Think the unthinkable - video

In tukaj še video, kjer prof. Brague razlaga svoj pogled na racionalno dojemanje vere, klasične filozofije in islama:

Think the unthinkable

V svetu se pojavlja zanimiva in zaskrbljujoča tendenca, da bi sterilizirali narkomane, alkoholike, duševno motene in druge marginalizirane ljudi. Da, spet. Vse kaže, da nas  ideologije 20. stoletja niso izučile prav ničesar in pohod skrajnih idej še ni ustavljen. Pred časom je angleški sociolog predstavil svoje teze o sterilizaciji oz. dolgotrajni obliki kontracepcije v oddaji, ki se profilira kot think the unthinkable. Zgovorno.

Britanski profesor je odprl fronto evgenike, za katero se je zdelo, da je za vse večne čase končana. Gostje v studiu so njegove teze spodbijali, kar ga je privedlo le do dodatnega prepričanja v svoj prav. Sociolog vztraja pri dejstvu, da osebe "na robu družbe" predstavljajo hipotetične pedofile. Več si preberite na tem mestu.

Taki in podobni "gospodje" so trenutno osamljeni, vendar mislim, da so njihove besede v končni fazi le odraz trenutnega stanja družbe. Naša družba se spreminja v tisto, kar je do nedavnega obsojala. Izgon Romov iz Francije težko komentiram, ker mislim, da igrajo okoliščine pomembno vlogo, vendar nestrpnost in občutek ogroženosti, ki se vrivata v naš vsakdan, stopnjujeta odpor do drugačnih.

Evropa je Evropa, ker predstavlja mozaik narodnosti, verstev, kultur, jezikov, etnij ... ki so ji dali podobo, kakršno vidimo danes. Če se odreče enemu od svojih bistvenih elementov (prvini, ki jo zaznamuje več desetletji ali celo stoletji) gotov izgubi svojo istovetnost. Odgovor na razne "sociologe sterilizacije" in druge ekstreme je integracija. Preprosta beseda, ki terja zahtevno nalogo: ohraniti svojo kulturo in istovetnost v tujem okolju ter ga spoštovani in se vanj vključiti. Integracija pomeni ohranjanje in razvoj hkrati, pomeni pa tudi zagotoviti družbeno stabilnost in trajnostni razvoj. Da, to je res misliti nemogoče, vendar edina prava rešitev na tej celini.

To tezo zagovarjam, ker sem pred nekaj tedni končal odlično branje: Evropa, rimska pot (Remi Brague) in razumel dinamiko nastajanja našega kontinenta. Kontinent pomeni posoda, ki naj bi nekaj vsebovala. In kaj vsebuje naša Evropa? Kaj bo vsebovala čez deset ali dvajset let? Bo še obstajala taka kot je danes?

Prognoze za prihodnost so gotovo think the unthinkable, ampak obstajam optimist in upam, da bo naša družba razumno pristopala do ključnih in neizogibnih vprašanj. Upam, da bomo ohranjali mir in s tem krepili znanost, napredek, razvoj. In upam, da to ni think the unthinkable.

Primorski:

Danes paše tale: 

Why Catholics Don't Understand Economics

V času socialnega tedna mislim, da na nek način sodi k tematiki tudi "krščanski pogled" na ekonomijo in finance. Socialna razsežnost družbe se - hočeš ali nočeš - vrti okrog upravljanja s premoženjem in okrog kapitala. Tukaj pa opažamo - tudi preko nesrečnih zgodb slovenskih podjetji - da firme, ki dišijo preveč po kadilu niso najbolj uspešne.

Teza, da je etika ključ do gospodarskega uspeha, drži kot pribita, vendar ne v  nekaterih podjetjih, ki direktorske pisarne krasijo razpela. In zakaj? Na svoj način odgovarja Jeffrey Tucker v komentarju, ki ga objavljam v nadaljevanju. Družbeni nauk Cerkve, ki zadnjih sto let in več poziva družbo k bolj odgovornemu in etičnemu upravljanju s kapitalom, ponuja številne odgovore na sodobne izzive. Odgovori, ki jih spregledajo in preslišijo tudi tisti, ki jih pišejo. Bo že res, da je kovačeva kobila vedno bosa, ampak samo etične odločitve so lahko tudi dobre in uspešne.

Seveda ni vse zlato kar se sveti, tudi Tuckerjev komentar ne bo odrešil domovine in stvarstva, vendar ideja o "omejenih" in "neomejenih" dobrinah ni zanemarljiva. 

For years I've puzzled over the question of why Catholics have such trouble coming to terms with economics. This problem applies only to modern Catholics, for it was Catholics in 15th- and 16th-century Spain who systematized the discipline to begin with. That was long ago. Today, most of what is written about economics in Catholic circles is painful to read. The failing extends left and right, as likely to appear in "progressive" or "traditionalist" publications. In book publishing, the problem is so pervasive that it is difficult to review the newest batch.

It's not just that the writers, as thoughtful as they might otherwise be on all matters of faith and morals, do not know anything about economic theory. The problem is even more foundational: The widespread tendency is to deny the validity of the science itself. It is treated as some kind of pseudo-science invented to thwart the achievement of social justice or the realization of the perfectly moral Catholic utopia. They therefore dismiss the entire discipline as forgettable and maybe even evil. It's almost as if the entire subject is outside their field of intellectual vision.

I have what I think is a new theory about why this situation persists. People who live and work primarily within the Catholic milieu are dealing mainly with goods of an infinite nature. These are goods like salvation, the intercession of saints, prayers of an infinitely replicable nature, texts, images, and songs that constitute non-scarce goods, the nature of which requires no rationing, allocation, and choices regarding their distribution.

None of these goods take up physical space. One can make infinite numbers of copies of them. They can be used without displacing other instances of the good. They do not depreciate with time. Their integrity remains intact no matter how many times they are used. Thus they require no economization. For that reason, there need to be no property norms concerning their use. They need not be priced. There is no problem associated with their rational allocation. They are what economists call "free goods."

If one exists, lives, and thinks primarily in the realm of the non-scarce good, the problems associated with scarcity -- the realm that concerns economics -- will always be elusive. To be sure, it might seem strange to think of things such as grace, ideas, prayers, and images as goods, but this term merely describes something that is desired by people. There are also things we might describe as non-goods, which are things that no one wants. So it is not really a point of controversy to use this term. What really requires explanation is the description of prayers, grace, text, images, and music as non-scarce goods that require no economization.

So let us back up and consider the difference between scarce and non-scarce goods. The term scarcity does not precisely refer to the quantity of goods in existence. It refers to the relationship between how many of these goods are available relative to the demand for goods. If the number available at zero price is fewer than people who want them for any reason whatever, they can be considered scarce goods. It means that there is a limit on the number that can be distributed, given the number of people who want them.

Scarcity is the defining characteristic of the material world, the inescapable fact that gives rise to economics. So long as we live in this lacrimarum valle, there will be no paradise. There will be less of everything than would be used if all goods were superabundant. This is true regardless of how prosperous or poor a society is; insofar as material things are finite, they will need to be distributed through some rational system -- not one designed by anyone, but one that emerges in the course of exchange, production, and economization. This is the core of the economic problem that economic science seeks to address.

It is almost impossible to think of a finite good that is non-scarce. We can come up with a scenario, perhaps, like two people living in paradise surrounded by an ocean of bananas. In this case, the bananas would be a non-scarce good. They could be eaten and eaten forever, provided that the bananas do not spoil. Another proviso is that there can be no free trade between paradise and the rest of the world, else one of the inhabitants might get the bright idea to arbitrage between non-scarce bananas in paradise and scarce bananas everywhere else. In this case, the bananas would obtain a price and would therefore have to be called scarce goods, not non-scarce goods.

In the real world outside of the banana paradise, non-scarce goods are of a special nature. One feature is that they are typically replicable without limit, like digital files or the inspiration one receives from an icon that can be copied without limit.

As an example, consider the case of the loaves and fishes, an incident in the life of Jesus recorded by all four Gospel writers. Jesus is speaking to the multitudes, and the listeners grow hungry. The apostles only have five loaves and two fishes: These are scarce goods. They could have thrown them into the air and created a food riot over who got what. They could have opened a market and sold them food at a very high price, rationing them by economic means. Both solutions would produce outrageous results.

Instead, Jesus had a different idea. He turned the scarce bits of food into non-scarce goods by making copies of the scarce food. The multitudes ate and were full. Then the food evidently turned back into scarce goods, because the story ends with Jesus instructing his disciples to collect what is left. Why collect what is non-scarce? Clearly, the miracle had a beginning and end.

The story nicely illustrates the difference between a scarce and non-scarce good. Jesus often used this distinction in His parables, which are mostly stories about the scarce world told in order to draw attention to truths about the non-scarce world. Think of the merchant who bought pearls at a low price and sold them at a high price. One day he found the pearl of the highest possible value, and he sold all he had just to buy and hold it. The pearl, of course, represents salvation and the love of God -- non-scarce goods, because there is enough for everyone who desires them.

We are in fact surrounded every day by non-scarce goods exactly like the loaves and fishes. All ideas are of this nature. I can come up with an idea and share it with you. You can possess it, but in so doing, you do not take that idea away from me. Instead, you hold a replica of it -- just as real and intact as the original version. Words are this way: I do not need to parse them out in order to save some for myself. Tunes in music are this way, too. I can sing a tune to you, and you can repeat it, but this action does not remove the tune from me. A perfect copy is made, and can be made and made again unto infinity.

This is completely different from the way things work in the realm of scarce goods. Let's say that you like my shoes and want them. If you take them from me, I do not have them anymore. If I want them again, I have to take them back from you. There is a zero-sum rivalry between the goods. That means there must be some kind of system for deciding who can own them. It means absolutely nothing to declare that there should be something called socialism for my shoes so that the whole of society can somehow own them. It is factually impossible for this to happen, because shoes are a scarce good. This is why socialism is sheer fantasy, a meaningless dreamland as regards scarce goods.

The difference between scarce and non-scarce goods has long been noted within the Christian milieu. St. Augustine was once challenged to explain how it is that Jesus can speak for the Father in heaven though the Father is separate. He responded that there is a special non-scarce nature associated with words so that the Son can speak the same words and possess the same thoughts of the Father.

This is true on earth, too, Augustine continued:

The words I am uttering penetrate your senses, so that every hearer holds them, yet withholds them from no other. . . . I have no worry that, by giving all to one, the others are deprived. I hope, instead, that everyone will consume everything; so that, denying no other ear or mind, you take all to yourselves, yet leave all to all others. But for individual failures of memory, everyone who came to hear what I say can take it all off, each on one's separate way.

In saying these things, Augustine was both establishing and following up on a tradition that prohibited the buying and selling of non-scarce things. Jewish Halachic code prohibits a rabbi or teacher to profit from the dissemination of Torah knowledge. He can charge for time, the use of a building, the books, and so on, but not the knowledge itself. The Torah is supposed to be a "free good" and accessible to all. From this idea also comes the prohibition on simony within Christianity.

The moral norm is that non-scarce goods should be free. There is no physical limit on their distribution. There is no conflict over ownership. They would not be subject to rationing. This is not true with regard to material goods.

To further understand this, let's try an alternative scenario in which a non-scarce good like salvation (non-scarce because it is infinitely replicable) is actually a scarce good that must be rationed. Let's say that Jesus had not offered salvation to all but instead had restricted the number of units of salvation to exactly 1,000. He then put His apostles in charge of allocating them. (When I mentioned to this to a non-believing friend of mine, he said: "You mean like tickets to Paradise? I bought five of those in a Mosque in Istanbul!")

The apostles would have immediately confronted a serious problem. Would they give them all out immediately or dispense them over the course of a year, or ten years? Perhaps they suspected that the world would last another 100 years; they might limit the distribution of salvations to only ten per year. Or perhaps they needed to reserve them to last 1,000 years. Regardless, there would have had to be rules and norms governing how they were distributed. Perhaps this would be based on personal displays of virtue, of monetary payment, of family lineage, and so on.

No matter what the results, the history of Christianity would have been very different if Jesus had not made salvation a non-scarce good, but instead had limited the supply and charged the Church with allocation. There would have been no liberality in spreading the gospel. Forget the whole business of going to the ends of the earth or becoming fishers of men. Under a limited supply, the salvation could not be replicated. If, for example, the apostles had chosen a 1,001th person to be saved, eternal life would have been taken away from the first person to receive it.

This might sound preposterous and even frightening, but this is precisely the situation that persists with all materials goods in the real world. All scarce things are fixed, and all things must be allocated. Even under conditions of high economic growth and rapid technological progress, all goods in existence at any one time are finite and cannot be distributed without norms or property rights, lest there be a war of all against all. Another factor of production that is scarce is time, and this too must be allocated by some means.

As it happens, salvation is indeed a non-scarce good available to all who seek it. So are the intercessions of saints. No one fails to ask for the intercession of a saint, but one knows for a fact whether someone else is employing that saint at the moment. No, we rightly assume that saints have no limits on their time for prayer. Indeed, the limitlessness of salvation is the prototype for all forms of non-scarce goods like music, texts, images, and teachings.

But consider people who have dedicated their life to the work of these non-scarce goods. One can easily imagine that they find immense power and glory in these goods. I certainly do. They are the things to which all religious people have devoted their lives. This is a fantastic thing -- and truly, without non-scarce goods, the whole of civilization would come crashing down to the level of the animals.

At the same time, the world does not only consist of non-scarce goods. The economic problem deals with the issue of scarce goods. And this is just as important to the flourishing of life on earth. All things finite are subject to economic laws. We dare not ignore them nor ignore the systems of thought seeking to explain their production and distribution. Note that Jesus' parables deal with both realms. So should we all. 

Jeffrey Tucker

Usmiljenje in odgovorna pravičnost

Danes smo pri maši poslušali enega mojih najljubših evangelijev. Izgubljeni sin. Evangelij Božjega usmiljenja in Božje "pogodbe", da nas bo ob vrnitvi vedno (pri)čakal. Všeč mi je slog treh osebnosti: očeta, izgubljenega sina in tistega ljubosumnega, ki ostane doma. Mislim, da smo vsi malo izgubljeni in malo ljubosumni.

Mislim, da ni treba posebej poudarjat, da gre za besedilo, ki opisuje brezmejno Božje odpuščanje. Gre tudi za biblično besedilo, ki kaže, da ima vsak svoje napake, slabosti in pomanjkljivosti. Sveto pismo vsekakor ni knjiga herojev ali popolnih ljudi, ampak knjiga človeških napak in Božjega usmiljenja. Usmiljenje gre preko "pedagoškega postopka" oz. odnosa odpuščanja, ki neizbežno terja tudi krivdo. Nahajamo se torej v območju človekove odgovornosti za svoja dejanja, ki nosijo delež svoje krivde. Mislim, da šele ko razmejimo krivdo, posledice in odgovornosti, lahko pridemo do odpuščanja.

Tukaj je dinamika Božjega odziva veliko hitrejša in bolj agilna. Bog ne razsoja in ne moralizira o paragrafih, ampak se veseli: izgubljena ovca, izgubljena drahma ... izgubljeni sin. Ko pastir, gospodinja ali oče najde, kar je izgubil, se preprosto veseli.

Današnji evangelij se ne ustavlja pri sodiščnem pojmovanju krivde, ampak nosi globlje sporočilo. Če natančno beremo sinovo vrnitev k očetu, opazimo, da sina ne kaznuje - čeprav ta zapravi polovico njegovega premoženja in prihrankov - ampak ga nagradi. Nagradi zato, ker si upal vrniti domov in hkrati je zaupal v njegovo dobroto. In se vrnil. Očetu pomeni več sinovo zdravje, sreča, varnost in prisotnost, kakor polovica premoženja. Da bi lahko odgovorili na to ne-dejanje, se moramo vprašati, kaj je sploh namen kazni. Če se ustavimo pri praktičnem/utilitarističnem vidiku, je to gotovo povračilo nastale škode in odprave posledic. V našem primeru "oče-sin" se to ne zgodi. Po vsej verjetnosti, ker sin nima ničesar s čimer bi lahko povrnil in tudi zato, ker je očetovo veselje "nad izgubljenim sinom" tako veliko, da poglavje kazni preprosto ... izpusti.

Ostane nam samo še odpuščanje. V teološkem pogledu na svet in odnos človek - Bog, je odpuščanje posledica obžalovanja nad storjenimi grehi oz. v laičnem izrazu, prestopki. Pravično pojmovanje krivde vsebuje tudi usmiljenje, ki prinaša odpuščanje. Sveto pismo predstavlja "pogodbo" med Bogom in človekom, ki razmejuje deleže krivde in odgovornosti v luči Božje dobrote. Tukaj pa bi bilo naivno misliti, da lahko delamo kar hočemo, ker nam Bog vedno odpušča ... Njegovo odpuščanje se začne pri naši človeški omejenosti in pomanjkljivosti ter konča pri načrtni hudobiji, zlobi in vztrajnem zavračanju dobrega.

Preživeti ali zaživeti?

Jutri se začenja Socialni teden 2010. Nameni, ki so si jih zadali organizatorji so: spodbujati družbeno odgovornost in aktivno državljanstvo posameznikov, krepiti slovensko civilno družbo ter prispevati k razmišljanju o izzivih, ki Slovenijo, EU in svet čakajo v prihodnosti. MMT se je že vključila v dogajanje s to objavo in bo tudi v prihodnjih dneh na valovih Socialnega tedna. Naslov Preživeti ali zaživeti? izziva našo zavest o družbeni vlogi in angažiranosti.

Poslanica Socialnega tedna 2010

Vsakodnevno smo priča naglim in nepredvidljivim spremembam, za katere se zdi, da jim komaj sledimo, kaj šele, da bi se jim znali učinkovito prilagajati. Pretresi na finančnih trgih, ekološke katastrofe, migracije, velike izgube delovnih mest in nerazumne razlike med bogatimi in revnimi med ljudi vnašajo nezaupanje, negotovost in strah. Mnogi se v borbi za preživetje sami ne znajdejo več.

Pogosto se obnašamo, kot da so te nepredvidljive spremembe povzročile neznane družbene sile. Krivdo zanje bolj kot sebi pripisujemo drugim: lastnikom kapitala, vladi, ZDA, skupini G-20, Cerkvi. Živimo v omami prepričanja, da na globalne izzive kot posamezniki praktično ne moremo vplivati ali pa se celo slepimo, da teh izzivov ni.

Vsako dejanje posameznika ima večji vpliv na prihodnost, kot si morda v družbi, v kateri pregovorno nekaj veljajo le ‘veliki akterji’, sploh lahko zamišljamo. Slovenski človek se v svojih, pogosto tudi sebičnih željah, sklicuje na človekove pravice, ki naj mu jih v demokratični družbi zagotavljajo institucije. Toda »pravice, iztrgane iz okvira dolžnosti, človeka obnorijo in sprožijo spiralo praktično neomejenih in nerazsodnih zahtev. Povečevanje pravic se konča z opustitvijo dolžnosti, saj se pravice krepijo prav v dolžnostih.

Če naj institucije zagotavljajo pravice, je po drugi strani dolžnost državljanov, da po svoji moči te institucije gradimo. Poklicanost vsakega človeka je soustvarjati institucije kot skupnosti na temelju medsebojnega zaupanja in solidarnosti. Ne le države in njenih institucij, temveč tudi družine, lokalne skupnosti, civilnodružbene organizacije, gospodarske družbe, verske in druge skupnosti. Človek ne more preživeti v osami – preživi lahko le v skupnostih.

Pot vsakega človeka je poiskati svoje mesto v družbi. Njegova dolžnost je v sebi poiskati in skupnosti prispevati tisto, kar lahko prispeva le on. Prav skupnost, temelječa na ljubezni do sočloveka, spoštovanju različnosti in sodelovanju, ima potencial, da v njej vsakdo, naj živi v mestu ali na podeželju, naj bo star ali mlad, delavec ali podjetnik, začuti sprejetost in pomen svojega poslanstva. Človek v takšni skupnosti nima le možnosti preživeti, ampak tudi zaživeti do te mere, da v njej opredeli svoj edinstveni prispevek k družbi.

Dostojanstvo posameznika se ne konča pri uživanju človekovih pravic. Človek v polnosti zaživi šele takrat, ko se zave naloge, ki je zaupana samo njemu in jo začne izpolnjevati.

Socialni teden je priložnost, da se srečamo, se povežemo na ravni posameznikov in skupin, ustvarjamo skupnosti, odkrijemo svoj prispevek družbi, ‘rišemo’ njeno prihodnost, postavljamo zahteve odločevalcem in sprejemamo odgovornost, da bomo prihodnost, zaznamovano z grožnjami krize, po svojih močeh usmerjali k preživetju in k ‘zaživetju’ v polnosti življenja. 

Organizatorji

Ali je boljša država mogoča?

Kdaj bomo imeli v Sloveniji boljše življenjske in družbene razmere? Ali smo ujeti v sistemu nemoči? Politiki in državljani lahko pridemo do boljšega življenja, brez godrnjanja in toliko slabe volje: potrebujemo več konkretnih dejanj.

Navdihov za socialne teme se v teh dneh gotovo ne manjka, ker dogodki pletejo gosto tkanino naše zgodovine. Stečaji velikih podjetji, domače afere in bližajoče se lokalne volitve ustvarjajo cocktail, ki naj bi ga državljani hitro konzumirali.

Hitro, ker če preveč razmišljamo, lahko še kaj razumemo. In vemo, da razmišljujoči ljudje lahko celo kaj spremenijo. Konzum - potrošnja - je skupni imenovalec v družbi, ki skuša prodati vse: izdelke, storitve, vrednote in istovetnost. Mislim, da se istovetnost slovenskega naroda maje, saj trgovci vnašajo v vsakdanjo kulturo tiste prvine, ki ne sodijo v naš prostor in nam ne pomagajo, da bi nastopili pred tujci s svojimi izdelki. Panorama ki gre od cenene glasbe do hitre hrane, nam dovolj nazorno pokaže, da hitro absorbiramo tujo robo in še hitre pozabimo na svoje. Slovenski človek se obnaša kot da je omamljen in ni sposoben odgovoriti na družbeno klimo drugače, kot s slabo voljo, godrnjanjem in občutkom, da itak je vse izgubljeno.

Ravno v taki družbeni klimi je mogoče vnesti v družbo spremembe. Mislim, da je naš čas primeren, da se ljudje vsakdana vprašamo, kaj lahko konkretnega naredimo, da bo jutri bolje. Nacionalizmi in ostali -izmi odpadejo, ker krvava šola 20. stoletja je pokazala, da v tem ni rešitve. Demokratična ureditev nam ponuja veliko možnosti, da aktiviramo somišljenike in kot elementi civilne družbe odgovorimo na sedanje razmere. Primer Društva za plačilo preplačane elektrike, ki je dodobra zamajal dogovore elektrodistributerjev, kaže na preprost način, kako je lahko boj z mlini na veter - enkrat toliko - celo uspešen.

Prvi - institucionalni - korak za spremembe so bližajoče se lokalne volitve. Osebno spremljam delovanje vseh strank pri nas (delno zaradi službe in delno zaradi osebnega interesa) in moram priznati, da mnogi programski poudarki so zelo zanimivi, tako med levimi kot med desnimi strankami. Da, papir vse prenese. Vsekakor si ne delam utvar, da bi politika sama od sebe kaj "podarila" državljanom, saj vemo, da je denar alfa in omega tudi v hramu demokracije. Volilna kampanja pa je lahko koristna priložnost, da državljani/volivci angažiramo kandidate za skrb za malega človeka. Aktivna udeležba v predvolilni kampanji z vprašanji, pobudami, predlogi, pisnimi vprašanji in idejami lahko prinese ravno naš predlog h konkretizaciji.

Drugi korak so strukture civilne družbe. Razna društva in gibanja, ki zbirajo somišljenike, so gotovo glasnejša od posameznih "tulečih volkov". Čeprav sta politična skupnost in civilna družba soodvisni, imata različne cilje. Ne smemo pozabiti, da je politika v podrejenem položaju civilni družbi. Tukaj se odpre prava optika demokracije, ki pri nas še kronično šepa, ker nismo navajeni, da lahko izrazimo svoje mnenje in to celo nekaj šteje. Odnosi v civilni družbi so bolj solidarni in manj ideološki kot v strankarskih shemah, zato je taka organizacija bistveno bolj gibčna, hitra in ekonomsko upravičena.

Namesto jamranja, jedkih komentarjev na spletnih forumih in vsesplošne slabe volje, mislim, da bi morali državljani male Republike pod Alpami storiti kaj bolj odločnega in konkretnega. Vsak na svoj način in s sredstvi, ki so mu na razpolago. Morda, bomo nekega dne imeli manj tajkunov, propadlih podjetji, slabe volje in več plačanih davkov ter boljšo državo.

Etika je ključ za uspešno gospodarstvo - Janko Deželak

Janko Deželak se je rodil leta 1945. Na Ekonomski fakulteti v Ljubljani je diplomiral leta 1971. Po končanem študiju se je za pet let zaposlil v velenjskem Gorenju, kjer je bil organizator poslovanja, nato pa je bil 17 let zaposlen v Pivovarni Laško kot šef finančno-računovodskega sektorja. Od leta 1990 do 1992 je bil poslanec v Skupščini Republike Slovenije in predsednik odbora za kreditno-monetarni sistem in politiko. V letu 1993 je bil kot član poslovodstva Ljubljanske banke zadolžen za sanacijo bank in hranilnic, od novembra pa direktor Agencije za sanacijo bank in hranilnic. Med leti 1995 do 1997 je bil minister za ekonomske odnose in razvoj, nato pa sekretar na Ministrstvu za obrambo RS.

Poklicna pot Vas je po začetkih v Gorenju peljala v pivovarno Laško. Nekateri poznavalci pravijo, da je ravno po Vaši zaslugi postala eno najuspešnejših in prepoznavnih slovenskih podjetij.

Takrat smo ogromno investirali v razvoj, v nova tržišča in posodabljali opremo. Celo iz Nemčije so hodili k nam gledat, kako smo to opravili, in nas jemali za zgled. V nekaj letih smo potrojili proizvodnjo piva in tako iz lokalne pivovarne postali prva pivovarna v tedanji Jugoslaviji.

So bili drugačni časi?

Gotovo. Danes slišimo, da delodajalci ni so plačevali prispevkov svojim delavcem, kar je bilo v času socializma nepredstavljivo. Konec meseca nismo mogli oddati vseh dokumentov na tedanji SDK, če niso bili tu di prispevki plačani. Iz tega vidika je današnja zakonodaja zelo pomanjkljiva. Nekateri minimizirajo težavo rekoč, saj je samo 1,6% takih, ki nimajo prispevkov. A se zavedate, da je to na tisoče družin, ki za sodobne poglede živijo v revščini! Kaj pa je to drugega kot revščina, če morajo delavci za svoje otroke, v 21. stoletju, prositi Karitas in Rdeči križ za šolske potrebščine!

Celoten intervju si lahko preberete v tiskani ali spletni izdaji mesečnika Naš Vestnik.

V kakšnem stanju je vaša kuhinja?

Kaj pa pult? Je videti lučko v hladilniku?

To so le nekatera osnovna in banalna vprašanja, ki vas lahko rešijo pred salmonelo ali kako drugo zastrupitvijo od pokvarjene hrane. V ZDA, natančneje v Los Angelesu, so pripravili preprost vprašalnik, ki vam bo pomagal ugotoviti kakšne so vaše higienske navade.

Vprašalnik se dotika vsega, kar lahko vpliva na kakovost pripravljene hrane in vašega zdravja: od čistoče pulta, posode, lijaka in časa odmrzovanja mesa, do urejenosti vaše kuhinje. Gre za učinkovit način, da lahko preverite "kje ste" in kaj lahko izboljšate. Zanimivo je, da so ta vprašalnik predložili 13.000 Američanom in test je opravilo z oceno "A" (ameriške ocene od A do D) skromnih 34 %.

In kako vam je šel test?

Moj prvi šolski dan

In danes je bil prvi šolski dan.

Danes spomini neizbežno zdrsnejo v tisto učilnico z znižanim stropom, v prizidku velike stare šole, v starem delu Izole. Vonj po lesu, občutek neznanega, novi obrazi ... Prvi šolski dan se mi je močno vtisni v spomin in še danes, ko korakam po kakšnem šolskem hodniku, zavoham enak vonj. Dal sem mu ime "vonj po barvicah", ker je enak barvicam v peresnici. Ko ga začutim, sem takoj tam, v tisti nizki učilnici, kamor se nisem več vrnil.

Vrnitev ni potrebna, ker je spomin dovolj.

Šola je zanimiv svet. Vsem prvošolčkom, ki danes začenjajo svoj pohod znanja, privoščim kakovosten pouk in veliko radovednosti. Vse ostalo pa so številke, ki so hladne in mrtve.

Zdi se mi, da že tako dolgo nisem bil v šoli ... kaj če bi se vrnil v prvi razred?