Introduction

In his 2024 book, Value(s): Building a Better World for All, Mark Carney presents an ambitious vision for tackling some of the world's most pressing challenges: the credit crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the climate crisis. Carney's premise is that these crises are rooted in a fundamental misalignment between societal values and market values. He argues that by realigning these values, we can build a more resilient and equitable global system. However, while Carney's diagnosis of these crises is thorough and perceptive, his proposed solutions remain deeply entrenched within the confines of capitalism, lacking any creative vision needed to address the urgent systemic issues at hand.

Throughout the book, Carney critiques the market's tendency to erode social and moral values. Yet, paradoxically, he places faith in the very system he critiques, suggesting that markets, if provided with the right "frameworks," can self regulate and resolve these crises on their own. This reliance on market based solutions reveals an underlying hesitance to tackle the broader implications of capitalism and its structural limitations. Instead of exploring alternative systems or acknowledging successful public sector solutions and interventions, Carney remains tethered to the belief that the market, properly incentivized, holds the key to societal redemption.

By ignoring the successes of public programs, such as Canada's universal healthcare, and omitting discussions on cooperatives and worker owned enterprises, he misses opportunities to explore genuinely transformative approaches that align more closely with the values he advocates.

My overall takeaway from this book; Value(s) is a vision tailored to reassure elite economic actors rather than challenge them. Let's go over Carneys contradictions, examine his approach, and understand if this neoliberal technocratic reimagining of the status quo really is as reformatively revolutionary as he seems to think. Carney is right to insist that values must be at the heart of economic design, but he fails to consider systems that already embody them.

The Three Crisis

The 2008 credit crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the climate crisis. These are the examples Carney uses in his diagnosis of market failures, these issues set the stage for a broader discussion on the role of values in economic systems. Carney effectively articulates how these crises are fundamentally interconnected through the lens of societal and market values. For example, he acknowledges that the market's expansion has deeply impacted the social contract:

> " [...] whether the expansion of the market is changing the underlying social contract on which it has been based. Has the emphasis on the individual over the community, our selfish traits over our altruistic ones, imperilled both the market's effectiveness in determining value and ultimately society's values?" (Value(s), p. 113)

Carney goes on to argue that unchecked market fundamentalism threatens both market effectiveness and societal values:

> "All ideologies are prone to extremes, and capitalism loses its sense of moderation when the belief in the power of the market enters the realm of faith." (Value(s), pp. 120-121)

His recognition of the market's shortcomings is further illustrated by his reflections on the failure to prepare for systemic risks, as seen in the COVID-19 pandemic:

> "The Covid tragedy proves we cannot wish away systemic risks and that we need to invest upfront to avoid disaster down the road." (Value(s), p. 344)

Carney does a great job of showing how these global challenges are all connected through our values. He makes it clear that we need to rethink how we align market and societal values. But despite diagnosing these problems well, his solutions stick too close to the same market focused strategies that helped cause these issues to begin with.

Misplaced Faith

One of the key points in Carney’s Value(s) is the critique of the blind faith placed in markets, which he argues has led to detrimental outcomes. Let's zero in on this point of acknowledgment from Carney about markets:

> "[...] unchecked market fundamentalism devours the social capital essential for the long-term dynamism of capitalism itself." (Value(s), pp. 120-121)

Carney recognizes that this kind of market zeal has historically precipitated events like the 2008 financial crisis, underscoring the dangers of relying entirely on markets without oversight. He admits:

> "Markets don't always clear. And we can suffer from their amorality." (Value(s), p. 172)

Despite this recognition, Carney paradoxically places substantial trust in markets as a remedy for the issues he outlines. He suggests that by instilling markets with the right frameworks, they can self correct and align with societal values. This is illustrated in his belief that:

> "[...] the financial system can build a virtuous circle of better understanding of tomorrow's risks, better pricing for investors, better decisions by policymakers and a smoother transition to a lower-carbon economy." (Value(s), p. 263)

Carney’s faith that markets, if given the right incentives, can solve societal problems is contradicted by his own critique of market failures. He fails to propose tangible mechanisms or regulations that would ensure these frameworks are adhered to. Instead, he offers a somewhat idealistic hope that:

> "Companies bring people together to act collectively, with their motives empowered and their actions coordinated by their companies' purpose." (Value(s), p. 358)

By lacking a clear enforcement mechanism such as regulation, his solutions essentially revert to trusting that markets will adopt a moral compass on their own. This reliance on market dynamics to spontaneously foster ethical behavior is at odds with his earlier acknowledgment of markets' inherent flaws. It leaves readers questioning how these frameworks alone can avert the misplaced faith in markets that Carney initially critiques. Rather than treating governance as a proactive force, Carney relegates it to a mere facilitator of market functionality. This narrow view not only understates the successes of public systems but also reveals how his entire framework sidelines collective solutions that operate outside of capitalist incentives.

The Role of Government

Let's dig into something Carney completely marginalizes: governance. Throughout Value(s), Carney sidelines the crucial role of government, reducing its function to merely creating "frameworks," "policies," and "incentives for markets." This approach significantly underrepresents the successes and essential roles government plays in areas that don't rely on capitalist market solutions.

Carney’s perspective suggests that the government’s primary role is to facilitate market operations rather than take direct action to solve societal problems. He notes:

> "Fixing this collective-action problem is a shared responsibility across financial institutions and regulators." (Value(s), p. 285)

This is echoed in his belief that government should merely provide the foundational structures needed for market solutions, as seen in his reliance on financial markets to aid climate policies:

> "[...] we need financial markets to work alongside climate policies in order to maximise their impact." (Value(s), p. 263)

However, by limiting government action to this supportive role, Carney overlooks powerful examples of effective governance, such as Canada's universal healthcare system. This public program has not only saved countless lives but has also significantly reduced inequality and fostered prosperity, contradicting his unspoken but implied notion that market solutions are the only viable path forward. His failure to acknowledge these successes reflects a neglect of the social safety nets that have proven effective in addressing societal needs both within Canada and around the world. While summarizing the communal response to the covid crisis, Carney states:

> "[...] when faced with catastrophe, governments and citizens drew on their core values and made decisions based on human compassion and not financial optimization." (Value(s), p. 205)

He stops short of recognizing the broader implications and benefits of a more active government role beyond crisis management. Instead, his vision remains tethered to a market driven ideology, even in areas where government systems have excelled.

By not incorporating the demonstrated achievements of public sector programs, Carney’s framework inadequately addresses the potential of governance as a proactive and independent force for good. It leaves readers questioning whether a market centric approach can truly cater to the diverse needs and values of society. This point becomes even more pertinent given his recent ascent to the prime ministership, where the stakes of his market driven policy approach directly affect national governance.

Social Solutions

In Value(s), Carney presents a market centric approach, advocating for incentives and frameworks to guide capitalism towards ethical outcomes. However, he conspicuously omits any detailed discussion of non-capitalist solutions, such as cooperatives and social programs, that have demonstrated success in aligning economic activities with societal values.

Cooperatives, for instance, offer an alternative model that directly challenges traditional capitalist frameworks by structurally implementing collective ownership and democratic governance. The Mondragon Corporation in Spain is a notable example, where worker ownership and decision making have created economic resilience and social cohesion. Similarly, the Zapatista communities in Mexico and the Rojava region in Syria are great examples that showcase how decentralized governance and cooperative principles can create equitable and sustainable social systems.

In Canada, government implemented social programs, such as universal healthcare, have proven to be effective in addressing collective needs without market intervention. Despite private and some provincial political undermining, these public sector achievements highlight the capacity for governance to directly improve living standards and societal well being, a capacity Carney completely overlooks.

Moreover, Scandinavian countries demonstrate that it is possible to blend open markets with robust welfare states. These nations prioritize social cohesion, universal rights, and equitable redistribution, elements that Carney's market led solutions completely lack. While they operate within a capitalist framework, their emphasis on social safety nets and inclusivity starkly contrasts with Carney’s limited vision of government as a mere framework-provider of markets.

While Carney acknowledges the need for a realignment of values, such as when he states:

> "Markets are not ends in themselves, but powerful means for prosperity and security for all." (Value(s), p. 172)

He fails to recognize that prosperity and security can, and often do, come from models that eschew market dependency altogether. This oversight suggests a need to critically examine why Carney’s proposals do not consider these viable alternatives, particularly given their successful implementation in various contexts worldwide.

As we consider Carney's market driven reformism, it becomes evident that by ignoring non-capitalist models, he completely disregards systems that inherently embody the societal values he claims to champion. This glaring omission underscores a critical need for a broader, more comprehensive discussion on integrating ethics and economics beyond a limited reform of capitalism. Carney's analysis consistently reveals a bias and unwavering faith in market based solutions. While he does not explicitly dismiss non-market approaches, his proposals demonstrate a severe lack of creativity, underscoring his bias towards banking and economic reform rather than embracing governance driven economic restructuring.

Moral Implications

The moral critique of Carney's approach lies in its reluctance to recognize the successes of non-capitalist models and the indispensable role of government as more than mere facilitators of market efficiency. In the face of urgent challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic and the escalating climate crisis, Carney’s faith in market mechanisms as the solution is deeply misguided. These crises demand rapid, comprehensive, and ambitious change. Realities that a market centric framework simply cannot address with the speed and scale required.

Throughout Value(s), Carney ignores the achievements of public programs that have historically aligned economic activity with human values. Instead, he places an unwarranted optimism in markets if they are given the "right incentives," neglecting the evidence that these very systems have been direct contributors to the crises we face. This optimism is not just misplaced, it's completely hypocritical, as it disregards the market's proven role as an agitator and creator of these crisis as seen in 2008.

By advocating for a reformist approach, Carney overlooks the immediate need for transformations that prioritize social welfare, equity, and a fundamental rethinking of economic structures. His proposals risk perpetuating existing inequalities and delaying the decisive action necessary to confront the entwined crises of our time. To achieve substantial progress, we must transcend the limitations of market reliance and embrace social governance.

In conclusion, Carney’s book illustrates a significant contradiction: the call for a realignment of values undermined by a steadfast attachment to market dynamics. The path forward requires more than just frameworks and incentives; it necessitates an unwavering commitment to reshaping the systems that serve society. Only through such transformative change can we hope to resolve the crises that threaten our collective future.