Læsetid: 5 min.

Lær af Adam Smith

Den økonomiske krise har vist politikernes og økonomernes magtesløshed over for kapitalismens grundlæggende mekanikker, hævder Claus Bratt Østergaard, som netop har oversat den politiske økonomis første hovedværk, Adam Smiths ’Nationernes Velstand’. Hvis samtalen om forvaltningen af vores fælles liv skal erobres tilbage fra politikerne og økonomerne, er det nødvendigt med viden om den politiske økonomis tilblivelse. Og Adam Smith er manden, man skal begynde med
Den økonomiske krise har vist politikernes og økonomernes magtesløshed over for kapitalismens grundlæggende mekanikker, hævder Claus Bratt Østergaard, som netop har oversat den politiske økonomis første hovedværk, Adam Smiths ’Nationernes Velstand’. Hvis samtalen om forvaltningen af vores fælles liv skal erobres tilbage fra politikerne og økonomerne, er det nødvendigt med viden om den politiske økonomis tilblivelse. Og Adam Smith er manden, man skal begynde med
7. juni 2013

Målt i arbejdstimer giver det under halvdelen af, hvad det giver at vaske trapper,« fortæller Claus Bratt Østergaard. Han har netop oversat Adam Smiths Nationernes velstand – værket, som lagde grunden til kapitalismen og vores moderne samfund, og som gjorde egennytten til kapitalismens styrende princip.

Det er altså ikke økonomisk egennytte, som har drevet oversættelsen af Smiths hovedværk fra 1776 på 960 sider. Og før det Kants Kritik af den rene fornuft, Hegels Åndens fænomenologi og en lang række andre uomgængelige filosofiske klassikere.

»Jeg er drevet af lige dele ambition og idealisme. Og som arbejdet skrider frem, bliver stoffet også en fristelse i sig selv. Smiths storværk har været et regulært pukleri. Men når man først er i gang, kan man ikke bare give op«, fortæller Claus Bratt Østergaard.

Kogebøger og computerøkonomi

Bortset fra Marx’ Kapitalen har næppe noget andet værk betydet så meget for forståelsen af den kapitalisme og vækstideologi, som i dag har bredt sig til de fjerneste egne af kloden som en blanding af en gave og en forbandelse.

»Kapitalismen er blevet vores skæbne. Efter socialismens sammenbrud har vi ikke i dag noget alternativ,« siger Claus Bratt Østergaard

Men samtalen om fremtidens forvaltning af de fælles goder er ifølge ham hæmmet af, at politikerne og økonomer lader, som om de ved noget, som de ikke ved, når de udtaler sig om krisen. Hvor de burde diskutere, hvad man ved og ikke ved, og finde på nye modeller, bliver det i stedet til rene gætterier.

»Nu kommer opsvinget, siger nogle. Andre mener, at det varer endnu nogle år. Det er til befolkningens og egen beroligelse, man taler. Politikerne bruger økonomisk teori, som om det var kogebøger, hvor det blot handler om blandingsforholdet mellem Hayek og Friedman.«

De seneste år har vi været vidne til en global deregulering af den økonomiske politik formuleret i overinformerede og derfor ubegribelige og dysfunktionelle matematiske computerprogrammer. Teorien er blevet dum jo mere informationsmættede, modellerne er. Det er næppe Nobelprisøkonomien, der skal vise vejen ud af krisen, siger Claus Bratt Østergaard.

»Folk tror, de selv er for dumme til at forstå, hvad der foregår. Og det er vi da også alle. Smith anbefalede at overlade magten til markedet. Fyrsten forstår ikke markedsloven, sagde han. Det er et fromt håb.«

Nationernes velstand ikke er endnu en kogebog til samlingen. Adam Smiths værk handler derimod om, hvorfor vi i Vesten fik netop denne måde at forvalte vores kapital på. Og det er ikke mindst kendskabet til kapitalismens forudsætninger, som kan gøre os i stand til bedre at forstå den aktuelle økonomiske udvikling.

Nøglebegrebet i Adam Smiths velstandsteori er arbejdsdeling. Det er den, vi alle sammen kender fra skolebøgerne. I stedet for at den enkelte arbejder eller håndværker fremstiller hele produktet selv, kan arbejdet deles op i mindre processer.

I 1700-tallets Skotland havde Smith selv lejlighed til at iagttage den gryende industrialisering, hvor produktiviteten blev mangedoblet ved, at hver passede sin enkle proces. Og hvad han så på Storbritanniens fabrikker, kunne uden videre udbredes til resten af verden.

Arbejdsdelingen blev den kraft, som skulle drive den kapitalistiske økonomi fremad. Den blev økonomiens energikilde, på samme måde som økonomien blev den nationale velstands energikilde. Der var bare ét problem:

»Arbejderne blev dumme af de ensartede handlinger. Arbejdsdeling-en er drivkraften i økonomien, men samtidig fornedrer den mennesket. Det er og bliver en reel modsætning i den kapitalistiske økonomi. Det respektindgydende ved Adam Smith var, at han ikke prøvede at skjule det«, siger Claus Bratt Østergaard.

Som kompensation for arbejdsdelingens fordummelse foreslog Smith, at arbejderne skulle lære at læse, regne og skrive. Men netop som kompensation. Smith gjorde sig ingen illusioner om, at undervisningen ville sætte arbejderne i stand til at ændre noget afgørende ved deres situation.

Sympati og egennytte

På danske universiteter i 1970’erne og 1980’erne, hvor Claus Bratt Østergaard studerede engelsk i Aarhus for siden at blive docent på Aalborg Universitetscenter, læste man Smith for at forstå Marx. For ham har arbejdet med oversættelsen af Nationernes velstand tydeliggjort Smiths plads i oplysningstænkningen.

»Marxisternes største fejl var deres faste overbevisning om, at de altid havde ret. Smith og resten af den ’borgerlige videnskab’ var falsk bevidsthed. Marxisme blev ideologi og solgt på et marked af meningsdannere. Logik for papegøjer, har man siden kaldt det,« fortæller Claus Bratt Østergaard.

Af samme grund havde de heller aldrig overvejet magten og demokratiets forvaltning som et problem, tilføjer han.

Smith derimod var optaget af, hvad der får et samfund til at hænge sammen. I sit andet hovedværk The Theory of Moral Sentiments fra 1756 peger han på sympatien, evnen til at leve sig ind i andre, som den grundlæggende kraft i mennesket og dermed i samfundet. I kraft af sympatien lever vi gennem og med hinanden. Vi er medmenneskelige. Og evnen til sympati er vel at mærke ikke noget, vi har fra vores forældre, men en naturlig egenskab, som er indbygget i selve den menneskelige konstitution.

Sympatien i The Theory of Moral Sentiments og egennytten i Nationernes velstand ligner modsætninger. Det mener tyske filosoffer og økonomer i hvert fald, som kalder det ’Das Adam Smith Problem’. Men den tyske kritik beror på en kategorifejltagelse, hævder Claus Bratt Østergaard.

»Økonomien som system og den moralske lov om næstekærlighed er adskilte systemer. Smiths beskrivelse af det økonomiske menneske er derfor heller ikke en psykologisk kategori, men handler om den position, man som økonomisk aktør indtager i forhold til markedet. Og lader man sig vejlede af næstekærlighed i økonomiske sager, holder økonomien op med at være økonomi«, siger han.

Uden illusioner

Tiden er kommet til at kvalificere den økonomiske samtale, understreger Claus Bratt Østergaard. Bag den økonomiske krise lurer en økologisk krise, og de to kunne meget nemt flette sig ind i hinanden i årene, der kommer. De, der siger, at man først skal løse den økonomiske krise, og så har man råd til at tage den økologiske krise, stikker sig selv blår i øjnene, siger han.

»Den aktuelle krise er formentlig anderledes end de kriser, man kender fra tidligere. Vi må stille nye og mere radikale spørgsmål til samtiden: Er globaliseringen en del af løsningen, eller en del af problemet? Er nationen i virkeligheden den stærkeste ramme om økonomisk vækst? Er vækst overhovedet godt?« spørger Bratt Østergaard.

Den samtale kan og skal føres af alle, som respekterer, at samtale kræver åbenhed.

»CEPOS er neoliberalister og tror endnu mere på markedet end Smith, og jeg er grundlæggende uenig med dem, men de argumenterer for deres synspunkter. Marx lærte af Adam Smith, selv om han ville sige, at det især var fejltagelserne, han lærte af.«

Adam Smith har ikke svarene, men han kan være med til at stille bedre spørgsmål.

»Der er ikke kommet noget godt fra folk, som hævder, at de har ret, sagde Smith. Han skrev ikke sandheder, men blotlagde logikker, uden illusioner. Det er et godt sted at begynde,« siger Claus Bratt Østergaard.

Bliv opdateret med nyt om disse emner på mail

Vores abonnenter kalder os kritisk, seriøs og troværdig.
Få ubegrænset adgang med et digitalt abonnement.
Prøv en måned gratis.

Prøv nu

Er du abonnent? Log ind her

Anbefalinger

anbefalede denne artikel

Kommentarer

Niels-Holger Nielsen

Tilbage til stenalderen. Claus Bratt Østergaards (CBØ) argumentation hænger ikke sammen og modsigelserne i Adam Smiths problem får lov at flagre for vinden. Lad blot CBØ påstå kapitalismen som endelig slutsten på økonomisk udvikling, lad ham også gerne fremføre Adam Smith som den rene vare, der skal tages stilling til, selvom han egentlig ikke dur når det kommer til stykket, men han skal ikke have lov til at nedgøre marxister, som han gør. Derfor, for at enhver selv kan dømme, har jeg fundet følgende citat fra et essay af John Bellamy Foster (JBF), som lige præcis her beskæftiger sig med denne artikels emne. Som Marx selv, er JBF oprindelig sociolog - det er de på lige fod med så mange andre berømte sociologer, hvoraf han nævner en håndfuld i nedenstående citat. Hvad Adam Smith bør hædres for er vel, at han skrev den første brugbare ABC til økonomi, mens det står hen i det uvisse hvad vi kan bruge hans morallære til.

Adam's Fallacy and the Great Recession
by John Bellamy Foster

The severity of the current crisis and the failure of conventional economics to anticipate or account for it draw attention to what radical economist Duncan Foley has called "Adam's Fallacy." Named for Adam Smith, Adam's Fallacy is "the idea that it is possible to separate an economic sphere of life, in which the pursuit of self-interest is guided by objective laws to a socially beneficent outcome, from the rest of social life, in which the pursuit of self-interest is morally problematic and has to be weighed against other ends."2 Adam's Fallacy is thus both an intellectual and moral fallacy -- the notion that the economy can, in Polanyi's terms, be disembedded from the rest of social reality, and that a market system based on individual acquisitiveness can meet the moral needs of society.

Adam's Fallacy did not reach its zenith in the classical period. Whereas classical political economy had "strong roots in sociology" and accommodated "emergent categories like class," today's marginalist or neoclassical economics admits "no social category that transcends individual action, or the simple combination of individual actions."3 This extreme view only reached its logical conclusion in the writings of Hayek in the twentieth century, and in the neoliberal tradition that his work eventually gave rise to in our time.

Indeed, if "the most fundamental aspect of the fallacy is to represent capital accumulation, with its accompanying technical and social revolutions, as an autonomous and spontaneous process that is somehow inherent in the expression of 'human nature," then there can be little doubt that it has seen its highest development in today's extreme, neoliberal era.4 Thus we have witnessed in recent decades what John Kenneth Galbraith aptly called, in the title to his last book, The Economics of Innocent Fraud, marked by the "renaming of the system" as the "free market system." This is a perfectly meaningless designation meant to draw attention away from the harsh realities of capitalism (and monopoly capitalism): corporations, class power, and social inequality.5 In short, orthodox economics was stripped in the neoliberal era of all remaining historical and sociological content.

Today we often say that we need a new Marx, Veblen, Keynes, or Schumpeter. But it is not as pure economists that we can be said to need them so much as political economists or economic sociologists, from which most of their greatness derived. This is also true for later dissident economists such as Kalecki, Sweezy, Minsky, and Galbraith (not to mention economic sociologists arising from within sociology itself such as Weber, Tawney, Polanyi, and Mills).

Once we admit historical, sociological, institutional factors into our analysis of the economy, Adam's Fallacy falls away and the Great Recession ceases to be incomprehensible. All sorts of useful debates can then arise. By way of illustration, I would like to point to the analysis of the current crisis that Fred Magdoff and I have provided in our recent book, The Great Financial Crisis: Causes and Consequences (2009).6 In this argument, written over three years, we do not claim any substantial originality. Rather we draw on most of the economic sociologists mentioned above -- but especially Marx, Kalecki, and Sweezy -- as well as on recent history, in order to make arguments that we think should be fairly obvious to social scientists.

Jeg kan varmt anbefale at læse om de nævnte personer på nettet. Der er en imponerende bredde i Fosters inspiratorer. Helt modsat hvad CBØs revolverudtalelser ellers påstår om økonomer af denne observans. CBØ har nok været en af dem, der fik ørerne i klemme hos den dogmatiske og endimensionale kapitallogik, som dele af akademisk marxisme forfaldt til i halvfjerdserne - faktisk næsten som en 'naturlig' forløber for den lige så golde neoliberalisme, som CBØ af gode grunde afskyr, selvom han ikke på nogen overbevisende måde kan afgrænse sig fra. En stor tak til CBØ for at bruge sit talent for oversættelse til vort betrængte modersmål, selvom den kontante belønning er ussel. Køb bogen! Men husk, at der er en uudtømmelig rigdom af socioøkonomiske tanker imellem Adam Smith og CEPOS.

Niels-Holger Nielsen

Capitalism and "Human Nature": A Rebuttal
by Jay Moore

'In the celebrated section of The Wealth of Nations in which he discusses the advantages of the division of labor, Adam Smith advances the thesis that "common to all men" is a "propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another." Smith hedges on whether this "propensity" is a matter of original human nature or, as Smith, a man of the Enlightenment, preferred to believe, is an outcome of a capacity peculiar to humans for reason and speech. But upon the unproven assumption that such a "propensity" exists, along with the equally unproven assumption of a universally innate human "possessive individualism" of having infinite needs in a field of scarcity, is based the whole of modern neo-classical economics. We can pop open any mainstream economics textbook and encounter Smith's famous phrase as an axiomatic starting point for the superiority of capitalism and of the so-called "free market," since those economic forms are supposedly most closely in accord with this supposed human propensity.'

'Traders have existed in many, perhaps most, societies, but those who did so as a profession with the aim of enriching themselves might be looked upon with deep suspicion. Trade was mainly conducted at the societal margins. And, as David Graeber has shown in his monumental work on the political economy of "Debt," no known society has ever been based on barter. Much more prevalent until modern times was a Gift Economy in which goods circulated from person to person within a society and in which there might be no calculation of worth requiring something paid back of equal or greater value or expectation of eventual return. The concept of "paying forward" is a poor modern counterpart.'

'Practices of accumulation for the purposes of fulfilling societal obligations or reinforcing status through gift-giving and the liquidation of wealth like in the famous potlatch of the Northwest Coast Indians, rather than the capitalist way of accumulation ad infinitum, were shocking to the Europeans who first encountered them. So they tried to suppress them and inculcate proper bourgeois notions among the Indians about the work ethic, savings, and investment. The Canadian government declared the potlatch illegal in 1884; some Indians who kept on with this "uncivilized" practice were thrown into jail and had their ceremonial regalia confiscated. (The latter went to museums where they were frozen in time behind glass cases.) In Africa, European colonialists commonly expressed frustration when market incentives did not get the natives to work harder and to produce more. Instead, if the African villagers were able to earn a bit more, like peasants in many other parts of the world before the modern era, they would often choose to work less and to appreciate their greater leisure time instead. They had to be made to produce more for the market through the imposition of hut taxes and the menace of violence.'

'Recently, I read a fascinating book, The Discovery of France: A Historical Geography from the Revolution to the First World War, by Graham Robb, full of accounts of what everyday life in provincial France was like and how it changed on the cusp of modernity -- just at the time when rural people who had lived practically their whole lives within their own local pays were finding out, sometimes to their wonderment and dismay, that they were part of a much larger entity called "France." One anecdote in particular sticks out in my mind: A group of women in the Auvergne region met to knit and sew clothing as part of a putting-out system, for which they received a small amount of money from traveling merchants. But earning money was not the point. The point was being able to stay up after dark and socialize. The money from the knitting and sewing paid for the lamp oil so they could see. For people like these women, Robb observes, addressing boredom was as powerful a behavioral motivator as any economic need.'

Lisa Ahlqvist

Du har godt nok erobret en tråd for dig selv, NH, samt alle stolene. Jeg er dog bekymret for dig, nemlig, at du er ved at blive storkapitalist. Måsk er du den eneste, der evner at fatte denne suppekogning. Eller en kapitalist i forklædning.

Hvad har du lavet med handicap-kørsel? Det interesserer mig langt mere end økonomi. Du ved nok, der findes flere forskellige økonomiske retninger end fiskearter i verdenshavene.

Niels-Holger Nielsen

Man kan lære meget fra Adam Smith, men sikkert mest ved at kritisere hans udgangspunkt:

'Today orthodox economics is reputedly being harnessed to an entirely new end: saving the planet from the ecological destruction wrought by capitalist expansion. It promises to accomplish this through the further expansion of capitalism itself, cleared of its excesses and excrescences. A growing army of self-styled “sustainable developers” argues that there is no contradiction between the unlimited accumulation of capital — the credo of economic liberalism from Adam Smith to the present — and the preservation of the earth. The system can continue to expand by creating a new “sustainable capitalism,” bringing the efficiency of the market to bear on nature and its reproduction. In reality, these visions amount to little more than a renewed strategy for profiting on planetary destruction.'

'The Lauderdale Paradox

The ecological contradictions of the prevailing economic ideology are best explained in terms of what is known in the history of economics as the “Lauderdale Paradox.” James Maitland, the eighth Earl of Lauderdale (1759-1839), was the author of An Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Public Wealth and into the Means and Causes of its Increase (1804). In the paradox with which his name came to be associated, Lauderdale argued that there was an inverse correlation between public wealth and private riches such that an increase in the latter often served to diminish the former. “Public wealth,” he wrote, “may be accurately defined, — to consist of all that man desires, as useful or delightful to him.” Such goods have use value and thus constitute wealth. But private riches, as opposed to wealth, required something additional (i.e., had an added limitation), consisting “of all that man desires as useful or delightful to him; which exists in a degree of scarcity.”

Scarcity, in other words, is a necessary requirement for something to have value in exchange, and to augment private riches. But this is not the case for public wealth, which encompasses all value in use, and thus includes not only what is scarce but also what is abundant. This paradox led Lauderdale to argue that increases in scarcity in such formerly abundant but necessary elements of life as air, water, and food would, if exchange values were then attached to them, enhance individual private riches, and indeed the riches of the country — conceived of as “the sum-totalof individual riches” — but only at the expense of the common wealth. For example, if one could monopolize water that had previously been freely available by placing a fee on wells, the measured riches of the nation would be increased at the expense of the growing thirst of the population.

“The common sense of mankind,” Lauderdale contended, “would revolt” at any proposal to augment private riches “by creating a scarcity of any commodity generally useful and necessary to man.” Nevertheless, he was aware that the bourgeois society in which he lived was already, in many ways, doing something of the very sort. He explained that, in particularly fertile periods, Dutch colonialists burned “spiceries” or paid natives to “collect the young blossoms or green leaves of the nutmeg trees” to kill them off; and that in plentiful years “the tobacco-planters in Virginia,” by legal enactment, burned “a certain proportion of tobacco” for every slave working their fields. Such practices were designed to increase scarcity, augmenting private riches (and the wealth of a few) by destroying what constituted public wealth — in this case, the produce of the earth. “So truly is this principle understood by those whose interest leads them to take advantage of it,” Lauderdale wrote, “that nothing but the impossibility of general combination protects the public wealth against the rapacity of private avarice.”3

From the beginning, wealth, as opposed to mere riches, was associated in classical political economy with what John Locke called “intrinsic value,” and what later political economists were to call “use value.”4 Material use values had, of course, always existed, and were the basis of human existence. But commodities produced for sale on the market under capitalism also embodied something else: exchange value (value). Every commodity was thus viewed as having “a twofold aspect,” consisting of use value and exchange value.5 The Lauderdale Paradox was nothing but an expression of this twofold aspect of wealth/value, which generated the contradiction between total public wealth (the sum of use values) and the aggregation of private riches (the sum of exchange values).

David Ricardo, the greatest of the classical-liberal political economists, responded to Lauderdale’s paradox by underscoring the importance of keeping wealth and value (use value and exchange value) conceptually distinct. In line with Lauderdale, Ricardo stressed that if water, or some other natural resource formerly freely available, acquired an exchange value due to the growth of absolute scarcity, there would be “an actual loss of wealth” reflecting the loss of natural use values — even with an increase of private riches.6

In contrast, Adam Smith’s leading French follower, Jean Baptiste Say, who was to be one of the precursors of neoclassical economics, responded to the Lauderdale Paradox by simply defining it away. He argued that wealth (use value) should be subsumed under value (exchange value), effectively obliterating the former. In his Letters to Malthus on Political Economy and Stagnation of Commerce (1821), Say thus objected to “the definition of which Lord Lauderdale gives of wealth.” It was absolutely essential, in Say’s view, to abandon altogether the identification of wealth with use value. As he wrote:

Adam Smith, immediately having observed that there are two sorts of values, one value in use, the other value in exchange, completely abandons the first, and entirely occupies himself all the way through his book with exchangeable value only. This is what you yourself have done, Sir [addressing Malthus]; what Mr. Ricardo has done; what I have done; what we have all done: for this reason that there is no other value in political economy….[Consequently,] wealth consists in the value of the things we possess; confining this word value to the only admitted and exchangeable value.

Say did not deny that there were “things indeed which are natural wealth, very precious to man, but which are not of that kind about which political economy can be employed.” But political economy was to encompass in its concept of value — which was to displace altogether the concept of wealth — nothing but exchangeable value. Natural or public wealth, as opposed to value in exchange, was to be left out of account.7

Nowhere in liberal political economy did the Lauderdale Paradox create more convolutions than in what Marx called the “shallow syncretism” of John Stuart Mill.8 Mill’s Principles of Political Economy (1848)almost seemed to collapse at the outset on this basis alone. In the “Preliminary Remarks” to his book, Mill declared (after Say) that, “wealth, then, may be defined, [as] all useful or agreeable things which posses exchangeable value” — thereby essentially reducing wealth to exchange value. But Mills’s characteristic eclecticism and his classical roots led him also to expose the larger irrationality of this, undermining his own argument. Thus, we find in the same section a penetrating treatment of the Lauderdale Paradox, pointing to the conflict between capital accumulation and the wealth of the commons. According to Mill:

Things for which nothing could be obtained in exchange, however useful or necessary they may be, are not wealth in the sense in which the term is used in Political Economy. Air, for example, though the most absolute of necessaries, bears no price in the market, because it can be obtained gratuitously: to accumulate a stock of it would yield no profit or advantage to any one; and the laws of its production and distribution are the subject of a very different study from Political Economy. But though air is not wealth, mankind are much richer by obtaining it gratis, since the time and labour which would otherwise be required for supplying the most pressing of all wants, can be devoted to other purposes. It is possible to imagine circumstances in which air would be a part of wealth. If it became customary to sojourn long in places where the air does not naturally penetrate, as in diving-bells sunk in the sea, a supply of air artificially furnished would, like water conveyed into houses, bear a price: and if from any revolution in nature the atmosphere became too scanty for the consumption, or could be monopolized, air might acquire a very high marketable value. In such a case, the possession of it, beyond his own wants, would be, to its owner, wealth; and the general wealth of mankind might at first sight appear to be increased, by what would be so great a calamity to them. The error would lie in not considering, that however rich the possessor of air might become at the expense of the rest of the community, all persons else would be poorer by all that they were compelled to pay for what they had before obtained without payment.9

Mill signaled here, in line with Lauderdale, the possibility of a vast rift in capitalist economies between the narrow pursuit of private riches on an increasingly monopolistic basis, and the public wealth of society and the commons. Yet, despite these deep insights, Mill closed off the discussion with these “Preliminary Remarks,” rejecting the Lauderdale Paradox in the end, by defining wealth simply as exchangeable value. What Say said with respect to Smith in the Wealth of Nations — that he entirely occupied “himself all the way through his book [after his initial definitions] with exchangeable value only” — therefore applied also to Mill in his Principles of Political Economy.10 Nature was not to be treated as wealth but as something offered “gratis,” i.e., as a free gift from the standpoint of capitalist value calculation.'

Resten af denne artikel kan man ikke undvære, men det behøver man heller ikke thi den findes her:

The Paradox of Wealth: Capitalism and Ecological Destruction
John Bellamy Foster and Brett Clark

Herved vil man blive opmærksom på at det, som CBØ efterlyser her:

'Tiden er kommet til at kvalificere den økonomiske samtale, understreger Claus Bratt Østergaard. Bag den økonomiske krise lurer en økologisk krise, og de to kunne meget nemt flette sig ind i hinanden i årene, der kommer. De, der siger, at man først skal løse den økonomiske krise, og så har man råd til at tage den økologiske krise, stikker sig selv blår i øjnene, siger han.'

allerede i mange år har været medtænkt af utallige økonomer fra Marx til Foster. Jeg tror, at CBØ har stirret sig blind på Adam Smith.

Niels-Holger Nielsen

Lisa Ahlquist

'Hvad har du lavet med handicap-kørsel?'

Transporteret mine kunder til og fra overalt på Sjælland og brofaste øer, som ikke har brugerbetaling. Så det gjaldt om at have en vis sans for geografi og rationel kørsel med flere kunder, men med hver sin destination, på en gang. Jeg har bragt den til og fra kældre til 16. etage med eller uden trappemaskine.
Jeg diverterede alle kunder med intelligent samtale uanset hvor de skulle hen, men især hvis de skulle meget langt. I det sidste tilfælde sørgede jeg gerne for, at der blev plads til en kop kaffe undervejs, så måtte kunderne jo løftes af og på vognen igen.

Det var meget hårdt arbejde, og til tider utroligt stressende, men det var oftest meget meget interessant, sådan er det jo ofte, når man kommer tæt på handicappede (oftest ældre mennesker), som man skal hjælpe og bistå. Hvis man skal tilbringe en times tid eller to sammen i en bil, kan man lige så godt få noget ud af det også. Ind imellem var det et fantastisk privilegium at tjene sin hyre ved at holde bilen på vejen og fri af andre trafikanter, mens man fik en sludder med et af de intelligente mennesker, som vort samfund er så rigt på.

Niels-Holger Nielsen

Lisa Ahlqvist

'Du ved nok, der findes flere forskellige økonomiske retninger end fiskearter i verdenshavene.'

Det er sandt, men basalt findes der kun to slags fisk: Benfisk og bruskfisk!

Niels-Holger Nielsen

Lisa Ahlqvist

''Hvad har du lavet med handicap-kørsel?''

Mange interessante ting og sære oplevelser i tillæg. Langt mere ed der er plads til her i spalterne, og langt mere end jeg har energi til at skrive ned. Og så var jeg endda kun handicapchauffør i godt halvandet år, inden canceren ramte mig for anden gang. Ellers havde jeg måske stadig haft den beskæftigelse, hvis nerverne ellers ville kunne have holdt til til de dødstressende søndag eftermiddage, hvor alle, der var bragt ud på mange forskellige tidspunkter, pludselig alle skulle hjem på samme tid. Her blev firmaet utroligt 'kreative' med vores køretider og 'af-og-på-tider' samt vores pauser.

Niels-Holger Nielsen

Lisa Ahlqvist

Den her kræver vist lidt forklaring: 'Jeg er dog bekymret for dig, nemlig, at du er ved at blive storkapitalist.', jeg forstår den i hvert fald ikke, men alligevel tak for empati(?) og udvist bekymring alligevel!

Lisa Ahlqvist

Kære Niels-Holger

Håber så sandelig, at du har sejret over canceren, for selvom du er lidt rød, ha, ha, ha, mener jeg at ane et godt hjerte bagom al betonen og en sjæl, der siger spar to.
Nu har du jo været inde og spionere på min facebook - jeg gør det samme - så du ved vel, at jeg interesserer mig en del for handicappede og -politik og deltager i relevante møder arrangeret af IMF og kan de vigtigste dele af FNs Handicapkonvention.
Og derfor interesserer jeg mig osse for handicapkørsel. Fordi det er så besværligt, at køre op i S-tog og bus, men især ned, hvor man skal bakke ned ad en smal rampe. Det er svært på min el-scooter, da jeg har svært ved at se over skulderen. Plads er også temmelig begrænset, især på busser.
Men der er mange problemer for handicappede i det offentlige rum. Bl.a. på S-toget hvor en ikke-handicappet fra højt oppe i DSB regimet, og de slags skal man træde varsomt på. De er gud! En af disse DSB skriftkloge har beordret en afsat P-plads for kørestole, el-scootere, NASA raketstyrede, nej, en joke, malet på gulvet i cykel P afd. Der kan en el-scooter ikke parkere, når der er cykler. Det er der altid.
Men det SKAL man, når DSB har udstedt dekret om det. DSB udsteder kun to ting, bøder til de billet-løse og dekreter for krøblinge. Og hvis du ikke gør, som de befaler - så får du sgu, ja, en bøde. Gud straffer altid de tåbelige. som handicappede. Sådan.
Men, for nogle mdr siden, fik jeg udstedt trusler fra en af DSB S-togs fineste togførere, der kommanderede, at næste gang han så mig ikke parkere på påmalede sted, opfundet af geniet fra DSB, hvor man ikke kan parkere, ville han smide mig af toget. Os handicappede skal så sandelig ikke tro, vi er noget. Ikke hvis man er en trussel mod, gab, rang- og forfremmelseslisten. Da jeg forklarede S-tog, den 95 cm høje togfører stod til max 8 år på vand og brød, for at bryde straffeloven, havde den 95cm (er alene baromterhøjden for DSB charme) krympe-Hans alene ønsket mig fortsat god rejse. Og ikke grimme ord, som jeg i ondskabens tjeneste påstod.
I det mindste fattede undermåleren, at det ikke altid er smart at true, selvom man har tegnet abbonnement på Waterfront. Det er osse om økonomi.
Hvis man skulle placere DSB i Zoo, ved jeg ikke helt, hvilken afd, grotte de tilhører.

Lisa Ahlqvist

Skal snart derind med hele familien. Vi skal nok kigge nøje efter, om de har sat dig i en af grotterne og så beholdt dig. Du ligner altså en silver-back. Så tar vi lidt tovværk med, og starter en storstilet redningsoperation og redder dig fra en evig banan-menu.

Har ikke været i Zoo siden 92, så der er nok opfundet et par nye dyrearter siden, ha, ha.