The democratic ideal has always been related to a moderate level of inequality. I think one big reason why electoral democracy flourished in 19th century America better than 19th century Europe is because you had more equal distribution of wealth in America.

It's not Utopian to believe that we can create a global registry of financial assets so we know who owns what in different countries.

Without precisely defined sources, methods, and concepts, it is possible to see absolutely everything and its opposite.

What was the good of industrial development, what was the good of all the technological innovations, toil, and population movements if, after half a century of industrial growth, the condition of the masses was still just as miserable as before, and all lawmakers could do was prohibit factory labor by children under the age of eight?

I don't think there is any serious evidence that we need to be paying people more than 100 times the average wage in order to get high-performing managers.

For far too long economists have sought to define themselves in terms of their supposedly scientific methods. In fact, those methods rely on an immoderate use of mathematical models, which are frequently no more than an excuse for occupying the terrain and masking the vacuity of the content.

Democracy will never be supplanted by a republic of experts—and that is a very good thing.