(Neo)Liberalizam

[Indy]

Keynesian policies are not the answerJohn Montgomery | January 28, 2009Article from: The Australian"WHEN you are in a hole, stop digging." This sensible law was coined by Denis Healey, Britain's chancellor of the exchequer during the 1970s. Unfortunately, Healey did not take his own advice. Under his stewardship government finances collapsed, leading to the humiliating need to borrow from the International Monetary Fund. Within a year, Margaret Thatcher was in Downing Street. She revived Britain's fortunes by returning to sound money, cutting government spending, cutting taxes and allowing failing industries to go to the wall.This is the exact opposite to the economic policy being followed in the US by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats, by Gordon Brown in Britain, and by Kevin Rudd here in Australia. Instead of sound money, the policy is one of throwing good money after bad.The new policy of demand management through government spending - known as Keynesianism - will not work. It never has, for the simple reason that governments cannot run economies and they do not create wealth. By throwing government money around in any number of bail-outs, infrastructure programs and pet social projects, governments are running up debt and simultaneously failing to revive the economy. ---O stvaranju "posla" (umesto stvaranja vrednosti), tj. "spending stimulus"-u ima i ona anegdota:

"I am reminded of a story that a businessman told me a few years ago. While touring China, he came upon a team of nearly 100 workers building an earthen dam with shovels. The businessman commented to a local official that, with an earth-moving machine, a single worker could create the dam in an afternoon. The official?s curious response was, ?Yes, but think of all the unemployment that would create.? ?Oh,? said the businessman, ?I thought you were building a dam. If it?s jobs you want to create, then take away their shovels and give them spoons!?

Zasto to onda vodeci politicari najrazvijenijih zemalja uporno rade? Dobra politika, losa ekonomija. Edited January 29, 2009 by Indy

[hazard]

Pa da Indy, za kejnzijanizam je dokazano u praksi da ne funkcionise. Zato je vecina drzava odavno presla na monetarizam...tj. monetarnu a ne fiskalnu politiku kao glavno sredstvo manipulacije.Problem u tome sto je ova kriza takodje razotkrila i monetarizam kao nefunkcionalan. Pogledajmo sta rade Fed i BoE npr...kamate skoro na nuli (u principu, besplatan novac). Raznorazni programi sa dugackim i mucnim skrecenicama i akademske ideje o otkupljivanju ovih ili onih vrednosnih hartija, garancije za sve i svasta, itd. I sta na kraju - na kraju nista.E, onda politicari panice i vracaju se Kejnsu. "Gorka pilula" austrijske skole npr., pa to i ne pada pamet. Pa zaboga, mora se uraditi nesto. Inace ce se skljokati na sledecim izborima a pobedice oni drugi koji ce da obecaju da nesto uraditi. Cesto u politici bolji rejting ima onaj politicar koji je "pokusao" da uradi nesto, makar i sa katastrofalnim posledicama, nego onaj koji je shvatio da ne moze da pomogne i da moze samo da pogorsa stvari te se treba skloniti sa puta.

[Budja]

Cekajte, ja nisam shvatio cemu pooll.. Sta, glasacemo sta je najbolja ekonomska teorija!? Dajte argumente, a ne demokratiju, sto mu gromova. Inace mozemo da izglasamo da je Zemlja ravna ploca.

Cisto zabave radi i provere forumskog javnog mnjenja.

[Budja]

Pa da Indy, za kejnzijanizam je dokazano u praksi da ne funkcionise. Zato je vecina drzava odavno presla na monetarizam...tj. monetarnu a ne fiskalnu politiku kao glavno sredstvo manipulacije.Problem u tome sto je ova kriza takodje razotkrila i monetarizam kao nefunkcionalan. Pogledajmo sta rade Fed i BoE npr...kamate skoro na nuli (u principu, besplatan novac). Raznorazni programi sa dugackim i mucnim skrecenicama i akademske ideje o otkupljivanju ovih ili onih vrednosnih hartija, garancije za sve i svasta, itd. I sta na kraju - na kraju nista.E, onda politicari panice i vracaju se Kejnsu. "Gorka pilula" austrijske skole npr., pa to i ne pada pamet. Pa zaboga, mora se uraditi nesto. Inace ce se skljokati na sledecim izborima a pobedice oni drugi koji ce da obecaju da nesto uraditi. Cesto u politici bolji rejting ima onaj politicar koji je "pokusao" da uradi nesto, makar i sa katastrofalnim posledicama, nego onaj koji je shvatio da ne moze da pomogne i da moze samo da pogorsa stvari te se treba skloniti sa puta.

Problem je i u fazi ciklusa.Na primer, Austrijanci tvrde da bi se iz velikde depresije izaslo jos ranije da nije bilo new deal-a. No, to je tesko dokazati.Pomenuti primer Briatnije u sedamdesetim takodje nije adekvatan jer je kejzijanizam "vladao" dve-tri decenije - kejznijanizam je bila vladajuca paradigma a ne politika promena.I druga strana bi mogla da nadje gomilu takvih "anectodal evidence" da pruzi podrsku svojoj strani price. I onda ode topik u patkometriju.

[Budja]

Citam nesto Shillera u NYT.Moj je utisak da se behavioural economics prilicno naslanja na Kejnsa, u smislu znacaja (iracionalne) ljudske prirode za funckionisanje ekonomije i znacajnog faktora u nastajanju balona. "Animal spirit", "beauty contest" su sve sintagme kasnije zamenjene onima iz psihologije "herding", "sentiment", ovaj ili onaj bias.Zanimljivo je da jedan od vodecih behaviouralista Richard Thaler radi na cikaskom univerzitetu. Inace, sa izvesnim Sunstein-om je napisao pomodnuNudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happinesskoja je postala vrlo popularna medju britanskim konzervativcima i promovisao je novu teoriju "libertarian paternalism".Sa Wiki-ja:Sunstein (along with his coauthor Richard Thaler) has elaborated the theory of Libertarian paternalism. In arguing for this theory, he counsels thinkers/academics/politicians to embrace the findings of behavioral economics as applied to law, maintaining freedom of choice while also steering people's decisions in directions that will make their lives go better. With Thaler, he coined the term choice architect.Jos jedan pokusaj "treceg puta" ili smislena teorija?

[pacey defender]

"libertarian paternalism"., maintaining freedom of choice while also steering people's decisions in directions that will make their lives go better. Jos jedan pokusaj "treceg puta" ili smislena teorija?

ovako sročeno, zaista deluje kao oksimoron. "steering" je, eto, postao yet another termin da se izbegne onaj već pohaban i diskreditovan "compelling", ili "imposing".voleo bih da vidim neko objašnjenje ovoga.

[Indy]

To podseća na ovo što priča australijski premijer ("dizajniranje slobodnog tržišta"). Liči mi na ovo što kaže pejsi, samo novo ime za intervenciju. Da li ste videli kako im je baćuška Putin lepo objasnio?

?Interference of the State, the belief in the omnipotence of the State: that is a reaction to market failures,? Mr Putin said in his keynote address at the opening of the four-day meeting. ?There is a temptation to expand direct interference of state in economy. In the Soviet Union that became an absolute. We paid a very dear price for that.?

[Budja]

ovako sročeno, zaista deluje kao oksimoron. "steering" je, eto, postao yet another termin da se izbegne onaj već pohaban i diskreditovan "compelling", ili "imposing".voleo bih da vidim neko objašnjenje ovoga.

Cela teorija je zasnovana na pretpostavci da ljudi zele da maksimiraju ciljnu funckiju ali pri tome ne donose racionalne odluke u tom cilju zbog razlicitih psiholoskih kognitivnih bias-a. Kroz oblikovanje informacija i davanje drugacijih institucionalnih opcija od uobicajenih, moguce je korigovati te nedostatke bez negiranja slobode izbora.Problem je u protivurecnosti - ako su ljudi nesavrseni, onda je i drzava nesavrsena pa tako dizajnirane institucije mogu da uticu na izbor pojedinca u potpuno pogresnom smeru.Primer politike/institucije

7. Gambling self-bans. Gambling raises complex issues, to say the least,and we will not explore in any detail what a libertarian paternalist might doin this area. (Suffice it to say that if we were in charge, we would not givestate governments a monopoly on gambling?especially if they choose tospecialize in gambles that offer the worst odds for customers, namely statelotteries, which pay off roughly fifty cents on the dollar. Hint: if you wantto gamble with decent odds, start a football pool with your friends.) However,it is clear that gambling addicts are among us, and they need realhelp.Here?s an ingenious solution. Over the past decade, several states, includingIllinois, Indiana, and Missouri, have enacted laws enabling gamblingaddicts to put themselves on a list that bans them from entering casinosor collecting gambling winnings. The underlying thought is thatsomeone who has self-control problems is aware of her shortcomings andwants to put her Reflective System in control of her Automatic System.Sometimes recreational gamblers can do this on their own or with theirfriends; sometimes private institutions can help them. But addicted gamblersmight do best if they have a way to enlist the support of the state. Wethink that self-bans are a great idea and suggest that research be done toexplore ways to use this concept in other domains.

Inace, evo sta Taler kaze na prigovor:In light of human limitations, Cass Sunstein and I argue for policies that we call libertarian paternalism. Although the phrase sounds like an oxymoron, we contend that it is often possible to design policies, in both the public and private sector, that make people better off -- as judged by themselves -- without coercion. We oppose bans; instead, we favor nudges.Zanimljiva rasprava na temu:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1179773577....html?mod=blogs

[Indy]

Koliko razumem, u pozadini postoji stav da eksperti znaju bolje šta je za činiti ("people make mistakes and they can be helped")? Mislim da je istinski libertarijanizam mnogo više na tragu "wisdom of crowds" i uverenju da je bolje slobodno praviti sopstvene pogrešne odluke nego sprovoditi tuđe "ekspertske" zamisli, makar i ne podrazumevale prinudu. Slažem se sa Rizzom. (Pretpostavljam da je "nudge" kad australijska vlada poruči narodu da je više od 4 pića "binge drinking"... government mandarins, stay out of my wine bar, and I won't piss in your pool ! <_< )

Edited January 30, 2009 by Indy

[Gandalf]

Pa da Indy, za kejnzijanizam je dokazano u praksi da ne funkcionise.E, onda politicari panice i vracaju se Kejnsu...."Gorka pilula" austrijske skole npr., pa to i ne pada pamet. Pa zaboga, mora se uraditi nesto. Inace ce se skljokati na sledecim izborima a pobedice oni drugi koji ce da obecaju da nesto uraditi. Cesto u politici bolji rejting ima onaj politicar koji je "pokusao" da uradi nesto, makar i sa katastrofalnim posledicama, nego onaj koji je shvatio da ne moze da pomogne i da moze samo da pogorsa stvari te se treba skloniti sa puta.

kejzijanizam funkcionise u jednoj bitnoj stvari, odrzava sistemsku stabilnost. dok bi gorka pilula lako mogla dovesti ektreme na vlast - ako ova vlast ne ucini nesto u kriznim vremenima, ljudi ce glasati za onoga koji im obeca hleb za tri dinara.upravo na to je Kejnz mislio opaskom o svima nama smrtnima na duge staze.

[Indy]

Kanda se Schumpeterovo predviđanje ostvaruje:Rudd sees death of neo-liberalismPaul Kelly, Editor-at-large | January 31, 2009Article from: The AustralianKEVIN Rudd [Australian PM] has put his ideological spin on the global crisis - arguing the great neo-liberal experiment of the past 30 years represented by Thatcher, Reagan, Greenspan and John Howard has failed.Rudd has defined himself, his Government and his re-election strategy by declaring that only social democrats and the Labor Party can recruit state power to save capitalism. ... The new epoch is about using state power "to save capitalism from itself".---Glede naših dilema oko toga šta je koji liberalizam, australijski premijer nema tih dilema:

Rudd declares the current crisis "is the culmination of a 30-year domination of economic policy by a free-market ideology that has been variously called neo-liberalism, economic liberalism, economic fundamentalism, Thatcherism or the Washington consensus".

---

...social democrats must use a resurrected state power to regulate markets, strike a better balance between public and private interests, embrace Keynesian economics, correct for market failure from the financial system to climate change and invest more in education, health, unemployment insurance and retirement incomes - while supporting open markets and withstanding attacks from the extreme Left and nationalist Right.... He argues the failure of neo-liberalism has made the state the primary actor; it must save the financial system, stimulate the economy and impose a new global regulatory regime.

Mislim da imamo najarogantnijeg premijera na planeti (kome to u Australiji dosad nije bilo jasno, saće valjda postati). Rezultati - nikakvi, žvaka - do nebesa.

[Isis]

ovde cu parkirati neke svoje komentare, samo dok ugrabim nesto vremena.u medjuvremenu mi se cini da je Budja imao par vrlo dobrih smernica za razmisljanje/diskusiju. vrlo, vrlo dobrih.

[Indy]

Koga ne mrzi da se bakće, mislim od ovih entuzijasta za tematiku, neka prostudira australijsku situaciju.Dakle, bez obzira što bi pejsi rekao niko normalan ne koristi termin neoliberalizam, naš premijer je objavio harangu kontra zla neoliberalizma sa 7000 reči. Bez obzira što su mu omraženi "neoliberali" ostavili državni budžet u takvom plusu da mu je eto trebalo cela godina bacanja para i levo i desno (a najviše drugarima iz banaka, koji uopšte nikad nisu ni bili u situaciji američkih banaka, naprotiv u Australiji je regulacija bila otprilike idealna) da bi konačno ostvario ideal svakog lidera labora, a to je uterivanje budžeta u minus.HERE in Davos, Kevin Rudd's manifesto for turning Australia into a laboratory of "social democratic capitalism" would be funny if it wasn't so dangerous. There's so many straw men in there, it's a fire hazard.PM predviđa radikalnu reformu (da ne kažem revoluciju) sistema, premda je u međuvremenu uspostavljen malte ne konsenzus da je ovo što se događa globalizovana američka kriza:As some in Davos argue, globalisation has hit the rocks in part because its champion has tried to reap its benefits without accepting enough of its disciplines.Dakle, ako Mr. Obama ima nešto da menja iz temelja i to sa razlogom, ne moraju i drugi da skaču u bunar za njim po automatizmu. No, sada ćemo ovde zahvaljujući PM-u (koga zovu i Chairman Rudd, ne samo zato što odlično priča mandarinski) imati akciju "kupujmo australijsko", dakle demontažu globalizacije, od koje je ova moja zemlja inače obrala najslađe vrhnje (pritom se ponašajući pristojno, za razliku od velikog brata preko Pacifika).U krajnjoj liniji, nije bitno kako se zove sistem, ova vlast odaje utisak tehničke nekompetentnosti i to je ono što zabrinjava. Neka mašu i srpom i čekićem, ako baš žele, nije to nešto što ja nisam već video.

[MancMellow]

As some in Davos argue, globalisation has hit the rocks in part because its champion has tried to reap its benefits without accepting enough of its disciplines.

Dobar članak, čini mi se. Ovaj deo mi je privukao pažnju

While the crisis has exposed the weakness of the nation-state in a borderless world, it is emboldening national governments to intervene in the markets on a grand scale. Trade volumes plunged straight after the crisis hit, down almost 45 per cent in annualised terms in the last three months of 2008. The second hit could be structural if governments respond to job losses by shielding local industries from foreign competition. Protectionism is the antichrist of globalisation: it was so-called beggar-thy-neighbour trade barriers that turned recession into depression in the '30s.The best trade response would be to free up trade flows even more. Trade Minister Simon Crean is in Davos to pump up support for a deal on the stalled Doha round of trade talks. He argues valiantly that more trade liberalisation would "add value" to a globally co-ordinated budget stimulus.

Pošto je ovo forum, a ne novine, ništa me ne sprečava da odem čak i dalje i izložim svoje mišljenje da bi krah procesa globalizacije i neko novo(ekonomsko) zatvaranje u svoje granice vrlo, ali vrlo lako, u doglednoj budućnosti moglo da dovede do nekog većeg međunarodnog ratnog sukoba, možda i nuklearnog.

[cedo]

Dobar članak, čini mi se. Ovaj deo mi je privukao pažnjuPošto je ovo forum, a ne novine, ništa me ne sprečava da odem čak i dalje i izložim svoje mišljenje da bi krah procesa globalizacije i neko novo(ekonomsko) zatvaranje u svoje granice vrlo, ali vrlo lako, u doglednoj budućnosti moglo da dovede do nekog većeg međunarodnog ratnog sukoba, možda i nuklearnog.

Ne bi bilo prvi put da to bude razlog.Valjda im je svima jasno (koji hoce da zatvore/shtite trzhiste) da kako kriza pogadja sve, da se samo svi zajedno mogu izvuci iz nje.