Phew The business will be able to resume

The members of the G20, met three weeks ago in Pittsburgh, are pleased to have adopted the principles of global cooperation to ensure that the "restoration" of the world economy. Recovery, is not exactly the "Refoundation" or "ethical" capitalism that was called, after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, the President of the Republic.

Banks breathe. They will be able to escape public guardianship. Traders found their bonus, the patterns the freedom of their remuneration. The stock market back. On facing the signs of recovery. The institutes announce the end of the recession. Phew! The business will be able to resume.

Malaise. We are so obsessed with the recovery that we are already ready to forget the moral dimension of the crisis. A year ago, no one condemned what appeared to be the culprit in the biggest bankruptcy of the economic and financial history: "greed", the greed, the greed, the energy principle mobilized by the system the rule pointed to by Florence Noiville in "I have CET and I'm sorry" (Stock): "MMPRDC, make more profit, the rest we don't care about".

The malaise is that the crisis has developed poorly the idea that individual defects can make collective happiness. And that it appears that there is a contradiction between the moral requirements of human and system. Hence the feeling of alienation: could be a man worthy of yourself outside the system. The contradiction is expressed today, with more emphasis on the question of the formation of economic agents, the manner in which business schools think the education of the elite.

With host, a division within the philosophy that supports capitalism. System or market. The issue revolves around the place that should be the responsibility of the officers.

Today, the philosophy of capitalism is a philosophy of system. It is also believed to control. This is also why that there is no fundamental difference between the vision of the right and the left, between those who say Liberals and Social Democrats. System premium agents. They are subordinate to it. This expressed in economic theory which is based on a vision at the bottom very contemptuous of human as animal with an instinct that led to "maximize its utility", and that is driven by "incentives" kinds of lures designed to capture this instinct.

This philosophy made actors of officials, more or less competent, more or less well paid, of the system. It is very foreign to the liberal vision where the idea of "market" to oppose precisely the spirit of system. The market, re-read Hayek, assumes responsible officials in the last resort. They must think for themselves, their own assessment of the information provided by the market, judging by sovereign actors without being able to think that others will come to their rescue if they come to fail. It is on the condition of the Elimination of "moral hazard" that the market operates. And that morality can join the economy.

The system, also subtly regulated that he wants, is irresponsible. Elsewhere this crisis is a huge crisis of responsibility: irresponsibility of giant financial institutions, which have not hesitated to speculate on the maxim: "too big to fail". The losses will be socialized when profits will remain private. Irresponsibility as their leaders, who have ceased to organize themselves to not have to be responsible.

It can live in a world where the spheres of the economy and moral vivent separated. Yet this division becomes difficult at a time where we research a "sustainable development", i.e. where economic operators are invited to expose how their choices and contribute to a more perfect world.

System or market, that is which could be used to distinguish two types of "business schools": one where one learns to be good officers of the system and to keep under any circumstances, closer to his instincts to maximize the utility; others where one learns to conduct themselves as actors responsible, capable of forming a sovereign judgment and having the courage to exercise.