Over the past three weeks, contributors to these pages have engaged in a vigorous debate on the merits of contemporary capitalism. Entrepreneurs who have earned billions, world leaders who have spent trillions, journalists, academics, and even “Occupiers” have all weighed in. A few clear themes have emerged, highlighting points of agreement and controversy.

Virtually everyone defends the market system, albeit some with more unvarnished enthusiasm than others. Failures in financial regulation, environmental and consumer protection, and particularly in regulating income distribution, are all emphasised. Bill Clinton, former US President rightly argues that markets can be made to work better for charity as well as production. Economist Jeffrey Sachs points to addictive consumer behaviour as a central flaw in today’s growth dynamic, a point with which I strongly agree. Occupy London argues that regardless of overall income level, higher levels of inequality breed social ills, a very plausible conjecture. But no one is seriously arguing against markets; only for regulating them more effectively and more fairly.

The general enthusiasm for economic markets does not extend to political markets. It is striking that both George Osborne, UK chancellor, and Ed Miliband, leader of the Labour party, highlight short-termism in politics as a key flaw. Although the two politicians highlight problems in financial policies, their arguments could well be extended to a host of other areas, ranging from global warming to world food production. The purchase of influence is hardly unique to the financial industry.