When the Congress of the United States decides to penalize the victims of this recession by stalling and then cutting back on an extension of their unemployment benefits while continuing to reward the villains on Wall Street, it is clear that this nation (or at least its "representatives”) have lost their moral compass. It is hard to find a more egregious example of unfairness at the highest levels.
If those born-again fiscal conservatives who wallowed in deficit spending while George Bush was president are now determined to have a pay-as-you-go policy for any “new” spending, why not add an “unemployment surtax” for Wall Street bankers, who have gone right back to paying themselves billions of dollars in bonuses? Unrepentant capitalists would have us believe that, after all, this is how capitalism works, and life is unfair. But the bottom-line point in my book, THE FAIR SOCIETY, is that we can change this for the better if we have the political will to do so. Shame on them.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
What Would the Libertarians (Not) Do?
Funny thing, all those anti-government conservatives have been beating the Obama administration about the head and shoulders for not doing more about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Of course, this shows a total lack of imagination on their part. Do they think the government has been sitting idly by watching it all on TV? But the more interesting question is how these Tea Party libertarians, who abhore government in any form, would themselves have responded to this historic disaster. Or whether they would be concerned about the 29 coal miners who died in the Montcoal mine explosion. Or whether they would be concerned about e-coli bacteria that sometimes poisons our food. Or, for that matter, the nearly 50 million Americans who lacked health insurance before the recent reform legislation was enacted. Or the 15 million long-term unemployed (and their children)who depend on unemployment insurance for their basic needs. And do they oppose the effort to rein in the abuses on Wall Street that caused the Great Recession?
The problem with libertarianism is that it is utopian. As an abstract philosophy, nobody can argue with its basic value -- personal freedom. But in the real world, we live in an enormously complex, interdependent society in which our numerous self-interests often clash and can interfere with the freedom of others. If libertarians are true to their claim that they do not want to do "harm", then they must face the fact that, like the rest of us, they too must ultimately accept the contraints associated with living in an interdependent world. It's only fair!
Of course, this shows a total lack of imagination on their part. Do they think the government has been sitting idly by watching it all on TV? But the more interesting question is how these Tea Party libertarians, who abhore government in any form, would themselves have responded to this historic disaster. Or whether they would be concerned about the 29 coal miners who died in the Montcoal mine explosion. Or whether they would be concerned about e-coli bacteria that sometimes poisons our food. Or, for that matter, the nearly 50 million Americans who lacked health insurance before the recent reform legislation was enacted. Or the 15 million long-term unemployed (and their children)who depend on unemployment insurance for their basic needs. And do they oppose the effort to rein in the abuses on Wall Street that caused the Great Recession?
The problem with libertarianism is that it is utopian. As an abstract philosophy, nobody can argue with its basic value -- personal freedom. But in the real world, we live in an enormously complex, interdependent society in which our numerous self-interests often clash and can interfere with the freedom of others. If libertarians are true to their claim that they do not want to do "harm", then they must face the fact that, like the rest of us, they too must ultimately accept the contraints associated with living in an interdependent world. It's only fair!
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
The Poor: Out of Sight, Out of Mind
Even before the Great Recession, an estimated one-quarter of our population were living in more or less severe poverty. Now the situation is even worse. One indicator is that some 50 million Americans experienced “food deprivation” (hunger) at some point during 2009, including 17 million children. Homeless shelters nationwide have also been overwhelmed, and many once gainfully employed people are living on the streets. Currently, there is only one job available for every six people who are seeking employment, and many of those who are lucky enough to be employed are “working poor,” with low-paying, part-time jobs.
Government agencies at all levels, as well as private charities and local volunteer organizations have taken many steps to cope with the impact of the current recession. But these are tourniquets and band aids for a gushing wound – far too little to promote long-term healing. Why are we not doing more?
The psychologists tell us that the “repression” of unpleasant thoughts and experiences may serve as a healthy coping mechanism for an indidvidual, but it can also lead to an inability to confront real problems. Indeed, it can be a disaster as public policy. This is especially likely to occur when the problem is “out of sight,” which seems to be the case these days with poverty. It tends to be segregated geographically (for many of us, it’s happening in some other neighborhood); it is hardly visible in our media; and the march of urgent daily events (from the financial crisis in Europe to the BP oil spill) crowd out more mundane though equally important issues.
Poverty may be out of sight and out of mind for those who are not suffering from it, but it won’t go away without a national commitment to deal with what is an unnecessary evil.
Government agencies at all levels, as well as private charities and local volunteer organizations have taken many steps to cope with the impact of the current recession. But these are tourniquets and band aids for a gushing wound – far too little to promote long-term healing. Why are we not doing more?
The psychologists tell us that the “repression” of unpleasant thoughts and experiences may serve as a healthy coping mechanism for an indidvidual, but it can also lead to an inability to confront real problems. Indeed, it can be a disaster as public policy. This is especially likely to occur when the problem is “out of sight,” which seems to be the case these days with poverty. It tends to be segregated geographically (for many of us, it’s happening in some other neighborhood); it is hardly visible in our media; and the march of urgent daily events (from the financial crisis in Europe to the BP oil spill) crowd out more mundane though equally important issues.
Poverty may be out of sight and out of mind for those who are not suffering from it, but it won’t go away without a national commitment to deal with what is an unnecessary evil.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
The End of the European Welfare State?
In the New York Times today, Steven Erlanger reports that the European welfare state is in trouble, not just because of tax shortfalls in the current recession but, more important, because of longer-term demographic trends that will drastically reduce the ratio of productive, taxpaying workers to dependent retirees (and others). Conservatives will no doubt seize on this as proof that the European welfare state doesn't work, or at least that it's unsustainable (to use the current buzzword). It vindicates our brand of free-market, social Darwinist capitalism.
Nonsense! The European welfare capitalist states (they are capitalist too) are not about to abandon their deeply held commitment to fairness and social justice. They will continue to provide for the basic needs of their people. But it will be necessary for them to bring their costs in line with their means. Though they will have to prune such perks from the welfare tree as month-long vacations and retirement pensions at age 50, the tree is still quite healthy. Our own welfare tree was ruthlessly pruned and severely damaged during the Reagan-Bush era and today bears only stunted fruit.
Nonsense! The European welfare capitalist states (they are capitalist too) are not about to abandon their deeply held commitment to fairness and social justice. They will continue to provide for the basic needs of their people. But it will be necessary for them to bring their costs in line with their means. Though they will have to prune such perks from the welfare tree as month-long vacations and retirement pensions at age 50, the tree is still quite healthy. Our own welfare tree was ruthlessly pruned and severely damaged during the Reagan-Bush era and today bears only stunted fruit.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
David Brooks and the Missing "Center"
New York Times columnist and PBS commentator David Brooks has bemoaned the lack of a political "center" and a centrist political philosophy that could counter the polarizing extremes in American politics and mobilize the moderate majority.
Well, the answer is that this is coming, and it's called THE FAIR SOCIETY. Here is the description that the publicists at the University of Chicago Press will be using to promote my new book:
From the taxpayer bailouts for Wall Street banks to offshore tax havens for billionaires and subsidies for wealthy farmers, life is obviously unfair. But as Peter Corning shows in THE FAIR SOCIETY, we have the power to change this for the better.
Corning sees fairness as a fundamental issue in all of our social relationships. It requires us to balance the needs and interests of all concerned. He believes we need to make fairness a guiding principle in our families, our communities, in the workplace, and in our politics.
In light of the emerging science of human nature, Corning defines fairness in a new way. The evidence confirms that most of us do have an innate sense of fairness, though it can easily be subverted by cultural, economic, and political influences, not to mention the lure of our self-interests. In the extreme, a pattern of unfairness can lead to social turmoil and even revolution.
Corning argues that both capitalism and socialism fail the fairness test -- both in theory and in practice -- and he calls for a new social contract based on three complementary fairness principles: equality in relation to our basic needs, equity (or merit) in relation to our personal efforts and accomplishments, and reciprocity – an obligation for everyone to contribute a fair share in return for the benefits they receive from society.
Corning also proposes a set of transformative economic and political reforms that would move us toward the ideal of what he terms a Fair Society, including full employment and a “basic needs guarantee” for all of our people, a shift in our economic system toward stakeholder (versus shareholder) capitalism, a strong effort to promote cooperative, not-for-profit community development and, not least, a life-long community service ethic that would include a year or two of national service for all who are able to do so.
A fair society, Corning concludes, is the key to our future as a secure, stable, and successful nation.
Well, the answer is that this is coming, and it's called THE FAIR SOCIETY. Here is the description that the publicists at the University of Chicago Press will be using to promote my new book:
From the taxpayer bailouts for Wall Street banks to offshore tax havens for billionaires and subsidies for wealthy farmers, life is obviously unfair. But as Peter Corning shows in THE FAIR SOCIETY, we have the power to change this for the better.
Corning sees fairness as a fundamental issue in all of our social relationships. It requires us to balance the needs and interests of all concerned. He believes we need to make fairness a guiding principle in our families, our communities, in the workplace, and in our politics.
In light of the emerging science of human nature, Corning defines fairness in a new way. The evidence confirms that most of us do have an innate sense of fairness, though it can easily be subverted by cultural, economic, and political influences, not to mention the lure of our self-interests. In the extreme, a pattern of unfairness can lead to social turmoil and even revolution.
Corning argues that both capitalism and socialism fail the fairness test -- both in theory and in practice -- and he calls for a new social contract based on three complementary fairness principles: equality in relation to our basic needs, equity (or merit) in relation to our personal efforts and accomplishments, and reciprocity – an obligation for everyone to contribute a fair share in return for the benefits they receive from society.
Corning also proposes a set of transformative economic and political reforms that would move us toward the ideal of what he terms a Fair Society, including full employment and a “basic needs guarantee” for all of our people, a shift in our economic system toward stakeholder (versus shareholder) capitalism, a strong effort to promote cooperative, not-for-profit community development and, not least, a life-long community service ethic that would include a year or two of national service for all who are able to do so.
A fair society, Corning concludes, is the key to our future as a secure, stable, and successful nation.
Capitalism Without a Conscience
Don Blankenship, the CEO of Massey Energy -- the mining company with many thousands of environmental, safety and health violations culminating in the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster that killed 29 miners -- is the very poster boy for unbridled capitalism without a conscience.
Back in the 1980s, Blankenship led the successful mine owners' fight to break the United Mine Workers Union (in its heyday, 90 percent of the workers were unionized versus about 25 percent today) with the widely quoted Social Darwinist attitude that "unions and communities are going to have to learn that from a business viewpoint, capitalism is survival of the most productive."
Actually, the mines have thrived and have been very profitable since then, thanks to lower wages and benefits for its non-union workers and operating policies and practices that minimize costs and put the miners at greater risk. Massey amasses several thousand mine violations each year, many of them very serious, and it has a record of ignoring and/or contesting them.
In other words, the company is cavalier and exploitative of its workers and consistently sacrifices their interests to the interests of the managers, owners and shareholders. As Blnakenship put it in an internal memo to his staff some years ago: "If any of you have been asked...to do anything other than run coal [like making improvements in safety measures]...you need to ignore them and run coal. This memo is necessary only because we seem not to understand that coal pays the bills." Yes, but so do the miners.
Back in the 1980s, Blankenship led the successful mine owners' fight to break the United Mine Workers Union (in its heyday, 90 percent of the workers were unionized versus about 25 percent today) with the widely quoted Social Darwinist attitude that "unions and communities are going to have to learn that from a business viewpoint, capitalism is survival of the most productive."
Actually, the mines have thrived and have been very profitable since then, thanks to lower wages and benefits for its non-union workers and operating policies and practices that minimize costs and put the miners at greater risk. Massey amasses several thousand mine violations each year, many of them very serious, and it has a record of ignoring and/or contesting them.
In other words, the company is cavalier and exploitative of its workers and consistently sacrifices their interests to the interests of the managers, owners and shareholders. As Blnakenship put it in an internal memo to his staff some years ago: "If any of you have been asked...to do anything other than run coal [like making improvements in safety measures]...you need to ignore them and run coal. This memo is necessary only because we seem not to understand that coal pays the bills." Yes, but so do the miners.
"Democracy" in the Airline Industry
In the old days, Americans used to sneer at elections in the Soviet Union, where there was always only one candidate on the ballet for each post and everyone was required to vote. Democracy means nothing if there is not empowerment for the voters and a free choice, but neither freedom nor a choice were available to Soviet citizens. To most of us -- and them -- this seemed fundamentally unfair.
Our political system is far from perfect, but we do strive to practice the free choice principle. So it's an especially egregious affront when some party blatantly violates this norm. Welcome to the airline industry, where employee votes on whether or not to unionize have long been subject to the rule that any employee who did not vote was automatically counted as a "no" vote against unionization and in favor of the airlines.
Now, thanks to a recent ruling by the National Mediation Board, which oversees management-labor relations, the more fair-minded practice of not counting non-voters either way may become the rule (subject to a shameless effort by the Air Transport Assocation to nullify the change through litigation or legislation). Once again, the principle of fairness could be trumped by corporate interests, and their minions in Congress and the bureaucracy. If the majority of us who adhere to the fairness principle don't enforce it, those who reject it (for whatever reason) will prevail.
Our political system is far from perfect, but we do strive to practice the free choice principle. So it's an especially egregious affront when some party blatantly violates this norm. Welcome to the airline industry, where employee votes on whether or not to unionize have long been subject to the rule that any employee who did not vote was automatically counted as a "no" vote against unionization and in favor of the airlines.
Now, thanks to a recent ruling by the National Mediation Board, which oversees management-labor relations, the more fair-minded practice of not counting non-voters either way may become the rule (subject to a shameless effort by the Air Transport Assocation to nullify the change through litigation or legislation). Once again, the principle of fairness could be trumped by corporate interests, and their minions in Congress and the bureaucracy. If the majority of us who adhere to the fairness principle don't enforce it, those who reject it (for whatever reason) will prevail.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
The Mad Hatter's Tea Party
Thanks to the Tea Party movement, American politics, never an exemplar of intelligent and informed democracy, has come to resemble the subterranean madness of Alice in Wonderland. And now the madness has surfaced and gone "mainstream" with the victory of Rand Paul (son of another political fruitcake) in the Kentucky Republican primary.
Like his libertarian father Ron Paul (an acolyte of novelist Ayn Rand's warped idealism), Rand Paul espouses the simplistic, utopian vision of a capitalism that never was and never will be, except in the discredited neo-classical economic theory. He wants to "free" capitalism from the fetters of government regulations (forget the financial reforms now before the Senate), and would eliminate such unconstitutional invasions of our private rights as Medicare, Social Security and all the rest of our social safety net.
In bygone days, many conservative political theorists distrusted democracy. "Mobocracy," as it was pejoratively labeled, was viewed as a menace. But these naysayers had it wrong. The real danger is not democracy but degagoguery – a "man on horseback" (a saying inspired by Napolean) that would ride into town to exploit our fears, our angers and our frustrations. Rand Paul, who comes from the land of the Kentucky Derby, is a horse of a different color -- a dark horse with a coat of white paint. We need to get out the paint remover.
Like his libertarian father Ron Paul (an acolyte of novelist Ayn Rand's warped idealism), Rand Paul espouses the simplistic, utopian vision of a capitalism that never was and never will be, except in the discredited neo-classical economic theory. He wants to "free" capitalism from the fetters of government regulations (forget the financial reforms now before the Senate), and would eliminate such unconstitutional invasions of our private rights as Medicare, Social Security and all the rest of our social safety net.
In bygone days, many conservative political theorists distrusted democracy. "Mobocracy," as it was pejoratively labeled, was viewed as a menace. But these naysayers had it wrong. The real danger is not democracy but degagoguery – a "man on horseback" (a saying inspired by Napolean) that would ride into town to exploit our fears, our angers and our frustrations. Rand Paul, who comes from the land of the Kentucky Derby, is a horse of a different color -- a dark horse with a coat of white paint. We need to get out the paint remover.
Robin Hood Redux
The new re-re-re-make of a Hollywood favorite reminds us once again how the movies reflect the deep psychology of human nature (though often through a distorted lense). Fairness is one of Hollywood's favorite themes, and stealing from the rapacious rich to give to the deserving poor is a sure-fire hit with audiences. Robin Hood, and other fictional heroes like Zorro, have become enduring legends for their selfless acts. How come? After all, they are committing "crimes". Capitalist theory absolutely condemns such travesties against the sacred rights of "property".
The explanation for this paradox, as I show in THE FAIR SOCIETY, lies in human nature and in our evolutionary history as a species. One of the most important findings of the new, multi-disciplinary science of human nature is that most of us do, in fact, have a deep sense of fairness and a concern for meeting the basic needs of others with whom we identify (our group, our tribe, our society) -- though not those we view as outsiders or enemies. We evolved, over several million years, in close-knit, highly cooperative and interdependent social groups, and this evolutionary process endowed our species with a high degree of empathy and concern for the well being of others and the group as a whole. Economists Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis call it a "basic needs generosity," and there is a large and still growing body of research confiring that this is the case (with most of us). So if the rich are "undeserving" (they are exploitative), and if the poor (through no fault of their own) are struggling to meet their basic needs, the rich are the criminals, and the doctrine of absolute property rights becomes the crime in the eyes of many moviegoers (among others).
The take home lesson from the Robin Hood and Zorro stories is that capitalism should be practiced in moderation, or it will run afoul of human nature.
The explanation for this paradox, as I show in THE FAIR SOCIETY, lies in human nature and in our evolutionary history as a species. One of the most important findings of the new, multi-disciplinary science of human nature is that most of us do, in fact, have a deep sense of fairness and a concern for meeting the basic needs of others with whom we identify (our group, our tribe, our society) -- though not those we view as outsiders or enemies. We evolved, over several million years, in close-knit, highly cooperative and interdependent social groups, and this evolutionary process endowed our species with a high degree of empathy and concern for the well being of others and the group as a whole. Economists Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis call it a "basic needs generosity," and there is a large and still growing body of research confiring that this is the case (with most of us). So if the rich are "undeserving" (they are exploitative), and if the poor (through no fault of their own) are struggling to meet their basic needs, the rich are the criminals, and the doctrine of absolute property rights becomes the crime in the eyes of many moviegoers (among others).
The take home lesson from the Robin Hood and Zorro stories is that capitalism should be practiced in moderation, or it will run afoul of human nature.
Should the UAW Share the Profits?
Now that the not-so-big three Detroit automakers are returning to profitability, the UAW and its workers want a share of those profits. Afterall, the workers made huge sacrifices in their salaries and benefits to help save these companies. Indeed, the union is now a part-owner of GM and Chrysler, and Ford has already begun restoring some perks for its salaried workers. As the new UAW president, Bob King put it, "When there's equality of sacrifice, there's got to be equality of gain."
On the face of it, this represents a matter of fairness, as it's defined in my book, THE FAIR SOCIETY. The car companies, in extremis, were allowed to modify their contractual obligations to their workers, with the understanding that there would be a restoration as business conditions allowed. Some conservative economists, like Paul Kersey, argue that the bankruptcies were structured to protect worker interests at the expense of investors. Therefore, the workers should not be entitled to benefit from any return to profitability.
However, this ignores a fundamental difference between workers and investors in terms of their relationship to a public corporation. For the workers, their paychecks are their basic livelihood and they cannot spread their risks around. They are dependent on their jobs (and the auto companies depend on them). Investors, on the otherhand can freely choose where to invest (or withdraw) their money, they are knowingly putting that money at risk (that's why there is a risk premium included in their expected returns),and they are using money that represents a "surplus" beyond what is required to provide for their basic needs.
Conservatives have got their economic morality backwards. The basic survival needs of the workers should take precedence over the acquisitive interests of stockholders.
On the face of it, this represents a matter of fairness, as it's defined in my book, THE FAIR SOCIETY. The car companies, in extremis, were allowed to modify their contractual obligations to their workers, with the understanding that there would be a restoration as business conditions allowed. Some conservative economists, like Paul Kersey, argue that the bankruptcies were structured to protect worker interests at the expense of investors. Therefore, the workers should not be entitled to benefit from any return to profitability.
However, this ignores a fundamental difference between workers and investors in terms of their relationship to a public corporation. For the workers, their paychecks are their basic livelihood and they cannot spread their risks around. They are dependent on their jobs (and the auto companies depend on them). Investors, on the otherhand can freely choose where to invest (or withdraw) their money, they are knowingly putting that money at risk (that's why there is a risk premium included in their expected returns),and they are using money that represents a "surplus" beyond what is required to provide for their basic needs.
Conservatives have got their economic morality backwards. The basic survival needs of the workers should take precedence over the acquisitive interests of stockholders.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
"Surplus Workers?"
One of the worst offenses of capitalism is that it treats workers as a "factor of production" to be used, or not, at the whim of the "owners", rather than as "stakeholders" with rights. As I argue in my book, this is deeply unfair and subverts the basic purpose of an organized society, namely, to provide for the basic needs of all its members.
In this recession, our "free-market" system has been at it again. As Catherine Rampell reports in The New York Times today,"many of the jobs lost during the recession are not coming back." They have been "displaced" by technological advances and international trade (read outsourcing). Rampell calls it "creative destruction." I call it destruction, plain and simple. In the name of efficiency, or "productivity improvements," which produced record corporate profits in the past quarter, millions of workers were "pruned" by companies who found that their work could be done more cheaply by computers, or by workers overseas.
Any society that abandons its collective responsibility to provide for the basic needs of all of its members, including gainful employment at a living wage, is destined to fail. We have been warned many times over the centuries. When will we learn?
In this recession, our "free-market" system has been at it again. As Catherine Rampell reports in The New York Times today,"many of the jobs lost during the recession are not coming back." They have been "displaced" by technological advances and international trade (read outsourcing). Rampell calls it "creative destruction." I call it destruction, plain and simple. In the name of efficiency, or "productivity improvements," which produced record corporate profits in the past quarter, millions of workers were "pruned" by companies who found that their work could be done more cheaply by computers, or by workers overseas.
Any society that abandons its collective responsibility to provide for the basic needs of all of its members, including gainful employment at a living wage, is destined to fail. We have been warned many times over the centuries. When will we learn?
A Greek Lesson
Great economic and political crises do not reliably produce great leaders and positive changes, but some countries have been lucky. In ancient Greece, Pericles was a model for all times. Peter the Great and Anwar Sadat also come to mind, and so does Franklin Roosevelt in our country during the Great Depression and in World War Two. Winston Churchill, likewise, mobilized the English language (as John F. Kennedy put it) and inspired a nation to resist the Nazi tyranny. Now the Greeks may be providing us with a modern lesson in great leadership.
The Greek economy and political system have been badly mismanaged for many years, and the global financial meltdown of 2008-2009 quickly produced a severe financial crisis in Greece as well. Wrenching changes to clean up the mess have only just begun, but Greece is fortunate to have George Padandreou as prime minister. He understands that "fairness" must be the guiding principle in the measures that are being taken literally to save the nation. As he told New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, the Greeks must become "stakeholders" in the process. And this will only happen if the needed changes reflect a sense of "justice" and if the Greek people feel their leader has a vision -- "a dream where we are going" so that the sacrifices are for a larger purpose and a better future.
Soon our own country will have to face up to making painful sacrifices to get our own financial house in order. We can only hope that our leadership will also have a sense of fairness and a vision that resembles what I call in my book The Fair Society.
The Greek economy and political system have been badly mismanaged for many years, and the global financial meltdown of 2008-2009 quickly produced a severe financial crisis in Greece as well. Wrenching changes to clean up the mess have only just begun, but Greece is fortunate to have George Padandreou as prime minister. He understands that "fairness" must be the guiding principle in the measures that are being taken literally to save the nation. As he told New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, the Greeks must become "stakeholders" in the process. And this will only happen if the needed changes reflect a sense of "justice" and if the Greek people feel their leader has a vision -- "a dream where we are going" so that the sacrifices are for a larger purpose and a better future.
Soon our own country will have to face up to making painful sacrifices to get our own financial house in order. We can only hope that our leadership will also have a sense of fairness and a vision that resembles what I call in my book The Fair Society.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Who Cares About Fairness?
Why should we care about fairness? Isn't this some kind of socialist idea? Fox TV host Glenn Beck thinks social justice is associated only with Communism and Fascism. We live in a competitive, capitalist society -- the best of all possible worlds if only the liberals (read socialists) would go away.
Well, in that case the right-wing would have only themselves to blame for the mess they will make of things. But there's a more reasoned answer. Fairness is not a left-wing plot. It's an innate impulse that most of us share. Not only do most of us care about fairness, both for ourselves and for others, but fairness is the indispensable glue that holds together all voluntary, cooperative relationships -- in families, communities, in the workplace and in our politics. In fact, it's an unavoidable issue in all of our social relationships, for better or worse.
In fact, the Golden Rule (treating others as you yourself want to be treated) is a cultural universal with ancient roots in human evolution. You can't say that for capitalism.
Well, in that case the right-wing would have only themselves to blame for the mess they will make of things. But there's a more reasoned answer. Fairness is not a left-wing plot. It's an innate impulse that most of us share. Not only do most of us care about fairness, both for ourselves and for others, but fairness is the indispensable glue that holds together all voluntary, cooperative relationships -- in families, communities, in the workplace and in our politics. In fact, it's an unavoidable issue in all of our social relationships, for better or worse.
In fact, the Golden Rule (treating others as you yourself want to be treated) is a cultural universal with ancient roots in human evolution. You can't say that for capitalism.
Beware of Europeans With Trojan Horses
The European Union's belated bailout package for Greece has elements of a Trojan Horse, the deceptive gift that the ancient Greeks used to defeat their arch-enemy, the city-state of Troy.
The reason is that the bailout was conditioned on a set of Draconian cuts to wages and pensions by the Greek government that are to be inflicted on those who were not responsible for the financial mess, rather than those who were -- including irresponsible governments, wealthy tax evaders, a bloated bureaucracy, greedy unions and foreign investors that have happily milked the Greek cash cow for years.
This is profoundly unfair. No wonder so many Greek citizens are angry. They have every reason to feel that this is unjust. Though it's too soon to tell for certain, the betting is that the combination of popular resistance and a bailout package that is too little too late will lead to more drastic measures. Maybe those who are responsible for the mess will also have to bear some of the costs.
The reason is that the bailout was conditioned on a set of Draconian cuts to wages and pensions by the Greek government that are to be inflicted on those who were not responsible for the financial mess, rather than those who were -- including irresponsible governments, wealthy tax evaders, a bloated bureaucracy, greedy unions and foreign investors that have happily milked the Greek cash cow for years.
This is profoundly unfair. No wonder so many Greek citizens are angry. They have every reason to feel that this is unjust. Though it's too soon to tell for certain, the betting is that the combination of popular resistance and a bailout package that is too little too late will lead to more drastic measures. Maybe those who are responsible for the mess will also have to bear some of the costs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
