logo
A Reboot for Capitalism's Operating System

A Reboot for Capitalism's Operating System

The Atlantic2 days 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

Supreme Court takes up a Republican appeal to end limits on party spending in federal elections
Supreme Court takes up a Republican appeal to end limits on party spending in federal elections

San Francisco Chronicle​

time39 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Supreme Court takes up a Republican appeal to end limits on party spending in federal elections

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will take up a Republican-led drive, backed by President Donald Trump's administration, to wipe away limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for Congress and president. The justices said Monday they will review an appellate ruling that upheld a provision of federal election law that is more than 50 years old, ignoring pleas from Democrats to leave the law in place. The Supreme Court itself upheld it in 2001. But since Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court in 2005, a conservative majority has upended a variety of congressionally enacted limits on raising and spending money to influence elections. The court's 2010 Citizens United decision opened the door to unlimited independent spending in federal elections. Without the limits on party spending, large donors would be able to skirt caps on individual contributions to a candidate by directing unlimited sums to the party with the understanding that the money will be spent on behalf of the candidate, supporters of the law say. The case will be argued in the fall. Richard Hasen. an election law expert at the University of California at Los Angeles law school, has predicted the court will strike down the limits. 'That may even make sense now in light of the prevalence of super PAC spending that has undermined political parties and done nothing to limit (and in fact increased) corruption and inequality,' Hasen wrote on the Election Law blog. The Justice Department almost always defends federal laws when they are challenged in court. But the Trump administration notified the court that 'this is the rare case that warrants an exception to that general approach' because it believes the law violates free-speech protections in the First Amendment. The Republican committees for House and Senate candidates filed the lawsuit in Ohio in 2022, joined by two Ohio Republicans in Congress, then-Sen. J.D. Vance, who's now vice president, and then-Rep. Steve Chabot. In 2025, the coordinated party spending for Senate races ranges from $127,200 in several states with small populations to nearly $4 million in California. For House races, the limits are $127,200 in states with only one representative and $63,600 everywhere else. ___

National pride slips among Americans: Gallup
National pride slips among Americans: Gallup

The Hill

time41 minutes ago

  • The Hill

National pride slips among Americans: Gallup

The share of Americans who say they're 'extremely' or 'very' proud to be an American slipped 9 points from last year, falling to the lowest level ever recorded by Gallup. In the latest Gallup poll released days before the Fourth of July, 58 percent of Americans express enthusiastic pride in their national identity, down from the 67 percent recorded in the 2024 survey. The drop is driven exclusively from a decline in those who say they're 'very' proud to be American — from 26 percent in 2024 to 17 percent in 2025. The percentage of those who say they're 'extremely' proud to be American is unchanged from last year — at 41 percent. When Gallup began asking the question in 2001, those who said they were 'extremely' or 'very' proud hovered in the high-80s to low-90s. In 2005, that level dropped to mid-80s and dipped to mid-to-low 70s in 2017. In 2020, enthusiastic national pride dipped to 63 percent, before ticking back up to high-60s, where it has hovered in annual surveys since then. National pride, in the last decade, has seen a clear schism between parties. The share of Republicans who say they're 'extremely' or 'very' proud to be American is 92 percent, a 7-point increase from last year. Since 2001, Republican national pride has remained largely consistent in the 90s, dropping to the mid-to-high 80s during the Biden administration. Among Democrats, only 36 percent now say they are 'extremely' or 'very' proud to be American—a dramatic 26-point drop from last year and the lowest level ever recorded. Enthusiastic national pride among Democrats declined dramatically during the first Trump administration, with the previous record-low of 42 percent seen in 2020. After President Biden took office, that percentage ticked up to 62 percent, before declining to the low 50s in 2022 and 2023, and rebounding to 62 percent in 2024. Pollsters also just recorded a record-low share of independents who say they are 'extremely' or 'very' proud to be American, with that percentage falling to 53 percent from 60 percent last year. The group's sentiment has seen a more stable decline over the years than Democrats. The latest poll was conducted June 2-19 with 1,000 adults. The margin of error is 4 percentage points.

Will Congress ever stand up to the president on war powers?
Will Congress ever stand up to the president on war powers?

The Hill

time41 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Will Congress ever stand up to the president on war powers?

Shout! Let us loudly praise two congressmen from opposite ends of the American political divide. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) introduced a resolution to prohibit the president from using military force against Iran without congressional approval. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) introduced a companion resolution in the Senate, which was blocked, largely on party lines, on Friday. The three are standing tall, but they are also standing alone. Not a single House Republican joined Massie in defending the Constitution. Khanna brought along a few Democrats, including progressive star Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), to defend the nation's founding document, its cornerstone, which says that only Congress has the authority to start a war. 'The Constitution,' Massie shouted to covered ears in the cowering Congress, 'does not permit the executive branch to unilaterally commit an act of war against a sovereign nation that hasn't attacked the United States. Congress has the sole power to declare war against Iran. The ongoing war between Israel and Iran is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters, according to our Constitution.' And here is Khanna with a similarly lonely shout in the night, voicing the same truth to his caucus of congressional Democrats: 'The American people do not want to be dragged into another disastrous conflict in the Middle East. I'm proud to lead this bipartisan War Powers Resolution with Rep. Massie to reassert that any military action against Iran must be authorized by Congress.' Khanna and Massie are having an even harder time being heard after Trump's bombing of Iran generated little damage to U.S. forces. The absence of immediate fallout gave cover to a sea of members of Congress with eyes closed and mouths shut. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) — a constitutional lawyer by training — won't even bring the resolution to a vote. He is degrading the standing of the legislature as an equal branch of government that is able to counter oversteps by the executive branch or judiciary. The same goes for Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), who had once been seen — by myself and others — as someone with respect for his branch's constitutional standing as an independent force in government, designed with regional and party diversity, to best reflect the will of the American people. Johnson and Thune look to be ducking their responsibility on starting wars out of fear of being bullied by the president. That is a rational fear. Trump is the dominant figure in the GOP. He is calling for Massie to be primaried over his opposition to the 'big, beautiful bill,' and a Kentucky MAGA PAC is reportedly forming to fulfill the president's wish and take out Massie. Trump attacked Massie on social media: 'Massie is weak, ineffective, and votes 'NO' on virtually everything put before him … MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague! The good news is that we will have a wonderful American Patriot running against him in the Republican Primary, and I'll be out in Kentucky campaigning really hard.' Some of the Trump loyalists now condemning Massie once had long knives out for congressional critics of the Bush administration's 2002 decision to go to war in Iraq. They called them 'unpatriotic.' But the Constitution makes clear in Article I that Congress — not the president — holds the power to declare war. Yet the U.S. has not fought a congressionally declared war since World War II. Presidents have relied on politically convenient 'authorizations' and 'resolutions' as legal fig leaves ever since. To be fair, no president has recognized the legitimacy of the War Powers Act since it was passed in 1973. The Supreme Court has not spoken. And Trump has shown a particularly brazen disregard for all constitutional limits, so it's no surprise that he'd blow past this one, too. What is surprising — and shameful — is how long members of both parties in Congress have tolerated this erosion of their own authority. President George W. Bush and a Republican Congress took the nation to war in Iraq with false claims about weapons of mass destruction. The cost? Thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths and trillions of dollars wasted — some outright stolen. It also left the public with good reason to doubt a president taking military action without congressional debate. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), a vocal Trump supporter, posted, 'It feels like a complete bait and switch to please the neocons, warmongers, military industrial complex contracts, and neocon TV personalities that MAGA hates and who were 'NEVER TRUMPERS!'' Last Thursday, 75 American organizations involved with foreign policy and human rights issued a letter calling for a congressional vote on going to war. Even some of Trump's most devoted cheerleaders are not buying the case for unilateral action. Former cable talk show host Tucker Carlson and former Trump White House aide Steve Bannon have voiced strong opposition to intervention in Iran. H.L. Mencken, the renowned newspaperman, famously wrote, 'All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.' When it comes to backing the start of a war, most everyone in Washington for the last 50 years has been a fraud. Only a principled few — like Massie, Khanna and Kaine — have earned the right to deny it. Juan Williams is senior political analyst for Fox News Channel and a prize-winning civil rights historian. He is the author of the new book 'New Prize for These Eyes: The Rise of America's Second Civil Rights Movement.'

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