A esquerda face à crise

The left's response to the crisis, por Chris Dillow (como frequentemente noto, o facto de eu re-postar um post não quer dizer que concorde com ele):

The credit crisis hasn’t just been an embarrassment for apologists for actually-existing capitalism. It’s also highlighted a woeful fact pointed out by Nigel - that the left has for years had little interest in economics. The result has been that lots of lefties have called for new ideas (or a reassertion of old ones) without actually proposing them.

So, to kick things off, here are some suggestions. These aren’t intended as firm policy proposals, but for directions to think in.

1. Don’t presume that regulation of individual banks is the answer. If Dick Fuld and John Thain didn’t know how to keep Lehmans and Merrills afloat, why should regulators have been able to do so, given that these always know even less than bosses, and face weaker incentives? Regulation always has unforeseen effects; it might be that one form of regulation helped cause the current crisis.

Regulation of the entire system might be improved. But even this accepts what should be questioned - the existing capitalist structure.

2. This is - in part - a failure of ownership. Dispersed shareholders can’t control chief executives sufficiently, and bosses can’t control trading desks. The left should therefore ask: in what circumstances is stock market quotation a sensible ownership structure? Mightn’t other modes of ownership - partnerships, mutuals, co-ops, whatever - be more efficient?

3. In nationalizing Fannie, Freddie and AIG, the Bush administration has shown that there are no principles of liberty or justice that rule out nationalization. Efficiency trumps property rights. The left might take the hint.

4. Bosses are chancers and rent-seekers. Multi-million pound salaries are not rewards for rare skill, not the price that must be paid for “good management.” If Thain and Fuld couldn’t even keep their firms alive, might it be that management skill is an illusion? The left should question the legitimacy of the boss class. This doesn’t just mean recognizing that one argument against low taxes on the rich is now weak. It means questioning their right and ability to control big organizations.

5. Recognize that markets have a role. The state cannot - and perhaps (pdf) should not - manage the economy to remove all fluctuations. What it should do is help protect people from the consequences of downturns. And this could well mean adopting Robert Shiller’s proposals for macro markets.

This crisis has been the result of misdirected financial innovation, not of markets inherently.

6. If the state can spend billions bailing out banks, it can spend billions bailing out people too. If a big welfare state is good enough for capitalists, it’s good enough for workers. Standard arguments against welfare states - that they are expensive, dampen incentives and that people should stand on their own two feet - have been gravely undermined.

7. The response of the Bush administration to the crisis show that the capitalist class will pay any price, bear any burden and ditch any principle in order to protect its own. Again, the left should take the hint.

Yes, none of these ideas are immediate solutions. But they're not meant to be. Hasty policy is usually bad policy. And I suspect the immediate material effects of the current troubles - less availablity of credit and an economic slowdown - will now be cured by the passage of time. The longer-lasting, deeper effect of this crisis is that it's undermined capitalist ideology. The left not only should respond to this. It can.