Kaj po neoliberalizmu?

Joseph Stiglitz pravi: progresivni kapitalizem. V bistvu ni neke hude filozofije pri tem, treba je le preseči dogmo, da trgi “vedo najbolje”, kaj je dobro za razvoj. Nasprotno, optimalni dolgoročni razvoj zahteva aktivno in podjetno državo, torej da država izbere dolgoročne – socialno in ekološko vzdržne – usmeritve glede ključnih determinant razvoja (energetika in infrastruktura, okolje, pogoji dela, socialna država, politika enakih možnosti, stopnja konkurence, stopnja neenakosti), znotraj tega okvirja pa omogoča – regulirano – tržno gospodarstvo. In seveda vlade so bolj aktivne glede ekonomskih politik za usmerjanje gospodarskega razvoja in uravnavanje gospodarskih ciklov. Vse to so države nekoč že znale početi, potrebno se je tega le nehati sramovati in s temi orodji spet začeti upravljati.

The neoliberal experiment – lower taxes on the rich, deregulation of labor and product markets, financialization, and globalization – has been a spectacular failure. Growth is lower than it was in the quarter-century after World War II, and most of it has accrued to the very top of the income scale. After decades of stagnant or even falling incomes for those below them, neoliberalism must be pronounced dead and buried.

Vying to succeed it are at least three major political alternatives: far-right nationalism, center-left reformism, and the progressive left (with the center-right representing the neoliberal failure). And yet, with the exception of the progressive left, these alternatives remain beholden to some form of the ideology that has (or should have) expired.

By contrast, the third camp advocates what I call , which prescribes a radically different economic agenda, based on four priorities. The first is to restore the balance between markets, the state, and civil society. Slow economic growth, rising inequality, financial instability, and environmental degradation are problems born of the market, and thus cannot and will not be overcome by the market on its own. Governments have a duty to limit and shape markets through environmental, health, occupational-safety, and other types of regulation. It is also the government’s job to do what the market cannot or will not do, like actively investing in basic research, technology, education, and the health of its constituents.

The second priority is to recognize that the “wealth of nations” is the result of – learning about the world around us – and social organization that allows large groups of people to work together for the common good. Markets still have a crucial role to play in facilitating social cooperation, but they serve this purpose only if they are governed by the rule of law and subject to democratic checks. Otherwise, individuals can get rich by exploiting others, extracting wealth through rent-seeking rather than creating wealth through genuine ingenuity. Many of today’s wealthy took the exploitation route to get where they are. They have been well served by Trump’s policies, which have encouraged rent-seeking while destroying the underlying sources of wealth creation. Progressive capitalism seeks to do precisely the opposite.

This brings us to the third priority: addressing the growing problem of concentrated . By exploiting information advantages, buying up potential competitors, and creating entry barriers, dominant firms are able to engage in large-scale rent-seeking to the detriment of everyone else. The rise in corporate market power, combined with the decline in workers’ bargaining power, goes a long way toward explaining why inequality is so high and growth so tepid. Unless government takes a more active role than neoliberalism prescribes, these problems will likely become much worse, owing to advances in robotization and artificial intelligence.

The fourth key item on the progressive agenda is to sever the link between economic power and political influence. Economic power and political influence are mutually reinforcing and self-perpetuating, especially where, as in the US, wealthy individuals and corporations may spend without limit in elections. As the US moves ever closer to a fundamentally undemocratic system of “one dollar, one vote,” the system of checks and balances so necessary for democracy likely cannot hold: nothing will be able to constrain the power of the wealthy. This is not just a moral and political problem: economies with less inequality actually perform better. Progressive-capitalist reforms thus have to begin by curtailing the influence of money in politics and reducing wealth inequality.

Vir: Joseph Stiglitz, Project Syndicate

One response

  1. Kapitalizem žene samo ena stvar: profitabilnost. Če ta obstaja na primerni ravni, se bo sistem širil “v neskončnost”, oziroma do planetarnih mej in še nekoliko čez. Če je ni se ne bo in bo takoj takšna ali drugačna kriza.

    Problem reguliranega kapitalizma je ravno to, da je obupno neprofitabilen. Povojne razmere so bile unikatne, ko to začasno ni držalo. A tega ni bilo nikoli prej in nikoli po tem. Ker pa sistemu profitabilnost pada so pritiski na državo, ki regulira enormni in konstantni. In ta tudi konstantno popušča tem pritiskom. Ker tudi mora, saj je gospodarska rast svetinja. Kako naj bi se to nehalo ali pa vsaj resno zmanjšalo, ne vem. To ne pomeni, da se nekaterih najbolj divjih plati sistema (npr. ameriškega zdravstvenega sistema) ne da nekoliko spremeniti. Kaj več pa že težko, razen če smo resni pri de-kapitaliziranju življenja in nam gospodarska rast in vse kar je vezano nanjo ne pomeni več vsega.

%d bloggers like this: