I really appreciate your pragmatic realism here, especially your refusal to collapse complex trade-offs into slogans or binaries. The point that ‘every party operates within the capitalist framework, even if they want to soften its edges’, is spot on. It grounds the conversation in reality, rather than in wishful narratives.
As you point out this is not just how it works here, it is true in essentially every rich country around the globe.
If anything, I’d extend this frame further: rather than asking which system is “best,” maybe we should ask which mechanisms help a society navigate the tensions capitalism creates (I am an engineer after all) between opportunity and inequality, growth and stability, innovation and cohesion. What are the tools that help us manage those tensions over time, in our actual context, with the people and institutions we have?
In that sense, the goal isn’t to transcend capitalism through ideology, but to discipline it through design, through political institutions, civic norms, and policy feedback loops that keep it from undermining the very society it helps enrich. This is where the tough and tumble should be, not off in blind ideological alleyways. That kind of design thinking—less utopian, more iterative—seems like where the real work is.
John — I always look forward to your comments, and this one is a gem.
You’ve articulated exactly what I was circling around: it’s not about picking the “perfect” system, it’s about managing the tensions any system creates—thoughtfully, iteratively, and in context. Your framing of design as discipline rather than ideology is bang on. It’s less about tearing capitalism down in theory, and more about putting the right pressure points in place so it doesn’t cannibalise the very society it’s supposed to serve.
And I appreciate that you come at this as an engineer—it shows. That instinct to ask how something works (or breaks), and what feedback loops we need to keep adjusting course, feels so crucial right now. Less grand vision, more real-time calibration.
I appreciate you continuing to show up here. You’re helping sharpen the thinking, every time.
Firstly, thank you for once again delivering a well balanced and constructed article.
In defense of capitalism, it is the most successful system for the centralization of wealth that anyone has ever come up with. That can be a good thing, as there are things we cannot achieve as individuals or small groups. As a society, above all we should aim to be greater than the sum of our parts.
But the elephant in the room that you have not touched on in this piece is how capitalism is fundamentally linked to unending growth, in a world that is rapidly maxing out on resources.
Be it by evolution or revolution, we are on a timeline where capitalism as we know it is not sustainable, and we will inevitably see those at the bottom of the pyramid paying the price for that first.
Hi Matt, John, Seth — I’ve really appreciated this whole thread. So many sharp insights here, and a real willingness to wrestle with complexity without defaulting to doom or denial. Thank you all for that.
Matt, I agree with you that one of capitalism’s defining characteristics—and blind spots—is its dependence on unending growth. I didn’t go deep on that in this piece, but you’re right: it’s the elephant in the room. We’re operating within a system that treats exponential growth as normal, on a planet with very real ecological limits. That tension isn’t just theoretical—it’s material, and it’s already playing out in uneven and unjust ways, mostly (as you point out) for those at the bottom of the pyramid.
John, I appreciate your data-rich perspective, and your point about “peak stuff” is fascinating. I agree that in many parts of the developed world, we're seeing decoupling between material consumption and economic value—but I’m not convinced that solves the deeper problem. As Matt flagged, scarcity of specific resources, especially in emerging tech, is already driving geopolitical instability. And as you said so well yourself, even if we manage the technical constraints, we still have to contend with the harder, messier challenge of political economy—how transitions are managed, who absorbs the cost, and how long communities are expected to endure pain before relief or justice arrives.
Seth, that Kevin Kelly reference is such a good addition—thank you. There’s definitely something brewing in this space around post-capitalist value systems, especially with the twin forces of AI and demographic decline. But as you both noted, transition management is key. We may have glimpses of what's next, but navigating from here to there without massive social fallout is still a very open question.
I’m honestly just glad this conversation is happening in this depth. Grateful to you all for being here.
I looked at that. It doesn’t make much difference. The main energy we spend isn’t in fabricating shoes and shorts, it is on travel and heating water. Our electronics use a lot less than our drying machines, and the energy used in building our electronics is less that the energy used running them. Regarding kilograms of materials, we in the developed world mostly use local materials like water, rock and sand for infrastructure. We use a lot more kilograms of water than we do of furniture (or electronics), even taking into account the waste material created when that furniture is manufactured.
Historically, decade on decade, we in the developed countries used to use more of pretty well everything. This increase has stopped and now we are in a mild decline.
Roughly speaking, we use about 20 tonnes of stuff a year each.
It could be that endless growth causes us to hit limits as in The Limits to Growth. But in the rich world we are growing wealthier while using less kilograms of ‘stuff’ each year per person. There only so many couches you can sit on at any one time.
This is true even where you factor in the weight of concrete and so on for building more infrastructure. We hit peak stuff sometime in the 2010s. Our energy use is declining as well, per person in the rich countries. Our land use for growing food is declining per person, and some land that used to be used for farming is reverting.
In the rich countries our wealth is more tied up now in information services, small electronic things and ‘experiences’.
Our populations in the rich countries are declining.
The big jump in usage of stuff, energy and land will come from the developing world, but this looks manageable. We do seem a long way from the challenge of any absolute limit.
I must admit I am in no position to claim what the timeline will be, quite possibly not on my lifetime and therefore I shouldn't worry about it. I also have to assume that the signs of it will show up in some areas before others rather than everything falling apart one day.
That makes your points on information services, small electronics, and indeed those technologies in general that have enable reduce consumption of stuff, all the more interesting. Those technologies really on very specific resources, that while they may not run out any time soon may cause a lot of disruption - after all we already have US-Russian foreign policy being decided around Ukraine's alleged rare earth metals, though that is a very different topic.
That is true. There will be all sorts of squabbling over those resources.
That said, the actual quantities of these materials is not so much the issue, it is where they are located. One problem with the original Club of Rome report in the ‘70s was that they only looked at proven reserves of materials, and didn’t allow for the substitution that arises when prices rise.
I think the real problems that we face are the perennial ones of the political economy, not technical ones, not even the challenges that will arise with acclimation to climate change. (Unless the AIs take over and kill us all.)
I find this super interesting John. Where we go from here will be something quite different. I found this chat with Kevin Kelly a great way to feel out how we might build a new capitalism with AI and declining birth rates. To me, while it’s not explicit on the limits of growth per se, it suggests we will get very different types of value exchanges and not at all clear there will be a direct relationship between physical constraints and “economic” growth. I’m not saying there is nothing to worry about, but I’d be very skeptical of extrapolating trends from past history.
We will have to recast Marx’s foresight to: "In capitalist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."
I will listen to that podcast, thank you. I wanted to respond when I saw your post.
My essential anxiety is how we will manage whatever transitions we are heading into now. We haven’t done so well in the past. Disadvantaged people have to suffer mightily before the rest of the community eventually supports them, whether factory workers who used to be farmers in the Industrial Revolution or working class workers who lose jobs to globalisation. We get there in the end but it can be rough along the way.
Thanks John, I appreciate as always your thoughtful take on my articles. This comment is spot on and I whole heartedly agree with it: “In that sense, the goal isn’t to transcend capitalism through ideology, but to discipline it through design, through political institutions, civic norms, and policy feedback loops that keep it from undermining the very society it helps enrich.”
Thanks Natalia. As always, a thought provoking, interesting post that gets me thinking.
In my view when it comes to questions about inequality and equality, the distinction between capitalism and socialism doesn't quite get how political systems operate because at a practical level, what matters more, is the distinction between socialism and democracy. Willi Brandt - life long German social democrat - nailed it in my view: "you can't have socialism without democracy and you can't have democracy without socialism". So the USSR and Mao's China etc didn't live up to socialist ideals at a practical level and the USA is far from impressive as a democratic model that represents the majority of its citizens.
While we have had our moments, in NZ we are as yet to build an egalitarian society based on a social-democrat model and it is hard to make a convincing case that we are currently on the right track to achieve this. It is not just about the current government and nor is it simply because of the neo-liberal mindset that we have followed since the 1980s. Rather it goes back over 150 years.
But what we see in the Nordic countries - based on social democrat principles - is while a nation has to operate successfully in the capitalist market place - if citizens are to fully participate in a liberal, representative democracy they all must have access to quality health, education and housing. As a right - not a privilege. That all feel they are connected and a worthwhile member of a community. We get a sense of what this looks like by seeing how young people are educated. Unlike NZ, where affluent, well-connected school communities thrive while those who don't enjoy such advantages scramble for the crumbs, in Finland all parents send their children to their local school where they are taught by highly qualified teachers. Schools that are safe and well resourced and there is a clear understanding of the skills and knowledge all their young people need to learn. I guess it is unsurprising that they are at top of the international league tables for educational achievement (and have been for decades).
At one level a balance between capitalism and socialism but essentially a balance between democracy and socialism - with a widely shared commitment to a cohesive community.
Hi Mark — thanks so much for this comment. I always appreciate your depth and the way you bring historical and international context into the conversation.
I like how you’ve reframed the conversation—not just as capitalism vs socialism, but democracy vs socialism. That Brandt quote is a powerful one, and I think you're right to centre it. The point you're making gets to something I was also trying to gesture toward in the piece: that it’s not just about systems on paper, it’s about how those systems show up in practice—and who they actually serve.
I appreciate the reminder that this isn’t just a post-1980s problem. We’ve never really had a sustained egalitarian model here, and the cracks go back a long way. Neo-liberalism accelerated it, sure—but the roots run deeper.
Thanks again for the thoughtful kōrero. Always good to have your voice in the mix.
Love the lucid, clear framing, Natalia. We often have confused narratives running in NZ that just don’t help to move debates forward. No such thing as an “ideal speech situation” but you need clear running lines to have a real discussion. Keep up the good work.
Tadhg - I didn’t read any cheering of capitalism - just a realistic framing of options we currently know about.
I’m trying to hold space for more grounded, realistic conversations, even when the topic is messy or uncomfortable. Like you said, no such thing as a perfect debate environment, but we can at least aim for clarity and coherence. That’s the spirit I’m writing from.
Also, thank you for stepping in with that note to Tadhg — it helped underline the actual intent of the piece. It’s frustrating when arguments get twisted to fit someone else’s narrative, especially when I’m being pretty deliberate with my framing. So yeah — I appreciate it.
And yet you think David Seymour and act espouse classical economics.
Civilisation is - essentially - debt relationships. It is not a coincidence that the Vatican / western mafia states extinguished debt jubilee as a concept; and embedded the debt slavery of usury/compound interest.
It is not a coincidence that the politics/capitalism you cheer is one where private banks get the privilege of currency creation; and the nation is denied the power to use its own credit to invest in its own economic development.
It’s not a coincidence that the wests ‘adversaries’ (Iran, China, Russia, Libya, Syria etc) have/had sovereign central banks and sovereign public investment strategies. Thus keeping them independent of debt colonisation.
Another confused and not very good piece. But, tony, who seems in love with our nations saboteurs (nzi/business round table) thinks it’s good. Truly a kiss of death,
Tadhg — once again, you’re reading things into my work that simply aren’t there.
Nowhere in this piece did I “cheer” capitalism or endorse classical economics. In fact, I explicitly state that capitalism produces inequality by design, and that every alternative system comes with trade-offs. What I’m offering is a realistic framing of the current global economic landscape — not a moral endorsement of it. That distinction matters.
As for your broader points, I’m aware of the critiques around sovereign banking, compound interest, and global financial structures. They’re worth discussing, but that’s not what this piece is about. Dragging in every geopolitical talking point under the sun doesn’t make for stronger analysis — it just muddies the water.
If you want to engage with the ideas I actually put forward, great. But please stop misrepresenting my work to fit your narrative. It’s not productive, constructive or fair.
I do believe ACT and National operate as instruments of big business eager to gain control over public assets. The erosion of government services, particularly in Health and Housing, appears to be setting the stage for a shift of public funding and land into private hands. Such a transition ultimately marginalises the lower and middle classes making it increasingly difficult for them to afford a basic asset themselves like a home. This is reflective of trends in the UK and the US. If we persist in transferring wealth to the asset class, New Zealand risks deepening inequality and will resemble nations like South Africa, Brazil, or India in the next few decades. This trajectory was started by Labours Rogernomics (who funnily enough, Roger Douglas later formed the ACT party).
I’m with you Natalia.
I really appreciate your pragmatic realism here, especially your refusal to collapse complex trade-offs into slogans or binaries. The point that ‘every party operates within the capitalist framework, even if they want to soften its edges’, is spot on. It grounds the conversation in reality, rather than in wishful narratives.
As you point out this is not just how it works here, it is true in essentially every rich country around the globe.
If anything, I’d extend this frame further: rather than asking which system is “best,” maybe we should ask which mechanisms help a society navigate the tensions capitalism creates (I am an engineer after all) between opportunity and inequality, growth and stability, innovation and cohesion. What are the tools that help us manage those tensions over time, in our actual context, with the people and institutions we have?
In that sense, the goal isn’t to transcend capitalism through ideology, but to discipline it through design, through political institutions, civic norms, and policy feedback loops that keep it from undermining the very society it helps enrich. This is where the tough and tumble should be, not off in blind ideological alleyways. That kind of design thinking—less utopian, more iterative—seems like where the real work is.
John — I always look forward to your comments, and this one is a gem.
You’ve articulated exactly what I was circling around: it’s not about picking the “perfect” system, it’s about managing the tensions any system creates—thoughtfully, iteratively, and in context. Your framing of design as discipline rather than ideology is bang on. It’s less about tearing capitalism down in theory, and more about putting the right pressure points in place so it doesn’t cannibalise the very society it’s supposed to serve.
And I appreciate that you come at this as an engineer—it shows. That instinct to ask how something works (or breaks), and what feedback loops we need to keep adjusting course, feels so crucial right now. Less grand vision, more real-time calibration.
I appreciate you continuing to show up here. You’re helping sharpen the thinking, every time.
— Nat
Firstly, thank you for once again delivering a well balanced and constructed article.
In defense of capitalism, it is the most successful system for the centralization of wealth that anyone has ever come up with. That can be a good thing, as there are things we cannot achieve as individuals or small groups. As a society, above all we should aim to be greater than the sum of our parts.
But the elephant in the room that you have not touched on in this piece is how capitalism is fundamentally linked to unending growth, in a world that is rapidly maxing out on resources.
Be it by evolution or revolution, we are on a timeline where capitalism as we know it is not sustainable, and we will inevitably see those at the bottom of the pyramid paying the price for that first.
Hi Matt, John, Seth — I’ve really appreciated this whole thread. So many sharp insights here, and a real willingness to wrestle with complexity without defaulting to doom or denial. Thank you all for that.
Matt, I agree with you that one of capitalism’s defining characteristics—and blind spots—is its dependence on unending growth. I didn’t go deep on that in this piece, but you’re right: it’s the elephant in the room. We’re operating within a system that treats exponential growth as normal, on a planet with very real ecological limits. That tension isn’t just theoretical—it’s material, and it’s already playing out in uneven and unjust ways, mostly (as you point out) for those at the bottom of the pyramid.
John, I appreciate your data-rich perspective, and your point about “peak stuff” is fascinating. I agree that in many parts of the developed world, we're seeing decoupling between material consumption and economic value—but I’m not convinced that solves the deeper problem. As Matt flagged, scarcity of specific resources, especially in emerging tech, is already driving geopolitical instability. And as you said so well yourself, even if we manage the technical constraints, we still have to contend with the harder, messier challenge of political economy—how transitions are managed, who absorbs the cost, and how long communities are expected to endure pain before relief or justice arrives.
Seth, that Kevin Kelly reference is such a good addition—thank you. There’s definitely something brewing in this space around post-capitalist value systems, especially with the twin forces of AI and demographic decline. But as you both noted, transition management is key. We may have glimpses of what's next, but navigating from here to there without massive social fallout is still a very open question.
I’m honestly just glad this conversation is happening in this depth. Grateful to you all for being here.
— Nat
I looked at that. It doesn’t make much difference. The main energy we spend isn’t in fabricating shoes and shorts, it is on travel and heating water. Our electronics use a lot less than our drying machines, and the energy used in building our electronics is less that the energy used running them. Regarding kilograms of materials, we in the developed world mostly use local materials like water, rock and sand for infrastructure. We use a lot more kilograms of water than we do of furniture (or electronics), even taking into account the waste material created when that furniture is manufactured.
Historically, decade on decade, we in the developed countries used to use more of pretty well everything. This increase has stopped and now we are in a mild decline.
Roughly speaking, we use about 20 tonnes of stuff a year each.
It could be that endless growth causes us to hit limits as in The Limits to Growth. But in the rich world we are growing wealthier while using less kilograms of ‘stuff’ each year per person. There only so many couches you can sit on at any one time.
This is true even where you factor in the weight of concrete and so on for building more infrastructure. We hit peak stuff sometime in the 2010s. Our energy use is declining as well, per person in the rich countries. Our land use for growing food is declining per person, and some land that used to be used for farming is reverting.
In the rich countries our wealth is more tied up now in information services, small electronic things and ‘experiences’.
Our populations in the rich countries are declining.
The big jump in usage of stuff, energy and land will come from the developing world, but this looks manageable. We do seem a long way from the challenge of any absolute limit.
I must admit I am in no position to claim what the timeline will be, quite possibly not on my lifetime and therefore I shouldn't worry about it. I also have to assume that the signs of it will show up in some areas before others rather than everything falling apart one day.
That makes your points on information services, small electronics, and indeed those technologies in general that have enable reduce consumption of stuff, all the more interesting. Those technologies really on very specific resources, that while they may not run out any time soon may cause a lot of disruption - after all we already have US-Russian foreign policy being decided around Ukraine's alleged rare earth metals, though that is a very different topic.
That is true. There will be all sorts of squabbling over those resources.
That said, the actual quantities of these materials is not so much the issue, it is where they are located. One problem with the original Club of Rome report in the ‘70s was that they only looked at proven reserves of materials, and didn’t allow for the substitution that arises when prices rise.
I think the real problems that we face are the perennial ones of the political economy, not technical ones, not even the challenges that will arise with acclimation to climate change. (Unless the AIs take over and kill us all.)
I find this super interesting John. Where we go from here will be something quite different. I found this chat with Kevin Kelly a great way to feel out how we might build a new capitalism with AI and declining birth rates. To me, while it’s not explicit on the limits of growth per se, it suggests we will get very different types of value exchanges and not at all clear there will be a direct relationship between physical constraints and “economic” growth. I’m not saying there is nothing to worry about, but I’d be very skeptical of extrapolating trends from past history.
https://podcasts.apple.com/nz/podcast/exponential-view-with-azeem-azhar/id1172218725?i=1000699980255
Good podcast.
We will have to recast Marx’s foresight to: "In capitalist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."
I will listen to that podcast, thank you. I wanted to respond when I saw your post.
My essential anxiety is how we will manage whatever transitions we are heading into now. We haven’t done so well in the past. Disadvantaged people have to suffer mightily before the rest of the community eventually supports them, whether factory workers who used to be farmers in the Industrial Revolution or working class workers who lose jobs to globalisation. We get there in the end but it can be rough along the way.
I share your concerns about how we navigate this John
It is true in the developed world. It’s a quick thing to Google.
Thanks John, I appreciate as always your thoughtful take on my articles. This comment is spot on and I whole heartedly agree with it: “In that sense, the goal isn’t to transcend capitalism through ideology, but to discipline it through design, through political institutions, civic norms, and policy feedback loops that keep it from undermining the very society it helps enrich.”
Thanks Natalia. As always, a thought provoking, interesting post that gets me thinking.
In my view when it comes to questions about inequality and equality, the distinction between capitalism and socialism doesn't quite get how political systems operate because at a practical level, what matters more, is the distinction between socialism and democracy. Willi Brandt - life long German social democrat - nailed it in my view: "you can't have socialism without democracy and you can't have democracy without socialism". So the USSR and Mao's China etc didn't live up to socialist ideals at a practical level and the USA is far from impressive as a democratic model that represents the majority of its citizens.
While we have had our moments, in NZ we are as yet to build an egalitarian society based on a social-democrat model and it is hard to make a convincing case that we are currently on the right track to achieve this. It is not just about the current government and nor is it simply because of the neo-liberal mindset that we have followed since the 1980s. Rather it goes back over 150 years.
But what we see in the Nordic countries - based on social democrat principles - is while a nation has to operate successfully in the capitalist market place - if citizens are to fully participate in a liberal, representative democracy they all must have access to quality health, education and housing. As a right - not a privilege. That all feel they are connected and a worthwhile member of a community. We get a sense of what this looks like by seeing how young people are educated. Unlike NZ, where affluent, well-connected school communities thrive while those who don't enjoy such advantages scramble for the crumbs, in Finland all parents send their children to their local school where they are taught by highly qualified teachers. Schools that are safe and well resourced and there is a clear understanding of the skills and knowledge all their young people need to learn. I guess it is unsurprising that they are at top of the international league tables for educational achievement (and have been for decades).
At one level a balance between capitalism and socialism but essentially a balance between democracy and socialism - with a widely shared commitment to a cohesive community.
Hi Mark — thanks so much for this comment. I always appreciate your depth and the way you bring historical and international context into the conversation.
I like how you’ve reframed the conversation—not just as capitalism vs socialism, but democracy vs socialism. That Brandt quote is a powerful one, and I think you're right to centre it. The point you're making gets to something I was also trying to gesture toward in the piece: that it’s not just about systems on paper, it’s about how those systems show up in practice—and who they actually serve.
I appreciate the reminder that this isn’t just a post-1980s problem. We’ve never really had a sustained egalitarian model here, and the cracks go back a long way. Neo-liberalism accelerated it, sure—but the roots run deeper.
Thanks again for the thoughtful kōrero. Always good to have your voice in the mix.
— Nat
Love the lucid, clear framing, Natalia. We often have confused narratives running in NZ that just don’t help to move debates forward. No such thing as an “ideal speech situation” but you need clear running lines to have a real discussion. Keep up the good work.
Tadhg - I didn’t read any cheering of capitalism - just a realistic framing of options we currently know about.
Thanks so much, Seth — really appreciate that.
I’m trying to hold space for more grounded, realistic conversations, even when the topic is messy or uncomfortable. Like you said, no such thing as a perfect debate environment, but we can at least aim for clarity and coherence. That’s the spirit I’m writing from.
Also, thank you for stepping in with that note to Tadhg — it helped underline the actual intent of the piece. It’s frustrating when arguments get twisted to fit someone else’s narrative, especially when I’m being pretty deliberate with my framing. So yeah — I appreciate it.
— Nat
And yet you think David Seymour and act espouse classical economics.
Civilisation is - essentially - debt relationships. It is not a coincidence that the Vatican / western mafia states extinguished debt jubilee as a concept; and embedded the debt slavery of usury/compound interest.
It is not a coincidence that the politics/capitalism you cheer is one where private banks get the privilege of currency creation; and the nation is denied the power to use its own credit to invest in its own economic development.
It’s not a coincidence that the wests ‘adversaries’ (Iran, China, Russia, Libya, Syria etc) have/had sovereign central banks and sovereign public investment strategies. Thus keeping them independent of debt colonisation.
Another confused and not very good piece. But, tony, who seems in love with our nations saboteurs (nzi/business round table) thinks it’s good. Truly a kiss of death,
Tadhg — once again, you’re reading things into my work that simply aren’t there.
Nowhere in this piece did I “cheer” capitalism or endorse classical economics. In fact, I explicitly state that capitalism produces inequality by design, and that every alternative system comes with trade-offs. What I’m offering is a realistic framing of the current global economic landscape — not a moral endorsement of it. That distinction matters.
As for your broader points, I’m aware of the critiques around sovereign banking, compound interest, and global financial structures. They’re worth discussing, but that’s not what this piece is about. Dragging in every geopolitical talking point under the sun doesn’t make for stronger analysis — it just muddies the water.
If you want to engage with the ideas I actually put forward, great. But please stop misrepresenting my work to fit your narrative. It’s not productive, constructive or fair.
— Nat
https://open.substack.com/pub/tadhgstopford/p/the-collapse-of-new-zealand-as-a?r=59s119&utm_medium=ios
Just good. Well done.
Thanks Tony, I appreciate that.
I do believe ACT and National operate as instruments of big business eager to gain control over public assets. The erosion of government services, particularly in Health and Housing, appears to be setting the stage for a shift of public funding and land into private hands. Such a transition ultimately marginalises the lower and middle classes making it increasingly difficult for them to afford a basic asset themselves like a home. This is reflective of trends in the UK and the US. If we persist in transferring wealth to the asset class, New Zealand risks deepening inequality and will resemble nations like South Africa, Brazil, or India in the next few decades. This trajectory was started by Labours Rogernomics (who funnily enough, Roger Douglas later formed the ACT party).