{"id":82,"date":"2026-05-23T15:38:16","date_gmt":"2026-05-23T15:38:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usabusinesschronicle.com\/?p=82"},"modified":"2026-05-23T15:38:16","modified_gmt":"2026-05-23T15:38:16","slug":"the-capitalists-trying-to-fix-capitalism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usabusinesschronicle.com\/?p=82","title":{"rendered":"The Capitalists Trying to Fix Capitalism"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Billionaires are the apex predators of the modern economy.<\/p>\n

They\u00a0tear up\u00a0governments,\u00a0buy politicians, and wreck the planet with\u00a0carbon-spewing\u00a0yachts. They\u00a0control\u00a0the news and what\u2019s in our feeds. They spend\u00a0$55 million\u00a0on lavish weddings while the rest of us struggle to buy groceries and gas.<\/p>\n

Read more Are You There, Judy?<\/a><\/p>\n

No wonder then, that billionaire backlash is growing. A\u00a0majority\u00a0of California voters, for instance, say they support the \u201cbillionaire tax\u201d on the ballot in November. New York City\u2019s mayor is a democratic socialist. Many Americans have begun to question the merits of capitalism; Gallup finds that just\u00a054 percent\u00a0of Americans see capitalism favorably.<\/p>\n

But can capitalism yet be saved? And is it worth saving?<\/p>\n

Two ambitious reformers argue yes\u2014provided there\u2019s a radical makeover of what a capitalist economy should achieve.<\/p>\n

Nick Hanauer and Eric Beinhocker advocate a philosophy they call \u201cmarket humanism,\u201d and they\u2019re the subjects of this preview edition of the\u00a0Monthly<\/em>\u00a0podcast, which you can watch below.<\/p>\n

Hanauer and Beinhocker don\u2019t want the end of capitalism, or the end of markets. What they\u2019d like to see is better market organization of markets to produce outcomes that benefit humanity (i.e., not more billionaires). It\u2019s a bold, optimistic idea: to elevate \u201chuman flourishing\u201d over \u201cefficiency.\u201d<\/p>\n

As Beinhocker points out, \u201cactivities in the economy that cure cancer versus cause cancer would be treated the same way in GDP, but those two things have a very different impact on human well-being.\u201d Market humanists want markets to reward outcomes that lead to better well-being. \u201cMarkets are not natural constructions,\u201d says Hanauer. \u201cThey are human built constructions. And the question is not, \u2018Are they optimal?\u2019 but \u2018Who are they optimal\u00a0for<\/em>?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Hanauer\u2019s and Beinhocker\u2019s backgrounds are as interesting as their theories. Capitalism has, in fact, been very good to both of them, which makes their about-face on the current system even more intriguing. Hanauer is arguably one of America\u2019s most successful entrepreneurs. He was the first non-family investor in Amazon and the founder of multiple firms, one of which he sold to Microsoft for $6.4 billion. Beinhocker, now a professor at Oxford University, was a McKinsey & Company partner for 18 years.<\/p>\n

But they both now see serious flaws in the current structure of the U.S. economy and want to fix it from within. \u201cMarkets left to their own devices don\u2019t naturally lead to a healthy middle class,\u201d Beinhocker says.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, is their theory of \u201cmarket humanism\u201d realistic? Is it feasible? Can companies and other capitalists really let go of the idea that \u201cgreed is good\u201d?<\/p>\n

Read more The Price of a Lost Russia: A Correspondent\u2019s Eulogy<\/a><\/p>\n

Beinhocker and Hanauer make their case in a new treatise,\u00a0Markets Built for Humans<\/em>, which I asked about in our interview. They also offer a fuller critique of the current economic paradigm\u2014the so-called \u201cneoliberal consensus\u201d\u2014and describe the kinds of policies that a \u201cmarket humanist\u201d system would produce.<\/p>\n

Let us know if you\u2019re convinced!<\/p>\n

\n