From 600+ conversations with the world’s leading thinkers.
The policies they prescribe are a continuation or exaggeration of the previous policies that created the structural problems in the first place.
Since 1998, the effective return to hedge-fund clients has only been 2.1% a year... never in the history of Finance was so much paid by so many for so little.
The Chinese state then backs a local champion company, subsidizes it, and blocks the international company from the Chinese market. Subsequently, goods produced at artificially deflated prices are offloaded onto the international market with the intent of driving competitors into bankruptcy.
The economy is in the doldrums and likely to worsen. The UK economy has performed worse than most Euro Zone countries, and the calls for a change, of course, are becoming pretty loud. The economists who backed Osborne in 2010 have basically withdrawn their support, the IMF lowered its growth forecast and so on. The government's economic strategy is clearly in disarray.
Instead of looking at hoarded cash as being a 'rainy day fund' we need to view these balances as stores of economic growth. This cash represents potential investments, new jobs, new innovations and the potential for significant wealth creation and diffusion.
Even if there was no climate change… even if there was no problem with the environment… we would still need to replace the polluting infrastructure we have because it is too expensive and too outdated compared to modern, efficient, infrastructure.
You are all so smart… and this was so bad… how could your discipline have not seen it coming? Implicit in the Queen's question was the assertion that economists don't get out enough and talk to people in the wider economy.
We tend to see two scenarios that come up time and time again. The first and most common scenario is that security prices become inefficient or show large departures from intrinsic value when there are few investors paying attention to the company. So in this case, we are talking about a neglected stock.
We are living longer and measuring GDP growth is not the way to decide whether a society or an economy are flourishing.
rates of homicides and violent crime were strongly associated with income inequality. In addition, unemployment was found to be associated with income inequality.
We cannot use the existing models of development, because those existing models have brought us pollution, disparity of income, and significant challenge. Consumption-led economic development has been the narrative of the 20th century.
This decade, their GDP will increase by about $12 trillion, i.e. they will create another one of themselves! More importantly, the share of consumption in this decade's growth will be bigger and this is where the big opportunity lies. I am especially optimistic about the Chinese consumer.