Why the Marriage Between Democracy and Capitalism is Coming Undone | Amanpour and Company 

The seminal falsehood of the post-war neoliberal consensus is that capitalism is a self-regulating system. While there are many examples of market disruption via technological shifts and changes in socio-economic fortunes, there are just as many examples of capitalism's inexorable tendency toward monopolization and public corruption. We cannot expect the garden to tend itself.

"Capitalism is not a market. Markets do not distinguish capitalism from other systems. CAPITALISM IS A WAY OF ORGANIZING THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS -- It's a production system that devides societies into two: employers and employees. A minority, at the top, chooses what goods to produce, where to produce, how and when to produce and what to do with the profits. Profits that EVERYONE helped to generate" - Richard Wolff, Phd

Regulations and enforcement are required. Otherwise, capitalism "buys" the political system.

Finalize the divorce!!! End Citizens United!!

Our “capitalism” of yesterday we yearn for today was contained by social democratic principles. Today’s capitalism is like a child running through the glass shop with a ball bat

When you have to make $400,000 a year to afford a house in Seattle, then yeah, Capitalism is failing.

He mentions the centralization of wealth in socialism, but fails to mention that unregulated capitalism also trends to monopoly and constant wars for market dominance. Our current libertarian capitalists are trending to monopolization, elimination of democratic ideas especially that of individual rights, labor rights and environmental protections. A return to privatization of everything into hereditary ownership.

I am 45 years old and never even lived in a Democratic Government. I live in the US and the Government was sold to Capitalism before I was born.

Good talk. I'm gonna read this book. We are still living in a neoliberal age and the US, among its democratic, wealthy peers, still is the Wild West of it. Shareholder capitalism has to be stopped or severely curtailed. So must the reach and power of private equity, who, like vampires, are corrupting and taking over markets and industries that people need in order to live. I'm thankful we have lawmakers like Bernie Sanders who was talking about this stuff years before we all were and before our government, under Pres. Biden, started to do something about it. We need to go much further.

When the left says “socialism”, I think they really mean social democracy, which is what we have to some degree, capitalism w/social/safety-net programs but the gop has been screwing it up for most of 40yrs. This FDR quote from 1936 could be said today. “We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace-business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred.” ~Franklin D. Roosevelt 1936

A well regulated capitalism can work. Key words " WELL REGULATED"! Strong anti trust laws. Separated investment and savings banking. Strong laws protecting voters rights. Laws prohibiting gerrymandering. Elected officials held to a much higher legal standard.

Socialism isn't about being state run. It's about being democratically organized. In recent history, that means having a democratic workplace.

Lobbying should be against the law in a democracy. Also, I would like just one 'citizen' corporation show me its American birth certificate.

Can capitalism allow workers to own and manage the businesses they work in? Even the medium and large ones? And allow workers to innovate, take initiative, be independent, rather than have managerialism imposed on them? Can the workplace be democratized? Can the economy? Most businesses function as autocratic, authoritarian, feudal entities. They fight tooth and nail any regulation or reform that would make them more democratic and accountable to society. Can land and resources be owned and manage by the communities that live on that land? In the form of the Managed Commons as Eleanor Ostrom described (Nobel laureate for economics)? The more democratic a society is the more it tends toward egalitarianism. Capitalism is rooted in feudalism, which in turn is rooted in slavery. Unlike capitalism, socialism claims to be egalitarian. It's roots are in democracy whose components are liberty (autonomy), equality (equal opportunity to participate in the exercise of power), solidarity (reciprocity). Anarchism, unionism and feminism are also rooted in democracy. If early socialist experiments were not democratic neither were those of early capitalism. Capitalism had to "endure" democratic interventions, bit by bit, imposed on it from outside of business. They chafed under it. Capitalism has only one goal: capital accumulation and concentration. It's not growth. Growth is just a means to accumulation and concentration. And growth has physical limits in terms of energy, resources, workers, wages and the assaults that Nature can endure. To make socialism democratic it has to be combined with anarchism. Socialism deals with issues that are large in scale and scope, mostly at the national and subnational level. Anarchism deals with issues that are regional and local in scale and scope. The practice of subsidiarity should be the relationship between socialism and anarchism. That would make socialism democratic. Socialism and anarchism overlap with feminist economics because they are all focused on human well-being and democracy is foundational to human well-being. They in turn overlap with ecological economics and doughnut economics which focus on human well-being within Nature's limits. Capitalism is incompatible with democracy because it focuses on accumulation and concentration and denies Nature's limits apply to it.

This is great. A question I often ask my “conservative” friends is this: if a CEO used to make around 30x the typical worker’s wage but now makes 250x, can you say that that person is actually working that much harder to justify such an increase. Blank stares and mumbling usually follows.

What if the 1% has the power? Is the government not responsible for protecting the rest of the population? The 1% is certainly unconcerned if a pregnant woman can't afford health care or that maternal mortality is on the rise.

Walter Isaacson is my favorite Amanpour interviewers. Hari is also really good!

There are obvious fixes for this problem. If only our politicians had the will.

It’s interesting how economists come to the table with huge assumptions about how things must be and let those remove fresh thinking altogether. If the aspiration is for equality, dignity and fulfillment of all people, (for example) what model could they suggest? Economies are just the methods of transfer of goods and services that people agree to utilize. If the vast majority are not able to function within the current system it’s no wonder we see looting. Whatever system is in place must function for the vast majority or revolution will quickly follow…

The separation of the Economy and the State, has to follow the path of separation of Church and State. A state has to have values not steeped in money only.

Reforms? Yeah, that's the ticket. Our owners, the Billionaires, will go for that. Times are so hard on our Billionaires owners.

The "Crisis of Capitalism and Democracy" is that we have not democratized the place we spend most of our time - The Workplace. This is how inequality perpetuates itself.

Wait... "If you control all the wealth you control all the power." How the hell is this NOT the entire history capitalism?

Even if capitalism is reformed into a better version of itself, what prevents it from being dialed back to a previous bad version of itself or worse??? Keep in mind we live by the golden rule: He who makes/controls the GOLD makes the RULES! E.g Citizens United...

"Marxism diagnosed the main inner contradiction of industrial capitalism to be that its drive to increase profit by paying labor as little as possible would dry up the domestic market. The inner contradiction of finance capitalism is similar: Debt deflation strips away the economy's land rent, natural resource rent, industrial profits, disposable personal income and tax revenue -- leaving economies unable to carry their exponential rise in credit. Austerity leads to default." -- Michael Hudson: Killing the Host. Debt deflation means that income paid to creditors is not available for spending on goods and services, so being debt-strapped leads to inadequate market demand. Debt deflation results in unemployment, defaults, and foreclosures, while in the financialized economy, bondholders and banks get bailed out at government expense.

Stop Monopolies Too!

It is not just balancing between democracy and capitalism. We need a utterly different economic paradigm that moves away from infinite, ever expanding markets to circular economies and sustainable development that measures success NOT in GDP but ecological and human wellbeing

The US doesn't have one system, there's 6, depending which political region: totally different laws and funding for healthcare, employment, education, policing, public services. It's a legacy of slavery. Until there's a Federal legal floor, a minimum that's the same in all 50 states, we're not even a democracy, because all citizens don't have the same basics.

"Stakeholder capitalism" vs. "shareholder capitalism" is the underlining issue here, yet Martin Wolf does not reference these terms.

ITS BECAUSE THE RICH NEED TO PAY TAXES THATS ALL!

HAHAHAHA Guy is literally arguing AGAINST late stage capitalism. "Control all the wealth control the power" American wealth disparity is horrendous. In 1990 the top 10% held 60% of all the countries wealth. In 2021 70%. Healthy Markets? Big companies eat up all the little companies creating monopolies and ending competition.

Great interview Mr. Isaacson! I'm always impressed by your careful preparation and insiteful questions. This is definitely a book I'm going to read.

Folks are opposed to how capitalism has been twisted to help the wealthiest and stockholders. We need a fairer capitalism.

Amanpour and Co. 😍

An excellent interview, "If elites are only in it for themselves, a dark age of autocracy will return" is a partial quote at 14:23 into the vocast. What the esteemed Dr Martin Wolf has written here is what capitalism's mantra is all about. It's not their fault, the billionaires who rake in unfathomable amounts of money and want more and more; it's the system itself. These are the winners; the ones who win the marathon and then after we beat them up for their medals. This is why capitalism is really feudalism on steroids and it is a wonderful system, but it cannot solved the grave problems of our civilization like poverty because its aim is to reward the high-achievers and it always will be and that is why the elites are and will be forever only in it for themselves. We need to replace capitalism with a neutral market-based economic model that rewards the individual and does not create wealth.

Great interview, good ideas. As a PhD student I understand the pain of people who are limited in their career by some arbitrary and expensive piece of paper. My own feeling working in an industry that compensates both degreed and non degreed people quite well is that hiring can be done intelligently and not dumb and blind. And people can climb the ladder internally by substituting related job experience for a degree. For me getting a degree took 11 years and was extremely expensive ($155k owed) and also worthwhile as I'm working in a similar field to which I studied. I feel like I should not have to pay the whole thing as it will take years even at my high salary to break even with people who worked for 11 years and potentially saved a little earned money where I was taking out loans and "working" on my classes and research typically 70 hour weeks. So I don't think you can draw the line between high earners and low earned and simply say high earners got the better deal. There was sometimes a lot of blood sweat and tears that went into it. Many of my peers making 1/4-1/2 of my gross pay (very different than after tax pay in this context) are actually better off financially and the break even point is going to be about 15 years after I entered the job market. Pay off that's due to child support for the kids after my marriage broke. Again, thanks grad school! College is not a golden ticket.

I'm one of those 40% that doesn't believe in capitalism. A winner take all economy is exactly how capitalism is designed. Monopolies are a natural product of capitalism. From all of the examples of successful capitalist countries, they all built their wealth off genocide, slavery, exploitation, and colonialism. If you believe in democracy, implement it in the workforce. Elect your managers, supervisors, and CEOs. Negotiate the company budget with its workers. Give workers the right to organize and protest, a democratic principle.

The man is right on track. This is the root of all despairs of the 90+ Plus percent of the American people, and those around the world.

It would be nice to question this genius on his opinion of the dumpster fire that was 2008. That was spectacular capitalism.

Timothy Snyder had a good Ted talk about democracy's future in the face of climate change

Thanks for spending the time to create and share this topic awareness

“our societies remain the richest most prosperous in human history “ This is true for some segments of our society, but not true for a very large part!

A lot of young people who say “Abolish Capitalism” are the same ones who wish to be self-sufficient and own their own homes and businesses. The socialist countries that many people point to as examples to model our economies after have mixed capitalist/socialist economies. Capitalism is not necessarily the problem as much as the total lack of regulations on corporations is the problem. Excited to read this book to learn more!

This is exactly the stuff we studied back when I was still an international relations major. The thing he said about Larry Summers is really annoying. The discipline of economics and the culture it’s stewing in needs to be drained of all the pus that has manifested in it. Go look into basic economic theory and just how economists are making decisions. It’s psychopathic, short sighted and so incredibly irresponsible the way they’re applying certain principles. They’re working under a “best case” model where any and all analysis takes place in “best case” conditions and it’s absolutely insanity. They don’t function in reality. Economists (not all, but most) have performed this kind of self-mutilation of credibility and functioning.

Thanks for another informative interview ❤.

"the extreme fragility of a civilized state" is surely a concept we have all come to understand better in recent years.. Let us hope it does not result in a 'prolonged democratic recession'.

At least some of the founders of the United States saw this even before Karl Marx talked of "capital" and hence "capitalism". They called it "commerce", and they _always_ said there was an inherent tension between the "virtues of republicanism", i.e. what we today call as representative democracy (for them, only direct, i.e. Athenian-style, democracy was "democracy"; they did not like this system), and the "virtues" of "commerce". And they didn't really have a good answer for it. So now it's no surprise. One is rapidly gaining in power, feeding off massively capable new technologies, and threatening to humble the other ... and it's very, very worrisome.

I never understood how capitalism was supposed to deliver democracy. I go to work and check my democratic rights at the door. The business I work for leverages the "free" market but I and my fellow employees are anything but free. Happy hour is a welcome respite from the previous 8 hours of misery. The marriage of political democracy and capitalism has endured for a time but not by virtue of any intrinsically democratizing force specific to capitalism. So if this unlikely union dissolves I won't be surprised.

Martin Wolf seems content to pluck leaves rather than dealing with the roots of a bad tree.

What do we expect when we are slavishly tied to an economic system that encourages being selfish as possible?

The problem IS capitalism, and it being mutually exclusive in fact with democracy. As long as we fail to recognize that, we will continue to be confounded by lack of a solution, and a lack of clear understanding as to why it seems impossible--because, it IS literally impossible, but if we never even accept and imagine that possibility, let alone earnestly pursue solutions in LIGHT of it as a fact, then we'll just be stuck here forever, watching as things get constantly worse for most whilst paradoxically "better" (at least in terms of obscenely wasteful luxury and material indulgence) for a proportionally ever smaller few, and sitting there wondering why, despite everything we seem to try, nothing about that overall dynamic changes.

Total and average wealth mean virtually nothing when evaluating or comparing natonal economies unless you consider the distribution. Seems pretty obvious, but i seldom see it addressed.

One of the best descriptions of what's happening in the US today. The benefits of Capitalism all flow to the people who have money. Soft regulation of the rich, aided by elite professional management class has produced this crises in Democracy. Another interesting and enlightened presentation. Exploitive Capitalism, like permitting monopolies, who then go on to buy other companies means the money always goes up towards the 1%. Hence the conflict with the "American Dream", enter Hollywood.

Depending capitalism and democracy are not the same!! His view on inflation is disputedby many economists including nobel prize winners!

Wolf uses the term "Rentier Capitalism" but sounds like "Raunchiay Capitalism." "Rentier" refers to earning "rents" by owning things like houses. Or by extension, earning dividends and appreciation on stocks. The idea is ownership rather than production earns the money. So, the capitalist is earning out of proportion to their contribution to society. Yes, this is the heart of the problem in our current form of capitalism.

Its always been like this in the third world. Its just now spreading to the so-called developed world.

A better form of capitalism might be capitalism with an income floor: Universal Basic Income. That would enable more people to participate meaningfully in the economy, to contribute meaningfully, to respond to crises, and to move from job to job as technology changes. A UBI of $1,000 a month for each US citizen would go a long way toward reducing poverty and its knock-on effects (crime, environmental degradation, etc.) yet wouldn't be enough to "disincentivize work" in any significant way.

When killing is sanctioned as war to make money...we've participated and ignored this at our own peril.

Excellent no nonsense explanation.

Best commentary in Capitalism I've heard.

Yes. Better capitalism, or actual free market capitalism. What we have now is crony capitalism.

We are perfectly documenting our demise. We seem to be exhibits in cages we made ourselves.

Mr. Isaacson, Mr. Wolfe, I have a question: Is competition, the hallmark of a market economy, necessary safeguarded ONLY by democracy, especially the Western kind? Both of you during the interview discussed China opened up to market economy but did not move toward democracy, and hinted it is a bad thing, but are you certain of that? Sure, China doesn't engage in the kind of representative electoral democracy like what we have in the US, but when I read about how in their annual Two Sessions with nearly 3000 delegates in the NPC and about 175 seats in the NPCSP (yeah, I Googled that) from the little village to large Provinces, plus representatives from all the 56 recognized ethnic minorities, the Chinese government seems to be more concerned addressing what their citizens care about than ours. At present, our votes, from small elections to the big ones, have resulted in across the board, officials who are either uninformed or under-educated (except lawyers I suppose), populist idealogues who make a mess of things, and especially politicians who are more attuned to their donors' demands than the needs of those they are supposed to represent. Failing schools, crumbling infrastructure, police brutality, unsustainable incarceration, unequal distribution of wealth, unconscionable homelessness, garbage all over the streets, unmitigated environmental disasters, falling home ownership, financial debt traps, crippling medical cost and education debt, substandard health care system, collapsing public safety, endemic poverty among the minorities (especially Native Americans), mass shooting gone out of control, bailing out the super-rich and refusing to hold those responsible for financial crisis that devastated millions time after time, and refusal to face existential environmental problem with such ugly rejection of the sciences not seen since the Scopes Trial... while we forge on financing proxy wars, instigating coups, escalating border tensions with nations who post no military threat to us, dropping bombs on people when they refused to be subservient to us, and continue to maintain 800+ bases oversea ... when we could be spending that moneys on these very real, very urgent, very humanitarian problems at home.... all of which, I can attribute it back to the same democratic system we Americans seem to be so proud of. I'm not trying to defend the Chinese form government, although I am kicking sand at our own if only out of frustration, but I'm skeptical that the benefits of a competitive market can only be derived from Western electoral democracy, in the same way I'm skeptical pure laissez-faire Capitalism is necessary better for the people, the country, or the planet. Adam Smith would have agreed.

We need to create more competition between the capitol markets and safe haven investing. Capital markets representing large corporations as everyone is essentially forced to participate due to lack of inflation protected options for the regular working stiff.

Corporations are mankind's greatest threat

Yes people get pissed when rules are rigged to favor the wealthy. Take the EV tax credit. Why do individuals who make ~ $80,000 up to $150,000 per year get a full $7,500 off the price of their electric car when they can afford the car without this incentive? Meanwhile those who really need that incentive to buy one of these cleaner, cheaper to operate cars can't. Simple fairness and economic justice should allow those with lower incomes who really need this credit to help them purchase these cars to be able to access this full $7,500 benefit. At best this could be achieved by just giving this discount to lower income people. The government is out that amount when high earners take it off their taxes after all, so they are essentially giving the $7,500 to these more wealthy people, no? At worst this could be achieved by letting those without sufficient taxable income in one year to be able to space the discount out over several tax years as they build up to this tax liability. If you want to avoid all this anger and backlash against so called elites you need to stop rigging the system in their favor, no? Stop building in structural benefits for those who are more wealthy at everyone's expense! Why do unsightly and dangerous power lines get under grounded in wealthy neighborhoods and not poorer ones? Why do highways with their toxic air and associated bad health outcomes route through poorer neighborhoods? Why can only the rich access quality health care while the poor get long waits and scraps. Sometime the debts they incur for their health crises destroy them economically. Another economic injustice are the fines that get levied for various infractions, like legal, traffic or insurance infractions or banking fees, etc. If the purpose of these fines is to levy enough punishment to deter unwanted behaviors than why not scale these economic penalties to an individual or corporation's ability to pay? As IS these can be so high as to financially destroy low income individuals and their families, while they are just shrugged off and do not necessarily provide any deterrent for those with plenty of disposable income. When fines are not scaled to ability to pay we see wealthy people and large corporations just including them in their cost of doing business not altering their behaviors in any way. Equal is in NO way equitable, and does not make ANY pragmatic sense. One could go on and on, no? In Reno they tear down low income housing and replace it with upscale development. Those driving these changes get richer, and those displaced can often end up homeless. Each disadvantage shouldered by those of lower means comes with real quality of life consequences for them. They experience real pain and suffering as they face these disparities. Sometimes they even die as a result of some of these avoidable structural economic inequalities that our system throws at them. The movers and shakers who create these disparities don't even seem to notice this. Doesn't affect them or those they love(?) ... It's just the normal way of doing business, the way things are always done ... and besides, these unfair rules and economic structures SEEM to benefit them and their economic peers - as long as no class war breaks out that slows their roll. Well, a type of lower class backlash is occurring, and it could take down our democracy and 'so-called' civil society. Overall this backlash will probably disproportionately hurt lower class people, as things mostly do unless we actively design them not to. Cynical people might even see some of these aggrieved lower class agitators as duped pawns in the RNC's drive for more power ;-< (since the other party does seem to try and address some of the lower classes' economic woes more). In truth we know that both political parties do not do enough to build in fairness and equity into our economic and social systems. And both get hung up by their respective dogmas that prevent them from pragmatically serving for the fair benefit off all. Both serve those who donate the most to their political campaigns over their constituents, and humanity's better interests. I tend toward the practical and semi-religious view that we all suffer when others are suffering and that we need to build a more equitable fairness into our economic and social systems. Let's lead with our hearts and practice the golden rule and basic compassion for others, and act on these feelings. 'Others' includes people of ALL economic circumstances. No 'eating the rich' sentiments here. We will all do better when we all do better. And 'doing better' does not necessarily equate to being economically richer, no? Fairer, more compassionate communities would help us all experience better mental health outcomes and harbor fewer fears. And these reforms MUST ultimately include a healthy dose of climate stabilization and Earth restoration. Yes, our capitalist system has a large role to play in all this too. It (and we) just need to lose much of its (and our) associated dogmas. And we have to pragmatically build in more equitable rules, regulations, and power sharing into capitalism's DNA transforming how it currently operates. Lets strive to avoid all the undue suffering that results from capitalism's tragic excesses when it is allowed to run amuck. Yes this will not be easy. Yes the proof WILL be in the pudding. Yes we have to do all we can to identify and avoid unintended consequences. But when has working for a better world, a more beloved community, been easy. This shit is not for the timid, no? So many brave and beautiful people preceded us, dedicating their lives to these quests. We should build on their efforts and carry water for those in future generations who will continue our work.

“ If you control all the wealth, you control all the power”, he says of Socialist systems But that is also true of market based economies. Wall Street controls Washington

How to deal with resentments toward the elites asked by two who are obviously members of that elite?

We need to make reforms. But the system as it exits, benefits our political leaders. They have no real incentive to MAKE any reforms. They vote as the corporations want and in turn, they get political and financial support from those corporations.

The capitalist class has cornered the market on so much money I don't know how we can reform the system without redistributing that capital

Awesome ~

The one thing capitalism does with spectacular efficiency is concentrate wealth. For people like Martin Wolf, who benefit from it, the inequities of capitalism are a feature, not a bug.

Yes it needs fixing corrupt politicians and companies/greed

Dear Amanpour & Co….. PLEASE interview Kate Raworth!

It's funny listening to him talk about Socialism and China and describing there problems I could not tell any difference between China/Socialism and US/Capitalism other then the names one picks for the center of powers.

People are correct to question the global capitalism. When you change your governing style you better know exactly where and how you will benefit with guarantees as an individual not a group or you will get nothing.

Mixed ecoomies with strong private and public sectors, work the best Being dogmatic is not thinking..

Finally, someone is saying it with actual nuance and reason instead of social media partisan bluster.

Nothing about over population and environmental issues or the fact that endless consumption is not a sustainable model. Not is constant growing inequality. Also the authoritarian leaders will get worse as they more power.

Sadly, Problem without solution is useless.

Mr. Wolf stated that capitalism is essential and as a society you need to believe in politics. Does he believe that the American system of corporations buying influence in politics through lobbying is good or sustainable? I think this is exactly the reason young people are turning away from both politics as well as capitalism.

The PROBLEM is that we don't *have* 'market' capitalism, we have 'crony capitalism', brought about by the power of money and the lust for power corrupting our politics.

Interview Marianne Williamson on your show!! I want to hear that interview !

The word "capitalism" appears exactly *zero* times in any of our founding documents. In fact, nowhere in any of these documents is *any* form of economics endorced.

What about enfranchising labor? Why doesn't labor own a share of what it produces? Like expanding the political franchise, why not extend the economic franchise? It would leave markets in tact and yet give labor a better share, empowering labor and shrinking the welfare state.

I would be interested in a piece on capitalism+UBI

Capitalism died in 1929. We have been dealing with various types of corporatism and corpocracies ever since.

It is interesting how the discussion of Capitalism vs. Socialism gets painted as a good vs. evil from both sides of the extreme. In reality Capitalism is dependent on the social system and the society is dependent on Capitalism for advancement of the society if it is to succeed. This is why we have laws ie. regulations to keep the balance to our individual and collective benefit. Loose that balance and you have a place like Russia. The U.S. is in danger of loosing that balance. It has become more extreme.

At least he attempted to expose the "elite." Capitalism for me but not so much for thee. Robert Reich should debate this guy.

As the "economic game" progresses, the emerging 'winners' start to change the rules of the game and to secure their power. Trust busting measures put in place to prevent this, we're dismantled and circumvented. Monopoly board game was developed to be a cautionary role play if capitalist dangers not "fun" perse.

If we could get tax, campaign finance, election reform elites would have much less power. I don’t think capitalism is so much of a problem. Status Quo Capitalism is the problem. In fact, it is not really capitalism.

Mr. Wolf knows what's up. Although I'm not sure I hear a sense of urgency...which, out in the lands, is strong and growing. We have to fix it in dramatic ways, and soon. Walter, on the other hand, always seems baffled by the populist point of view on these issues. Could that be? Or is it an interviewer's contrivance?

No the question is can you have a democracy without capitalism? I believe you can

Finally someone is noticing

Wonderful intellectualism! Now, can we get down to 'brass tacks', and causes? Democracy and Capitalism both require discipline to personal responsibility to fairly execute.......

Support Democratic Socialism! Expand and Protect Democracy! Join Unions and Cooperatives! We the People need to Socialize; Banks Education Healthcare Criminal Justice Transportation and Land Management! Profit is theft! Profit=Slavery Abolish Billionaires!

I think the biggest problem is the unequality between have-nots and unhinged billionaires who inherited wealth in the xth generation.

7:15: How does both the interviewer and Martin Wolf manage to talk about his parents' "escape" from Europe and the rest of their family being "killed" without even mentioning that they were Jewish?

Please, interview or watch interviews of Warren Mosler. Our system is actually called Chartalism. Corporations are agents of the State. The State determines how much freedom, that is, what a corporation can and can’t do. People are mistaken about the dichotomy of Capitalism versus Socialism. Our system is Chartalism. The government keeps score and makes the rules too. Chartalism. Warren Mosler.

The fact that young people are rejecting capitalism is partly because of "crying wolf" syndrome. Whenever politicians propose modest reforms, for example raising the top tax rate from 36% to 39%, it gets decried as a socialist takeover. When cap-and-trade was proposed again in the 2010s, it was decried as socialism. Attacking every reform as "socialism" has an unintended side effect: it makes socialism look more moderate in comparison with capitalism, regardless of whether you agree with that assessment.