Archive

Author Archive

The crooked timber of history

April 2, 2021 11 comments

from Peter Radford

I was lucky enough last week to meet a few friends for the first time in person since the pandemic swept all before it.  We are an eclectic group with more than a fair influence of Wall Street.  Given all that is going on, and has gone on since we last met face-to-face, I expected to be drawn into endless political discussions.  But no, we spent a majority of our time talking about how the pandemic has accelerated the current wave of technological change.  At one point someone asked whether there were lessons from the Industrial Revolution that we could apply to where we are now.  Our conversation evolved from there.

Near the end of the introduction to his history of the British experience between 1700 and 1850 Joel Mokyr gives us his abbreviated perspective on the key ingredients of what he calls the “economic game”:

“The economic game is played at two levels: the level of a game against Nature (technology), and a game of interacting with other people (institutions).  Stripped to its barest essentials, the game against nature is not a social game — though in any practical historical situation it was of course mixed up with social elements. Technology is always and everywhere about utilizing natural phenomena and regularities to extract from Nature something she does not willingly give up.  Production involves harnessing these regularities to further human material needs.”

This is on page twelve of a book that then goes on to span nearly another five hundred pages, but the meat of the discussion is all there.  Somehow a combination of technology and institutional evolution created the conditions for the extraordinary acceleration in human well-being we associate with the industrial era now ending. Read more…

Inflation: who matters?

March 30, 2021 3 comments

from Peter Radford

There are times when you really don’t need to say much.  The facts make the argument for you.  At such times all that matters is that the largest number of people are aware of those facts and that at least some of them speak to the issues raised.

So too is with a small snippet of news I saw this morning.

I came to it via the New York Times.  The original report being in Business Insider.

Apparently Wall Street bonuses have risen 1,217% since 1985.  Quite what the significance of 1985 is I cannot tell, but the number itself seems to have the right feel.  Having seen a few of those years first hand I can attest to the pace of increase from an anecdotal perspective.

More importantly, if we applied the same rate of increase to the minimum wage over a similar period it would stand at $44 per hour and not the current rather pathetic $7.25.

Imagine the hullabaloo were we to advocate bringing the minimum wage into line with the extraordinary levels of largesse Wall Street lavishes upon itself. Read more…

Reform of what?

March 25, 2021 1 comment

from Peter Radford

We have heard a great deal in the American media about the so-called Biden reform agenda.  The huge injection of government spending into our hibernating economy is meant not just to sustain it until we arrive at a post-pandemic moment when it will spring back to life by itself, but also to reform it.  That is to say the $1.9 trillion package is not just disaster relief, but is also politically motivated to change the economic landscape beyond the pandemic.

I think the politics of muddling the two goals, relief and reform, into one big package are clear: the Republican party would fight tooth and nail against reform and with the wafer thin majorities that the Democrats enjoy delaying it would court permanent postponement of even the most modest reform.

But the economics are less clear.  Anything that adds a cost to business at a moment when additional costs are more burdensome than usual, is problematic.  Surely we ought to wait until business conditions are on the up before we layer in more expense.

So the politics and the economics seem to be going in two different directions.  Clearly the Biden administration is mindful of the endless election cycles that cripple long term political thinking here in the U.S. and has decided to go for broke.

Good for them.

The problem then becomes: what are we reforming? Read more…

The social question

March 9, 2021 13 comments

from Peter Radford

If you were to ask me what the greatest intellectual error of the past fifty years has been I wouldn’t hesitate.  Shareholder value.  It’s an easy response.  Yes, it reflects my own curious interest in the fundamentals of business and its intersection with economics, but it is also emblematic of so much more.

Derived as it is from the wrong turn in economics and politics in the middle of the last century it carries with it so many of the ill founded ideas that have brought us all to where we are now: bedeviled once more by the social question.

How is it that the wealthiest nation the earth has ever witnessed is so ill equipped to ensure a secure life for its citizens?  All its citizens.

The history of the concept we know as shareholder value is well rehearsed.  There is no need to delve into its precise origins.  Like many pieces of technology it is an amalgam of ideas brought together eventually in one broad and encompassing whole.  Most of us have read the infamous newspaper article in which Milton Friedman gave his intellectual backing to the notion that the only goal of business management was to tend to the welfare of shareholders.   I think, from our vantage point many decades later, this appears to be uncontroversial.  We have been bent to accept something as a social goal which, in reality, only serves a few.  Generations of business school students have been taught the mantra.  They have taken on board the simplicity of the aim: shareholders are what matters, they need to be pandered to and nurtured.  Everything else is secondary. Read more…

Sameness is just wrong

February 26, 2021 3 comments

from Peter Radford

There is something truly odd about any economist who lives wholly in the world of equilibrium.  Truly odd.  Just think of what they have to assume to get there:

The first step is to make sure the problem they are tackling is well defined.  Really well defined.  Without ambiguous objects lurking in dark corners.  The problem must be well lit and sanitized of any potential taint.  And it mustn’t be connected to anything that might, under some circumstance or another, become entangled with it.  Good luck with that in the real world.

Then, this being economics, all the actors within the problem have to be identical.  They have to behave rationally — where rationality is something defined by the economist to make sure the math works out nicely — and they have to “know” everything, including what all the other actors know and will do.  Nirvana: we all know what we all know.

Next, the economist ensures that the actors behave in such a way that their aggregate behavior is both assembled from and validates their individual behavior.  Micro to macro is the watchword.  No emergence is allowed.  No nasty intermediate layers to get in the way of reductionist perfection.

With all this in place the preferred mathematics can then be applied.

And, hey presto, out can pop an equilibrium.

This is my version of the process that Brian Arthur described in a talk in 2019.  When followed rigorously and applied to the kinds of problems amenable to such a process, it can produce useful results.  Or at least that’s what Arthur said.  I am a little more skeptical.

The blandness, the sameness, the lack of difference, and the striking lack of reality make the process almost a caricature of itself.  I can comprehend why economics went down this road back in the 1800s, but why it became entrenched there is more confusing.  And more annoying.  Yes, there’s a great deal of work going on to lift it out of the hole it fell into, but, as yet, the public face of economics is still dominated by those who kneel before the altar of equilibrium. Read more…

AI and democracy

February 22, 2021 5 comments

from Peter Radford

Just a quick thought prompted by my reading of a talk given by Allison Stanger during the Santa Fe Institute’s 2019 Fall symposium.  First she gives us a nice quote from Hannah Arendt’s “The Human Condition” who says the question is not …

whether we are the masters or slaves of our machines, but whether machines still serve the world and its things or if, on the contrary, they and the automatic motion of their processes have begun to rule and even destroy the world and its things.”

This quote obviously resonates with fundamental interest to those of us struggling to understand the economy as we hurtle into the digital age.

The central issue as Stanger describes it is that all the algorithms based on big data, those that increasingly drive chunks of how we deal with each other, are based on a sort of collectivism.  They rely on groups.  They rely on large-scale analysis and the identification of structures detected in seas of data.  They abstract away the individual. Read more…

Complexity, institutions and firms

February 20, 2021 4 comments

from Peter Radford

Are they associated?

We all know that one of the central problems of economics is the existence of uncertainty.  At least since Frank Knight’s work in the 1920s, uncertainty has been something of concern to economists.  Knight’s description of uncertainty as being a condition in which no probability distribution existed, or could exist, has led some of the most eminent theorists of economics to argue that theorizing is simply not possible.  Which is a rather formidable obstacle.  I assume they meant that their particular form of theorizing was not possible.

One person who rose to the challenge represented by uncertainty was Douglass North, who famously built his theory of institutional change to show how humans respond to  the endemic uncertainty they deal with on a day-to-day basis.

I am going to use three separate quotes from North’s book “Understanding the Process of Economic Change” as a starting point for this short discussion.

First: Read more…

Information take two

February 18, 2021 19 comments

from Peter Radford

Keeping the conversation going.

Let’s start with Shannon, from his personal papers published in 1993 …

“The word ‘information’ has been given different meanings by various writers in the general field of information theory.  It is likely that at least a number of these will prove sufficiently useful in certain applications to deserve further study and permanent recognition.  It is hardly to be expected that a single concept of information would satisfactorily account for the numerous possible applications of this general field.”

So Shannon is fine with an eclectic vision of information, and expects a variety of definitions to emerge as useful.  This seems extremely wise.  Especially given his own somewhat narrow version.

Weaver, in 1949, expanded on  this ecumenical approach when he proposed a three pronged approach to understanding information.  He broke the analysis of information down into three basic areas of concern: technical issues to do with the quantification of information [which was where Shannon’s greatest insights lie]; semantic issues relating to meaning and truth; and a final category to do with the way in which information affected human behavior.

All the above information is summarized on page 81 of Luciano Floridi’s “The Philosophy of Information”  which is an excellent read.  Floridi has also provided us with “The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information”, which gives the topic a broad survey and is well worth the effort.  For those of you who want to get a taste of the way Floridi surveys the topic I suggest chapter four in the Blackwell Guide, which is simply entitled “Information” and begins thus … Read more…

The information conundrum

February 16, 2021 5 comments

from Peter Radford

Kolmogorov, I think, hit the nail on the head when he said:

“At each given moment there is only a fine layer between the ‘trivial’ and the impossible.  Mathematical discoveries are made in this layer.”

He might just as well have said that life itself is discovered in this layer.  But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

A few days ago I tried to point our way towards an acceptance of a certain humility.  I used a couple of quotes, one from Durer and one from Soros, to provide us with insights form well-regarded figures separated by a good long period.  Obviously the need to recognize our inherent fallibility has a long history.  The problem is that we keep forgetting and frequently end up acting as if we had some form of ultimate knowledge.  I used the word ‘utopia’ to stand in as a proxy for this illusion.  I was not talking about Utopia the book.

I have made it a long habit not to engage in public with correspondents who critique what I write because my purpose is simply to begin conversations and allow correspondents to create their own conversation.  Most often, and most interestingly to me, they go in very different directions than the one I had on  mind when I wrote.  Such is the richness of our modern ability to discuss in this remote, electronic, fashion.  We learn, or at least I do.  And that is the envigoration that motivates me to continue.

Once in a while, however, someone will say something that requires my public reaction.  My little Durer and Soros missive is one such occasion.

I have three points of contention to respond to.  I will go in the order with which they appeared.

First, I was accused of never had read “Utopia”.  This is a highly personal attack .  It is offensive.  But par for the course.  Quite how anyone could have this knowledge I don’t know.  In any case, as I indicated above, I was not referring to the book.  I was using the colloquial word ‘utopia’ as a placeholder for any body of knowledge that is based on the illusion of perfect knowledge.  Modern economics falls very closely to being such a vision of utopia. Read more…

What do Durer and Soros have in common?

February 13, 2021 9 comments

from Peter Radford

I know, this is one of those more philosophical moments.  In my case prompted by my continued meditation on the deleterious effects of a belief in utopias.  Such beliefs seem always to end up with authoritarian consequences.  People can all too easily get swept up by the illusion of having solved life’s great mysteries.  It’s been going on for ages.  It appears to be a commonly held human attribute.  We need, apparently, to think we understand things that are, beneath the surface, remote, opaque, and inscrutable.  It’s the way we are.

The issue keeps popping up.  In the humdrum world of economics and economic history utopian ideas bedevil analysis.  Whereas we began with the humanistic description of the workings of an economy, for instance as articulated by Adam Smith, we end up with a cramped mechanistic and needlessly formal model of human behavior that is stripped of all humanity in its effort to be all encompassing.  Each step away from the initial description, each small addition of reasonable progress, each brick in the wall, and each hard won insight merely solidify the edifice, making it ever more difficult to challenge, and ever more difficult to improve.

This difficulty is then compounded by the necessary effort to become conversant with its entirety.  In modern economics it isn’t even possible to be truly fluent across the board.  We rely on others.  It has become a community effort, an act of solidarity rather than an act of individual accomplishment.  How does someone on one edge of the discipline know and trust the notions and analysis taking place on a distant edge?  Mutual trust.  Which is ironic in a discipline so committed to models of the individual. Read more…

Forecasting errors

February 10, 2021 4 comments

from Peter Radford

I suppose forecasting errors is one of those phrases that needs a bit of explanation.  Are we forecasting errors?  Or are we discussing the errors in forecasting?  I think it’s both.

Take the current debate going on about Biden’s $1.9 trillion economic relief package.

A few notable economists, including both Larry Summers and Oliver Blanchard, are arguing that Biden is proposing on spending too much.  This criticism is not based on any analysis of the level of unemployment, the ability to pay rents, the likelihood of imminent re-employment, or any other issue of urgency.  It is based on the usual orthodoxy economists trot out year after year.  The argument is this: the economy was not in distress prior to the pandemic, meaning there were none of those infamous “imbalances” that economist love to talk about; so it ought to bounce back quickly once the emergency lets us all get back to whatever we were doing before we so rudely interrupted; that it is in pretty good shape despite the headline closures, loss of jobs, and other ephemera of the crisis is shown by the facts that households still have pretty good bank balances and that consumer debt is also low[ish], meaning that there is plenty of cash around to splurge when splurging is OK once more. Read more…

January 6th, one month on

February 8, 2021 3 comments

from Peter Radford

It’s been a month.  It seems a great deal longer.

Trump has slunk off the stage and the first signs of what the post-Trump political arena might look like are emerging.  It isn’t hopeful.  Not if you’re looking for peaceful politics.

As we become more able to adjust our focus and ask “what just happened?” with a better degree of clarity, it becomes more obvious, to me at least, that the entire movement that has come to be known as Trumpism was not actually Trump’s at all.  It pre-existed him.  He simply packaged and branded it as if it were one of those buildings that bears his name but which he does not own.  Trump was and remains a veneer.  He is always willing to push to the head of a crowd and claim it was his idea to gather.  He is always willing to present himself as the prime mover of a movement already well in motion.  He is a shallow person incapable of the intricacies of creating something complex, but quite capable enough of providing the gilded gloss once it does exist.

So it is with Trumpism.

It isn’t actually Trumpism.  The term is a gloss that satisfies Trump’s insatiable ego.  He did not summon the movement into being.  It searched for, and found him.  He needed the movement more than the movement needed him.  It gave him strength where he had none.  It gave him purpose where he had none.  It gave him courage where he had none. It gave him a path too the presidency where he had none.  It gave him substance to hide his triviality.  All he had to do was to apply some finishing touches.

What we call Trumpism has roots way back in the darker recesses of American life. Read more…

Epistemic revolution? The search for algorithmic justice

February 3, 2021 1 comment

from Peter Radford

This is a long speculation, for which I apologize, provoked by the following:

In an information civilization, societies are defined by questions of knowledge — how it is distributed, the authority that governs its distribution and the power that protects that authority. Who knows? Who decides who knows? Who decides who decides who knows? Surveillance capitalists now hold the answers to each question, though we never elected them to govern. This is the essence of the epistemic coup.”  — Shoshanna Zuboff, New York Times,  January 2021 

Coups are all the rage right now.  Is Zuboff right that we are the victims of an “epistemic coup”?  What do we even mean by an epistemic coup?

It gets complicated.

For years now we have been bombarded by articles, many of which emanate from the business consulting world where Zuboff made a living,  arguing that we are moving from a world dominated by material supply and demand into world dominated by digital supply and demand.  This new world has to be differentiated from its predecessor, so people have taken to calling it the “knowledge economy”.  This is trivial and well known to all of us.  Information has emerged as the critical ingredient.  Knowledge workers are the darlings of the media and political class.  Education is the panacea for all ills, especially the so-called hollowing out of the middle class.  The “learning”organization is the business idea du jour.

Well, not to be too curmudgeonly, but this is all a bit of an over reaction.  Yes, we are living in a digital world, but the epistemic revolution occurred ages ago.  Zuboff is right, though, to speak of an urgent need to recognize what’s going on. Read more…

Game stop 2: What are stock markets for?

January 28, 2021 2 comments

from Peter Radford

The sudden attention being given to the gyrations of Game Stop stock prices has caused all sorts of hand wringing within the hallowed walls of high finance.  In typical fashion the people who like to carry on their trading and associated activities beyond the public gaze are all a twitter because a bunch of apparently crazy outsiders are not adhering to the sedate rules of the game.  This produces truly odd results.  Normally virulently anti-government voices are suddenly calling for SEC investigations and even regulation to prevent outsiders spoiling things.  Some are swooning over the event as a demonstration of the awful greed and selfishness that has overtaken even average Americans — rather than just Wall Street denizens.

How dare average people become as greedy as Wall Street bankers!  The horror of it all.  Whatever next?

Then, naturally, there are the libertarians who use the chaos as a reason to argue against any further government intervention in the economy.  In their view the entire disruption is a result of people having too much money to play with.  Which must be the government’s fault.  So the answer, obviously, is to make sure that only a few people people have too much money to play with.  That the select few who have spare cash happen to be the clients of Wall Street banks and other houses of high financial wisdom is not something we peons should concern ourselves with.  For goodness sake, can’t the regular people just stick with their little 401K retirement plans and be satisfied?  Leave the fun of gambling and money making to the grown ups.

More seriously, the current episode helps explode the mystique of the stock market and Wall Street more generally. Read more…

A reminder from Berlin

January 22, 2021 16 comments

from Peter Radford

Sorting out my old bookshelves I came across an old Isaiah Berlin Essay “The Pursuit of the Ideal”.  At the risk of being boring here is a very long extract, he begins the essay this way:

“There are, in my view, two factors that, above all others, have shaped human history in this century.  One is the development of the natural sciences and technology, certainly the greatest success story of our time — to this, great and mounting attention has been paid from all quarters.  The other, without doubt, consists in the great ideological storms that have altered the lives of virtually all mankind: the Russian Revolution and its aftermath — totalitarian tyrannies of both right and left and the explosions of nationalism, racism, and, in places, of religious bigotry, which, interestingly enough, not one among the most perceptive social thinkers of the nineteenth century had ever predicted.

When our descendants, in two or three centuries’ time (if mankind survives until then), come to look at our age, it is these two phenomena that will, I think, be held to be the outstanding characteristics of our century, the most demanding of explanation and analysis.  But it is as well to realize that these great movements began with ideas in people’s heads: ideas about what relations between men have been, are, might be and should be; and to realize how they came to be transformed in the name of a vision of some supreme goal in the minds of the leaders, above all the prophets with armies at their backs.  Such ideas are the substance of ethics …”

Yes indeed.

The substance of ethics.

The ideas that have dominated the minds and actions of our leaders over these past few decades, those that produced the day-to-day world we live in, those that resulted in the inequality and inequity of our modern western societies, those that created a giant rift in society between the mass and the few, and those that now need urgent reconsideration and change, those ideas are in sore need of an ethical reckoning.

High on the list of those ideas are those that came to dominate economics starting in the mid-twentieth century. Read more…

Memo to self

January 18, 2021 14 comments

from Peter Radford

This is short:

I have been accused recently of mis-using the word “coup” when I discuss the events of January 6th.  Worse, I have been called ignorant.

Here is what the dictionary says:

Coup = a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.

Perhaps my critics would feel safer with “insurrection” which seems to be the preferred word in the media.

Here is what the dictionary says:

Insurrection = a violent uprising against an authority or government.

The subtlety of the difference between the two words seems to revolve around the first being seizure of power, whilst the second is an uprising against those in power.  Beyond that they are both a reference to violence and an attempt to unseat, or change government.  Presumably a failed coup implies that power was not wrested from the government despite the attempt.

Let’s review January 6th: Read more…

Corporate reckoning

January 15, 2021 19 comments

from Peter Radford

The aftermath of a coup attempt is one of those moments when a nation gets a really serious insight into its values.  Do, for instance, its politicians rally around some higher set of principles, or do they slide quickly back into the day-to-day argy-bargy of political positioning and infighting?

Ours are perilously close to the latter.  And this after their own place of work was invaded and trashed while they hid and cowered in sundry hiding places.  Profiles in courage are few and far between right now within our politics class.

The reason is obvious: one of major political parties is complicit in the ruin of democracy and in the rise of a far right version of populism based on white supremacy, nativism, and grievances of various sorts.  Perhaps this was the inevitable consequence of forty years of false doctrine and anti-social agitation during which the very word government became reviled and scorned by those swept along by that doctrine.  Perhaps it was the inevitable consequence of the highly planned and disciplined attack on democracy orchestrated by the panoply of right wing think tanks and media outlets established during the late 1970s for the specific purpose of ruining the ability of the middle class to protect itself from our oligarchs and big corporate interests.  Or, perhaps, it was Read more…

Under pressure

January 13, 2021 6 comments

– the vital difference between a “firm” and a “corporation”

from Peter Radford

I am learning that it takes a while to come to terms with the trauma of an attempted coup.

Various people are reacting differently depending on their state of mind prior to the attempt.  What catches my eye, given my own perspective on the role of business in society, is the pressure emerging on our large corporations.  Having spent the past few years busily ignoring the moral corruption and ineptitude of the Trump regime business leaders are suddenly trying to appear pious.  Many of them are suspending their support for political groups and individuals.  Others are suspending social media platforms that were used to organize insurrection and ferment violence.

This is all too little too late.

The equivocation that allowed major corporations to support Trump whilst overlooking his manifest moral failings simply so that they could benefit from tax cuts and reduced regulation stains those corporations forever.  It is an example of the transactional thinking produced by a rigid application of the flawed notion of shareholder value permeating the business world.

Let’s set the record straight: corporations are wards of the state.  They exist because the state says they can exist.  That’s what obtaining a corporate charter implies.  Actually it is an explicit, not implicit, relationship.  In return for being given a charter a firm, which then becomes a corporation, commits to providing socially beneficial services.  It is a classic example of a state/private sector partnership.  The charter brings with it a variety of benefits available only to corporations.  So as firms accept those privileges they surrender their market purity: they become hybrids, they become agents of the state. Read more…

JANUARY 6, 2021

January 11, 2021 4 comments

from Peter Radford

The crisis lingers on.

One would think, although we are now in an odd world, that abetting, instigating, and applauding an attack on Congress would result in more than a gentle rebuke.  Apparently not.  The wheels of American politics move extremely slowly and the perpetrator of the crime still is hunkered down in the White House bloviating, no doubt, about how he was robbed of his victory in November’s election.  Perhaps there will be enough spine amongst those who were attacked to exact appropriate revenge.  Perhaps not.

For, already, the political calculation that infects everything done in Washington is slowing and possibly preventing prosecution.  The Republican Party, now terrified of its full complicity and concerned about whatever is left of its public image, is doing its utmost to avoid punishing its soon to be ex-leader.

What do we know?

Congress was invaded with the intention of stopping it from performing its Constitutional obligation to recognize, formally, the November election result

The invasion came at the explicit behest of Donald Trump who ordered the mob at his January 6th rally to march on Congress with that aim in mind.

Several of the more extremest members of the mob had been planning various acts of mayhem for several weeks.

That planning had been overt: many of them had spoken, written, and communicated about their intentions for months.

Many others in the mob had simply fallen for the serial lying of Donald Trump or had fallen prey to various conspiracy theories allowed to float freely on social media platforms that think of themselves as above regulatory control.  This group consisted of people from all over America who believed Trump’s lies concerning the election.  They thought he had been robbed.  That he never, not once, produced evidence to support his claim was not enough to stop them joining in the assault.

Adding these facts together we see something as stark is an insurrection or a coup.  America has just survived an attempt to topple its government through the use of violence. Read more…

The firm, yet again

December 9, 2020 22 comments

from Peter Radford

There is a new eBook published by the Stigler Center which is an offshoot of the Booth Business School at the University of Chicago.  The publication contains a number of short essays either attacking or defending the infamous pronouncements by Milton Friedman on the role of the corporation.  This year, you may recall, is the 50th anniversary of the newspaper article in which Friedman described his view that the purpose of the corporation is too maximize shareholder value.  The subsequent decades have seen that view permeate the business and  legal systems such that to argue against it is seen as oddball in the extreme.

Steve Kaplan leads the defense of Friedman with the opening essay and slides almost immediately into a humdrum general defense of capitalism rather than staying on the specific topic of the corporation.  Thus we read this:

“Many observers, including the organizers of the Stigler Center’s Political Economy of Finance Conference, believe that his view has been extremely influential. It has been implemented in the US and globally starting in the 1980s, encouraged by scholars like Michael Jensen (a Booth alum and my thesis advisor).1What has been the result of corporate shareholder value maximization mixed in with globalization? Let me cite Nicholas Kristof, of the New York Times, who wrote at the end of 2019 (and pre-pandemic): “For humanity over all, life just keeps getting better.” People living in extreme poverty fell from 42 percent of the world’s population in 1981 to below 10 percent today. That is 2 billion people who are no longer suffering extreme poverty. Absolute poverty declined substantially in the US, from 13 percent in 1980 to 3 percent today. And this is more or less what Friedman predicted. The pandemic will affect these numbers, but I am hopeful that the effect will be temporary.”

Notice that the reduction in world poverty is, apparently, a consequence of the acceptance that corporations ought to devote themselves exclusively to enriching their shareholders.

Read more…