The thesis of the article is, essentially: > If there was one dogma that defined neoliberalism, it’s that most people are selfish. And it’s from that cynical v

The thesis of the article is, essentially: > If there was one dogma that defined neoliberalism, it’s that most people are selfish. And it’s from that cynical view of human nature that all the rest followed – the privatisation, the growing inequality, and the erosion of the public sphere. [...] Now a space has opened up for a different, more realistic view of human nature: that humankind has evolved to cooperate. It’s from that conviction that all the rest can follow – a government based on trust, a tax system rooted in solidarity, and the sustainable investments needed to secure our future. This is naive and, in my opinion, false. At the outset, I should say that I am a fan of Kissinger and his realpolitik, but even if I weren't, you needn't look further than China or Russia to easily counter that thesis. This idea of a kumbaya moment is cute and sounds good from the ivory tower of your typical Oxbridge academic, but the real world is nasty and grim. And people, for the most part, will act selfishly. Capitalism (and the markets) function based on the same premise. I don't really see that changing. > The going assumption – on both sides of the political aisle – is that most wealth is “earned” at the top by visionary entrepreneurs, by men like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. The air-quotes around "earned" are unfair. I mean, a ton of people use Amazon, or Facebook, or have Teslas, or what-have-you. Is Bregman trying to imply that this wealth isn't really earned? I don't really get it. Yes, there's a disparity, but I remain unconvinced that this disparity is somehow immoral. Bregman throws shade at Bezos but, as it turns out, Mazzucato (quoted by Bergman) mostly criticizes big pharma. There's a difference between tech and pharma, and the author disingenuously throws the baby out with the bathwater.