Superkapitalizam

[Indy]

Predavanje Guy Standinga na univ. Sydney prosle godine. Svaka mu je k'a u Njegosa.http://sydney.edu.au/sydney_ideas/lectures/2012/professor_guy_standing.shtml

[Anduril]

Banks fined $2.3bn over rate rigging5 December 2013 Last updated at 03:56 GMTSome of the world's best known banks have been found guilty of colluding to rig two global interest rate benchmarks.Six lenders, including Germany's Deutsche Bank and France's Societe Generale, will have to pay a total of $2.3bn (£1.4bn).Two other banks, Barclays and UBS, were given immunity for having revealed the problem.Cartels fixed prices for products based on the Japanese yen and the euro.

London riots: Lidl water thief jailed for six months A college student with no criminal record was jailed for six months on Thursday for stealing a £3.50 case of bottled water during a night of rioting.

Ove vesti gore su sustina tzv. superkapitalizma.Kad finansijski krimosi u vreme tzv. finansijske krize bukvalno ukradu milijarde placa se kazna, ili nista ako na vreme dojave. Zatim se nastavlja po starom do sledece kazne ako ih uhvate.Kad obicni covek nesto ukrade moze veoma lako da zavrsi u zatvoru kao primer drugima. Ocigledno je da nisu svi isti pred zakonom, porezom ili bilo kakvim principom a takvo stanje se sistematski globalno promovise.No, ono sto je mnogo zanimljivije je kako masa gleda u sve to kao ovce a ni mediji, sindikati ili tzv. intelektulaci i besposleni studenti se nisu previse potresli na ovu gore vest. Vecina se vec nekako navikla, gundja u bradu, bavi se glupostima, visi po netu i tera dalje dok bar ima hleba i igara.Problem je samo u tome sto ovi kriminalci gore pri srcu danasnjeg finansijskog sistema nece prestati i nastavice ovako sve do propasti ili dok neko ne zavede tik pre toga diktaturu. A ovce ce i dalje blejati.

[Dagmar]

Mene ovo podseća na viktorijanske zakone za krađu. Ali ok, ako se vraćamo tom ekonomskom modelu logično nekako da se i zakon adaptirava novim uslovima.

[расејан]

Mene ovo podseća na viktorijanske zakone za krađu. Ali ok, ako se vraćamo tom ekonomskom modelu logično nekako da se i zakon adaptirava novim uslovima.

А услови су... зависни од величине пацијента.Вели Мат Таиби да "While two minor players did face charges, Breuer and the Justice Department worried aloud about global stability as they explained why no criminal charges were being filed against the parent company."

[bergasa19]

Milutin Mitrović Edited January 11, 2014 by bergasa19

[Budja]

Uh, tesko i povrsno napisano. Jedva se cita. Gadjanje mnostvom slabo povezanih citata bez jasnog konteksta.

[Indy]

Vrlo tacna ilustracija propasti srednje klase... (a ispod je i prigodni grafik, za slucaj da se neko zapita kako je ubivena, ili barem ubivana, srednja klasa... razliku izmedju one 2 linije su uglavnom pojeli deonicari i gornji menadzment).I'm a Member of the American 'Used-to-Haves'I used to have a house. I used to go on vacations. I used to shop at department stores, get my hair done and even enjoy pedicures. Now, I don't. I'm a member of the American "Used-to-Haves."Now, I'm renting an apartment and I'm desperately awaiting a check so I can pay the rent. Yet, I'm lucky to have an apartment that includes utilities. Despite my college degree from a prestigious college, and solid employment track record, I can't get a job. It's been so long since my corporate days, I now feel unemployable.My age doesn't help. But I'm as healthy as a thoroughbred, I appear quite young and would gladly accept a basic salary. I'm a bargain! But no. I'm freelancing for $15 an hour these days, but I used to earn $100 an hour. In fact, all the freelance hourly rates have been driven down to $15-30 an hour. To make ends meet, I also work as an aide ($13.75 an hour) and run a small local company. And my annual earnings are under $20,000.I'm lucky to be in Massachusetts, where my health care is paid for, and fortunate to be of sound health and mind. But on days when I feel hopeless, I can envision myself 20 years from now, living in hardscrabble poverty. Female friends my age who are in similar financial circumstances are terrified of the future. If we can't get decent paying jobs today, there's little hope of getting a corporate job with benefits in the future. And during the past few years as we've struggled, we went through all of our savings, 401(k)s and anything left in the bottoms of our pocketbooks. So we can see ourselves as old, pathetic bent-over women, living in bus shelters, our ragged belongings in supermarket carts.For the "Used-to-Haves," every day is a struggle to hold onto hope. Everywhere we look is a reminder of what we used to have.We "Used-to-Haves" all used to work in the corporate world for big, wealthy companies. We were discarded in layoffs. I've been told, as my employer du jour let me go, what a positive difference I made and the value of my contributions. I agree. I know I made my bosses look brilliant. Fully aware that my contributions built the company's brand image. Yet, I was expendable.As a new "Used-to-Have," I denied my slide. "I'm not poor!" I nervously chuckled to myself. But as I slid more, the smartest thing was finally acknowledging poverty and applying for the benefits available. I'd never been poor before. I didn't know how to be poor. But finally, I learned. The magnitude of my shame and embarrassment is unspeakable. It's impossible to explain to people who aren't poor -- "The Haves." When I'm beseechingly desperate for a check owed to me, the check writer inevitably has no concept of how frighteningly desperate I am for that money. They say, "Next week? or "The accountant says two weeks." I plead, nicely, sincerely, "Is there no way you could just write me that check?" And the answer is "no." It's just putting a pen to paper, but for "The Haves," I'm just a pain in the neck.Despite the disappearance of the middle class and the proliferation of the "Used-to-Haves," Corporate America is as cavalier and unfeeling as they were when I was laid off. I remember working overtime for a New England financial firm on weekends, holidays and New Year's Eve. Getting my arm stuck in a copier while fixing a paper jam. Wearing matching t-shirts as we moved boxes from one location to another. You name it, I made every sacrifice to keep my job in Corporate America.Watching John Boehner and the Republican Congress during the past few years has been a stunning confirmation of their seeming disregard for the "Used-to-Haves." As they pull down salaries of $174,000 a year, unparalleled benefits and the option of voting themselves a raise, their selfishness is unrivaled as they barricade health care reform, knowingly shut down the government, cut SNAP benefits and eliminate extended unemployment payments.Congress doesn't have the stones to call up their lobbyist buddies and corporate honchos and insist they hire more unemployed Americans for the American companies they celebrate and boast about.The press calls it "The Great Recession." It actually was the "Great Theft." In the wake of this very public, often-glossed-over theft from the middle class, the perpetrators have been revealed. We know the American corporations without the courage, scruples or heart to help us, the ones responsible for the recession and the politicians who put the toxic policies in place. We "Used-to-Haves" aren't stupid.As a "Used-to-Have," I'm beyond angry. I'm not a "Never Had." I know what it's like to pay bills on time and have a little left over. I remember vacations and pedicures and going out to dinner. As a "Used-to-Have," I know exactly what Corporate America, lobbyists and politicians have taken away from me. The "Used-to-Haves" and the children of the "Used-to-Haves" won't forget. The "Used-to-Haves" are educated. Many of us and our children have amazing talent and academic honors. We know how to get things done. And though all of the odds appear to be against us, we must refuse to give up hope

Productivity growth has frequently been labeled the source of our ability to raise living standards. This is sometimes what is meant by the call to improve our “competitiveness.” In fact, higher productivity is an important goal, but it only establishes the potential for higher living standards, as the experience of the last 30 or more years has shown. Productivity in the economy grew by 80.4 percent between 1973 and 2011 but the growth of real hourly compensation of the median worker grew by far less, just 10.7 percent, and nearly all of that growth occurred in a short window in the late 1990s. The pattern was very different from 1948 to 1973, when the hourly compensation of a typical worker grew in tandem with productivity. Reestablishing the link between productivity and pay of the typical worker is an essential component of any effort to provide shared prosperity and, in fact, may be necessary for obtaining robust growth without relying on asset bubbles and increased household debt. It is hard to see how reestablishing a link between productivity and pay can occur without restoring decent and improved labor standards, restoring the minimum wage to a level corresponding to half the average wage (as it was in the late 1960s), and making real the ability of workers to obtain and practice collective bargaining.

[Budja]

Mozda ima nesto i u ovome (nije bas jasno na sta se prezentovani graf odnosi).In fact, since the 1980s, the income gap has widened not just between CEOs and the rest of society but across the economy, too, as routine tasks have been automated or outsourced. With the aid of technology and capital, one skilled worker can displace many unskilled workers. Think of it this way: when factories used mechanical lathes, university-educated Joe and high-school-educated Moe were no different and earned similar paychecks. But when factories upgraded to computerized lathes, not only was Joe more useful; Moe was no longer needed.http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/134863/raghuram-g-rajan/the-true-lessons-of-the-recession

[vodebele]

ovo je sve jos bizarnije (necu kazem losije) posto postoji i drugi trend

[Anduril]

Mozda ima nesto i u ovome (nije bas jasno na sta se prezentovani graf odnosi).In fact, since the 1980s, the income gap has widened not just between CEOs and the rest of society but across the economy, too, as routine tasks have been automated or outsourced. With the aid of technology and capital, one skilled worker can displace many unskilled workers. Think of it this way: when factories used mechanical lathes, university-educated Joe and high-school-educated Moe were no different and earned similar paychecks. But when factories upgraded to computerized lathes, not only was Joe more useful; Moe was no longer needed.http://www.foreignaf...f-the-recession

Dobro, to je taj stari argument o napretku technologije koji kao unistava radna mesta.Da, unistava neka ali zato stvara i druga - pomislimo samo na internet.Ono sto je interestantno je da se makaze ne otvaraju u svim drzavama podjednako uprkos podjednakom tehnoloskom razvoju.Takodje, postoje velike razlike u razvoju industrije - neki su je totalno izmestili a neki ne, itd.Uz to, totalna liberalizacija trzista radne snage ili ilegalno zaposljavanje znacajno smanjuje prihode vecine a uvecava profite manjine jer istovremeno mnoga druga poslovna trzista nisu liberalizovana cime se stvara disbalans.Najbolji primeri u EU su recimo poljoprivreda i ogromno trziste usluga. Totalno neliberalna i pretezno nacionalna trzista sa masivnom regulacijom ili subvencijama ali se zato radnici u okviru tih grana mogu naci veoma jeftino sa drugog kraja Evrope ili Afrike.Neoliberali su bili veoma efikasni u liberalizovanju protoka radne snage i robe kroz EU ali ne i firmi/usluga gde se zapravo pravi profit. I wonder why.

[Gandalf]

Mozda ima nesto i u ovome (nije bas jasno na sta se prezentovani graf odnosi).

propadanje americke proizvodne baze i povecan naglasak na uslugama, praceno (a) uvodjenjem tehnike koja smanjuje cenu kapitala & omogucava izbacivanje radnika iz jednacine i (b) konkurencijom koju predstavljaju imigranti i stranci u nekim uslugama = povecanje produktivnosti i stagnacija cene rada.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Gandalf

[Indy]

Nijesam strucnjak, ali valjda izbacivanje sindikata i kazualizacija™ radne snage ima nesto sa tim. Tzv. "efikasnost".

 

EDIT - ™ kanalizacija?

Edited February 12, 2014 by Indy

[расејан]

Како неко тада рече, "сад ћемо ми једни другима да перемо гаће и то ће да се зове привреда и ствара вредност".

[Gandalf]

Nijesam strucnjak, ali valjda izbacivanje sindikata i kazualizacija™ radne snage ima nesto sa tim. Tzv. "efikasnost".

 

EDIT - ™ kanalizacija?

sto se tice sindikata, diskutabilno koliko je umanjivanje njihove moci posledica opsteg trenda opadanja proizvodne baze, a koliko je uzrok.

 

 

a sto nisi strucnjak, ne bih brinuo oko toga.

 

How hard is economics?

 

It's so hard that experts don't always do it well. The experts are constantly prone to correction by non-experts, by practitioners, by people who are self-educated economic experts but not professional economists, and by people who know some economics and a lot about some other field(s). It is very often that we — at least some of us – are wrong and at least some of those other people are right. Furthermore those other people are often more meta-rational than a lot of professional economists.

 

Even very simple problems can be quite hard, such as why nominal wages are sometimes sticky or why particular markets don't always clear, in the absence of legal impediment. Why doesn't the restaurant charge more on a Saturday night? You can imagine how hard the hard problems are, such as what level of public expenditure is consistent with an ongoing and workable democratic equilibrium.

 

Putting aside agreement and ideology, and just focusing on how one understands an issue, I'll take my favorite non-Ph.d. bloggers over most professional economists, six out of seven days a week. Not to estimate a coefficient, but to judge public policy, thereby integrating and evaluating broad bodies of knowledge? It's not even close.

 

 

Edited February 12, 2014 by Gandalf

[Prospero]

MAY 22, 2014

 

Labor’s Digital Displacement

 

 

MILAN – Digital technologies are once again transforming global value chains and, with them, the structure of the global economy. What do businesses, citizens, and policymakers need to know as they scramble to keep up?

 

Digitally enabled supply chains initially increased efficiency and dramatically shortened lead times. Capital was mobile; labor less so. Economic activity (production, research, design, etc.) moved to any accessible country or region that had relatively inexpensive labor and human capital. With only a slight lag, complexity became manageable, and global supply chains’ linear model (something produced in country A is consumed in country B) gave way to a more complex model with more fragmented but more efficient supply networks.

 

Meanwhile, a dramatic shift occurred on the demand side, as emerging economies grew and became middle-income countries. Developing country producers, who in an earlier era accounted for a relatively small fraction of global demand, became major consumers.

 

Global supply networks shifted again, accommodating fragmentation and dispersion on both the supply and demand sides of their structure, a process sometimes called technologically enabled atomization: the division of supply networks into finer and finer parts, breaking the bonds of proximity and the resulting transaction-cost constraints that previously prevailed.

 

For example, many services related to intermediate and final demand require knowledge, expertise, information, and communication for their delivery. What they do not require is geographical nearness or the physical movement of goods. They represent a large share of the global economy, and they are gravitating rapidly toward the tradable sector, with increasingly powerful digital and information technology chasing imperfectly mobile human resources and new rapidly growing markets.

In the course of this transformation, millions of people joined the global economy, with wide-ranging consequences – many of which remain challenging – for poverty, prices, wages, and income distributions.

 

Now comes a second, potentially even more powerful, wave of digital technology that is replacing labor in increasingly complex tasks. This process of labor substitution and disintermediation has been underway for some time in service sectors – think of ATMs, online banking, enterprise resource planning, customer relationship management, mobile payment systems, and much more. This revolution is spreading to the production of goods, where robots and 3D printing are displacing labor.

It is important to understand the economics of these technologies. The vast majority of the cost comes at the start, in the design of hardware (like sensors) and, more important, in creating the software that produces the capability to carry out various tasks. Once this is achieved, the marginal cost of the hardware is relatively low (and declines as scale rises), and the marginal cost of replicating the software is essentially zero. With a huge potential global market to amortize the upfront fixed costs of design and testing, the incentives to invest are compelling.

 

In other words, unlike the preceding wave of digital technology, which motivated firms to gain access to and deploy underutilized pools of valuable labor around the world, the driving force in this round is cost reduction via the replacement of labor.

 

This transformation has important side effects. For physical goods, there are costs associated with logistics and lead times, owing to inventories and poor forecasts of the market. With digital capital-intensive technology, however, production will inevitably move toward the final market, wherever it is. This re-localization constitutes a major shift in the structure of global supply networks.

 

An extreme form of this may be coming in the form of 3D printing, a technology that makes it possible to produce an astonishingly wide and growing range of products by printing them one layer at a time. Examples include buildings, athletic shoes, designer lamps, aircraft wings, and much more.

 

As the costs of this technology decline, it is easy to imagine that production will become extremely local and customized. Moreover, production may occur in response to actual demand, not anticipated or forecast demand. In some sense, this represents the ultimate compression of supply chains, as firms produce to final demand with minimal delay.

 

Meanwhile, the impact of robotics (another technology with digital foundations), is not confined to production. Though self-driving cars and drones are the most attention-getting examples, the impact on logistics is no less transformative. Computers and robotic cranes that schedule and move containers around and load ships now control the Port of Singapore, one of the most efficient in the world.

 

Developing countries in the early stages of growth need to understand these trends. Labor, no matter how inexpensive, will become a less important asset for growth and employment expansion, with labor-intensive, process-oriented manufacturing becoming a less effective way for early-stage developing countries to enter the global economy.

 

Re-localization will be seen everywhere, including lower-income countries. Production will not vanish; it will just be less labor intensive. All countries will eventually need to rebuild their growth models around digital technologies and the human capital that supports their deployment and expansion.

 

The retail sector, too, is being transformed. Online retail and supporting logistics is expanding in a wide range of advanced and developing economies. In China, where the expansion is occurring extremely quickly, estimates suggest that only part of the expansion is at the expense of traditional retail.

 

In fact, online retail appears to be accelerating the expansion of the overall consumer market. Knowledgeable participants expect the new retail model to be an integrated form of online and physical retail, each modified by the presence of the other. Think again of the 3D printing model, a potential form of demand-driven mass-customization, and its combination with online mobile payments systems and social media. The integration of sourcing with logistics and retail will become the third leg of the stool.

 

The world we are entering is one in which the most powerful global flows will be ideas and digital capital, not goods, services, and traditional capital. Adapting to this will require shifts in mindsets, policies, investments (especially in human capital), and quite possibly models of employment and distribution. No one knows fully how all of this will play out. But attempting to understand where the technological forces and trends are leading us is a good place to start.

 

 

 

Michael Spence 

Michael Spence, a Nobel laureate in economics, is Professor of Economics at NYU’s Stern School of Business, Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and Academic Board Chairman of the Fung Global Institute in… read more

 

Read more at http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/michael-spence-describes-an-era-in-which-developing-countries-can-no-longer-rely-on-vast-numbers-of-cheap-workers#CjghQdI3g72oTfOa.99