> The author is casting aside decades of economic growth, peace, and innovation. I think Steven Pinker's case for capitalism is strong; still, it may be that a

> The author is casting aside decades of economic growth, peace, and innovation. I think Steven Pinker's case for capitalism is strong; still, it may be that a significant portion of that progress derives from "cooking the books" with regard to externalities like ecology, the social fabric, and quality of life. (The fact that things seem to keep getting better on average also obscures the possibility that we're "leaving money on the table" in terms of how much more life could have been improved, in the absence of rent-seeking, perverse incentives, etc.) The shareholder model in particular does seem to have two layers of moral hazard: one for externalities to the economy/ecology as a whole, and another for short-termism and fixation on valuations/exits rather than sustainable revenue and relationships. A single owner, even if the worst kind of extractive rent-seeker, at least must take responsibility for their choices (including the potential for pro-social principled choices!), as opposed to getting lost in the crowd of "any other rational actor would make this same choice, so I'm off the hook". Douglas Rushkoff does a good job of examining the other side of the capitalism=progress coin, without throwing out baby with bathwater: https://rushkoff.com/books/life-inc/ https://rushkoff.com/books/life-inc/