The Future of Capitalism audiobook

I’m a big fan of Paul Collier. A highly respected Oxford economist (and a knight!), he has spent his career trying to understand and alleviate global poverty. His book The Bottom Billion is still on the short list of books that I recommend to people, even though a lot has changed since it was published 12 years ago.So I was a little surprised when I learned that Collier’s latest book isn’t about poverty at all. But when I saw that it was about something I’m also keenly interested in—the polarization we’re seeing in the U.S., Europe, and other places—I was eager to see what he had to say. I’m glad I did. The Future of Capitalism: Facing the New Anxieties, is an ambitious and thought-provoking book.Collier wrestles with a tough problem. If you measure by things like GDP growth and lifespan, life is better for more people around the world than it has ever been. And yet many people are questioning the capitalist system that produced those gains. There’s an understandable sense that the system is in crisis.Why is this happening? Collier says we’re experiencing three big rifts: 1) a spatial divide between booming cities and struggling small towns; 2) a class divide between people who have a college education and those who don’t; and 3) a global divide between high- and middle-income countries on the one hand, and fragile states on the other.Collier has a personal perspective on all three divides. He grew up in industrial Sheffield, England; now he makes his home in an upscale college town. Both of his parents left school when they were 12; he went to Oxford. He lives in a rich country, but because of his work, he spends a lot of time in some of the poorest places in the world.As a result of the three trends, Collier says, capitalism is delivering for some people but leaving others behind. For example, he makes a point that should feel familiar to anyone living in London, New York City, or my hometown of Seattle. Highly skilled workers have a big incentive to move to cities, where they can get high-paying jobs. When all those big earners cluster in one place, more businesses sprout up to support them. This large-scale movement into the city drives up the cost of land, making it less affordable for everyone else. It is a virtuous cycle for a lucky few and a vicious one for others.This all adds up to a compelling description of the problem. What should we do about it?I found myself agreeing with a lot of what Collier has to say. I was especially struck by the central idea of his book, that we need to strengthen the reciprocal obligations we have to each other. This won’t directly address the divides, but it will create the atmosphere where we can talk more about pragmatic solutions to them. “As we recognize new obligations to others,” Collier writes, “we build societies better able to flourish; as we neglect them we do the opposite…. To achieve the promise [of prosperity], our sense of mutual regard has to be rebuilt.”He looks at four areas where we can do this: the global level, the nation-state, the company, and the family. Globally, for example, he argues that we need to revitalize groups like NATO and the EU while also recognizing the need to help the world’s poorest people escape poverty (an area that is of special interest to me given the Gates Foundation’s work).At the corporate level, Collier criticizes the notion that a company’s only responsibility is to make money for its shareholders. This sole focus on the bottom line, he argues, means many companies no longer feel responsible to their employees or the communities where they operate. This has been a big driver, he says, of “the mass contempt in which capitalism is held—as greedy, selfish, corrupt.”I agree that companies need to take a long-run view of their interests and not just focus on short-term profits. It matters how businesses are viewed in their communities and by their employees. I think the profit motive encourages companies to take such a broad view of their interests more often than Collier acknowledges, although there are plenty of exceptions. And when we want companies to act a certain way—for example to reduce pollution or pay a certain amount of taxes—I think it’s more effective to have the government pass laws than to expect them to voluntarily change their behavior.If I had the chance, I would ask Collier more about this. I finished the book wondering if he thinks we can change the incentive structure so companies act differently. Or perhaps some companies don’t realize that their long-term interests require valuing things other than the bottom line. It would be fascinating to discuss with him.I would also take Collier’s world/nation/company/family argument one step further. I would add a fifth category: community. We need to re-connect at the local level, where we’re physically close enough to help each other out in times of need. Churches can serve this purpose. So can community groups. Digital tools have also helped people connect with their neighbors, though I think there’s still more that could be done there.With a complex subject like this, it is always easier to describe the problem than to solve it. The Future of Capitalism devotes a lot of time to how we might ease people’s anxieties, including more vocational training, support for families (what he calls “social maternalism”), and policies designed to make companies behave more ethically.Although I don’t agree with all of Collier’s suggestions, I think he is right more often than not. Melinda and I will have more to say about inequity in our next Goalkeepers report in September. But to take just one example, I think the U.S. government needs more revenue to meet its commitments, and that means raising taxes on the wealthiest. Similarly, Collier makes a good case for raising taxes on the unearned income of high-wage workers in cities (like when the value of their land goes up simply because they can afford to live in a place where other well-off people want to live).Ultimately, I agree with him that “capitalism needs to be managed, not defeated.” We should do more to curb its excesses and minimize its negative aspects. But no other system comes close to delivering the innovations and economic growth that capitalism has sparked around the world. This is worth remembering as we consider its future.

Collier's pragmatic approach to social and economic issues facing western capitalism today is a refreshing read. This book focuses on how to renew our sense of reciprocal obligation towards one another. Collier constantly refers to the golden years of capitalism, 1945-1970, and compares that to this situation today. The flaws of populism are pretty evident, but Collier goes deeper than simply attacking it. He explains where this populist movement came from, and how to get rid of it. Here he focuses on taking from the Metropolis and redistributing to the provincials (i.e, diminish the advantages that big cities receive via agglomeration). This will diminish the divide between the educated rich of the big cities, and the forgotten members of rural societies who feel they have been left behind.From a revenue standpoint, Collier details a new focus for economists; taxation of economic rents rather than regular income. It's a concept that neither republicans nor democrats will love, but it should come as no surprise to anyone that a possible solution just might exist somewhere in between the two extreme positions developed by the the right and the left.I also liked the idea of transitioning our educational system to vocational training, rather than simple cognitive development. The Germans have implemented this system to great effect. Collier makes a convincing argument that the cause for lower wages in capitalism is a low productivity, low cost model that stems from poorly trained employees. People should be willing to pay more for their goods if it means they are paid more for their work, and Collier believes vocational training will steer us down this path. I am in danger of writing a synopsis of the entire book, so I will stop there. I don't love all of Collier's proposals, but 'The Future of Capitalism' is a very good read and will appeal to any open minded readers. Far left and far right individuals probably won't like it, but they are the ones who most need to read this.

This is a wonderful book, even better than I expected. The author is a respected and well published Oxford economist. The intent of the book is to provide a thoughtful overview of the problems facing global capitalism and even offer some possible fixes, perhaps in conjunction with his retirement thoughts. The result is a complex and well done integration of economics, politics, history, philosophy, ethics, and culture that spans continents and crosses multiple levels of analysis with ease. All of the issue areas one would expect are present and accounted for - Brexit, Globalization, China, Trump, tariffs, taxes, ideology, populism, and so on.So what is the punch line? READ THE BOOK. He does present a general argument that spans levels, perhaps too easily. His focus is on relational logics as bases for personal meaning rather than atomized individualism. This is joined with a story of how social order at all levels has been corrupted and weakened due to disruptions of governance at the level of the society, the firm, and the family - among other collectivities. One of the more striking arguments in the book for me concerned the growing prosperity of major huge metropolitan areas, coupled with the decline and decay of medium and smaller urban areas - think London versus the rest of the UK or New York and Chicago versus Detroit and Milwaukee.When he gets to fixing problems, the book seems a bit thinner, although it is still good for the genre, perhaps due to the author’s familiarity with development economics. He also makes a good case for pragmatism versus theoretical and ideological purity.The is an impressive work for 250 pages. It reads well and is accessible to general readers. The references are good for readers who want to go deeper.

What Oxford professor Paul Collier has written here is not only a very involved work of economics but also a deeply felt expression of ethics surrounding the current socio-political climate and how that has tainted and marginalized rational discussion of purely economic issues. He frames the idea of confronting the new anxieties surrounding capitalism and within the world's most successful capitalist countries as:Restoring Ethics - operating at the State, Firm, Family, and WorldRestoring the Inclusive Society - examining the class and global divides as well as the disparity between the "booming metropolis and broken cities"Restoring Inclusive Politics - finding a way to operate politically without pervasive echo-chambers and the extreme distortions we find ourselves with which we are working.Thankfully, this work is not just yet another call for pure centrism without any practical suggestions, conveying an opinion that all sensible people likely already agree-upon; it is a dense work of economics with clear analyses (albeit sometimes written in impenetrable prose) that makes real-world suggestions that will make demands on folks of both ends of the political spectrum. A book with which to take your time as Professor Collier speaks in very academic prose on certain matters, however, his message is important and his opinions are very stimulating, even when they're wrong...

I haven't made this many notes from a book since The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Collier has a very engaging style: he raises up tough questions, boldly declares how both the right and the left are incapable of answering them, then gives his own suggestions for answers. And the thing is, Collier's proposals feel at the same time common-sensical and surprising. This seemingly paradoxical feat may be due to the fact I'm very used to the standard political positions: the left wants to raise taxes and supports immigration, the right wants the opposite. So when someone comes along and wants to raise taxes but control immigration, it feels surprisingly novel, although it really isn't very uncommon sentiment outside the political arena.Collier calls his politics "social maternalism" and "Pragmatism", but really he could've just said "conservative"; Not in the Tory or Republican sense of the word, but in the political philosophy sense. With this book Collier takes place among the growing group of intellectual conservative voices, who advocate the merits of traditional societies and values, such as Jonathan Haidt, Robert D. Putnam or James C. Scott.Collier's thesis could be summed in one sentence as "reciprocal obligations, not rights or freedoms, make happy and prosperous societies". The political right have been obsessed with individual freedom, but people are social animals; we don't really cope well as individuals without any bonds. The political let had been obsessed with (human) rights, but rights without obligations are hollow; we want to feel useful and part if something, not just recipients of benefits from a faceless bureaucracy. From this thesis Collier proposes several ideas how to fight against the ills in our societies.The book is very good, but still shy of great. Collier over-extends himself many times and some of his proposals sound like wishful thinking. "A nation needs a shared identity". Sounds great, any ideas how to actually build one? No? Oh well.

In The Future of Capitalism, Paul Collier, a development economist most known for his work The Bottom Billion, tackles the rise of poverty and the "grim rifts" that have begun to define the politics of his own country, the United Kingdom. Economists who study developing countries have particularly interesting insights into how policies can work or not work at alleviating poverty and creating inclusive growth. Collier is interested in a new pragmatic politics that rejects both ideology and populism, one which works to build a common narrative, shared identity, and sense of purpose to tackle the big structural problems industrialized countries face 30 years into globalization. The rise of the "psychopathic selfishness of economic man," he writes, has led to a deep fracturing in our sense of a common future, a common narrative, and a sense of obligation to our fellow countrymen. It has led to a fracturing of a common identity, and in that, skilled people have come to believe they know better than the less educated and are thus "entitled to override the values of others," eroding trust and cooperation. And cooperation is the basis for a well-functioning economy. Policy is spatial, Collier reminds us, and only by renewing a sense of belonging and togetherness can we begin to address the rifts tearing polarized polities apart. The Future of Capitalism is not a typical rehash of how-we-got-heres; this is a deeper meditation on what makes human societies flourish or flounder together, and what a moral sense of belonging to each other, and to our countries, could do to transform the world. For a longer discussion on the themes of this book, see here.

Overall, I’d recommend this as a necessary view from an economist on the deeper reasons why some Western first-world societies are experiencing shifts toward nativism and populism, and what is causing the widening gap between rich and poor. Collier does this by cogently explaining how excesses in both liberal and conservative thought have led us here.The corrective policy recommendations, though good in theory, are so far out of the political norms of the past three-plus decades as to feel hopelessly utopian even when Collier claims they will be difficult.100% recommended as a diagnosis, but not as a treatment plan.

This is an important book which outlines a format for capitalism that, if practiced, likely would relieve any number of conflicts and dysfunctions that worldwide societies and economies face. It's a longshot but a longshot worth debating and, with some fine tuning, implementing.Although the author, Paul Collier is a Nobel Laureate from Oxford University, this is not a scholarly work. It is, rather, the effort of a scholar tasked with global duties and advisory functions to her Majesty's government to meld his experiences and scholarly insights as an economist with his observations of the world in which he lives and works. He comes from place of the shared sense of community values, common good philosophy, and a view of the world shared by ordinary people who shared his early years and his roots in Sheffield and the devastation wrought upon families, workers, and communal solidarity as capitalism and the capitalist mandate failed the town he lived in before his notable career in economic.Collier provides a general theory, not really itemized, that is based on ethics, law, community, and the family. To him, it is a workable theory, and the major flaw is not in the theory, but in the implementation of it: how do we demand and enforce those on the extremes of the right and the left to join forces in a unified effort to ensure that commonly accepted community goals, a theory of the common good, are agreed to. It seems obvious to me as someone who generally accepts Collier's plan that the vested interests on the fringes of ideology--the capitalist billionaires who control how much they pay in taxes on the right and the vested interests of the rent-seekers of both the left and the right--stand to lose status and will fight to preserve those statuses even in the face of a shared belief that is time to return to a 'common good' for families, communities, the state and the nation. Here is the foundation of Collier's important work, expressed in his own words:" Families, firms, and states are the essential areas in which our lives are shaped. . . ." The peole at the top of organizations in families, [business and private] firms and states are more powerful than those beneath them, bugt usually they have responsibilities that far exceed their powers. To meet their responsibilities, they need other people in the group to comply, but have only limited means of enforcement. In my role as a father, I try to insist that Alex goes to sleep at night. But raw power is hard work and not very effective: Alex reads under his bedclothes. In all successful organizations, whether families, firms, or states, leaders discover that they can radically increase compliance by creating a sense of obligation. . . . [i]f I can persuade him to go to sleep, the challenge of enforcement is reduced [and] my power is tsansformed into authority. More grandly expressed, this is the construction of moral norms for strategic purposes. The crucial power of leaders is not that of command: it is that they are positioned at the hub of a network. They have the power to persuade . . . to shape our lives. . . . It is a healthy process that has enabled modern societies to be [in] better places than all previous societies. . . ."Despite the promise of prosperity,what modern capitalism is currently delivering is aggression, humiliation, and fear: the Rottweiler society. To achieve the promise, our sense of mutual regard has be be rebuilt. Pragmatism tells us that this process will need to be guided by context and evidence-based reasoning." (excerpts from pages 39-46]Collier proceeds to identify what may be the single most important component to forging and implementing his theory. Reciprocity and ignoring of rent-seeking in defining duties and formulating benefits and costs.As it happens, Collier's statement of leadership largely coincides with that leadership shown by a truly remarkable political leader of my time, Nelson Mandela, who marched at the front showing by example how the common good could be achieved and who took into his heart the greatest symbolof black South African oppression, Springbok rugby. Great leaders persuade other first before they march. Collier identifies what may be the most important components to forging and implementing a lasting theory of capitalism. Reciprocity and ignoring of rent-seeking in defining duties and formulating benefits and costs.How do we get where Collier would like us to go? A sense of place, he says, gives us an immediate identity with the values and actions that made us who we all become. Collier's is Sheffied, of course. Even though I have lived in every region of the U.S. except the Deep South and the Southwest, I still identify with the values and childhood I lived in Gloucester, New Jersey, a small town of 14,000 (even today) across the Delaware River from Philadelphia. [This idea led me to think of how I still identify with the Phillies, or how those from Boston identify with the Red Sox--maybe hometown sports teams have a place in this, as in 'I'm from Arsenal or Tottenham, or from the Mets).The parts of the book I found truly inspiring from the standpoint of economic interest was Collier's treatment of economic rents, taxation of rents and agglomeration of rents, and rent seeking. I will not dive deeply into these theories here, because they require focus to understand the complexities of the thinking behind it. What sealed my appreciation for Collier's integrity was this statement""the resources spent on rent-seeking are a total waste." Boom. There it is: eliminate (if possible) dramatically marginalize resources spent on attempting to create an economic advantage from something that does not expand value or expand the economic pie, e.g. lobbying for the creation of a monopoly so that shareholders not the society at large would benefit, either in the increased profit or from any value or efficiency created. This, I think, is worth an effort all its own, one that, if it succeeds, would improve life uniformly and universally. And, he has something to say about rent-seeking and tournament jousting by lawyers, only a third of whom he says are actually seeking or doing justice. And Collier does not avoid issues of taxation, rule by meritocracy and the meritocrats, and corporate governance and social responsibility (how socially conscious is it when Starbucks, through a subsidiary based in the Dutch Antilles which sells Starbucks' licenses to the British Starbucks's store, completely avoids the payment of taxes on British generated profits to the extent of the costs of the licensing arrangements. Rent-seeking? Yes, maybe even a corrupt purpose that diminishes any claim Starbucks and companies doing the same thing to involvment in a social purpose that promotes a common good.I found one flaw, not in Collier's reasoning, but an analogy he uses to explain where things sadly went wrong with capitalism. He argues that the rich areas, among them Catalonia in Spain, often seek isolation from the rest of the nation in which they are formed politically through secession. In the U.S. during times of economic dysfunction, the Texas secessionist movement works up crowds by exhorting people to separate from the U.S. [Of course, none of the disadvantages of secession such as how do we pay for the investment made by the US national government from US (not just Texas) taxpayers get repaid are ever raised let along discussed. My problem is using Catalonia or any other region with a majority culture significantly different from the culture of the nation-state as an example. Catalonia fought the Nazis and Franco, a post war Nazi, when others in Spain and the world complained of it. The example is bad as would be the example of Quebec seeking to secede from English-speaking Canada or Northern Ireland being separate from the Irish Republic. Both are examples of culture and language overriding the nation in which these provinces are politically attached. Of course, it is always better that negotiated solutions are forged and implemented, something miraculously done in the case of the troubles in Northern Ireland and in Quebec.Collier gives us a tall order here when he calls upon us to rethink capitalism and its utility as it currently operates, but it is an order that requires discussion, debate, and coming to terms with a better way. Time is short. Collier's approach demonstrated in this short book with complex idea's is both measured and evidence-based, and those approaches may cause many to reject it. We have to get beyond the calamity we saw in September, 2008, when banks which were blamed for causing a meltdown in the credit markets sought used the ultimate in rent-seeking in trying to avoid participating in a common solution to a world wide problem. The lifespan of capitalism, to the extent we recognize it as a market-clearing device for choices we must or can make, will be short-lived without reform, or at least striving to achieve outcomes that reach the common good.

I recently did a quiz to ascertain my political leanings and found out that I was definitely more libertarian than the average person. This led me quickly to wonder about the differences between right and left libertarians and the distinctions in their points of view to solving for the failures of capitalism. Paul Collier does a wonderful job of expressing the shortfalls of an individualistic society and the dilemmas that face capitalistic communities. It is ironic that the society, community and altruistic morals that are necessary to build a healthy and motivated civilisation, are the very forces that richer nations grow to undermine. It seems inevitable that a return back to the roots and the essence will be necessary for a sustainable existence over the longer term. Politicians and present generations never want to bite the bullet during their glory years and hence the inevitable dance towards future anxieties continues. Some disillusioning remarks:“Encouraging your firm to have a decent sense of purpose is your contribution to society, but continuing to work for one which lacks purpose is personally soul-destroying.” - A note on being a part of the system"All leaders add and refine the narratives that fit within the belief system of their group, but great leaders build an entire belief system." - Observation on the difference between visionaries and populists"The starting point for a new approach is to recognize that the role of the large corporation in society has never properly been thought through. The boards that run large companies are taking decisions of overarching importance for society. Yet their present structure is the result of individual, unco-ordinated decisions, each of which happened to lead to some further decision that had not been anticipated. " - A reminder that corporations are individual decisions and intentions manifested together and inherently detached from the interests of the collective in its essence

A book about how utilitarianism has guided our societies to become more individual and more explorative of each other acting to exclusively benefit themselves that leave us as a whole with many issues to tackle. This isn't about the end of capitalism but reforming capitalism to the likes of the same being practiced in the 40s to 70s, the author divides the critic between three essential pillars that any society leaves upon, family, corporations, and state. He explains how we have changed across the years, what we have benefited from those changes and the main issues that we should be dedicating our time to tackle. He speaks about how companies weren't always following the doctrine of Friedmann, how real estate value in metropole valuation is increasing what causes it, and what can we do about it and how we currently have a somewhat big number of single families, why does it happen and how the state should handle the issue. If you found any of that interesting, give it a read.

Really interesting read that interweaves sociology, economics, and politics. First half is more sociological, analyzing the factors that lead to the rise and fall of key pillars of societies - countries, companies, and families. Second half looks at how economic theories/practices and public policy can be used to benefit the aforementioned pillars. Collier is driven by data and case studies, and provides a lot of practical solutions. I appreciate his pragmatism, his impartiality to what he believes works (takes shots at the left and right, at populists of all kinds, at individualists and utilitarians), and his concern for the poor that plays itself out in an ethical, communitarian way, as opposed to the way Mr. Marx did it. It required plenty of focus as there were economic theories and terms that took awhile to learn, but overall a solid read and I’ll be looking for more like it in my search for dynamic living in a loud, frantic world.

Collier is an Economics Professor at Oxford. He pointed out that the current problems of capitalism stem from assuming the existence of the unreal Economic Man and promotes Utilitarianism. As a result, profits are maximised, manufacturing and back end jobs are moved overseas, machines are substituted for human labour, the cities get richer, leaving behind the provinces. The educated pulls ahead from the uneducated. The elite starts to base their self esteem on their skills and not their nationality and look down on those left behind. Those left behind lose their jobs, hope and self esteem. They went to drugs, alcohol and even commit suicides. They strike back, voting out the establishment and choosing populists who promise to bring back the good old days. They choose to Leave and not Stay in big unions. Capitalism needs to realise that other than self interest, we need reciprocity and national identity. We take care of the disadvantaged and should change the system that is creating those disadvantaged in the first place. 1. State ethics. We used to have high taxes to redistribute wealth and services to the poor. That is gone because of globalisation’s tax rate race to the bottom. We need a national identity. However it cannot be based on values as that is very diverse. The only viable way is to have place identity. Leaders need to stop promoting a global identity and encourage patriotism again. Patriotism is not nationalism in the sense that the former promotes international cooperation not American First. Cities should be taxed (especially property tax) to restore the provinces. Form economic development departments, tax breaks and cheap land Nd court big companies to attract new businesses (like Singapore!). Immigration needs to be controlled because the less skilled are crowded out by immigrants who will work for far less, but the high skilled actually enjoy the increased productivity, but less willing to redistribute their income with higher taxes. We need more pragmatism, and choose more central leaders. That can be done by choosing the leader from the victorious political party and an informed electorate. We need to intensively support and mentor kids who are at risk. Zero sum game jobs need to be taxed much more. 2. Firm ethics. Firms have changed the mission statements from serving their customers to maximising shareholder value, cheered on by Nobel laureates such as Milton Friedman. This is repellent to most people. Every CEO and worker now works for himself and not the company. Investment is dropped and share buy back performed to ‘maximise shareholder value’. Mutually owned companies like John Lewis which enable share ownership and representation at the board for all employees are the way to go. Monopolies need to be broken up. If that is not possible, they need to be taxed. All companies should be required by law to consider public interest and board members prosecuted if that is not done. Companies need to be policed. 3. Family Ethics. Obligation to family has been change for that of self. The extended family is no more. Assortative mating keeps well educated families well educated, and the less so educated often times broken. We need to rebuild family obligations in the extended family again and not rely on the state. Encourage 2 parent families for the kids with state support. Help single poor women with support against addiction, mental health, housing and against violent men. Athens NGO Pause has been successful to reduce children who need to be taken care of by the state. Open up cafés near poor estates. Unemployment welfare helps prevents children neglect. Mix the children by wide catchment areas. Provide vocational training. Levy firms for training funds, have a minimum wage. Charge firms for lay-offs. Charge investment homes higher tax. 4. Ethical World. Rescuing other nations, enlightened self interest, help without expectation of return. Stop ‘beggar-thy-neighbour’ policies. Great clubs like NATO are hobbled by the lack of financial commitment by member countries (

First of all, I would like to state at the beginning that this is not an entry-level book for beginners in the school of economic thought. I am somewhat of a beginner, however, and so initially I felt was not for me. I generally consider myself fairly educated, and fairly good at understanding complex issues, but i have to admit that this one really pushed me. That being said, I am giving this book 5 start, not necessarily because I necessarily agreed with or even understood all of the opinions of the author, but because it educated me in the economic theory of capitalism and made me really think about my own attitudes and whether they were truly consistent with my core beliefs. It was an uncomfortable experience at times to admit that my actions and beliefs are not always entirely consistent (though I have determined that complete consistency between my ideals and actions is limited by the ethics and motivations of the world in which I live—though I should perhaps adopt some less entitled individualistic positions myself), and it opened my mind to several new ideas that I would have previously ridiculed. The book jumps right into the economics of capitalism and the theories that describe what drives it as compared to socialism and communism. This was the most difficult part for me to follow. The author assumes an understanding of many economic theories and ideas that he referenced only by name. For me, what was lacking here were a few examples of these ideas, which may have dumbed the book down for the intended audience, but would vastly increase its potential audience. That being said, by the end of the book, I had been able to deduce many of these ideas and references, though certainly not all, and I had to listen to several sections several times before his points sank in. The book spends most of its pages exploring and explaining how capitalism has become broken since its golden age which he defines as the 1940s to about 1970. He discusses how relationships and reciprocity are the basis for successful capitalism and explains how at its roots, capitalism is failing primarily because of a shift from the ethical family, which encompasses ethical obligations to others that was crucial to the recovery of civilized nations in the wake of WWII, to the entitled individual and the pursuit of self interest, jettisoning any such obligations to family, group, or culture, as its core unit. He explains how these attitudes have crept into the way industry is managed, how political thought has evolved, and how it has arrived now to be subverting nations and world governing bodies. He also discusses the evolution of western civilization as it relates to the realities of thriving cities versus declining rural towns, the unearned advantages of the highly skilled versus the less educated, how these realities have evolved as well as why they are worsening in perpetuity. I found that I agreed with his assessment of how capitalism has begun to fail and his reasons for it, but I found his solutions more difficult. I attribute this partly to the fact that he is a British economist (and many of the cultural phenomena he referenced are more applicable to the socialized economics and attitudes in England), whereas I am an American whose history of fighting for individual freedoms and rights are more preeminent. A valid point he makes, however, is that ethical reciprocity on which successful capitalism would be based, would involve redefining individual rights in such a way that they cannot be used to excuse behavior that disadvantages others even if such behavior lies within the bounds of the social contract of law. In other words, those with more have an increased responsibility to those with less, and if we are ethical members of the same group, we should have the interests of all in mind. There has to be mutual regard. But somehow, that has to fit in with the individual right to pursue happiness—something I feel the author is not particularly interested in. A quick example might be helpful. Collier rightly points out that London schools are better funded and produce students with better test scores than do their rural counterparts. His solution is to recruit better teachers in general and legislate putting the best teachers in the rural communities where their skills would better serve the greater good. Early in the book he discusses the fact that the more educated and wealthier families tend to put more effort into assisting their children develop skills that make them better students and ultimately better workers. I think he fails to acknowledge that a lot of the difference seen between these two classes of students is largely effort dependent, whether that be on the part of the parents, the students of both, but is not necessarily tied to the teacher. It may be easier for the wealthy to do this, but at some point, it must be recognized that it takes effort to improve ones lot in life and putting good teachers in classrooms with unmotivated students or parents, is not likely to make a difference. I would also sympathize with the good teacher who chose a career in teaching for the reward of guiding motivated students, who when forced into a setting proposed by Collier would find the desire for which teaching was selected as the profession rapidly extinguished. That will certainly not draw better teachers into the field for sure. By and large, I find my difficulties with Collier’s solutions to be largely based on the fact that they are effort dependent and are based on principles not possessed by the entitled individual, who he argues is what makes up the greater share of the world population. His solutions assume all are equally motivated to work, learn, sacrifice, etc. and that the effort expended by all is equal, even if it is not as effective or productive. This is just simply not the case. I constantly tell my children that “successful people do the things that unsuccessful people are unwilling to do.” While this can certainly be taken to extremes, it identifies the inherent differences that exist in people’s willingness to work to achieve their goals. I don’t think working hard for personal reward should be suppressed, which is ultimately what I see in many of the proposed solutions to fix capitalism. He suppressed by taxation the rewards of extra effort. The silver lining to such policies however, is that working too much would be curtailed and channeled into other activities which may ultimately result in a happier life! Getting back to effort though, I think most ethical people would not mind increasing their tax obligation to help the motivated deserving poor, but asking them to make the same concession for the unmotivated undeserving poor is completely different. I think part of Collier’s disconnect with me is the proportion of that population he encounters regularly to the proportion that I see. His solutions begin with creating group identification, which it good in that it would engender the attitudes found in the ethical family—basically reducing self interest at the expense of others. This was at a peak immediately following WWII, but at present is so fragmented, that trust in reciprocity is rare and polarization of group attitudes is the norm. It also depends on management of capitalism by suppressing through legislation or taxation those activities and professions that draw in talented individuals who seek to capture unearned income that offers no benefit to society in favor of other employment that is productive to society. Ultimately it ends with helping redistribute that unearned income (income generated not commensurate with the effort needed to obtain it) by effectively legislating a tax system that doesn’t exterminate growth, while aiding the underprivileged. I don’t know that it is possible to achieve this with today’s prevailing attitudes, laws, and privileged elites working so hard to maintain their privilege. I think things will have to get so bad, that the sacrifices and attitude changes required are deemed necessary for survival. I guess I’m not as optimistic as Collier. I really wish I were, though.

Would love it if more "Capitalists" (as in those who have disproportionately benefited from their labor in the form of capital) read this book. I enjoyed this book, it's not directed towards economists or people in academia, so it's digestible for most people. My big qualm is that Collier shows us a lot of issues, but his solutions don't seem realistic in today's mega-polarized world. His solution of bringing us all together and caring for each other is at odds with the ideals of a huge group of people in the US and UK (the two countries he primarily writes about).

This book, based on recognizing our basic drive beyond greed such as belonging and esteem, is a refreshing antithesis of "The Wealth of Nations".Collier analyzes the recent takeover of social democracy, founded on mutual trust and shared identities, by populism and ideology across the globe, and the further divide of the left and the right from pragmatism. (view spoiler)[A worthwhile point from this section is the shift of primary source of esteem from nationality to profession among highly-skilled people, which causes the others to stay behind. (hide spoiler)] I loved a particular term from him, WEIRD (western, educated, industrial, rich, developed), and the sarcasm of their attitude towards other people.Collier then calls for a restoration of the ethical state, firm, family, and ultimately the world. He did so with both objective evidence and his own experience with Sheffield, education innovation, etc. Collier then spends some chapters on class and global divide.I believe Collier has done an incredible job staying neutral and pragmatic while tackling problems. For example, on the issue of declining Detroit-like cities, he proposes the restoration of literacy, more technical training as opposed to theoretical, progressive tax, and directed public policy for firms to invest in workers. His goal is not unique - to maximize utility for everyone - but he points out ongoing immoralities and inefficiencies and raises concrete solutions. Ultimately, his logic transcends political parties and beliefs, designed to figure out what works in the situation.One issue with Collier's approach, in particular with bigger entities like the state, is that he does not dive deep into how to restore ethics, but rather often calls for the people to play their ethics role as checks and balances. Certainly it is important for people to realize this role, but it is not nearly enough to resolve our financial inefficiency, education inequality, and many other issues. The reason behind this, I'm afraid, is that the people who have benefited from greed the most might be too hesitant to push for greater well-being for everyone.

It has taken me longer than usual to finish this book - my fault - but I have enjoyed it. I share his concerns about the undue focus of the economics profession with efficiency to the detriment of wider welfare / distributional considerations. It might not have been the intention but it seems the triumph of partial equilibrium analysis. There are, broadly speaking, two parts to this book: an analysis of the fractures of the current society (including useful explanations of how we got here) and a prescription of how to change it. I see little to disagree with his analysis of fractures of current western societies. I think we need to accept the criticism not as a carte blanche for a return to (say) Marxism or any radical ‘-ism’ but as a spur to look for pragmatic solutions and a change of direction.Collier recommendations include some redistributive taxation. Perhaps, but the key thing for me is that his policy prescription appear to be based on a version of partial equilibrium analysis that consider distributional impacts. That can only strengthen the analysis and the quality of the policy response. Where I feel that something is missing is in terms of the conclusions from his historical analysis. Collier believes that western societies prospered when they had a common sense of purpose as in the aftermath of WW2 - 1945 to 1970. The idea is not entirely new, after all Adam Smith worked through the logic of invisible hand after he had published his book about morality. The question in my mind about Collier’s book is whether the changes in policies that he is describing will generate that renewed common sense of purpose or whether something else is needed and if so what.

When I studied the degree in administration at ITAM I remember that they said that the objective of the company was to generate value for the "stakeholders" of the company, but everything focused on shareholders ...Also in economics everything was based on Milton Friedman and utilitarianism ... on selfishness and success as a rule to be a good administrator and human being. And when a student questions this it is like for a religious to question the basis of their religion.To think a bit about the book: "The Future of Capitalism Facing the New Anxieties" by Paul Collier tells us about the paradigms of the only economic theory that has generated wealth and well-being: capitalism.And he tells us:- The frustration of those who are very young do not have work or the very old who are already obsolete.- The lack of morality in the family and as an absent father for seeking his benefit and pleasure, generates devastating consequences for a child.- The lack of morality in companies, which do not care about their workers or their customers, only generate profits.- The lack of morality in a state, where it does not take care of its citizens and those who have money have the real power of government.And many others ... and offers some solutions that it never develops:- Create a new way to collect taxes.- Change through politics the way we are with our children and other human beings.And some others.If you are interested in economics and social welfare, this is a book that will make you think