[Upgraded October 3, see the end]. People here write: We have been living in the de-regulation mantra for several decades. Now the neolibberal utopia is falling as a house of cards. Even our right wing finance minister is talking about the need of regulations – international regulations.
Recently he spoke about the too greedy finance brokers on Wall Street when he got interviewed in the news here.
But isn’t the capitalism’s motive power the avariciousness?
Unregulated it eats itself up? It’s therefore a political against-power is needed which manage to redistribute and maintain a solidary society.
Neither the totally regulated nor the totally unregulated society is good?? Instead we need a sort of balance between the political and economical power? Sometimes called mixed economy, sometimes called welfare-capitalism.
Reagan-Thatcher and their armies of economists and advisers rebelled against this system to make place for a new capitalism – the neoliberal.
Regulations were torn down; laws were written/created according to the capital’s interests, the market took the political sphere over, taxes and other restrictions for the capitals’ interests were wept away. That generation’s neoliberal politicians are carrying the responsibility for the deep capitalist crisis today.
After a quarter of a century this system, which for a long time created growth but also the most gigantic redistributions of wealth in modern time, explodes or rather implodes.
In parts this break down follows because the financial sector has to become severed from the real economy. More and more fictive values were created.
Joseph Schumpeter, sceptic to the capitalism’s survival but the entrepreneurship’s special philosopher, described a theme of our time: the innovations and the new technology’s creative destroyment. That’s right; there’s much less creativity today I feel. In a time when we should have been more creative to solve different problems. Here the school has become much more theoretical for instance. Also a sign of our time. What about developing (or maintaining) the whole person?
Today there is very little creation, the more destruction. Most of all it is the belief and trust to the society which has been gnawed in pieces. A fundamental mistrust is demonstrated against the financial system, its speculative elements.
It stands in wikipedia about welfare capitalism:
“Esping-Andersen categorised three different types of welfare states in the 1990 book 'The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism'. Though increasingly criticised, these classifications remain the most commonly used in distinguishing types of modern welfare states, and offer a solid starting point in such analysis.
The three different types are the 'Social Democratic' Model, as exemplified by the Scandinavian countries and particularly Sweden; the 'Liberal' Model, often related to the USA, Canada, Australia and increasingly the United Kingdom; and thirdly, the 'Conservative' Model, which is indicative of Germany, as well as France, Austria and Italy.
Recently in the US there has been a trend away from its form of welfare capitalism, as corporations have reduced the portion of compensation paid with health care, and shifted from defined benefit pensions to employee-funded defined contribution plans such as 401(k)s.
It should be noted that the original definition of welfare capitalism, as used by the 19th century German economist, Gustav Schmoller, called for government to provide for the welfare of workers and the public, via social legislation, among other means. (And not to rely on business to do this.) While Schmoller's work is little available in English, his influence can be seen in the modern European welfare states.”
Here are different articles in Swedish newspapers and blogs, two of those I have reffered to above.
Addition later in the morning: delegation has been something popular on work-places here. The bosses delegate responsibility to their employees. Give them responsibility. Of course that's good in many ways, people can grow by this. But - it can also be misused (and is misused I can lively imagine quite ironically). Responsibility can be delegated that the boss ought to take! Bosses can push responsibility and (a lot of) work away. Including the risk of being blamed!?
Can it be something similar with the economy, the society, politics: the ones in power are pushing the responsibility away on a diffuse, not visible or touchable market? Who is then to blame?
And about greed: some claim that greed isn't only bad, that it makes people want to work hard etc. But I would claim that there in fact exists people who works hard with no such drives!! But with other drives and motives. Just with the wish to create something good, not only for themselves - OR for others, but for us all.
Yes, what are driving us?? What are our motives/motivations? Why are we driven by what we are driven? Do we have to remain the same a whole life? Can we change and do we ought to change?
In the shower I thought further on responsibility. People are paid fantasy-salaries (get bonuses and retirement-insurances) for their work because of the enormous responsibility. Bosses on lower levels are also more well-paid than earlier. Even though they are told to delegate work...
But it differs on what sort of responsibility you have... We working with human beings aren't worth a scrap of what those high paid people are worth! What does that say? About what we value as a society and in the (whole) world?
And it was this with limitless needs again... To value oneself, or not value oneself... What's sound and what's not sound?
The Dutch therapist Ingeborg Bosch writes about children who have been taught to share at a too early age (something most of us have learned more or less too), and the results of this later. Resulting in that we can't do anything if we don't get anything back. Other people have learned not to value anything they do too...
Upgraded October 3: A Swedish leader writer this morning:
“Few governments and as few economists confess anything else than laissez-faire. But now these market liberal doctrines are tried.”
He also writes that the nonplussedness as a matter of fact is fundamental (grounded on principles), yes, epidemic and ideological.
Yes, that about responsibility? Convenient and handy to blame the market? You can just leave everything to the market; a phenomenon you can’t touch upon.
What does this say actually?
This about responsibility and blame…
Inlägg
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar