So, in a nutshell: 1- fewer people than before live in "extreme" poverty, this is good 2- income inequality is higher than it was, this is bad 3- productivit

So, in a nutshell: 1- fewer people than before live in "extreme" poverty, this is good 2- income inequality is higher than it was, this is bad 3- productivity is lower than before, this is bad 4- joblessness is higher than before, this is bad 5- wall street has gone off the rails, but we're fixing that, this is good 6- we need to get our shit together regarding climate change With the general overarching message that Capitalism is mostly a positive force in the world. I agree with some, but take issue with some. 1: this is a fine line to walk. How do you define extreme poverty? Does moving out of a tiny farm village in rural China to work at a factory in Shenzhen count as getting out of extreme poverty, and who does it really benefit? In "Geek Heresy", Kentaro Toyama gives the example of trade in southeast Asia that historically took place via narrow waterways navigated by boats. During the dry season, these canals dry up, and productivity goes way down - but it's fine, because it's a known cycle, so people are prepared for it and get a large chunk of freed up time. When this gets replaced by roads and trucks, sure you get a 24/7 transport system, the economy etc. goes up, but now people don't get 6 months a year for festivals. In that case, that might count as getting out of poverty by western centric economic standards - but is it really a gain? 3 and 4 seem kind of inversely correlated, which is problematic if you want to optimize for both. It takes a single digit percentage of the population working in agriculture to address the food needs of an entire country, when 500 years ago it took 99% of the population. As our tools make us more productive, there is less need for individual workers. Obama's point on better benefits, community colleges, etc. all stand - but at some point we probably need to embrace the fact that in a modern society, there will probably never be enough jobs to put the entire population at work. That's something that must be dealt with, and something along the lines of basic income seems inevitable if one wants to address that problem well. He also says that "In 1979, the top 1% of American families received 7% of all after-tax income. By 2007, that share had more than doubled to 17%", but then says " Without a faster-growing economy, we will not be able to generate the wage gains people want, regardless of how we divide up the pie". The problem here seems to be more the fact that the top 1% gets more of the pie, rather than that the economy needs to grow faster. Finally, I wish 6 got more than just a small paragraph at the end. It is a Big Deal®, and the less we do, the more we will exponentially pay.