Quote:
Originally Posted by kermitology
If the thesis of his book is still something he holds true, then I would call him a pragmatic capitalist.
I'm only through the first chapter (plus introduction and preface) of the book, but he talks a lot about understanding how we define value. The first chapter is a sort of econ 101 summary discussing the different views of Smith, Marx, and David Ricardo, but the tone he takes is one of unbridled capitalism is reckless and selfish and will lead to overproduction, instability in both price and ability to produce efficiently, and are not going to lead to long term success.
He's also socially pretty liberal I would say, but again, pragmatic. Things like LGBTQ2S+, Carbon Tax, DEI, while progressive and things I support are lightning rods for toxic conversation. We need to pull back and find a more passive (subversive?) way to implement these things that don't draw so much wild attention.
|
I'd say this is pretty accurate. It's been a year since I read it, but f I could sum the book up in a sentence it's that we have capitalism to make people's lives better (what we value), not simply for the purpose of having pure capitalism and making the rich richer, that we need to make sure that it is working for us.