quarta-feira, 17 de fevereiro de 2010
'Old dogs and new tricks' from The Economist, below a personal short comment on political backlash in the aftermath of financial meltdown and ensuing recession
Excellent analysis of the might-have-been consequences to the political right of capitalism's latest crisis.
The answer lies in local conditions - both present-day and historical - in each of the countries mentioned as well as wide acceptance that despite failings the free-market economy provides the best hope of creating wealth that might then be channelled to the greatest number.
The difference not being clearly made I would underline that most people even when unable to distinguish, rightly perceived 'this crisis' to have originated in a financial sector that became flawed. A sector controlled by 'mavericks' who took to an entirely liberal if not irresponsible interpretation of the workings of the system aided by complacency from governments irrespective of their political backgrounds.
How else can one begin to understand creative financial tools known as derivatives and the likes of such?
Apparently not even the inventors of those innovative financial products were ever able to credibly define their creation!
Electorates everywhere basically expect lean efficient government that delivers within a system of checks and balances which curbs the excesses of a great economic system.
It can never be allowed to run so free that it turns wild to the disadvantage of many and benefit to the few.
In the present context old political divides along clear-cut lines of left and right no longer make practical sense.This is the main reason why there was no backlash against the right.
Hopefully the right will redefine itself by taming the more liberal impulses from within.
When exercising power it should draw full lessons from the limitations of capitalism as seen throughout the financial meltdown.
Perhaps unexpectedly this broadly applies to the political moderate left as well.
The answer lies in local conditions - both present-day and historical - in each of the countries mentioned as well as wide acceptance that despite failings the free-market economy provides the best hope of creating wealth that might then be channelled to the greatest number.
The difference not being clearly made I would underline that most people even when unable to distinguish, rightly perceived 'this crisis' to have originated in a financial sector that became flawed. A sector controlled by 'mavericks' who took to an entirely liberal if not irresponsible interpretation of the workings of the system aided by complacency from governments irrespective of their political backgrounds.
How else can one begin to understand creative financial tools known as derivatives and the likes of such?
Apparently not even the inventors of those innovative financial products were ever able to credibly define their creation!
Electorates everywhere basically expect lean efficient government that delivers within a system of checks and balances which curbs the excesses of a great economic system.
It can never be allowed to run so free that it turns wild to the disadvantage of many and benefit to the few.
In the present context old political divides along clear-cut lines of left and right no longer make practical sense.This is the main reason why there was no backlash against the right.
Hopefully the right will redefine itself by taming the more liberal impulses from within.
When exercising power it should draw full lessons from the limitations of capitalism as seen throughout the financial meltdown.
Perhaps unexpectedly this broadly applies to the political moderate left as well.
Subscrever:
Enviar feedback (Atom)
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário