varoufakis61_Miguel Navarro Getty Images_emptyofficecorporatesad

Imaginemos un mundo sin capitalismo

Dec 27, 2019 Yanis Varoufakis

ATENAS – Los anticapitalistas tuvieron un año pésimo. Pero el capitalismo también.

Si bien la derrota del Partido Laborista de Jeremy Corbyn en el Reino Unido este mes le restó impulso a la izquierda radical, particularmente en Estados Unidos (donde ya están cerca las primarias para la elección presidencial), el capitalismo recibió críticas desde lugares insospechados. Milmillonarios, ejecutivos empresariales y hasta la prensa financiera se han unido a intelectuales y líderes comunitarios en una sinfonía de lamentos por la brutalidad, insensibilidad e insostenibilidad del capitalismo rentista. La imposibilidad de seguir haciendo negocios igual que siempre parece ser una idea muy difundida, incluso en las juntas directivas de las corporaciones más poderosas.

Cada vez más presionados, y justificadamente culposos, los ultrarricos (o al menos, los razonables) se sienten amenazados por la aplastante precariedad en la que se está hundiendo la mayoría. Como predijo Marx, forman una minoría con poder supremo que se muestra incapaz de dirigir sociedades polarizadas que no pueden garantizar una existencia digna a quienes no poseen activos.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one to read two commentaries for free? Log in

What Kind of Capitalism Do We Want?
Getty Images

What Kind of Capitalism Do We Want?

Klaus Schwab

Though the concept of "stakeholder capitalism" has been around for a half-century, it has only recently begun to gain traction against the prevailing shareholder-primacy model of profit maximization. Now, advocates of a more socially conscious economic system must take steps to ensure that their vision takes hold for the long term.

21

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 43 in all 43 Comments on this article

Monika Kostera Feb 11, 2020

“It is easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism”. (Mark Fischer in Capitalist Realism, 2010)
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Pedro Magalhães Jan 7, 2020

Adam Smith was a champion against the East India Company monopolistic model.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Claudio Migliore Jan 7, 2020

If Mr. Varoufakis had John Lennon’s poetic and musical talent, this piece would have been simply “Imagine”.
Mr. Lennon had, though, the excuse of that infectious, wonderful and curable disease called youth. The eyes of the young see either human brotherhood or unbridled freedom, but neither the brutality of totalitarian state nor the solipsistic hopelessness of living in anarchy.
I visited Cuba right after the fall of the Soviet Union and witnessed prostitution in the widest sense, when your own body is the only thing you have some control over and some ability to trade with. So in my younger days I used to say that to be a communist you had to be either dishonest or foolish, not seeing that the same could apply to my Randian-Reaganesque anarcho-capitalist faith.
Prima facie, Mr. Varoufakis’s baldness should suggest he has recovered from the above disease and yet he waxes in prose about Marx and stuff. Dishonesty or lingering chronic foolishness?
Capitalism is a horribly misused term, just as rock music looked upon with contempt by a classical music lover. In reality, what collectivists like Mr. Varoufakis oppose is a society based on freedom framed by a strong but limited rule of law, including freedom to trade, and therefore own, something beyond your own body.
That liberal society has many of its roots in Mr. Varoufakis’s own birthplace way before the tradable shares arose. But the abundance and undeniable welfare progress of the last few centuries, the incredible knowledge produced by an academic class that could eat without working the fields, the “big Tech” platform he uses to spread his ideas, could not have been possible without the pooling of resources in corporations. And corporations produced and traded their goods because they could benefit the shareholders, i.e. the owners, not because of employees’ good intentions or government imposed quinquennial plans.
A society would not be less capitalistic because either beneficial ownership or voting power were assigned to employees or, worse, to a supreme leader or big brother. What such society would have, though, is little incentive to give its members what they want. Witness the way Soviet ‘firms’ produced bigger, heavier goods, to make the quantitative tonnage goals at the expense of quantity and quality.
Unfortunately, just as the crassest films and television shows keep thriving because new generations are naïve, so the imagery of big bad bosses in gated communities and loving selfless community leaders periodically enthrall new generations who have not witnessed the results of the ignorance or the errors of the past.
Myself, I do not think anyone in good faith can claim we have reached perfection (except maybe some Supreme Leaders here and there), but the road to progress is in the precarious balance between rule of law and respect for the individual, in all his/her expressions, academic, intellectual, entrepreneurial, etc., not in a totalitarian communists Utopia.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop Jan 6, 2020

I do not have to image a world without capitalism. I have seen it in reality, while I was in the USSR and DDR ( East Germany ) at the end of the Cold War. To describe it: Economic and cultural stagnation, Poverty, Corruption, Not only the political power but also the capital was concentrated in the hands of a small elite. No free press. Always the threat by the secret service in the air. A doubtfull legal system. Suspicion reigned. A world were few people laughed.

The Russians went bankcrupt after 70 years trying to built a non-capitalistic Paradise. The USSR is dead, but their secret service still survives (Putin).
In the DDR a good part of their population served the secret service ( Stasi ), spying on their neighbours and friends, husband on wives, children on parents.
When people tried to escape this Paradise they were shot by their borderguards.

The capitalist system has it's draw backs. But since the capital is distributed over several institutes ( Government, Corporations, Pensionfunds, Insurance Companies, Investors, and miljonairs ) you do not have that concentration of power that kills the freedom of the citizen and society.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Matt Stillerman Jan 6, 2020

In 1980 Ford Motor Company was tried for reckless homicide. At the time I was a (very minor) shareholder in that company. Yet, I was not in danger of suffering any penalty other than the possible loss of value in my shares. This struck me as wrong.

Limited liability, and the related fiction that corporations are "persons", is the real problem. In the U.S. corporations now have rights such as speech rights and religious rights, and the ability to own things and property. Soon they will be voting, holding public office, and getting married. I am joking here, but the issue of creeping personhood for corporations is a real problem.

If we make investors liable for the actions that result from their investments, then there will be a great deal of "friction" in capital flows. And, that would be a very good thing. People would routinely consider the ethical, legal, and social implications of their investments. Employees should also have some skin in the game -- and would refuse to take actions that are wrong. And, investors would rightly demand to be compensated for the added diligence and assumption of risk that this scheme requires.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Nord Sovik Jan 5, 2020

Just a correction. At its founding, shares in the British East India Company could only be sold back to the Company (until 1658). The first company with fully tradable shares was the Dutch United East India Company whose founding in 1602 was accompanied by the founding of the Amsterdam stock exchange that same year. But the origin or our current problem is well identified; its solution is the preeminent social problem of this age.
- Henk Crop Jan 6, 2020
  
  Nord. The Dutch East India Company (VOC) existed between 1602 and 1799.
  Although it was a very spectular venture and contributed to the wealth in the Netherlands, the country's prosperity was mainly gained by fishery, trade with the Baltic states and shipbuilding.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bevin Beaudet Jan 5, 2020

Much needs to be done to reduce income equality and to redistribute resources to the increasing population of those in poverty. Some of these ideas were mentioned earlier in the authors essay. The idea of shareholder decision making is a good one. But to take it to the point of this paragraph is ludicrous and given the failures of extreme socialism and communism proposed here has been proven unworkable historically. Human greed and corruption would soon infiltrate this scheme and further perpetuate the very inequality the author wishes to prevent.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Uffe Jensen Jan 5, 2020

It is not difficult to reform capitalism. Two fundamental things are needed: We have to revisit John Maynard Keynes, removing market fundamentalism completely and acknowledge that the state has several important roles to play in market economy; And we need to undermine the dominance of the speculative economy, with a tax on the capital gains obtained by land ownership and land speculation, the Adam Smith and Henry George way.
For more details: https://rightsanddemocracy.blog/capitalism-should-be-reformed/ and https://rightsanddemocracy.blog/capitalism-is-heading-for-total-collapse/
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Akhurst Jan 4, 2020

It is true the directors are accountable primarily to shareholders, however it is not beyond the ability of society / governments to change this. For example, look at Australia where all the major banks have been found guilty of serious mis-conduct and fined considerable amounts by mutual agreement. Such penalties will not and have not deterred mis-conduct. Companies should not be able to negotiate an out-of-court settlement, they and their directors should be prosecuted with the directors facing substantial fines and jail sentences - big enough that the mega-salaries they earn could not possible compensate for the penalty of being jailed. The enforcement agencies need some very big sticks with which to beat corporate greed out of the system.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Andrew Benington Jan 1, 2020

I have always found value in the generalist historical approach and longer term wave theory. It’s noticeable that every 1600 years or so, civilisations collapse, centuries of dark ages follow after which a new form of civilisation emerges. It’s been about 1600 years since the slave economy of the western Roman Empire ended, 1600 years before that the Bronze Age civilisation in the Mediterranean and Levant collapsed, and so on and so on.
Here we are today, 1600 years since the collapse of the western Roman Empire, with the same problems, a political economy that has stopped delivering for Main Street, outrageous wealth concentration, government dependent on debasing the currency to meet day to day running costs, fecundity some 25% below replacement and falling, a dependence on migration from the hinterland to keep the show on the road.
It could all be nonsense. I expect in Rome and Marseille in 407 AD, in Hattush and Byblos in 1199 BC, such ideas would have been thought as ridiculous as they seem today. Yet it happened.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jaro Berce Dec 31, 2019

Well, article describe current state and the system that is not functional. But as already A. Einstein said "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."
The capitalistic system cannot be re-build. It has to become past tense. We live on a planet that gives us all for free. The same goes for our planetary system and our home - Universe! So, why don't we use what our Universe teaches us and build a system that is Natural and working last 13.5 billion of years?

The name of the game thought by our Universe is Sustainability and living in Harmony with Nature not trying to compete with Nature (technological thinking: we can solve all our problems with technology that up till now brought all those problems that we want to solve). We need a technology that supports Sustainability and Harmony (and not as currently with electric cars that need lithium which exploitation pollute more than currently gasoline, not to mention how to get rid of all batteries ...). Tesla knew it! Why his inventions are not opened and commonly used? Well, because of the system that is corrupt and not working and here we want (just) to repair it?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Per Kurowski Dec 31, 2019

It is absolutely clear that assigning to debts of Greece’s government a 0% risk made European banks lend excessively to Greece, thereby causing its current tragedy.

From this piece it is absolutely clear why statist Yanis Varoufakis had not in himself to argue that truth, and much less denounce that regulatory failure before the International Court of Justice.

http://teawithft.blogspot.com/2018/09/in-case-of-greece-eu-violated.html
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop Dec 30, 2019

Capitalism is one of the greatest inventions in history. It enabled mankind, who had for thousands of years lived in poverty, to increase it's standard of living to an unsurpassed level. If you want to image the World without capitalism, study the days preceeding the Industrial Revolution, from early 19 th century on. Capitalism made it possible to channel money into investments in research and manufacturing.
- Michael Public Jan 2, 2020
  
  The author asks us to imagine something better than capitalism and you provide what came before as the example of something worse. Are you saying that it is categorically impossible to improve on capitalism?
  - Henk Crop Jan 2, 2020
    
    Michael. No. The capitalist principle is right. However the political framework in which it often operates needs to be actively maintenanced. In particular the excesses need to be addressed. Examples: the mortgage crisis in the US, too much financial donations of political parties in the US, the financing of Greece in the EU, the implementation of the Eurozone in the EU.
    The weak points are the complexity of modern economy, the political system and their politicians. However without capitalism there would be less rationalism and less transparancy. There would also be more concentration of power.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Robert Coleman Dec 30, 2019
  
  Is anyone saying different? The critique is that saleable corporate shares have amounted to a complete loss of connection between the corporates and the societies they are meant to serve. Fixing this will be a huge challenge. It seems capitalist knee-jerk defenders of the status quo will not even hear a critique before panicking. Imagine if anyone ever tried to actually reign the monster in!
  - Henk Crop Dec 30, 2019
    
    Robert. Capitalism is just a tool. The politicians have to shape the framework to make it serve their country. It is just a matter of how you apply Capitalism. Will it be to the benefit of the many or just the few. ( Recommended reading: Robert Reich. Saving Capitalism )
    - Phil 1 Dec 31, 2019
      
      Well, to follow neoliberalism politicians have to maximise their utility, which means taking bribes from rich people and doing their bidding. It's almost like capitalism is designed to revert to feudalism... Well on our way there.
      - Henk Crop Dec 31, 2019
        
        Phil 1. In a democracy the citizen elect their politicians. Money should not be a determining factor. If it does it corrupts the political system. That happens with disprortionate financial support in the election process as well as by paying bribes. That is not a consequence of Capitalism but of poor laws.
        
        Phil 1 Jan 1, 2020
        
        Econ 101: Rational Expectations would require politicians to take bribes since it is obvious that doing so would make them rich and the Supreme Court has said all but quid pro quo corruption is legal. Example: Obama maximized his utility to Wall Street by not putting anyone in jail for destroying the world's economy and handing over around $29 trillion dollars in bailouts and loan guarantees. And now he is getting paid billions in return. It would have been totally irrational of him to do anything to prevent the corporate looting of the country because then they would have no reason to subsidize him now. If corporations didn't hold up their end of the bargain then the next president would be rightly skeptical of allowing the continued plunder.
        
        Henk Crop Jan 5, 2020
        
        Phil 1. I do not know about your specific example. A politician, like any official, should be awarded for doing his job. Not because it's rational to grab money that he is somehow able to get. That is called fraud or bribery. A country should have laws and a culture to prohibit and punish that.
        This kind of crime undermines a country and it's potential for achieving economic growth and prosperity. Investors will not be eager to invest in such a country.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        Jorge Nunez Jan 5, 2020
        
        Obama is getting Billions in return, in hidden bitcoins? Proof please, or are you one of the conspirationists?
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Hissam Kamal Dec 30, 2019

Great analysis, though I think the issue is not the tradability of shares, but the very legal form of the modern corporation and its governance model. A business entity absurdly has a legal form distinct from its owners coupled with limited liability exacerbating principal-agency issues described eloquently by Joel Bakan in his 2004 book "The Corporation". Furthermore, Timur Kuran identifies this (faceless) legal form as a major contributing factor to the tidal shift in economic fortune from the East/South to the West/North that occurred in the days of Shakespeare and the formation of the East India Co.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
donald quixote Dec 30, 2019

A wickedly clever strawman by Mr. Varoufakis to proclaim capitalism only started with the shareholding of the East India company which is as good as saying the company shareholding the root of unfettered capitalism we come to know today, but is it? Is Mr. Schwab’s stakeholder-capitalism an out, or another distraction?

Far be it the author implied acknowledging crony vulture capitalism today is eating into every facets of the humanity and social order including even the “Fukus” [France UK and US]’ amalgam “democracy”, the author has distracted the readers, that it is Capitalism and its historical root as the silent bedfellow of all forms of governments, been the root of the problem.

Capitalism, after Oliver Cromwell leading to the Central Bank of London, later on after two failed attempts, the Federal Reserve of US by 1913, the World Bank and BIS after WW2, ensured the whole world became captive serfs to an inflation mechanism that erodes value of labour and value of “work”. Money as far as the plebeians know it, became a fiat after Nixon took it off the gold-peg. It would be good for the author to recollect what economists have built on since Thomas Piketty’s r>g, other than to bury it and continue the merry musical chair of Central Banking debt-bubble and inflation.

Try imagine a world where sovereign governments print their own money, a world when money are not fiats, money are pegged to gold and silver, where governments like those in Venezuela, Chile and Argentina can barter.

Dare we, Mr. Varoufakis, instead imagine a world without all Central Banking, and without the cannibalistic Federal Reserve?
- Didier Vanoverberghe Dec 30, 2019
  
  r>g is a false rule
  (r-g)K is by definition the free cash flow
  If it is 0 the Value of any company is zero, no one will buy it
  If r>g , g is the investment ratio inv/K. Thus all Value is growing at the g ratio as K: revenue, wage, consumption wealth. The greater is g, the greater is the Wealth of the capitalist. ( take any stock as for example Microsoft at is ipo, more Gates invests the richer he becomes)
  If g>r that generates debt.
  
  The accumulation theorem from Phelps ans Allais between r and g (not invented by Piketty) is simple false, because it use old economics formula.
  
  https://www.logineco.com/
  
  The Wealth comes first from Capital. The more you invest with success the richer you become.
  War destruction of Capital made more equality but we own nothing.
  So the question is how to share Capital without destroying Capital growth.
  
  The first and second law of Picketty are false.
  - Michael Public Jan 2, 2020
    
    "The Wealth comes first from Capital."
    This simply cannot be correct as depositing a pile of capital in a desert will produce no wealth at all. Society gives rise to wealth creation through ingenuity and hard work effected by people - capital is residual carryover of previous labors. The problem is when this residual force is used to suppress those who come later then society quickly rechannels the ingenuity and hard work into guillotine construction of some sort.
    - Didier Vanoverberghe Jan 2, 2020
      
      Yes, there is a coefficient between Wealth (discount sum of disposable income less investment) and Capital. This coefficient, I call Valorisator, is link to: intelligence, competition, risk (including debt effect) investment and eco system... But without Capital, no Wealth.
      First example China, in twenty years the Capital have risen by ten , from 4,200 billion dollars to 43,000 billion dollars. The coefficient, I call the Valorisator have risen by 2, due to: human intelligence and strategy, and because the change of activities from agricultural activities to industrial activities. This thanks the helps of developed countries who exports their Capital and "give" their inventions without patents. This result in 700 millions Chinese people leaving precariousness.
      
      A second example is Venezuela, who distributes to much dividend of oil industry that leads to destroy their oil industry Capital. This results in massive precariousness.
      During these 20 years 500 millions people become poors or in precariousness in : South America, Africa, and 10% in developed countries. Africa needs Capital, and stability to develop its ecosystem.
      
      During the same period Usa Wealth change only from about 2% per year (including inflation) because of the 2008 financial crisis, with lot of people in precariousness.
      Due to debt, when Shell Gomes to bankruptcy the Greece was not helped. A part of her Capital was "robbed", even if it helped Greece to recovery. How many Greek are and were in difficulties.
      I undestand and do agree human is more important than money. We need utopia to progress, but if we want to help the people of each country we have to fight against dogmatism. Every country needs succeeding Capital (with sufficient return on Capital for investors) with diversified and concentrated portfolio of activities. In average the Wealth result in profit is 1.1 (Entreprise Value for investors=1.1 ×Capital, 1.1 is the q of tobin) , for people the coefficient is 2 to 4 (Value of Future wages and taxes = 3 × Capital) depending on countries. So the Valorisator is 3 to 5 ( 1.1+ 2 to 4).
      To fight against precariousness in the short term fight against Capital is not the right target. The important issue is who owns the Capital and how to develop it. Perhaps countries who will succeed in it with their people will show the way to others Nations.
      
      The Wealth created during a year is not the gdp (consumption plus investment) but consumption plus total Value of investment. Total Value of investment is the future discounting Value of wages taxes and profit, it is 3 to 5 times the investment, depending of the Valorisaror.
      
      About precariousness see :
      
      https://www.logineco.com/
      Best regards
      Didier
      - Didier Vanoverberghe Jan 2, 2020
        
        Sorry "When Greece go to bankruptcy" and not" Shell...."
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Wolff Dec 30, 2019

The problem is that those who control the political system and the money system often find that war against their competitors (enemies) is the most popular and profitable venture that keeps them in political and financial power/control.

It is a fact of Human Nature that the above behavior by "leaders" is infallible, and that neither the nature of humans nor their leaders ever can, or ever will change.

That is a fact, not a theory.
- Michael Public Jan 2, 2020
  
  Patent nonsense. There have been numerous leaders who are dovish as apposed to hawkish. Further, there have been numerous leaders who have the greater interest at heart. Painting all leaders with the same brush is a gross over-simplification.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Didier Vanoverberghe Dec 29, 2019

An economist must define first the Wealth to help governements and people to make the best decisions they could. So I did it and I define Wealth as the discounted sum of all future disposable income less future investments.
With that approach the Wealth coming from wages and taxes are greater than these coming from the discounting of dividends. That is only a rational approach of the Wealth of Nations.
With that way, at equilibrium the wealth created during a year is the consumption plus the Value of the investment, not the investment like the gdp does. By Value of the investment I say the all the future revenue bears by this investments. For many country the Value of the investment depends on the activities of this country, and could be around 3 times (call it the Valorisator) the investment for developed countries.
That is very different from gdp.
A consequence of that definition is that the Wealth of a Nation is proportional to its Capital employed (un historical costs), 3 times (the Valorisator I give)
Now we can explain that in 20 years China has multiplied by 10 its Capital employed and multiplied by 2 its Valorisator. So that leads to multiply the Wealth by 20, that is to say that the discounted future disposable incomes (less investments) are 20 times more, 20 years after.
That leads to 700 millions less Chinese people in precariousness.
But during the same period South America, Africa and developed countries don't increase their Capital at the same speed ( or decrease it like Venezuela) and transfers some of theirs industrial activities (Usa, France, ...). That leads to 500 millions more of poors people mainly in South America and Africa but even if less, in developed countries.
Another consequence is about debt impact, that changes the discount ratio and can lead to bankruptcy as for Greece and benefits to raptors, by ignoring the real economics laws and by lack of solidarity between European Countries.
The increase of Capital is a condition to the development but its concentration is one source of precariousness.
See https://www.logineco.com/
It will certainly helps countries.

Best Regards
Didier
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ian Atkinson Dec 29, 2019

Imagining a new future of finance is the fun and (relatively) easy. Implementing the new and converting the old in an orderly manner is not just hard, it’s nearing the impossible.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Phil 1 Dec 29, 2019

I'd settle for a world where the top 10% actually had to follow laws like the rest of us. None of this BS Corporation broke the law and pays a fine stuff either; they break a law and the C - Suite does hard time. We should have nationalized all the banks in 2008 and put every last executive in jail for life. And just about every US president should go to the Hague to be prosecuted for war crimes. Maybe I'm crazy but destroying the world's economy and illegally starting pointless wars should have more negative consequences than smoking pot. That or it's gonna be Guillotines.
- Michael Public Jan 2, 2020
  
  I don't think you get it. Politicians make laws and appoint those who enforce them. Corporations give money which effectively get politicians elected. Would you ever try and bite the hand that feeds you?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Robert Coleman Dec 30, 2019
  
  Hear, hear!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mirek Fatyga Dec 28, 2019

I do not have to imagine such world, I grew up in one. It was called the Soviet Block. Is Mr Varoufakis the poster child for generational amnesia?

State Socialism lost out the economic and ideological competition to Managed Capitalism. Having vanquished State Socialism, Managed Capitalism got cocky and unmanaged itself. We call this act of hubris Neoliberalism. We are living through the consequences, which is some form of a gilded age with a twist, namely governments now being "all in" desperately supporting that gilded age with financial manipulation and outright assumption of unpayable debts, both private and public.

Why don't we go back to the drawing board and examine what made the Managed Capitalism work, rather than dream of complete overthrows? These have been tried, most notably in Russia, with disastrous results. In memorable words from the US declaration of independence (they knew this even then):

" ... and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed ..."

There are structural problems in present day capitalism, to be sure. There are also economic consequences of XXth Century population explosion. The latter consequences can only be overcome by innovation and investment. Given the experience of the Soviet Union, somehow I do not think that a return to that social formation would do any better. A drastic revolution, into some unknown and untested forms of collective ownership could do even worse.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jeremy Edwards Dec 28, 2019

Varoufakis is a good man, but a bad economist.

Capitalism is not the answer. Socialism is not the answer. Marxism is not the answer.

The answer is geoism, which is the effective synthesis of valid socialist and capitalist principles into a cohesive and comprehensive system that is highly efficient and perfectly just.

Join us at www.reddit.com/r/georgism to find the third-way that will save our species before it is too late.
- Michael Public Jan 2, 2020
  
  This is an interesting concept. Lift the borders and let the best principles spread. Unfortunately, you may find that majority of the World are averse to good systems and prefer variations of what we have today in China (totalitarianism) and India (race based politics).
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A.B. Jonas Dec 28, 2019

Innovation is key. How do you stimulate, finance and reward new products and services for our society to adapt and evolve? What incentive drives the desire to create and produce? What reward/return is due to capital, any??
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gunnar Eriksson Dec 27, 2019

Capitalism and market economy should be reduced from being an holy Grail to be Tools for achieving ends; a sustainable inclusive society I suggest.
Remuneration of Equity holders and executives should be reduced from being the company mission to be judged as any cost that reduces the Company's investment for serving its true and sustainable mission
- Michael Public Jan 2, 2020
  
  Every one agrees with what you say - that it should be like that - but that is where the agreement end - half say to reform capitalism we must abolish it, and the other half say it is impossible to reform.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Elizabeth Pula Dec 27, 2019

Imagine life after the narrative. Imagine quantum computing.
https://www.epsilontheory.com/building-the-narrative-machine/
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/az7eqSges;

Cookies and Privacy

Imaginemos un mundo sin capitalismo

To continue reading, subscribe now.

What Kind of Capitalism Do We Want?

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Populists Love the Pandemic

Why America Is Losing to COVID-19

Will the Economic Strategy Work?

What History Can Teach Us About COVID-19

PS Say More: Sławomir Sierakowski

The Two Pandemics

The COVID-19 Solidarity Test

Beware Viral Enabling Acts

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

Imaginemos un mundo sin capitalismo

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Edit Newsletter Preferences