AI is everywhere now—woven into our workplaces, our devices, and our daily routines—and with its spread comes a rising fear: what happens when there’s no meaningful work left for humans? AI is becoming the silent collaborator behind almost everything we make. Yet its presence creates a new kind of tension: not whether we can use it, but how we should. Regardless of the advancements in AI, the central question does not change: given scarcity, what should you do with your time, and what should you let the tools do?

You have probably heard of the widely believed myth that Napoleon was very short. Evidence proved after his death, however, that he had a completely normal height. Historians, interestingly, have mentioned that this narrative could have spread so thoroughly due to British painters drawing him short almost in a sarcastic way. Myths such as this, however irrelevant, do not alter the truth. Some myths, however, are so powerful that they make truth appear like a myth.

In nearly every city, the same bitter argument repeats itself: riders complain about disorder on trains and buses—open drug use, harassment, people sleeping across seats, feces on vehicles—while activists warn that enforcement is “criminalizing poverty” or discriminating against the mentally ill. The debate stalls because it refuses to ask the most basic question any sane society would ask: Whose property is this?

WSJ: “To broaden access to private markets, we should first restore public markets for small and medium-size companies so that all investors have an array of public and private choices.”

Brandan Buck: From Venezuela to Iran, the president thinks he can avoid ‘the forever war trap’ but that is exactly what we’re going to get. 

Today’s capitalism reflects a tragic reality: artificially oversized corporations; monetary systems designed for credit expansion; recurrent financial bailouts; state-financed armed conflicts; and selective subsidies granted to favored sectors. Rather than promote general prosperity, the prevailing order tends to secure recurrent benefits for a narrow group while transferring its costs to the rest of society. This is not an excess of capitalism but its degeneration: the inversion of an institutional order originally meant to coordinate knowledge, responsibility, and production.