The reality of market exchange — direct transactions between merchants and customers — appeared gradually 3,000 or 4,000 years ago. In this novel social relationship, the customer was free to buy whatever he wanted, whenever and from whomever he chose, often bargaining with the seller about the price.
Because of these features, the free market is part of a basic freedom that is rooted in everyday life. It remains dominant today, as all efforts to establish an alternative, even totalitarianism, failed. Indeed, it has been 20 years since the former communist countries of Eastern European rejoined the world of market exchange, a step taken as early as 1946 by social democrats around the world.
For several thousand years, the free market was comprised of individuals: craftsmen, traders and consumers. Capitalism when it arose three centuries ago was simply the same activity on a larger scale. Because of steam engines and electricity, a large number of people were enabled to work together and corporations could attract a large number of small savers who became capitalists. This system is fantastic. By the time of the French Revolution, the standard of living had hardly doubled since the Roman Empire. Today, it is 150 times higher.
But capitalism is also cruel. At its inception, people were compelled to work 17 hours a day without a day off or retirement. It was a form of slavery. Thanks to democracy, social struggle and workers’ unions, together with the political efforts of social democracy, the inhumanity of the system was partly softened.
Nevertheless, left to itself, the system is unstable. It undergoes a crisis about once a decade. The 20th century’s worst crisis, between 1929 and 1932, caused 70 million workers in the UK, the US and Germany to lose their jobs (with no unemployment benefits) in less than six months. It brought Adolf Hitler to power, leading to a war that left 50 million dead.
After the war, the belief that the system needed to be stabilized became widespread. Eventually, a more balanced system emerged, based on three main institutions: health insurance, Keynesian fiscal and monetary policy to soften the impact of the business cycle and, of utmost importance, a policy of high salaries and reduction of economic inequality in order to boost household consumption.
The achievement was stunning: 30 years of consistent and rapid economic growth, full and permanent employment in all developed nations and no financial or economic crisis. Standards of living rose nearly 10-fold during this period. Prosperity became the main weapon that ensured the West’s victory over Soviet communism. The people of Eastern Europe were eager to embrace this kind of capitalism.
Capitalism’s political success, however, came at the very moment when the system was starting to deteriorate. High salaries drove growth, but reduced earnings. Shareholders organized themselves into pension funds, investment funds and hedge funds. Because of their pressure, employment fell, reducing the share of wages in total national income by 10 percent over the past 30 years.
In developed nations, the number of the working poor reached 10 percent to 15 percent of the workforce, with another 5 percent to 10 percent of workers unemployed and 5 percent to 10 percent dropping out of the labor market altogether. Moreover, over the past 25 years, a severe financial crisis — regional or global — has erupted every four or five years. Annual growth fell below 3 percent on average. Today’s crisis was triggered by widespread concealment of bad loans within pools of securities sold all over the world. The spread of bankruptcies triggered a severe credit crunch, which triggered a deep recession and with it a brutal rise in unemployment. Capitalism’s three stabilizing devices lost their efficacy. While rich countries reacted more quickly and more wisely in stimulating their economies than in 1929, and the hemorrhaging of banks was stanched, this has not been enough to boost growth.
We are now in a strange period in which governments, bankers and journalists herald the end of the crisis just because large banks are no longer failing every week. But nothing has been solved and unemployment continues to rise.
The banking sector is trying to take advantage of publicly financed rescue packages to protect its privileges, including huge bonuses and extravagant freedoms to create speculative financial assets with no links to the real economy. Indeed, the so-called end of the crisis looks more like a reconstruction of the mechanisms that caused it.
Michel Rocard, former prime minister of France and leader of the Socialist Party, is a member of the European Parliament.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
The 75th anniversary summit of NATO was held in Washington from Tuesday to Thursday last week. Its main focus was the reinvigoration and revitalization of NATO, along with its expansion. The shadow of domestic electoral politics could not be avoided. The focus was on whether US President Biden would deliver his speech at the NATO summit cogently. Biden’s fitness to run in the next US presidential election in November was under assessment. NATO is acquiring more coherence and teeth. These were perhaps more evident than Biden’s future. The link to the Biden candidacy is critical for NATO. If Biden loses
Shortly after Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) stepped down as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平), articulated the “Chinese Dream,” which aims to rejuvenate the nation and restore its historical glory. While defense analysts and media often focus on China’s potential conflict with Taiwan, achieving “rejuvenation” would require Beijing to engage in at least six different conflicts with at least eight countries. These include territories ranging from the South China Sea and East China Sea to Inner Asia, the Himalayas and lands lost to Russia. Conflicts would involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
The Sino-Indian border dispute remains one of the most complex and enduring border issues in the world. Unlike China’s borders with Russia and Vietnam, which have seen conflicts, but eventually led to settled agreements, the border with India, particularly the region of Arunachal Pradesh, remains a point of contention. This op-ed explores the historical and geopolitical nuances that contribute to this unresolved border dispute. The crux of the Sino-Indian border dispute lies in the differing interpretations of historical boundaries. The McMahon Line, established by the 1914 Simla Convention, was accepted by British India and Tibet, but never recognized by China, which
In a recent interview with the Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper Sin Chew Daily, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called President William Lai (賴清德) “naive.” As always with Ma, one must first deconstruct what he is saying to fully understand the parallel universe he insists on defending. Who is being “naive,” Lai or Ma? The quickest way is to confront Ma with a series of pointed questions that force him to take clear stands on the complex issues involved and prevent him from his usual ramblings. Regarding China and Taiwan, the media should first begin with questions like these: “Did the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)