Za vsemi političnimi ukrepi in javnimi akcijami je običajno skrita agenda nekih interesov ali ideologije. Tudi pri naši akcijah nasprotnikov in podpornikov privatizacije. To ni prepovedano, le zavedati se je tega treba.

Prejšnji teden je Jeffrey Sachs pisal o interesih, ki so v ozadju nasprotovanja spremembam na področju poskusa zajezitve klimatskih sprememb in ki so lansirali celo zgodbo o “veliki klimatski prevari” kot o seriji prevar znanstvenikov. Jasno, v ozadju je interes “karbonske industrije” (nafte, premogovniki), ki imajo tisoče milijard razlogov, da najdejo “znanstvene argumente” proti omejevanju izpustov ali davkom na “karbon”. Zanimivo pa je, da jim pri tem (nekritično) pomagajo libertarci, ki se borijo proti državi kot vrhuncu zla.

The pseudo-debate about climate science has always been about politics, not science. […] There are two main sources of climate denial. The first is libertarian ideology, which opposes government more than climate change. Climate change requires public policy and, for libertarians, that’s enough to declare it false. Since libertarianism is the elixir of financiers and wealthy peers, climate denial haunts Wall Street, the City of London, a surprising number of FT readers and the House of Lords.

The real climate fight, however, is not about ideology but between oil companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Koch Industries, and the general public. The oil groups will suffer massive capital losses when climate controls are finally instituted. Perhaps even libertarians can appreciate that the real battle is therefore over money, lots of it, and the corruption of government by that big money.

Vir: Jeffrey Sachs, Financial Times

Danes Simon Wren-Lewis piše o skriti agendi Osbornovih konzervativcev, ki so se skrili za argumentom previsokega proračunskega deficita, da bi lahko uvedli politiko varčevanja. Seveda, pa so pri zmanjševanju deficita delali le na “eni strani bilance”:  sklestili so javne izdatke (predvsem za socialne transferje, šolstvo in vladne agencije), medtem ko so na drugi strani znižali davke).

Now you might equally say on this occasion why taint a perfectly good scientific case about climate change with conspiracy theories about oil interests? There are two excellent reasons. First, the trouble with debating the ‘scientific’ arguments of this interest group at face value is that it gives the impression that there is genuine debate going on, and that the key facts about climate change are controversial in scientific terms. That is nonsense, but it is also exactly the impression that this interest group wants to create. Most people will not go through the science and realise that the sceptics case is virtually non-existent. Instead they will think the science is controversial, and so go with their instinct, or with whatever those who support their politics advocate. This is why the US has an unusually low number of people who think climate change is a major threat. Second, I think social scientists have a duty to explain the world as they see it, and not hide these truths away because it might be too much for some.

Of course climate change and austerity debates are not completely comparable for many reasons. However when it comes to the macroeconomics of Osborne’s policy, I think we have now reached a similar point. Back in 2010, there was an arguable case for rapid deficit reduction, particularly as the source of the Eurozone crisis was unclear. In 2014 we know a lot more. Let me justify that with three arguments.

…

Second, the idea that the real motive is a small state is not the preserve of some small group of left wing conspiracy theorists. Here I quote Jeremy Warner, economics editor of the Telegraph (for non-UK readers, a newspaper firmly to the right): “In the end, you are either a big-state person, or a small-state person, and what big-state people hate about austerity is that its primary purpose is to shrink the size of government spending.” He also wrote: “The bottom line is that you can only really make serious inroads into the size of the state during an economic crisis. This may be pro-cyclical, but there is never any appetite for it in the good times; it can only be done in the bad.” I also think many of my non-UK readers will wonder why I am having to justify what is obvious in their countries.

Vir: Simon Wren-Lewis