From 600+ conversations with the world’s leading thinkers.
inequality [was] a better predictor of violence than economic development… Increasing inequality was found to predispose more to lethal violence
We can't only rely on consumers making individual choices. If you switched your energy to someone who told you they are selling you 100% renewable energy, that's great, but it doesn't shift the energy system to renewables. You need to have energy markets that are designed to encourage investment into renewable energy.
I can illustrate the current situation in the form of a story. Two boys were being chased by a Tiger. One boy stops to put on running shoes, and the other boy says, 'What are you doing?' The first boy responds, 'I don't have to outrun the Tiger, I just have to outrun you'.
The social sector offers this middle-ground where you've got organisations that have a social purpose. They care about the level of service in a real way, but also have the financial disciplines of a for-profit company as they must be sustainable.
The impact to one's own sense of happiness and prosperity of not being able to afford 'basic' goods is far greater than not being able to afford 'discretionary' goods. By increasing the financial stress on consumers abilities to purchase essentials- the rest of the economy suffers, as people are more likely to hoard than spend.
Inequality is strong because wealth goes to wealth. The economic and political organisations of the world are such that the negotiation power of the poor is minimal if not zero. There are no trade-unions, no capacity to negotiate… even in the US, Europe and elsewhere… the level of concentration of wealth is bigger than ever.
After Amaranth, I think to a significant extent, the business side became more important and of greater focus for institutional investors than the investment side.
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.
We propose that focusing on skilled migration—such as engineers and doctors—might be more viable. People are generally more accepting of highly-skilled immigrants. We recommend increasing skilled migration by just 10% of the existing level. Given the significant wage differential between a doctor in Somalia and a doctor in the US, the benefits of such a policy could be substantial.
Imagine you have to walk through a field that has a few land mines scattered through it. If you walk through it and nothing happens, it seems there is no danger. If you walk across it enough times, you'll step on a landmine. Traditional risk management simply fails to account for the fact that the most dangerous risks are those which occur infrequently and don't show up in track-records.
What we have seen here is a pseudo-nuclear war. An unwind of misused financial instruments created a huge economic shock- which will fundamentally change the next quarter century of our economic story.
In the long-term there is no way to reconcile the conflict of interest between serving the user and the advertiser.