Rettet den Kapitalismus!
Im “American Interest” schreibt der Ex-Neocon Francis Fukuyama über die Ursachen der Krise:
“Very few Republicans have come to terms with the fact that it was some of the key tenets of Reaganism—in particular, its hostility to regulation and the belief that tax cuts would be self-financing—that lie at the root of the country’s current problems. (…)
In contrast to the recession of the early 1980s, when U.S. private debt was 123 percent of GDP, it had reached 290 percent by 2008. Of that, household debt moved from 48 percent to 100 percent of GDP. This is why the Fed’s efforts to flood the United States with liquidity will have limited effect; households and businesses will be de-leveraging for a much longer period than in earlier recessions. Americans are re-learning how to become savers.”
Im “Merkur” plädiert der Sozialliberale Ralf Dahrendorf für einen Mentalitätswandel. Gebot der Stunde sei eine Rückkehr zum Sparen:
“Der »rheinische Kapitalismus«, also die Konsenswirtschaft der Großorganisationen, hat wahrscheinlich ausgedient. Sogar die Frage muss erlaubt sein, ob das System der Mitbestimmung irgend hilfreich war und ist bei der Bewältigung der Krise. Wenn die Frage nicht eindeutig bejaht werden kann, ist neues Nachdenken über die Formen der Berücksichtigung der »stakeholder« nötig. Der Pumpkapitalismus muss jedenfalls auf ein allenfalls erträgliches Maß zurückgeführt werden. Nötig ist so etwas wie ein »verantwortlicher Kapitalismus«, wobei in dem Begriff der Verantwortung vor allem die Perspektive der mittleren Fristen, der neuen Zeit, steckt.”
Warum die Lösung der Finanzkrise nicht in einem neuen Protektionismus liegen kann, erörtert Alan Viard im “American”:
“Even if a border adjustment could permanently increase exports and reduce imports, the impact of the change would be disastrous for an economy. In that case, the United States would send more goods and services, produced by our own labor and resources, abroad while receiving fewer goods and services in return. Because imports are the gain from trade while exports are the cost of trade, a permanent increase in net exports would reduce our standard of living. Although attractive at face value, the desire to permanently increase exports and reduce imports reflects the misguided view known as mercantilism, the doctrine that Adam Smith condemned so forcefully in 1776.”
Und der britische “Economist” weist darauf hin, dass es gerade die amerikanische Wirtschaftspolitik war, die aus Sparern verstärkt Konsumenten machte und damit erst die Krise herrvorrief:
“Government backing sucked money into housing, boosting prices. Since millions use their homes as collateral for general loans, the house-price boom also exaggerated the consumer boom while it lasted, and amplified the bust when that came. Perversely, public policy even undermined the very things governments were trying to encourage. Housing policy aims at boosting savings. Yet home-equity loans and “negative amortisation” mortgages boosted spending.”
Das sieht auch Thomas Sowell im “Capitalism Magazine” nicht anders. Die Ursache der Finanzkrise ist nicht der Markt:
–––“Riskier mortgage lending practices, imposed by government, were what set the stage for many mortgage payments to stop and thus for the financial disasters that followed. Political rhetoric, echoed in the media, seeks to obscure that painfully plain fact.”