Is part of the subtitle of the book The Great Disruption, by Paul Gilding.
I went to see him present his book at
The Hub King's Cross last night: how climate change is the new WWII (his comparison) and how it will disrupt the world as we know it. Fair enough. Notwithstanding the fact that he is on a global tour (plane exhaust anyone?) to present and flog a book (printed on paper, indeed), a few points remain unclear to me.
For one thing: his points about markets appeared confused to me. He said he is a great fan of markets - although each time he used the word he felt the need to explain he doesn't mean the Goldman Sachs, large finance "markets"; is his assumption that his audience does not know what "markets" actually means? In any case he said - and I agree wholeheartedly - that markets will be the solution. People, entrepreneurs, with ideas and energy and a strong belief in their success, will be creating the tools we need to survive in the new world order.
However: he continuously spoke of the need for a "designed economy". This sounded very close to a planned economy, his repeated example was how during WWII people were told what they would produce and how and to what volume. You wanted to make something different? Tough. But people were willing to do that to serve a common good. What he did not make clear was what is that in between he envisions, that is not an unfettered open market, but is not (I presume given the point above) a fully planned economy.
Is he referring to the current model of "capitalist societies" where we have free markets with some regulation to keep checks? Or, as the example he uses, an economy that is directed from above? And if the latter, how does that allow for the entrepreneurial solution he envisions?
An audience member asked if he saw the solution for the future coming out of China or America. He said as of right now: China, hands down. But: America and Americans have a way of doing a lot very quickly when they realise that is the way the world is going, and so he sees them coming up from behind at the last minute and ultimately setting the example.
Do you share my confusion as to his exact point of view?
There is another point about which I would like to know more, and this is not one of disagreement with his argument, rather one of a genuine need for better understanding. Working on the premise that "The earth is full", Gilding said that when things get to their worst, the poorest part of the global population will die and the rest of us, in rich countries, will pull through and come out the other end.
On the other hand: the areas with the world's poor are often the areas most rich in natural resources. China has been buying up huge swathes of land on the African continent for a very good reason, after all. So my question is: is not the poverty and malnourishment in these countries due to mismanagement, rather than a lack of resources? How will this be affected by the envisioned break down of civilisation as we know it? And of course we fall in to the
tragedy of the commons area here: is not private ownership of this land for the long term purpose of cultivation a good thing? Is that not the best solution available now?
Overall in his speech I learned quite a lot, if with the remaining question marks. Alas, I confess, I did not buy the book (I am on a Kindle, you see, and live in a paperless world).
