Svetska Kriza 2008-....

[Budja]

Krugman nastavlja pohod protiv drzavne stednje:The Austerity DebacleBy PAUL KRUGMANPublished: January 29, 2012 CloseDiggRedditTumblrPermalinkLast week the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, a British think tank, released a startling chart comparing the current slump with past recessions and recoveries. It turns out that by one important measure — changes in real G.D.P. since the recession began — Britain is doing worse this time than it did during the Great Depression. Four years into the Depression, British G.D.P. had regained its previous peak; four years after the Great Recession began, Britain is nowhere close to regaining its lost ground. Nor is Britain unique. Italy is also doing worse than it did in the 1930s — and with Spain clearly headed for a double-dip recession, that makes three of Europe’s big five economies members of the worse-than club. Yes, there are some caveats and complications. But this nonetheless represents a stunning failure of policy. And it’s a failure, in particular, of the austerity doctrine that has dominated elite policy discussion both in Europe and, to a large extent, in the United States for the past two years. O.K., about those caveats: On one side, British unemployment was much higher in the 1930s than it is now, because the British economy was depressed — mainly thanks to an ill-advised return to the gold standard — even before the Depression struck. On the other side, Britain had a notably mild Depression compared with the United States. Even so, surpassing the track record of the 1930s shouldn’t be a tough challenge. Haven’t we learned a lot about economic management over the last 80 years? Yes, we have — but in Britain and elsewhere, the policy elite decided to throw that hard-won knowledge out the window, and rely on ideologically convenient wishful thinking instead. Britain, in particular, was supposed to be a showcase for “expansionary austerity,” the notion that instead of increasing government spending to fight recessions, you should slash spending instead — and that this would lead to faster economic growth. “Those who argue that dealing with our deficit and promoting growth are somehow alternatives are wrong,” declared David Cameron, Britain’s prime minister. “You cannot put off the first in order to promote the second.” How could the economy thrive when unemployment was already high, and government policies were directly reducing employment even further? Confidence! “I firmly believe,” declared Jean-Claude Trichet — at the time the president of the European Central Bank, and a strong advocate of the doctrine of expansionary austerity — “that in the current circumstances confidence-inspiring policies will foster and not hamper economic recovery, because confidence is the key factor today.” Such invocations of the confidence fairy were never plausible; researchers at the International Monetary Fund and elsewhere quickly debunked the supposed evidence that spending cuts create jobs. Yet influential people on both sides of the Atlantic heaped praise on the prophets of austerity, Mr. Cameron in particular, because the doctrine of expansionary austerity dovetailed with their ideological agendas. Thus in October 2010 David Broder, who virtually embodied conventional wisdom, praised Mr. Cameron for his boldness, and in particular for “brushing aside the warnings of economists that the sudden, severe medicine could cut short Britain’s economic recovery and throw the nation back into recession.” He then called on President Obama to “do a Cameron” and pursue “a radical rollback of the welfare state now.” Strange to say, however, those warnings from economists proved all too accurate. And we’re quite fortunate that Mr. Obama did not, in fact, do a Cameron. Which is not to say that all is well with U.S. policy. True, the federal government has avoided all-out austerity. But state and local governments, which must run more or less balanced budgets, have slashed spending and employment as federal aid runs out — and this has been a major drag on the overall economy. Without those spending cuts, we might already have been on the road to self-sustaining growth; as it is, recovery still hangs in the balance. And we may get tipped in the wrong direction by Continental Europe, where austerity policies are having the same effect as in Britain, with many signs pointing to recession this year. The infuriating thing about this tragedy is that it was completely unnecessary. Half a century ago, any economist — or for that matter any undergraduate who had read Paul Samuelson’s textbook “Economics” — could have told you that austerity in the face of depression was a very bad idea. But policy makers, pundits and, I’m sorry to say, many economists decided, largely for political reasons, to forget what they used to know. And millions of workers are paying the price for their willful amnesia.

I opet nikako da objasni kako bi, na primer Italija, finansirala deficit iz bankrota. Prosto neverovatno ignorisanje stanja na terenu.

[hazard]

I opet nikako da objasni kako bi, na primer Italija, finansirala deficit iz bankrota. Prosto neverovatno ignorisanje stanja na terenu.

Edited February 2, 2012 by hazard

[dekss]

I opet nikako da objasni kako bi, na primer Italija, finansirala deficit iz bankrota. Prosto neverovatno ignorisanje stanja na terenu.

Nikako. Deficit bi se "sredio" istog momenta kad bi se desio bankrotIli drugim rečima: pare nisu (više) problem - para (više) nema:)

No, no, Italija nema to sokoćalo na slici.Ali polako, prvo trebada bankrotira Grčka Edited February 2, 2012 by dekss

[rajka]

US economy creates 243,000 jobs in January

[Indy]

...

Edited February 3, 2012 by Indy

[rajka]

mislim da se radi o neto broju.

[Indy]

...

Edited February 3, 2012 by Indy

[rajka]

manje vise kako ga koriste mediji, ali ga ekonomisti koriste kao lagging indicator, tako da ako i dalje imas primedbe, to je na racun ekonomske metodologije :P

[Indy]

...

Edited February 3, 2012 by Indy

[rajka]

ne znam. ja nisam ekonomista, a za sebe ne mislim da sam nadmena, nego bas obrnuto, tako da sam nesrecna ako ostavljam takav utisak. a ocigledno nisam ni duhovita, ko sto sam mislila da jesam :o

[Indy]

...

Edited February 3, 2012 by Indy

[Sirius]

Podatak je dobar, nije odlican, za to je potrebno +300k, ali je dobar.Medjutim, problem je sledece:Unemployment rate drops to 8.3% on 1.2 million workers fall off benefit rolls Pozitivno je sto ima zaposljavanja u proizvodnji, iako, to jesu losije placeni poslovi. :)edit: zato je pad na 8.3%, inace sa samo 243k ne bi moglo. Uostalom, prilican procentualni pad nezaposlenosti u poslednje vreme je posledica smanjivanja Labor Force Participation Rate.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Sirius

[rajka]

Podatak je dobar, nije odlican, za to je potrebno +300k, ali je dobar.Medjutim, problem je sledece:

nisam sigurna sta mi govoris. ako uzmemo da se broj radno sposobnih ljudi nije promenio za mesec dana, a ima neto vise poslova i ljudi koji ih rade, onda labour rate participation mora da je porastao. ovo je podatak izasao od pre par sati, pa tvoj grafik nije updateovan.a kako si izracunao tih 300k, i za sto to je potrebno?ja kao laik se nadam da ovo znaci da sve ide svojim tokom (recesija, pracena povecanjem produktivnosti (jobless recovery), praceno povecanjem zaposlenosti), te da doomsayeri koji kazu 'but this time it really is different!', zapravo opet nisu u pravu. a ne upustam se u to sta kreira ocekivanja, i na sta su temljili svoje ocekivanja koja su premasena, metodologiju po kojoj izracunavaju ili sta god.

[rajka]

a, dobro sad vidim odakle ti ovo sto pricas, ja kad sam postavila vest, bilo je samo breaking news, bez kasnije dodatih detalja:

Lindsey Piegza, economist at FTN Financial, said: "It was a better-than-expected report, the strongest report that we've seen in quite some time."The big question is whether the reason we're seeing the unemployment rate drop is because more and more people are dropping out of the labour force."I know the market wants to rally on this number but remember we need a minimum of 250,000 just to cover demographic change."

opet, dok razumem da nezaposlenost moze da se smanji, zato sto deo ljudi odluci da prestane da trazi posao, ne mogu da zamislim da se na trzistu rada javlja 250K novih radnika mesecno. demografija je taka da se sada penzionisu bebi bumeri, a njih ima vise od ovih koji sada ulaze na trziste rada, a imigracija je oko milion godisnje, tu ukljucujuci i decu.

[fonTelefon]

objasnjava ti covek statisticke marifetluke. jos kod prosle krize izaslo ih je mnogo kako su se snasli nemam pojma jedino sto mi pada na pamet su neke minimalne penzije i udaja/zenidba pa neko nekog izdrzava. Sta ne razues u cinjenici da se rodi vise od pola srbije u merici svake godine i da pola od njih zatrazi posao. ova cifra ne pokriva ni prirodni prirastaj i ekonomija lici im na 2006 kad su na statisticke misice izbegavali recesiju. sve neki rast rast ali u mestu izgleda.