“The end of capitalism?”
– Times columnist Thomas Friedman in a column last year.
“What’s the endgame?”
– Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman in a recent op-ed.
But with the economy now well on its way to the “full-employment” that would entail, Friedman and Krugman have found it less and less a question of when to abandon capitalism.
The world economy is already full.
What’s needed is a new and more inclusive, and much more sustainable, way of managing the world’s economic growth.
“I believe that we have to change the way we look at this,” Friedman wrote.
“In our view, the world economy’s not just full of debt.
The problem is that debt is the only way we can sustain growth.
Debt is a form of theft.
The only way you can be a productive society is if you create wealth and you have a decent standard of living.”
That view, that we are now “entering the final phase of a century-long downward spiral,” is not new.
The question is whether this is what the world needs, not whether the next stage is the “end of capitalism.”
The Economist article, titled “The new economics,” is a collaboration between the Economist Intelligence Unit and the Institute for Economic Affairs at the London School of Economics.
The article was first published by the Economist in May, 2017.
For more analysis of the article, read our special report, “The Economy is Full of Debt.”
The following is the full text of the piece: The End of Capitalism?
What is it about the economy that is “full of debt”?
It has been said that the end of the economic system is the end.
But in fact, it is a process of adjustment, as governments, banks and corporations make significant investments in their products and services, and the rest of us, in the world, find our incomes stagnating.
But there is another way of looking at the crisis: It is an end to the cycle of indebtedness, debt and inflation.
Inflation is a symptom of the debt crisis, a symptom that was created by the global financial crisis of 2008-09, when governments, financial institutions and private companies used a series of policies designed to finance their debts to drive prices up and growth slow down.
The result was the creation of ever-higher debt and, in a world where the financial system was under a great deal of stress, the resulting debt bubble could not possibly have been contained.
In short, the economic crisis was a political crisis.
But, it was not a crisis in which we were all powerless to intervene, or where the system was failing.
Rather, the crisis was triggered by the policy failures of the finance sector, in particular the banks.
The banks did not need to be bailed out.
They did not have to make the necessary changes to their balance sheets.
They had the power to make their debts bigger.
In the absence of policy changes, the financial sector could not continue to function.
The debt bubble was therefore not a matter of “deflation.”
Rather, it simply became a symptom.
The end, it seems, of capitalism In this view, there is a way of restructuring the global economy that takes account of the need to reduce debt and build wealth in a new way.
This new way of thinking is not about replacing capitalism or simply making it more inclusive.
Rather it is about creating a system that enables us to sustain growth without destroying it.
It is about a system of credit that enables the economy to be flexible, to adapt and to evolve, so that the growth that we need is in fact sustainable and sustainable growth can be sustained in the face of an increasing number of shocks, including climate change, wars and the ever-growing threat of pandemics.
Capitalism is an economic system that is based on the production and use of wealth.
This is not a new concept.
The classical economists of the 18th and 19th centuries used this idea in their descriptions of how markets work.
They understood that the primary value of the market is not to deliver goods or services, but to create wealth.
They argued that the production of wealth is more important than the exchange of commodities, and that the exchange between humans and the environment is an indispensable condition for the growth of human society.
In the 19th century, a number of economists, including the French economist Thomas Malthus, argued that economic development, particularly in developing countries, was dependent on the creation and use, or re-use, of the wealth that people could create in their own economies.
They believed that this needed to be made available to all, not just to those at the very top.
The system of exchange, Malthaus argued, was an economic monopoly, and if it was privatized, it would be forced to become more competitive.
For Malthuses, the most efficient way to achieve this would be to create a universal standard of wealth, a “collective good