I think there's a lot of merit in an international economy and global markets, but they're not sufficient because markets don't look after social needs.
Interpretation
Global markets have benefits, but they fail to address social needs.
George Soros emphasizes the importance of recognizing the limitations of international economies and global markets. While he acknowledges the merits of these systems, he argues that they do not adequately meet social needs, suggesting that economic systems must be supplemented by social considerations to ensure the well-being of communities.
In practice
During a panel discussion on economic policy, one could reference this quote to highlight the importance of integrating social welfare into market strategies.
The securitisation of mortgages added a new dimension of systemic risk. Financial engineers claimed they were reducing risks through geographic diversification: in fact they were increasing them by creating an agency problem. The agents were more interested in maximising fee income than in protecting the interests of bondholders. That is the verity that was ignored by regulators and market participants alike.
The collapse of the global marketplace would be a traumatic event with unimaginable consequences. Yet I find it easier to imagine than the continuation of the present regime.
Regulating and taxing marijuana would simultaneously save taxpayers billions of dollars in enforcement and incarceration costs, while providing many billions of dollars in revenue annually.
We are the most powerful nation on earth. No external power, no terrorist organization can defeat us. But we can defeat ourselves by getting caught in a quagmire.
My foundations support people in the country who care about an open society. It's their work that I'm supporting. So it's not me doing it. But I can empower them. I can support them, and I can help them.
The criminalization of marijuana did not prevent marijuana from becoming the most widely used illegal substance in the United States and many other countries. But it did result in extensive costs and negative consequences.
The budget should be balanced not by more taxes, but by reduction of follies.
There's no reason to think that_x000D_ markets always drive people to_x000D_ what's good for them.
Beneath the surface, unnoticed by many, an even deeper force was at workβthe rise of creativity as a fundamental economic driver, and the rise of a new social class, the Creative Class.
Yes, over the centuries economic progress has reduced some gross disparities - modern Americans are relatively unlikely to simply starve to death (though it can happen), so in that sense the gap between rich and poor has narrowed. But the question isn't whether society is, in some sense, more equal than it was in 1900. It's whether it is radically more unequal than it was in 1970. And of course it is.
Capitalism is not an 'ism.' It is closer to being the opposite of an 'ism,' because it is simply the freedom of ordinary people to make whatever economic transactions they can mutually agree to.
Wealthy Americans who benefit hugely from a system rigged in their favor react with hysteria to anyone who points out just how rigged the system is.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.