G20: Political Psychotherapy

The economy practically can do with no state, but the mankind needs governments. The G20 summit in China looks like an impressive illustration of the main problems of the modern world. At first glance, there are lot of them - political conflicts, terrorist threats, global warming, the world's economic problems, the notorious ISIS, migration flows and many others. However, among all of them the main issue in Hangzhou was the construction of innovative, healthy, coherent and inclusive global economy. The leaders of the twenty leading countries, practically almost the whole world leaders, seem to present the solution of this problem as the key to the future, to further development of mankind.

Probably, that's right. If everyone joins in the above mentioned construction, and even will be able to build such an economy, many acute problems will disappear by themselves. The rich, of course, are cruel, but the poor will run circles around them.

However, there is great suspicion that innovative economy is long being built on its own, it achieved remarkable successes, and the world never had such prosperity. This does not mean that anyone is well-fixed, nobody is hungry and all economies are growing rapidly. Unfortunately, some economies are stagnating, if not declining. But in general, the situation today is much better than twenty years ago – according to quite objective indicators. New technologies are growing by leaps and bounds, and if we think seriously about the world order, then it would be right to ask, whether we can actually understand how technologies change the world. For example, what do we do if in some countries life expectancy will rise up to 120 years, while in others only to 75 from their current 60 years? Or how communication technologies transform the political and social life? Whether they transform it radically or not, no one has the exact answer yet.

I would like to note, that the role of states as determinants of the economic development in the current prosperity is not so great. It certainly is, but not defining. The main engines of development are self-organized groups of people called corporations, or research institutes, or called somehow in a different way. Young and not so young talented individuals build up the global innovation economy with an efficiency of red ants during the construction of an anthill.

However, I do not think that the leaders do not need to discuss the development of the global innovation economy, even a medieval market cannot exist without regulations - for weighing weights one should always keep an eye - and the modern market especially. But the understanding of the role of the state here is more than important .
Strictly speaking, there is a fear that with the growth of an innovative economy with its quick and courageous decisions, the number of regulators and administrators is also increasing, and the incredible productivity in the innovation economy led to a huge amount of money and, consequently, to the ability to keep a huge office staff of regulators. In the European Union, familiar to all of us, tens of thousands of people are employed in addition to national governments. No doubt, the EU requires some staff, but is it right to keep such an amount?

The current growing concern by states for the economy is, of course, a consequence of many factors. This is also the result that the innovation economy is radically changing the labor market and the structure of employment. For instance, the introduction of driverless cars will dramatically reduce the number of professional drivers, id est, millions of people will remain without a job, and with the chance for a longer human life than ever before. And robots will soon reduce the number of waiters, especially in inexpensive cafes.

Of course, these and many other changes require care of governments, the ability to regulate the social changes as a result of economic development.