(Neo)Liberalizam

[Isis]

obrisani su svi uvredljivi postovi, kao i nepotrebni prostakluk u postu koji je inicirao to prepucavanje.to je bila jedina mera do sad preduzeta, nadam se da ce na tome i ostati.od sada ne postoji nijedan razlog da se dalje ne nastavi sa normalnom komunikacijom.

[Budja]

U čemu bi bio problem da dve firme u kolektivnom vlasništvu konkurišu jedna drugoj na tržištu?

Nemoguce.Isto kao da si rekao zasto Bil Gejts ne osnuje dve firme koje bi konkurisale jedna drugoj na trzistu.Takodje, smisao konkurencije i trzista se ogleda u mogucnosti prisvajanja profita - ako toga nema i ako se preduzetnicka ideja ne vrednuje, koji moj ima da se akam kada ce se to ionako razdeliti na ravne casti.

[Budja]

Upravo tako.Stvari treba posmatrati u kontekstu vremena. Danas se štošta izmenilo i pojavom upravo tog menadžmenta stvari su došle do tačke na kojoj je manje-više svejedno ko je vlasnik, pa otud i mnogo kompanija koje uspešno posluju iako su npr. akcionarska društva sa mnogo akcionara a ne u vlasništvu jedne osobe.I dalje - činjenicom da posledicama (neo)liberalne globalizacije rich get richer & poor get poorer ne dobija niko (siromašniji potrošači - opada potražnja - opada proizvodnja - kriza/recesija - otpuštanja radnika - siromašniji potrošači itd.) stvara se prostor, volja, želja i kritična masa za promene. Ovako očigledno više neće moći, kapitalizam as we know it je na izdisaju. Možda ga ova kriza neće odmah promeniti, ali nakon ove doći će još jedna, pa još jedna... Treba sagledati koje su alternative - ono što se sada čuje iz svih delova sveta ("Kupujmo Američko", "Britanski poslovi za britanske radnike" itd.) ili pak nešto drugo, nešto što će dovesti do toga da se globalizacija ne zaustavi ali da se prekine gore pomenuti začarani krug.E sad, da ja imam definitivan odgovor na to ja bih imao i Nobelovu nagradu iz ekonomije ;) Ono što pak znam je da odgovori ne leže u bilo kojoj liberalnoj školi jer smo videli dokle nas je to dovelo.

Dobro, nisi prvi koji to tvrdi. I tako vec 200-300 godina...

[Zabalujev]

Dobro, nisi prvi koji to tvrdi. I tako vec 200-300 godina...

Da, tako 200-300 godina i jedni i drugi. Pa se preganjamo.

[srdjann]

Čoveče što ste osetiljivi kada vas neko dira u kapitalizam... ;) Pa zar nije baš glavni moto te vaše austrijske škole da ako nešto ne može da opstane (na tržištu) da onda i treba da krepa? :DPS. Pogledajte malo bolje, ja nisam napisao da je ovo kraj kapitalizma već da je kraj kapitalizma as we know it (ili će biti nakon još dve-tri ovakve krize)...PPS. I ja, baš kao i Marks, smatram da kapitalizam ima mnogo pozitivnih stvari, ali čak je i feudalizam bio korak napred u odnosu na robovlasništvo... ;)

[Gandalf]

?Talk about centralisation! The credit system, which has its focus in the so-called national banks and the big money-lenders and usurers surrounding them, constitutes enormous centralisation, and gives this class of parasites the fabulous power, not only to periodically despoil industrial capitalists, but also to interfere in actual production in a most dangerous manner? and this gang knows nothing about production and has nothing to do with it.? [1]Ten years ago, a quote from Marx would have one deemed a socialist, and dismissed from polite debate. Today, such a quote can (and did, along with Charlie?s photo) appear in a feature in the Sydney Morning Herald?and not a few people would have been nodding their heads at how Marx got it right on bankers.He got it wrong on some other issues,[2] but his analysis of money and credit, and how the credit system can bring an otherwise well-functioning market economy to its knees, was spot on. His observations on the financial crisis of 1857 still ring true today:"A high rate of interest can also indicate, as it did in 1857, that the country is undermined by the roving cavaliers of credit who can afford to pay a high interest because they pay it out of other people?s pockets (whereby, however, they help to determine the rate of interest for all), and meanwhile they live in grand style on anticipated profits.Simultaneously, precisely this can incidentally provide a very profitable business for manufacturers and others. Returns become wholly deceptive as a result of the loan system??[1]One and a half centuries after Marx falsely predicted the demise of capitalism, the people most likely to bring it about are not working class revolutionaries, but the ?Roving Cavaliers of Credit?, against whom Marx quite justly railed....But in the real world?and in my models of Minsky?s Financial Instability Hypothesis?there is an additional reason why the public will take on debt: the perception of possibilities for private gain from leveraged speculation on asset prices.That clearly is what has happened in the world?s recent economic history, as it happened previously in the runup to the Great Depression and numerous financial crises beforehand. In its aftermath, we are now experiencing a ?credit crunch??a sudden reversal with the cavaliers going from being willing to lend to virtually anyone with a pulse, to refusing credit even to those with solid financial histories.http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01...aliersofcredit/

Edited February 9, 2009 by Gandalf

[hazard]

Pricali smo ranije o ne-efektivnosti kejnzijanizma i monetarizma - i upravo sada, nakon sto je Fed ispucao sve monetaristicke pristupe, Obama planira kejnzijanski "stimulus" - da li ce uspeti? Sumnjam, a i evo i primera Japana koji je ne samo primer uzaludnosti monetaristickih pristupa (imali su kamatu blizu 0% duze vreme), vec i kejnzistickih:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world/as...3&ref=world

Japan?s rural areas have been paved over and filled in with roads, dams and other big infrastructure projects, the legacy of trillions of dollars spent to lift the economy from a severe downturn caused by the bursting of a real estate bubble in the late 1980s. During those nearly two decades, Japan accumulated the largest public debt in the developed world ? totaling 180 percent of its $5.5 trillion economy ? while failing to generate a convincing recovery.Now, as the Obama administration embarks on a similar path, proposing to spend more than $820 billion to stimulate the sagging American economy, many economists are taking a fresh look at Japan?s troubled experience. While Japan is not exactly comparable to the United States ? especially as a late developer with a history of heavy state investment in infrastructure ? economists say it can still offer important lessons about the pitfalls, and chances for success, of a stimulus package in an advanced economy.In a nutshell, Japan?s experience suggests that infrastructure spending, while a blunt instrument, can help revive a developed economy, say many economists and one very important American official: Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, who was a young financial attach? in Japan during the collapse and subsequent doldrums. One lesson Mr. Geithner has said he took away from that experience is that spending must come in quick, massive doses, and be continued until recovery takes firm root.Between 1991 and 1995, Japan spent some $2.1 trillion on public works, in an economy roughly half as large as that of the United States, according to the Cabinet Office. ?Stimulus worked in Japan when it was tried,? said David Weinstein, a professor of Japanese economics at Columbia University. ?Japan?s lesson is that, if anything, the current U.S. stimulus will not be enough.?Most Japanese economists have tended to take a bleaker view of their nation?s track record, saying that Japan spent more than enough money, but wasted too much of it on roads to nowhere and other unneeded projects.Dr. Ihori of the University of Tokyo did a survey of public works in the 1990s, concluding that the spending created almost no additional economic growth. Instead of spreading beneficial ripple effects across the economy, he found that the spending actually led to declines in business investment by driving out private investors. He also said job creation was too narrowly focused in the construction industry in rural areas to give much benefit to the overall economy.He agreed with other critics that the 1990s stimulus failed because too much of it went to roads and bridges, overbuilding this already heavily developed nation. Critics also said decisions on how to spend the money were made behind closed doors by bureaucrats, politicians and the construction industry, and often reflected political considerations more than economic.In Hamada, residents say the city?s most visible ?hakomono,? the Japanese equivalent of ?white elephant,? was its own bridge to nowhere, the $70 million Marine Bridge, whose 1,006-foot span sat almost completely devoid of traffic on a recent morning. Built in 1999, the bridge links the city to a small, sparsely populated island already connected by a shorter bridge.?Roads and bridges are attractive, but they create jobs only during construction,? said Shunji Nakamura, chief of the city?s industrial policy section. ?You need projects with good jobs that will last through a bad economy.?

[Indy]

Sjajan tekst:Everything You Love You Owe to Capitalism

[Zabalujev]

A za marksizam 40%. The people have spoken!

[Indy]

Pre 30 godina mi je takvo nesto bilo nezamislivo. Gledali smo samo kako da se resimo marksizma, sto smo i uspeli.

[Zabalujev]

Tjah, koliko ja vidim, toga su se rešili sami marksisti koji pređoše u kapitaliste. Bolji je život, valjda. Za njih, to jest.

[Indy]

"Tjah" - ti si nedavno diplomirao, cini mi se? Onda nista ne znas o otporu koji je kljukanje marksistickom ideologijom izazivalo kod svakoga osim 'malih dacica' (da da, od tih veoma retkih koji su priljezno jos u studentskim danima bili nazocniji po partijskim sastancima nego u laboratorijama i bibliotekama upravo su postali 'dacici'). Nisu suprotnost marksistima kapitalisti, vec slobodni ljudi.

[Zabalujev]

Tjah, pre dve godine... Čitao sam kako su Svjatoslav Rihter i Rostropovič spremali marksističke predmete. Kleknu, knjigu na pod ispred sebe, onda se nameste četvoronoške nad knjigom i čitaju. Kada zaspe, onda padnu i udare glavom u pod. Toliko o tome šta ja znam o otporu marksizmu.E sad, kad to što ti opisuješ uporedim sa današnjim mladoliderskim vremenima, ili onim što smo čitali kod Nušića, Milovana Glišića i Laze Lazarevića ("državi su dužni svi, država nikome ništa"), ja bih rekao da se menjaju samo knjige koje se čitaju, a da kriterijumi podobnosti u suštini ostaju isti. Ukratko, što reče moj pradeda (komunista), nisu to komunisti, to su drpisti. Drpizam je srbijanska tradicija. živi i dalje.

[MancMellow]

E sad, kad to što ti opisuješ uporedim sa današnjim mladoliderskim vremenima, ili onim što smo čitali kod Nušića, Milovana Glišića i Laze Lazarevića ("državi su dužni svi, država nikome ništa"), ja bih rekao da se menjaju samo knjige koje se čitaju, a da kriterijumi podobnosti u suštini ostaju isti. Ukratko, što reče moj pradeda (komunista), nisu to komunisti, to su drpisti. Drpizam je srbijanska tradicija. živi i dalje.

Ja nešto ne vidim da je tekst koji je Indy postavio ima veze sa Srbijom. Teza da je to na šta ovo u Srbiji liči i na šta je ličilo, ne znam, dvadesetih godina, dokaz da se sloboda kao koncept ne razlikuje mnogo od nečijeg plana za sve kao koncepta je slična tezi da je smešan hod čoveka koji je, recimo, 2 godine neprestano sedeo dokaz za to da nije trebalo ni da ustaje.

[Gandalf]

Nisu suprotnost marksistima kapitalisti, vec slobodni ljudi.

slobodni (i misleci) ljudi su suprotnost i marksistima i kapitalistima.Shumpeter: ?Nationalism and militarism, while not creatures of capitalism, become ?capitalized? and in the end draw their best energies from capitalism. Capitalism involves them in its working and thereby keeps them alive, politically as well as economically. And they, in turn, affect capitalism, cause it to deviate from the course it might have followed alone, support many of its interests.? Edited February 21, 2009 by Gandalf