moral bankruptcy of the capitalist system The so-called "fourth estate", that of the mainstream media, is now under the command of political power and, above all, economic.
One
Economic arguments are insufficient to understand the root causes of the disaster which we live. Not only has it been "failures" of financial regulation and "errors" policy, as economists say. There is something more intriguing: a moral bankruptcy of the new capitalism that emerged in the eighties of last century.
The "new hero" of capitalism wants everything and is now seeking the immediate return
His ravings of citizens pay their taxes and the loss of social gains
Not taking into account the moral bankruptcy is impossible to understand the financial crisis of 2008. And, more importantly, neither are some of the destruction left: the social legitimization of the market economy, it invalidate policies covering being made by governments.
is disheartening to see how to use the argument of too big to fail [too big to fail] to In order to justify the government rescue of banks and the maintenance of employment and salary to the bankers, making the rest pay the bill with their taxes and social spending cuts. This "medicine", in addition to blaming the victims, increase inequality.
The risk is, then, the discrediting of democratic politics and the emergence of serious problems of governance in our societies.
Two. To understand the roots of this moral bankruptcy, it is necessary to cross the frontiers of economic analysis and into other disciplines to better capture the ethical foundations of the economy, based on values as trust, equity, justice and good faith in economic relations, and the negative consequences of inequality, fraud, spoliation or corruption.
That conviction has led me to coordinate a collaborative trial in its title expresses this need: The crisis of 2008. From economy to politics and beyond, published in the Economic Mediterranean Foundation library Cajamar (www.mediterraneoeconomico.com). Along with the view of economists, including philosophers, sociologists, historians, journalists, essayists and novelists. Although their eyes are different, the polyphony of voices out of tune. On the contrary, offers a more comprehensive vision in which the voices of economists are complemented by those of other thinkers and social scientists.
Three. Economists offer four types of explanations, not mutually exclusive, which rest on the idea of \u200b\u200b"failure", "errors" and "imbalances."
The first, attributed the credit bubble and the assumption of risk to the "failure" of financial deregulation that led to the disappearance of the old model of prudent banking and boring, which maintained its own balance sheet risk and fostered new practices ("financial innovation") that led to the excessive risk taking to scatter across the globe.
The second focuses on the "errors" of a prolonged policy of low interest rates practiced in the U.S. (to prevent the recession after the bubble burst in early punto.com 2000) and in Europe (Germany to try to get their anorexia posintegración).
The third looks at the "global imbalances", which caused some major exporters of manufactures, such as China and Germany, instead of using the revenue created great masses of savings (global savings glut) that financed the bubble credit in the U.S. and the European periphery.
A fourth explanation relates the credit bubble and housing bubble to inequality. Unable to cope with redistributive policies, governments have used the cheap credit policy and housing allowance to compensate for the loss of income of middle and working classes. The fact that the housing bubble has been more intense in the North Atlantic countries, like Spain, seems to support this hypothesis.
Four. The economists are not looking to go elsewhere. Seek the roots of the crisis a "moral bankruptcy" of the economy that would have occurred in the nineties.
This is a puzzling phenomenon. Something happened in the eighties, which reversed the downward trend in inequality since the Second World War. Since the eighties the income distribution became more unequal. The rich, especially in the financial sector have been getting richer.
The causes are unclear. Coincided with changes of various kinds: technical (new technologies of information and telecommunications), economic (globalization), political (the fall of the Berlin Wall) and ideological (the emergence of ideology unfettered market.) But they seem to have had more influence deregulatory policies and weakening of institutions exercising a certain social control, such as unions and the media.
The fall of the Berlin Wall and socialism played a decisive role. Ironically, not only left orphaned ethical basis for socialism, but capitalism. The old Calvinist ideology based on the ethics of hard work and individual responsibility, gave way to a new ideology in which the rhetoric of "free market impersonal laws" prevent judge the conduct of the actors from a perspective moral. That is, the logic of the market would eliminate free will and therefore personal responsibility. The economy would thus be freed from ethical foundations.
This fallacy given letter of nature to the "new hero" of capitalism. An amoral character, desacomplejado, free of any restrictions, who wants it all and now seeking to maximize the value of the action and its immediate profitability, rather than creating long-term economic value. It also benefits the umbrella of the so-called "moral hazard": he knows that the negative consequences of their actions will not pay it, but society will come to your rescue.
Economists have an important role in the bankruptcy ethics. Although they know little about how the real world, practice arrogant economy, based on idealized assumptions of economic behavior that have been used to support free market policies. Only a modest economy, recognizing that knows little about the financial markets will be a source of progress and stability.
Five. If true the moral bankruptcy of the economy, well-intentioned claim that correcting the "errors" in financial regulation will be sufficient to eliminate unethical behavior and to put the genie of financial instability inside the bottle is a wishful thinking, an illusion interested.
evidence that it is a false solution lies in the rapid recurrence of the same risk behaviors and bonuses featuring the heads of the rating agencies and financial institutions that caused the disaster and were rescued with public money . Cause embarrassment to see the audacity to returning to practice the same behaviors. Not that they are immoral, amoral. Practice an "innocent fraud."
An output stable and lasting solution to the crisis requires a recasting of capitalism moral. I do not think we need another capitalism, but we need to save capitalism of these capitalists. The problem is that politics has lost autonomy and capacity to do so. Cause distress to see the admission of impotence by David Cameron in the British Parliament, stating that his government can do nothing to curb such behavior.
But if the policy does not regain its independence from the financial markets and the company is unable to express their outrage at this behavior, there is no effective limits to the speculative economy, financial volatility and inequality .
If so, the biggest risk of the next decade will be the growing lawlessness of our democratic societies. Some signs already point in that direction.
Antón Costas is Professor of Political Economy, University of Barcelona.
