There is solid basis for concern when setting sights on a dignified labor sector in the future from the vantage point of current indignities suffered by many workers. The impact of technology in labor has a long history in economic analysis. The rise of automated decision making (ADM) has breathed fresh life into the area of concern so much so that a formal area of inquiry has emerged: The Future of Work. “[A] dignified future for labor demands responsive technologies and a collective share in the benefits of automation.”[1] This is the basis of charting a future for a continued struggle for dignified labor in the advent of automated decision making.
It is possible that the ADM technologies will create unprecedented impacts on labor that set it apart from technological innovations of the past. Kate Crawford points out that the growth of ADM is not inevitable, that it is a policy choice.[2] Marianna Mazzucato demonstrates the ways that the economy—including a tech-based economy—can be governed differently such that greater social value is created.[3] A large part of what makes the case for ADM technology to have an unusual impact on labor is not the technology itself, but rather the economic and physical landscape on which it unfolds. This would suggest that the concerns around ADM are not technical ones. The problem of the future of work doesn’t revolve around debugging a line of code or troubleshooting software.[4] Rather, the future of work is entangled with what Nancy Folbre describes as “social software” and “algorithms we use to allocate labor.”[5]
The global scale of current indignities of labor are demonstrated in the international division of labor, uneven development managed by colonial relationships and international trade agreements, unprecedented levels of inequalities in wealth, income, and political power.[6] These multiple battlegrounds of power and labor are rooted in historic labor relationships. Most notably the chattel slavery system in the US and the violent exploitation of labor associated with the colonial period and its legacy. Latoya Peterson writes that racism is an API. “…[O]ppression operates in the same formats, runs the same scripts over and over. It is tweaked to be context specific, but it’s all the same source code. And the key to its undoing is recognizing how many of us are ensnared in these same basic patterns and modifying our own actions.”[7] Ruha Benjamin suggests that race itself is another kind of technology and it frames emerging technologies hide, speed up, or reinforce racism ushered into society beyond the realms of technology. Simone Brown links the way ADM surveillance technologies are directly inherited from the control of enslaved people in the US. The many reports of racialized surveillance with ADM and encoded bias are rooted in these deeply racialized practices. Ruha Benjamin discusses the field of race critical code studies and the “Black box of coded inequity” as the site of many racialized applications of ADM design.[8] With this analysis in mind, it is not at all coincidental that Artificial Intelligence (AI) was brought into the world by a 2-month study conducted by 10 white men in the summer of 1956 at Dartmouth College. While this workshop was held to develop a technology that would, in part, be used by the Democratic Party to predict the voting behavior of Black Americans, civil rights activists in Montgomery, Alabama boycotted the city’s bus system. It is not coincidental that AI was born as an attempt to manage social change “at home,” but also abroad. In 1949 the Soviet Union tested an atomic bomb and China became Communist.[9] Eisenhower signed the 1957 Civil Rights Act and ten days later the Soviet Union launched the Sputnik satellite into orbit—two weeks after that a meeting was hosted by Eisenhower that led to the creation of NASA—"to get the US to the moon”--and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)—"to get the US better weapons.”[10] The desire was to manage elite white anxiety stemming from social changes through the use of technologies of predictive power. In the next decades one firm in the field of Artificial Intelligence focused on predicting the voting behavior of Black voters, predicting the consumption behavior of white housewives, and eventually predicting what messaging strategies would serve as effective anti-Viet Cong propaganda to rural Vietnamese peasants. The antecedent of targeted campaign messaging that we take for granted as modern-day campaigning.[11]
Left: Marvin Minsky, Claude Shannon, Ray Solomonoff and other scientists at the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence (Photo: Margaret Minsky, https://www.cantorsparadise.com/the-birthplace-of-ai-9ab7d4e5fb00)
AI is a tool to exercise power and manage change. But exercising power and managing change are not tools of democracy. The path to understand the changing world around them was answered by instilling a privileged value to men of science and technology. And the legacy of this stays with us now as we look into our future of labor. Reporters captured an image of the notes Mark Zuckerberg held during his Senate hearing.[12] Should Zuckerberg be presented with the prospect of breaking up Facebook his speaking points were to focus on the US government’s response to China’s growing geopolitical power. The note read: “Break Up FB? U.S. tech company’s key asset for America; break up strengthens Chinese companies.” [13] There has been very little innovation in how AI can be leveraged on behalf of US geopolitical power—from the first and now the second cold war.[14]
Mark Zuckerberg's notes for first day of Congressional testimony. (Photo: AP. https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/facebook-s-chin…)
In the intervening decades the value of innovation has become associated with a profoundly narrow and unimaginative definition of engineering and technological innovation. It has neglected the creative ingenuity required of human centered labor, for example caring for an elder with dementia or caring for a child with autism.[15] This has laid at our door the problem that while the future of work may not entail the elimination of occupations, it will eliminate jobs. It has been suggested that work will become “more human”—that jobs of the future will become those that ADM technologies cannot replace.
These will revolve around human service jobs that cannot be replaced by technology—jobs that mean the future of work is anticipated to become “more human.”[16] These jobs are ones that are more closely captured within the service sector, but especially human-intensive jobs such as education, health care, and social services.
Since ADM began as a concerted field of endeavor, human-intensive labor continued to be devalued or remained as unpaid work. If not left out of the market economy entirely, jobs requiring empathy, compassion, and non-engineering-innovation still have lower wages even when controlling for experience or level of education.[17] This production of a public good rather than a private good accounts for part of the market’s failure to value this work.[18] A historic accounting of this phenomenon is the ways this type of work is associated with women, Black women, and more recently immigrant groups.[19] These are groups of people—and groups of workers—that society cares less about as is demonstrated by multiple accounts of injustice in these labor conditions. The desire for predictive management has only grown since the inception of Artificial Intelligence. As that desire deepens so does the concern about what will happen when we navigate a future of human-intensive labor. In an attempt to automate even empathy-related tasks ADM has been marketed as “cultivating empathy.”[20]
Some economists focus on the quest for economic growth from which derives a primary interest to increase productivity and, in this context, technology is a winner and ADM technologies are thought to be an even bigger winner. Roughly 70 percent of US jobs are in the service sector and are jobs that by their nature cannot be offshored. We have become familiar with efforts by the service sector to increase productivity—to use fewer workers to do the same work. There was an attempt to offshore drive-through ordering at fast food restaurants, now ubiquitous self-checkout aisles, shorter and more efficient processes at the physician’s office, technology-intensive precision agriculture and other uses of ADM to ostensibly make work in this sector move more quickly. The traded sector is where tech jobs are located—and are credited with the capacity to increase productivity.[21] This is complementary to the service sector—where productivity does not increase at anything near a similar rate. Wages in the trade sector end up being a boost where wages would otherwise not increase because productivity won’t increase in service. In the end, tech jobs are great because wages are higher and so economic growth within the service sector would be hard to come by due to structural barriers to increasing productivity. The pursuit of increasing productivity—rooted in a desire for growth—has not increased income inequality. For the first time in US history, the wages of the median worker—taken to be a white male with a high school diploma—has decreased 20 percent relative to 1980.[22] Realizing an increase in productivity—a growing economy—has not lifted up well-being or alleviated inequalities in wealth, income, and political power. This is well documented in studies that demonstrate the human costs of economic systems and policy designed around the desire to center GDP growth.[23]
Further highlighting the root challenges of the future of work are located in our social and economic software, Imani Perry has said that “[t]o break the machine [is] in a sense to break the conversion of oneself into a machine for the accumulating wealth of another.”[24] However, we are reminded that in our future-of-work scenario we aren’t trying to debug software—we are looking to get off the program.[25] How can we use the opportunity of a future of work to get us off the program of continuous economic growth?
A focus on predicting and managing change is profoundly anti-democratic—an effort that increased inequalities in political power between large financial and technological sectors. From the inception of political polling an attempt was made to divide the electorate. So thoroughly has the targeted political messaging machine become ubiquitous we have endless discussions and articles lamenting the way that voters vote “against their own interest.” It is assumed that people should, if rational, vote for their own interest. However, in a democratic society a voter should be choosing to elect the person most qualified or capable of governing a democratic state—of governing everyone in the nation—not just someone most capable of governing people like themselves. From the very start, AI was based to divide the electorate. One first project of the AI the Simulatics Corporation, for example, was to divide the electorate into 480 categories and formed the basis of “campaign spots” and targeted advertising perfectly consistent with what Cambridge Analytica has perfected.[26] One political scientist they had invited into this process said such an endeavor would undo democracy and wrote a novel with that premise.[27] In this view, actually, some functions of the tech industry are wildly lacking in innovation as the most recent advances are actually a simple evolution of the same idea.
Globalization and policy-created avenues for firms to increase market control underwrites the growth of the tech industry. The value of manufacturing depended to a large extent on variable costs, for example the costs of raw materials and labor. GM’s profits depended on how many cars a worker could produce on average in a day—it mattered a lot. However, the profit in the tech industry is dependent upon increasing the numbers of consumers for its product. The costs to replicate the tech is very small relative to the costs to create the tech. What matters the most for this type of product is expanding the market.
It is a mischaracterization to say that tech has a monopoly on the market. It owns the market. Yannis Varoufakis says that our current economy has developed into something “far worse than capitalism.”[28] “[O]nce you are into it—Facebook or Amazon, you are not in capitalism, you are in some kind of Soviet regime owned by one man. The rest of the market is shrinking, it is in stagnation, and money is being pumped in by central banks.” Since 2008 the flow of money from central banks into the market has ended up in firms that already have savings and firms that are not investing it. This false solution from 2008 continues now in the time of COVID. Varoufakis continues, the firms “go back to the stock exchange and buy back their own stocks. So, London, Paris, Frankfurt, New York stock exchanges are doing remarkably well [during COVID], while the vast majority are suffering.”[29] The money in stimulus bills like the one in COVID or in the 2008 crisis pale in comparison to the money central banks are authorized to put into the market without the need of legislative processes. In the 2008 crisis, for example, the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act stimulus bill amounted to $831 billion. But overall, the Federal Reserve injected $29 trillion.[30]
In passing the stimulus funds under COVID, there was a prohibition on firms using those funds for stock buybacks.
"The prohibition is a popular one. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., calls this practice a ‘sugar high for corporations’ that ‘boosts [stock] prices in the short run’ but destroys value over the long run. Other critics call it an ‘accounting trick’ for corporate chieftains to enrich themselves and their shareholders at the expense of workers."[31]
Globalization increases the size of the market—particularly good for companies in the high tech and innovation sector. Because the most significant costs are associated with developing the product, finding more and more consumers of the product is exceptionally valuable. Increasing the size of the market through international trade agreements and globalization more generally is necessary for increasing profits in the tech sector—profits can increase without substantial increases in costs.
In this way—and in others—the tech industry is ripe for policy that can create a collective share in the benefits of technology and get us off the current social and economic program—to change the social algorithms that currently shape current labor markets and suggest great concern for the future of work.[32] Marianna Mazzucato states that “[l]ife can be put at the center of the economy, not the economy at the center of life,” suggesting practical strategies for public investment—in research and development or in stimulus bills—must serve the public interest.[33] “Governments can reward value creation, not value extraction.”[34] The massive public investments that flow into the research and development in the tech sector—including biosciences and pharma—need to not just flow but to be governed in such a way it supports the public interest. Conditions must be written into the contracts—the COVID bill included the provision the funds couldn’t be used for stock buybacks and sets a precedent for expanding that type of governance. It is just the barest minimum of what can be done. The question is not around one of creating big government of small government. In fact, government plays a determinative role in shaping the extractive fossil fuel-based economy. The question is around repurposing the government in favor of the planet and its people.
An oil sands project in Canada, a country that could be paid to leave its fossil fuels in the ground under Bård Harstad's plan. (Photo: WWF UK. https://www.ft.com/content/506c4b44-a87b-11e3-b50f-00144feab7de)
Kate Raworth suggests a number of shifts from the current economic algorithms that tell us the market is efficient, that trade is a win-win, and that the commons are a tragedy. The fragility of this precept has started to be publicly challenged by the crisis of 2008 and the ongoing crisis—the market is fallible.[35] A central feature of a new program is one that puts the economy at the center of the larger spheres of society and ultimately the planet. She names this the Embedded Economy “which brings into one picture important insights from diverse schools of economic thought.”[36] “Within Earth is human society and, within that, economic activity, in which the household, the market, the commons and the state are all important realms of provisioning for human wants and needs, and are enabled by financial flows.”[37]
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/12/doughnut-growth-e…
https://socialcontract.fundforhumanity.org/[38]
Much more work is being done that will get us off of the current social software and the economic algorithm of continuous growth which threatens the future of work and also the planet and our current labor realities. Stephanie Kelton’s[39] work on a circular economy, Carlota Perez’s[40] work, Kate Raworth’s work on centering the economy,[41] planetary health person, work on a smart green transition, Elinor Ostrom’s[42] work on creating social relations through commons.
Following the choice of Mariana Mazzucato to conclude her book with the words of Arundhati Roy:
It is important to remember that change can only happen if we are convinced that a better life is possible. As the author Arundhati Roy wrote during the pandemic in 2020:
Historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine the world anew. This one is no different. It is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next. We can choose to walk through it, dragging the carcasses of our prejudice and hatred, our avarice, our data banks and dead ideas, our dead rivers and smoky skies behind us. Or we can walk through lightly, with little luggage, ready to imagine another world. And ready to fight for it.[43]
Editor's note: The ideas expressed in this blog post are not necessarily those of the Othering & Belonging Institute or UC Berkeley, but belong to the author.
[1] DiEM25, Technological Sovereignty: Democratising Technology and Innovation, Green Paper No. 3 (2019), 5, https://diem25.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Technological-Sovereignty….
[2] Kate Crawford, Atlas of AI (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2021).
[3] Mariana Mazzucato, The Value of Everything: Making and taking in the global economy (New York: PublicAffairs, 2020).
[4] Data & Society Research Institute, "Jill Lepore Discusses “If Then” with danah boyd," (2020), Video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjnpLF-l3Ww. Jill Lepore draws attention to the frameworks that dominate the conversation around possible bias or misuse of AI. She notes that the discourse is that there is a need to make algorithms work better and how “artificial intelligence” can support human well-being. In these conversations she describes the approach as one of “debugging” or “troubleshooting” wherein the focus is on getting the tech right. She suggests that the framework needs to shift and expand. By way of this she has summarized the problem by saying that there is a lacking desire for the program, not the desire for a better program. Kate Crawford also draws attention to the fact that the vast expansion of AI is not inevitable but can be, to use Mazzucato’s term, governed in such a way that it creates social value. As a fundamentally extractive industry in and of itself, there are profound and familiar climate change crisis concerns as technology becomes more and more central to our political economy.
[5] Institute for New Economic Thinking, "The Work of Future: How will work be different?," in The Future of Work (September 8, 2021 2020). https://www.ineteconomics.org/events/the-future-of-work-the-work-of-fut….
[6] Stephanie Kelton, The Deficit Myth: Mondern monetary theory and the brith of the people’s economy (New York: Hachette Book Group, 2021). Zephyr Teachout, Break ‘Em Up: Recovering our freedom from big ag, big tech, and big money (New York CIty: St. Martin’s Publishing, 2020). Rana Foroohar, Don’t be evil: How big tech betrayed its founding principles an all of us (New York: Pengin Random House, 2019). “Faced with the growing possibility of antitrust actions and legislation to curb their power, four of the biggest technology companies are amassing an army of lobbyists as they prepare for what could be an epic fight over their futures. Initially slow to develop a presence in Washington, the tech giants — Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google — have rapidly built themselves into some of the largest players in the influence and access industry as they confront threats from the Trump administration and both parties on Capitol Hill. The four companies spent a combined $55 million on lobbying last year, doubling their combined spending of $27.4 million in 2016, and some are spending at a higher rate so far this year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks lobbying and political contributions. That puts them on a par with long-established lobbying powerhouses like the defense, automobile and banking industries.” Cecilia King and Kenneth P. Vogel, "Tech Giants Amas a Lobbying Army for an Epic Washington Battle," New York Times (June 5, 2019). https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/05/us/politics/amazon-apple-facebook-go….
[7] Latoya Peterson quoted in Safiya Umoja Noble, Algorithms of Oppression: How search engines reinforce racism (New York: New York University Press, 2018), 4. Peterson, Latoya (2014, January 25). Post on Racialicious (blog). Retrieved from http://racialicious.tumblr.com/post/72346551446/kingjaffejoffer-holliebunni-this-was-seen.
[8] There are examples of how large data sets not only monitor and surveil but actually create new categories of people on whom existing new racialized stereotypes that can effectively undermine targeted strategies and the political and popular will for social programs. Barbara Cruikshank, The Will to Empower: Democratic citizens and other subjects (Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999). Virginia Eubanks, Automating Inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2017).
[9] Jill Lepore, If Then: How the Simulmatics Corporation invented the future (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2020), 35.
[10] Jill Lepore lays out in great detail the sequencing of events that laid together to create midcentury liberalism. Lepore, If Then: How the Simulmatics Corporation invented the future.
[11] This firm, the Simulmatics Corporation, is the focus of Lepore’s If Then: How the Simulmatics corporation invented the future. Lepore, If Then: How the Simulmatics Corporation invented the future.
[12] Bloomberg Government, "Transcript of Mark Zuckerberg hearing," The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/04/10/transcript…) April 10, 2018; Alistair Barr, "Facebook’s China argument revealed in Mark Zuckerberg’s hearing notes," Business Standard (https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/facebook-s-chin…) April 11, 2018.
[13] Barr, "Facebook’s China argument revealed in Mark Zuckerberg’s hearing notes."
[14] George Orwell is credited with coining the term ‘cold war.’ “On 19 October 1945, George Orwell used the term cold war in his essay “You and the Atom Bomb,” speculating on the repercussions of the atomic age which had begun two months before when the United States bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. In this article, Orwell considered the social and political implications of ‘a state which was at once unconquerable and in a permanent state of ‘cold war’ with its neighbors.’” Katherine Connor Martin, "George Orwell and the origin of the term ‘cold war’," Oxford University Press’s Acdemic Insights for the Thinking World, Oxford University Press, October 24, 2015, https://blog.oup.com/2015/10/george-orwell-cold-war/. Also credited with coining the term ‘cold war’ is financier and multimillionaire Bernard Baruch in a ceremony unveiling his portrait in the South Carolina House of Representatives. history.com, "Bernard Baruch coins the term ‘cold war’," This Day in History.
[15] These examples were used by Nancy Folbre in discussing the future of work on this INET webinar. Institute for New Economic Thinking, "The Work of Future: How will work be different?."
[16] Richard Baldwin, The Globotics Upheaval: Globalization, robotics, and the future of work (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020).
[17] Linda Kamas and Anne Preston, "Does empathy pay? Evidence on empathy and salaries of recent college graduates," Journal of Labor Research 41 (2020), https://academic.oup.com/socpro/article-abstract/49/4/455/2279113?redir…. Paula England, Michelle Budig, and Nancy Folbre, "Wages of virtue: The relative pay of care work," Social Problems 49, no. 4 (2002), https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/sp.2002.49.4.455.
[18] Mazzucato, The Value of Everything: Making and taking in the global economy. Institute for New Economic Thinking, "The Work of Future: How will work be different?." For a basic review of public and private goods see: James Chen, "Private Good," Investopedia (2021). https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/private-good.asp.
[19] Ai-Jen Poo, "Care needs to be a part of the climate conversation," interview by Yessenia Funes, The Frontline, May 26, 2021, https://atmos.earth/ai-jen-poo-climate-domestic-workers-care-economy/; "Domestic Workers," Women’s Rights, https://www.hrw.org/topic/womens-rights/domestic-workers#.
[20] Ruha Benjamin states that “in fact this can lead to the consumption of pain and suffering. Zuckerberg partered with the Red Cross recovery effort and used the VR app to tour through wreckage to “raise awareness and hel us see what’s happening in different parts of the world. I also wanted to share the news of our partnership with the Red Cross to help with the recovery.” Ruha Benjamin, Race After Technology (Medford, MA: Polity Press, 2019). Not only was this a problematic application of software for the marketing. Benjamin, Race After Technology.
[21] We can think of doctor visits being shorter and shorter; self-service checkout stations with 6-8 stations being watched over by 1 employee, Productivity dramatically increases—relative to service—in the traded sector. However, as the producing increases dramatically in the tech sector, there is not the increase in wages in the service sector that is thought to transfer into the service sector wages. In terms of value we are producing twice as much as we were producing 30 years ago in US manufacturing—but using fewer and fewer workers. 1950s worker can make 7 cars a year, not they make 28. For same number of cars sold, GM needs 70 percent fewer workers. The jobs thought to be off-setting those jobs lost to globalization are traded off into high tech industries. Enrico Moretti, The New Geeography of Jobs (New York: First Mariner Books, 2012). Baldwin, The Globotics Upheaval: Globalization, robotics, and the future of work.
[22] Moretti, The New Geeography of Jobs.
[23] Joseph E. Stiglitz, "GDP is the wrong tool for measuring what matters," Scientific American (2020). https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gdp-is-the-wrong-tool-for-me….
[24] Quoted in Benjamin, Race After Technology.
[25] Institute, "Jill Lepore Discusses “If Then” with danah boyd."
[26] Lepore, If Then: How the Simulmatics Corporation invented the future.
[27] Eugene Burdick, The 480: A novel of politics (New York: McGraw Hill, 1964).
[28] Al Jazeera, "Capitalism has become technofeudalism," in UpFront (February 21, 2021). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jW0xUmUaUc&t=3s. Yanis Varoufakis, "Techno-feudalism is taking over," Project Syndicate (2021). https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/techno-feudalism-replacing…. Writing here Varoufakis explains, “This is how capitalism ends: not with a revolutionary bank, but with an evolutionary whimper. Just as it displaced feudalism gradually, surreptitiously, until one day the bulk of human relations were market-based and feudalism was swept away, so capitalism today is being toppled by a new economic mode: techno-feudalism.” Further discussion about techno-feudalism is covered in this series of lectures and writing. Crash Course Economics, Crash course on big tech, techno-feudalism and democracy, 2021.
[29] Al Jazeera, "Capitalism has become technofeudalism." Mariana Mazzucato, The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking the pubilc vs. private sector myths (New York: PublicAffairs, 2015). “In just the ten years to 1029, total buybacks by the Fortune 500 exceeded nearly $4 trillion, with many companies spending over 100 per cent of their net income on a combination of buy-backs and dividend pay-outs, thus raiding their capital reserves. Over the same period, six of America’s biggest airlines spent an average of 96 percent of their free cash flow on stock buybacks—the aircraft manufacturer Boeing spent 74 per cent of its free cash flow on stock buybacks—which didn’t deter these companies from asking for federal government help when the COVID-19 crisis struck.” Mariana Mazzucato, Mission Economy: A moonshot gide to changing capitalism (New York: HarperCollins, 2021).
[30]James Felkerson, $29,000,000,000,000: A detailed look at the Fed’s bailout by funding facility and recipient, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College (2011), http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_698.pdf. “There have been a number of estimates of the total amount of funding provided by the Federal Reserve to bail out the financial system. For example, Bloomberg recently claimed that the cumulative commitment by the Fed (this includes asset purchases plus lending) was $7.77 trillion. As part of the Ford Foundation project “A Research and Policy Dialogue Project on Improving Governance of the Government Safety Net in Financial Crisis,” Nicola Matthews and James Felkerson have undertaken an examination of the data on the Fed’s bailout of the financial system—the most comprehensive investigation of the raw data to date. This working paper is the first in a series that will report the results of this investigation. The purpose of this paper is to provide a descriptive account of the Fed’s extraordinary response to the recent financial crisis. It begins with a brief summary of the methodology, then outlines the unconventional facilities and programs aimed at stabilizing the existing financial structure. The paper concludes with a summary of the scope and magnitude of the Fed’s crisis response. The bottom line: a Federal Reserve bailout commitment in excess of $29 trillion.”
[31] Gary Rivlin, "Stock buybacks are now banned. But the damage is done," Newsday (2020). https://www.newsday.com/opinion/commentary/stock-buybacks-coronavirus-c….
[32] Mazzucato, The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking the pubilc vs. private sector myths.
[33] Mazzucato, Mission Economy: A moonshot gide to changing capitalism.
[34] Mazzucato, Mission Economy: A moonshot gide to changing capitalism.
[35] Kate Raworth, Doughnut Economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st century economist (London: Penguin Random House UK, 2017).
[36] Raworth, Doughnut Economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st century economist, 71.
[37] Raworth, Doughnut Economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st century economist, 71.
[38] Fund for Humanity, "The Social Contract: Vision and foundations," (2021). https://socialcontract.fundforhumanity.org/.
[39] Kelton, The Deficit Myth: Mondern monetary theory and the brith of the people’s economy.
[40] Carlota Perez, Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The dynamics of bubble and golden ages (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers, 2003).
[41] Raworth, Doughnut Economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st century economist.
[42] Elior Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2015).
[43] Mazzucato, Mission Economy: A moonshot gide to changing capitalism. Quoting from Arundhati Roy, "The Pandemic is a Portal," Financial Times (April 3, 2020). https://www.ft.com/content/10d8f5e8-74eb-11ea-95fe-fcd274e920ca.
