Martin Wolf sinniert heute in der FT über die Frage, warum sich kaum etwas verändert hat durch die Finanzkrise. Es ist ja grundsätzlich in Ordnung, nichts verändern zu wollen. Aber warum war es in diesem Fall so, obwohl eine ganze Reihe offensichtlicher Probleme offensichtliche Lösungen gehabt hätte. Das mündet bei Wolf in eine grundsätzliche Systemkritik:

The financial crisis was a devastating failure of the free market that followed a period of rising inequality within many countries. Yet, contrary to what happened in the 1970s, policymakers have barely questioned the relative roles of government and markets. Conventional wisdom still considers “structural reform” largely synonymous with lower taxes and de-regulation of labour markets. Concern is expressed over inequality, but little has actually been done. Policymakers have mostly failed to notice the dangerous dependence of demand on ever-rising debt. Monopoly and “zero-sum” activities are pervasive. Few question the value of the vast quantities of financial sector activity we continue to have, or recognise the risks of further big financial crises.

Es gibt eine ganze Reihe sinnvoller Verbesserungsvorschläge:

Some have argued for ... the elimination of the tax deductibility of debt interest. Some note the perverse impact of executive incentives. Some argue convincingly for higher equity requirements on banks ... Others ask why only banks have accounts at central banks. Why should every citizen not be able to do so? Some wonder why we cannot use central banks to escape dependence on debt-fuelled growth.

Beyond finance, it seems ever clearer that protection of intellectual property has gone too far. Also, why not shift taxation on to land? Why are we letting the taxation of capital collapse? And why are we not trying to revitalise antitrust?

Der Umstand, dass davon kaum etwas umgesetzt wurde, deutet für Wolf auf eine Selbstgefälligkeit und Ideenlosigkeit hin, welche die Bevölkerung mit Wut erfüllt.