torsdag den 3. december 2009

Kapitalismen efter krisen (I)

Der er gået 1 år siden finanskrisen brød ud og den økonomiske nedtur begyndte. Krisen udløste ikke bare massive stimuleringspakker fra regeringer over verden og pres på centralbankerne for at lade seddelpressen køre igen. Regeringerne har også ændret spillereglerne på markedet med hidtil usete indgreb i markedsøkonomien. Ikke mindst i kapitalismens højborg i USA. Regeringen i Washington har f.eks. lavet et indgreb for at redde General Motors og Chrysler og tilsidesat gældende retsregler for konkurser og betalingsstandsninger. Det har svækket kreditorers retssikkerhed. Det har udløst retssager, men på længere sigt svigter det kapitalismen, at der nu hersker helt særlige regler for virksomheder, som i levebrødspolitikernes øjne er "to big to fail".

Professor Richard Epstein har en artikel om dette i det seneste nummer af Freeman. Her er indledningen:

"The topic of corporate bankruptcy law scarcely titillates the imagination of ordinary citizens, even those with a deep interest in constitutional and public affairs. Harried people treat bankruptcy almost dismissively as a useful way of winding up firms that cannot keep their financial heads above water. In practice they sense rightly that the corporate bankruptcy system cleanses the economy of weak players by their liquidation, reorganization, or sale, hopefully to allow their assets to be released to more productive uses. Explaining how bankruptcy works isn’t a fit subject for polite company.

Those perceptions have changed now that the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies have set a new standard for the fast resolution of some complex if dubious transactions. So troublesome questions arise: Did these transactions comply with the rule of law? Were the property rights of the secured creditors fully protected in the expedited proceedings? Will the process bring confidence to the credit markets? No, no, and no again. Those three “nos” come as no surprise. The basic classical liberal position is right to insist that the government cannot sensibly occupy the roles of market participant and market regulator simultaneously. All else is detail."

Ingen kommentarer:

Send en kommentar