Două viziuni, aceeaşi problemă

Să începem cu aceea a unor americani: "Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that seemed so troubling in the mid-19th century—inequalities that are but a pale shadow of what we are seeing in America today. The justification they came up with was called “marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin...

Some people look at income inequality and shrug their shoulders. So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.

First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets—our people—in the most productive way possible. Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.

Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.

None of this should come as a surprise—it is simply what happens when a society’s wealth distribution becomes lopsided. The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes."

Şi iată poziţia unui român, care, culmea! trăieşte şi prin America: "Pana la urma, fiinta umana inainte de a avea dreptul la trei mese pe zi, a fost dotata cu un creier si cu gandire logica. Si cu dreptul de a le folosi. Iar exercitarea acestui drept intr-un mod elementar dovedeste in mai putin de 30 de secunde cat de aberanta este teza de mai sus.

Ca tu sa ai un „drept”, cineva trebuie sa aiba o „obligatie”. Ai dreptul la trei mese pe zi, un loc calduros de dormit etc?! Bun. Atunci cineva are obligatia sa ti le asigure. Cine? Cine, mai precis? Si aici deja ne lovim de o problema.

Daca spui „Statul” sau „Societatea” nu faci decat sa reconfirmi ca nu iti exerciti dreptul elementar de a-ti folosi creierul din dotare. Statul e o abstractie. El nu produce nimic. Niste oameni trebuie sa produca incaltamintea, hrana si locuintele in discutie. Eventual Statul poate sa ia ceea ce au produs altii si sa-ti dea tie. Dar el, Statul, e o institutie, un sistem de relatii sociale si mecanisme organizationale. El transfera institutional si legal obligatia de a te hrani si imbraca in sarcina unor oameni, fiinte in carne si oase ca si tine. Modul in care o face: impozite, taxe, rechizitii, confiscari etc., e alta discutie.

Discutia aici este asta: De ce sa am eu o obligatie in a-i asigura lui Cuculetz „trei mese pe zi, un loc calduros de dormit pe timp de noapte, o pereche de incaltari si inbracaminte”? De ce ar avea cititorul meu obligatia sa-l intretina pe Cuculetz?

Vad ca de-a valma, comentatori, jurnalisti si lideri de partide din Romania, plus tinerii domni Ernu si Rogozanu, par sa fie convinsi de faptul ca cititorii mei si subsemnatul avem aceasta obligatie: Munceste, nu munceste, trebuie sa-i cumparam lui Cuculetz pantofi. (Nu ni se precizeaza daca de lac sau de piele intoarsa dar probabil si asta este specificat undeva, in lista drepturilor omului). Sigur, daca domniile lor vor sa o faca, e treaba dumnealor. Daca vor sa creada ca sunt obligati sa-i asigure lui Cuculetz si un bonus –de pilda un sejur la Caciulata – nu au decat sa adauge cat vor si ce vor pe lista lui Cuculetz. Dar asta nu ar trebui sa ne oblige cu nimic pe ceilalti. S-o faca din banii lor, nu ai nostri.

 

Nu ca am fi lipsiti de solidaritate si compasiune. Daca agreem cu totii ca semenii nostri Ernu, Rogozanu si Cuculetz o duc chiar rau anul asta si raman fara „inbracaminte” pe timp de iarna, atunci punem mana de la mana, ne imprumutam, facem ce facem si ii ajutam sa iasa in primavara. Dar asta doar pentru ca asa am convenit noi, de comun acord. Si nu pentru ca amicul Cuculetz si cei doi tovarasi ai sai ar avea un drept anume care obliga natia romana la ceva, doar prin prisma faptului ca trioul in cauza a facut acestei natii (oricum greu incercata de istorie chiar si fara prezenta lor) onoarea de a contribui la sporu-i demografic.

Iar daca din compasiune si responsabilitate hotaram sa creem un aranjament pe termen lung prin care sa ii ajutam pe cei trei si pe alti nevoiasi asemenea lor, atunci asta este expresia vointei noastre si nimic altceva. Am face-o in orice caz dupa posibilitati si resursele disponibile. Faptul ca mai devreme ne-am imprumutat pentru ei este un caz exceptional, ca ne sunt simpatici. Iarna viitoare, daca nu reusesc sa aiba fiecare perechea personala de pantaloni, sa nu mai conteze pe noi."

Evident, Stiglitz, căci el semnează articolul din Vanity Fair, este un nenorocit de stângist, care vrea răul ţării lui. În schimb Aligică, altă marfă, alt parfum! De dreapta, ce mai!

Dar eu tot cu Stiglitz şi concluzia lui votez! "Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business."

De asta are Stiglitz Nobelul, şi Aligică...ce are el.