What’s interesting in this Forbes interview is that they never actually ask Rebecca Henderson what that new capitalism looks like, nor does she really volunteer. I wonder why?
Fighting Climate Change Requires A New Capitalism
Rebecca Henderson spent her young adult years living two lives.
At work, she preached the risks of resisting change to MBA students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, drawing on lessons she learned while watching factories close as a management consultant. But at home, she found comfort in the seeming permanence of nature and trees, whose leafy branches provided solace to her as a child. (snip)
Business was ever-changing, but nature was constant. It wasn’t until in the mid-2000s, at her brother’s urging, that she started to read about the science of climate change—and the part that business has played in accelerating it. The revelation shook her world view.
After debating whether to quit her job at MIT, Henderson started seeking out like-minded leaders who shared her concerns. Her experiences and the research that came out of them culminate in her new book, Reimagining Capitalism in a World on Fire, a deeply personal exploration of capitalism’s role in addressing climate change.
The puff piece interview follow, and the closest it comes is
Henderson: In the ’70s, when the conversation about shareholder value first began, and in the ’80s, when it really took off, it was fine for business to just focus on making money. We had a very cohesive society and a strong government.
But right now, we have a political system that’s incredibly partisan. It’s very difficult to get anything done. And we have a government that is, as a result of years of attack on the very idea of government, fundamentally very weak. You can really see that in the current COVID-19 emergency, both in the slowness of the federal government’s response, and in its decision not to step up as a central buyer of things like personal protective equipment (PPE). States are bidding against each other for medical equipment, which seems extraordinary.
There are moments when you really need government. Controlling climate pollution is one example. Without the right kinds of rules, firms run the risk of causing more damage from the the carbon dioxide they emit than the value they create.
Hmm, sounds like a call for the Government to control the economy. Why don’t Warmists just come out and say what they really want? Are the afraid to scare people off with their Modern Socialist views?
Is the current version of US capitalism perfect? Of course not.
PG typed: Hmm, sounds like a call for the Government to control the economy.
No, that’s not what the author claimed. That’s Teach’s knee-jerk response any time anyone points out the extreme inequality between America’s haves and the have-nots. And for the umpteenth time, this inequality is not a natural phenomenon, not the inevitable outcome of capitalism; it’s the result of decades of policies that shift wealth from the working classes to the rich. Policies on labor, trade, patents, protectionism, regressive taxes, healthcare, transportation, worker safety, environmental regs, monetary, fiscal and on and on.
For once I agree with you, Elwood. Capitalism was never meant to oppress some and work for others. We must be doing something wrong for there to ve such vast amounts of wealth held by one person such as Bezos, Zuckerberg etc.But it’s not just an American phenomenon it holds true in many countries, some which are neither capitalist nor republics. There is a huge disparity between the richest and poorest in Cuba, China, Venezuela, N. Korea, and others.
It could very well be due to the “American Market Model” but it certainly isn’t limited to America. I don’t know what policies shift wealth from the working class to the rich. Especially since the rich pay the majority of taxes. What shifts wealth to the rich is people buying what the rich are selling, like Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, etc. Do we limit invention?
This problem needs more investigation.