In the Arena

Echoing social capitalism, the encyclical gets technology and employment wrong, succumbing to the lump-of-labor fallacy and short-term protection over long-term progress.

The Pope’s AI encyclical reflects social capitalism’s animus toward growth, technology-driven creative destruction, international economic competition, and large business.

If the UN were serious about ending poverty and improving living standards worldwide, it would make productivity growth the organizing principle of its sustainable development agenda.

The strongest case for U.S. manufacturing policy is not jobs or economic multipliers. It’s the trade deficit and China’s techno-economic challenge.

After meetings in Beijing, Trump should judge every proposed techno-economic and trade deal on one question: Does it strengthen or weaken China’s national power industries, especially vis-à-vis the United States?

The lessons of America’s worst trade decision remain unlearned.

Creative destruction drives growth but displaces workers. Governments shouldn’t stop it; they should support workers through the transition. The Nordic model shows it’s possible.

After decades of bad advice that led many developing nations down the wrong path and ignored evidence against neoclassical dogma, the World Bank should have the courage to admit it was wrong.

AI is supposedly going to make America’s current level of income inequality explode. That will not happen. The idea rests on far-fetched assumptions about monopolies, mass job loss, and winner-take-all dynamics that AI won’t change.

EU regulators have targeted U.S. tech firms for years, demanding digital sovereignty, stronger consumer protections, platform openness, and structural remedies for dominance. The United States should apply that same logic to “Big Spread”—Nutella’s market power warrants investigation, regulation, and potential breakup.