Meiner Ansicht nach ist die einzige politische Kraft, die die Lehren aus dem Scheitern des Washington Consensus und des Neoliberalismus ihres Mannes Bill Clinton sowie der US-Republikaner und all ihrer Reaganianer, Hayek- , Miltonfans und Ayn Rand-Libertären  ziehen möchte,  Hillary Clinton. Während die Republikaner nur wieder auf die alte Deregulierung, slim state, Privatisierungen,,wenig Steuern für Reiche,etc. setzen und inzwischen über solch intellektuelle Vordenker wie Donald Trump verfügen, setzt Hillary Clinton da doch einmal eindeutige Gegenstandpunkte, die sich eben auch mit der im CFR-Papier geforderten Revitalsierung der US-Ökonomie auseinandersetzen.Hillary Clinton hat jetzt an der NewYork University (NYU) eine Rede zur US-Wirtschaft gehalten. Hierbei brachte sie ein neues Schlagwort, den „quarterly capitalism“(der Begriff wurde von Mc Kinsey geprägt), das bezeichnet den kurzfristig denkenden Kapitalismus, der nur vierteljährlich Bilanzberichte und möglichst großen Shareholdervalue, Boni und Vergütungen in den Augen hat, worunter Investitionen in Infrastruktur, Innovationen, R&D,etc. leiden, wie auch die Einkommensunterschiede dadurch größer und die Mittelklasse leiden würde. Clinton versucht damit zwei Flügel ihrer demokratischen Partei zusammen zu bringen: Dern Fairnessflügel und den Growth-Flügel. Aber sie wartet auch mit Vorschlägen auf, die zumindestens auf eine Regulierung des Kapitalismus hindrängen sowie auf eine nachhaltigere und langfristigere Entwicklung hinzielen wollen.Kurzer Videoausschnitt ihrer Rede:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2015-07-24/clinton-takes-aim-at-quarterly-capitalism-at-nyu

Hier noch zwei Artikel, die die Rede näher erläutern:

Hillary Clinton wants to take on „quarterly capitalism“ — here’s what that means

Updated by Matthew Yglesias on July 24, 2015, 10:00 a.m. ET @mattyglesias matt@vox.com

In a speech today at NYU’s Stern Business School, Hillary Clinton plans to finger what she considers a key impediment to long-term economic growth: „quarterly capitalism.“ It’s a brand of excessively short-term thinking in which Wall Street considerations end up doing too much to drive Main Street business decisions.
It’s an intriguing way to drive a conceptually left-wing message that many business executives actually agree with, and a demonstration that there’s no necessary tension between a progressive economic approach focused on fairness and a more centrist one focused on growth.
It also reveals the deeply wonky side of Clinton. The supporting policy details that her campaign has hinted at thus far — a change to the tax code’s definition of long-term capital gains, a new approach to sharing buyback transparency, and perhaps some limits on the things so-called „activist“ investors are allowed to do — are not exactly candy for the masses. They’re an effort to grapple with some deep and profound issues about the nature of the American economic system.
What is „quarterly capitalism“?
The term comes from McKinsey & Company managing director Dominic Barton and some ideas he laid out in a March 2011 Harvard Business Review article, but the basic concept is much older. It stems from the ritual through which publicly traded companies release a statement about revenue and spending every three months, known as the quarterly earning report.
These statements can have very large influences on share prices. For example, on the afternoon of July 23 Amazon released an earnings report that performed well above the consensus expectations of Wall Street analysts. That caused its shares to skyrocket in value — up 18 percent — within a matter of hours. And yet while the report was certainly good news for Amazon, it — like most quarterly earnings reports — didn’t really tell us much of anything about the most profound issues facing Amazon (or any other company) in the long run.
The thesis of quarterly capitalism is that the link between short-term earnings and share prices, and the link between share prices and CEO pay, has created management practices that are excessively focused on living month to month.
„Lost in the frenzy,“ wrote Barton, „is the notion that long-term thinking is essential for long-term success.“
How quarterly capitalism can hurt America
On some level, the idea that giant businesses — just like everyone else — sometimes have trouble focusing on the long term sounds like a bit of a platitude. But there’s reason to believe that short-termism in corporate America can hurt the country’s long-term economic prospects.
To see why, consider two companies deeply enmeshed in the technology industry and the mobile revolution — Google and Verizon.
One big difference between these companies is that Google’s voting stock is utterly dominated by its two founders, Larry Page and Sergei Brin, who can steer the company in any which way they like. Verizon, by contrast, was essentially founded by nobody. It’s a corporate descendant of Bell Atlantic, which was founded in 1983 after the government made AT&T break up. AT&T itself was founded way back in 1885. All of which is to say that Verizon is highly subject to the whims of the stock market, while Google essentially reflects the vision of two entrepreneurs.
Consequently, the companies behave very differently.
•        Google is adventurous: It plows the profits from its web search into a shockingly wide range of ventures. It launched an email service and a calendar and an office productivity suite. It builds a free mobile operating system. But it also builds Chrome OS for laptops. It made some weird glasses. It is trying to build a self-driving car. It runs fiber-optic networks in eight cities.
•        Verizon pays a lot of dividends: By contrast, Verizon does not really do exciting things. It does invest money in its infrastructure. But it does so relatively cautiously, rolling out new fiber-optic lines at a measured pace. It could build fiber faster, but doing so would be expensive. Instead Verizon prefers to spend about $8 billion a year on paying dividends to its shareholders, with billions on top of that spent on buying Verizon stock.
Verizon acts this way in large part because that’s how Wall Street wants it to act. Spending billions on dividends and buybacks is better for the share price than spending billions on new infrastructure to compete with Comcast, AT&T, and others.
But it certainly seems like it would be better for America if telecommunications companies were investing more furiously in improving services and competing with each other.
Research says public companies invest less
Of course, anyone can tell anecdotes. But academic research appears to back up the idea that stock market pressures lead companies to invest less than they otherwise would. John Asker, Joan Farre-Mensa, and Alexander Ljungqvist did a study in which they compared publicly traded companies to otherwise similar companies that are privately owned. They found that „compared to private firms, public firms invest substantially less and are less responsive to changes in investment opportunities“ and that this happens „especially in industries in which stock prices are most sensitive to earnings news.“
Short-termism, in other words, leads to less investment.
A clever synthesis
As my colleague Jon Allen has written, Hillary Clinton is a fairly unimpressive public speaker on the stump, but she’s an extremely skilled consensus builder and savvy candidate. The quarterly capitalism thesis is an example of that. On the one hand, it’s a potent critique of mainstream financial capitalism as practiced in the United States and similar countries. It resonates deeply with the concerns of the American labor movement, and with critics of Wall Street’s influence on the real economy. It reflects an academic research agenda that arose on the leftward margins of the debate and has gained in influence over the years.
At the same time, framing a campaign argument around a Harvard Business Review article by a McKinsey managing director is hardly a call for imminent revolution and the overthrow of capitalism.
In fact, this is a criticism that lots of CEOs and other rich businessmen agree with. They wish they were less slave to quarterly earnings reports and had more of the freedom of a Larry Page. These are left-wing themes, in other words, but while they’ll certainly make Clinton some enemies among the activist investor class they don’t do all that much to alienate donors or position her as anti-business.
Things will get harder the deeper she delves into policy specifics, but as a broad campaign theme it’s a tour de force. By embracing the quarterly capitalism critique, Clinton offers a more radical criticism of the status quo than we’ve ever heard from Barack Obama while also showing herself to be more sensitive to the concrete concerns of American executives.
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/24/9031597/hillary-clinton-quarterly-capitalism
Will Hillary’s econ speech bring together Democrats?
Ben White | @morningmoneyben
Hillary Clinton will take a big step into the Wall Street policy world on Friday with a speech at New York University in which she will suggest raising capital gains taxes on investors who hold shares for less than a couple of years.
Clinton also plans to criticize other elements of what she calls „quarterly capitalism,“ including the current pace of corporate share buybacks and the tactics of activists like Carl Icahn who pressure executives to return cash to shareholders instead of invest it in new plants, equipment, research and employees.
The NYU speech will not be Clinton’s big „taking on Wall Street“ moment, aides tell me. That will come later with remarks on addressing so-called „Too Big to Fail“ banks and punishing corporate crime.
The Friday speech instead is intended, in part, to wed two wings of the Democratic Party that are miles apart right now, the „growth“ wing and the „fairness“ wing. Fairness Democrats, who thrill to the every word of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, want higher taxes on the rich, strong new Wall Street reform and a relentless focus on economic inequality. Growth Democrats, who you don’t hear much from anymore, want some of this, too, but prefer a focus on economic policies aimed at growing the pie rather than redistributing the slices.
Read MoreTrump won’t win, but yes, he matters
The Friday speech will be remarkably wonky for a presidential candidate and will reflect a policy approach favored for years by the likes of veteran Democratic wonks Gene Sperling and Neera Tanden. It’s not often you will hear a major presidential candidate going into significant detail on share buyback transparency. But I’m told Clinton began to focus on the problem of slack corporate investment last fall and has been drilling deep into the details for months.
The address is intended to focus on long-term growth by trying to encourage buy-and-hold investing and taking pressure off corporate managements to focus on quarterly earnings per share targets at all costs. And it is intended to appeal to fairness Democrats by raising some capital gains taxes paid by top earners while also taking some shots at CEO pay and „hit-and-run“ hedge funds.
The speech may fail to thrill the Warren crowd because Clinton is not likely to pitch the approach as a way to raise significant new revenue for the government. Instead she may suggest that increased revenues could be used for other incentives in the tax code to encourage business investment over buybacks and dividends.
Still, she won’t suggest lowering capital gains for investors who hold for very long periods, something many growth Democrats favor but the left would sharply reject as a tax cut for the very wealthy.
Clinton’s formal and informal advisers acknowledge that tinkering with capital gains rates will not instantly solve the problem of „quarterly capitalism“ or the lack of significant business investment. But they view it as a smart approach to take what is already a graduated scale for capital gains and tilt it more toward long-term holdings. And it is just the start of what will be a series of speeches aimed at using both government levers and political persuasion to alter the focus of corporate America.
„This is a theme she has identified and she clearly wants to orient the economy toward long-term growth and investment,“ Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago professor and former senior economic adviser to President Barack Obama, told me this week. „and this is a solid, market-based approach to doing that.“
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/24/will-hillarys-econ-speech-bring-together-democr
ats.html

Hillary Clinton wird bisher von den US-Republikanern noch nicht voll für ihre Regulierungsvorschläge angegriffen, aber das wird kommen. Schon jetzt greifen die US-Republikaner den Dodd-Frank-Act zentral an, der eine Regulierung des Finanzwesens vorsieht als logisches Produkt eben der Finanzkrise 2008. Die Republikaner sehen darin eine wirtschaftshemmende Dynamikbremse des Finazsektors und wollen wieder zu der alten Politik der Vorfinanzkrise zurück. Aber Clinton dürfte noch wesentlich radiakleren Kräften ausgesetzt sein–zum einen aus der demokratsichen Partei–vor allem die sogenannte „Growth“-Fraktion, dann die US-Republikaner, dann die Libertären um Rand und Ron Paul, dann die Tea-Party-Bewegung oder eben die Neocons.Im übrigen hatte ich auch mal die Diskussion über den Kapitalismus im Rahmen der Veranstaltung „Religious America“in München bei der Katholischen Akademie. Ich hatte da Gelegenheit mit Michael Novak, einem US-Katholiken vom American Enterprise Institute zu diskutieren. Novak vergöttert den Kapitalismus, sah ihn als Gottes Ebenbild einer Gesellschaft und ähnlich wie Hegel das protestantischen Preußen als Materialisierung des Weltgeistes propagierte unf Max Weber den Calvinismus und die protestantische Arbeitsethik oder eben in Hegels welthistorischer Dialektik mittels  Avantgardemodell eine Nation die Fürhung der Zivilisation übernimmt, so eben Novak die USA und den Kapitalismus. Trotz dieser unterschiedlichen Basis, stimmten wir überein, dass der Kapitalismus eben Krisen, kreative Destruktion und soziale Verwerfungen und  und damit zwischenstaatliche Verwerfungen mitbringe.Beide begriffen wir das als logische Folge des Systems. Aber Novak sah dies positiv,da eben eschachtologisch, ich dies negativ. Ja, Novak sah selbst das, was wir in Europpa als „Raubtierkapitalismus“ und „Casinokapitalismus“desöfteren bezeichnen noch als zu gebändigt.Mit Forderungen nach Regulierung ala Clinton oder europäischen Vorstellungen konnte man ihm nicht kommen. Er war also nicht ein „Wandel durch Handel“-Ideologe, sondern sah das sehr missionarisch, ja es ähnelte dem marxistischen Weltbild sogar sehr. Cohn Behndit hat ja einmal die Neocons des AEI als ameriknaische Bolschwisten bezeichnet, da sie eben für revolutionäre Umstürze seien, wie auch die Dynamik des Kapitalismus eben als kreative Zerstörung sehen, die das Neue schaffe. Dennoch beschreibt die Neoconsicht und die Schumpetianer  den Kapitalismus und die Dynamik der „Wirtschaft“ sehr viel klarer als dies alle Liberalen und Konservativen tun könnten. Dennoch begreifen sie nicht, dass eben eine Regulierung des Kapitalismus sozusagen in seinem eigenen Interesse sein könnte, da er seine eigenen Grundlagen untergräbt. Dies ist Hillary Clintons Aussage und sie erklärt auch, dass ihre Reformvorschläge dazu da seien „to save capitalism“, den sie ebenso missionarisch als das immer noch beste System sieht.