Is it weird that I found this book thoroughly meh, yet I would still recommend it?

Here’s what I liked—that this book explained how:
✨ poverty actively benefits the people who aren’t poor
✨ the US government gives WAY MORE in subsidies and benefits to the rich than it does to the poor
✨ super simple and uncontroversial changes to tax law would drastically reduce poverty

But ultimately, this book was both unbearably moderate and argumentatively weak:
▪️ it felt like a sermon. For a vague, secular liberal moralism whose ontology we left unexplored. And with me, not only was our author preaching to the choir; but I’ve also read way better sermons (stuff by Rev. William Barber II—who was quoted in this book—comes to mind)
▪️ the liberal individualism was liberal individualism-ing a bit too hard, for me
▪️ Desmond really shied away from taking a radical stance (like how he said he didn’t want to address the possible Marxism in his arguments) which introduced a wishy-washyness that I could’ve done without
▪️major arguments directly contradicted each other (like one section arguing that poverty benefits the rich, another section arguing that poverty benefits no one)

But his heart was in the right place? I can’t fault the overall message of this book: poverty sucks and it’s so easy to fix that it makes you want to cry.

No shade at all—if you want a vibes-only refutation of inequality, this would be my # 1 recommendation.