TED Conversations


This conversation is closed.

The Future of Economics

In a decaying world economy, it seems that we are more than ever in the need of a replacement or perhaps simply in the need of evolving the concept of economy, into a sustainable one.

Some say that unlimited economic progress in a world of finite natural resources is bound to collapse while other conclude that if we can move from non-consumption to consumption, we can also move from consumption back to non-consumption.

So, where do we go from here? What is the future of economics?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Sep 12 2012: I believe that a truly free market would be best. In the past laissez faire economics failed because of a lack of knowledge and mobility. Currently in America the government over regulates. Tyson currently has more quality control than legally required simply because someone contracting a food borne illness would be detrimental to their image and bottom line. Thus it is in their best interest to have a quality product. Capitalism in a pure form works. Boycotts are legal and workers can quit. Those two facts help employees,and customers from being taken advantage of. Government also spends way to much subsidizing. Green energy while theoretically is great currently the technology isn't practical. Also as great as the moneyless/communistic policies sound very few people will remain motivated granted their are people would continue to work due to a belief in the greater good or love of their job however incentives make the world go round. In summation quality of life has massively improves under capitalism and for the foreseeable future will continue in that derection
    • Sep 14 2012: Laissez faire economics would be a very bad idea. A) it tends to make the rich richer than technological progress can keep up with, meaning everyone else becomes poorer, since the rich won't spend all their money into the consumer economy demand will fall and you get a vicious cycle, B) without regulations no one takes into account the true cost of producing stuff: you can poison a river without having to incorporate the cost of the clean up into your price, that poisoned river will just be someone else's problem in the future, this provides an incentive to increase profit through the destruction/depletion of natural resources rather than through efficiency or technological progress, C) life would be horrible for everyone who's not a part of the economic aristocracy because they'll be living close to subsistence level in a polluted environment, forced to scavenge off the land or cleaning an aristocrat's toilet with a toothbrush: unemployment would be very high and most jobs would be menial servant jobs that the aristocrats just keep around for their own pleasure. Laissez faire capitalism is pretty much the worst system we could have in the future, even stone age hunting-gathering or hardcore communism would provide a better living standard for the average person.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.