Contemporary proponents of law and economics claim to have abandoned the idea that law is an instrument for maximizing economic efficiency and wealth. Corporate law scholars haven’t yet heard the good news.
As the country marks 250 years, the left faces two imperatives at once: confronting a constitutional order warped by judicial supremacy, and reorienting American foreign policy away from endless war.
The marginalization of international law under the second Trump administration has been a shock to the post-Cold War world order. Yet the impact of this development on the global economy has been far from uniform. Some of the most important sectors to trade — including telecommunications and civil aviation — were already governed primarily through informal, political arrangements.
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney was widely lauded for declaring the rules-based international order effectively dead and urging middle powers to build “what we claim to believe in.” Unfortunately, as quickly became apparent, what Carney believes in is the continuation of neoliberal capitalism.
As of May 2026, the United States has agreements with at least 27 countries to accept deportees who are neither nationals nor citizens of those countries. Seen from one perspective, this emerging regime looks like a natural extension of efforts by the United States and other countries to externalize refugee obligations and offshore migrant policing. In practice, however, third country deportation is more sinister — more akin to an illegal, “black site” extraordinary rendition than a judicial removal proceeding.
For much of the past century, international lawyers have sought to drive a wedge between “economic” matters and the use of military force. Recent events in the Caribbean and the Strait of Hormuz suggest that wedge is no longer viable.
The overt gangsterfication of US foreign policy, formalized through the so-called “Board of Peace,” marks the culmination of a dangerous transformation in the nature of American hegemony.
The United States’ turn toward naked coercion and transactional deal-making represents both a genuine departure from its commitment to the liberal international legal order and the culmination of that order’s internal contradictions.
At the core of Jason Jackson’s Traders, Speculators, and Captains of Industry is a longstanding conversation among Indian modernizers about how to identify and nurture the ‘right’ kind of capitalists. Yet this is not just an Indian story. Struggles over “good” and “bad” businessmen have structured political life in all capitalist societies, and the book’s deeper implication is that morality tales about virtuous entrepreneurs and predatory speculators are less descriptions of economic reality than prescriptive efforts to shape it.
Jason Jackson’s erudite Traders, Speculators, and Captains of Industry shows that, for more than a century, Indian firms labeled as “traditional” capital faced policy hostility, while those considered “modern” were more likely to receive favorable government treatment. Yet how should we understand the modernity of so-called “modern Indian capitalists”? Did Indian capital ever shed its identity as speculators and traders, or was this classification merely a way to block foreign competition?
Jason Jackson’s Traders, Speculators, and Captains of Industry argues that capitalist societies develop a moral hierarchy of market actors, enabling certain firms to position their interests as good for society and thus deserving of regulatory protection. Though focused on India, the book also invites reflection on the recent return of patrimonial capitalism in the United States: is this merely an inversion of the prevailing moral hierarchy, or a post-moral turn in which firms no longer justify their privileged status in terms of a shared future?
In today’s seemingly deglobalizing economy, policymakers across the world are in a quandary over how to regulate foreign firms. Should policymakers prevent foreign firms from attaining dominant market positions in order to prop up domestic industry? Or should they permit foreign firms to establish ownership and control of domestic markets in the hope of accelerating industrialization, economic modernization, and societal transformation? As Traders, Speculators, and Captains of Industry shows, such decisions are shaped by deeply institutionalized and highly contested moral beliefs about business actors and practices.
Many on the left continue to view cryptocurrency as little more than a grift. Yet the crypto industry aims to achieve something much more dangerous: functional monetary sovereignty. Their infrastructures create new conditions for exchange, wealth, and information. By ignoring these developments, we increasingly live in a dystopian world of monetary fiefdoms, and we find ourselves lacking the legal imagination to meet the moment.
Amid the chaos of the second Trump administration, it is easy to lose sight of a simple, terrifying fact: the American president’s personal wealth is now inextricably linked to the viability of cryptocurrency.
From legislative paralysis to regulatory fragmentation to strategic incoherence, Democrats have spent the past five years squandering opportunities to assert control over the future of digital currencies. To reverse course, progressives need to embrace a coordinated approach that balances innovation, privacy, and systemic risk.
