Michael Mainelli: 'What do we mean when we talk about the free market?'
From a lecture by the executive chairman of Z/Yen Limited, given at Gresham College in the City of London
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.We haven't defined capitalism properly. Variety within capitalist systems is great. We have countries with over 50 per cent of GDP taken by tax, others with as little as 15 per cent. Some capitalist societies nationalised health or transport or telecoms or energy or broadcasting, others not.
While communists may believe solely in the "visible hand", social democrats make sure the visible hand stays in sight at all times as they try to remedy what they see as the inevitable market failures inherent in the system. In contrast, an overly-pure Chicago School disciple believes that, as the market always provides what is best, then this is the best of all possible worlds, except where even freer markets would make it a better world.
So, even if Francis Fukuyama's thesis is correct, that liberal democracy and capitalism are the end of the road, the new challenge is to decide within liberal democracy and capitalism what is best done by the "state" and what is best done by the "market". We move from a few macro-decisions to many micro-decisions, and this provides us with lots of other little puzzles to ponder.
At a firm level, why do the great multinational corporations look more like centrally planned bureaucracies than challenging capitalist hothouses? At a state level, why is a state with a chronic water problem at the heart of the US agricultural industry, producing almost all of America 's grapes and three-quarters of its strawberries? If the distortions of subsidised water are not altering behaviour badly enough, California also managed to manage its energy market into a joke, a joke full of brown-outs and black-outs.
At a country level, why do we have corporation taxes? Corporations are owned by us - directly or through our investments such as pensions. "Corporation tax" is a fiction - we pay the taxes as shareholders and the resultant confusion hampers the debate on the correct level of overall tax. At an international level, why does Europe persist in subsidising sugar beets well up in the northern hemisphere? Why do we still have poverty in a world where overall production is sufficient? If distribution is the problem, why can't markets fix this?
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments