My current read is The Future and Its Enemies: The Growing Conflict Over Creativity, Enterprise, and Progress by Virginia Postrel. Written in 1998, its analysis has proven prescient.
Postrel divides people, particularly public intellectuals, into two groups: those who embrace the future and those who fear it. Or, more largely, those who are willing to live in a world of constant, dynamic change, and those who prefer stasis.
So far, she outlines these two camps according to their responses to perceived needs in the future. The dynamist point of view (a term that, I take it, she coined) thinks that the best outcome will emerge from the spontaneous order created by the free market of goods and ideas. The stasist perspective thinks that the future should be regulated by an elite that will know what is best for society as a whole.
Her ideas are familiar to me, as I have encountered the view that poverty is better than wealth. I reject it.