O tem bom več pisal v prihodnje, ko bom pripravil predlog za Slovenijo. Za ogrevanje podajam nekaj background podatkov. Matt Bruenig je pred dnevi na podlagi izkušenj drugih držav objavil predlog Družbenega premoženjskega sklada (Social Wealth Fund) za ZDA. Nekateri to imenujejo “neoliberalni socializem“. Socializem zato, ker temelji na državnem upravljanju skupnega, družbenega premoženja v skladu, pri čemer bi iz donosov od premoženja v tem skladu vsem državljanom izplačevali letne dividende – pod imenom univerzalna temeljna dividenda. Neoliberalni pa zato, ker bi v ta namen uporabili mehanizme kapitalizma, torej donose od naložb v različne vrste premoženja, ki po možnosti kotira na borzi.
Mnogim se bo ta ideja zdela zmešana. Toda na njihovo presenečenje bodo ugotovili, da so tovrstne ideje že zelo stare in uveljavljene ter da v praksi v nekaterih – kapitalističnih (!) – državah odlično funkcionirajo. Ker so ljudje leni in neradi gredo na povezavo prebrat originalne članke, dolgih pa sploh ne, bom v nekaj nadaljevanjih objavil ključne poudarke iz Bruenigovega članka. Nato pa se lotimo predloga za Slovenijo.
Evolucija idej o družbenem premoženjskem skladu
Social wealth funds are generally defined as “collectively held financial funds, fully owned by the public and used for the benefit of society as a whole.”5 The concept is also sometimes referred to as “citizen’s wealth funds” or “sovereign wealth funds.”6 Whatever you call it, the idea is simple: the government directly owns a large pool of income-generating assets and then uses the return on those assets for social welfare purposes. Interest in social wealth funds has spiked in recent years.
Seth Ackerman proposed the creation of such a fund in 2012;7 Peter Barnes published a book on the subject in 2014;8 Tony Atkinson proposed the idea as a solution to inequality in his 2015 book;9 Angela Cummine and Stewart Lansley put out books about it in 2016;10 former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis wrote in support of the idea in 2016;11 the pan-European movement DiEM25 included the idea in its European New Deal platform in 2017;12 and two British think tanks published reports promoting the idea in 2018.13 In addition to interest from policy writers, Hillary Clinton endorsed the concept of creating a national SWF in her 2017 campaign memoir.14
The recent burst of writing on this topic was predated by a century of similar proposals. Rudolf Hilferding argued that the socialization of financial assets “constitutes the ultimate phase of the class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat” in 1910;15 Oskar Lange argued for the payment of a social dividend out of a collectively-owned capital stock in 1936;16 Nobel prize-winning economist James Meade published a paper in favor of the idea in 1964;17 and John Roemer proposed something similar to a social wealth fund in his 1994 book.18
The older SWF advocates were typically motivated by market socialist ideologies. To them, a social wealth fund provided a way for society to collectively own, control, and benefit from the wealth of the nation. Although some modern SWF advocates continue to argue for the idea on these traditional terms, most choose instead to present it as a practical and egalitarian source of revenue for social welfare purposes.
The turn towards the practical has likely been driven by the fact that the SWF idea has now been successfully implemented many times throughout the world. At the beginning of 2016, the globe was home to around 80 sovereign funds spread across more than 60 governments, with most of the funds being established after the year 2000.19 Not all of these funds exist for a social purpose and so some do not meet the definition of a social wealth fund used above. But they all nonetheless prove that a government can own and manage large pools of income-generating assets without significant problems.
Vir: Matt Bruenig, People’s Policy Project