In my opinion, the pandemic has really exacerbated the contradictions that we have watched build up over the past decades in governments – that is, in the capitalist world. Many have spoken of competition between autocratic and democratic regimes and that autocratic regimes had their advantages at certain times. <...> There is a new idea that technology and technological breakthroughs have opened up brand new opportunities for structuring the government. There was a very popular idea in its day that socialism or communism collapsed for two reasons: an inability to properly plan everything in an economy, and a lack of stimulation – a lack of competition. New technologies and big data give us the opportunity to plan things far more effectively than we could previously, or than capitalism can currently. <...> The main contradiction of socialism can be overcome. Today, there is a new term – techno-communism – the return of an old idea in a new form, allowing for far more effective planning of social resources and a significantly fairer distribution of those resources between social strata, thereby liquidating intra-social conflict — Herman Gref, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Executive Board, Sberbank.
The old globalization meant that there are many boats in the ocean. Each one goes its own way, but they are all in the same ocean and therefore, if there is a big storm, all the boats recognize it, but at the end of the day, everyone goes their own way. They interact, they differ. I believe that the current, new globalization will be different. It's not that we are going have many boats in the ocean. We are going to have, in a big boat, many cabins. And each cabin will be what used to be the one single nation, but they are still all in the same big boat. Each cabin can be organized by its own rules. They will have their own game, but they cannot navigate the boat. The boat is navigated through the global big machine — Jacob Frenkel, Governor, Bank of Israel (1991—2000); Chairman, JPMorgan Chase International (2009—2019).
The success was found not in the quantity of government, but in the quality of government. So, if you look at the places that handled the pandemic the best: Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, they have actually a smaller share of government than the European countries. State spending, if you want to take it by that measure, is, in some cases, almost half as high as in some European countries. <...> Taiwan only quarantined 1% of the population, keeping the other 99% totally free all the time. No lockdowns, no shutdowns for businesses. The US couldn't quarantine 1% of its population. But it shut down the entire economy. It threw 40 million people out of work. It put hundreds of thousands of businesses out of business, causing massive bankruptcies on a scale never seen since the Great Depression. And that, somehow, is not seen as an infringement of liberty. So, we have to get this balance right, in the future, between risk and reward. Because my final point is, we can’t do this again. If there is another pandemic, <...> we will not be able to respond to it the way we have this time: which is shut down vast parts of the global economy, shut down travel indefinitely, issue vast amounts, trillions and trillions of dollars of debt, and then spend the money to make up the difference. This is a one-shot deal. If this pandemic happens six years from now, ten years from now, fifteen years from now, we are out of money, we will not be able to do this again — Fareed Zakaria, Journalist, Political Commentator .