as "self-mad ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Oct 15, 2012 David Mayes rated it it was amazing

Very telling and very timely.

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Nov 19, 2012 Dave rated it really liked it

Shelves: very-good-non-fiction

Today's world is going through two Gilded Ages simultaneously, the 2nd for the U.S. and the 1st for the BRICs. The income inequality in these nations has created a situation in which the top 1% have more in common with each other than with their own countrymen. Charles Murray did an incredible job of covering this and analyzing from the perspectives of American culture splitting along class and education lines to the point that we're a pair of de facto separate societies. Herein Freeland analyze Today's world is going through two Gilded Ages simultaneously, the 2nd for the U.S. and the 1st for the BRICs. The income inequality in these nations has created a situation in which the top 1% have more in common with each other than with their own countrymen. Charles Murray did an incredible job of covering this and analyzing from the perspectives of American culture splitting along class and education lines to the point that we're a pair of de facto separate societies. Herein Freeland analyzes and interviews the upper echelons of the top 1% and, though it's never really clear if she views this group as bad, good, a mixture, or what, it is a very important book for understanding today's society.

In many ways there are two kinds of plutocrats,rent seekers - those who obtained their wealth through government connections and services that do not create value for society, like trading mortgage-backed securities - and innovators - Jobs, Gates, etc. The former is generally reviled by society because their wealth accumulation did not better society, while the latter is largely (and I believe deservedly) applauded for their contributions and seen as more "deserving" of their gains. Unfortunately Freeland largely only has access to the bankers and their quips about "eating what they kill" fall on deaf ears when $750 billion in taxpayer money was needed to prop them up when their zero sum trading scheme's bills came due. They think they're John Galt's when in reality society is in no way dependent upon them, which is of course not the case for tech innovators who created a need - PCs, smart phones, etc. - and then made a profit off delivering these life-bettering products to society en masse.

Freeland seems to find it difficult to balance between the idea that the top of the pyramid create jobs and industry for everyone else and the opposite side of the coin that states societies tend to unravel, often violently, when power and wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few. She uses the words "Harvard" and "Goldman Sachs" more than the word "the" and her writing does suffer from this homogenous cast. Wharton and Columbia have produced as many billionaires as Harvard, and if Stanford's class were the same size it would have as well.

The author is correct in that capitalism has won, with nearly every nation on earth embracing it in some form, and with nearly every society better off for it. The problem is that the U.S. now has 84% of the wealth concentrated in the top 20%, incomes have flatlined if not slightly fallen for the middle class over the past 39 years, and our legal corruption ranking places us in the same neighborhood as Russia and China. Left unchecked those at the top can change the laws and use legacy admissions at top schools to create a hereditary oligarchy that chokes off class mobility and decreases economic competitiveness. She effectively uses the example of Venice rising to the world's richest city, creating an aristocracy based on family lineage, and then falling behind more innovative European cities as their meritocracies created more wealth. A similar fate looks to be in its initial stages in the U.S., Russia, and China, amongst others, and it may be that the country best able to resist this urge to consolidate wealth and position and then denying others access to it will be the one best able to take advantage of the next century.

Parts of the book are out of place - performers make more now because the audience is now the globe rather than a concert hall - and much of the last third of the book (excluding the strong conclusion) was repetitive. However, this was a 4-star book overall and the content within is extremely useful knowledge as we navigate a Gilded Age from one corner of the earth to the other. ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Jan 07, 2013 Bobbi rated it really liked it

A well-researched overview of the steep income disparity that characterizes our current gilded age (the second robber baron era for the West and the first gilding for China, India and others). I enjoyed how Freeland offered both historical context and took repeated stabs at defining the psycho-social fallout of towering wealth built on dwindling resources and the consumerism of the creaking middle classes. The fallout, though, isn't actually the focus of Plutocrats. Rather Freeland simply tries A well-researched overview of the steep income disparity that characterizes our current gilded age (the second robber baron era for the West and the first gilding for China, India and others). I enjoyed how Freeland offered both historical context and took repeated stabs at defining the psycho-social fallout of towering wealth built on dwindling resources and the consumerism of the creaking middle classes. The fallout, though, isn't actually the focus of Plutocrats. Rather Freeland simply tries to capture a moment in time; painting a portrait of those who live in "the bubble."

She offers rare inside glimpses of how the 1 percent lives, in Russia, China, India and the US. Universally, the wealthy are lauded, admired, watched and hated. In China, where becoming a billionaire often involves government collusion, getting too rich and boastful about it carries a serious risk of being hauled up on criminal charges and even executed. (I'll let Freeland explain further.) That doesn't happen in the US, where there's also ample collusion or "rent seeking" by moneyed interests needing government access or acquiescence. We already know this is how the world works, still reading the case studies is enlightening.

The details of how the 1 percent or the .1 percent climb the mountain and live atop it helps the rest of us understand why the wealthy come see themselves as especially deserving of their largesse; and the unwashed masses as responsible for their own economic fix. Thus, we have put-upon Wall Street billionaires, who complain about getting an unfair shake in the public eye, and developing world bazillionaires who live in unimaginable luxury in high-rise castles a stone's throw from the lowest of slums.

This book shines when it examines our cultural views and caste systems, taking a closer look at our "hero" entrepreneurs hypocritically dressed down in jeans as they board their private jets (in Silicon Valley) and the hugely compensated and self-righteous Wall Street financiers who're both adored (by a public that wants the same opportunity to strike it rich) and skewered (by the Occupy movement).

Freeland does not vilify the wealthy, but lays out a detailed picture of how they live and think. She even includes a discussion of how the current crop of billionaires may be an inevitable outcome of technological and social upheaval. At the same time, she makes no apologies for their greedy, self-centered, moat-building and resource-hogging behavior.

This journalist's approach may frustrate those who're looking for strong conclusions, and I agree with the reviewer who said not to expect Naomi Klein. But Plutocrats isn't a call-to-action, so much as a portrait of our economic times. ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Oct 15, 2012 Paul rated it did not like it

If you truly, really genuinely believe that there's nothing wrong with our economy that can't be fixed by rich folks being a little bit less greedy, then you'll want to read this book. Unfortunately, like a certain presidential candidate, the author is not competent to present her own case. When a capitalist quotes Marx, as Freeland does, it's a bad sign. When she misreads him, along with much else, it's a sign of desperation. Used to be that Harvard graduates and Rhodes scholars were well equip ...more

flag 3 likes · Like · see review

Aug 03, 2018 farmwifetwo rated it did not like it

Shelves: nonfic-socio-econ-memoir

I got to 42% and give up. I don't know what the book is about . Lots of name dropping and stories. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jan 01, 2013 Rachel rated it really liked it

If you were expecting Naomi Klein, you will be disappointed. Chrystia Freeland's Plutocrats is more pastiche than polemic. You will find some important information in respect to the growing income and wealth disparity in America and the world. For instance, 20% of Americans own 84% of the nation's wealth (compared to 36% in Sweden); in 1970 the top 1% took 10% of the national income, today they take over 30%; in 1980 the average CEO made 42x the wage of the average worker, today they make 390x t If you were expecting Naomi Klein, you will be disappointed. Chrystia Freeland's Plutocrats is more pastiche than polemic. You will find some important information in respect to the growing income and wealth disparity in America and the world. For instance, 20% of Americans own 84% of the nation's wealth (compared to 36% in Sweden); in 1970 the top 1% took 10% of the national income, today they take over 30%; in 1980 the average CEO made 42x the wage of the average worker, today they make 390x the wage of their employees; 93% of the gains from the 2009-2010 "recovery" went to the top 1%; the top 25 hedge fund managers are each paid over a billion dollars a year; the richer you are, the lower your effective tax rate--the top 400 tax payers paid less than 17%; inequality in Russia is higher than it was under the czars. Interesting. Depressing. She also includes a number of anecdotal stories that are more praise than censor of plutocrats from around the world. She does include some analysis in the concluding chapters of the reasons for the growing disparity and what it portends for the future of democracy in the world and our nation. Not promising. The momentum seems as unstoppable and the results as catastrophic as that other obvious threat to global well-being, global warming. She cites the collapse of the economic power and cultural hegemony of 14th century Venice as the exemplar of our own inevitable demise.
It is surprising to discover how recently the course of events have changed to facilitate the rise of a plutorcracy. The revolution, and it was a revolution, began with the development of hedge funds in 1949, venture capital in 1946, and, finally, the origin of private equity in 1990 with its attendant hostile takeover and dismantling of our manufacturing infrastructure. Thus, the financial sector went from the conservative stewardship of other people's money to specializing in risk, leverage, and outsized returns (120). The revolution is not confined to the financial sector. Irving Kristol created right-wing institutions to reshape our culture and values by establishing think tanks, foundations, schools, media, and other culture-forming apparatus. A process he calls, apparently unaware of its Orwellian connotations, "thought leadership". Its particular target is the humanities--the state of humanities is evidence of the success of Kristol's "thought leadership" in shaping public attitudes and political policies that defund and devalue (remember Obama praising the humanities anyone?) the humanities in education. Chrystia did not raise the point, but the recent backlash against teachers is simply another feature of the right's "thought leadership". Chrystia does note that the success of the right's "thought leadership" is evidenced by the fact that the pro-business interests do not need to rely on bribery or lobbying their interests because they have coopted the regulators and legislators into adopting a paradigm where they fail to see differences between themselves and the businesses they are supposed to regulate. Chrystia portrays America as becoming (isn't it already?) an "extractive" state--one controlled by a ruling elite whose objective is to extract as much wealth as possible from the rest as opposed to America being historically an "inclusive" state--where everyone is given a say in how their society is ruled and equal access to economic opportunity. I think many would disagree with her characterization of America as ever being an inclusive state, but few would disagree that it is becoming more and more extractive. Finally, almost as an afterthought, she notes the parallel between Venice's Book of Gold to reify the elite and the role of elite universities in "perpetuating privilege" rather than recognizing merit. Conspicuously missing from Freeland's book are any suggestions, or even hope, for addressing this crisis of democracy. But it is a good place to begin the discussion. ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Feb 22, 2017 Conor Ahern rated it liked it

Shelves: non-fiction, economics, author-female, audiobook

I ended up really liking this book, but it took a little while. As others have mentioned, the first 1/3 or so reads like a “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” and is devoted to explaining the trappings of extreme plutocracy and the ways by which the purseproud rich have bent the machinery of government and the economy to their wills and fortunes. Freeland, herself a Harvard graduate and a Rhodes Scholar—undoubtedly the single likeliest pedigree for shameful self-promotion and aggrandizement—does ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jul 07, 2013 Josephine rated it liked it

For the past four years, Carlos Slim Helu, the Mexican self-made multi-billionaire, has topped the Forbes Billionaire list, with an estimated net worth of $73 billionaire as of March 31, 2013.

Do you know what that translates to? Carlos’ net worth is equal to about 400,000 of his fellow Mexicans.

A more often cited comparison is this: the combined incomes of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet equals the wealth of the bottom 40% of the nation.

Former Financial Times deputy editor Chrystia Freeland’s “Plut ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Nov 21, 2012 Jim rated it liked it

Entertaining reporting by a former Financial Times reporter on the rise of the 1% and what it all means. A lot of reporting and some very interesting anecdotes, although an even deeper analysis at times on why/how it all happened would've been helpful (she gets into that too, and I generally agree with the analysis, I just wanted even more details). Also, she seems to have a shallow understanding of so-called free-trade: apparently it's a fact of life for manufacturing workers, but highly skille ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Mar 26, 2013 Abhijit Selukar rated it did not like it

Not sure if I should rate the bool.
The book is so mediocre that I had to stop half way into reading it. The book is nothing but verbalization of data gathered from sources all around the world.
The book does not provide any solution. Just plain Data.
The author has again taken advantage of the current turmoil for her benefit and released the book.If the book was released in 2006-07, no one would have cared.

Read this book if you are a socialist.
NOT recommended if you believe in capitalist ideolog ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Sep 05, 2013 Kristine Morris rated it really liked it

I read many of the reviews of this book, and while I have no doubt that experts in labour economics, the financial crisis and those who study of capitalism may disagree with some of what Freeland has written, for the average jane it provides a readable in-depth understanding of why the income divide is happening and why (most of) the plutocrats don't understand why the 99% might have a bit of a problem with their wealth generation.

The hardest chapter to read was the second last chapter when Free ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Feb 04, 2013 Lisa rated it did not like it

Shelves: non-fiction

I quit after 55 pages of unorganized drivel about how wonderful it is to be a plutocrat. The author has clearly been rubbing elbows with her subjects too long. There are frequent allusions to winner and losers, and the poor and middle class must simply suck it up and deal, because having the ultra-wealthy around is somehow good for the rest of us. I had my suspicions about the book early on when Freeland unironically quoted the F. Scott Fitzgerald saw "the rich are different" without Hemingway's ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Oct 18, 2012 Chris marked it as to-read

Heard an interesting interview with the author about this book on NPR, at http://www.npr.org/books/titles/16280...

Looking forward to reading it. But not when I'm depressed :) ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jan 01, 2013 Amanda Rose rated it really liked it

Shelves: 2013

The bits where the super rich look like creepy nuts in their own words were my favourite bits and why it gets a 4 despite one could always quibble about the political economy of some other bits.

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jan 23, 2014 Book rated it really liked it

Shelves: politics-economics, social-science

Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else by Chrystia Freeland

“Plutocrats” is an insightful look at both the economics and politics of the super-elite class. Canadian writer, journalist and politician Chrystia Freeland provides the readers with an inside look at plutocrats. It’s an interesting look at how plutocrats live their lives and how they earn their fortunes, and the impact it has on the rest of us. This interesting 335-page book includes the followin ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
1% in American Hi...: Freeland and Taibbi on Bill Moyers	1	3	Dec 11, 2014 12:53PM
1% in American Hi...: Plutocrats (the book)	1	6	Dec 11, 2014 08:25AM
Twitter Male Book...: Week 1 reading assignments and questions	1	4	Feb 20, 2013 08:57PM

Readers also enjoyed

See similar books…

Genres

Nonfiction

153 users

Economics

131 users

Politics

89 users

Business

33 users

Sociology

30 users

History

28 users

Economics > Finance

10 users

Culture > Society

9 users

Cultural

7 users

Writing > Journalism

6 users

See top shelves…

About Chrystia Freeland

Chrystia Freeland

72 followers

Chrystia Freeland is the Global Editor-at-Large of Reuters news since March 1, 2010, having formerly been the United States managing editor at the Financial Times, based in New York City. Freeland received her undergraduate education from Harvard University, going onto St Antony's at University of Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. She attended the United World College of the Adriatic, Italy, 1984-86.

A U ...more

Books by Chrystia Freeland

Sale of the Century: Russia's Wild Ride from Communism to Capitalism

My Ukraine: A Personal Reflection on a Nation's Independence and the Nightmare Vladimir Putin Has Visited Upon It

The Post-Widget Society: Economic Possibilities for Our Children

More…

News & Interviews

32 Highly Anticipated Sci-Fi and Fantasy Reads for Summer

The coming season is a big one for the science fiction and fantasy genres, with the release of some of 2021's most anticipated speculative...

Trivia About Plutocrats: The R...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from Plutocrats: The R...

“Americans were happy to celebrate their super-rich and, at least sometimes, worry about their poor. But putting those two conversations together and talking about economic inequality was pretty much taboo.” — 5 likes

“A 2011 OECD report showed that, over the past three decades, in Sweden, Finland, Germany, Israel, and New Zealand--all countries that have chosen a version of capitalism less red in tooth and claw than the American model--inequality has grown as fast as or faster than in the United States. France, proud, as usual, of its exceptionalism, seemed to be the one major Western outlier, but recent studies have shown that over the past decade it, too, has fallen into line.” — 3 likes

More quotes…

See a Problem?

Preview — Plutocrats by Chrystia Freeland

Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Chrystia Freeland

Books by Chrystia Freeland

News & Interviews

Trivia About Plutocrats: The R...

Quotes from Plutocrats: The R...

See a Problem?

Preview — Plutocrats by Chrystia Freeland

Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Chrystia Freeland

Books by Chrystia Freeland

News & Interviews

Trivia About Plutocrats: The R...

Quotes from Plutocrats: The R...

new topic
Discuss This Book