Economics

When global markets open up, if you're selling t-shirts in the US or Denmark, you're disadvantaged because countries like Bangladesh produce them more efficiently and cheaply. This has fuelled arguments advocating caution when it comes to free trade. We've conducted what is, to my knowledge, the first study attempting to quantify both the benefits and costs of trade, rather than focusing solely on the benefits.

Environmental Economist & Author Known for Challenging Climate Alarmism

If an average developing nation had the UK's primary and secondary education level, it would be approximately 40% wealthier. Imagine the transformational impact of such an instant leap. It's indisputable that education makes individuals highly productive, making countries richer in the long run.

Environmental Economist & Author Known for Challenging Climate Alarmism

The issue you're worried about, the one you're likely spending most of your time discussing, isn't the only problem in the world. We tend to lose sight of this because we often perceive our immediate tasks as the most crucial. Given the multitude of issues we need to address, the goal shouldn't be to resolve a single problem in an exhaustive and expensive way. Instead, we should aim to find an effective, low-cost strategy that addresses most of the problem, ensuring we preserve resources for other tasks.

Environmental Economist & Author Known for Challenging Climate Alarmism

While some criticize them as being overly individualistic, I believe there's a subtle yet undeniable transition from the 'me' mindset to a collective 'we' approach. The profound 'co' concept I foresee is what I term 'co-destiny,' rooted in socially energized capital.

I see it as a blend of the boomers' hindsight, having navigated economic cycles like inflation and recessions, with the zoomers' insight into an ever-evolving world. Together, they forge the foresight essential for future capital deployment.

I once advised my daughter, as I handed her some money, to consult our family's wealth manager. But she corrected me, saying, 'Dad, it's not just about avoiding the negative; I want my investments to contribute positively.' That was an eye-opener for me. The rise of impact investing is undeniable.

The defining feature of our era is that the next generation are bona fide digital natives. They've been raised in a digital world, so concepts like artificial intelligence or quantum computing don't faze them. They're backed by technology, making them tech-empowered. This is the first aspect. They're equipped both to decide how capital is utilized and to research if it aligns with their values.

When examining the persistence of antisemitism, it's not just about understanding how these ideas endure and are transmitted within the culture. It is also crucial to ask why these ideas are being drawn upon and why we sometimes fail to provide more convincing explanations for the economic, social, and political challenges we face.

It's baffling that $1.8 trillion is still being invested in harmful sectors. As a member of the B-Team of business leaders, we've identified that $1.8 trillion a year is spent subsidizing industries that harm us, predominantly fossil fuels. Redirecting a significant portion of these funds could dramatically accelerate our transition.

First Female President of Ireland & UN Human Rights Commissioner

If you're aiming to compete for the same clientele as major banks like JP Morgan Chase, you're entering a highly competitive arena with slim profit margins. However, targeting a segment that such banks deem too risky or uninteresting presents a lucrative opportunity. We considered focusing on demographics or small-medium enterprises that were essentially deemed un-fundable by mainstream financial institutions. The idea was to make these groups profitable and easier for any entity, including banks, to underwrite.

Without the capability to take calculated risks, offering access to capital becomes nearly impossible. Charity, with its limitations and lack of accountability, rarely leads to significant change. However, the landscape is shifting with the advent of digital transactions. The digitisation of money movement, transitioning from cash to digital, allows for traceability. This traceability generates data, which can be analysed to inform decisions.

Building financial systems from the ground up in a context that emphasises current money movements and digital transactions presents an opportunity to bypass these historical biases. This approach focuses on real-time behaviours, offering a dynamic and inclusive way to assess creditworthiness. It's interesting to note the impact of newly implemented credit systems in regions like Africa, where, given equal opportunities, women and small to medium-sized businesses have demonstrated significantly higher credit repayment rates.

Working for international organisations, I was caught up in the belief that we could fix broken systems simply by introducing the right resources, processes, and intentions. However, I've come to realize that good intentions alone are insufficient. The lack of access to essential services isn't a matter of moral failing but rather a systemic inability to assess risk and generate profit from these assessments.

Well credit, as you say, makes the world go around, but we want the right amount of credit. Too little credit and the economy can't grow, too much credit and the economy becomes unstable and we have the great financial crisis. So we need to find that proper Goldilocks point in the middle.

Complexity scientist & founding director of Santa Fe Institute's Complexity Economics program

Part of the reason I'm arguing the time is right is because unlike back in the 60s when these ideas about complexity economics were first floated by people like Herbert Simon, we now have all the tools to do it. Computers are a billion times more powerful, the data is vastly better, our understanding of psychology is vastly better, we know a lot more about how to program models like this.

Complexity scientist & founding director of Santa Fe Institute's Complexity Economics program

The standard models were formulated through a process that started well before computers were in place, and I would say it's undergone a certain lock-in. Once you start going down that path, it's hard to break out of it to another path. As a result, economics is stuck. It's not even that the existing models are wrong, they're just very limited in what they can do, and mainstream economists have gotten very locked in to using those models – and only those models.

Complexity scientist & founding director of Santa Fe Institute's Complexity Economics program