Obviously, today’s capitalism does not work perfectly flawlessly
but most of us feel they can not do anything about it,
that there is nothing else left, because there is no alternative
That’s nonsense
There are a number of good, functional proposals for reform
and here are four examples
We must realize that capitalism is not just one
There are almost as many kinds of capitalism as there are capitalist countries
For example, the American, German, Singapore, Swedish, Danish, Korean versions of capitalism
Differences lie in matters such as social policy rates
South Korea sacrifices social policy at 10% of GDP, Finland more than 30% of GDP
Or in the meaning of state-owned enterprises
which produce less than 1% of GDP in the US
but up to 22% of GDP in Singapore
Or in the influence of trade unions
with more than 70% of the workers in Norway
but in the US only about 10%
Capitalism has its own setting
and we can adjust this setting
We take into account that Sweden, the country is supposedly dependent on high taxes
introduced income tax only in 1932
that means up to two decades after the United States
and nearly a century after Britain
Or the United States, which today prefer the rich
had between 1915 and 1963 the upper rate for income tax to 91%
and it did not hurt them
so we do not have to put capitalism into the trash
the solution lies in its intelligent adaptations and reforms
When people hear about the possibilities of adjusting capitalism
for the benefit of all
he usually thinks:
“It sounds nice,
but ultimately the most liberal type
which we see in the United States
eventually all overtakes, because it is better
The argument could be summarized as follows:
United States capitalism maximizes growth by minimizing restrictions on asset accumulation
which creates greater inequalities
but ultimately, in general, everyone better
than it should be in a more balanced but less dynamic system
When we look at the facts
is not at all true
that free forms of capitalism are growing faster
From 1955 to 1980, regulation was much stricter
and the world economy grew at a rate of 2.6% per year
For the next 30 years, the period of neo-liberal economy
the world economy grew by only 1.3%
In the period of their miraculous growth, between 1958 and 1982
Japan, Korea and Taiwan
they had at their head governments that were very determined to interfere with business activities
and it worked quite well.
As an argument against popular belief,
that a high degree of state social policy is bad for economic growth
may serve Finland, which has a 1.5 times higher budget for social policy than the United States
that is, 30% of GDP compared to 20% of GDP
grew faster than the United States
with average per capita income growth over the past 40 years 2.7%
compared to the United States with only 2%
Well-designed state social policy
with integrated programs for retraining and retraining
rather, it helps than harm growth
The most important thing is that when people feel safe
risk
which is a vital part of capitalism
“security people have courage”
it was the slogan of the Swedish Democratic Socialist Party
Unlike the views of some economists
we do not have to choose just two options: certainty and stagnation on the one hand
and dangerous uncertainties and economic dynamics on the other
It is not an irreversible natural phenomenon
You can hear the opinion that CEOs
they have to have huge salaries, otherwise they will not perform enough
but the data repeatedly did not show any relationship
between raising salaries
and executive performance
Then we have the assertion that the redistribution of wealth delays everyone
but one of the most productive and richest countries in the world
redistribute intensively
Before redistribution is introduced through the tax system
Germany was still much more unequal than the United States in 2011
The GINI coefficient, ie the income inequality indicator,
in which zero means complete equality
and one means total inequality
was at 0.51 compared with the United States at 0.50
However, after the introduction of redistributive taxes
Germany’s GINI coefficient dropped to 0.29
while the US with their tax system is much more friendly to the elite
only dropped to 0.38
Countries can limit the market in creating inequality
using official regulations or unofficial business practices
For example, South Korea
has the least degree of inequality within the developed world
with a GINI coefficient of only 0.34
But it did not get any magic
but by having a lot of regulation
which protects some pretty pretty things
such as organic farms, small shops – mainly bakeries and bookstores
And it also has laws that hold the salaries of CEOs low, compared to international standards
All of this hinders full expression
the tendency of the unbridled market, creating and deepening inequalities
In other words, inequality is not the result of uncontrollable forces
such as technology or international trade
There are many tools that a company can use
to reduce inequality
and many richest and most dynamic countries
is indeed wisely enjoying it
The rise of the financial industry is a disease of capitalism
because it makes it unstable, unequal and brings a very short-term focus
For example, in the 1960s
an investor in the UK bought a stake in the company
he owned it on average for 5 years
until 2005
this figure has been dropped for just seven months
Faced with the drastically dwindling patience of its investors
For years, companies have been doing a lot of unpleasant things
just to please investors as quickly as possible
at the expense of long-term development
Presses on low wages
cost-effectively to their suppliers
and the maximized profits spur shareholders instead of investing them further
Between 1950 and 1970, the top 100 companies in the United States retained 65% of their profits each year
around 2000, left only 6%
thereby drastically reducing their investment potential
to ensure a successful future
In fact, it is very easy to support long-term investments
it is enough to give more voting rights and tax relief to long-term owners of shares
and there is also a need for state investment funds and national pension funds
a representative of long-term collective interest,
who use their considerable financial strength
to support a long-term oriented corporate policy
And, above all, it is necessary to make the absorption of smaller companies more difficult
because this is the only thing that frightens managers and pushes them
to decisions that satisfy short-term investors
All these suggestions can look like foolish dreams
but they are much more enticing.
They are the real possibilities that are already in use in some more enlightened corners of the globe, fully operational
There is no need to give up capitalism at all
We need a little better to understand
and to oppose arguments that bully us to accept its worst versions
but most of us feel they can not do anything about it,
that there is nothing else left, because there is no alternative
That’s nonsense
There are a number of good, functional proposals for reform
and here are four examples
We must realize that capitalism is not just one
There are almost as many kinds of capitalism as there are capitalist countries
For example, the American, German, Singapore, Swedish, Danish, Korean versions of capitalism
Differences lie in matters such as social policy rates
South Korea sacrifices social policy at 10% of GDP, Finland more than 30% of GDP
Or in the meaning of state-owned enterprises
which produce less than 1% of GDP in the US
but up to 22% of GDP in Singapore
Or in the influence of trade unions
with more than 70% of the workers in Norway
but in the US only about 10%
Capitalism has its own setting
and we can adjust this setting
We take into account that Sweden, the country is supposedly dependent on high taxes
introduced income tax only in 1932
that means up to two decades after the United States
and nearly a century after Britain
Or the United States, which today prefer the rich
had between 1915 and 1963 the upper rate for income tax to 91%
and it did not hurt them
so we do not have to put capitalism into the trash
the solution lies in its intelligent adaptations and reforms
When people hear about the possibilities of adjusting capitalism
for the benefit of all
he usually thinks:
“It sounds nice,
but ultimately the most liberal type
which we see in the United States
eventually all overtakes, because it is better
The argument could be summarized as follows:
United States capitalism maximizes growth by minimizing restrictions on asset accumulation
which creates greater inequalities
but ultimately, in general, everyone better
than it should be in a more balanced but less dynamic system
When we look at the facts
is not at all true
that free forms of capitalism are growing faster
From 1955 to 1980, regulation was much stricter
and the world economy grew at a rate of 2.6% per year
For the next 30 years, the period of neo-liberal economy
the world economy grew by only 1.3%
In the period of their miraculous growth, between 1958 and 1982
Japan, Korea and Taiwan
they had at their head governments that were very determined to interfere with business activities
and it worked quite well.
As an argument against popular belief,
that a high degree of state social policy is bad for economic growth
may serve Finland, which has a 1.5 times higher budget for social policy than the United States
that is, 30% of GDP compared to 20% of GDP
grew faster than the United States
with average per capita income growth over the past 40 years 2.7%
compared to the United States with only 2%
Well-designed state social policy
with integrated programs for retraining and retraining
rather, it helps than harm growth
The most important thing is that when people feel safe
risk
which is a vital part of capitalism
“security people have courage”
it was the slogan of the Swedish Democratic Socialist Party
Unlike the views of some economists
we do not have to choose just two options: certainty and stagnation on the one hand
and dangerous uncertainties and economic dynamics on the other
It is not an irreversible natural phenomenon
You can hear the opinion that CEOs
they have to have huge salaries, otherwise they will not perform enough
but the data repeatedly did not show any relationship
between raising salaries
and executive performance
Then we have the assertion that the redistribution of wealth delays everyone
but one of the most productive and richest countries in the world
redistribute intensively
Before redistribution is introduced through the tax system
Germany was still much more unequal than the United States in 2011
The GINI coefficient, ie the income inequality indicator,
in which zero means complete equality
and one means total inequality
was at 0.51 compared with the United States at 0.50
However, after the introduction of redistributive taxes
Germany’s GINI coefficient dropped to 0.29
while the US with their tax system is much more friendly to the elite
only dropped to 0.38
Countries can limit the market in creating inequality
using official regulations or unofficial business practices
For example, South Korea
has the least degree of inequality within the developed world
with a GINI coefficient of only 0.34
But it did not get any magic
but by having a lot of regulation
which protects some pretty pretty things
such as organic farms, small shops – mainly bakeries and bookstores
And it also has laws that hold the salaries of CEOs low, compared to international standards
All of this hinders full expression
the tendency of the unbridled market, creating and deepening inequalities
In other words, inequality is not the result of uncontrollable forces
such as technology or international trade
There are many tools that a company can use
to reduce inequality
and many richest and most dynamic countries
is indeed wisely enjoying it
The rise of the financial industry is a disease of capitalism
because it makes it unstable, unequal and brings a very short-term focus
For example, in the 1960s
an investor in the UK bought a stake in the company
he owned it on average for 5 years
until 2005
this figure has been dropped for just seven months
Faced with the drastically dwindling patience of its investors
For years, companies have been doing a lot of unpleasant things
just to please investors as quickly as possible
at the expense of long-term development
Presses on low wages
cost-effectively to their suppliers
and the maximized profits spur shareholders instead of investing them further
Between 1950 and 1970, the top 100 companies in the United States retained 65% of their profits each year
around 2000, left only 6%
thereby drastically reducing their investment potential
to ensure a successful future
In fact, it is very easy to support long-term investments
it is enough to give more voting rights and tax relief to long-term owners of shares
and there is also a need for state investment funds and national pension funds
a representative of long-term collective interest,
who use their considerable financial strength
to support a long-term oriented corporate policy
And, above all, it is necessary to make the absorption of smaller companies more difficult
because this is the only thing that frightens managers and pushes them
to decisions that satisfy short-term investors
All these suggestions can look like foolish dreams
but they are much more enticing.
They are the real possibilities that are already in use in some more enlightened corners of the globe, fully operational
There is no need to give up capitalism at all
We need a little better to understand
and to oppose arguments that bully us to accept its worst versions
Please follow and like us: