No one seems to longer want for the future. Since the several years go, on the contrary, a reactionary stretches over large parts of the policy, from Donald Trump’s ”make America great again” to Jimmie Åkessons ”restore order”, the aim is to recreate a lost past.
Even the intellectuals in the midfield anfäktas of nostalgia. Perhaps most evident in the prominent economist Paul Colliers latest work, which despite the title ”The future of capitalism” peddled an unequivocal longing back to the social democratic characterized the decades after the second world war up until 1970, when the welfare state was built up.
the Problems and costs created by wars, crises and demographic change has been dealt with by the been postponed. No wonder fewer and fewer yearn for this.
Nostalgia is deceiving us all, and revered academics with a very wise saying. In some ways it was certainly more fun at the time, the state constantly made new pledges. Many of them, which guaranteed pensions for all, lay far in the future.
when the promises eventually to be met and paid for. It has created crises in both the 1970s as the beginning of the 1990s, with contemporary gloom.
Even the 2000’s have been growing fast, characterized by growing debt and new government obligations. The problems and costs created by wars, crises and demographic change has been dealt with by the been postponed. No wonder fewer and fewer yearn for this.
Virginia Postrels book ”the Future and its enemies” was somewhat prophetic, but not in the way the author intended. The future is here now, but the enemies won.
Then it is easy to miss a time when the future was hot. During the height of it dizzy for 20 years ago journalist Virginia Postrels book ”the Future and its enemies”. It was somewhat prophetic, but not in the way the author intended. The future is here now, but the enemies won.
in the how it happened. Postrel noted in his contemporaries an unholy alliance between two different kinds of enemies to the future: reactionaries and technocrats. Reactionaries are open opponents to the future by striving towards a lost past. The technocrats are for the future, but… they wish to control and plan it, which rarely gets the intended results.
today, we see reaktionärernas political rise, but few noted that the first won the technocrats.
When it being government growing hacked and krisat have the reactionaries become their furious critics. We know these groups better as ”elite” and ”the people”.
The early 2000s are in many ways teknokratins moment in the sun. Independent central banks has been seen as the model for how political governance could be outsourced to experts. The EU was called in the middle of the 00’s for the ”first post rule”, something that was intended as praise – and Europe expected to dominate the world by the technocratic structures of the euro and the new powers at the supranational level.
This technocratic expertise was of entrepreneurship and innovation, but it needed to be controlled, planned and adjusted. This has been approached by a growing cadre of lawyers, government innovation and education on entrepreneurship, the latter perhaps the quintessence of contemporary folkpartism.
hacked and krisat have the reactionaries become their furious critics. We know these groups better as ”elite” and ”the people”.
Virginia Postrels book recalls that this contradiction reflects the two factions that want to regulate and control the world. As an alternative to both of them is a sprawling coalition of framtidsvänner. the anyone who sees anything good in change, experimentation, and considerable freedom for people to create after your own head. That becomes more curious about the outcome than likely to politically control it.
Concerns and restrictions can kill innovation, but political enthusiasm can also hug people to death.
Our troubled contemporary world would do well to more lifted such dynamic perspectives and solutions. Not least, the dual realization that the concerns and restrictions can kill innovation, but that political enthusiasm can also hug people to death.
but we dream of past times, characterized by confidence in the future. Confidence could not be restored, only to be won again.
Confidence could not be restored, only to be won again.
A lot of the mid-1990s framtidsförhoppningar was naive, that the belief in a ”new economy”. Else has changed, not least the corporate structure around the internet at the turn of the millennium appeared as a decentralized and ever-changing, but now apparently consolidated in just the ”few, the invariable corporate giants without faces,” as Postrel thought consigned to history.
Dynamic development requires constant review, not the least of of their own analysis. So we can make the future exciting again.
