Chrystia Freeland

What is interesting is that, although it is framed as a war between the elites and Main Street, the Tea Party is actually really good for the elites.

The irony of the political rise of the plutocrats is that, like Venice's oligarchs, they threaten the system that created them.

All of us can agree that we want government to work as well as possible, and we should all applaud efforts to improve it. But there is no escaping the divisive and essential questions: What is the purpose of the state, and whom does it serve?

In a globalized economy, jobs no longer need a passport, but workers do.

This is the 21st-century paradox: Even as political democracy has become the intellectual default mode for much of the world, the private sector usually trumps the public one when it comes to accommodating consumer choice.

Living as we do in the age of Facebook, we shouldn't be surprised that some countries are starting to imagine themselves more as social networks than as a physical place.

One of the most important political and economic facts of this young century is that capital has been slipping the traces of the nation-state. Business is global; government is national.

The one source of criticism even the most repressive authoritarian leader cannot silence is the outside world. Autocrats are usually thin-skinned and like to be admired, so at least, at first, they often seek to be praised abroad.

As income inequality increases, the social and political sway of those at the very, very top grows, too. They are nearly all men, and men whose lived experience tells them that women, for whatever reason, just don't have what it takes.