I agree with your premise that the unethical behavior in the markets is structural. I also commend your work on this book. The creation of the LTSE is also a huge and laudable accomplishment. Kudos!

However, I have to express some skepticism that through regulations and reforms, we can reverse the entire incentive structure for public investment to be aligned with stewardship rather than extraction. How do you plan to defy the "financial gravity" between you and this dream?

Finally, I think that Claude Code has misinterpreted your request to summarize your interviews and events. Instead, it created a marketing and promotional website with not a summary to be found!

Ah! Your point about Claude Code is very funny. At a minimum, you can find links to many of the interviews I've done. If it comes across as too promotional, you can always use the "official" website incorruptible.co which is more staid.

Your skepticism is well earned, and all I can really say is that I hope you'll read the book and judge for yourself. I tried really hard to lay out the evidence for two things that are necessary to address this skepticism:

1. We have to see that these structures are changeable. The economy that our grandparents inhabited is almost unrecognizably different than the one we inhabit today. So too, we can imagine that the economy that our grandchildren will work in may be unrecognizably different to us. Why does that necessarily have to be in a negative direction? What was once changed by human hands can be changed again.

2. I know this is hard to believe, but there's actually a lot of evidence that mission-driven, purpose-driven, trustworthy organizations outperform their conventional counterparts. The fact that this is so gives us a lot of tools we can use to drive the change we want to see.

On top of all that, we are living through a massive generational shift. The new generations have lived their whole lives under this maligned structure, and they are sick and tired of it. If you think they are going to sit quietly by and allow those structures to persist, I think that is very unlikely. Which means we're going to have change one way or the other; the only question is how violent and difficult is that revolution going to be? We'd be much better served to change proactively because we know what the right thing is.