The phrase “There is no such thing as a free lunch” ( M.Friedman) is for economists an equivalent to the Law of Gravity. However, the first phase of the current economic crisis with its massive injection of public money seemed to defy Friedman´s rules. Policy makers were seduced by the idea that generous outflows are capable to relieve any social pain and even cure the economic malaises without real pain FOR NO ONE. Unluckily, as the dust sets it becomes clearer that Alchemy is unable to replace good Economics.
The prolongation of the crisis is evident or better put, it´s becoming dear experience for some of us. Let’s analyze some of the last week news : The Financial Times website admitted that “US banking sector picked up pace in the second quarter with lenders’ profits rebounding to pre-crisis levels amid falling loan losses”, whilst on Friday August unemployment figures are close to record levels ( August 2010 Jobs report announcing the loss of 54 k jobs in the US was considered as a “ good news …) . Another title from the FT says : ” Former Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling said the UK's supertax on bankers bonuses he introduced last year amid outcry over bankers' pay failed to correct the industry ….. Well as far as I know HM government is very efficient when it comes to realize deep cuts in social rights. Perhaps M. Friedman´s phrase should be modified to“ There is such a thing as a free lunch as long as you get someone to pay for it”.
As the failure of the “recovery” measures become evident, the task of maintaining the delicate balance between social pressures while maintaining the existing economic power structure becomes an even harder mission than before. It is becoming evident that someone must pay …..
The question who is going to pay is already generating a few interesting answers : One of them is the call to restore the dominance of market forces in the economy, since the only instrument capable to restore the path of sustainable growth and employment is the market . The free marketers offer a menu that includes for “Entree” delicacies as tax cuts, reduction of public expenses, flexibilization of labor markets, surplus budgets etc. True, there is some debate about the tastiness of such menu, though the question whether, how and who will manage to reach dessert is “blowing in the wind”. In any case, the burden will fall on those who benefited less from the pre crisis prosperity, the lower classes.
The second position to be noticed is the resurrection of xenophobic discourse, not as a marginal topic but as another component of mainstream policies of “respected” institutions . The xenophobia is linked to the economic crisis ( for example “to fight unemployment”) : France has already deported thousands of Romanian Gypsies, Italian authorities established anti immigration policies, Arizona´s immigration laws are still debated, Spain hardened its policy on immigration etc. In that case the bill is served to the foreign workers and immigrants (at first phase.... others will come later)
The irony is that both lines are generally held by the same people. Why irony? Because the two lines contradict each other . In the case of market fundamentalism , the economic models that justify them assume a free and unrestricted flow of ALL production factors (Capital, labor, and raw materials), products and services. If the flow of labor is constrained (as the xenophobes want) , the whole intellectual edifice of free markets becomes irrelevant or becomes not more than another ideological instrument applied in accordance to the particular interests.
A few examples should explain the last point : Under a genuine global free market it would be inconceivable that a Brazilian from Sao Paolo is “allowed” to make use (and pay ) for Telefonica´s privatized services ( held by Spanish Capital ) but not allowed to work freely in Barcelona… or an East European working at car making industry , generating profits for American funds but not allowed to offer his work in the US without a Green Card… or an Israeli government which approves generous grants to major enterprises in the name of the free markets but decides to expel Israeli kids just because they were born to illegal foreigners.
The intellectual coherence demands that whoever support free markets should also favor free and unlimited flow of people as well. If the incoherence is explained by the need to impose certain restrictions on markets ( to preserve social cohesion etc...) , than why only limit immigration? Why not to question privatization? Shouldn´t market forces be restrained when social equity or other common values are under threat ? If the challenge presented in these simple questions is accepted, than market economy will be hopefully expelled from its quasi sainthood status and exposed to social scrutiny as it should have been from the very beginning.
No comments:
Post a Comment