Consequence Systems change they will change

The brainstorming is widespread in Davos for three years: instead of sitting the participants, the "global leaders", on rows of seats to a "panel" of economists, politicians, or 'very distinguished' experts, the Organization of the forum places on large tables: to them the floor. Each table works to au problem, a spokesperson designated is then summarized for any room. Then the moderator, always "bright" anglo-saxon journalist, tent worth that worth a synthesis.

The great trick of the first day this year was thus redefine the "Commons", such as climate, water, etc. More than 150 people, in General, business leaders participated. The result was nil but nonetheless not without interest. The synthesis was made this time by a computer that counted the occurrence of the words in the speech of the spokesperson. A "cloud of words", ranked by number of occurrences and stored in bulk, as seen on the Internet was projected on the big screen. The words "water", "oceans", "human rights" were the large (most cited) and then "climate", "Internet" and "space". That distressing banalities.

The hearing was clearly not proud of his work and criticism flowed on the theme: "and then" What is it doing "The discussion came on the"frustration"of that"collective intelligence"had difficulty in finding markets. Where are the necessary institutions Where are the courageous politicians How to change

Nicolas Sarkozy was followed with great interest. Room fills. But when the French President, in a good speech in truth, denounced a system where "everything was given to the financial capital and almost nothing work and where the contractor was after the speculator", the davosiens raised shoulders. Old socialization speeches, old French rengaine. And as revenue for "morality capitalism" had already been heard - are those of the g-20 - the question is returned: "and then". What is done ""Nothing." ""Especially nothing." "A Davos any finance, very present, a foot on the brake. The message is unanimous: regulation, Yes, but the least possible. With respect to the proposal of Barack Obama to limit the banks, is that of "populism" and is "inapplicable". The recovery is very fragile (the feeling on the situation is that a relapse is very possible), this is not the time to smash everything.

The change is necessary, said Klaus Schwab, the founder of the forum, in an address that has never been as incisive: we risk "a social crisis" after the financial and economic crises. He need to "create jobs", that capitalism distributes to all its gains.

Then It is curiously among economists found of answer. David Li Daokui, Professor at Shanghai, explained simply that there are other models of capitalism than the anglo-saxon model (Scandinavian, German...) on which "the Chinese authorities are very great interest". Theories of rationality of markets are abandoned in favour of "behavioral economics" booming, was summarized by Robert Shiller, Professor at Yale. Humans are not fully turned to their only material interest. Robert Schiller quotes his colleague George Akerlof, which explains the motivation deep people, beyond the essential physical and sexual, is "to be someone."

Consequence Systems change, they will change. "The Decade which will be very different from the past", argues Nobel Laureate Edmund Phelps. "Not only because the growth will be soft", adds Shiller.

The change becomes underground In the daily behaviour A movement emerges in the United States among the Internet users to leave large speculative banks. The project Obama is unnecessary Will the morality of capitalism be by the citizens The debate is open.

Our live blog on lesechos.fr/davos