Înainte de 1989, ne plăceau filmele americane, cu familii in care adulţii aveau fiecare maşina lui, copiii învăţau la şcoli bune (atunci când nu erau personaje negative, care se drogau şi omorau), iar fiecare familie locuia intr-o casă spaţioasă, cu un gazon în faţă, pe verdele căruia vânzătorii de ziare aruncau, dimineţile, teancul de lecturi destinate copiosului mic dejun.
După 1989, imaginea de mai sus a fost cel mai bine sintetizată în enervant de lungul şi pedo-eroticul serial "Beverly Hills 90210".
În limbajul comun, se cheamă "clasă de mijloc", adică rezultatul social al conceptului ideologic "Welfare State", foarte combătut de băieţii cu carte de la Ştefan Gheorghiu, pentru motive lesne de înţeles. Pentru cine tot nu pricepe, clasa de mijloc occidentală reprezenta atunci, în plin Război Rece, alternativa seducătoare la confuzul (ca să nu zic mai mult) "socialism real" din Est, spaima celor ce se pretindeau a-l fi înţeles pe Marx şi, mai ales, pe Lenin, fără să fi auzit măcar de Eduard Bernstein, pe care însă erau obligaţi să-l urască, laolaltă cu toţi ceilalţi deviatori social-democraţi. Fiindcă, extinzându-se şi împingând tot mai mult spre extreme grupurile celor foarte săraci şi foarte bogaţi, această clasă situată între polarităţi dădea naştere unei societăţi a veritabilei abundenţe, cu acces facilitat celei mai mari părţi a populaţiei la joburi, consum, proprietate, învăţământ, securitate socială şi afirmare individuală.
Altfel decât un produs al "pieţei", clasa mediană a reprezentat opera guvernelor, într-o tradiţie care a început cu Bismarck, a continuat spectaculos cu Roosevelt şi a ajuns cel mai aproape de idealul lui Marx în Suedia, sub, probabil, cea mai lungă guvernare social-democrată din istorie.
Apoi, treptat, inclusiv în zilele noastre, de toate astea s-a ales şi se alege prafu' în continuare.
Robert Reich, fostul ministru al muncii din Administraţia Clinton, creionează parcursul unei societăţi şi al unei economii pe care, dacă era normal la cap, orice partid comunist din Est, începând cu cel al URSS, ar fi trebuit să-l adopte în locul lagărelor şi al pretenţiei absurde de legatari ai lui Marx.
"During three decades from 1947 to 1977, the nation implemented what might be called a basic bargain with American workers. Employers paid them enough to buy what they produced. Mass production and mass consumption proved perfect complements. Almost everyone who wanted a job could find one with good wages, or at least wages that were trending upward.During these three decades everyone’s wages grew — not just those at or near the top.Government enforced the basic bargain in several ways. It used Keynesian policy to achieve nearly full employment. It gave ordinary workers more bargaining power. It provided social insurance. And it expanded public investment. Consequently, the portion of total income that went to the middle class grew while the portion going to the top declined. But this was no zero-sum game. As the economy grew almost everyone came out ahead, including those at the top.
The pay of workers in the bottom fifth grew 116 percent over these years — faster than the pay of those in the top fifth (which rose 99 percent), and in the top 5 percent (86 percent). Productivity also grew quickly. Labor productivity — average output per hour worked — doubled. So did median incomes. Expressed in 2007 dollars, the typical family’s income rose from about $25,000 to $55,000. The basic bargain was cinched.The middle class had the means to buy, and their buying created new jobs.
După 1989, imaginea de mai sus a fost cel mai bine sintetizată în enervant de lungul şi pedo-eroticul serial "Beverly Hills 90210".
În limbajul comun, se cheamă "clasă de mijloc", adică rezultatul social al conceptului ideologic "Welfare State", foarte combătut de băieţii cu carte de la Ştefan Gheorghiu, pentru motive lesne de înţeles. Pentru cine tot nu pricepe, clasa de mijloc occidentală reprezenta atunci, în plin Război Rece, alternativa seducătoare la confuzul (ca să nu zic mai mult) "socialism real" din Est, spaima celor ce se pretindeau a-l fi înţeles pe Marx şi, mai ales, pe Lenin, fără să fi auzit măcar de Eduard Bernstein, pe care însă erau obligaţi să-l urască, laolaltă cu toţi ceilalţi deviatori social-democraţi. Fiindcă, extinzându-se şi împingând tot mai mult spre extreme grupurile celor foarte săraci şi foarte bogaţi, această clasă situată între polarităţi dădea naştere unei societăţi a veritabilei abundenţe, cu acces facilitat celei mai mari părţi a populaţiei la joburi, consum, proprietate, învăţământ, securitate socială şi afirmare individuală.
Altfel decât un produs al "pieţei", clasa mediană a reprezentat opera guvernelor, într-o tradiţie care a început cu Bismarck, a continuat spectaculos cu Roosevelt şi a ajuns cel mai aproape de idealul lui Marx în Suedia, sub, probabil, cea mai lungă guvernare social-democrată din istorie.
Apoi, treptat, inclusiv în zilele noastre, de toate astea s-a ales şi se alege prafu' în continuare.
Robert Reich, fostul ministru al muncii din Administraţia Clinton, creionează parcursul unei societăţi şi al unei economii pe care, dacă era normal la cap, orice partid comunist din Est, începând cu cel al URSS, ar fi trebuit să-l adopte în locul lagărelor şi al pretenţiei absurde de legatari ai lui Marx.
"During three decades from 1947 to 1977, the nation implemented what might be called a basic bargain with American workers. Employers paid them enough to buy what they produced. Mass production and mass consumption proved perfect complements. Almost everyone who wanted a job could find one with good wages, or at least wages that were trending upward.During these three decades everyone’s wages grew — not just those at or near the top.Government enforced the basic bargain in several ways. It used Keynesian policy to achieve nearly full employment. It gave ordinary workers more bargaining power. It provided social insurance. And it expanded public investment. Consequently, the portion of total income that went to the middle class grew while the portion going to the top declined. But this was no zero-sum game. As the economy grew almost everyone came out ahead, including those at the top.
The pay of workers in the bottom fifth grew 116 percent over these years — faster than the pay of those in the top fifth (which rose 99 percent), and in the top 5 percent (86 percent). Productivity also grew quickly. Labor productivity — average output per hour worked — doubled. So did median incomes. Expressed in 2007 dollars, the typical family’s income rose from about $25,000 to $55,000. The basic bargain was cinched.The middle class had the means to buy, and their buying created new jobs.
The Great Prosperity also marked the culmination of a reorganization of work that had begun during the Depression. Employers were required by law to provide extra pay — time-and-a-half — for work stretching beyond 40 hours a week. This created an incentive for employers to hire additional workers when demand picked up. Employers also were required to pay a minimum wage, which improved the pay of workers near the bottom as demand picked up.When workers were laid off, usually during an economic downturn, government provided them with unemployment benefits, usually lasting until the economy recovered and they were rehired. Not only did this tide families over but it kept them buying goods and services — an “automatic stabilizer” for the economy in downturns.
Perhaps most significantly, government increased the bargaining leverage of ordinary workers. They were guaranteed the right to join labor unions, with which employers had to bargain in good faith. By the mid-1950s more than a third of all America workers in the private sector were unionized. And the unions demanded and received a fair slice of the American pie. Non-unionized companies, fearing their workers would otherwise want a union, offered similar deals.
Perhaps most significantly, government increased the bargaining leverage of ordinary workers. They were guaranteed the right to join labor unions, with which employers had to bargain in good faith. By the mid-1950s more than a third of all America workers in the private sector were unionized. And the unions demanded and received a fair slice of the American pie. Non-unionized companies, fearing their workers would otherwise want a union, offered similar deals.
Americans also enjoyed economic security against the risks of economic life — not only unemployment benefits but also, through Social Security, insurance against disability, loss of a major breadwinner, workplace injury and inability to save enough for retirement. In 1965 came health insurance for the elderly and the poor (Medicare and Medicaid). Economic security proved the handmaiden of prosperity. In requiring Americans to share the costs of adversity it enabled them to share the benefits of peace of mind. And by offering peace of mind, it freed them to consume the fruits of their labors.
The government sponsored the dreams of American families to own their own home by providing low-cost mortgages and interest deductions on mortgage payments. In many sections of the country, government subsidized electricity and water to make such homes habitable. And it built the roads and freeways that connected the homes with major commercial centers. Government also widened access to higher education. The GI Bill paid college costs for those who returned from war. The expansion of public universities made higher education affordable to the American middle class.
Government paid for all of this with tax revenues from an expanding middle class with rising incomes."
Frumos. Dar a trecut. Probabil, pentru totdeauna...
The government sponsored the dreams of American families to own their own home by providing low-cost mortgages and interest deductions on mortgage payments. In many sections of the country, government subsidized electricity and water to make such homes habitable. And it built the roads and freeways that connected the homes with major commercial centers. Government also widened access to higher education. The GI Bill paid college costs for those who returned from war. The expansion of public universities made higher education affordable to the American middle class.
Government paid for all of this with tax revenues from an expanding middle class with rising incomes."
Frumos. Dar a trecut. Probabil, pentru totdeauna...
Fiindcă, de acum înainte, beneficii similare celor de mai sus trebuie să profite exclusiv unei mici, meschine şi periculoase plăpumi sociale, alcătuită nu din capitalişti (sa fim serioşi!), ci din neo-faraoni egipteni, care investesc puţin, produc scheme financiare în loc de mărfuri, nu riscă deloc şi acumulează enorm, într-un joc nu doar cu evidentă sumă zero, dar cu o de neoprit tendinţă de alunecare spre minus a celor pe costurile cărora neo-faraonii câştigă şi acumulează. Într-un fel, e ca în curtea şcolii: nu vrei ca toţi copiii să fie îmbrăcaţi la fel de bine ca tine, fiindcă atunci nu te mai distingi de ei şi nu-i mai poţi dispreţui în voie.
Încă ceva: spre deosebire de capitaliştii sec.18-20, neo-faraonii nu mai au azi nevoie de ideologi care să le justifice demersurile economice şi să le valideze pretenţiile de legitimitate, fiindcă, dacă atunci, o asemenea necesitate deriva din teama de a nu te trezi cu bizonii peste tine, în casă, în prezent, Statul a fost privatizat complet de urmaşii moderni ai lui Ramses III, asigurându-le toată protecţia necesară. În caz că ar mai fi trăit în sec.21, Smith, Ricardo şi Hayek ar fi murit de foame...
Articolul integral este la http://robertreich.org/post/5993482080Despre Welfare State, informaţii multe la http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state
Caricatura am preluat-o de la http://criticalppp.com/archives/17124
0 comentarii:
Trimiteţi un comentariu