Câteva recomandări. Un dialog între texte. Mai întâi, o trecere în revistă a asemănărilor cu marea criză a anilor 30, o lectură interesantă mai ales în ce priveşte unele similitudini cu perioada premergătoare crizei:
There are other similarities. The 20s had been good for owners of assets but not for workers. There had been a sharp increase in unemployment at the start of the decade and labour markets had not fully recovered by the time an even bigger slump began in 1929. But while employees saw their slice of the economic cake get smaller, for the rich and powerful, the Roaring Twenties were the best of times. In the US, the halving of the top rate of income tax to 32% meant more money for speculation in the stock and property markets. Share prices rose sixfold on Wall Street in the decade leading up to the Wall Street Crash.
Un text care comentează aceste asemănări, al lui Michael Roberts, în care sunt comentate soluţii clasice keynesiene care e clar că nu prea merg:
Most governments now have not adopted massive government spending or run large budget deficits to boost investment and growth – mainly because they fear a massive increase in public debt and the burden that will put on funding it from the capitalist sector. So we hear from the battery of leftist and Keynesian economists that the application of ‘austerity’ is the cause of the continued Long Depression now. It is difficult to prove one way or another, but in a series of posts and papers, I have put considerable doubt on the Keynesian explanation of the Long Depression.
The New Deal did not end the Great Depression. Indeed, the Roosevelt regime ran consistent budget deficits of around 5% of GDP from 1931 onwards, spending twice as much as tax revenue. And the government took on lots more workers on programmes – but all to little effect.
Coming off the gold standard and devaluing currencies did not stop the Great Depression. Indeed, resorting to competitive devaluations and protectionist tariffs and restrictions on international trade probably made things worse.
And monetary easing has not worked this time and nor has fiscal stimulus (as Abenomics in Japan has shown), which we shall see again if Trump ever does manage to run budgets deficits to lower corporate taxes and increase infrastructure spending.
Tot Roberts trimite către o chestiune foarte interesantă care a apărut în aceste yile, foarte puţin discutată pe la noi. Un soi de recunoaştere oficială a politicii economice Trump (poate şi a boomului de la bursă care are loc impasibil, în timp ce se duc “lupte culturale”, pentru simplul fapt că sunt anunţate noi reduceri de taxe şi noi cheltuieli pe infrastructură în regimul politic nou) s-a petrecut într-un document al G20. Marele diavol, marea “ameninţare” care era până acum protecţionismul a dispărut din documentele G20. Sigur, nu ştim exact cum arată noul protecţionism, dar ştim, iată, că nu mai e ceva rău:
It will be the first meeting of G20 finance ministers attended by representatives of the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has more protectionist policy views on trade.
The draft communique seen by Reuters, which may change before March 18, appears to accommodate the new U.S. position.
The draft, dated March 1, drops the phrase adopted by G20 finance ministers last year to “resist all forms of protectionism”. A warning against protectionism has appeared in G20 communiques for more than a decade.
“The lack of any reference to protectionism in the draft is strange,” said one official close to the preparations for the meeting. “Maybe it is a minimum that everybody could agree on.”
The draft also no longer contains the sentence, used in previous statements, that the G20 should “refrain from competitive devaluations” and should not “target our exchange rates for competitive purposes.”
Instead, it says: “We will maintain an open and fair international trading system” and “We reaffirm our previous exchange rate commitments.”
G20 communiques last year began including a phrase that was part of Group of 7 language for years: “Excess volatility and disorderly movements in exchange rates can have adverse implications for economic and financial stability. We will consult closely on exchange markets.”
This sentence is now also missing from the draft. (Reuters)
România şi UE
Săptămâna asta am vorbit cu Florin Poenaru şi Claudiu Crăciun, atât cât am reuşit în 45 de minute, despre criza UE, România şi EU. Vedeţi şi voi, poate găsiţi lucruri interesante: