“Of the 1, by the 1, for the 1%,”

ずっと昔、小泉が郵政省を民営化するといいだしたとき、私のぼんやりした頭で思っていたのは、民営化したほうが公務員業務にありがちな無駄もなくなるし、効率もよくなっていいんじゃないかなぁということだった。民営化するという意味がわかってなかったんやね。あのときは漠然と、政府が民営化したがってんのは郵貯を企業がやるようにしたいからなんやろう、くらいしかおもってなかった。でもそれも私とはうんと遠い話で、郵貯という銀行なんて国がやろうが企業がやろうが、あんまし関係ないもんなぁって。

だけど、アメリカに来て、すべてが民営化=私有化されていることの結果?というのか現実?というんか、まあそんなものが日本よりもずっとずっとはっきりと現れている社会をみて、新自由主義経済の恐ろしさがわかる。

経済学者のスティグリッツがDemocracy Now!にでてた。スティグリッツはもともとIMFかワールドバンクにいた人で、そのなかで働いてて新自由主義経済を告発してる人やから、この人の話は聞いといて損はないかと。

エイミー・グッドマンとジョゼフ・スティグリッツのやりとりから

AMY GOODMAN: In your piece, Joe Stiglitz, in Vanity Fair, “Of the 1, by the 1, for the 1%,” you say, “Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income—an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret.” Talk about all this. We’re seeing these rolling rebellions. We are seeing rebellions not only in the Middle East, though, in the Midwest. I mean, look at Madison, Wisconsin. And what about this issue of even the wealthy will regret this?

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, there are two points that I try to make. One is that a successful economy requires collective action. There are lots of things we have to do together. We have to have infrastructure. We have to have an educated population. If you have a divided society, you start worrying more—if you’re in the wealthy and you have an electorate system that can use your wealth to affect the politics, you say, “I’d rather have a small government that isn’t able to redistribute money, take money away from me. I don’t need public schools; I have private money. I don’t need public parks; I have private—you know, my large land.” So, what you have then is an erosion of the kind of collective action, and that makes a society less efficient, less productive. And you see that already happening. We are competing in education with countries in Asia that were much poorer than we were not that long ago. So that’s one problem.

And the second one is that obviously a house divided can’t stand, that you start getting tensions, you start not paying attention to the things that make us cohesive as a nation. And that’s what you’re seeing in Wisconsin. And you also see that in the budget messages that are coming across, saying, “OK, we’re going to cut back on healthcare for aged and for the poor, but we’re not going to do anything about overall healthcare costs.” What does that mean? It means that if you’re going to cut back on health expenditures for the aged and the poor, and you’re going to let health costs continue to rise, that says rationing. They’re not going to be able to get healthcare. Already, we spend more money with poor health outcomes than those in other countries in the advanced industrial world. And it’s going to get worse as the poor and the elderly can’t get access to healthcare.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s