The Future of Capitalism: FT Series & Rethinking Wealth of Nations

  • Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Future
In summary, The Financial Times has started a new series titled "The Future of Capitalism" which aims to stimulate a discussion on the dominant political issue of today - the need to replace the free market ideology that has been discredited by the recent credit crunch. The series will cover topics such as the need for change in business approaches and the consequences of bad economics. Additionally, there is an independent discussion on "Rethinking the Wealth of Nations" and opinions on the future of capitalism vary, with some suggesting a move towards European social democracies or a truly free market system. There is also a call for the link between private/public money and politicians to be severed in order to prevent corruption and allow for independent decision-making.
  • #1
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2023 Award
21,870
6,271
The Financial Times has started a new series - The Future of Capitalism - which should provoke a lively discussion.
http://www.ft.com/indepth/capitalism-future

A major new series

The credit crunch has destroyed faith in the free market ideology that has dominated Western economic thinking for a generation. But what can – and should – replace it? Over the coming weeks we will conduct a wide-ranging debate on this dominant political issue of the day.

Analysis: A need to reconnect
The Future of Capitalism: With lavish executive pay, inadequate boardroom expertise and a short-term shareholder focus all blamed for bringing about the crisis, Anglo-Saxon business approaches are likely to face wrenching changes.

Interactive feature: Tackling the credit crisis is a daunting challenge. It will require impressive political leadership as well as concerted international cooperation. In this graphic we explore what connects the 50 people likely to be most influential in shaping the debate about the future of capitalism

The consequence of bad economics
The crash is testimony to the failure of leaders in affected countries. Most fundamentally to blame is their unwillingness to see what markets need in order to produce good outcomes for society.

There is also another independent discussion on "Rethinking the Wealth of Nations".
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Astronuc said:
The Financial Times has started a new series - The Future of Capitalism - which should provoke a lively discussion.
http://www.ft.com/indepth/capitalism-future
There is also another independent discussion on "Rethinking the Wealth of Nations".

This is all very interesting, but what is your view/vision/opinion?
 
  • #3
I've been meaning to dig up Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" and read it so that I know what he wrote, as opposed to what people these days claim he wrote or meant.

I'm waiting for the 'impressive' leadership in the US and various nations and/or markets.


There has definitely been a blow to some peoples' perceptions of 'free market' ideology, or perhaps it's just more awareness that a 'free market' simply does not exist. What has happened in US and global economies during the last 6 months was expected.

Economies of the western or industrialized nations may drift somewhat toward the left politically, but I waiting to see.

I've been making notes on "Rethinking the Wealth of Nations", but that's taking time. I plan to attend a lecture by MIT Professor and Economist Daron Acemoglu on the subject next month when he visits a local university.
 
  • #4
>>>or perhaps it's just more awareness that a 'free market' simply does not exist.<<<

I think this is the case. We don't have a free market system. We have a corporate welfare system, at least in the US. Is there any doubt considering what's taken place in the last few years in the US?

I don't think capitalism is dead. I think from the US perspective, we need to either become more like European social democracies or else go to a truly free market system. The special interest driven madness we have in the US is definitely not sustainable. Print money and give it to big banks and huge multi-national conglomerates? Yeah, that's working really well.
 
  • #5
JakeA said:
>>>or perhaps it's just more awareness that a 'free market' simply does not exist.<<<

I think this is the case. We don't have a free market system. We have a corporate welfare system, at least in the US. Is there any doubt considering what's taken place in the last few years in the US?

I don't think capitalism is dead. I think from the US perspective, we need to either become more like European social democracies or else go to a truly free market system.

Democracy doesn't work (too) well with capitalism. It's the parties with money who get to power and create the corporatism all over again, which eventually leads to crashes like this. If you want to break this cycle, something has to change. The link between private/public money and politicians has to be severed, so that they can make independent decisions. In Asia this works somehow, but the corruption is at atrocious levels.
 
  • #6
JakeA said:
>>>or perhaps it's just more awareness that a 'free market' simply does not exist.<<<

I think this is the case. We don't have a free market system. We have a corporate welfare system, at least in the US. Is there any doubt considering what's taken place in the last few years in the US?

I don't think capitalism is dead. I think from the US perspective, we need to either become more like European social democracies or else go to a truly free market system. The special interest driven madness we have in the US is definitely not sustainable. Print money and give it to big banks and huge multi-national conglomerates? Yeah, that's working really well.
It's the appalling lack of ethics/morality that has undermined the markets/economies, more so than government intervention. Of course, corruption of the government and political process undermine democracy.

True, what we have in the West is better than a totalitarian state like the former Soviet Union and Warsaw pact nations, or Peoples' Republic of China under Mao, or Deng, but I think we can and must do better.
 
  • #7
Astronuc said:
I.. What has happened in US and global economies during the last 6 months was expected..
By who?
 
  • #8
misgfool said:
... In Asia this works somehow, but the corruption is at atrocious levels.
Where in Asia does 'this', no link between capitalism and democracy, happen?
 
  • #9
>>>The link between private/public money and politicians has to be severed, so that they can make independent decisions.<<<

I think there are ways of doing this. We need to start demanding that politicians are accessible to their constituents, not lobbyists. We need to start asking political candidates to take accessibility pledges where they agree to interact with public message board sites and attend public meetings in their districts at least once a month. We should absolutely demand this of elected officials. If they don't agree, vote them out. They should be meeting openly with the public, not privately in their offices with lobbyists.

>>>True, what we have in the West is better than a totalitarian state like the former Soviet Union and Warsaw pact nations, or Peoples' Republic of China under Mao, or Deng, but I think we can and must do better.<<<

I'm much more cynical about this. I've talked to people who lived in the former USSR, and they have way less animosity towards their government than people do right now in the US. Remember, people who post on the internet are not the entire country. Certain segments of the country face a veritable Gulag, with the US maintaining the highest incarceration rates for any nation in history.

We have material wealth, yes at least for the present. But that's not the only way of measuring the success of a nation. Don't get me started on this. I was arguing with a friend of mine how in certain ways Afghanistan under the Taliban was less oppressive than we have now in our techno driven police state. I don't want to live under Taliban rule, but I was using it as an example of certain types of freedoms and liberties that Americans overlook when deciding that we're absolutely free.
 
  • #10
JakeA said:
>>>The link between private/public money and politicians has to be severed, so that they can make independent decisions.<<<

I think there are ways of doing this. We need to start demanding that politicians are accessible to their constituents, not lobbyists. We need to start asking political candidates to take accessibility pledges where they agree to interact with public message board sites and attend public meetings in their districts at least once a month. We should absolutely demand this of elected officials. If they don't agree, vote them out. They should be meeting openly with the public, not privately in their offices with lobbyists.

>>>True, what we have in the West is better than a totalitarian state like the former Soviet Union and Warsaw pact nations, or Peoples' Republic of China under Mao, or Deng, but I think we can and must do better.<<<

I'm much more cynical about this. I've talked to people who lived in the former USSR, and they have way less animosity towards their government than people do right now in the US. Remember, people who post on the internet are not the entire country. Certain segments of the country face a veritable Gulag, with the US maintaining the highest incarceration rates for any nation in history.

We have material wealth, yes at least for the present. But that's not the only way of measuring the success of a nation. Don't get me started on this. I was arguing with a friend of mine how in certain ways Afghanistan under the Taliban was less oppressive than we have now in our techno driven police state. I don't want to live under Taliban rule, but I was using it as an example of certain types of freedoms and liberties that Americans overlook when deciding that we're absolutely free.
Hi Jake, please use the quote button at the bottom right of the post(s) you wish to quote, thanks.
 
  • #11
mheslep said:
By who?
By those paying attention.
 
  • #12
Astronuc said:
By those paying attention.
That's pretty slippery, which would be fine over on PWA, but not here. You made a point blank statement that what happened in US and global economies during the last 6 months was expected.
 
  • #13
Future of capitalism? This country isn't practicing capitalism if corporations are receiving large subsidies from the federal government and if corporations are asking Congress to bail them out everytime business goes bad. What we are practicing is corporatism. I think we should start practicing capitalism more and let the businesses fail so they will have the incentive to reformulated their failed business model or developed a new business model instead of just asking for a handout. Look at Hong Kong for example: It is one of the wealthiest nations on the planet and it also happens to have one of the freeist capitalistic economies on the planet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Hong_Kong
 
  • #14
I agree pentazoid. Failing businesses are not just failing because of some cosmic lottery ticket, they fail because they adopt bad business practices.
 
  • #15
JakeA said:
I think this is the case. We don't have a free market system. We have a corporate welfare system, at least in the US. Is there any doubt considering what's taken place in the last few years in the US?
There is no such thing as a "corporate welfare system", that's just a buzzword that people like to throw around for political reasons. People describe any law that benefits a corporation as "corporate welfare", but usually, those laws are just about not taxing a corporation for certain things. Except for certain very specific industries, the government doesn't actually hand corporations any money. And most of those are to benefit individuals, such as with farm subsidies.

The various bailouts of the past year, for example - none of them are just handing corporations free money. Some are loans and some are purchases of company equity.
I think from the US perspective, we need to either become more like European social democracies or else go to a truly free market system.
What an odd thing to say! We should do one of two things, both complete oppopsites? IMO, the extremes have been shown not to work, so we should be looking for something in the middle.
Print money and give it to big banks and huge multi-national conglomerates? Yeah, that's working really well.
Money isn't given to banks either - it is sold to banks. The second part I already addressed.
 
  • #16
russ_watters said:
There is no such thing as a "corporate welfare system", that's just a buzzword that people like to throw around for political reasons. People describe any law that benefits a corporation as "corporate welfare", but usually, those laws are just about not taxing a corporation for certain things. Except for certain very specific industries, the government doesn't actually hand corporations any money. And most of those are to benefit individuals, such as with farm subsidies.

The various bailouts of the past year, for example - none of them are just handing corporations free money. Some are loans and some are purchases of company equity. What an odd thing to say! We should do one of two things, both complete oppopsites? IMO, the extremes have been shown not to work, so we should be looking for something in the middle. Money isn't given to banks either - it is sold to banks. The second part I already addressed.

Well I think we should have an economy where there aren't that many regulations and not many papers to fill out and it would be easy to open up a business . Our economy should be modeled after Hong Kong's economy. Obviously , an even mixed economy is the product of an economy with a 12.3 trillion dollar deficit like we have currently. What do you mean the federal government only hands out subsidies to farms? According to Cato Institute, in 2006 alone the federal government spent 92 billion dollars handing subsidies to corporations like IBM, Motorola, Xerox, General electric and many other corporations.
Taxpayers are forced to pay the bailout of a failing business and I think that is wrong even if taxpayers are paid back, it is still stealing.
 
  • #17
mheslep said:
Where in Asia does 'this', no link between capitalism and democracy, happen?

There is no democracy. So no link.
 
  • #18
russ_watters said:
The various bailouts of the past year, for example - none of them are just handing corporations free money. Some are loans and some are purchases of company equity.

Maybe, but not all banks are getting it. Only the chosen few.

russ_watters said:
What an odd thing to say! We should do one of two things, both complete oppopsites? IMO, the extremes have been shown not to work, so we should be looking for something in the middle. Money isn't given to banks either - it is sold to banks. The second part I already addressed.

Are they really the complete opposites?
 
  • #19
pentazoid said:
Well I think we should have an economy where there aren't that many regulations and not many papers to fill out and it would be easy to open up a business . Our economy should be modeled after Hong Kong's economy. Obviously , an even mixed economy is the product of an economy with a 12.3 trillion dollar deficit like we have currently. What do you mean the federal government only hands out subsidies to farms? According to Cato Institute, in 2006 alone the federal government spent 92 billion dollars handing subsidies to corporations like IBM, Motorola, Xerox, General electric and many other corporations.
Taxpayers are forced to pay the bailout of a failing business and I think that is wrong even if taxpayers are paid back, it is still stealing.

Hong Kong was special, because trade to China flowed through it. After UK gave it back to China, all that was lost. Hong Kong is a declining city. But this isn't about running a few million people in a special privileged location. It's about running nations populated by several hundred million, geographically spanning thousands of miles, having ethnic colorfulness, strong economical diversity and a strong political divide, which they get from their breast milk.
 
  • #20
mheslep said:
That's pretty slippery, which would be fine over on PWA, but not here. You made a point blank statement that what happened in US and global economies during the last 6 months was expected.
If you will go the the beginning of the "what is wrong with the US economy" thread and start reading posts, you will see that some people (including Astronuc and myself) could see what was coming (or already underway) in terms of recession, over-valued assets, etc, in our country's economic house of cards. Of course, we were routinely ridiculed and nay-sayed by people who believed that the "free market" was working just fine.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Russ, any below market transaction by the government with private parties is a subsidy according to basic finance theory. That's corporate welfare, and that's what these bailouts are. If you want to call it a buzzword, go ahead. There are plenty of other corporate welfare policies in our government, for instance subsidizing medicare drug purchases instead of letting them trade at market rates. Military spending in its present state is a form of corporate welfare as well. The list is actually quite large.

Pentazoid, I agree with you. It would be good to move to a more free market system. It would also be better than what we have to move to a more socialist system like in Europe. What we have right now in America is madness, though. Our "free market" system drove our economy off a cliff and took the rest of the world down with it. It's definitely not working.
 
  • #22
A lot of broad swipes about how Bush and the neocons were destroying the economy, or how the little guy was falling behind, or claiming crisis and catastrophe again and again without a coherent argument - none of that equates to an identification of the current credit problems and recession set off by flawed risk analysis of mortgage backed securities, $5 trillion of them held by government sponsored agencies. There were some informed observers that pointed out in detail some parts of this problem: the WSJ editorial pages for years attacked massive portfolios of Fannie/Freddie, Greenspan and Bernanke also warned about them; Nouriel Rubini and Nassim Taleb warned in general about leveraging and debt risk; notably Peter Schiffer warned about housing and MBSs. None of these people saw the extent of the linkage between these problems (nor do they claim to now).


Nor is carrying that kind of hand waving over outside of PWA acceptable, to my mind.
 
  • #23
JakeA said:
Russ, any below market transaction by the government with private parties is a subsidy according to basic finance theory. That's corporate welfare, and that's what these bailouts are. If you want to call it a buzzword, go ahead. There are plenty of other corporate welfare policies in our government, for instance subsidizing medicare drug purchases instead of letting them trade at market rates. Military spending in its present state is a form of corporate welfare as well. The list is actually quite large.
No, if you want to be technical about it the economic term of art for welfare is 'transfer payment', essentially a check in the mail for which the government expects nothing in return. Transfer payments specifically do not count towards GDP. You can decry specialized tax breaks and over payment brought on buy special interest pleading (I do), but they are not transfer payments.
 
  • #24
mheslep, I'm not sure if you're trying to use Nouriel Roubini to emphasize your point or not by the way you're writing it.

However, this is in fact what Nouriel Roubini has to say about the issue:

"This is again a case of privatizing the gains and socializing the losses; a bailout and socialism for the rich, the well-connected and Wall Street."

http://www.rgemonitor.com/roubini-m...shareholders_and_unsecured_creditors_of_banks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
JakeA said:
...
Pentazoid, I agree with you. It would be good to move to a more free market system. It would also be better than what we have to move to a more socialist system like in Europe. What we have right now in America is madness, though. Our "free market" system drove our economy off a cliff and took the rest of the world down with it. It's definitely not working.
That echos something Friedman and Kuttner agreed on in a debate about health care some time back, implying that we are in a sorry middle, between a free market system and completely government run one:

They're referring here to the tax deductible employer based health insurance system with $20copays that we have now:
MF: I think in the market system, if people were paying for it themselves, the salaries of doctors would not be what they are today.
...
MF: We have the worst of all of all worlds on that score

RK: I couldn't agree with you more. We have the worst mix of government and private, I could not agree with you more.

MF: We ought to have much more private or much more government.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=10764
 
Last edited:
  • #26
misgfool said:
Hong Kong was special, because trade to China flowed through it. After UK gave it back to China, all that was lost. Hong Kong is a declining city. But this isn't about running a few million people in a special privileged location. It's about running nations populated by several hundred million, geographically spanning thousands of miles, having ethnic colorfulness, strong economical diversity and a strong political divide, which they get from their breast milk.

Declining since Britain gave Hong Kong to China?!? Hong Kong's economy has been doing well since it adopted a non-interventionist policy where the government is not allowed to interfere with commerce and industry , but will build highways, roads and schools. I don't the government should not be involved absolutely in the economy, I just think the Government should have a small role in the economy in comparison to the role of the free market in the economy.
 
  • #27
mheslep, thanks for the link on Friedman and Kuttner.

OK, thinking this through, I think that "corporate welfare" doesn't paint a completely accurate picture of what's going on. I would say our system is "special interest driven." Government unions for instance, I believe, have a much more toxic effect on our economy than do big banks and finance companies sucking off the government.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2009/03/16/how-rich-countries-die/

I apologize if this is getting a bit heated. I don't have all the answers. I'm still looking for them. Thanks for everybody's insight.
 
  • #28
mheslep said:
Nor is carrying that kind of hand waving over outside of PWA acceptable, to my mind.

You are the only declaring low standards for P&WA. Please read the posting guidelines.
 
  • #29
mheslep said:
A lot of broad swipes about how Bush and the neocons were destroying the economy, or how the little guy was falling behind, or claiming crisis and catastrophe again and again without a coherent argument - none of that equates to an identification of the current credit problems and recession set off by flawed risk analysis of mortgage backed securities, $5 trillion of them held by government sponsored agencies. There were some informed observers that pointed out in detail some parts of this problem: the WSJ editorial pages for years attacked massive portfolios of Fannie/Freddie, Greenspan and Bernanke also warned about them; Nouriel Rubini and Nassim Taleb warned in general about leveraging and debt risk; notably Peter Schiffer warned about housing and MBSs. None of these people saw the extent of the linkage between these problems (nor do they claim to now).

No one saw it because the regulations were insufficient. That is why the Republicans are blamed for this. Their economic philosophy has nearly destroyed the global economy. The markets cannot be trusted. They do not act in their own best interest. Markets are driven by short-term gains and chaos.
 
  • #30
JakeA said:
>>>The link between private/public money and politicians has to be severed, so that they can make independent decisions.<<<

I think there are ways of doing this. We need to start demanding that politicians are accessible to their constituents, not lobbyists. We need to start asking political candidates to take accessibility pledges where they agree to interact with public message board sites and attend public meetings in their districts at least once a month. We should absolutely demand this of elected officials. If they don't agree, vote them out. They should be meeting openly with the public, not privately in their offices with lobbyists.

I have a suggestion. All donations to candidates should be randomly given to anyone in the group. This would discourage large donations, since their money could end up to the hard line communist (if there are any left) instead of the conservative republican. It would, however, encourage small donations to democracy. Then the airtime would not make such a significant contribution to the results.
 
  • #31
I'd like to look forward - as in the 'Future of Capitalism'.

pentazoid said:
Well I think we should have an economy where there aren't that many regulations and not many papers to fill out and it would be easy to open up a business.
What regulations would be abolished, or what regulations are appropriate. Certainly a case can be made, as Reagan did, of simplying the body of regulations, removing unnecessary ones, simplying the paper work, removing conflicts, removing overlapping or conflicting jurisdictions, . . . .

But what regulations, in general, are appropriate or inappropriate. For example, do we simply remove clean water, clean air and let power plants discharge effluents into the environment? We have a river contaminated with PCBs from two manufacturing facilities up river. It would have been nice if the chemicals had been destroyed properly 30 or 40 years ago instead of simply dumped in corrosion-susceptible barrels, which were simply buried unprotected underground, or simply poured into the plant discharge, which then ultimately emptied into the river. I guess the feeling was that the toxic materials would be diluted, so no nevermind. No one apparently thought about the fact that the PCBs were refractory, i.e. didn't break down chemically.

There was Love Canal, where houses were built on a chemical waste dump.


Moving to recent history, the derivatives products were not regulated at all, but they have become a huge liability. Not only did AIG overexpose itself, i.e. promised to insure against losses way beyond their capability, but the banks and financial institutions did not perform due diligence to ensure AIG was in a position to cover their losses/liabilities.

We have the FASB rules and regulations, which the financial industry is supposed to follow. But it looks like they didn't.


What about product liability. Should consumers be protected against harm or industry if a company is negligent in producing a product or misrepresenting a product that ultimately harms consumers? If so, what should be the penalty?


Comparing the Hong Kong economy to the US or EU economy seems inappropriate given the difference in magnitude. Hong Kong (and Taiwan) work because the are set between other much larger economies. HK is an intermediary, and they benefit from low cost inputs and high revenue (compared with input) from exports.
 
  • #32
misgfool said:
Maybe, but not all banks are getting it. Only the chosen few.
Not sure what your point is with that, but yes, that's true...
Are they really the complete opposites?
Yes:
It is generally accepted that there is a bipolar economic spectrum, and it is up to any economy where on this spectrum they wish to fall.

At one end of this scale there is the concept of socialism - largely based on the 19th Century views of Karl Marx. Socialism/Marxism decrees that all resources and welfare are owned and distributed by the state to the basis of who needs them receives them. Socialist economies can also be known as command economies.

The other end of the scale is the economics of British economist Adam Smith (1723 - 1790), that of the free market economy, where the allocation of resources is determined by the 'invisible hand' of the price mechanism. Free market economics is now commonly termed as capitalism, although its true theory is rarely appreciated by those who talk of it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A4541041 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
Already dealt with by someone else, but...
JakeA said:
Russ, any below market transaction by the government with private parties is a subsidy according to basic finance theory. That's corporate welfare, and that's what these bailouts are.
By "below market transaction", you mean buying a security for a fraction of its book value? Could you cite where you got that definition, because that's not what the word "subsidy" means:
dictionary said:
subsidy:
1. a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subsidy
That's cash money.
There are plenty of other corporate welfare policies in our government, for instance subsidizing medicare drug purchases instead of letting them trade at market rates.
I'm not clear on what you mean there - are you talking about the price fixing the government does? That's not a subsidy, that's just a bad decision caused by lobbyist power.
Military spending in its present state is a form of corporate welfare as well. The list is actually quite large.
You seem to be defining a "subsidy" as any time the government gives money to any corporation for any reason. That's excessively broad - that isn't what the definition means. A subsidy is free money. Money spent for nothing (direct) in return. When the government buys an airplane (or the stapler on Obama's desk), they pay money for a product. That's not a subsidy.

[separate post:]
I would say our system is "special interest driven."
Yes, things like price fixing and well-targeted tax cuts are special interest favors, but they are not subsidies.
 
  • #34
turbo-1 said:
If you will go the the beginning of the "what is wrong with the US economy" thread and start reading posts, you will see that some people (including Astronuc and myself) could see what was coming (or already underway) in terms of recession, over-valued assets, etc, in our country's economic house of cards. Of course, we were routinely ridiculed and nay-sayed by people who believed that the "free market" was working just fine.
Turbo-1, we're nowhere near the doom-and-gloom predicted by you and Astronuc and since recessions happen about once every 8 years or so, you can predict a recession for several years and eventually call yourself right when it happens. Of course, when we climb out of it in 6 months or a year and there are no major changes to the structure of the economy, you'll conveniently forget that you were predicting essentially the end of the US economy as we know it.
 
  • #35
Astronuc said:
I'd like to look forward - as in the 'Future of Capitalism'.
Fair enough...

The immediate future for the US includes fixing the relatively small structural problem with the banking system that contributed (note: I did not say "caused") the current recession and it's depth. Then sly investors will go back to looking for ways to game the system, finding loopholes to push the next bubble. That's just the nature of the game and the pattern of the last 100 years. Other than that, it'll largely be business as usual.

Now business as usual is not exactly a static situation. Because of the nature of socialist promises, they are easy to sell to the public* and as a result, just about every western economy has been creeping toward the socialist side of the spectrum since the industrial revolution finished. This slow creep sometimes has fits and starts and with Obama, we're going to get a pretty big bump. "Tax and spend" is the typical democrat mantra, but right now he only proposes spending - at a deficit rate of $1 Trillion a year for the next 10 years. That's unlikely to be feasible, so assuming his social programs pass (and they may not due to the cost), taxes are going to have to go up by something like 30% to compensate.

*No politician in my lifetime has exemplified the ease of selling socialist policies more than Obama. In his campaign he simultaneously trumpeted fiscal responsibility and massive new social programs. And people believed him! Why did people believe him? Because free money is a happy fantasy. Over the next year or so, we'll discover his true character as he either modifies his stance or drives our economy into the ground and permanently ends the American dream (as you and turbo-1 have basically predicted for the past few years). The US national debt is currently as high as is feasible, perhaps even too high. Doubling it in a short time would be disastrous. And I don't mean 'the-recession-we're-in-is-disastrous' disastrous, I mean for real disastrous. A return to a great depression type economy with no way to recover.
 
Last edited:
<h2>1. What is the "FT Series & Rethinking Wealth of Nations" about?</h2><p>The "FT Series & Rethinking Wealth of Nations" is a collection of articles and discussions published by the Financial Times that examine the current state and potential future of capitalism. It delves into topics such as income inequality, technological advancements, and global economic systems.</p><h2>2. How does this series address income inequality?</h2><p>The series takes a critical look at the widening wealth gap and its effects on society. It explores potential solutions and alternative economic models that could help alleviate income inequality. </p><h2>3. What role does technology play in the future of capitalism?</h2><p>Technology is a major factor in shaping the future of capitalism. The series discusses the impact of automation and artificial intelligence on the job market, as well as the potential for technology to disrupt traditional economic systems.</p><h2>4. Does the series offer any solutions for a more sustainable and equitable economic system?</h2><p>Yes, the series presents different perspectives and proposals for rethinking and restructuring capitalism to create a more sustainable and equitable society. It also highlights successful examples of alternative economic models being implemented around the world.</p><h2>5. Who are the contributors to this series?</h2><p>The series features contributions from a diverse range of experts, including economists, business leaders, politicians, and social scientists. Some notable contributors include Thomas Piketty, Joseph Stiglitz, and Christine Lagarde.</p>

1. What is the "FT Series & Rethinking Wealth of Nations" about?

The "FT Series & Rethinking Wealth of Nations" is a collection of articles and discussions published by the Financial Times that examine the current state and potential future of capitalism. It delves into topics such as income inequality, technological advancements, and global economic systems.

2. How does this series address income inequality?

The series takes a critical look at the widening wealth gap and its effects on society. It explores potential solutions and alternative economic models that could help alleviate income inequality.

3. What role does technology play in the future of capitalism?

Technology is a major factor in shaping the future of capitalism. The series discusses the impact of automation and artificial intelligence on the job market, as well as the potential for technology to disrupt traditional economic systems.

4. Does the series offer any solutions for a more sustainable and equitable economic system?

Yes, the series presents different perspectives and proposals for rethinking and restructuring capitalism to create a more sustainable and equitable society. It also highlights successful examples of alternative economic models being implemented around the world.

5. Who are the contributors to this series?

The series features contributions from a diverse range of experts, including economists, business leaders, politicians, and social scientists. Some notable contributors include Thomas Piketty, Joseph Stiglitz, and Christine Lagarde.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
33
Views
5K
Replies
19
Views
9K
Back
Top