МАЙДАН - За вільну людину у вільній країні


Архіви Форумів Майдану

Дж. Стігліц: Ідеологічна криза західного капіталізму (л,/)

08/18/2011 | loup-garou
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stiglitz140/English

Just a few years ago, a powerful ideology – the belief in free and unfettered markets – brought the world to the brink of ruin. Even in its hey-day, from the early 1980’s until 2007, American-style deregulated capitalism brought greater material well-being only to the very richest in the richest country of the world. Indeed, over the course of this ideology’s 30-year ascendance, most Americans saw their incomes decline or stagnate year after year.

Moreover, output growth in the United States was not economically sustainable. With so much of US national income going to so few, growth could continue only through consumption financed by a mounting pile of debt.

I was among those who hoped that, somehow, the financial crisis would teach Americans (and others) a lesson about the need for greater equality, stronger regulation, and a better balance between the market and government. Alas, that has not been the case. On the contrary, a resurgence of right-wing economics, driven, as always, by ideology and special interests, once again threatens the global economy – or at least the economies of Europe and America, where these ideas continue to flourish.

In the US, this right-wing resurgence, whose adherents evidently seek to repeal the basic laws of math and economics, is threatening to force a default on the national debt. If Congress mandates expenditures that exceed revenues, there will be a deficit, and that deficit has to be financed. Rather than carefully balancing the benefits of each government expenditure program with the costs of raising taxes to finance those benefits, the right seeks to use a sledgehammer – not allowing the national debt to increase forces expenditures to be limited to taxes.

This leaves open the question of which expenditures get priority – and if expenditures to pay interest on the national debt do not, a default is inevitable. Moreover, to cut back expenditures now, in the midst of an ongoing crisis brought on by free-market ideology, would inevitably simply prolong the downturn.

A decade ago, in the midst of an economic boom, the US faced a surplus so large that it threatened to eliminate the national debt. Unaffordable tax cuts and wars, a major recession, and soaring health-care costs – fueled in part by the commitment of George W. Bush’s administration to giving drug companies free rein in setting prices, even with government money at stake – quickly transformed a huge surplus into record peacetime deficits.

The remedies to the US deficit follow immediately from this diagnosis: put America back to work by stimulating the economy; end the mindless wars; rein in military and drug costs; and raise taxes, at least on the very rich. But the right will have none of this, and instead is pushing for even more tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, together with expenditure cuts in investments and social protection that put the future of the US economy in peril and that shred what remains of the social contract. Meanwhile, the US financial sector has been lobbying hard to free itself of regulations, so that it can return to its previous, disastrously carefree, ways.

But matters are little better in Europe. As Greece and others face crises, the medicine du jour is simply timeworn austerity packages and privatization, which will merely leave the countries that embrace them poorer and more vulnerable. This medicine failed in East Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere, and it will fail in Europe this time around, too. Indeed, it has already failed in Ireland, Latvia, and Greece.

There is an alternative: an economic-growth strategy supported by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund. Growth would restore confidence that Greece could repay its debts, causing interest rates to fall and leaving more fiscal room for further growth-enhancing investments. Growth itself increases tax revenues and reduces the need for social expenditures, such as unemployment benefits. And the confidence that this engenders leads to still further growth.

Regrettably, the financial markets and right-wing economists have gotten the problem exactly backwards: they believe that austerity produces confidence, and that confidence will produce growth. But austerity undermines growth, worsening the government’s fiscal position, or at least yielding less improvement than austerity’s advocates promise. On both counts, confidence is undermined, and a downward spiral is set in motion.

Do we really need another costly experiment with ideas that have failed repeatedly? We shouldn’t, but increasingly it appears that we will have to endure another one nonetheless. A failure of either Europe or the US to return to robust growth would be bad for the global economy. A failure in both would be disastrous – even if the major emerging-market countries have attained self-sustaining growth. Unfortunately, unless wiser heads prevail, that is the way the world is heading.

Відповіді

  • 2011.08.18 | Боббі

    стігліц коли щось і засвідчує, то кризу в західній науково-адміністративній системі

    бо як може інакше так далеко відірвана від реального світу людина мати таку кількість відзнак?
    згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей
    • 2011.08.20 | Bayan

      Re: як може відірвана від реального світу людина мати таку кількість відзнак? - А ти пожалійся,

      вумник ти наш доморощений.


      Боббі пише:
      > бо як може інакше так далеко відірвана від реального світу людина мати таку кількість відзнак?
      згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей
  • 2011.08.18 | Sych

    Пітер Шіфф рве ще одного академентіка-мудрілу (Круґмана) на шмати(л)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyW-o-Pr92M
    згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей
  • 2011.08.21 | Pest Control

    Джон Тейлор: між економістами нема й близько консенсусу щодо нового стимулу (/)

    http://johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/no-near-consensus-among-economists-for.html

    Monday, August 15, 2011
    No Near-Consensus Among Economists for Another Stimulus Package
    Sunday’s Weekend Edition on NPR gave listeners a chance to hear different economic views on how to reduce the high unemployment rate. Joe Stiglitz represented the view that we need another deficit-financed stimulus package with more spending now and tax increases later. I represented the view that the 2009 deficit-financed stimulus didn’t work and that we need to address the problem of expanding debt and regulations, which are holding back investment and job creation, and that we should not increase taxes. In selecting excerpts from an earlier taping, I think the NPR editors gave a fair representation of the views that are out there.

    In the meantime, an article in the New York Times over the weekend suggested that there was a new consensus for the view which Joe put forward. I see no such consensus. Some economists such as Joe, Paul Krugman, and Robert Reich have that view, but that is not new for them. And it is nothing new for Warren Buffett to argue for tax increases as he did in an New York Times op-ed today: When he was an adviser to Arnold Schwarzenegger in the 2003 California recall election, Buffett recommended tax increases, but Arnold told him to cool it or do 500 pushups for punishment. And there are plenty of economists who think that gradually reducing spending and not increasing taxes is better for job creation. In June, for example, 150 economists (including me) wrote that a debt deal “that is not accompanied by significant spending cuts and budget reforms would harm private-sector job growth”
    згорнути/розгорнути гілку відповідей
    • 2011.08.21 | Боббі

      коли б існувала нагорода ім. Мугабе, то лунатики типу Стігліца, Кругмана і ко. мали б отримати

      коли б існувала нагорода ім. Мугабе, то лунатики типу Стігліца, Кругмана і ко. мали б отримати її першими.

      Або ж нагорода Кравчука-Кучми, які відзначились неперевершеним стимулюванням економіки в 93 році.


Copyleft (C) maidan.org.ua - 2000-2024. Цей сайт підтримує Громадська організація Інформаційний центр "Майдан Моніторинг".