>As I see it, the 'reformed' capitalism of Sweden, Norway, EU or for that
>matter NZ seem to do better in terms of efficiency and quality of life than
>the 'unreformed' variety found in the US of A.
New Zealand? The country is a testing ground for new-right economics. Has been for a quarter of a century. Its labour market was de-regulated and its welfare system gutted years ago. New Zealand went through Thatcherism before Britain.
Its the country to watch all right, but its direction is the opposite of the one you seem to think. Its unitary political system and lack of any constitutional safeguards has something to do with the speed with which it was able to execute a neo-liberal tack of course, other jurisdictions like Australia and Europe are a bit harder to turn. But the new course is still pretty obvious.
Sweden and the like are on the same course, though flagged with a radically different rhetoric to the US. Back in the nineteen eighties Australia's Labor government was flying the same social democratic flag. But there's no real difference in economic course. There can't be, neither social democrat governments or conservative governments question the fundamental premise of capitalism, so both have to accept the rules laid down not so much by capitalist political power but capitalist economic realities. De-regulation, especially of any fetters on competition, especially fetters on a "competitive" labour market, have to go everywhere as soon as they are lifted in any significant jurisdiction. Or, quite simply, capital will emigrate to where the returns are greater.
Labour costs in the industrialised world have to be competitive, or capital will emigrate. Labour must be insecure, to compete with world standards, otherwise capital will emigrate. So the welfare state must be dismantled. On the other hand, capital must be more secure against risk, especially what they call "sovereign risk", in other words capital must be protected from threats to tax or regulate it in response to public pressure.
To cap it off, so to speak, capital demands that government business enterprise be privatised. Obviously there is a shortage of secure investment opportunities, or the modern capitalist is so decadent as to be incapable of thinking of anything new. Or they just are unwilling to take any risks, in the new capitalist Eden. So all those government-owned enterprises are coveted for their potential profits.
Australia's Labor Government's put the conservatives to shame on the de-regulation and privatisation front. They slashed and burned Australia's economic status quo. Had to be done they said, hurts us more than it hurts you they said, we'll look after the battlers who are left on the scrap-heap though they said. "That's what separates us from those wicked conservatives," they said.
What doesn't separate them from the conservatives is any slight inclination to throw a spanner into the capitalist works. Certainly nothing of the like you are suggesting, or what is obviously necessary to save the planet from destruction. Limiting growth on environmental grounds.
We have an election due shortly here in Tasmania, come and observe if you don't believe me. On one side are the Greens, on the other side are Labor and the Conservatives. The passion with which the ruling class opposes the Greens, who are implicitly campaigning for zero-growth, is something to see up-close.
With good reason. They know, as do the Greens, as do the social democrats, that what is at stake is the very existence of the capitalist system. It isn't explicit, neither side is talking about the Greens agenda being anti-capitalist, because neither side wants to admit it.
Neither do you. I can see that this is a common problem, but if we won't openly admit the problem, I don't think we have a chance in the world of solving it. Given that what's at stake is human life on Earth (life on earth will get by just as well without us no doubt) this is a very serious problem.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas