Connect with us

News

FT and Schroders Business Book of the Year 2024 — the longlist

Published

on

FT and Schroders Business Book of the Year 2024 — the longlist

Books on Donald Trump’s finances and Bill Gates’ influence go head to head with titles about the challenges of artificial intelligence, the impact of demographic change and how business can do the right thing, in the race to be named Financial Times and Schroders Business Book of the Year.

Other titles vying to be judged the “most compelling and enjoyable” business book of 2024 range from the memoir of an investment bank trader to an in-depth exploration of the changing concept of the corporation, from an assessment of Amazon’s dominance to a powerful account of the tension between sustainability and resource demand.

More than 600 entries were filtered and reviewed by FT journalists. A longlist of 16 titles now remain in the running to become the 20th winner of the £30,000 award, which was first presented in 2005. Here they are:

You are seeing a snapshot of an interactive graphic. This is most likely due to being offline or JavaScript being disabled in your browser.

AI AND TECHNOLOGY

Advertisement

Parmy Olson’s Supremacy: AI, ChatGPT and the Race that will Change the World, published next month, recounts the battle between OpenAI’s Sam Altman and DeepMind’s Demis Hassabis to develop the world-changing technology of generative AI, while also grappling with the ethical and commercial imperatives set by their respective backers at Microsoft and Google.

The Algorithm: How AI Can Hijack Your Career and Steal Your Future, by Hilke Schellmann, drills down into the impact of AI in the workplace, as an aid to recruitment and performance management. Schellmann warns how algorithms can amplify bias and cause more harm than good.

In The Everything War: Amazon’s Ruthless Quest to Own the World and Remake Corporate Power, Dana Mattioli takes a critical look at the influence of the dominant ecommerce and cloud computing company. Her book — echoing the title of Brad Stone’s The Everything Store (which won the award in 2013) — asks whether the group has become too big for regulators to stop.

Entrepreneur Raj Shah and technology strategist Christopher Kirchhoff tell the story of how they and others have shaken up US defence procurement in Unit X: How the Pentagon and Silicon Valley Are Transforming the Future of War. Shah and Kirchhoff turned to start-ups to revolutionise the way the US military is supplied and how war is fought.

The War Below: Lithium, Copper, and the Global Battle to Power Our Lives by Ernest Scheyder, goes to the heart of the dilemmas facing those who want to accelerate the shift to a more sustainable economy. Scheyder examines how the quest to mine critical minerals is setting policymakers, manufacturers, ecologists and scientists against each other.

Advertisement

ECONOMICS

In Growth: A Reckoning, Daniel Susskind, whose timely book A World Without Work made the 2020 shortlist, turns his attention to the question of how to resolve the tension between the quest for growth at all costs — creating inequality and environmental damage — and the need to preserve what we value.

Andrew Scott returns to the question of how to cope with, and benefit from, improved life expectancy in The Longevity Imperative: Building a Better Society for Healthier, Longer Lives. Scott — co-author with Lynda Gratton of 2016 finalist The 100-Year Life — proposes ways to pursue an “evergreen agenda” that should help us to live sustainably and healthily for longer. 

In The Divine Economy: How Religions Compete for Wealth, Power, and People, Paul Seabright offers a novel economic analysis of religions. He describes them as the original platform organisations, rallying groups of users in mutually beneficial relationships just as Instagram or X do today, and points out how religious and secular groups can work together.

ORGANISATIONS

Advertisement

Economist John Kay’s The Corporation in the 21st Century: Why (almost) everything we are told about business is wrong is a profound analysis of how the world of digital products and services is challenging the traditional view of the company. The book, out in late August, examines the future of what was once the pre-eminent organisational unit of capitalism, and how it and the wider economy are managed.

Alison Taylor picks up some of those challenges in Higher Ground: How Business Can Do the Right Thing in a Turbulent World, her guide for leaders struggling to balance clashing stakeholder demands, ESG investment requirements, and ethical questions that go far beyond the confines of their day-to-day business.

In Tribal: How the Cultural Instincts That Divide Us Can Help Bring Us Together, to be published in October, psychologist Michael Morris takes a deep and well-timed look at how leaders in business and politics can harness innate tribal instincts to positive effect, rather than allowing them to divide.

The Unaccountability Machine: Why Big Systems Make Terrible Decisions — and How The World Lost its Mind, by Dan Davies introduces readers to ubiquitous “accountability sinks” that allow responsible parties to avoid blame and therefore erode the foundations of society. Davies points to the ways in which mainstream economics supplanted the management theory of “cybernetics” that could have created a more positive outcome.

Robert Sutton and Huggy Rao outline a familiar picture of bureaucratic dysfunction in The Friction Project: How Smart Leaders Make the Right Things Easier and the Wrong Things Harder and offer plenty of practical ways that heroic “friction-fixers” can remove the grit of unnecessary meetings, overlong emails and poor management. But they also point to the importance of “good” friction in preventing hasty decision-making.

Advertisement

BIOGRAPHY

The Trading Game: A Confession is Gary Stevenson’s vivid account of his time as a Citigroup swaps trader and the consequence. He made huge sums for his employer — and for himself — but also set himself on a path to burnout and the opposite of the freedom he had expected financial success to provide.

Billionaire, Nerd, Saviour, King: The Hidden Truth About Bill Gates and His Power to Shape Our World, by Anupreeta Das, published this month, takes a close and unflinching look at one of the world’s richest men in an attempt to disentangle Gates’ multiple complex interests and relationships, while at the same time exploring our obsession with billionaires.

Finally, Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered his Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success, by reporters Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig, investigates the former president’s finances. The book, due out in September, draws on tax information, business records and interviews with insiders to explore the truth behind Trump’s claims of having built a thriving multi-billion-dollar business empire. 

Entrepreneur and angel investor Sherry Coutu joins the judging panel for 2024. The jury is again chaired by FT editor Roula Khalaf and the other members are: Mimi Alemayehou, founder and managing partner, Semai Ventures; Daisuke Arakawa, managing director for global business, Nikkei; Mitchell Baker, executive chair, Mozilla Corporation; Mohamed El-Erian, president, Queens’ College, Cambridge, and adviser, Allianz and Gramercy; Peter Harrison, chief executive, Schroders; James Kondo, chair, International House of Japan; Randall Kroszner, economics professor at University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business; and Shriti Vadera, chair, Prudential and the Royal Shakespeare Company.

Advertisement

The winner of the £30,000 prize will be the book that offers the “most compelling and enjoyable insight” into business issues. The shortlisted titles will each receive £10,000. The 10 judges reserve the right to add further books to the longlist ahead of the announcement of the shortlist on September 17. The winner of the award will be announced on December 9. Read more about the award at www.ft.com/bookaward. Consult a complete interactive list of all the books longlisted since the award began in 2005 at ig.ft.com/sites/business-book-award/

News

Brass bands in Beijing make way for sticker shock at home as Trump returns to escalating inflation

Published

on

Brass bands in Beijing make way for sticker shock at home as Trump returns to escalating inflation

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump returned from the spectacle of a Chinese state visit to a less than welcoming U.S. economy — with the military band and garden tour in Beijing giving way to pressure over how to fix America’s escalating inflation rate.

Consumer inflation in the United States increased to 3.8% annually in April, higher than what he inherited as the Iran war and the Republican president’s own tariffs have pushed up prices. Inflation is now outpacing wage gains and effectively making workers poorer. The Cleveland Federal Reserve estimates that annual inflation could reach 4.2% in May as the war has kept oil and gasoline prices high.

Trump’s time with Chinese leader Xi Jinping appears unlikely to help the U.S. economy much, despite Trump’s claims of coming trade deals. The trip occurred as many people are voting in primaries leading into the November general election while having to absorb the rising costs of gasoline, groceries, utility bills, jewelry, women’s clothing, airplane tickets and delivery services. Democrats see the moment as a political opportunity.

“He’s returning to a dumpster fire,” said Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal think tank focused on economic issues. “The president will not have the faith and confidence of the American people — the economy is their top issue and the president is saying, ‘You’re on your own.’”

The president’s trip to Beijing and his recent comments that indicated a tone-deafness to voters’ concerns about rising prices have suggested his focus is not on the American public and have undermined Republicans who had intended to campaign on last year’s tax cuts as helping families.

Advertisement

Trump described the trip as a victory, saying on social media that Xi “congratulated me on so many tremendous successes,” as the U.S. president has praised their relationship.

Trump told reporters that Boeing would be selling 200 aircraft — and maybe even 750 “if they do a good job” — to the Chinese. He said American farmers would be “very happy” because China would be “buying billions of dollars of soybeans.”

“We had an amazing time,” Trump said as he flew home on Air Force One, and told Fox News’ Bret Baier in an interview that gasoline prices were just some “short-term pain” and would “drop like a rock” once the war ends.

Inflationary pain is not a factor in how Trump handles Iran

Trump departed from the White House for China by saying the negotiations over the Iran war depended on stopping Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing: We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said.

That remark prompted blowback because it suggested to some that Trump cared more about challenging Iran than fighting inflation at home. Trump defended his words, telling Fox News: “That’s a perfect statement. I’d make it again.”

Advertisement

The White House has since stressed that Trump is focused on inflation.

Asked later about the president’s words, Vice President JD Vance said there had been a “misrepresentation” of the remarks. White House spokesman Kush Desai said the “administration remains laser-focused on delivering growth and affordability on the homefront” while indicating actions would be taken on grocery prices.

But as Trump appeared alongside Xi, new reports back home showed inflation rising for businesses and interest rates climbing on U.S. government debt.

His comments that Boeing would sell 200 jets to China caused the company’s stock price to fall because investors had expected a larger number. There was little concrete information offered about any trade agreements reached during the summit, including Chinese purchases of U.S. exports such as liquefied natural gas and beef.

“Foreign policy wins can matter politically, but only if voters feel stability and affordability in their daily lives,” said Brittany Martinez, a former Republican congressional aide who is the executive director of Principles First, a center-right advocacy group focused on democracy issues.

Advertisement

“Midterms are almost always a referendum on cost of living and public frustration, and Republicans are not immune from the same inflation and affordability pressures that hurt Democrats in recent cycles,” she added.

Democrats see Trump as vulnerable

Democratic lawmakers are seizing on Trump’s comments before his trip as proof of his indifference to lowering costs. There is potential staying power of his remarks as Americans head into Memorial Day weekend facing rising prices for the hamburgers and hot dogs to be grilled.

“What Americans do not see is any sympathy, any support, or any plan from Trump and congressional Republicans to lower costs – in fact, they see the opposite,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Thursday.

Vance faulted the Biden administration for the inflation problem even though the inflation rate is now higher than it was when Trump returned to the White House in January 2025 with a specific mandate to fix it.

“The inflation number last month was not great,” Vance said Wednesday, but he then stressed, “We’re not seeing anything like what we saw under the Biden administration.”

Advertisement

Inflation peaked at 9.1% in June 2022 under Biden, a Democrat. By the time Trump took the oath of office, it was a far more modest 3%.

Trump’s inflation challenge could get harder

The data tells a different story as higher inflation is spreading into the cost of servicing the national debt.

Over the past week, the interest rate charged on 10-year U.S. government debt jumped from 4.36% to 4.6%, an increase that implies higher costs for auto loans and mortgages.

“My fear is that the layers of supply shocks that are affecting the U.S. economy will only further feed into inflationary pressures,” said Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY-Parthenon.

Daco noted that last year’s tariff increases were now translating into higher clothing prices. With the Supreme Court ruling against Trump’s ability to impose tariffs by declaring an economic emergency, his administration is preparing a new set of import taxes for this summer.

Advertisement

Daco stressed that there have been a series of supply shocks. First, tariffs cut into the supply of imports. In addition, Trump’s immigration crackdown cut into the supply of foreign-born workers. Now, the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz has cut off the vital waterway used to ship 20% of global oil supplies.

“We’re seeing an erosion of growth,” Daco said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Top Drug Regulator Is Fired From the F.D.A.

Published

on

Top Drug Regulator Is Fired From the F.D.A.

Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, the Food and Drug Administration’s top drug regulator, said she was fired from the agency Friday after she declined to resign.

She said she did not know who had ordered her firing or why, nor whether Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. knew of her fate. The Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The departure reflected the upheaval at the F.D.A., days after the resignation of Dr. Marty Makary, the agency commissioner. Dr. Makary had become a lightning rod for critics of the agency’s decisions to reject applications for rare disease drugs and to delay a report meant to supply damaging evidence about the abortion drug mifepristone. He also spent months before his departure pushing back on the White House’s requests for him to approve more flavored vapes, the reason he ultimately cited for leaving.

Dr. Hoeg’s hiring had startled public health leaders who were familiar with her track record as a vaccine skeptic, and she played a leading role in some of the agency’s most divisive efforts during her tenure. She worked on a report that purportedly linked the deaths of children and young adults to Covid vaccines, a dossier the agency has not released publicly. She was also the co-author of a document describing Mr. Kennedy’s decision to pare the recommendations for 17 childhood vaccines down to 11.

But in an interview on Friday, Dr. Hoeg said she “stuck with the science.”

Advertisement

“I am incredibly proud of the work we were doing,” Dr. Hoeg said, adding, “I’m glad that we didn’t give in to any pressures to approve drugs when it wasn’t appropriate.”

As the director of the agency’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, she was a political appointee in a role that had been previously occupied by career officials. An epidemiologist who was trained in the United States and Denmark, she worked on efforts to analyze drug safety and on a panel to discuss the use of serotonin reuptake inhibitors, the most widely prescribed class of antidepressants, during pregnancy. She also worked on efforts to reduce animal testing and was the agency’s liaison to an influential vaccine committee.

She made sure that her teams approved drugs only when the risk-benefit balance was favorable, she said.

The firing worsens the leadership vacuum at the F.D.A. and other agencies, with temporary leaders filling the role of commissioner, food chief and the head of the biologics center, which oversees vaccines and gene therapies. The roles of surgeon general and director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are also unfilled.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court is death knell for Virginia’s Democratic-friendly congressional maps

Published

on

Supreme Court is death knell for Virginia’s Democratic-friendly congressional maps

The U.S. Supreme Court

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The U.S. Supreme Court refused Friday to allow Virginia to use a new congressional map that favored Democrats in all but one of the state’s U.S. House seats. The map was a key part of Democrats’ effort to counter the Republican redistricting wave set off by President Trump.

The new map was drawn by Democrats and approved by Virginia voters in an April referendum. But on May 8, the Supreme Court of Virginia in a 4-to-3 vote declared the referendum, and by extension the new map, null and void because lawmakers failed to follow the proper procedures to get the issue on the ballot, violating the state constitution.

Virginia Democrats and the state’s attorney general then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to put into effect the map approved by the voters, which yields four more likely Democratic congressional seats. In their emergency application, they argued the Virginia Supreme Court was “deeply mistaken” in its decision on “critical issues of federal law with profound practical importance to the Nation.” Further, they asserted the decision “overrode the will of the people” by ordering Virginia to “conduct its election with the congressional districts that the people rejected.”

Advertisement

Republican legislators countered that it would be improper for the U.S. Supreme Court to wade into a purely state law controversy — especially since the Democrats had not raised any federal claims in the lower court.

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Republicans without explanation leaving in place the state court ruling that voided the Democratic-friendly maps.

The court’s decision not to intervene was its latest in emergency requests for intervention on redistricting issues. In December, the high court OK’d Texas using a gerrymandered map that could help the GOP win five more seats in the U.S. House. In February, the court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map, adopted to offset Texas’s map. Then in March, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the redrawing of a New York map expected to flip a Republican congressional district Democratic.

And perhaps most importantly, in April, the high court ruled that a Louisiana congressional map was a racial gerrymander and must be redrawn. That decision immediately set off a flurry of redistricting efforts, particularly in the South, where Republican legislators immediately began redrawing congressional maps to eliminate long established majority Black and Hispanic districts.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending