Capitalism, Alone: The Future of the System That Rules the World
- Downloads：4375
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-08-16 03:40:59
- Update Date：2025-09-24
- Status：finish
- Author：Branko Milanović
- ISBN：0674260309
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
An Economist Book of the Year
A Financial Times Book of the Year
A Prospect Top Thinker for the COVID-19 Age
A ProMarket Book of the Year
An Omidyar Network "8 Storytellers Informing How We've been Reimagining Capitalism" Selection
"A brilliant sequel to the pathbreaking Global Inequality。。。Poses all the important questions about our future。"
--Gordon Brown
"Erudite， illuminating。。。Narrative in style and engaging to read。。。Milanovic chronicles the rise of authoritarian capitalism， both in nations that once epitomized liberal capitalism such as the U。S。 and in countries like China， which are partly capitalist but show no signs of turning liberal。。。As a virtuoso economist， Milanovic is superb when he is compiling and assessing data。"
--Robert Kuttner， New York Review of Books
"Leaves little doubt that the social contract no longer holds。 Whether you live in Beijing or New York， the time for renegotiation is approaching。"
--Edward Luce， Financial Times
"A scholar of inequality warns that while capitalism may have seen off rival economic systems， the survival of liberal democracies is anything but assured。"
--The Economist
We are all capitalists now。 For the first time in human history， the world is dominated by one economic system。 At some level capitalism has triumphed because it works: it delivers prosperity and gratifies our desire for autonomy。 But this comes at a moral price， pushing us to treat material success as the ultimate goal， and offers no guarantee of stability。 While Western liberal capitalism creaks under the strains of inequality and excess， some are flaunting the virtues of a more authoritarian political capitalism， exemplified by China， which may be more efficient， but is also vulnerable to corruption and social unrest。
One of the outstanding economists of his generation， Branko Milanovic mines the data to tell his ambitious and compelling story。 Capitalism gets a lot wrong， he argues， but also much right--and it isn't going away anytime soon。 Our task is to improve it in the hopes that a more equitable capitalism can take hold。
A Financial Times Book of the Year
A Prospect Top Thinker for the COVID-19 Age
A ProMarket Book of the Year
An Omidyar Network "8 Storytellers Informing How We've been Reimagining Capitalism" Selection
"A brilliant sequel to the pathbreaking Global Inequality。。。Poses all the important questions about our future。"
--Gordon Brown
"Erudite， illuminating。。。Narrative in style and engaging to read。。。Milanovic chronicles the rise of authoritarian capitalism， both in nations that once epitomized liberal capitalism such as the U。S。 and in countries like China， which are partly capitalist but show no signs of turning liberal。。。As a virtuoso economist， Milanovic is superb when he is compiling and assessing data。"
--Robert Kuttner， New York Review of Books
"Leaves little doubt that the social contract no longer holds。 Whether you live in Beijing or New York， the time for renegotiation is approaching。"
--Edward Luce， Financial Times
"A scholar of inequality warns that while capitalism may have seen off rival economic systems， the survival of liberal democracies is anything but assured。"
--The Economist
We are all capitalists now。 For the first time in human history， the world is dominated by one economic system。 At some level capitalism has triumphed because it works: it delivers prosperity and gratifies our desire for autonomy。 But this comes at a moral price， pushing us to treat material success as the ultimate goal， and offers no guarantee of stability。 While Western liberal capitalism creaks under the strains of inequality and excess， some are flaunting the virtues of a more authoritarian political capitalism， exemplified by China， which may be more efficient， but is also vulnerable to corruption and social unrest。
One of the outstanding economists of his generation， Branko Milanovic mines the data to tell his ambitious and compelling story。 Capitalism gets a lot wrong， he argues， but also much right--and it isn't going away anytime soon。 Our task is to improve it in the hopes that a more equitable capitalism can take hold。
Reviews
Meir Brooks
，
This is a somewhat strange book。Let me start with the positive: the central division of the book， between liberal meritocratic capitalism （which broadly encompasses what we'd call the world's democracies） and political capitalism （the state-led model， exemplified by China） is useful and well-defined， and is a good reminder that the old capitalism-socialism tension （or capitalism-communism as it's more typically known） essentially no longer exists。 Various statistics and tidbits about US inequali This is a somewhat strange book。Let me start with the positive: the central division of the book， between liberal meritocratic capitalism （which broadly encompasses what we'd call the world's democracies） and political capitalism （the state-led model， exemplified by China） is useful and well-defined， and is a good reminder that the old capitalism-socialism tension （or capitalism-communism as it's more typically known） essentially no longer exists。 Various statistics and tidbits about US inequality and the comparison of capitalism today to older forms were interesting， and the book had many surprising bits of information throughout。 The book is short and well-written。 That said， many aspects of the book's structure and content were strange and left me wondering what to make of it。 The discussion of political capitalism was entirely unconvincing。 For one thing， Milanovic only cites eleven countries whose systems "fit the requirements of political capitalism"， including very small economies like those of Rwanda and Laos and questionable inclusions like Botswana's。 Moreover， some of these countries-- Ethiopia， Algeria and Malaysia come to mind-- have recently faced major turbulence and pressures to move in a different direction。 It is therefore hard not to think of "Political Capitalism" as not so much an alternative system to liberal meritocratic capitalism as a regional outlier centered on East and Southeast Asia。 The rest of the chapter is similarly weak。 A central point of the book is that corruption is not only persistent in the political-capitalist world but fundamental and necessary。 It is therefore odd that to empirically ground this claim， Milanovic notes that of these 11 countries， 6 have corruption ranks significantly worse than the median。 This is about as close to "zero relation between corruption and political-capitalist status" as possible， and Milanovic notes that the exemplar of the group， China， actually has a slightly better-than-average corruption rating。 Yet the supposed endemicity of corruption in these countries plays a central role in the rest of the book。 It's also strange that this crucial division of liberal-meritocratic and political capitalism disappears， as far as I could tell， for almost the entire remainder of the book。Then there are many little issues that were strange。 The book has little boxes next to key paragraphs serving as a kind of caption for the passage， which is fine。 However， one reads "Libertarian utopia of a small state can be reached only through protocommunist policies，" which is a striking enough sentence even before noting that （as far as I could tell） nothing in that or adjacent passages says anything with the words "libertarian，" "utopia" or "protocommunist，" and I genuinely could not understand the relation between that box and the passage。 The discussion of communism seems to argue that communism was better for poor countries than rich countries， and seems to imply that had some positive effect for these countries-- which is a rather astounding claim when considering the famines， clearly linked to the communist regime policies， that killed tens of millions in China， Ethiopia and elsewhere。 In fact what might make a lot of sense would be to say that communism was horrendous but that the follow-up regimes of political capitalism in communist countries performed strongly even if （as in China and Vietnam） they purported to still be communist。 Milanovic could try to argue that the catastrophes under communism were somehow necessary for the subsequent success; I do not believe this is true， but without acknowledging the horrors under communism， Milanovic's claim that communism was a kind of useful bridge between feudal or early economic stages and political capitalism feels as if it is disregarding a huge part of this story。 Lastly， the attempts at "policy recommendations" come off as very offhand。 For example， to "deconcentrate capital ownership，" which the author sees as a central challenge， he offers three kinds of suggestions。 The first is government intervention to make capital ownership more attractive to small and medium shareholders， for example through "a government-guaranteed insurance scheme that would set a floor （of， say， zero real return） for some classes of sufficiently small investments。" I think any reader who has dealt with these issues for any length of time will immediately sense that this may lead to extreme risk-taking by these investors， and indeed the author senses this， and writes in an end-note that therefore the guarantee could be capped at losses of， say， 30%， and only to "sufficiently small investors"。 This ends up being precisely the kind of administratively complex， limited， regulation-heavy， and in the end rather minor changes that tend to do more to distort incentives than to contribute， especially given that many of the poor will surely not even have the wherewithal for even minor capital investments。 Overall， a puzzling and not very illuminating book。 I would recommend looking at other books on inequality （including perhaps the author's own， which I have not read but seems to have been very well-received）， since the discussion of inequality in the US and the West was for me the main point of interest for this book。 。。。more
Jörg
，
The First two chapters are very insightful。 The remainder is much less convincing。 After describing the different existing flavors of capitalism quite intriguingly the author starts discussing the current state and future of capitalism。 There are several key issues with these later chapters:1。 The authors argues that global value chains are in fact advantageous for poorer countries as they benefit from foreign capital investments and technology exchange。 However he fails to mention that the capi The First two chapters are very insightful。 The remainder is much less convincing。 After describing the different existing flavors of capitalism quite intriguingly the author starts discussing the current state and future of capitalism。 There are several key issues with these later chapters:1。 The authors argues that global value chains are in fact advantageous for poorer countries as they benefit from foreign capital investments and technology exchange。 However he fails to mention that the capital always stays in the hands of the capital owners and does not add to the country’s capital stock。 same goes for the profits and resulting taxes created as part of the labor performed in those countries which are accruing in western countries where the investing companies reside。 Furthermore western companies ensure that wages in outsourcing economies stay low by moving production to other countries once wages rise to a certain level。 This is accompanied by union busting practices which further destroy the hope of concerted action against the corporation’s wage dumping。 2。 How can an author in a 2019 book discuss the state and future of capitalism without even mentioning the impact it has on climate change and its political and socioeconomic impacts。 This really is beyond me。 3。 The author’s proposal for an migration policy is just ridiculous。 First it is just naive how he assumes that there exists a mathematical function which explains how many migrants are accepted by a given society based on how many privileges they are deprived of。 In many countries immigrants already don’t have most rights normal citizens of that country have， however this does not do anything to alleviate the acceptance of migrants by society。 It is in its core an emotional topic which is surely not solved by looking at an elasticity calculation weighing migrants rights against societies willingness to accept migrants。 Furthermore only in passing the author mentions that almost all European are dependent on a constant inflow of migrants in order to support the labor force needed to fund the social systems of these overaged societies。 This is completely antithetical to the argument he introduces earlier that migrants are in general a danger to developed country’s welfare system。 。。。more
Antti Värtö
，
RTC
Mikko Saarinen
，
Probably the most important book I’ve read this year。
Santiago
，
Gran libro。 Sirve para sacar otros libros sobre los temas que trata el autor。
Yisu Z。
，
看论点就行了，经济学家也就大概讲到这个程度。其实他自己博客里也都写过。
Mbogo J
，
Branko Milanovic is numbered among a rare breed of Economists。 The level headed ones who consider factors on one hand， the other hand and even on a mutant third hand and come up with the most pragmatic solutions。 I have always made time to read his books。 Unfortunately for him， pragmatic people rarely cause a buzz， look at Angela Merkel。 Meanwhile crank Economists with patently garbage ideas have zealots parroting their ideas claiming that this is the right way。。。In this book Branko took on the Branko Milanovic is numbered among a rare breed of Economists。 The level headed ones who consider factors on one hand， the other hand and even on a mutant third hand and come up with the most pragmatic solutions。 I have always made time to read his books。 Unfortunately for him， pragmatic people rarely cause a buzz， look at Angela Merkel。 Meanwhile crank Economists with patently garbage ideas have zealots parroting their ideas claiming that this is the right way。。。In this book Branko took on the topic that we all know but don't want to acknowledge; capitalism has won by being the last one standing in a fight among bad options。 For the foreseeable future most countries in the world will be run on a variant of capitalism， and there are many。 Branko concentrated on the two main ones;liberal meritocratic mostly found in western countries and political capitalism found in China and other states like Rwanda， Ethiopia， Vietnam and some other countries which I have since forgotten。 There isn't one which is better than the other， each has its good and bad and whichever will emerge "victorious" is really a roll of the dice。 Only the gods know。The strongest part about the book is the analysis。 Branko even considered the effects of corruption on capitalism and how it comes about， on another section he reviewed the effect of receding morality on our actions and how morality is increasingly being dictated by markets。 You rarely see that in Economic books meanwhile you will be inundated by chart after chart to overkill a fairly obvious point。 In case it is not evident I highly recommend reading this although I have to say it is not an easy one to read， it is written like an Economic paper with references every so often and preemptively staving off arguments by arguing with itself。 You need to be familiar with how academic papers are written to wade through this， though there is an essay in Foreign Affairs magazine adapted from this book which is more compact and more amenable to a general reader， may be start with that first before coming to the book。 。。。more
JonasGF
，
Awfully simplistic
Chris
，
Interesting topic。 But mostly boring。Except the chapter 5， the future of Capitalism and a very nice and thoroughly explained post Capitalism。By far the MOST interesting chapter， the ONLY one。And I am familiar with social sciences， economics political science。 Sociology and history。But I used to fall asleep reading this book。It was like a torture。But I admire the guy， Branko。Great theorist and in person he is a helluva fella。
Emmanouil
，
Είναι το πρώτο βιβλίοτου Branko Milanovic που διαβάζω και δηλώνω θαυμαστής του。 Η γλώσσα του επιστημονική αλλά ταυτόχρονα προσιτή στο μέσο αναγνώστη。 Το βιβλίο συνδυάζει την αντικειμενική φωτογράφιση του σύγχρονου καπιταλιστικού κόσμου με στατιστικές αναλύσεις， φιλοσοφία， και ένα γρήγορο ταξίδι στο μέλλον του。 Θεωρεί ότι υπάρχουν δυο εκδοχές του σύγχρονου καπιταλισμού που η διαφθορά και η ανισότητα αποτελούν εγγενή συστατικά τους : ο φιλελεύθερος αξιοκρατικός που εκπροσωπείτε από τις ΗΠΑ και ο Είναι το πρώτο βιβλίοτου Branko Milanovic που διαβάζω και δηλώνω θαυμαστής του。 Η γλώσσα του επιστημονική αλλά ταυτόχρονα προσιτή στο μέσο αναγνώστη。 Το βιβλίο συνδυάζει την αντικειμενική φωτογράφιση του σύγχρονου καπιταλιστικού κόσμου με στατιστικές αναλύσεις， φιλοσοφία， και ένα γρήγορο ταξίδι στο μέλλον του。 Θεωρεί ότι υπάρχουν δυο εκδοχές του σύγχρονου καπιταλισμού που η διαφθορά και η ανισότητα αποτελούν εγγενή συστατικά τους : ο φιλελεύθερος αξιοκρατικός που εκπροσωπείτε από τις ΗΠΑ και ο πολιτικόςκαπιταλισμός που εκπροσωπείτε από την Κίνα。 Στον πρώτο， αποδεικνύει ότι η άρχουσα τάξη έχει αμοραλιστική κοσμοθεωρία， ελέγχει το μεγαλύτερο μέρος του κεφαλαίου της χώρας， έχει υψηλό επίπεδο εκπαίδευσης， επενδύει τεράστια ποσά στους γόνους της και στον πολιτικό έλεγχο。 Ο δεύτερος πιστεύει ότι αποτελεί ， σε πολλές περιπτώσεις， προϊόν κομμουνιστικών επαναστάσεων οι οποίες ξέσπασαν σε κοινωνίες που ήταν αποικιακές ，όπως η Κινέζικη。 Ο πολιτικός καπιταλισμός έχει τρία χαρακτηριστικά: εξαιρετικά αποτελεσματική και τεχνοκρατική γραφειοκρατία στην κεφαλή του συστήματος， απουσία ενός δεσμευτικού κράτους δικαίου， και δυνατότητα του κράτους να καθοδηγείται από το εθνικό συμφέρον και να ελέγχει τον ιδιωτικό τομέα。 Επιπλέον， εξετάζει αν η Κίνα θα εξάγει τον πολιτικό καπιταλισμό， ενάντια στην αδιαφορία της， υποχρεούμενη να αναλάβει πιο ενεργό διεθνή ρόλο για τρεις λόγους。 Ο πρώτος， ότι είναι πλήρως ενταγμένη στην παγκόσμια οικονομία και η αδιαφορία δεν είναι πλέον βιώσιμη επιλογή από οικονομική， πολιτική και πολιτιστική πλευρά。 Ο δεύτερος ，είναι ότι οι επιτυχημένες χώρες εξελίσσονται σε πρότυπα προς μίμηση， είτε το θέλουν είτε όχι και ο τρίτος ότι δείχνει έτοιμη να πουλήσει την επιτυχία της και την εμπειρία της σε όλον τον κόσμο。 Στην συνέχεια περιγράφει αναλυτικά τον ρόλο του κεφαλαίου， της εργασίας και της διαφθοράς υπό συνθήκες παγκοσμιοποίησης και γιατί θα γίνουν ελάχιστα πράγματα για τον έλεγχο της διαφθοράς。 Τέλος προτείνει τις πολιτικές που θα μπορούσαν να βοηθήσουν για να φτάσουμε σε δυο τύπους καπιταλισμού που δεν έχουν υλοποιηθεί ποτέ στον κόσμο: στον λαϊκό καπιταλισμό και στον εξισωτικό καπιταλισμό。 Παρόλο που η γραφή και η δομή του βιβλίου， το κάνει ευκολοδιάβαστο， μου πήρε αρκετό χρόνο να το διαβάσω， γιατί οι αναλύσεις του Milanovic ήταν πράγματι τροφή για σκέψη。 。。。more
Jose Miguel Porto
，
Capitalism is the system where production is organized for profit， using legally free labor， mostly private capital and decentralized coordination。 There are two kinds of capitalism， （i） meritocratic and （ii） political。 Meritocratic capitalism is found in the western countries。 As opposed to classical capitalism， where the division of labour created capitalists （owners of capital） and workers （owners of labor）， meritocratic capitalism has created a wealthy elite that has capital （and income from Capitalism is the system where production is organized for profit， using legally free labor， mostly private capital and decentralized coordination。 There are two kinds of capitalism， （i） meritocratic and （ii） political。 Meritocratic capitalism is found in the western countries。 As opposed to classical capitalism， where the division of labour created capitalists （owners of capital） and workers （owners of labor）， meritocratic capitalism has created a wealthy elite that has capital （and income from capital and also income from labor。 In these meritocratic societies， there is a rich minority elite that owns most capital and the rest with income from labor， which creates inequality。 The rich elite receive income from securities and labor while the middle class only have meaningful investments in real estate。 To bridge the gap， the meritocratic capitalism should foster the middle class to invest more in the securities market， to enhance education for the middle class and to implement a welfare estate that can create a more egalitarian society。 Political capitalism led by a single party government， such as China and Vietnam。 The main challenges are that this system is governed by corruption and the lack of rule of law。 Corruption creates inequality。 Globalization and capitalism might increase inequality。 Citizenship has created global inequality。 Being born in a developed country has a significant impact on people’s futures， as opposed to being born in a poor country。 Capitalism and globalization allows for the free flow of capital and labor between countries。 This has allowed people to migrate across borders， but as opposed to capital migration， labor migration brings people with their own beliefs， culture， language and rules into different societies that might hold them back in prospering in the new environment。 Underdeveloped countries to prosper need to become part of the capitalist system and through globalization and outsourcing， initially provide labor， then enhance and absorb the technological improvements brought from overseas and transform themselves into becoming technologically savvy， such as China。 Globalization and the free flow of capital also enhances corruption， since it becomes easier to hide money and wealth。 To create a more egalitarian society within a capitalist system， the author proposes to use （i） taxes， to enhance middle class access to financial and housing wealth and increased taxation to the rich; （ii） funding and improvement of public schools; （iii） “light citizenship” to allow for the free flow of labor and （iv） strictly limited funding of public campaigns。 。。。more
Liam
，
formulaic inaccuracies，
Theo Gonella
，
Excellent review of the two leading global capitalism models: liberal democratic capitalism （champions by the West） and political capitalism （the East）。 The book goes into the key features of the two models， with a temperature check on common moral KPIs: inequality （a “traditional” moral value） and wealth growth （the endogenous moral value interiorized via the very same capitalism）。 Concrete policies to improve the former within liberal capitalistic counties are offered。In the final chapter， fut Excellent review of the two leading global capitalism models: liberal democratic capitalism （champions by the West） and political capitalism （the East）。 The book goes into the key features of the two models， with a temperature check on common moral KPIs: inequality （a “traditional” moral value） and wealth growth （the endogenous moral value interiorized via the very same capitalism）。 Concrete policies to improve the former within liberal capitalistic counties are offered。In the final chapter， future global scenarios are explored。Easy to read， digestible， and well structured thought process all throughout the book。 。。。more
Yavuz Milar
，
Branko， at least for me， was always a tough economist to rate。 I love his stuff， his blog and follow his writings almost religiously but never really engaged in a book of his。 I always thought he was a thinker above his work。 Now this book was exactly what i needed but there are questions in my head unanswered。 One reason for this is that he is too machiavellian in his analysis， it is hard to pinpoint his thought and engage with his opinions。Book starts off « general » as most of us who read boo Branko， at least for me， was always a tough economist to rate。 I love his stuff， his blog and follow his writings almost religiously but never really engaged in a book of his。 I always thought he was a thinker above his work。 Now this book was exactly what i needed but there are questions in my head unanswered。 One reason for this is that he is too machiavellian in his analysis， it is hard to pinpoint his thought and engage with his opinions。Book starts off « general » as most of us who read book on economics are too familier with western capitalism。 It was therefore refreshing to read chapter 2， a capitalism which we have not much understanding as of today but as china becomes more dominant and more researchers will be intrigued to study it， this will be a bedside work。Beyond the analysis of the two main types of modern capitalism， we are left with the historical narrative of emergence of these systems and the cultural/ideological consequences of living in them。 Biggest missing part of this book is climate change and how that relates to commodification and how it could become a force against market determining outcome versus society determining an outcome based on values other than monetary gains。 This is such a huge concept the book missed i would have give 4 stars if it weren’t that i really enjoyed the book。Branko seem pseudo-realist at times， especially in the future of capitalism part。 It is important to not come off as moralist but some arguments as an alternative to this hypercommercialized capitalism comes off shrugged and not dealt with seriousness they deserve。 This is the sort of grand-oevre we need。 You dont need 300 of wikipedia level history to get to the point。 I finished this book in two days and than re-read the book。 。。。more
Viola
，
Author of “Capitalism Alone” Branko Milanovic interviewed by Pablo Pryukahttps://jacobinmag。com/2021/02/global。。。“We Can’t Go Back to a Golden Age of Capitalism”The dynamics of income distribution and inequality are changing — and only for the worse。 Economist Branko Milanovíc speaks about our malaise， and why going back to the “golden age” of capitalism is not an option。Over the last forty years there has been a rise in inequality in the West while at the same time， global inequality has been i Author of “Capitalism Alone” Branko Milanovic interviewed by Pablo Pryukahttps://jacobinmag。com/2021/02/global。。。“We Can’t Go Back to a Golden Age of Capitalism”The dynamics of income distribution and inequality are changing — and only for the worse。 Economist Branko Milanovíc speaks about our malaise， and why going back to the “golden age” of capitalism is not an option。Over the last forty years there has been a rise in inequality in the West while at the same time， global inequality has been in decline。 （Max Bohme / Unsplash）The Serbian-American economist Branko Milanovic is one of the world’s foremost scholars of global inequality and the author of numerous important studies on income distribution。 A former chief economist at the World Bank， Milanovic has since dedicated himself to the study of inequality from a global perspective， measuring both inequality within countries and among them。Milanovic’s work has been an instrumental guide to understanding some of the main features of contemporary capitalism。 These include a rise in inequality in the West over the last forty years， while at the same time， global inequality has been in decline — thanks in no small part to the rise of the middle classes in China and India; and the different shapes that capitalism has gone through since its origins， delving into its more recent transformations in his latest book。 He has also written extensively on the emergence of a new ruling class in the West， one that combines incomes coming both from capital and wages。Although Milanovic sometimes seems to hint that this picture of contemporary capitalism is anathema to Marx’s nineteenth-century understanding of class divisions， his latest book Capitalism， Aloneshows him to be perfectly conversant in Marxist analysis and， as its title suggests， attempts to wrestle with the specificity of capitalism as a historical system。Milanovic took a moment to speak with Pablo Pryluka about his recent book and recent world events。PPIn your most recent book， Capitalism， Alone， you’ve taken a slightly different tack than in your earlier work。 Rather than focusing on inequality， you seem to be more interested in examining the foundations of capitalism itself。 It’s curious too that Thomas Piketty also took a similar approach in his most recent book， Capital and Ideology。 What led you to shift focus from inequality to an all-encompassing explanation of capitalism？BMI was actually always interested in empirical studies of capitalism， since I was in university。 Some of the things that I’m working on now are essentially things that I really wish I had done forty years ago: for example， the relations between different types of income — capital versus labor — and how they interact empirically within society， this is something that I really was always interested in。 But in those days， you didn’t have data like that available。You mentioned Thomas Piketty。 He made one great contribution， which was bringing back the study of capital and the importance of capital income in income distribution， which had been practically expunged from income inequality studies for a very long time。 The basic idea for my recent book， not so different from his， is really to attempt to combine what is sometimes called factorial income distribution with interpersonal income inequality。In working on my book， one thing I started to really notice is that you have more and more households that are what I call “homoploutic。” By that I simply mean that people with high capital and labor income generally end up at the top of the income distribution。 When you combine these kinds of advantages （i。e。， ownership of capital and labor） with what is called assortative mating — basically， when you marry someone of the same income， educational level， or social status — this leads to the intergenerational transmission of inequality。 Basically what I am describing is a dynamic driving the formation of a self-sustaining elite， something I address in the second chapter of Capitalism， Alone。The difficulty with dealing with some aspects of inequality is that they are not in and of themselves controllable or even necessarily bad。 For example， if someone marries a person of a similar status， there is nothing wrong with that。 But the fact is that when they do that， they are more likely to be rich and to transmit all these advantages to their children， creating a kind of a new aristocracy。 And this is a big issue。PPSpeaking of income inequality， perhaps it would be useful to step back and compare our present age with that of the welfare state。 What were the main characteristics of the so-called golden age of postwar capitalism？ Why do you think the welfare state was able to reduce inequality while guaranteeing economic growth？ How much of that has been undone under neoliberalism？BMThe main characteristic that people tend to emphasize was the ability of West European countries and the United States to， as you say， both maintain high rates of growth and reduce income inequality。 Now， if you pose the question in these terms， there is no doubt that both of these statements are true。 Western European countries， from 1945 until probably the end of what the French called Les Trente Glorieuses， had rates of growth at about 4 to 5 percent。 That was something absolutely new — we’d never seen rates of growth that size in the past。 Secondly， inequality did actually decline also very significantly。 So both of these statements I think are true。But I would urge some caution here in talking about the golden years of the welfare state。 I’ve lived through that period， and we should not over embellish it。 It had many difficult parts。 During that period France was twice on the edge of civil war， with the Algerian crisis and resistance — not to mention the far-right Organisation Armée Secrète was actually performing terrorist attacks in France at that time， including several attempted assassinations of [Charles] De Gaulle。 And there were lots of similar stories like that all across the world。 If it was such a great period， why did we have a military junta in Greece， or Franco in Spain， Salazar in Portugal， and so on。 How did we have Baader–Meinhof， or the Red Brigade in Italy？ There was a lot going on， so we should be careful not to believe that we lived in some kind of utopia or Arcadia during that time。But， to return to your question， how was high growth and reduced inequality achieved？ I think the basic story is that， where high growth is concerned， you had a process of catching up because of the effects of World War Two。 In many countries — take Germany， for example — significant capital was destroyed during the war， but skills were maintained， and so was the ability to organize production。 That meant that you actually had a huge amount of human capital and labor that had to be put to work。 And under the proper conditions， it effectively was， to the effect of producing growth。When it comes to the reduction of inequality， I think what played a role was the realization by the capitalist class — or what people call the bourgeois bloc of parties — that they really had to be very careful， lest they be overthrown。When it comes to the reduction of inequality， I think what played a role was the realization by the capitalist class — or what people call the bourgeois bloc of parties — that they really had to be very careful， lest they be overthrown。 People should remember that， for example， in 1947 the French communists were in government。 They were quite a powerful party， as they were in Belgium。 In Italy in 1973， the communists became the largest party in the country。 But they were actually pushing the sort of right-wing or bourgeois parties to be much more conciliatory， because they actually wanted to preserve capitalism against various threats。And then， likewise， there was a very strong opposition coming from the socialist and communist parties， which were connected with the trade unions。 On top of that， there was a Fordist system of production in which you could actually organize workers at the point of production。 Essentially， all these factors made the capitalist class more likely to entertain the ideas associated with social democracy or the welfare state。 I’m of course emphasizing Germany， France， Italy， but obviously similar processes， though not exactly the same， happened in the Nordic countries。And then， to answer your other question， there came the neoliberal turn。 That was basically driven by growing dissatisfaction with the role of the welfare state and particularly with the slowing of growth after the 1973 oil crisis。 I think Margaret Thatcher really captured the mood by essentially saying: “We want to grow faster， we have to get rid of all these things that are impeding us。”So the welfare state， which had been perceived very favorably in the 1960s， started to be seen as a drag on economic growth in the late 1970s。 That was a dramatic change， although maybe slightly more dramatic in language than in reality。 If you compare the size of the welfare state today and then， it has not really changed that much。 It has become less redistributive， that much is certain。 But neoliberalism has not been able to overturn the welfare state in the way that they claim to have done。PPMany also claim that the welfare state was driven by political motivations， namely to offset the appeal of socialism。 In Capitalism， Alone， you argue that socialism has mainly served to foster development in poor， backward， and colonized societies — China tends to be your main example。 Is that road to development still open？ Or has globalization cancelled that possibility？BMRegarding the general or global historical role of communism， my argument is that this was an historical process that people had not anticipated — neither those opposed to communism， nor even those who participated in the communist movement。 But I actually think that communist parties were uniquely well-situated to affect two revolutions。 One was to liberate countries from foreign interference， that is， to decolonize their countries。 Even a country like China， which was not formally colonized， had customs duties that were collected by foreigners and， essentially， their economic policy was dictated by foreigners， there was extraterritoriality for foreign citizens， and so on。The second revolution was to end a number of pseudo， or quasi， or even real feudal practices: the role of landlords， the practice of usury， the miserable situation of women， education for the people， and so on。 The communist movement in these countries laid the basis for a social transformation that was similar to what the bourgeoisie had accomplished in the West。 Of course， the difference was that in the West they didn’t have liberation movements since these were independent states。In my book I discuss roughly twelve countries — China， Vietnam， Algeria， Ethiopia， and so on — where you can observe this combination of national independence movements and a sort of anti-feudal movement that fought for the elimination of feudal impediments to growth。 So I think this is what the communist movements effectively did， and then， unbeknownst to them， they actually set the basis for the development of indigenous capitalism， as happened in China and Vietnam。 Of course the topic is much more complicated than that， and in my book I also discuss the role of the Comintern in the 1920s， and the unusual decision they made to form alliances with bourgeois parties in the colonized countries， which was really not part of the Marxist textbook。As for whether that path remains open， I don’t think so。 And the reason why is that the two key factors — feudalism plus colonization — are no longer in place。 We don’t have these conditions anymore — feudal-type relationships might exist somewhere at the edges of the developed world， but that’s about it。 And on the other hand， we don’t really have formal or even informal colonies。 There are of course countries that depend on foreign lenders， or international organizations like the IMF and the World Bank， but this is not the same as a colonial relationship。PPThere are certain schools of thought in Latin America， I’m thinking in particular of dependency theory， that might push back against what you are arguing。 You in fact discuss dependency theory in your book and I was wondering if you could say something more about the subject。BMThe Latin American structuralists are an interesting case。 Naturally， that question can be better answered by those who are more familiar with that school， but I think what happened， as I say in my book， is that they were latecomers。 What I mean is， had they come earlier， say in the 1920s， I think they would have actually gone much more to the left。 But they appeared in the 1960s， when there was already disenchantment with the socialist experiment and the socialist system itself — because of Stalinism and the enormous human costs that were clearly borne by the people in those countries。 And additionally， the anti-colonial path that I mentioned before — the combined fight against colonialism and feudalism — was not the same because Latin America became independent in 1820s。 So they could not replay in the 1960s what had happened a hundred fifty years ago。I think this question raises a separate but related issue。 I was asked by several people if Turkey， for example， could follow this path。 And I think the answer is no， because Turkey was not colonized。 Although there were certain suggestions， when Turkey was at its weakest before World War One， that the country did actually occupy a colonial position， despite the fact that Turkey itself was a colonizer in the Middle East。 Turkey under Atatürk adopted a very strong， political — somewhat leftist — movement， which was not that unlike the Kuomintang in China。PPIn the opening of Capitalism， Alone， you write that capitalism’s success has hinged in large part on convincing the world that its overarching goals are inline with everyday people’s desires and values。 Why was capitalism so successful？ 。。。more
Michael Luo
，
Probably the best book I've read in the last year。 For reference， my political beliefs at the time of reading were probably closest to that of Hillary Clinton - generally pro-market while favouring government intervention in the presence of market failures （notably healthcare）。 Similarly， I was a strong believer that liberal democracy was some hallowed form of government that every country should aspire to。 If you achieved it， congrats， welcome to the 21st century and prosperity。 If not， sucks t Probably the best book I've read in the last year。 For reference， my political beliefs at the time of reading were probably closest to that of Hillary Clinton - generally pro-market while favouring government intervention in the presence of market failures （notably healthcare）。 Similarly， I was a strong believer that liberal democracy was some hallowed form of government that every country should aspire to。 If you achieved it， congrats， welcome to the 21st century and prosperity。 If not， sucks to suck， better luck next coup d'etat。While this book did provide strong evidence for some of my beliefs， I found following arguments new， insightful， and somewhat contradictory to my beliefs。1） The moral failures of capitalismThe abstraction of money leads to a society that wants more money for the sake of having more money - not actually for any material benefit that more money could provide us。 The idea of money is better than money itself。 I can't say I'm innocent of this myself， although I tell myself I only want more money so I can retire at 35。 Milanovic argues that this driver of human behaviour has led to more corruption and weaker institutions over time， an argument I certainly buy， especially with the examples he gives。2） Overturning the Marxist view of the progression of historyMarxists would say that the progression of human history will look something like this: Feudalism -> Capitalism -> Socialism -> Communism。 Milanovic argues that the role of communism in human development has actually been as a way for Asian countries to throw off the yoke of colonialism and transition to a capitalism （Feudalism -> Communism -> Capitalism）。 That period in time required a "leftist" ideology to destroy the conservative feudalistic modes of production and simultaneously nationalist sentiments to actually， uh， build a nation。 Is leftist nationalists not what the Communist parties of China and Vietnam turned out to be？ （likely others as well， but I don't know enough to say）。 And is capitalism not what they are practicing， de facto， today？3） Blurring the lines between political capitalism and liberal democratic capitalismI had always considered forms of government of China and the United States to be wholly discrete and disjoint。 I believed that I lived in a country with rule of law， democracy， strong property rights and that those in China did not。 After reading this book， I have begun to see it more as a Political Compass/vector space sort of thing。 Sure， we are generally freer and can count on institutions upholding basic principles。 Yet Donald Trump is able to pardon 3 of his convicted criminal campaign managers （some in return for not snitching on him）。 That sort of exercise of raw political power is more at home in China - there is clearly some overlap between our forms of government。 Yet I can still for example， exercise my 1st amendment rights with no fear of government retribution。 We are further along some "freedom" axis but it's not the binary 0/1 discrete switch I had subconsciously thought it was。 You don't just go 0-> 1 and get strong institutions and rule of law permanently and forever。 It's something you have to work hard to maintain。 。。。more
Dimitris Iliopoulos
，
Δε βάζω βαθμό， γιατί δεν ξέρω κατά πόσο εύκολο είναι να βάλει κανείς βαθμό σε ένα επιστημονικό έργο έξω από το πεδίο σπουδών του。 Το σίγουρο είναι ότι πρόκειται για ένα βιβλίο που θέτει τεκμηριωμένους προβληματισμούς και αξίζει να διαβαστεί。 Ο Μιλάνοβιτς ορίζει τα δύο κύρια κοινωνικοοικονομικά συστήματα που επικρατούν στην εποχή μας， τον "φιλελεύθερο αξιοκρατικό καπιταλισμό"， με επίκεντρο τις ΗΠΑ και τον "πολιτικό καπιταλισμό"， με επίκεντρο την Κίνα και αναλύει τη δυναμική και τα χαρακτηριστικά Δε βάζω βαθμό， γιατί δεν ξέρω κατά πόσο εύκολο είναι να βάλει κανείς βαθμό σε ένα επιστημονικό έργο έξω από το πεδίο σπουδών του。 Το σίγουρο είναι ότι πρόκειται για ένα βιβλίο που θέτει τεκμηριωμένους προβληματισμούς και αξίζει να διαβαστεί。 Ο Μιλάνοβιτς ορίζει τα δύο κύρια κοινωνικοοικονομικά συστήματα που επικρατούν στην εποχή μας， τον "φιλελεύθερο αξιοκρατικό καπιταλισμό"， με επίκεντρο τις ΗΠΑ και τον "πολιτικό καπιταλισμό"， με επίκεντρο την Κίνα και αναλύει τη δυναμική και τα χαρακτηριστικά τους。 Εστιάζει ιδιαίτερα στο θέμα της ανισότητας και της δημιουργίας μιας αυτοαναπαραγόμενης ελίτ που έχει τη δυνατότητα να επηρεάζει τις πολιτικές εξελίξεις υπέρ της και κρούει τον κώδωνα του κινδύνου για το ενδεχόμενο οι χώρες της Δύσης να περάσουν σε ένα μοντέλο "πλουτοκρατικού καπιταλισμού"， με περιστολή των δημοκρατικών ελευθεριών， περιθωριοποίηση της πολιτικής και μειωμένη κοινωνική κινητικότητα。Στον αντίποδα όλων αυτών， προτείνει πολιτικές που θα μπορούσαν να μειώσουν τις ανισότητες και να συμπεριλάβουν μεγαλύτερα τμήματα της κοινωνίας και περισσότερες χώρες στην κοινωνική πρόοδο。 。。。more
Daniel Paarlberg
，
"Ook voor dit boek geldt: waar gaat het over？ Ja， in grote lijnen over de toekomst van het kapitalisme， in het bijzonder de vraag of political capitalism of liberal meritocratic capitalism dominant zal worden。 Maar waarom dan een heel stuk over het basisinkomen？ Zoveel aandacht voor corruptie？ Of een stuk over de kans op een atoomoorlog？ Is dit boek nu een doordachte blik naar de toekomst van het kapitalistische systeem of een kroniek van stokpaardjes？ Als niet duidelijk is op welke vraag een bo "Ook voor dit boek geldt: waar gaat het over？ Ja， in grote lijnen over de toekomst van het kapitalisme， in het bijzonder de vraag of political capitalism of liberal meritocratic capitalism dominant zal worden。 Maar waarom dan een heel stuk over het basisinkomen？ Zoveel aandacht voor corruptie？ Of een stuk over de kans op een atoomoorlog？ Is dit boek nu een doordachte blik naar de toekomst van het kapitalistische systeem of een kroniek van stokpaardjes？ Als niet duidelijk is op welke vraag een boek antwoord op wil geven， kun je ook niet beoordelen hoe doordacht een boek is。 Milanovic is onmiskenbaar een expert op het gebied van ongelijkheid en corruptie en heeft enkele interessante gedachten over de rol van het communisme in het ontstaan van het kapitalisme。 Dat maakt het boek nog steeds lezenswaardig。" 。。。more
Pedro Sutter
，
Panorama muito rico sobre duas variações do sistema econômico capitalista （liberal meritocrático e o político）。 Apesar de ser um livro essencialmente acadêmico， trata com profundidade e clareza em muitos temas da pauta política contemporânea。 Considerações do autor sobre a cadeia global de produção me deixaram especialmente preocupado sobre o futuro da América Latina （apesar de o foco passar longe do nosso continente， o que poderia ser aprimorado）。Destaque para o insight sobre rendas de cidadani Panorama muito rico sobre duas variações do sistema econômico capitalista （liberal meritocrático e o político）。 Apesar de ser um livro essencialmente acadêmico， trata com profundidade e clareza em muitos temas da pauta política contemporânea。 Considerações do autor sobre a cadeia global de produção me deixaram especialmente preocupado sobre o futuro da América Latina （apesar de o foco passar longe do nosso continente， o que poderia ser aprimorado）。Destaque para o insight sobre rendas de cidadania， excelente para discussões jurídicas sobre direitos sociais e econômicos。 。。。more
Alexei
，
One of the best books I have read on the structure of modern globalist capitalism。 The author believes it currently has no viable alternative and could not be rolled back， although he admits that such deviations as communism and fascism emerge as temporary stages due to unexpected turns of history。 He posits two main competitive models， the liberal capitalism of the Western type and the state one， read China， and it is too early to say which one will be victorious。 Not an optimistic book on the One of the best books I have read on the structure of modern globalist capitalism。 The author believes it currently has no viable alternative and could not be rolled back， although he admits that such deviations as communism and fascism emerge as temporary stages due to unexpected turns of history。 He posits two main competitive models， the liberal capitalism of the Western type and the state one， read China， and it is too early to say which one will be victorious。 Not an optimistic book on the whole， but capitalism has emerged naturally and by now conquered the world。 Additional pluses: convincingly debunks myths of Keynesian hedonism， robotic takeover and the universal guaranteed income。 Highly recommended。 。。。more
RogeMaHodge
，
The thesis is that Capitalism now rules the world with no other significant means of economic organisation。 This provides excellent analysis and comparison of liberal capitalism （western） and political capitalism （eastern）。 How they came about， how they function now and where capitalism takes us in the future。 Superb and succinct， highly recommended。
Rob Wilson
，
A fascinating and--even though I found much to question--important account of the past， present， and future of capitalism and inequality。 The book brims with interesting theories， speculations， and， recommendations。 It is also accesible and well written。 The first book I've read this year might turn out to be the best。（Or at least the most interesting。） A fascinating and--even though I found much to question--important account of the past， present， and future of capitalism and inequality。 The book brims with interesting theories， speculations， and， recommendations。 It is also accesible and well written。 The first book I've read this year might turn out to be the best。（Or at least the most interesting。） 。。。more
Socratis Ploussas
，
Exceptional analysis with a well constructed proposal， which differenittes ot from the batch of relevant books
Otávio Ziglia
，
Great book。 Very interesting discussions about different forms of capitalism （past， present and possible futures） and their relations to political power and inequality。 All written by a leading scholar in the field of inequality。
Sam
，
This delves into some of the big themes that Milanović discusses on his blog and Twitter feed:（1） Why has income inequality skyrocketed in recent decades in the U。S。？ The U。S。 has shifted into what he calls liberal meritocratic capitalism， where those with the most capital also obtain most of the labor income。 Increasing inequality follows。 The capital-rich can cement their advantages by marrying each other and transmitting privilege to their children through access to education。（2） Why aren't p This delves into some of the big themes that Milanović discusses on his blog and Twitter feed:（1） Why has income inequality skyrocketed in recent decades in the U。S。？ The U。S。 has shifted into what he calls liberal meritocratic capitalism， where those with the most capital also obtain most of the labor income。 Increasing inequality follows。 The capital-rich can cement their advantages by marrying each other and transmitting privilege to their children through access to education。（2） Why aren't people as nice anymore？ Neoliberalism has commodified interactions that used to be personalized， including child care， elder care， and cooking， thus making people less dependent on family and community。 Religion no longer acts as a monitor of morality， so the only limits are legal ones that lawyers and politicians can skirt and meld。He also explains why he considers China to be capitalist， how communism in Vietnam acted as a transition to capitalism， and why open immigation and social-democratic capitalism cannot coexist。 。。。more
Tomas Daubner
，
Better than useless black & white discussions about capitalism vs socialism without defining what the terms mean。 He adds third color to the discussion， it is not enough， the world is more nuanced/complex and so should be a discussion about it。The part about the migration is provocative， incentives matter。He is too uncritically towards ''Chinese political capitalism'' as an alternative to a liberal one。 The future will not look like the past， China will not grow on average 6% in the next 20 year Better than useless black & white discussions about capitalism vs socialism without defining what the terms mean。 He adds third color to the discussion， it is not enough， the world is more nuanced/complex and so should be a discussion about it。The part about the migration is provocative， incentives matter。He is too uncritically towards ''Chinese political capitalism'' as an alternative to a liberal one。 The future will not look like the past， China will not grow on average 6% in the next 20 years。 In the 80s everyone was scared that Japan will take over the world with capitalism with Japanese ''characteristic''， did no happen。Here are reason why China grew in the past 30 years at 10%， why she will not grow on average 6% in the next years and why the economic rebalancing will be much more painful than Japanese:In the case of the west， it took 200 years to develop the technology which drives the GDP growth， in the case of China it is condensed to 30 years， they can take it and use it， it is called catch-up growth。The massive build-up of public debt。GDP for some provinces can be 15% lower because they have incentives to cheat to reach 'target' growth rates。 Now think about what that means for debt to GDP ratio。According to independent estimates， the GDP growth is lower than what the Chinese misnitry for propaganda says。Nonexisting Net International Investment Position （NIIP） compared to Japan。Nonproductive infrastructure investment at home （ghost towns） and in foreign。 google: ''empty airport Sri Lanka''Developing countries will default on loans from Chinese Exim banks， why not。Massive real estate bubble， the mother。The construction sector as GDP is too high。Too many things in China look like Potemkin village。etcIf you want to know more about China I can recommend you these books:China's Great Wall of Debt: Shadow Banks， Ghost Cities， Massive Loans， and the End of the Chinese MiracleAvoiding the Fall: China's Economic Restructuring 。。。more
Albert Gubler
，
Well-written overview over the system that rules the world with a lot of interesting research on inequality mentioned。
Zoltan Pogatsa
，
The first part of this book is about inequalities。 It is a subject that Milanovic knows about， so it is a good read。 The second part is about capitalism， where he is just laying out his own shallow ideas。 It is astounding how little reading of other authors such a prominent economist like Milanovic has done。 Had he read others economists， he would not be saying most of the not very well thought through stuff he is saying。 A disappointment。
Lampros
，
Many neurosciencentist believe that we make the decision of whether to read or not the book in the first couple of pages。 I am so glad I did not commit to that mistake。 This book masters the science of flow。 The introduction is definetely not ground breacking and is covered extensively in the majority of reviews。Milanovic begins as every economist who respects his work does。 He returns to the roots of the classical political economy and applies it to the socioeconomic conditions of modern times。 Many neurosciencentist believe that we make the decision of whether to read or not the book in the first couple of pages。 I am so glad I did not commit to that mistake。 This book masters the science of flow。 The introduction is definetely not ground breacking and is covered extensively in the majority of reviews。Milanovic begins as every economist who respects his work does。 He returns to the roots of the classical political economy and applies it to the socioeconomic conditions of modern times。 His work is deeply empirical and in his case that is an advantage。 It is an advantage because we rarely encounter such well educated economists。 As mentioned the book gets better as it gets。 His idea of the "outsourcing of ethics" is a brilliant section。 Although the title seems nihilist， the content is far from it。 Milanovic understands the impact of human ability to change its course of history and most of all the factor of uncertainty。Another Milanovic advantage is his well trained in the World Bank command of global economic data （You can find most of them on his other books although this book is much more rewarding。 His analysis of China is thought provoking and incredibly insightful。From frequent mentions of ancient Greek philosophy to John Rawls， Milanovic understands that the study of economics is a study of ethics。 Thats why "Capitalism Alone" offers a refreshing view on global economic matters。 Where I have to disagree with Milanovic is his quotation that even if the means of production are common held， our nature has been so commotified that a reset is hard。 The acknowlegdement af a chance that capitalism shapes citizens that behave like a "homo economicus" logically suggests that a reversal can be achieved as social systems impact our behavior （unless someone suggests that hierarchy and social capital is a deep part of our nature）。 But even this minor "objection" is mostly formalistic。 Milanovic correctly suggests that a change in human cognition is necessary to reform an economic and political system。 。。。more
Charis
，