ECONOMIA SOCIALE E DI MERCATO: UNA NUOVA VISIONE
L’attualizzazione di una prospettiva secondo l’analisi del Prof. Peter Koslowski.
Questa è la seconda conferenza del gruppo “Economia sociale e di mercato: una nuova visione“. Un ciclo di seminari internazionali che vede protagonista il Professor Peter Koslowski. Le conferenze, sono state organizzate dal Comitato Nazionale Italiano Permanente per il Microcredito oggi ENM.
Presentazione del Professor Angelo Maria Petroni
Il Professor Koslowski è sicuramente oggi nel panorama internazionale una delle figure più eminenti che ha non soltanto studiato la storia dell’economia sociale e di mercato, la storia che comincia a essere lunga perché è un concetto, una scuola, una disciplina, che nasce almeno negli anni ’30, ma soprattutto ha provveduto ad aggiornarla, cioè ha provveduto ad analizzare i principi dell’economia sociale e di mercato, mettendoli in una corretta prospettiva storica dimostrando come essi possono essere di attualità nel mondo nel quale viviamo. Il Professor Koslowski, come me, non è un’economista, che forse è un vantaggio, oggi gli economisti non sono molto in auge rispetto a dieci anni fa. Il Professore è un filosofo e ha sempre studiato la questione economica da lato morale e delle regole etiche. Il rapporto tra etica ed economia è sempre stato uno dei temi fondamentali della sua ricerca, un tema che ha degli andamenti variabili di popolarità: quando le cose vanno bene, tutto funziona a meraviglia, ci sono soldi per tutti, si pensa poco all’etica ci stanno i soldi. Quando invece le cose vanno male, ci si chiede perché, forse per investimenti sbagliati, perché ci sono difficoltà con le materie prime, c’è la crisi petrolifera?... Ma crisi come quella attuale, rimanda a cause molto più serie: cause morali. Dipende cioè da come intere generazioni di operatori economici, politici ma anche cittadini comuni, abbiano visto l’economia, la ricchezza, il profitto, il guadagno e altre categorie di questo tipo. L’Enciclica di Papa Benedetto XVI sull’economia, di qualche tempo fa, è su questo punto di vista assolutamente chiara: la crisi economica non sparisce se non si ripensa ad alcune categoria morali e alla loro corretta applicazione nel mondo contemporaneo.
Il Professor Koslowski ha avuto l’apprezzamento di Papa Benedetto XVI per i suoi lavori. Quindi oggi abbiamo qui con noi una voce veramente autorevole e siccome il Microcredito nasce da una spinta morale, da categorie morali che però non vogliono restare solo morali, ma vogliono trasformarsi in azione concreta sul piano economico, quindi questo rapporto tra etica ed economia come si presenta nell’economia sociale e di mercato, oggi è quanto di più interessante possiamo ascoltare. Ringrazio perciò il Professor Koslowski che ha tenuto una difficile lezione sulle origini dell’economia sociale e di mercato della Germania dagli anni ’30 agli anni ’50. Vorrei ricordare che i protagonisti di quella stagione, il Professore ha citato in particolare Muller Armak che è stato l’inventore dell’economia sociale e di mercato, non erano isolati in Europa, in Italia avevamo molti corrispondenti, ammiratori e sodali, ricordo Luigi Einaudi che fu in strettissimo contatto sia con Erhard, Ministro dell’economia all’epoca, che con altri come Hayek o Repke.
Volevo ricordare inoltre Don Luigi Sturzo, che fu sempre un grande ammiratore della scuola di Friburgo. Quando si parla del miracolo economico italiano, i principi fondamentali della politica economica italiana dal ‘45/’47, quando lo colloca Einaudi, fino ai primi anni ’60, furono fondamentalmente gli stessi in Italia e in Germania. La stessa visione dell’economia sociale e di mercato era perseguita in entrambi i Paesi. Non voglio fare altri commenti e vi invito, alla luce di quello che avete sentito oggi, perché magari alcune cose rimarranno un po’ “appese”, come spesso capita, fortuna che oggi c’è Internet dove andare a cercare, a rileggere la “Caritas in Veritate“ di Ratzinger dove potrete capire meglio una serie di passaggi. In quell’Enciclica si legge su cosa si fondano, su quale visione dell’economia dell’uomo, che è l’economia sociale e di mercato. Vi ringrazio tutti e alla prossima volta. Thank you so much again.
Professor Peter Koslowski
Signore e Signori, è un grande onore parlare in la Camera dei Deputati. I know of course that the Parliament is the sovereign and many people don’t know because I think the sovereign divided by 500 Deputati is not the sovereign, but that’s of course strong. And so in that sense is a great honor to be here and procede invitation. And I also procede that you mentioned the Pope because in some sense it is a funny detail of my biography because he wrote in a paper in 1985 that he follows me in then, and of course it was Cardinal and not Pope, maybe he want not observe that if was Pope, there we’re careful in quoting anyone in the last Encyclical letter on social question the only one quoting was so one quin house. But of course what the Pope said when he was still a Cardinal is still in the world so I’ll profit from to this sense, I like You mentioning it.
The Financial crisis brings to the fall the question in which kind economic order will we live in the future, in which kind on the market economy. I read recently that an Indian business woman killed herself because she had difficulties returning five euro as that. And that’s of course not something wrong with Microcredit but when You think that certain Bank who lost millions ask the State to pay the bony You feel that’s unbalanced. So I take the Financial crisis as a out able sign of crisis of American finance capitalism and that as of course very far rich in consequences, one is that the new interest in the social marketing economy. I experience that in many discussions with American scholars at work to 2002 and to 2003 in Indianapolis, they said that social marketing economy that have socialism this is not what we need, is out date is out fashion to much over regulate and so on. Now of course when you loose 4 trillion of dollars that’s not recommendation for a model, so I take the crisis of the financial market to be much hyper challenge to what we think about capitalism, and the future capitalism, then many people think you can a mean. Some people saying is not so important when you loose 2 trillions but I find it very serious. I don’t like to loose money and I don’ t think the west can I fort such lost is. So we can’t could adjunct the question is up me again, what is the best form of the market economy, by days has the human course that the market economy is not over, some people say what the first Soviet Union broke down with the socialist system now the capitalism broke down with American finance capitalism. I think that’s not, there is no analogy, I mean the break down of course not so deep, I think there is no real questioning of the value of the market and so mean so coordination but days of course divide on the value of capital market for example. As the only means to rules of allocation of capital. Well the Lisbon treaty of the European Union mentioned the social market economy and I think that’s become a little bit to common place to think that in the end Continental Europe is some kind of Rhenish capitalism, this of course has a geographical description that not include Italy because difficult to for around to call , to be other side of the Alps but of course it also to it would include Italy al list of almost part of the spring of the rind. And so Michel Albert introducing that dichotomy between Anglo-Saxon capitalism and Rhenish capitalism, I think that the term Anglo-Saxon is a little bit unfortunate because I mean the Anglo-Saxon is only the one part of Britain, and every one knows that can’t you call America Anglo-Saxon in the strict sense. I mean much more mixing then Anglo-Saxon, but if you extended to Anglo-American then I think that it is right to distinguish an Anglo-American model of capitalism despite all the differences also exist between Great Britain and United States, but still they are closed both to the Continental European model. This is a central question. They are also interesting remind made by the philosopher Michel Foucault in one of his lectures in Paris, about the social market economy and other Liberalism school of thought behind the social market economy. Foucault says that Liberalism in the second half of the twenty century is other liberalism, is not neo liberalism but is other liberalism, in this German post war tradition. I mean Foucault is maxes of, he takes a critic but is when if they is future of capitalism then it will be in the form of other capitalism of social market economy. He is critical of that because he think the market replaces the sovereign, the sovereign states which can not continued to exist after nation socialism in sovereign form. And this market is not primarily characterized, so Foucault, by changes but by competition. So competition placed a central rule in this series of the social market economy and the competition in the market as been a result like a of order of law. That’s why that order is use the market is not something that rises automatically and without a legal order but it is consecuted by a legal order. That is of course is a correct statement on other liberalism. Foucault then says that economy is start in this tradition is be a game, a play. And the rules of the game, are the rules of the economy as, as a game. Now Foucault is critical of this, there is not really believe in the future of capitalism, but it summarizes quiet well what are the central features, the idea that the market is not a natural phenomenon, like something that growls that’s off, but it’s the result of legal order and competition is very central. Now competition of course is a mixed placing, everyone that we’re experience of competition usually doesn’t like it, because it in dangerous, the one who experience of competition. The competition basicly is very ambivalent, we needed it as a force to efficiency, and as the means to low real costs and by this prices and I think we are made to very important experience is very fine this believe one very automatic examples were the telephone mobile phone. And that is really present how the prices are depending the coast when down, when this market will liberalized and the completion was introduced. But of course the T&T or the Deutsche Post and Poste Italiane they didn’t like it, it’s of course afraid to the market dominated position even position monopoly. So I think that is very central, you cannot have it without the other side, there is not competition without destroying, shifting certain supplies out of the market. And in this sense we have to accept the competition to increase the efficiency and at the same time we experience of as a disciplining major, and maybe disciplining is better then strattoning and is quiet interesting that no one really like to be disciplined by competition and the market. You can over feel it when there is the question of should some part of the economy be liberal transfer to market regime like hospital for example o the rail road what ever. The usually people knows quiet well what is the change, the change that we usually that profit disciplines the trend price in a new way. Now, I said that the crisis of financial market questions the American model of capitalism in one respect namely in it’s finance orientation and in his dependence on the functioning, the perfect functioning of the capital market. And they didn’t works perfectly because they were extreme over valuations over capitalism stocks which could not happen because the market full rationality and will always this count probably future income streams but then when you have such the correction of capital values use that there must been a problem. So the capital market don’t seen to work perfectly, the second problem what is in the press now is the insider trading. I published the book recently on the effects of banking, and the first edition of that was publiched ten years ago and there is a big sign a big part, a big chapter on insider trading. In the fist edition and for the second edition which is totally a new book I told maybe I should not included, because I told that’s it’s really over, I mean there is not discussion of insider trading, and now you find out in the press that is very serious. Straight to Wall Street and depending as a lot of insider trading and people got rich by it. So, so fun the description of the situation in which we are. Now if return to the basic features of the social marketing economy, I should like to mentioned an observation by Oswald Von Breuning, the most catholic social thought in Germany, who said in 1955 that: “in theories of market economy the frame of the market seems to became more important then more interesting then the market itself”. But on the frame of the market I understood questions of the organization of social security of progressive taxation, of tax feeds for family and delight, let’ so regulation of market. But I think that Von Breuning was right, they divide between different modus of the market, not so much about the market but about the frame work of the market. And the which legal and institution frame work shut the market work. Now of course you put add you that the easy tendency in economics to shift the more interesting question of the frame work of the market, then of course when you push too many questions out of the, the economic discussion of the market and say this is not economically interesting, this is not our task. Then you get around some the serious problem, like income distribution for example. Of course you can say the Edinburgh rule said live the people as you find them, and this is the rule for market economy. And I sample size with that, I also think is very difficult to make reasonable statement about perfect income distribution. And it’s also very problematic to, to compensate or to modify the income distribution that is the result of the market exposed at the end when the market is close. But the question comes back in the financial crisis of course this was one, this is one of the central consent, who is the legitimacy of the market economy in the financial industry at the bony and the manager compensation, stock option and so on. So even if you think that you cannot say so much well found it on the problem of income distribution it is indeed a problem of legitimacy. Now, the Financial crisis it seems to me as particularly question a central idea that was is the hot of free market economic and that was the hypothesis that market are rational. That they have, in this hypothesis, can have two meanings, can say wich is more reasoning version, there maybe exaggerations in market but we have no better coordination mechanism. I think that this is discussable, but the other version to say that market don’t hear, so that market so was rational representation of economic rationality that just seems to be refuted by what happened. So in this sense that is similar to the Soviet experience were the people said the socialist market, the socialist economy is superior because the tending the economic coordination better, and in the end it was refuted by experience. You put say on this the hypothesis that market are rational this theories of capitalism is also refuted by reality, that markets, we knew this before of course, that is hording on market, that people follow some others who lead and they don’t know why, they just follow because they seeing the both following some leader. But in the interesting thing that’s of course is not rational, if I am in the stock market and I can see that many people are buying a stock, it is not wrong to say that the stock we grow up, so I will buy too, but of course is it no rational, it is only partially rational. But it’s also not wrong, because even the stock price depends of course on this hording phenomenal. So the problem is always if you say I do it only for some time and I get out when I realize how stupid they are and I will be out already. But usually this is not what people realized, usually they don’ t get out in time. So that is the interesting feature of market the someone talked about the visit them of proud so that certain phenomenal maid be rightly charged by many people, when I charged by many people, all on most of them don’t know very much about it. And this is like in the Democracy, many voters don’t know very much about the questions they decided, but still we believe that is better the Democracy decides, and this is a good point for it because the many people even they are only medium intelligence may be more claver then one person with extremely intelligence but that is wrong. So it is a very attractive question but I think we not say with the same navite anymore that the market are rational. So that was something people knew from the beginning of the social market economy, and why did I know it, is it always where the a very disequilibrating features on capitalism and you some I have to come with them. It was a very central point in the theories of social market economy that the Liberalism can not stick to a simple believe in be stabilized harmony, that all no process in the economy, a process to equilibrium, but they are also disequilibrating processes and you have come with them. Now the, one of the reason is, for this was that part of the social market economy was very familiar with the Marxist critic of capitalism, definitely I think more familiar then the American and British theories. And this has historical reasons on the continent of course socialist is stronger then in the United States in the XIX century the social democratic party was based on Marx thought. And it was for many year the most powerful, the strongest party in Parliament. So is it also not true of course to say, as somebody said, that is not socialism in the United States, I learn recently at the conference about the years of the antitrust movement in the Unites States and was the socialist party in the, at the beginning of XX century in America, and that for example with the President Wilson to many socialist slots in his antitrust policy, so you, but of course the socialist party is will never strong as on the Continent. So the leading thinker about theories and also the inventor of the term social market economy, Alfred Muller Armack, has emphasized the epithety that theories of social market economy developed from the research into the origin of nature of capitalism in the post Marxist theory of capitalism of the years 1900 to 1930. What is interesting is this the term post Marxist, he mean that was some understanding of Marx but it was also an overcoming of Marx, but it was not so that Marx who’s not consider to tall in this school. So you put add you that the social market economy may be a theory of overcoming and correcting the Marxist critic of capitalism in the sense that you also take up certain element of the critic, for example the emphasis on prices and not equilibrating processes. Muller Armack mentioned the work of Werner Sombart, of Max Weber, but also Jacob Strider, economic historian , work on the genesis of modern capitalism, but also the work of the historical school of economics of Gustav Schmoller and Karl Lamprecht. The historical school was also quiet influential and there also a lot a contribution from the Italian site of then. So I don’t want to say that the social market economy is a product of the historical school of economics but it can only be understood as a kind merger of neoclassical economic thought with emphasis on equilibrium and certain social democrat of even Marxist analysis of the crisis of capitalism. So Muller Armack gives a list of nine points central for the development of the social market economy. First, I want to mentioned them, first on the ground of neuro-scientific research the successful critic of the economic contend of Marxist theory have been developed. The develop mental lost of capitalism, the hearth of the Marxism theory, with this elements, of theory of value, the theory of accumulation, the theory of exploitation, the tendency of the rate of profit to fold, in subjecting to extensive to examination that resulting in the defected very little was left of the Marxism approach. It also has a defected Marxism theory turn from the old Marx the economist to the young Marx to the critic of culture in nation. Second, the primitive theory of the capitalism mode of production has been replaced by new way of conceptualize the market economy in terms of: economic systems, economic styles, economic consecutions, for which historical reasons produced an enormous material for historical comparison and classification. And that’s an interesting observation that Marxism as an ideology has very little economic thought. If you look at the body of the Marxism thought and the system, the standard system of Marxism Leninism doesn’t say very much of, about economic theory. In the end it was also the problem, they didn’t have the solid economic theory. Third, the theory of social market economy hosed to the traditional the post Marxism traditional the theory of capitalism and particularly to Max Weber, but also to Werner Sombart, the inside into the important of the mental scientific and religious factors in the economic history of modern times. In that was you can add you that the Max Weber book on the capitalism spirit and to the protestant ethics what’s in anti Marxist treaty, he want to show the Marxist that the idea, that is only the bases that determined set up super stretched is fact to simple there’s a lot of influence of the super stretched like religion and to religion motivation, on economic motivation and economic action. This by the way I think is also a result from the crisis the Calvinist thesis of, on emphasis on production, capital accumulation implied also, at also the other side of frugal consumption. So this, that is overlook the, the Calvinist entrepreneurs saves and invests but is feel in modest in his consumption because of course he needs the founds to reinvest. And that was the idea and I cannot go in the details why he was motivated to this strange connectedness, of strong propensity to invest and readiness to be frugal in consumption. And you can add you that the last 20 years the Wall Street seems to takes only the first part: a lot of the emphasis in investment but not frugality in consumption quiet the obset that hasn’t been more conspicuous, more shapes by conspicuous consumption in the American history in the last 20 years I guess. So the, the emphasis on mental and religious factors, super stretched factors, in the economic history was part of this theory and it was a critic of the materialist theory of history. And much of this critic was taken from historical research and historical observation like in the case of Max Weber. It has, that is a really a very good idea to compare to mountain ranges in central Germany, one those very poor, one catholic one Calvinist, also not Lutheran but Calvinist which had to find in Germany because most rich then a Lutheran. And then he could prove that somehow the Calvinist invest more. I don’t want to decided what is totally true particulary I’m not in a Catholic country, but in the arguments in the upper Italians city, where the first capitalist city, is were not Calvinist. So there is not necessary relationship. I still I think this, this is a point of economic, sorry were historical research, became very relevant for economic thought, and that maybe also a lesson will be learn from the experience the last 20 years that the idea that we don’t need history anymore, because we are so clever, that we can not learn anything from the mistakes from a generation has made is wrong. I mean of course when I go to the website of Deutsche Bank it was as a share price development in the past is no indicate for present share price development. Yeah and that is very good, I mean is totally true but of course is not an argument against the historical side. That’s not mean that you can say what you could learn from the past will be totally relevant for the future, because the future is not like the past. I mean of course this is should be the essence of a good historical education that you understand the differences. If you don’t understand the differences you don’t get the point of his historical comparison. I still it is also true that most armies is fight last war because all the officials had learn in military academy strategic mistakes of last war, so they void this mistakes for make new once. But this no argument against historical education and it is also not clear they can study that you only learn on the present mistakes, is better then learning from the past mistakes. The first point of the critic of the planned economy analysis of the economic calculation developed by Ludwig Von Mises and Friedrich Von Hayek, which give new impulse for the economic analysis of competitive economy already in the years before War World II. I mean this famous, I think also indeed the one of the finest work on in economics, on the problem social calculations by Mises and Hayek. They show that the socialist planning can has not real prices, because they have no market really don’t know how to evaluated the value of goods, so they have not founded values for the planning process. This is a very good argument, I it think was look were Ehrard, the formal Minister of Economic, so one said that this people, they (is difficult to translate into English), they used this weights which the up weights use, but when made the pump machine they try to stand weights who are made the pump machine, and you can look very strong if you, if you stand the wrong weights a weights who are actually very light. And this is what happen in every circus, happen to the circus were the man was very strong but the weights were not real. So when the socialist country start to boost they we’re planning you could add you yes because you are so good but don’t really have real value to work it, and makes you look strong. The pure, the pure capitalist they always ask themselves what is the value of the share and they find very difficulties, extremely difficult, how do you want to value, evaluated the value, the capital value of Enel, or a Ferrari? I mean is difficult in markets for one argument, one concept with the present crisis, is that the some bank say, they find it very difficult to find the value of stock in situation which we are. When you don’t have a major of value, is very difficult to make the right economic decision. Tomorrow is the Thanksgiving, and usually at the Thanksgiving the stock prices go up. Probably today and tomorrow are the very goods days, then after Thanksgiving day go down again unfortunately. It also is a good example for the strange logic of the market, meanwhile shoot all the stock of the behavior value you had Thanksgiving, and after Thanksgiving value of the founds goes down. And I don’t know, I’m sure there is a theory for that, still not completely rational. That what was influenced, at number six, Sean Peters’s theory of economic development which was freed from the Marxist position and let knew a new theory of economic growth. That was it the point five, point six is that Sean Peters also edit the analysis of the genesis of social class into the analysis of economic and economic sociology. Which offer the new approach for overcoming the Marxism sociology of classes. Is was, I think is very good observation the class of the entrepreneurs, Sean Peters realizes the innovator is not necessarily part of bourgeoisie. We can be liven by a lot’s of thinks. He may hate the bourgeoisie, and just wants to being a successful entrepreneurs because is the American say getting rich is the best revenge, and the Marxist analysis of class cannot grasp this for them the bourgeoisie is kind of hated class, which is it is of course not. The seventh point was the theory of imperialism in the interpretation of the Marxist thought in result of under consumption of capitalism and the idea of expanding markets which is also to economist, because is clear that many phenomenal of Imperialism in late XIX century can not be explain by economic advance. It is still there is an interesting debate whether the British really took advantage from the colonies. But even Marx said this colonies usually didn’t pay. I don’t know, of course there is an interesting question: do you only have the colonies?. (Angelo Maria Petroni says: Italian colonies didn’t pay!). Yes, I just want to say Italy and Germany, this is one the few cases were we are in the good side, I always say we have nothing to do with colonialism. And now in Brussels I heard, this is of the record, that repentant the French, the Dutch and the Belgian, had very bad concern about the colonies, rightly so and now they stand he use to does a compensated the form of colonies. But that means that Italy and Germany, how had no colonies, pay for the colonies, yes really didn’t work yes, yes. So anyhow the decisive question was we did it pay or not, was the motive behind. And the eight point is the function, the motive and function of entrepreneurs, that was mentioned that already in theory of a lot of research of again by Max Weber, by Somberg and Sean Peters, about this special character of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs. And the ninth point was the economic history of that time provided a better image, a better picture of, and the more fact oriented theory of making of modern worker, and replaced the emotionally called reports about the socialist theory of the XIX century. I think that is a very important point, it this part of Marxist ideology always to depict the times before they can’t of power, in the wasn’t colors, for example the soviet Marxist always described the Tsarist period as a terrible times. So when you look at, when you look at the capitalism past, in this way you can easily think is better then what happen during the industrialization, and what the historical research of that is not, that this was probably not depicting. So the result of this analysis of Capitalism are three images inside of the social market economy. First inside into the needs for the equilibration of counterbalancing of specify accumulation processes of capitalism which result in also specify deficiencies of the economic system. So the emphasis here in on insufficiencies not on failing. The theory of market failing was employees of failure total market, were you have in fact insufficiencies, but insufficiencies is something else, is something different from failure. Second that the idea of the social order can not be describe by economic theory in the narrow sense only, namely by neo classical equilibrium analysis. The propy understanding of the economic order of the market radar presupposed the inside of the market is invaded into the totality of the economic order which comprises more then me exchanges and coordination processes of the market. It presupposes first of all legal order and order also social policy. This is an interesting point in his present situation. We realize we can see that the socially insurances of the continental European type works as a building unstabilized of in the present situation. There as the depends on, for example, old age pension completely on pension founds and the capital market aggravates the problem the American self. When the, when in a crisis a financial prices they all old age pension depends on stock prices and dividends of stock. You can imagine what it mean for alls how is founds go down in value and they cannot pay the dividends expectant. It also a problem for life insurances and so one how founded very difficulties to keep the promises for the returns on investment. So here you can add you how that the pay as you go system, when you finance the old age pension out of social insurance and stabilized the consumption of the edily. And I see a very serious conflict when the American President says that German people must more on consumption, it most consume more in order to create more demand for American corporation for the profit go up, and the stock price go up, and the dividend payments go up. And this is very understandable but is not too easy to realized because cannot force the population to consume more, it’s very difficult. And so here I think this phenomenon that is a very central difference between the social market economy, provvigion for old age pension and to be American pension found system, which is a capitalized found system. You can add you that social insurance is a kind of forced saving, you forced people to pay contribution and they are not free in that they don’t invest, then for sometimes I must say and I also told that is better then capitalism system because it leaves more freedom of decision and to individual to decide where you or she invest his money. But from the now in the crisis you see that if you put all of eggs in one basket of the capital market there is not much tolerance to what’s the failure of the capital market. And when the capital market, crisis of the capital market because when it get’s into crisis also the pension system get’s into crisis. That emphasis the phenomenon of crisis. So that I mean you can add you that is was a result inside gamed in the only social market economy from the emphasis on the crisis of capitalism accumulation in Marxist theory. I think that will be give too much to Marx but because never some point and I remember the reason crisis at least the two I could observe: the IT crisis and now the financial market crisis, there both were accompanied by the saying there is no business cycle anymore. Blair and Brown in Britain publicly said there is no booming past anymore, this is a method of the past. And of course that’s of you like to hear, you are invest in the stock market like made, price go up like made and then the governance says you: you’ll be sure there in not a booming past anymore, because that is the method of the past. In the same we said in the IT crisis when the people said the valuation , the value of the stock is too high, and the people said we’re normally will be too high and will be some correction, but that’s the method of the past, because the business cycle there’s not exist anymore in the true sense. But you could say, you could turn the other way around you could say, the business cycle means exactly that, that it evaluation get out off realistic proportion and that’s why you have the blast. A blast in the exploding of the bubble, and that’s why you have business cycle, business cycle is nothing some outside of the formation of bubble but this is exactly the phenomenon of the busting of the bubble birds. And cannot be different because I mean the end it was clear that American poms cannot increase in value infinitely. Of course let to say in later is easy but I mean I don’t want to be very wise, I mean I will surprise how people can be have such strong wishful thinking, that in some point in time they think business cycle it’s over, not exist anymore. Ok, I come to the end. I think in the German tradition there’s one word then became very central for social market economy, and this is the word: “ aushlicke “, o equilibration. The idea was that the capitalism is a very powerful, means for innovation, for capital allocation, optimal capital allocation, for efficiency, but that it is not a stable as we wished to be and that some equilibrating control force processes, and we need some equilibrating processes to modify the primary distribution of the market, income distribution of the market. That’s an interesting point here ejected how in some sense also is not so far from social market economy as some people think. He said look this idea that you have first, you have the working of the you have market primary distribution of income resulting from the market and then you decided what you do with it. And this is a wrong idea, and I agree with him because the distribution of, the expected distribution of income and market result is a very strong motivating factor in this process so. Is it clear if you think you could have entrepreneur who work like mad and then they know after market close will be redistributed anyhow, his will not work. But still the idea that the mentioned already income distribution it at least crucial point cannot be denied. You find it already in Aristotle who said that when the distribution of income in the “ polis ” is too unequal you, the peace, the peace in the community may be in danger. So this equilibrating, this idea of the need of equilibrating certain processes, I think the bases of the following equilibrating processes in the social market economy. First in the creation of the social order on the firm in which the decides influence of the manager and capital owners is equilibrated by in the board in the supervise re board. I think that is quiet of wise idea and it’s also true the at America coolest again and again who said look equal, equal power in the supervise re board day by day have no ability for lost and so that’s no true the German could determined national model clearly states in case these a tie between the worker side and the capital side, the German or the chair or the supervisor go to overcomes on the owner side as double vote. So I can not a break a tie. They of course there are a problem that for example particularly when the lever side is more unified then capital side, then you come be the served lacerable don’t you give the part of lever side increase so they have more vote. That is a problem. But it is not a true that is total equality of vote. The second this the equilibration of the order of competition in the sense that it is task of government to see whether there is competition. And when the activities to limit competition which follow from the beginning that firms don’t like competition, when they have strong position in the market. And this is a task for the government. The third is the antitrust policy which is also counterbalancing policy against the formation of trust, oligopoly and monopolies. The force of stabilization policy that was an tensing idea the business cycle must be equilibrated. And fifth the equilibration of income differential and this also has a quite relevant for the income between the differential richness. This is of course an open question with a nation should named some equal income level in all of his richness. This also problem for Italy, against with the says so should stay become some with it, or we say well this is not our business. Is no problem is some richness people had less income, so they have other advantages: more land, land price and so own. And that’s I think that is any important question then I can be mentioned the need for zoning policy, for the town planning and subsidies for expensive home. The American think that zoning of European city is a kind of break of the right to freedom to build what you want. And I had some sympathy for his better now I see the Netherlands it very fascinating, is very crowded place, second most crowded nation in the world after behind Bangladesh, but they have very good in counseling these, because looks like a park when you think it is not so crowded and then you find out is very often nature is only what they coulicy is like a opera coulicy. It look very natural but is man made. But in the end is better then this total the suburbanization of the country side. And seventh is the question of with should be the transfer of capital to small and medium size firms where had should be port for small and medium size firm as an equilibration against tendency of over accumulation capital in big firms. And then of course one important question it should be the minimum wage as a kind of a government correction of again of the market income distribution and formation of the prices in the market. And to final analyze Muller Armack consider the social market economy to be an ironic idea, ironic in the sense of peace making, ironic idea this is again the idea that you should get out of the class struggle between labor and capital and the social market economy is one way to refuse this conflict. I think that has been very important in the ’50 and the ’60, that you should avoid class struggle in society which them ending leftist or rightist dictatorial regimes. And Muller Armack also said that the social market economy was not the result of German defeat in the World War II, this is often thought that was developed after the war and was to response to the total military and economic defeat of Germany and Muller Armack said this is not true because the idea was developed before the war. And this is well none that for example in friable says seminars all during the Nazi period were I discuss already the reconstruction of Germany after the War: they also they could not start just after the War. That is also very relevant the idea that, is also relevant for a judgment of the frame of mind in this years many people think that the Nazi ideology had the very strong impact on Germany, and I always tense to say this is not a case, my conviction that it was too short and it was a mean start in 1933 and it real power six years of peace and in ‘39 war started so there is a not much time for ideology. There was of course idea a logical indoctrination but it also war and is very difficulties to indoctrinated people during a war. That even Stalin had to learn this lesson. So you could add you and then they was, they were groups particularly economist and a lot of scholars how clearly for so the total defeat and developed idea so they were there, when the war was indeed. Because if you had started at the end on the war it would is cost to ten year to developed the idea for an economic miracle. So because he cannot take the ideas from your pocket, they must be there in order to be viable effective at ones. So, thank you for your attention.