Predicting the future of the world economy and capitalism is nearly impossible. For someone living just half a century ago, it was very difficult to foresee the stagflation of the 1970s, the wave of deregulation that followed, unbridled globalization, the destructive power of the internet, the 2008 global financial crisis, the crippling and model-altering impact of the pandemic, and finally, the renewed tariff wars of the 2020s. So, will we then give up making predictions about the future and discussing the future of capitalism? Of course not! The Wall Street Journal did just that, engaging seven prominent academics to discuss the future of capitalism.

It is crucial that the Wall Street Journal engage academics from various disciplines to discuss US capitalism at such a time because it is not difficult to see that capitalism, which has overcome crises and constantly renews itself throughout history, is now entering a new turning point. The devastating impact of artificial intelligence, which is only just taking baby steps, is already being created; regionalization and the multipolar world replacing globalization; rising inequality; Aging and the climate crisis will be decisive at this juncture. So, how will American capitalism cope with all these devastating effects 50 years from now? Here's a summary of the views of seven distinguished economists and historians…

Daron Acemoğlu sees the fate of capitalism largely hinged on how artificial intelligence will be used. He sees two paths. The first is a bleak scenario in which a few tech giants control everything, millions are unemployed, and productivity increases are limited. This scenario, which Acemoğlu calls "mediocre automation," will exacerbate social inequality. The other path is for AI to become a tool that empowers workers. From nurses to technicians, many professions could become more productive with AI support. In such a scenario, productivity would increase and income distribution would be balanced. Acemoğlu's point is clear: The fate of capitalism 50 years from now depends on who will drive technology and whether this process will serve the social good or monopolies.

Before sharing Joel Mokyr's thoughts on the future of capitalism, it might be helpful to summarize Mokyr's book, A Culture of Growth, for readers less familiar with the subject. Mokyr explains the origins of modern economic growth not solely through technology or institutions, but through the cultural transformation that developed in Europe from the 1500s onward. According to him, what paved the way for the industrial revolution was the spread of the idea that knowledge is progressive, the curiosity to understand nature, and the space created for thought by competition between different states.

From Galileo to Newton, "knowledge entrepreneurs" pioneered a new mindset, and the idea of ​​progress enabled the intellectual revolution that lifted Europe from stagnation and laid the foundations of modern capitalism. The question facing US capitalism today is essentially the same: In the age of artificial intelligence and digital transformation, can it create a cultural transformation that will re-inspire society's belief in the idea of ​​progress? Here, Joel Mokyr optimistically highlights the adaptability of capitalism. He argues that AI can provide solutions to a wide range of problems, from the aging population to the climate crisis. She sees one of the main risks here as the monopolization of technology.

Stanford University historian Jennifer Burns is known for her work treating capitalism not only as an economic order but also as a set of values ​​and ideas. According to her, in the 20th century, thinkers like Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman championed the free market economy not only for its efficiency but also for its "ethical" and "compatible with freedom." According to Burns, the future of US capitalism today hinges on this foundation: the sustainability of the system depends on its being compatible with social values, morally defensible, and responsive to individuals' quest for freedom.

In her WSJ article, Burns emphasizes that the biggest challenge facing the US is the state's fiscal sustainability, and believes that budget deficits and social security burdens could force Washington toward a smaller but more effective state. Indeed, we shouldn't expect a different understanding of the state from a scholar aligned with Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman. Carola Frydman from the Kellogg School of Management is best known for her studies examining the motivations of managers/decision makers, wage inequalities, and the preparedness of institutions against crises.

According to Frydman, the future of capitalism is determined not only by technological innovations but also by the fair, transparent, and stable operation of these institutions. In his WSJ article, Frydman takes a different path, highlighting public-private partnerships in strategic sectors. He believes it's possible for the US to develop "American-style state capitalism," from semiconductors to the defense industry and clean energy. Similar to Acemoğlu and Mokyr, Frydman emphasizes the importance of strengthening antitrust laws and taking tougher action against monopolies.

Oren Cass of American Compass offers a harsher critique. He argues that US capitalism has lost its connection to social good, and capital has shifted from production to financial engineering, and from long-term investments to short-term profit. If this trend continues, capitalism's lifespan may not even be 50 years. Cass's proposed solution is to return to a production-oriented model: strengthening the domestic market, revitalizing industrial policies, and directing capital toward the real sector rather than speculation. Tariffs, industrial subsidies, and capital controls could be the tools of this new approach. Otherwise, under current conditions, US capitalism may not survive another half-century.

Glenn Hubbard of Columbia University argues that a new safety net is needed against the structural unemployment created by artificial intelligence. He argues that traditional unemployment insurance will not be sufficient for this transformation. Innovative policies such as retraining programs, regional development grants, and wage insurance for older workers must also be implemented. Hubbard cites major transformations in US history and emphasizes the need for bold social investments of a similar scale in the face of the current technological revolution.

Gregory Mankiw of Harvard offers the most optimistic outlook for the future among the academics presenting the view. He believes that average American incomes will double in the next 50 years, a stronger social safety net will emerge, and even universal basic income may be on the agenda. Taxes will rise, consumption taxes will be introduced, and working hours will decrease. Mankiw's optimism is based on the assumption that new jobs will emerge in the service sector as production largely shifts to robots. In other words, he believes in the adaptability of capitalism and the possibility of a society where Americans work less and share more prosperity.

In summary, the views of seven academics from diverse disciplines and perspectives on the future of capitalism in the US converge on common ground: the system's future depends on its capacity to reinvent itself. Some emphasize how technology will be managed, others the role of the state, and still others the importance of institutions and culture. However, all agree that the system should not be constrained by the interests of monopolies, that it should produce benefits for broad segments of society, and that a transformation that maintains the flexibility and cultural legitimacy of institutions on a moral basis is necessary.