Three challenges today. Reading R.Tawney’s 1936 book Equality. It is clear that the problems of today were anticipated in the late 19th century. The dynamics are similar, of empires ignoring people, and war was then the outcome.

So much for problems. The response, so to speak, is encouraging. I watched the World Economic Forum interview with Anthony Scaramucchi, Trump’s public liaison,  He is really good and I encourage watching this and thinking about it. It puts a different perspective – potentially – on the Trump presidency. I found it shocking, actually.

Third, the speech by Xi Jinping also at Davos.

https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2017

Both are at the above linkVery important to study these two presentations.

Both Xi Jinpng and Scaramucci are reasonable and aware.

Another thought..

Economists think they are perceived as a part of an untrustworthy elite. Which they are, but To say perceived is to imply that  the perception, and the perceiver,  is wronh but they may be right. Economists give advice that is bad, still stressing growth while climate is an immediate reality and , automation is  the only path of growth that   dominates the urgency of  economists. Economists tend to see the population as motivated by sentiment but sentiment implies irrationality. It is part of looking down on the people.  The economists tend to see their enterprise as scientific.   Is it not more client led engineering?

If economists did modeling of alternative ‘if then’ scenarios it would be helpful but so far each economist is trying ti get legitimacy for their model, and js  not doing comparatives.For economics to better fit future policy it would need  to talk about the common good, the whole society. If it limits itself to economics the results will be limited. How to break out of that narrowness needs to be discussed.