Sfîrşitul politicii. Alternativele din iarbă (I).

primul

Foarte realist articolul. Intr-adevar problema cea mai grava nu e de curent politic socialism via liberalism, ci de inconstienta guvernelor care au cheltuit mai mult decit au colectat la buget. Si exact cum spuneai, Germania sau tarile scandinave, cu modele socaliste moderne, au rezistat bine-mersi pe timp de criza.
Iar noi suntem, cred, exemplul cel mai bun de inconstienta politica. In 2004 am avut PIB de 58.6 miliarde eur. In 2008 am avut PIB de 136 Miliarde de eur. Asta ma duce la concluzia ca masurile de dreapta implementate in 2005 au fost foarte bune.
Numai ca noi ce am facut cu surplusul? L-am bagat pe tot in consum, am angajat 500k oameni la buget, am marit salariile si pensiile mai mult decit cresterea economica, si am ajuns in 2008 ca la bugetul ala de 30-31% din 136 miliarde sa facem deficit de 5% din PIB, adica 7 miliarde de eur.
Aici a fost inconstienta noastra.
Iar mai apoi in 2009 nu am redus deloc cheltuielile, sau le-am redus nesemnificativ. Si acum nu mai avem de ales.
Ce face Romania e ca si cum o familie care cistiga 1000 de lei sa cheltuie toti banii pe mincare si bautura, ba mai mult decit atit, sa mai si imprute 100 de lei ca sa-i ajunga si de tigari.

Eu cred ca daca ne uitam la ce se intampla in Europa vedem ca este o criza a responsabilitatii elitelor politice in fata propriilor popoare.
Sa luam exemplul Greciei. A ajuns in acesta situatie cu ajutorul intr-un rastimp indelungat in care au guvernat si stanga si dreapta. Culmea este ca papandreu a ajuns la putere cu un program care spunea altceva decat ce face acum si asta din simplul motiv ca daca spunea adevarul nu mai ajungea la putere.
Ia sa vedem ce se intampla la noi. Sa-l citez pe domnul Ilie Serbanescu : Cu orice alt guvern – nu doar ca persoane, dar si ca apartenenta politica – lucrurile ar fi ajuns inevitabil in acelasi punct. Oricare guvern care pornea la drum cu un handicap de 20 miliarde euro la incasari bugetare de numai 40 miliarde euro anual nu putea ajunge, mai devreme sau mai tarziu, decat unde s-a ajuns.
Ce vedem la partidele din opozitie, Solutii care mai decare mai roze , fara reduceri de salarii cu facilitati pentru angajatori etc. bune sa ingroape guvernul, sa-i aduca la putere dar nu sa rezolve criza.
Cine este in fruntea acestor coristi cu solutii ? domnul Vosganian , autorul unor deturnari de fonduri si ai deficitului nejustificat de 5% din PIB la sfarsit de mandat, incat stai si te intrebi : daca omul n-are rusine la ce mai foloseste curtea de conturi si legea responsabilitatii ministeriale ?
Ce zice PSD-ul ? Vorbeste de guvernul BOc din anul 2009 ca de un guvern din care n-a facut parte iar de imprumutul de la FMI n-are decat cuvinte de ocara !
Ce pretentii sa mai ai de oamenii de pe strada cand le vorbesti de deficit bugetar, datorie externa, marire TVA sau monetarizarea deficitului despre care vorbeste Isarescu. Lor cum le promite cineva o masura care n-ar duce la micsorarea castigului pe care il are cum il crede si daca ar fi alegeri l-ar vota cu ochii inchisi.

Ma bucur ca ai adus in discutie acest subiect. si, ca de obicei, ai punctat bine. : )
De curand Tony Judt (pomenit si de Costi Rogozanu deunazi) a publicat o carte pe aceasta tema — Ill Fares the Land — si un eseu in The New York Review of Books. In extensia celor spuse de tine aici, am selectat cateva extrase din acest eseu. Am zis ca merita. Cei mai tineri pot gasi idei/inspiratie pt o miscare ‘grass-roots’.

“Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. (…)
The materialistic and selfish quality of contemporary life is not inherent in the human condition. Much of what appears “natural” today dates from the 1980s: the obsession with wealth creation, the cult of privatization and the private sector, the growing disparities of rich and poor. And above all, the rhetoric that accompanies these: uncritical admiration for unfettered markets, disdain for the public sector, the delusion of endless growth.
[...]
And yet we seem unable to conceive of alternatives. This too is something new. Until quite recently, public life in liberal societies was conducted in the shadow of a debate between defenders of “capitalism” and its critics: usually identified with one or another form of “socialism.” By the 1970s this debate had lost much of its meaning for both sides; all the same, the “left-right” distinction served a useful purpose. It provided a peg on which to hang critical commentary about contemporary affairs.
[...]
Today there has been a partial awakening. (…) A striking number of free-market economists, worshipers at the feet of Milton Friedman and his Chicago colleagues, have lined up to don sackcloth and ashes and swear allegiance to the memory of John Maynard Keynes.
[...]
But it hardly constitutes an intellectual revolution. Quite the contrary: as the response of the Obama administration suggests, the reversion to Keynesian economics is but a tactical retreat. (…)
… no one is “re-thinking” the state.”
nybooks.com/art../

“For thirty years students have been complaining to me that “it was easy for you”: your generation had ideals and ideas, you believed in something, you were able to change things. “We” (the children of the Eighties, the Nineties, the “Aughts”) have nothing. In many respects my students are right. It was easy for us—just as it was easy, at least in this sense, for the generations who came before us. The last time a cohort of young people expressed comparable frustration at the emptiness of their lives and the dispiriting purposelessness of their world was in the 1920s: it is not by chance that historians speak of a “lost generation.”
[...]
Indeed, the rising generation is acutely worried about the world it is to inherit. But accompanying these fears there is a general sentiment of frustration: “we” know something is wrong and there are many things we don’t like. But what can we believe in? What should we do?
I wrote my book Ill Fares the Land for young people on both sides of the Atlantic. American readers may be struck by the frequent references to social democracy.
[...]
A liberal is someone who opposes interference in the affairs of others: who is tolerant of dissenting attitudes and unconventional behavior. Liberals have historically favored keeping other people out of our lives, leaving individuals the maximum space in which to live and flourish as they choose. In their extreme form, such attitudes are associated today with self-styled “libertarians,” but the term is largely redundant. Most genuine liberals remain disposed to leave other people alone.
Social democrats, on the other hand, are something of a hybrid. They share with liberals a commitment to cultural and religious tolerance. But in public policy social democrats believe in the possibility and virtue of collective action for the collective good. Like most liberals, social democrats favor progressive taxation in order to pay for public services and other social goods that individuals cannot provide themselves; but whereas many liberals might see such taxation or public provision as a necessary evil, a social democratic vision of the good society entails from the outset a greater role for the state and the public sector.To understand the depths to which we have fallen, we must first appreciate the scale of the changes that have overtaken us. From the late nineteenth century until the 1970s, the advanced societies of the West were all becoming less unequal. Thanks to progressive taxation, government subsidies for the poor, the provision of social services, and guarantees against acute misfortune, modern democracies were shedding extremes of wealth and poverty.”
nybooks.com/art../

“As recently as the 1970s, the idea that the point of life was to get rich and that governments existed to facilitate this would have been ridiculed: not only by capitalism’s traditional critics but also by many of its staunchest defenders. Relative indifference to wealth for its own sake was widespread in the postwar decades. In a survey of English schoolboys taken in 1949, it was discovered that the more intelligent the boy the more likely he was to choose an interesting career at a reasonable wage over a job that would merely pay well. Today’s schoolchildren and college students can imagine little else but the search for a lucrative job.

How should we begin to make amends for raising a generation obsessed with the pursuit of material wealth and indifferent to so much else? Perhaps we might start by reminding ourselves and our children that it wasn’t always thus. Thinking “economistically,” as we have done now for thirty years, is not intrinsic to humans. There was a time when we ordered our lives differently.”
nybooks.com/art../

Tony Judt directs the Remarque Institute at NYU and is the author of Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945. His new book, Ill Fares the Land, from which the piece in this issue is drawn, has just been published by Penguin Press. (April 2010)

Fii dom’le serios! Cum să ne plictisești?! Păi dacă tu crezi că te adresezi unora cărora le este lene să gândească, de ce te mai zbați? Aici, pe VoxPublica, toți suntem cogitori, mai ales după ce ne-a scutit Stanca de adcaptcher.

@ bogdan

buna metafora cu banii de tigari.
tristete mare, cum a putut sa treca valul asta imens de prosperitate fara sa lase cine stie ce urme la nivel public

@ costi

de acord ca nu sint mari diferente intre partide in sine, tocmai de aia alternanta la putere e unul din putinele atuuri ale politicii de aici. parca tot serbancescu zicea ca pina la iesirea din criza mai trebuie schimbate 3-4 guverne

@ cretanu

excelent Judt, are talentul de a explica foarte convingator.

bestiar.blogary../
ceva nou

Nu se pot construi, in opinia mea, partide non-ideologice, ci doar forme de asociere civila care sa produca idei batranele sisteme ideologice deja existente. un partid al tehnocratilor, de exemplu, e un non sens. Adica nu e mai mult decat o asociere profesionala: ajungem astfel la vechea intrebare, daca ideile impun cifrele sau cifrele pun in miscare idei.
In Suedia functioneaza celebrul partid al piratilor. Daca acest partid castiga puterea se vor elimina toate reglementarile privitoare la infractiunile web. Si atat. Poate sa asigure acest partid o gestionare a unui buget? E o gluma. Partidele de la firul ierbii un se ridica niciodata cu idei, ci cu resentimente, cu diverse alte tipuri de emotii care vor capta, populist, atentia electoratului. In loc sa faci alti copii – ca sa utilizam aceesi comparatie draga autorului – mai bine ii speli pe astia pe care ii ai, ca sa nu te trezesti cu fel de fel de mutanti pe care nu mai poti sa ii controlezi. Indiferent daca stanga sau dreapta, mai bine educi oamenii cum trebuie, gasesti puncte de consens intre ele, construiesti forme puternice de solidaritate civica si profesionala cu putere de decizie. Din joaca ideilor pot iesi forme aberante si criminale, cum s-a intamplat de 2000 in istorie.

@ Ciprian Siulea – nu ne plictisesti! Astept episodul doi.