Is the answer then for countries to shut out foreign investment entirely? Not necessarily – the success stories suggest a more nuanced approach. Foreign capital can aid development, but only when countries harness it strategically. The East Asian Tigers exemplified this balance. South Korea and Taiwan borrowed heavily and welcomed joint ventures, but required foreign firms to partner with local companies and transfer technology, directing capital into strategic sectors as part of broader industrial policy. At the same time, they built up domestic champions in those sectors so that foreign operations would not dominate indefinitely.

This approach echoed earlier industrial powers such as the US and Japan: leverage foreign capital, but avoid dependency. South Korea in the 1960s and ’70s licensed technology and hosted foreign factories, but always with the goal of enabling local firms to absorb knowledge and compete globally. By the 1980s, it had nurtured world-class companies in autos, steel and electronics, loosening FDI restrictions only after domestic firms were firmly established.

China later followed a similar template. In the 1980s and ’90s, it attracted investors with cheap labour and huge markets, but demanded joint ventures and technology transfer. Volkswagen, for instance, could enter only through a partnership with a state-owned firm. Through such arrangements, Chinese automakers gradually gained industry knowledge. Similarly, in electronics, Huawei, Lenovo and other firms emerged after years of absorbing foreign technology and investment under guided conditions.

https://aeon.co/essays/how-foreign-capital-can-hinder-or-help-economic-development

The three thousand people surveyed supported policies that addressed “corporate greed and political corruption while correcting inequities in ways that felt immediate and tangible for working families,” the report found. Respondents included people of all political affiliations and classes, and were representative of the states’ populations.

“Among our members, Republican, Democrat, independent, young, old, Black, white, every part of the country, over 90 percent say that those four issues are their top issues,” said Fain. “It’s not the border. It’s not bathrooms. It’s not religious beliefs. It’s the four core issues.”

“strong populism” was 11 percent more appealing than “weak populism,” and 23 percent more popular among working-class respondents.

Respondents were also surprisingly positive about a bold measure to deter mass layoffs that is not yet on the table in the United States: People supported by thirty percentage points a law barring companies that receive tax dollars from laying off workers. Most also supported taxing the rich, capping prescription drug costs, and stopping corporate price-gouging. Eliminating taxes on Social Security income and banning congressional stock trading also scored well.

https://jacobin.com/2025/10/fain-uaw-working-class-independence-democrats/

A new study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics reveals that nearly half of US federal judges attended crash courses in economics at the conservative-leaning Manne Economics Institute for Federal Judges between 1976 and 1999 — and it changed how they behaved on the bench.

Reviewing more than a million circuit and district court rulings, the study’s researchers found that after attending the popular economics “training,” judges ruled against regulators more often and imposed more severe sentences against criminals.

https://jacobin.com/2025/09/law-economics-federal-judges-conservatives/

I hope no one ever forgets or forgives Israel for this

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/08/almost-55000-children-in-gaza-acutely-malnourished-lancet-study-estimates

Global CO₂ emissions reached a record high, with average temperatures surpassing 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. To limit warming to 2°C, between 525 and 755 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide must be removed from the atmosphere by 2100, far beyond the 9 gigatonnes removed from 2019 to 2023—almost entirely through forestry. Novel methods like direct air capture (DAC), biochar, and enhanced rock weathering currently remove less than 0.004 gigatonnes annually. Scaling DAC to 6–12 gigatonnes per year, as required by IPCC scenarios, would demand roughly 4.4 terawatts of new carbon-free energy—more than the total clean energy generated in 2024. Although geological storage capacity is sufficient, current carbon capture projects mostly use CO₂ from fossil fuel production rather than atmospheric sources, and DAC’s high energy and chemical costs remain major barriers to large-scale deployment.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/scaling-carbon-capture-technology

The FCC’s “Delete, Delete, Delete” docket is being used as a platform for corporate broadcasters to push for sweeping deregulation of media ownership and competition rules. Proposals include eliminating the national TV ownership cap, which currently prevents a single corporation from owning stations that reach more than 39% of U.S. households—a limit in place to prevent excessive concentration of influence. Broadcasters argue it is outdated and hinders competition with streaming platforms, and removing it would enable large mergers like Nexstar-Tegna. Another key proposal is repealing local ownership limits, which restrict a company from owning more than two TV stations or an excessive number of radio stations in a single market, rules designed to ensure diverse local media voices since 1964. Finally, the dual network rule, which prevents mergers between the four major broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC), is also targeted, with industry arguing it no longer serves the public interest in today’s media landscape.

The process benefits from an open-ended timeline, a political climate blending regulatory power with administration influence, and the 2024 Supreme Court decision weakening deference to agency expertise. Critics warn that fully realizing this agenda would lead to unprecedented media consolidation, diminished local news, and greater corporate alignment with political interests, worsening the broader information crisis threatening democracy.

https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/the-corner-newsletter-the-fccs-delete-the-public-interest-initiative-october-8th-2025

ared Abbott argues that rebuilding a working-class political majority in the U.S. requires more than union organizing or local experiments; it needs a supportive political and legal environment, economic populist candidates, and long-term community engagement. Working-class voters, now increasingly drifting from Democrats—especially non-college-educated and multiracial groups—are crucial for winning national elections and for countering far-right influence in local communities.

Progressives should run candidates who unapologetically challenge corporate power and highlight working-class struggles, as this messaging resonates strongly with these voters. Electing candidates from working-class backgrounds also boosts credibility and advocacy for pro-worker policies. Bold progressive economic platforms—covering wages, labor rights, public investment, and redistribution—are broadly popular among working-class voters, but Democrats often fail to foreground them, allowing conservatives to dominate the economic populist narrative.

Abbott warns against two failed strategies: “Trump Lite” cultural triangulation and passive “rope-a-dope” approaches, emphasizing instead authentic engagement on local terms. Long-term investment in political and civic infrastructure—persistent organizing, local offices, and community services—is critical to rebuild trust in progressive politics. Ultimately, a durable working-class majority depends on combining electoral power, economic populist leadership, and sustained local presence to deliver meaningful material improvements and reshape political expectations.

https://jacobin.com/2025/10/working-class-strategy-dealignment-populism/