(Neo)Liberalizam

[hazard]

zanimljiv clanak iz the Atlantic

dobar clanak, +1

[MancMellow]

dobar

[Indy]

Nije bas skroz na temu (a nije ni da nije), a clanak iz Economista kacim samo zbog 1 komentara koji mi se bas dopao. Ipak neki komentatori na Internetu imaju i nesto pametno da kazu, barem 1 u 1000.They work for usIn democracies the elites serve the masses IN SEPTEMBER last year Bill Gates and Warren Buffett sat down with 50 of China’s richest tycoons to a sumptuous dinner of nothing at all. The point the two philanthropists were making was that those who have more money than they can ever spend on themselves should consider spending it on others.Philanthropy has a long history. What is new is that philanthropists now have more money to give away than ever before. They are often young, energetic and intellectually gifted, too. Bill Gates was only 39 when he set up his charitable foundation, so he could end up spending more years managing his charity than he did running Microsoft. Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, was only 26 when he gave $100m to schools in Newark.Modern philanthropists are typically self-made, so they are used to getting things done. Rather than simply handing sacks of cash to charities that already exist, they often prefer to build their own institutions, observes Paul Schervish, the director of Boston College’s Centre on Wealth and Philanthropy. The way they measure their success is not by how much they disburse but by the return they earn on their charitable investment, measured in lives saved or improved.The super-rich philanthropists of a century ago, such as John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, were equally driven but less numerous. Today there are well over 400 billionaires in America alone, many of them in fine fettle and eager to embark on a second career. Such people are often workaholics and have no wish to retire.The charitable rich do their bit to soothe the social tensions that arise from growing inequality. Yet their work should be seen in perspective. Even in America voluntary transfers of wealth are dwarfed by public spending. Americans gave away $217 billion in 2009, estimates Mr Schervish. Government spending on health care and pensions was ten times that.By and large, global leaders change the world more by doing their day jobs than in their spare time. Even Mr Gates, who was widely reviled for his business activities, probably did more good by amassing his fortune than he is doing by giving it away. The computer revolution he helped to bring about transformed the way people handle information. Perhaps his foundation will spur some equally momentous change, but it seems unlikely.Tying Gulliver downRecent history bristles with examples of the elite causing mischief. In 2008 clever but reckless bankers sparked a global meltdown. Governments are quite rightly taking steps to rein in their excesses; tougher regulations may reduce the risk of a repeat, but will not eliminate it. On a smaller scale, the world’s brainy citizens are not necessarily being altruistic even when they claim to act for the common good. American lawyers, in punishing doctors’ mistakes, make medicine more costly. Students in Europe riot to demand that others, including those not fortunate enough to attend university, pay for their tuition.The elite are most likely to do harm when they rely on the coercive power of the state: for example, when they persuade it to grant them special favours. In autocratic countries such as China and Russia the most influential people devote a disproportionate amount of energy to such rent-seeking. In liberal democracies ordinary folk are better defended. Elections force politicians to take the public’s wishes into account every few years. Competitive markets force business leaders to heed their customers’ demands all the time. And the law applies to rich and poor alike, even if the rich can afford better lawyers.All these curbs require continual refinement: greater transparency in government, vigorous enforcement of antitrust rules, efforts to make justice swift and fair. Yet by and large in liberal democracies the powerful get on by pleasing others. In short, they work for us. E sad taj komentarHank Moody wrote: As a long time reader of the Economist, I find this special issue of "The Rich and the Rest" to be one-sided nonsense. Having read every section, I found only one small mention of the differences between entrepreneurs and the rent-seeking wealthy. In almost every article, the elite are treated as these wonderfully, brilliant fairies sprinkling job-creating pixie dust and using their huge fortunes to solve the world's problems. Consider the fact that the top 20 hedge fund managers made more than the top 500 CEOs combined. How does rent-seeking really benefit the greater good? Are the Koch brothers and Paul Tudor Jones simply earning billions of dollars by providing "greater market efficiency" and that is simply a reasonable salary for doing so? Consider, one of my philanthropic heroes, George Soros. He at least had the decency to admit to the dangerous games funds play when betting against the currency of a country. In fact the UK taxpayers were the real losers when his fund, Quantum nearly broke the Bank of England. At least in a more benevolent role, he uses part of those gains to support Human Rights Watch.According to Simon Johnson, former Chief IMF economist "From 1973 to 1985, the financial sector never earned more than 16 percent of domestic corporate profits. This decade, it reached 41 percent." I would love to hear an argument justifying the benefits to society provided by these newly minted elite, while the working class have had their savings and wages destroyed. Never before have so many graduates of the elite institutions you praise sought lucrative careers on Wall Street instead of creating the next Google. Short term moneymaking and federal bailouts are just so much more appealing than risking failure on a new green energy business.I expect more from the Economist than silly, broad-stroked generalizations about the global elite. Frankly, it makes me wonder if the Economist editor was drinking too much of the koolaid at the last Bilderberg meeting.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Indy

[rajka]

[/size][/size] [/size][/size][/color]E sad taj komentarHank Moody wrote: As a long time reader of the Economist, I find this special issue of "The Rich and the Rest" to be one-sided nonsense. Having read every section, I found only one small mention of the differences between entrepreneurs and the rent-seeking wealthy. In almost every article, the elite are treated as these wonderfully, brilliant fairies sprinkling job-creating pixie dust and using their huge fortunes to solve the world's problems. Consider the fact that the top 20 hedge fund managers made more than the top 500 CEOs combined. How does rent-seeking really benefit the greater good? Are the Koch brothers and Paul Tudor Jones simply earning billions of dollars by providing "greater market efficiency" and that is simply a reasonable salary for doing so? Consider, one of my philanthropic heroes, George Soros. He at least had the decency to admit to the dangerous games funds play when betting against the currency of a country. In fact the UK taxpayers were the real losers when his fund, Quantum nearly broke the Bank of England. At least in a more benevolent role, he uses part of those gains to support Human Rights Watch.According to Simon Johnson, former Chief IMF economist "From 1973 to 1985, the financial sector never earned more than 16 percent of domestic corporate profits. This decade, it reached 41 percent." I would love to hear an argument justifying the benefits to society provided by these newly minted elite, while the working class have had their savings and wages destroyed. Never before have so many graduates of the elite institutions you praise sought lucrative careers on Wall Street instead of creating the next Google. Short term moneymaking and federal bailouts are just so much more appealing than risking failure on a new green energy business.I expect more from the Economist than silly, broad-stroked generalizations about the global elite. Frankly, it makes me wonder if the Economist editor was drinking too much of the koolaid at the last Bilderberg meeting.[/size][/font]

hmm, nisam sigurna sta mu je poenta.kada neki hedge fund manager zaradi milijardu, ta milijarda je 20% od ukupno koliko je zaradio (roughly). preostalih 80% dobiju neki penzioni fondovi, univerzitetske fondacije, family offices i "kvalifikovani" pojedinci (tj. bogatasi).e, sada, moze se reci da je problem sto su za menadzera rizici asimetricno rasporedjeni, tj. moze da zaradi neograniceno mnogo, ili da izgubi novac investitora i nikom nista.ja sam do juce radila za jedan takav hedge fund. 2008 smo likvidirali sve fondove koje smo imali (uz prakticno 100% gubitak za investitore). do kraja 2009. smo zatvorili dva nova fonda, posto su opet neki hteli da nam daju pare! a menadzeri / partneri nisu ni blizu zvezde, kao oni koje ovaj spominje. uz svo uvazavanje toga da smo preplaceni, ako zivimo u svetu u kojem ljudi imaju osnovnu slobodu da raspolazu svojim novcem i ako se stalno vracaju da daju taj novac tim 'gospodarima univerzuma', da li je to bas 'failure' kapitalizma? ne znam sta misli pod "rent-seeking" i kako vidi hedge fund managere u tom ekosistemu (naspram recimo investicijskih banaka), ali je smetnuo sa uma da su CEOs zaposleni, a Paul Tudor Jones je preduzetnik, vlasnik svoje firme, tako da ako ce da poredi top 20 hedge fund managera, treba da ih poredi sa 20 top preduzetnika.ili mozda pise o tome da bi resursi bili bolje alocirani da je rast finansijski sektora nekako osujecena (npr. posebnim porezima), pa bi svi ti sto idu da traze lukrativne karijere u finasijama radili nesto pametnije. ne znam, nekako se ne osecam optimisticno u vezi takve alternativne istorije.

[Indy]

Ja sam finansijski nestrucnjak, sto je dokazano time koliki su mi dugovi, ali taj odgovor mi se nekako svideo (bez da mogu da ga "branim" u akademskom smislu). A sto se tice rent-seeking, a pretpostavljam da mi se taj termin posebno dopao, sveznajuca Wikipedia ovo kaze:

In economics, rent-seeking occurs when an individual, organization or firm seeks to earn income by capturing economic rent through manipulation or exploitation of the economic or political environment, rather than by earning profits through economic transactions and the production of added wealth.

Na neki nacin ovo vodi na siru temu o kojoj smo nas dvoje vec polemisali, tj. da li je ono sto se zove slobodno trziste stvarno slobodno (ili se samo tako zove, a u sebe ukljucuje veoma mnogo nefer stvari, kao sto je nasledjeni polozaj na trzistu, nasledjene networke, boys club ponasanje, naslanjanje na ledja nekog siledzije - recimo "humanitarne" vojne sile, trpanje raznoraznih eksternaliteta pod kakav zgodan tepih i tome slicna muvanja koja su ispod radara bilo kakvog checks & balances sistema).Nego, bolje da manje tupim, a vise radim ne bih li se vadio iz dugova, ne c'est pa? Another day, another dollar...

[rajka]

Ja sam finansijski nestrucnjak, sto je dokazano time koliki su mi dugovi, ali taj odgovor mi se nekako svideo (bez da mogu da ga "branim" u akademskom smislu). A sto se tice rent-seeking, a pretpostavljam da mi se taj termin posebno dopao, sveznajuca Wikipedia ovo kaze:Na neki nacin ovo vodi na siru temu o kojoj smo nas dvoje vec polemisali, tj. da li je ono sto se zove slobodno trziste stvarno slobodno (ili se samo tako zove, a u sebe ukljucuje veoma mnogo nefer stvari, kao sto je nasledjeni polozaj na trzistu, nasledjene networke, boys club ponasanje, naslanjanje na ledja nekog siledzije - recimo "humanitarne" vojne sile, trpanje raznoraznih eksternaliteta pod kakav zgodan tepih i tome slicna muvanja koja su ispod radara bilo kakvog checks & balances sistema).Nego, bolje da manje tupim, a vise radim ne bih li se vadio iz dugova, ne c'est pa? Another day, another dollar...

dobro, ako je to henk moody hteo da kaze mogu da se slozim, ovo sto si naveo sigurno nije slobodno trziste.sto se mene tice, mozemo da govorimo o failure-u kapitalizma, ako taj failure nezavisan od ljudi, kao sto je recimo cuveni primer prirodnih monopola. ako je deo ljudske prirode, pisi kuci propalo, sa bilo kojim sistemom. a ako je vec tako, onda radije biram kapitalizam od svih alternativa u ponudi.

[Indy]

... od svih alternativa u ponudi.

Mislim da treba da ignorises ovaj pooll gore, mislim da to niko ne uzima stvarno ozbiljno. Ako mogu da sumiram o cemu se uglavnom na ovom forumu prica (na ovu, i slicne, teme) je koliko demokratije (to su ti moji checks & balances) treba da bude "prisutno" u savremenom kapitalizmu. Ili, sto bi neko rekao drugacije, koliko i kakve "regulacije". Tu se misljenja razmimoilaze. Niko se ovde ne zalaze za marksizam (sveobuhvatno) u danasnjem svetu, ima par njih koji se nesto kao foliraju, a stali bi - mislim - prvi pred tenkove na nekom novom Tjenamenu.

[MayDay]

hedge fund investing nije rent-seeking. hedge fondovi imaju specijalizovane strategije i, za razliku od mutual funds, njihove investicije su u skladu sa boljom informisanoscu o kompanijama, tako da oni obezbedjuju nize troskove kapitala firmama koje imaju bolje izglede da budu uspesne. investment banking je rent-seeking u velikoj meri zato sto pripada bankama koje mogu da ocekuju da budu spasene od strane drzave. e sad, depoziti i krediti jedne banke se knjize na banking books i potpadaju pod strozu regulativu (bazel 3,...), a investiranje u structured investment vehicles (abs, mbs,...), sto je i-banking sektor banke, se knjizi na trading books i ne potpada pod regulativu. dakle, i-bankers mogu da investiraju kako im volja jer ce drzava biti tu da sacuva stedise i subordinate debtholders iste te banke (zbog depozitno-kreditne uloge te banke a ne investment banking uloge), a ne suocavaju se sa istom kontrolom. zbog toga mislim da tu ima rent-seekinga.

Edited February 4, 2011 by MayDay

[Budja]

hmm, nisam sigurna sta mu je poenta.kada neki hedge fund manager zaradi milijardu, ta milijarda je 20% od ukupno koliko je zaradio (roughly). preostalih 80% dobiju neki penzioni fondovi, univerzitetske fondacije, family offices i "kvalifikovani" pojedinci (tj. bogatasi).e, sada, moze se reci da je problem sto su za menadzera rizici asimetricno rasporedjeni, tj. moze da zaradi neograniceno mnogo, ili da izgubi novac investitora i nikom nista.ja sam do juce radila za jedan takav hedge fund. 2008 smo likvidirali sve fondove koje smo imali (uz prakticno 100% gubitak za investitore). do kraja 2009. smo zatvorili dva nova fonda, posto su opet neki hteli da nam daju pare! a menadzeri / partneri nisu ni blizu zvezde, kao oni koje ovaj spominje. uz svo uvazavanje toga da smo preplaceni, ako zivimo u svetu u kojem ljudi imaju osnovnu slobodu da raspolazu svojim novcem i ako se stalno vracaju da daju taj novac tim 'gospodarima univerzuma', da li je to bas 'failure' kapitalizma? ne znam sta misli pod "rent-seeking" i kako vidi hedge fund managere u tom ekosistemu (naspram recimo investicijskih banaka), ali je smetnuo sa uma da su CEOs zaposleni, a Paul Tudor Jones je preduzetnik, vlasnik svoje firme, tako da ako ce da poredi top 20 hedge fund managera, treba da ih poredi sa 20 top preduzetnika.ili mozda pise o tome da bi resursi bili bolje alocirani da je rast finansijski sektora nekako osujecena (npr. posebnim porezima), pa bi svi ti sto idu da traze lukrativne karijere u finasijama radili nesto pametnije. ne znam, nekako se ne osecam optimisticno u vezi takve alternativne istorije.

Cini mi se da si sama odgovorila u cemu je problem, plus "rent seeking" vazi u smislu da je finansijski sektor zasticen implicitnom drzavnogm garancijom (bailout), sto ohrabruje moral-hazard.U tom smislu, za investicione bankare je optimalno da maksimalno rizikuju - gubici se socijalizuju, a profit ide u privatne dzepove.Sto se hedge fondova tice, to je ipak drugi par cipela, uz neke sumnjive prakse (naked shorting).

[rajka]

Mislim da treba da ignorises ovaj pooll gore, mislim da to niko ne uzima stvarno ozbiljno. Ako mogu da sumiram o cemu se uglavnom na ovom forumu prica (na ovu, i slicne, teme) je koliko demokratije (to su ti moji checks & balances) treba da bude "prisutno" u savremenom kapitalizmu. Ili, sto bi neko rekao drugacije, koliko i kakve "regulacije". Tu se misljenja razmimoilaze. Niko se ovde ne zalaze za marksizam (sveobuhvatno) u danasnjem svetu, ima par njih koji se nesto kao foliraju, a stali bi - mislim - prvi pred tenkove na nekom novom Tjenamenu.

pitanje za mene je da li od regulacije koja je protivna interesu dovoljno velike/mocne grupe ljudi, ima vise stete ili koristi? jasno je da ce oni protiv kojih je uperena uspeti da je barem delom zaobidju, a valjda je jasno (meni jeste) i da regulacija unosi neefikasnost u sistem. zapravo, sa onom opaskom o kapitalizmu sam htela reci: dok nisam uverena da je korist od regulacije veca od stete, radije biram manje regulacije od vise. na kraju, gde ces regulisaniju oblast od bankarstva, a korist od regulacije mi je bas dosta sumnjiva.

[Budja]

hedge fund investing nije rent-seeking. hedge fondovi imaju specijalizovane strategije i, za razliku od mutual funds, njihove investicije su u skladu sa boljom informisanoscu o kompanijama, tako da oni obezbedjuju nize troskove kapitala firmama koje imaju bolje izglede da budu uspesne.

Je l' moze neko razjasnjenje za boldovani deo?Nisam siguran na sta mislis.

[hazard]

Po Indijevoj definiciji sva spekulacija bi se mogla podvesti pod rent-seeking. Mada, to uopste nije nelogicno.Sto se tice finansijskih firmi, mogli bismo citirati Pola Volkera:

"I wish someone would give me one shred of neutral evidence that financial innovation has led to economic growth — one shred of evidence."

Volcker: Only Financial Innovation Has Been “ATM Machine”

[Indy]

na kraju, gde ces regulisaniju oblast od bankarstva, a korist od regulacije mi je bas dosta sumnjiva.

Sad stvarno ne znam o tome ni priblizno (srecom tu su MD & Budja, a ima i drugih strucnijih), ali prema onom sto sam citao (sa koliko razumevanja, bog zna) - americko bankarstvo je bilo lose regulisano (u smislu nedovoljno) sto je i dovelo do ove GFC. To su cesto naglasavali kolumnisti u Australiji, koristeci priliku da pritom poentiraju kako je u Australiji bankarski sistem (za razliku) dobro regulisan i da smo kao zemlja prakticno izbegli GFC. (A bice da je i rudarstvo tu nesto pripomoglo, dodajem ja).Druga je tema (vec ranije potezana tu i tamo) da treba biti oprezan sa fetisizacijom ekonomske efikasnosti. U domenu privrede je to svakako pozeljno, ali stvari imaju tendenciju da se sire po sistemu "coveku sa cekicem sve lici na ekser", pa nam eto uskoro "efikasnosti" u oblastima u kojima joj je mesto kao slonu u staklarskoj radnji. Edited February 4, 2011 by Indy

[rajka]

Cini mi se da si sama odgovorila u cemu je problem, plus "rent seeking" vazi u smislu da je finansijski sektor zasticen implicitnom drzavnogm garancijom (bailout), sto ohrabruje moral-hazard.U tom smislu, za investicione bankare je optimalno da maksimalno rizikuju - gubici se socijalizuju, a profit ide u privatne dzepove.Sto se hedge fondova tice, to je ipak drugi par cipela, uz neke sumnjive prakse (naked shorting).

hank moody je govorio iskljucivo o hedge funds menadzerima, pa sam zato i rekla da nisam sigurna gde ih vidi u tome finansijskom sistemu (u odnosu na inv. banke).a sto se tice drzavnih garancija, njih vidim kao deo te regulacije fin. sistema, zato i kazem da ne znam da li je veca korist ili steta. sada, mogu da se pravim veliki libertarijanac i kazem da su trebali da ih puste da propadnu, ali mi pamcenje seze tri godine unazad, pa se jos secam i onog jutra kada i lehman roknuo i onog podneva kada su sve razvijene zemlje survale kamatne stope od jednom, i kako sam se usrala sta ce biti dalje, pa onda mi ostaje samo da kazem da ne znam.

[Budja]

hank moody je govorio iskljucivo o hedge funds menadzerima, pa sam zato i rekla da nisam sigurna gde ih vidi u tome finansijskom sistemu (u odnosu na inv. banke).a sto se tice drzavnih garancija, njih vidim kao deo te regulacije fin. sistema, zato i kazem da ne znam da li je veca korist ili steta. sada, mogu da se pravim veliki libertarijanac i kazem da su trebali da ih puste da propadnu, ali mi pamcenje seze tri godine unazad, pa se jos secam i onog jutra kada i lehman roknuo i onog podneva kada su sve razvijene zemlje survale kamatne stope od jednom, i kako sam se usrala sta ce biti dalje, pa onda mi ostaje samo da kazem da ne znam.

Ne mogu da propadnu, ali onda nema bonusa, vrlo jednostavno. Ne moze i jare i pare.