logo
A Reboot for Capitalism's Operating System

A Reboot for Capitalism's Operating System

The Atlantic16 hours ago

The world economy is like a supercomputer that churns through trillions of calculations of prices and quantities, and spits out information on incomes, wealth, profits, and jobs. This is effectively how capitalism works—as a highly efficient information-processing system. To do that job, like any computer, capitalism runs on both hardware and software. The hardware is the markets, institutions, and regulatory regimes that make up the economy. The software is the governing economic ideas of the day—in essence, what society has decided the economy is for.
Most of the time, the computer works quite well. But now and then, it crashes. Usually when that happens, the world economy just needs a software update—new ideas to address new problems. But sometimes it needs a major hardware modification as well. We are in one of those Control-Alt-Delete moments. Against the background of tariff wars, market angst about U.S. debt, tumbling consumer confidence, and a weakening dollar watched over by a heedless administration, globalization's American-led era of free trade and open societies is coming to a close.
The global economy is getting a hardware refit and trying out a new operating system—in effect, a full reboot, the likes of which we have not seen in nearly a century. To understand why this is happening and what it means, we need to abandon any illusion that the worldwide turn toward right-wing populism and economic nationalism is merely a temporary error, and that everything will eventually snap back to the relatively benign world of the late 1990s and early 2000s. The computer's architecture is changing, but how this next version of capitalism will work depends a great deal on the software we choose to run on it. The governing ideas about the economy are in flux: We have to decide what the new economic order looks like and whose interests it will serve.
The last such force-quit, hard-restart period was in the 1930s. In the United States, the huge liquidity crunch caused by the 1929 Wall Street crash combined with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 to kill commercial activity and trigger the Great Depression. Bank failures swiftly turned into a mass failure of firms and industries; wages tumbled and unemployment shot up, in some areas to a quarter of the workforce. Despite the state interventions of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal program, the economic situation stabilized and returned to sustained growth only in the '40s, when wartime re-armament delivered a huge industrial stimulus.
The computer built for the postwar period was solving to avoid a repeat of the '30s. The software update was a new governing idea of full employment. Achieving that aim as the central raison d'être of the economy also entailed several hardware modifications. One was a policy of forcing wealth owners to use their capital locally by limiting their ability to move it out of the country. To maintain their profits, they were obliged to invest in technology that would increase productivity. In this virtuous cycle, high productivity allowed for high wages, which the state could then tax to fund social transfers. Combined with the government-spending power of revenues raised by high marginal taxes, America's welfare state was born. Labor unions were seen more as partners in business enterprises, and political parties needed to appeal to the median, middle-income voter. These changes produced a political system in which the two main parties competed over a centrist consensus so bipartisan that people struggled to see the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
The New Deal did indeed avoid a repeat of the '30s, but its software had a bug. If full employment meant running the economy hot to keep unemployment down, then eventually employers' ability to keep their profits up by augmenting productivity would fail as workers' demand for higher wages outstripped firms' ability to pay them. By the mid-'70s, profits were falling as wages and inflation rose, so the U.S. investor class reached for the reboot switch. Holders of capital founded political-action committees, funded think tanks and media outlets to promote free enterprise, and helped get Ronald Reagan elected in 1980. Reagan busted unions and deregulated markets, accelerating the movement of capital from union strongholds to 'right to work' states, which was effectively an onshore tryout of offshoring. Simultaneously, the Federal Reserve under Paul Volcker raised interest rates to almost 20 percent to squeeze inflation, a measure that induced a harsh recession, which disciplined labor further by raising unemployment.
As all of that implies, full employment ceased to be the governing economic idea. The software rewrite of this era instead made price stability, capital mobility, and the restoration of profits via globalization the new priorities. The hardware modification was to make central banks more independent—the better to enforce price stability and enable the recovery of profits. These new priorities were justified by Margaret Thatcher's famous nostrum that 'there is no alternative.' This reboot has come to be known as neoliberalism.
The computer was humming along again when I arrived from Scotland to attend graduate school in New York in the summer of 1992. The U.S. had entered a period that Ben Bernanke, then a Federal Reserve governor (and later Fed chair), called the 'Great Moderation.' Globalization was good; finance was the future. Central banks had delivered sustainable prosperity, and the investor class saw its profits restored on a transnational scale.
Once again, however, the system had a bug. The increase in profitability came not only as a result of improved domestic productivity but also at the expense of once-stable industrial regions of the U.S., as jobs, skills, and capital flowed out. Meanwhile, the authorities had presided over the deregulation of financial markets, which supplied the economy with copious credit. But one effect of this credit was to mask a chronic lack of wage growth and a rising level of inequality.
That turned out to be a major hardware issue: Neoliberalism's financialized solutions to economic problems became liabilities when the next crash came, in 2008, as a tsunami of credit became an earthquake of debt. The hardware modification of the era—independent central banks—saved the system with colossal bailouts of the private sector, paid for by the public sector in the form of ever greater debt and more stringent fiscal policies. This liquidity dump enabled the economy to stagger on through the slowest-ever recovery from a recession—but only by pushing the bulk of the costs of those bailouts onto those least able to bear them. Signs of profound public disaffection in Western countries started to show in 2016: first with the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom, then with Donald Trump's rise in the U.S.
Trump has acted as a catalyst for the next reboot. His hostile takeover of the Republican Party was leveraged by a new, more working-class electoral coalition based on a populist politics of resentment. His antipathy toward China may lack analysis, but by articulating a sense that American workers had lost out in the neoliberal era, it gave voice to authentic grievance. Trump's chaotic first term made only limited progress in forcing another reboot, but his second term seems likely to foreclose on the Biden administration's interim solution of keeping the neoliberal system running with a limited New Deal–like reindustrialization in new sectors such as renewable energy. The Inflation Reduction Act was a significant reinvention of industrial policy, something not seen for decades outside a national-security context, but Trump is abandoning this sort of intervention. Instead, he has chosen tariffs as his singular tool for reshoring industry.
To the extent that the Trumpian approach coheres, the economy's new goal is to benefit native workers by restoring carbon-heavy industrial jobs while removing immigrants from the labor pool and encouraging women to have more children and become homemakers. This is not so much the building of a new computer system as the retrofitting of several old ones—a version of what a critic of Thatcherism once called ' regressive modernisation.' The MAGA economic ideal derives from a blend of the 1950s, which saw a huge expansion of manufacturing jobs for men, and the '40s, when women were pushed out of the wartime jobs and back into the home, and immigration was tightly restricted. This boost for the native labor force is in turn yoked to a 19th-century, mercantilist 'spheres of influence' foreign policy.
This hodgepodge of historical impulses speaks to the unsettled nature of Trumponomics. No new economic order is discernible, because the governing idea is still contested. The national-conservative movement, which seeks to rebrand the GOP as a workers' party, has one vision, but other forces are also trying to shape this moment. The 'Dark Enlightenment' wing of the tech sector is a player, too. Overinvested in AI and keen to grab government funding that was earmarked for elite research universities, the Silicon Valley billionaires imagine an economy that runs not as a return to hard-hat industry's glorious past but as a posthuman future of automation and space exploration.
The problem with such projects is that we cannot go back, any more than we can leap into the future; we can live only in the present. The populist-right reset will fail because tariffs may spur some reindustrialization, but robots will be the main producers, not working-class men on an assembly line. And little suggests that most women will relish the return to hearth and home that is planned for them. The techno-futurist update has nothing to offer the great mass of humanity and would benefit only the tech lords most invested in its realization.
So we seem to be stuck, which is why this moment is so perplexing. The system upgrade is pending: The right is offering its regressive modernization as the update. The left has yet to figure out which one of three paths it wants to take.
One possibility is to stay put with the gerontocracy of the Democratic Party and wait for Trumpism to implode. That might happen, and the Democrats' current position as the party of the institutionalist status quo makes this the most likely path. But this will be a losing proposition if no reversion to the mean of the pre-MAGA American politics occurs.
The effort by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders to rally an anti-oligarchy movement advocates for a second option, of left-wing populism. But whether this appeals to young men who have been drawn to Trump, as well as young women who poll as more progressive, and can create a broad-enough coalition remains to be seen.
A third approach is the 'abundance' agenda, promoted recently by Ezra Klein and The Atlantic 's Derek Thompson, which proposes a progressive political program based on lower-regulation, pro-growth policies as a spark for renewed economic growth—though critics on the left accuse this approach of failing to confront corporate power.
To develop an alternative to the regressive modernization underpinning Trump's reelection, the left must come up with a governing economic idea that can compete. Technocratic fixes of the old system look very unlikely to inspire a broad-enough coalition to defeat the potent, if unstable, electoral alliance that reelected Trump. The most promising avenue—one that could address the needs of millions of Americans who feel shut out of growth and prosperity and alienated from America's governing elite—might be a fusion of AOC/Bernie populism with a more political, less technocratic version of abundance.
Regardless of whether such a project can materialize, we have to accept that a transformation is under way. A new economic order is forming—which means that it is not yet fixed and can still be shaped. But time is running out. As jumbled as the regressive modernization is, it could win the day if we do not come up with a different governing idea of what the economy is and whom it is for. And we need enough people in our democracy to agree that this new purpose is the right one. The ideas are there to be found. They just need politicians with the courage to try them.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

G7 agrees to exclude US from corporate minimum tax
G7 agrees to exclude US from corporate minimum tax

The Hill

timean hour ago

  • The Hill

G7 agrees to exclude US from corporate minimum tax

The Group of Seven (G7) said Saturday that it will allow American companies to be excluded from a global minimum tax imposed by other countries, creating instead a 'side-by-side' agreement where regular American tax rules would apply. In 2021, nearly 140 countries agreed to tax multinational companies at a minimum rate of 15 percent, regardless of where they were headquartered, in a deal aimed at preventing conglomerates from seeking out tax havens. The Biden administration was then a proponent of the deal, as it was in line with its plans to raise the corporate tax rate. The Friday move by the G7 is nonbinding and still requires approval from the OECD, the intergovernmental organization that established the 2021 agreement. But the G7 members, which include the world's largest economies, dominate the OECD. The G7 statement is a major win for the Trump administration, which has pushed for the United States to be exempted from the tax agreement. The 'big, beautiful bill' now making its way through the Senate initially included a 'revenge tax' that would have imposed a levy of up to 20 percent on investments from countries with economic policies deemed to be unfair to American businesses, a broad definition that could have included the OECD deal. The language was pulled Thursday after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said progress with the G7 had been made, a move celebrated by congressional Republicans. 'We applaud President Trump and his team for protecting the interests of American workers and businesses after years of congressional Republicans sounding the alarm on the Biden Administration's unilateral global tax surrender under Pillar 2,' wrote Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Ind.) and Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.), the chairs of each chamber's tax policy committee.

Rubio condemns Iran's threats against IAEA chief
Rubio condemns Iran's threats against IAEA chief

The Hill

timean hour ago

  • The Hill

Rubio condemns Iran's threats against IAEA chief

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has condemned calls in Iran for the arrest and execution of Rafael Mariano Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, following the U.S.'s attack on three of Iran's nuclear sites last week. 'Calls in Iran for the arrest and execution of IAEA Director General Grossi are unacceptable and should be condemned,' Rubio wrote on X Saturday. 'We support the lAEA's critical verification and monitoring efforts in Iran and commend the Director General and the lAEA for their dedication and professionalism. We call on Iran to provide for the safety and security of IAEA personnel.' The extent of threats against Grossi was not immediately clear. Last week, Ali Larijani, a top advisor to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, wrote on X, 'When the war ends, we will settle the score with Grossi' in Arabic. Iran also recently elected to ban the head of the nuclear watchdog and remove agency cameras from its nuclear facilities, claiming that the Israeli government had been able to obtain sensitive data. The IAEA is responsible for monitoring the nuclear program of Iran as well as other countries. Iran previously allowed the agency to access and inspect its nuclear plants as part of the 2015 Obama-era nuclear deal. However, access has become more difficult after President Trump withdrew in 2018, although the IAEA has negotiated with Tehran to continue monitoring. The day before Israel began launching missiles at Iranian nuclear and military sites, the nuclear agency said that Tehran had amassed a worrying quantity of enriched uranium and that the country was in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years. The IAEA has also examined the impact of American airstrikes on the Iranian nuclear sites of Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Grossi said Saturday that the facilities had sustained serious damage, although he was unsure whether the IAEA would have the access needed to establish whether nuclear activity was still proceeding.

Musk renews criticism of Trump's big bill as it faces a key Senate vote

timean hour ago

Musk renews criticism of Trump's big bill as it faces a key Senate vote

WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — Elon Musk on Saturday doubled down on his distaste for President Donald Trump's sprawling tax and spending cuts bill, arguing the legislation that Republican senators are scrambling to pass would kill jobs and bog down burgeoning industries. 'The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country,' Musk wrote on X on Saturday as the Senate was scheduled to call a vote to open debate on the nearly 1,000-page bill. 'It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.' The Tesla and SpaceX CEO, whose birthday is also Saturday, later posted that the bill would be 'political suicide for the Republican Party.' The criticisms reopen a recent fiery conflict between the former head of the Department of Government Efficiency and the administration he recently left. They also represent yet another headache for Republican Senate leaders who have spent the weekend working overtime to get the legislation through their chamber so it can pass by Trump's Fourth of July deadline. Musk has previously made his opinions about Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' clear. Days after he left the federal government last month with a laudatory celebration in the Oval Office, he blasted the bill as 'pork-filled' and a 'disgusting abomination." 'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it,' he wrote on X earlier this month. In another post, the wealthy GOP donor who had recently forecasted that he'd step back from political donations threatened to fire lawmakers who 'betrayed the American people.' When Trump clapped back to say he was disappointed with Musk, back-and-forth fighting erupted and quickly escalated. Musk suggested without evidence that Trump, who spent the first part of the year as one of his closest allies, was mentioned in files related to sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein. Musk ultimately tried to make nice with the administration, saying he regretted some of his posts that 'went too far.' Trump responded in kind in an interview with The New York Post, saying, 'Things like that happen. I don't blame him for anything.' It's unclear how Musk's latest broadsides will influence the fragile peace he and the president had enjoyed in recent weeks. The White House didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Musk has spent recent weeks focused on his businesses, and his political influence has waned since he left the administration. Still, the wealthy businessman poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Trump's campaign in 2024, demonstrating the impact his money can have if he's passionate enough about an issue or candidate to restart his political spending.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store