is difficult to understand how the planet will be able to find a way out of the current recession. The widening of the conflict for control of resources, however, prepare a little rosy future, making the laughable image of the market as a wonderland of the crisis is systemic, because it invests its financial aspects, social and cultural . It should be understood that Labors and banks are now the backbone of the real economy.
Capitalism is facing a systemic crisis, involving both the financial dimension to the 'real'. Giacomo Becattini the point from which to understand the consequences and the "side effects" of the current economic situation. A scholar of industrial districts as a model of economic development parallel to that based on the large enterprise, Becattini argues that the crisis exposes the limitations and difficulties of the left in the understanding of economic processes. At the same time, in this third round on how some Italian economists reflect on the current situation, calls not to make predictions about the easy ways out of the crisis, as dependent on "systemic logic" of its economic process by which national and international policies.
The fundamental questions to which economists seeking an answer can be summarized thus: what is the nature of this crisis is a crisis in financial or real, cyclical or systemic? It makes sense to compare with the crisis of '29?
The first crisis is systemic, because it involves the whole social organism, not only in its economic and financial, but also in social and cultural rights. It is financial and real at the same time, because the finance (the stock exchange, banks, etc. ..) in advanced capitalism, is the backbone - structurally infected - the real economy. Cyclic Finally, the nature of the market, closing the accounts ex post always systematically derailed from the path of development must be balanced and brought back, sooner or later the crisis.
As he played, in their inability to assess the likelihood of the crisis, the predilection of economists 'mainstream' for the formalization of mathematics at the expense of knowledge of the history of economic analysis - and history in general?
Without denying any benefit to modeling politically uncommitted rampant in the world of economic studies, I think, in essence, that this guidance contains a waiver of the main task of the economist, which for me is to analyze the functioning of economic systems as a whole, including the 'market economy', not simply as a means of maximizing economic welfare, but also the activation and development of intellectual potential of every people of every social stratum. The "great waste" of current capitalism, not offset by any increase in the gross domestic product, is its inability to enhance the intellectual potential of a few billion humans. Other than low wages or unemployment in the world "civilized", that is the true and fundamental failure market.
authoritative commentators have long pointed out that the free movement of capital and bustling (the result of liberalization and deregulation of finance) mini bases of economic democracy, that democracy itself. Believes that the role of politics today, would only be that of market regulator or should go further?
Good question! To which, however, does not know the answer but we are in trouble and did not come out easily. Nor do I see around convincing answers. As the contribution that economists can and should give you an honest and intelligent criticism, but more and more depth of oligopolistic capitalism-financial that is leading us, I suspect, the apocalypse. The point seems to be that there is no longer a separate policy from the economy. I remember the story of ED Domar in which the Minister of Commerce presents a tray on all projects of the administration, calling on every industry representative to take away what's more annoying. Well, at the end of the round, the tray is empty. A current example of the story we have, more or less the story of Obama's health plan.
Many believe that the solution of the crisis can not be that Washington-Beijing axis. It is conceivable that the European model of social status, even if one can speak a European model, may be a reference for alternative economic policies as the "Washington Consensus", as the Chinese state capitalism? Or is there a risk that the future economic-political world in Europe (with the South) is confined to a marginal position?
The world order of even the relatively near future - say 10 years - is a great unknown. Outbreaks huge, positive and negative, as the economic awakening of China and India and "turmoil", South American and African, yet not widely tested, are at work and nobody can say what will happen in Europe if the upheaval will resist. Certainly, on the one hand the dividing lines drawn European history, are clear and deep and, consequently, the pressure antiunitarie are numerous and vigorous, the other the philosophy of a united Europe is dismally economistic. Behind this Europe, I can not see, at least so far, an idea-force of true overcome national egoism and construction of a new world player in the future. I only defensive, not without interest, of course, but that does not draw any specifically European future. In short: I, I hope the cable.
The current increase in public expenditure does not affect social spending (education, health, pensions and unemployment benefits), but the rescue of banks, finance companies and large groups. What happens, however, squeezing the earnings (real wages and pensions): an intervention on the supply side rather than demand is the right strategy to overcome the crisis, returning to acceptable levels of unemployment?
Right here is the cunning of maneuver. The '29 has taught that the main amplifier of the crisis, once started, is in a panic of depositors and stakeholders on the stock exchange. So the first steps were to ensure depositors and liquidity. Of course, this practice, once metabolized by the system, reduces the fear of failure and its financial consequences, in the boards of banks and corporations, and the traders, generating, therefore, a "mongrel capitalism" which is simply a matter, by any means, your business size in socially relevant (and Fiar Alitalia docent), to be guaranteed against failure. In summary, it was one that violated DH Robertson called the "golden rule of capitalism: who decides pays errors and cheating (if they are disclosed or if they can not do) - maybe with the prison (and here the Americans teach us something) but, certainly, with its heritage. And yet. This is precisely the bad habit that denounced softly Ernesto Cuccia - that capitalism knew him well - in his famous note of 1978: "you can not do without to wonder whether, if it were not facilitated the abundant flow of subsidized loans to certain employers - both private and public - not the illusion that the goodness of investment and the prudence of the management would have ensured the success of the initiative, but security policy as a means to reach the gigantism of business, and gigantism, no one knows how or why, their luck (now you understand!) is questionable, we said, though in this case we would not have companies much smaller, but more healthy, with growth at least partly based on self and not only on debt, production capacity closer to the actual size of the markets and, above all, less political interference, legal and illegal, in the economic life of the country. "
capitalism, in short, what awaits us, from 'Alice in Wonderland. " The real problem, whose solution is judged sub speciae aeternitatis the system is not full employment whatever, but "as occupation." The economic system is best for me, the one that opens to the maximum number of young working age, a number of alternative employment. A situation that presented itself - in a rudimentary way, of course! - In those microcosms of competitive capitalism, which are our industrial districts. But the Italian left, trapped in patterns of the past - sorry say - did not notice - regularly paying the penalty in electoral terms. How sad.
This implies immense responsibilities of the system. To ensure this plurality of possibilities for all young people need reforms that affect the living flesh of society. The trend towards equality of starting points, the age at which one enters into social life (16-18 years), with all that implies, is, for me, the idea of \u200b\u200ba new left force. And if this becomes the fundamental commitment of those who govern the country, it follows a list of measures of economic, social and educational quite different from those in circulation.
What is the price that future generations will have to endure in the face of form and size of debt that governments have used today in an effort not to wreck the world economy?
NB: If we refer to the developed world today, certainly a high price, which again proves "that the eave and tears of blood that 'capitalist development, but probably not higher than that of more traditional routes of escape from crisis. If you refer to, instead, to the world as a whole, you can do many hypotheses, but as far as I know, you do not have models that allow a logical answer is not far-fetched.
What we can say with certainty is that the current crisis will certainly lead to the collapse of capitalism, but because we have no safe alternative to radical operation, and a social system can not disappear until the successor is ready. The so-called "socialism with Chinese 'and the other roads to socialism claims are, in fact, for now, a great unknown.
But the accentuation of the contrasts for the control of natural resources and incarognimento humanity, which carry relentless, do not promise anything good. I'm sorry to close in negative, but this is, unfortunately, the belief that pervades my mood.
Cosma Orsi, "the manifesto," November 25, 2009
0 comments:
Post a Comment