• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди554
      • Показать ещё
      Разное726
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы772
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации127
      • Показать ещё
      Компании325
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели126
      • Показать ещё
      Формат39
      Издания82
      • Показать ещё
      Сферы15
Джозеф Стиглиц
Джозеф Стиглиц
Джозеф Юджин Стиглиц (Joseph Stiglitz; род. 9 февраля 1943 года, г. Гэри, штат Индиана) — американский экономист-неокейнсианец. Лауреат Нобелевской премии по экономике (2001, с Джорджем Акерлофом и Майклом Спенсом) «за анализ рынков с несимметричной информацией». Учился в Амхе ...

Джозеф Юджин Стиглиц (Joseph Stiglitz; род. 9 февраля 1943 года, г. Гэри, штат Индиана) — американский экономист-неокейнсианец. Лауреат Нобелевской премии по экономике (2001, с Джорджем Акерлофом и Майклом Спенсом) «за анализ рынков с несимметричной информацией». Учился в Амхерст-колледже и Массачусетском технологическом институте, где получил степень доктора. Профессор Колумбийского университета. Иностранный член РАН (22.05.2003), член научно-редакционного совета российского журнала «МИР: Модернизация. Инновации. Развитие».

Награждён медалью Дж. Б. Кларка (1979). Лауреат премии Ректенвальда (1998). Председатель Совета экономических консультантов при президенте США (1995—1997). Шеф-экономист Всемирного банка (1997—2000).

Джозеф Стиглиц известен как жёсткий критик неограниченного рынка, монетаризма и неоклассической экономической школы вообще, а также неолиберального понимания глобализации, политики МВФ в отношении развивающихся стран и либеральных реформ в России.

 

Биография

Родился в еврейской семье Шарлотты и Натаниеля Стиглица. С 1960 по 1963 учился в Амхерст-колледже, где был президентом студенческого самоуправления. Продолжил свою учёбу в Массачусетском технологическом институте. В 1965—1966 Стиглиц трудился над исследованиями в Чикагском университете под руководством Хирофуми Узава. В то время его исследования были посвящены проблемам экономического роста, инноваций и перераспределения доходов. Затем он вернулся в МТИ, где получил степень доктора наук в 1967. В дальнейшем Стиглиц преподавал в университетах Кембриджа, Йеля, Дьюка, Стэнфорда, Оксфорда и Уинстона и ныне является профессором Колумбийского университета, а также является соредактором журнала The Economists' Voice («Голос экономистов»).

Кроме своих значимых исследований в области микро- и макроэкономики, Стиглиц также напрямую играет важную роль в политической и общественной жизни. В 1992 он перебрался в Вашингтон, чтобы работать в администрации президента Клинтона. В 1993—1995 годах входил в состав Экономического совета при Президенте США Клинтоне. В 1995—1997 занимал должность председателя Совета экономических консультантов при президенте США. В 1997—2000 годах вице-президент и шеф-экономист Всемирного банка.

Я не настолько глуп, чтобы поверить, что рынок сам по себе решит все социальные проблемы. Неравенство, безработица, загрязнение окружающей среды непреодолимы без активного участия государства.

— Джозеф Стиглиц (2002)

С 2008 года является председателем международной Комиссии по основным показателям экономической деятельности и социального прогресса.

Жена — журналистка и редактор Аня Шиффрин (Anya Schiffrin, род. 1962), дочь издателя Шиффрин, Андре, внучка издателя Якова Савельевича Шифрина.

 

Модель Шапиро — Стиглица

 

Подробнее

Развернуть описание Свернуть описание
18 апреля, 16:47

Нобелевские лауреаты по экономике раскритиковали изоляционизм Ле Пен - Rzeczpospolita

Выдающиеся экономисты выступили против кандидатов в президенты Франции с "антиевропейской программой", но при этом никого кроме Ле Пен не вспомнили.

04 апреля, 09:41

Текст: Антилиберальная стагнация ( Джозеф Стиглиц )

Четверть века спустя после окончания Холодной войны, Запад и Россия снова конфликтуют. Но на этот раз, по крайней мере, с точки зрения одной из сторон, этот спор стал прозрачней – он ведётся из-за геополитического влияния, а не идеологии. Запад различными способами поддерживал демократические движения на постсоветском пространстве, едва скрывая свой энтузиазм по поводу разнообразных «цветных» революций, которые заменяли засидевшихся диктаторов более ответственными лидерами (хотя не все из них оказались подлинными демократами, которыми пытались выглядеть). Слишком многие страны бывшего советского блока остаются под контролем авторитарных лидеров. Некоторые из них, например, президент России Владимиру Путину, научились прикрываться более убедительной шир...

26 марта, 15:19

После развала Еврозона станет нормальным торговым союзом

Но вновь всплывут старые ссоры и недовольства

22 марта, 21:21

Do Wars Help or HURT the Economy?

Does Defense Spending Stimulate the Economy and Create Jobs … Or Is It BAD for the Economy? Preface: Trump wants to drastically increase military spending.  At the same time, France, China, Japan and other countries are ramping up their military spending. An understanding of the effect on the economy is therefore timely. A number of influential mainstream economists, think tanks and media personalities –  including Ben Bernanke,  Martin Feldstein, the Rand Corporation, David Broder and Wolf Blitzer – argue that defense spending and war are good for the economy. On the other hand, About.com writes: One of the more enduring myths in Western society is that wars are somehow good for the economy. And former banker, and risk management and derivatives consultant Satyajit Das wrote in 2016: The high cost of war is damaging the global economy. Economic stability demands that we find peace   ***   The post-1989 economy reaped the benefits of a ‘peace dividend’.   *** Scientific and mathematical resources previously employed in the defence-industrial infrastructure were re-deployed, helping accelerate the growth of other parts of the economy, especially technology industries.   ***   [On the other hand,] actual conflict increases the cost dramatically. There is the direct cost of dealing with the issue of conflict. There is also the indirect cost, by way of disruptions, restrictions on normal commercial and personal life, and the loss of confidence which impinges on economic activity. Even minor conflicts can disrupt critical resource supplies, such as oil or crucial minerals, and trade routes. Conflict can displace large numbers of people resulting in large numbers of refugees. The Syrian civil war illustrates the high humanitarian cost and the economic expense of dealing with the crisis. Combating and controlling failed states, resulting from conflict, such as those in the Middle East, Africa and central Asia, requires commitment of vast resources, by way of manpower and treasure. Asymmetric warfare, cyber-attacks or isolated terrorist attacks, impose high cost on economies. Increased security measures designed to prevent or minimise the effects of such attacks are expensive.   The large and rising homeland security costs in the US and elsewhere is a large and unproductive expense. The reversal of the ‘peace dividend’ now weighs heavily on the prospects of the global economy. Who’s right? Top Economists Say War Is Bad for the Economy After idiotically saying for years that war is good for the economy, Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman finally admits: If you’re a modern, wealthy nation, however, war — even easy, victorious war — doesn’t pay. And this has been true for a long time. In his famous 1910 book “The Great Illusion,” the British journalist Norman Angell argued that “military power is socially and economically futile.” As he pointed out, in an interdependent world (which already existed in the age of steamships, railroads, and the telegraph), war would necessarily inflict severe economic harm even on the victor. Furthermore, it’s very hard to extract golden eggs from sophisticated economies without killing the goose in the process.   We might add that modern war is very, very expensive. For example, by any estimate the eventual costs (including things like veterans’ care) of the Iraq war will end up being well over $1 trillion, that is, many times Iraq’s entire G.D.P.   So the thesis of “The Great Illusion” was right: Modern nations can’t enrich themselves by waging war. Nobel-prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz agrees that war is bad for the economy: Stiglitz wrote in 2003: War is widely thought to be linked to economic good times. The second world war is often said to have brought the world out of depression, and war has since enhanced its reputation as a spur to economic growth. Some even suggest that capitalism needs wars, that without them, recession would always lurk on the horizon. Today, we know that this is nonsense. The 1990s boom showed that peace is economically far better than war. The Gulf war of 1991 demonstrated that wars can actually be bad for an economy. Stiglitz has also said that this decade’s Iraq war has been very bad for the economy. Seethis, this and this. Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan also said in that war is bad for the economy. In 1991, Greenspan said that a prolonged conflict in the Middle East would hurt the economy. And he made this point again in 1999: Societies need to buy as much military insurance as they need, but to spend more than that is to squander money that could go toward improving the productivity of the economy as a whole: with more efficient transportation systems, a better educated citizenry, and so on. This is the point that retiring Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) learned back in 1999 in a House Banking Committee hearing with then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Frank asked what factors were producing our then-strong economic performance. On Greenspan’s list: “The freeing up of resources previously employed to produce military products that was brought about by the end of the Cold War.” Are you saying, Frank asked, “that dollar for dollar, military products are there as insurance … and to the extent you could put those dollars into other areas, maybe education and job trainings, maybe into transportation … that is going to have a good economic effect?” Greenspan agreed. Economist Dean Baker notes: It is often believed that wars and military spending increases are good for the economy. In fact, most economic models show that military spending diverts resources from productive uses, such as consumption and investment, and ultimately slows economic growth and reduces employment. Professor Emeritus of International Relations at the American University Joshua Goldstein notes: Recurring war has drained wealth, disrupted markets, and depressed economic growth.   ***   War generally impedes economic development and undermines prosperity. And David R. Henderson – associate professor of economics at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California and previously a senior economist with President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers – writes: Is military conflict really good for the economy of the country that engages in it? Basic economics answers a resounding “no.” The Proof Is In the Pudding Mike Lofgren notes: Military spending may at one time have been a genuine job creator when weapons were compatible with converted civilian production lines, but the days of Rosie the Riveter are long gone. [Indeed, WWII was different from current wars in many ways, and so its economic effects are not comparable to those of today’s wars.] Most weapons projects now require relatively little touch labor. Instead, a disproportionate share is siphoned into high-cost R&D (from which the civilian economy benefits little), exorbitant management expenditures, high overhead, and out-and-out padding, including money that flows back into political campaigns. A dollar appropriated for highway construction, health care, or education will likely create more jobs than a dollar for Pentagon weapons procurement.   ***   During the decade of the 2000s, DOD budgets, including funds spent on the war, doubled in our nation’s longest sustained post-World War II defense increase. Yet during the same decade, jobs were created at the slowest rate since the Hoover administration. If defense helped the economy, it is not evident. And just the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan added over $1.4 trillion to deficits, according to the Congressional Research Service. Whether the wars were “worth it” or merely stirred up a hornet’s nest abroad is a policy discussion for another time; what is clear is that whether you are a Keynesian or a deficit hawk, war and associated military spending are no economic panacea. The Washington Post noted in 2008: A recent paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research concludes that countries with high military expenditures during World War II showed strong economic growth following the war, but says this growth can be credited more to population growththan war spending. The paper finds that war spending had only minimal effects on per-capita economic activity.   ***   A historical survey of the U.S. economy from the U.S. State Department reports the Vietnam War had a mixed economic impact. The first Gulf War typically meets criticism for having pushed the United States toward a 1991 recession. The Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP) shows that any boost from war is temporary at best. For example, while WWII provided a temporary bump in GDP, GDP then fell back to the baseline trend. After the Korean War, GDP fell below the baseline trend: IEP notes: By examining the state of the economy at each of the major conflict periods since World War II, it can be seen that the positive effects of increased military spending were outweighed by longer term unintended negative macroeconomic consequences. While the stimulatory effect of military outlays is evidently associated with boosts in economic growth, adverse effects show up either immediately or soon after, through higher inflation, budget deficits, high taxes and reductions in consumption or investment. Rectifying these effects has required subsequent painful adjustments which are neither efficient nor desirable. When an economy has excess capacity and unemployment, it is possible that increasing military spending can provide an important stimulus. However, if there are budget constraints, as there are in the U.S. currently, then excessive military spending can displace more productive non-military outlays in other areas such as investments in high-tech industries, education, or infrastructure. The crowding-out effects of disproportionate government spending on military functions can affect service delivery or infrastructure development, ultimately affecting long-term growth rates.   ***   Analysis of the macroeconomic components of GDP during World War II and in subsequent conflicts show heightened military spending had several adverse macroeconomic effects. These occurred as a direct consequence of the funding requirements of increased military spending. The U.S. has paid for its wars either through debt (World War II, Cold War, Afghanistan/Iraq), taxation (Korean War) or inflation (Vietnam). In each case, taxpayers have been burdened, and private sector consumption and investment have been constrained as a result. Other negative effects include larger budget deficits, higher taxes, and growth above trend leading to inflation pressure. These effects can run concurrent with major conflict or via lagging effects into the future. Regardless of the way a war is financed, the overall macroeconomic effect on the economy tends to be negative. For each of the periods after World War II, we need to ask, what would have happened in economic terms if these wars did not happen? On the specific evidence provided, it can be reasonably said, it is likely taxes would have been lower, inflation would have been lower, there would have been higher consumption and investment and certainly lower budget deficits. Some wars are necessary to fight and the negative effects of not fighting these wars can far outweigh the costs of fighting. However if there are other options, then it is prudent to exhaust them first as once wars do start, the outcome, duration and economic consequences are difficult to predict. We noted in 2011: This is a no-brainer, if you think about it. We’ve been in Afghanistan for almost twice as long as World War II. We’ve been in Iraq for years longer than WWII. We’ve been involved in 7 or 8 wars in the last decade. And yet [the economy is still unstable]. If wars really helped the economy, don’t you think things would have improved by now? Indeed,the Iraq war alone could end up costing more than World War II. And given the other wars we’ve been involved in this decade, I believe that the total price tag for the so-called “War on Terror” will definitely support that of the “Greatest War”. Let’s look at the adverse effects of war in more detail … War Spending Diverts Stimulus Away from the Real Civilian Economy IEP notes that – even though the government spending soared – consumption and investment were flatduring the Vietnam war: The New Republic noted in 2009: Conservative Harvard economist Robert Barro has argued that increased military spending during WWII actually depressed other parts of the economy. (New Republic also points out that conservative economist Robert Higgs and liberal economists Larry Summers and Brad Delong have all shown that any stimulation to the economy from World War II has been greatly exaggerated.) How could war actually hurt the economy, when so many say that it stimulates the economy? Because of what economists call the “broken window fallacy”. Specifically, if a window in a store is broken, it means that the window-maker gets paid to make a new window, and he, in turn, has money to pay others. However, economists long ago showed that – if the window hadn’t been broken – the shop-owner would have spent that money on other things, such as food, clothing, health care, consumer electronics or recreation, which would have helped the economy as much or more. If the shop-owner hadn’t had to replace his window, he might have taken his family out to dinner, which would have circulated more money to the restaurant, and from there to other sectors of the economy. Similarly, the money spent on the war effort is money that cannot be spent on other sectors of the economy. Indeed, all of the military spending has just created military jobs, at the expense of the civilian economy. Professor Henderson writes: Money not spent on the military could be spent elsewhere.This also applies to human resources. The more than 200,000 U.S. military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan could be doing something valuable at home.   Why is this hard to understand? The first reason is a point 19th-century French economic journalist Frederic Bastiat made in his essay, “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen.” Everyone can see that soldiers are employed. But we cannot see the jobs and the other creative pursuits they could be engaged in were they not in the military.   The second reason is that when economic times are tough and unemployment is high, it’s easy to assume that other jobs could not exist. But they can. This gets to an argument Bastiat made in discussing demobilization of French soldiers after Napoleon’s downfall. He pointed out that when government cuts the size of the military, it frees up not only manpower but also money. The money that would have gone to pay soldiers can instead be used to hire them as civilian workers. That can happen in three ways, either individually or in combination: (1) a tax cut; (2) a reduction in the deficit; or (3) an increase in other government spending.   ***   Most people still believe that World War II ended the Great Depression …. But look deeper.   ***   The government-spending component of GNP went for guns, trucks, airplanes, tanks, gasoline, ships, uniforms, parachutes, and labor. What do these things have in common? Almost all of them were destroyed. Not just these goods but also the military’s billions of labor hours were used up without creating value to consumers. Much of the capital and labor used to make the hundreds of thousands of trucks and jeeps and the tens of thousands of tanks and airplanes would otherwise have been producing cars and trucks for the domestic economy. The assembly lines in Detroit, which had churned out 3.6 million cars in 1941, were retooled to produce the vehicles of war. From late 1942 to 1945, production of civilian cars was essentially shut down.   And that’s just one example. Women went without nylon stockings so that factories could produce parachutes. Civilians faced tight rationing of gasoline so that U.S. bombers could fly over Germany. People went without meat so that U.S. soldiers could be fed. And so on.   These resources helped win the war—no small issue. But the war was not a stimulus program, either in its intentions or in its effects, and it was not necessary for pulling the U.S. out of the Great Depression. Had World War II never taken place, millions of cars would have been produced; people would have been able to travel much more widely; and there would have been no rationing. In short, by the standard measures, Americans would have been much more prosperous.   Today, the vast majority of us are richer than even the most affluent people back then. But despite this prosperity, one thing has not changed: war is bad for our economy. The $150 billion that the government spends annually on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and, increasingly, Pakistan) could instead be used to cut taxes or cut the deficit. By ending its ongoing wars … the U.S. government … would be developing a more prosperous economy. Austrian economist Ludwig Von Mises points out: That is the essence of so-called war prosperity; it enriches some by what it takes from others. It is not rising wealth but a shifting of wealth and income. We noted in 2010: You know about America’s unemployment problem. You may have even heard that the U.S. may very well have suffered a permanent destruction of jobs.   But did you know that the defense employment sector is booming? [P]ublic sector spending – and mainly defense spending – has accounted for virtually all of the new job creation in the past 10 years: The U.S. has largely been financing job creation for ten years. Specifically, as the chief economist for BusinessWeek, Michael Mandel, points out, public spending has accounted for virtually all new job creation in the past 1o years: Private sector job growth was almost non-existent over the past ten years. Take a look at this horrifying chart:     Between May 1999 and May 2009, employment in the private sector only rose by 1.1%, by far the lowest 10-year increase in the post-depression period.   It’s impossible to overstate how bad this is. Basically speaking, the private sector job machine has almost completely stalled over the past ten years. Take a look at this chart:     Over the past 10 years, the private sector has generated roughly 1.1 million additional jobs, or about 100K per year. The public sector created about 2.4 million jobs.   But even that gives the private sector too much credit. Remember that the private sector includes health care, social assistance, and education, all areas which receive a lot of government support.   ***   Most of the industries which had positive job growth over the past ten years were in the HealthEdGov sector. In fact, financial job growth was nearly nonexistent once we take out the health insurers.   Let me finish with a final chart.     Without a decade of growing government support from rising health and education spending and soaring budget deficits, the labor market would have been flat on its back. [120] *** So most of the job creation has been by the public sector. But because the job creation has been financed with loans from China and private banks, trillions in unnecessary interest charges have been incurred by the U.S. And this shows military versus non-military durable goods shipments: [Click here to view full image.] So we’re running up our debt (which will eventually decrease economic growth), but the only jobs we’re creating are military and other public sector jobs.   Economist Dean Baker points out that America’s massive military spending on unnecessary and unpopular wars lowers economic growth and increases unemployment: Defense spending means that the government is pulling away resources from the uses determined by the market and instead using them to buy weapons and supplies and to pay for soldiers and other military personnel. In standard economic models, defense spending is a direct drain on the economy, reducing efficiency, slowing growth and costing jobs. A few years ago, the Center for Economic and Policy Research commissioned Global Insight, one of the leading economic modeling firms, to project the impact of a sustained increase in defense spending equal to 1.0 percentage point of GDP. This was roughly equal to the cost of the Iraq War.   Global Insight’s model projected that after 20 years the economy would be about 0.6 percentage points smaller as a result of the additional defense spending. Slower growth would imply a loss of almost 700,000 jobs compared to a situation in which defense spending had not been increased. Construction and manufacturing were especially big job losers in the projections, losing 210,000 and 90,000 jobs, respectively.   The scenario we asked Global Insight [recognized as the most consistentlyaccurate forecasting company in the world] to model turned out to have vastly underestimated the increase in defense spending associated with current policy. In the most recent quarter, defense spending was equal to 5.6 percent of GDP. By comparison, before the September 11th attacks, the Congressional Budget Office projected that defense spending in 2009 would be equal to just 2.4 percent of GDP. Our post-September 11th build-up was equal to 3.2 percentage points of GDP compared to the pre-attack baseline. This means that the Global Insight projections of job loss are far too low…   The projected job loss from this increase in defense spending would be close to 2 million. In other words, the standard economic models that project job loss from efforts to stem global warming also project that the increase in defense spending since 2000 will cost the economy close to 2 million jobs in the long run. The Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst has also shown that non-military spending creates more jobs than military spending. High Military Spending Drains Innovation, Investment and Manufacturing Strength from the Civilian Economy Chalmers Johnson notes that high military spending diverts innovation and manufacturing capacity from the economy: By the 1960s it was becoming apparent that turning over the nation’s largest manufacturing enterprises to the Department of Defense and producing goods without any investment or consumption value was starting to crowd out civilian economic activities. The historian Thomas E Woods Jr observes that, during the 1950s and 1960s, between one-third and two-thirds of all US research talent was siphoned off into the military sector. It is, of course, impossible to know what innovations never appeared as a result of this diversion of resources and brainpower into the service of the military, but it was during the 1960s that we first began to notice Japan was outpacing us in the design and quality of a range of consumer goods, including household electronics and automobiles.   ***   Woods writes: “According to the US Department of Defense, during the four decades from 1947 through 1987 it used (in 1982 dollars) $7.62 trillion in capital resources. In 1985, the Department of Commerce estimated the value of the nation’s plant and equipment, and infrastructure, at just over $7.29 trillion… The amount spent over that period could have doubled the American capital stock or modernized and replaced its existing stock”.   The fact that we did not modernise or replace our capital assets is one of the main reasons why, by the turn of the 21st century, our manufacturing base had all but evaporated. Machine tools, an industry on which Melman was an authority, are a particularly important symptom. In November 1968, a five-year inventory disclosed “that 64% of the metalworking machine tools used in US industry were 10 years old or older. The age of this industrial equipment (drills, lathes, etc.) marks the United States’ machine tool stock as the oldest among all major industrial nations, and it marks the continuation of a deterioration process that began with the end of the second world war. This deterioration at the base of the industrial system certifies to the continuous debilitating and depleting effect that the military use of capital and research and development talent has had on American industry.” Economist Robert Higgs makes the same point about World War II: Yes, officially measured GDP soared during the war. Examination of that increased output shows, however, that it consisted entirely of military goods and services. Real civilian consumption and private investment both fell after 1941, and they did not recover fully until 1946. The privately owned capital stock actually shrank during the war. Some prosperity. (My article in the peer-reviewed Journal of Economic History, March 1992, presents many of the relevant details.)   It is high time that we come to appreciate the distinction between the government spending, especially the war spending, that bulks up official GDP figures and the kinds of production that create genuine economic prosperity. As Ludwig von Mises wrote in the aftermath of World War I, “war prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings.” War Causes Austerity Economic historian Julian Adorney argues: Hitler’s rearmament program was military Keynesianism on a vast scale. Hermann Goering, Hitler’s economic administrator, poured every available resource into making planes, tanks, and guns. In 1933 German military spending was 750 million Reichsmarks. By 1938 it had risen to 17 billion with 21 percent of GDP was taken up by military spending. Government spending all told was 35 percent of Germany’s GDP.   ***   No-one could say that Hitler’s rearmament program was too small. Economists expected it to create a multiplier effect and jump-start a flagging economy. Instead, it produced military wealth while private citizens starved.   ***   The people routinely suffered shortages. Civilian wood and iron were rationed. Small businesses, from artisans to carpenters to cobblers, went under. Citizens could barely buy pork, and buying fat to make a luxury like a cake was impossible. Rationing and long lines at the central supply depots the Nazis installed became the norm.   Nazi Germany proves that curing unemployment should not be an end in itself. War Causes Inflation … Which Keynes and Bernanke Admit Taxes Consumers As we noted in 2010, war causes inflation … which hurts consumers: Liberal economist James Galbraith wrote in 2004: Inflation applies the law of the jungle to war finance. Prices and profits rise, wages and their purchasing power fall. Thugs, profiteers and the well connected get rich. Working people and the poor make out as they can. Savings erode, through the unseen mechanism of the “inflation tax” — meaning that the government runs a big deficit in nominal terms, but a smaller one when inflation is factored in.   ***   There is profiteering. Firms with monopoly power usually keep some in reserve. In wartime, if the climate is permissive, they bring it out and use it. Gas prices can go up when refining capacity becomes short — due partly to too many mergers. More generally, when sales to consumers are slow, businesses ought to cut prices — but many of them don’t. Instead, they raise prices to meet their income targets and hope that the market won’t collapse. Ron Paul agreed in 2007: Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank have a cozy, unspoken arrangement that makes war easier to finance. Congress has an insatiable appetite for new spending, but raising taxes is politically unpopular. The Federal Reserve, however, is happy to accommodate deficit spending by creating new money through the Treasury Department. In exchange, Congress leaves the Fed alone to operate free of pesky oversight and free of political scrutiny. Monetary policy is utterly ignored in Washington, even though the Federal Reserve system is a creation of Congress.   The result of this arrangement is inflation. And inflation finances war. Blanchard Economic Research pointed out in 2001: War has a profound effect on the economy, our government and its fiscal and monetary policies. These effects have consistently led to high inflation.   ***   David Hackett Fischer is a Professor of History and Economic History at Brandeis. [H]is book, The Great Wave, Price Revolutions and the Rhythm of History … finds that … periods of high inflation are caused by, and cause, a breakdown in order and a loss of faith in political institutions. He also finds that war is a triggering influence on inflation, political disorder, social conflict and economic disruption.   ***   Other economists agree with Professor Fischer’s link between inflation and war.   James Grant, the respected editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, supplies us with the most timely perspective on the effect of war on inflation in the September 14 issue of his newsletter: “War is inflationary. It is always wasteful no matter how just the cause. It is cost without income, destruction financed (more often than not) by credit creation. It is the essence of inflation.” Libertarian economics writer Lew Rockwell noted in 2008: You can line up 100 professional war historians and political scientists to talk about the 20th century, and not one is likely to mention the role of the Fed in funding US militarism. And yet it is true: the Fed is the institution that has created the money to fund the wars. In this role, it has solved a major problem that the state has confronted for all of human history. A state without money or a state that must tax its citizens to raise money for its wars is necessarily limited in its imperial ambitions. Keep in mind that this is only a problem for the state. It is not a problem for the people. The inability of the state to fund its unlimited ambitions is worth more for the people than every kind of legal check and balance. It is more valuable than all the constitutions every devised.   ***   Reflecting on the calamity of this war, Ludwig von Mises wrote in 1919 One can say without exaggeration that inflation is an indispensable means of militarism. Without it, the repercussions of war on welfare become obvious much more quickly and penetratingly; war weariness would set in much earlier.*** In the entire run-up to war, George Bush just assumed as a matter of policy that it was his decision alone whether to invade Iraq. The objections by Ron Paul and some other members of Congress and vast numbers of the American population were reduced to little more than white noise in the background. Imagine if he had to raise the money for the war through taxes. It never would have happened. But he didn’t have to. He knew the money would be there. So despite a $200 billion deficit, a $9 trillion debt, $5 trillion in outstanding debt instruments held by the public, a federal budget of $3 trillion, and falling tax receipts in 2001, Bush contemplated a war that has cost $525 billion dollars — or $4,681 per household. Imagine if he had gone to the American people to request that. What would have happened? I think we know the answer to that question. And those are government figures; the actual cost of this war will be far higher — perhaps $20,000 per household.   ***   If the state has the power and is asked to choose between doing good and waging war, what will it choose? Certainly in the American context, the choice has always been for war. And progressive economics writer Chris Martenson explains as part of his “Crash Course” on economics: If we look at the entire sweep of history, we can make an utterly obvious claim: All wars are inflationary. Period. No exceptions.   ***   So if anybody tries to tell you that you haven’t sacrificed for the war, let them know you sacrificed a large portion of your savings and your paycheck to the effort, thank you very much. The bottom line is that war always causes inflation, at least when it is funded through money-printing instead of a pay-as-you-go system of taxes and/or bonds. It might be great for a handful of defense contractors, but war is bad for Main Street, stealing wealth from people by making their dollars worth less. Given that John Maynard Keynes and former Federal Reserve chair Ben Bernanke both say that inflation is a tax on the American people, war-induced inflation is a theft of our wealth. IEP gives a graphic example – the Vietnam war helping to push inflation through the roof: War Causes Runaway Debt We noted in 2010: All of the spending on unnecessary wars adds up.   The U.S. is adding trillions to its debt burden to finance its multiple wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc. Indeed, IEP – commenting on the war in Afghanistan and Iraq – notes: This was also the first time in U.S. history where taxes were cut during a war which then resulted in both wars completely financed by deficit spending. A loose monetary policy was also implemented while interest rates were kept low and banking regulations were relaxed to stimulate the economy. All of these factors have contributed to the U.S. having severe unsustainable structural imbalances in its government finances. We also pointed out in 2010: It is ironic that America’s huge military spending is what made us an empire … but our huge military is what is bankrupting us … thus destroying our status as an empire. Economist Michel Chossudovsky told Washington’s Blog: War always causes recession. Well, if it is a very short war, then it may stimulate the economy in the short-run. But if there is not a quick victory and it drags on, then wars always put the nation waging war into a recession and hurt its economy. (and remember Greenspan’s comment.) It’s not just civilians saying this … The former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – Admiral Mullen – agrees: The Pentagon needs to cut back on spending.   “We’re going to have to do that if it’s going to survive at all,” Mullen said, “and do it in a way that is predictable.” Indeed, Mullen said: For industry and adequate defense funding to survive … the two must work together. Otherwise, he added, “this wave of debt” will carry over from year to year, and eventually, the defense budget will be cut just to facilitate the debt. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates agrees as well. As David Ignatius wrote in the Washington Post in 2010: After a decade of war and financial crisis, America has run up debts that pose a national security problem, not just an economic one.   ***   One of the strongest voices arguing for fiscal responsibility as a national security issue has been Defense Secretary Bob Gates. He gave a landmark speech in Kansas on May 8, invoking President Dwight Eisenhower’s warnings about the dangers of an imbalanced military-industrial state.   “Eisenhower was wary of seeing his beloved republic turn into a muscle-bound, garrison state — militarily strong, but economically stagnant and strategically insolvent,” Gates said. He warned that America was in a “parlous fiscal condition” and that the “gusher” of military spending that followed Sept. 11, 2001, must be capped. “We can’t have a strong military if we have a weak economy,” Gates told reporters who covered the Kansas speech.   On Thursday the defense secretary reiterated his pitch that Congress must stop shoveling money at the military, telling Pentagon reporters: “The defense budget process should no longer be characterized by ‘business as usual’ within this building — or outside of it.” And the Founding Fathers and father of modern economics AGREED that debt-financed wars ruin the economy. While war might make a handful in the military-industrial complex and big banks rich, America’s top military leaders and economists say that would be a very bad idea for the American people. Indeed, military strategists have known for 2,500 years that prolonged wars are disastrous for the nation. War Increases Inequality … And Inequality Hurts the Economy Mainstream economists now admit that runaway inequality destroys the economy. War is great for the super-rich, but horrible for everyone else. Defense contractors, Congress membersand bankers love war, because they make huge profits from financing war. Pulitzer prize winning New York Times reporter James Risen notes that the so-called war on terror has caused “one of the largest transfers of wealth from public to private hands in American history,” and created a new class of war profiteers which Risen calls “the oligarchs of 9/11.” War Increases Terrorism … And Terrorism Hurts the Economy Security experts – conservative hawks and liberal doves alike – agree that waging war in the Middle Eastweakens national security and increases terrorism. See this, this, this, this, this, this and this. Terrorism – in turn – terrorism is bad for the economy. Specifically, a study by Harvard and the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) points out: From an economic standpoint, terrorism has been described to have four main effects (see, e.g., US Congress, Joint Economic Committee, 2002). First, the capital stock (human and physical) of a country is reduced as a result of terrorist attacks. Second, the terrorist threat induces higher levels of uncertainty. Third, terrorism promotes increases in counter-terrorism expenditures, drawing resources from productive sectors for use in security. Fourth, terrorism is known to affect negatively specific industries such as tourism. The Harvard/NBER concludes: In accordance with the predictions of the model, higher levels of terrorist risks are associated with lower levels of net foreign direct investment positions, even after controlling for other types of country risks. On average, a standard deviation increase in the terrorist risk is associated with a fall in the net foreign direct investment position of about 5 percent of GDP. So the more unnecessary wars American launches and the more innocent civilians we kill, the less foreign investment in America, the more destruction to our capital stock, the higher the level of uncertainty, the more counter-terrorism expenditures and the less expenditures in more productive sectors, and the greater the hit to tourism and some other industries. Moreover: Terrorism has contributed to a decline in the global economy (for example, European Commission, 2001). So military adventurism increases terrorism which hurts the world economy. And see this. Attacking a country which controls the flow of oil also has special impacts on the economy. For example, well-known economist Nouriel Roubini says that attacking Iran would lead to global recession. The IMF says that Iran cutting off oil supplies could raise crude prices 30%. War Destroys Freedom … Which, In Turn, Destroys the Economy A permanent war economy destroys our freedoms.  In turn, loss of liberty is bad for the economy. For example, mass surveillance – under the guise of stopping terrorism – is causing huge economic damage to America’s tech sector. And Mary Theroux pointed out in 2011 – in an article entitled War On Terror Bad for Economy – that the tourism industry is one of the largest employers in the U.S., but tourists are being discouraged from visiting the U.S. due to its intimidating treatment of tourists due to the never-ending wars. War Causes Us to Lose Friends … And Influence While World War II – the last “good war” – may have gained us friends, launching military aggression is now losing America friends, influence and prosperity. For example, the U.S. has launched Cold War 2.0 – casting Russia and China as evil empires – and threatening them in numerous way. For example, the U.S. broke its promise not to encircle Russia, and isusing Ukraine to threaten Russia; and the U.S. is backing Japan in a hot dispute over remote islands, and backing Vietnam in its confrontations with China. And U.S. statements that any country that challenge U.S. military – or even economic – hegemony will be attacked are extremely provocative. This is causing Russia to launch a policy of “de-dollarization”, which China is joining in. This could lead to the collapse of the petrodollar.  

20 марта, 20:52

Why Krugman and Stiglitz are no real alternatives to mainstream economics

from Lars Syll Little in the discipline has changed in the wake of the crisis. Mirowski thinks that this is at least in part a result of the impotence of the loyal opposition — those economists such as Joseph Stiglitz or Paul Krugman who attempt to oppose the more viciously neoliberal articulations of economic theory […]

Выбор редакции
20 марта, 10:48

Nobel Laureate Stiglitz Is Right On Japan's Fiscal Policy, But Wrong On Its Industrial Policy

Joseph Stiglitz came to Tokyo to give a lecture to Prime Minister Shizo Abe. He rightly says Japan does not have to worry about its fiscal conditions. But his other recommendations such as the promotion of a new industrial policy for the twenty-first century is problematic.

16 марта, 09:53

Без партнерства. Что означает отказ Вашингтона от ТПП для будущего мировой торговли

Резюме:Отказ новой республиканской администрации от одной из самых масштабных торгово-экономических инициатив Соединенных Штатов – Транстихоокеанского партнерства – обозначил сдвиг в азиатской политике Вашингтона. Для американских союзников и конкурентов в АТР это чревато появлением новых рисков, связанных с неопределенностью.

Выбор редакции
09 марта, 08:00

Joseph Stiglitz: Investments in Politics Pay Off Very Well for The Corporations

Joseph Stiglitz: The Corporations Have No Citizenship and Pay No Taxes  How is it possible that corporations are able to avoid paying taxes? What does that say about the civic responsibility of these companies? Joseph E. Stiglitz, former Chief Economist of the World Bank and founder of... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit http://FinanceArmageddon.blogspot.com or http://www.figanews.com/ or http://goldbasics.blogspot.com for full links, other content, and more! ]]

02 марта, 18:19

Мир кровоточит региональными войнами

В минувшую пятницу ученые Гейдельбергского института исследований международных конфликтов опубликовали свой ежегодный отчёт Conflict Barometer. В 2016 году исследователи института насчитали по всему миру 402 конфликта, 226 из них происходили с применением насилия. 18 конфликтов в отчёте квалифицированы как региональные войны. В Европе войной признали конфликт на востоке Украины, «где жертвами противостояния правительственных войск с пророссийскими сепаратистами, по данным ООН, стали уже примерно 10000 человек».

27 февраля, 08:57

Восемь принципов для мировой экономики

Шведское агентство международного сотрудничества в области развития предложило поразмыслить над этим 13 экономистам со всего мира (в том числе авторам этой статьи). В частности, мы пришли к заключению, что сохранение баланса национального бюджета и контроль над инфляцией одновременно с решением предоставить рынку возможность сделать все остальное не могут быть гарантом устойчивого экономического роста. В такой перспективе мы выделили восемь главных принципов, которыми должна руководствоваться политика в области развития.

23 февраля, 20:55

Джозеф Стиглиц: Как выжить в эпоху Трампа

Меньше чем за месяц президент США Дональд Трамп сумел посеять хаос и неуверенность (и такую степень страха, которой гордился бы любой террорист), причём всё это головокружительными темпами. Неудивительно, что граждане, а также лидеры бизнеса, гражданского […]

Выбор редакции
19 февраля, 00:00

Trump's Most Chilling Economic Lie

Joseph Stiglitz, Vanity FairA so-called trade war with China would be an absolute disaster for the United States and its citizens.

14 февраля, 17:24

Путь Трампа во власть: записки очевидца. Часть 1: Куда бегут крысы с тонущего корабля

Собственно, чем же интересны убегающие крысы? А тем, что они активно побежали, начиная с 9 ноября 2016, прямо к их хозяевам.

13 февраля, 21:55

Trump vs. the Globalists

At the first major international gathering of Trump’s presidency, America’s new president topped the agenda even though he wasn't there.

09 февраля, 18:26

Европу приговорили к «сценарию ужаса»

Власти Германии всерьез опасаются за судьбу ЕС, так как непредсказуемость линии новой администрации США дает все поводы к этому. Но  тревогу также  вызывают парламентские выборы 15 марта в Нидерландах и президентские в апреле-мае во Франции. Евроскептические настроения усиливаются год от года, так к...

09 февраля, 16:42

Leading economists agree: closing borders is not the answer to inequality

Building a great big wall will not close the gap. Jorge Duenes/Reuters Ashwini Deshpande, University of Delhi US President Donald Trump wants to build a wall along the US-Mexican border. Britain wants to retreat into its shell to become an isolated island state. In France, far-right presidential candidate Marine Le Pen launched her campaign by saying, "The divide is no longer between the left and the right, but between the patriots and the globalists." Enthusiasm for inward-looking, protectionist economic agendas is sweeping across Europe, leaving xenophobic hatred in its wake. Clearly, the experience of the past three decades of globalisation has produced massive dissatisfaction: so much that naïve, misplaced and often frightening measures are seen as genuine solutions by large parts of the electorate in the richest nations of the world. Rising inequality, which has accompanied globalisation, has sprung to the fore as a key concern among economists, politicians and the public. The latest report by Oxfam documented this rise, and the figures were shocking, even to those of us who might already be convinced about the gravity of the problem: just eight men hold as much wealth as the bottom half of the world population. What needs to be asked is the following: why is the world economy at this pass? Is it a labour-versus-labour problem? Would shutting borders lead to greater equality of incomes within countries? Would the poor and working class in developed countries, who are feeling the heat of unemployment, depressed wages and insecure futures, regain their (mostly imagined) former glory if their countries shut down their borders? Or is it the case that gains from globalisation, instead of trickling down, have been sucked upwards towards a tiny elite, making an already rich minority even richer? And that this elite resides within, not outside, their countries? Labour vs capital In September 2016, I was part of a group of 13 economists, along with Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz and three other chief economists of the World Bank, who met in Saltsjobaden, near Stockholm, to deliberate on the main challenges facing the global economy, and draft a short document highlighting some key issues. This consensus document, the Stockholm Statement, was issued after intensive discussions within this small group. Our idea was to keep the statement short and focused on the most important issues. One of our main concerns was the phenomenon of rising inequality over the past three decades. The advent of advanced technology has meant that jobs can be outsourced, a point also highlighted by Donald Trump. While this has meant an expansion of opportunities for workers overall, the workers in developed countries often view this, or are made to view this, as being against their interest. They are made to feel that jobs that were rightfully theirs were taken away by workers in other countries, or by immigrants who are willing to work for low wages. This is a labour-versus-capital, or labour-versus-technology, problem. Automation has meant that even periods of high economic growth have not been periods of high growth of jobs. In periods of low growth or recession, such as we have seen in the US and Europe since the 2008 financial crisis, the already gloomy picture becomes even bleaker. While job and wages have grown slower compared to national incomes, salaries at the top have not only kept pace, but their rate of growth might even be higher. Thus, the gap between salaries of CEOs and top ranking managers and workers within firms has been increasing. The Oxfam report quotes from Thomas Piketty's new research showing that in the US, in the past 30 years, the growth in the incomes of the bottom 50% has been zero, whereas the growth in the incomes of the top 1% has been 300%. Thus, the real reason for depressed incomes and unemployment of the working classes in developed countries is not that workers from other countries are taking jobs. The two main culprits are the slow rate of creation of new jobs, and the increasing inequality in the share of labour (wages) and capital (profits) within their own countries. What we can do Based on this analysis, we suggested three major policy responses. First, we should invest in human capital, increasing skills alongside developing new technology. This would boost labour income as technology improves. Second, governments have to legislate to transfer income within countries. This means new taxes, and sharing profits. The rise of technology does not have to mean the end of workers' rights; specific labour legislation should be put in place to ensure this. Finally, we must promote policies that cross borders. This means international organisation such as the UN and the World Bank should encourage policy harmonisation between nations. These policies must not just favour rich, industrialised nations, they should also allow emerging economies a voice in the debate. A new social contract The fact that the deliberations for the Stockholm Statement took place in Saltsjobaden is significant. It was here in 1938 that the social contract between labour and capital in Sweden, which was later expanded to include government, was sealed. The contract specified the process of collective bargaining and management, and the focus was on negotiation and consultation, rather than hostility. Both the process and content of the historical Saltsjobaden Agreement hold lessons for management of our troubled times. Our optimism for the future might seem like a mirage in light of recent political events. But just as the collective voice of the majority today seems to favour a quick-fix, non-solution to rising inequality, our hope is that an articulation of the actual reasons behind rising inequality and insistence on a reasoned, balanced policy response could provide the real solutions needed to address the widening gap between rich and poor. Ashwini Deshpande, Professor, Department of Economics,, University of Delhi This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

06 февраля, 15:00

Почему экономисты это обманщики

Власть чисел тем могущественнее, чем меньше в них разбираются. Вольтер Математика, подобно жернову, перемалывает то, что под неё засыпают, и, как засыпав лебеду, вы не получите пшеничной муки, так, исписав целые страницы формулами, вы не получите истины из ложных посылок. Томас Генри Гексли Экономика и магия числа На протяжении последних нескольких десятилетий в мире создавался […]

31 января, 20:55

Broken Trust

"Chaos is the precondition to creativity... Even what has been created needs to be returned to chaos from time to time so that it can be regenerated in more vital form." - Parker J. Palmer At this year's World Economic Forum gathering in Davos, Switzerland, PR firm Edelman shared its comprehensive annual Trust Barometer, confirming what we all know: global trust in institutions and leaders is at an all-time low. Fully two-thirds of countries are now considered "distrusters" (under 50% trust in the mainstream institutions of business, government, media and NGOs to do what is right), compared to about half a year ago. This is a stunning collapse in trust, even from last year's low base. Trust in leadership is equally low. Only 37 percent of the general population believe CEOs are credible, even worse for government officials - 29 percent credible. A paltry 15 percent believe the system is working. Ironically, it was Chinese Premier Xi, in his first address at Davos, who stood in defense of globalization (quoting Abraham Lincoln, it should be said), arguing that the system is sound, but it is (Western democratic) governance that has failed. Note China ranked second on the trust index, second only to India. Talk about a humbling moment (if that's possible) at the annual gathering of the global economic and political elite. There was lots of talk this year at Davos about "inclusive capitalism" (Jack Ma actually puts substance behind the slogan in his must-watch interview -- a great example of Alibaba's seemingly regenerative business model in service to its network partners rather than extracting from them, and a sharp contrast to Amazon's model, as Ma explains). But the "inclusive capitalism" talk included little honest analysis of the root cause of this stunning collapse in trust, why it is so dangerous (the rise in extreme forms of authoritarian populism rooted in emotion more than evidence and its unpredictable path), and what if anything can be done about it at this late date. Nobel Economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote a prescient piece on this topic in 2013, and called for strong regulation and bold regulators to enforce the laws. Clearly, we have failed. And without a culture that not only values trust but demands it, I am not optimistic about better regulation and stricter enforcement. The decline in trust pervades all four institutions studied in the Edelman survey. Unfortunately, Edelman did not single out finance and report on it separately from business. Surely few would doubt that the finance sector (Wall Street mega banks, in particular) would rank at the bottom of the trust barometer within the business category. In fact, research confirms that bankers are more likely to cheat than the rest of us. (As a former banker, this is upsetting to me!) Nothing defines banking's breach of public trust better than the 2008 financial collapse. Being told to move on, It is easy to forget how much of the world's current social and economic woes can be traced to the financial bubble and subsequent 2008 systemic collapse, either directly or indirectly. Recall that the financial collapse destroyed $19 trillion of economic value in the U.S. alone, permanently destroying the economic security of millions of families across America. An estimated 34 million jobs were destroyed globally in the process. The rise of today's dangerous brand of authoritarian populism--manifesting first in Brexit and now Trump--is directly connected to Wall Street's breach of trust. It's not just because of "globalization" or "technology" taking our jobs as if it were all inevitable. We cannot forget that compounding and exacerbating these legitimate and complex challenges, and more (climate change-induced drought driving immigration, linked to the Syrian carnage comes to mind) was the willful act of dropping a bomb into an already vulnerable society. The Goldman Sachs/John Paulson Abacus trade was the Hiroshima of modern financial history. The mortgage fiasco was a massive, reckless act of violence, perpetrated upon global society by an industry failing in its critical purpose while instead proving itself willing to do just about anything to make grotesque profits through fraud and egregious deceit. The efficient market narrative of bringing home ownership to the masses was all a cynical cover. And the industry's ongoing fraudulent activities post the crisis, from the LIBOR scandal to FX price rigging, to wrongful foreclosure with robo-signers to Wells Fargo's opening millions of fake accounts out of its "community banking" division of all places (where the do-gooders are supposed to work), sealed the fate of the industry as devoid of trust for some time to come, unfair as that may be for the many honest bankers out there. Blaming populism on bankers' unparalleled breach of trust is a strong claim. But think about it: Less speculative finance, less speculative real estate lending. Less boom created from unsustainable misallocation of human, physical, and financial capital to speculative real estate. Less wasted carbon in the atmosphere and less farmland destroyed, exacerbating the drought-driven migrations. Less unearned wealth for bankers and less resulting inequality, and less power for the sector to rig the rules, buy off and brainwash the politicians and even regulators, resulting in asymmetric risks only the opportunist bankers truly understood. (Trump once referred to the bankers--now his advisors--as "killers" on the campaign trail, and he's had to cross them more than once, so he knows). Less demand on the public sector to socialize the losses to "save the system" and therefore less public debt and no need for the misguided austerity driving society further into despair. That means more resources available to address the consequences of globalization and automation, and greater acceleration of investment into the transition to renewable energy and into rebuilding our aging yet vital infrastructure. More assets channeled into education, perhaps even into the revival of civics classes! We know how this narrative continues. We know it does not end with the election of a fraud to the most powerful office in the land. Donald Trump, whose ethics seem guided by the probability of winning lawsuits, is about as unlikely a remedy for broken societal trust as one can imagine, as his hopeful supporters are sadly about to learn. Coal is not coming back, sorry. So the consequences of lost trust will only amplify in dangerous and unpredictable ways that now stunningly include the Orwellian introduction of "alternative facts" into the Trump Administration's everyday narrative. The so-called "activist investor" Carl Icahn is Trump's fellow bully buddy and now Special Advisor on Regulatory Reform. He has defended the need for Dodd-Frank banking reform in the past and held the banks responsible for the financial crisis in public statements. That is a testament to his common sense and refreshing objectivity as a Wall Street insider. Time will tell whether a man who has spent half a century as an opportunist (bully) stock speculator can come to see that an ideology that conflates speculation with investment and means (finance and the stock market) with ends (a healthy economy) can guide us to a more enlightened and still desperately needed financial system reform and begin the long process of rebuilding trust in Wall Street, and in the process within society. Not holding my breath. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

30 января, 16:13

Will The Euro Collapse In 2017?

Will The Euro Collapse In 2017?  2017 could be the year that the euro collapses according to Joseph Stiglitz writing in Fortune magazine and these concerns were echoed over the weekend by former Bundesbank vice-president and senior European Central Bank official, Jürgen Stark, when he said that the 'destruction' of the Eurozone may be necessary if countries are to thrive again. Stark and Stiglitz are too of many respected commentators, from both the so called right and the so called left, who are warning that the common currency and the Eurozone itself will not survive the financial and political turmoil already besetting the European monetary union and set to deepen in the coming months and years. Gold in Euros - 5 Years According to Stiglitz: Greece remains in a severe depression. Growth for the Eurozone over the past year has been an anemic 1.6%, and that number is twice the average growth rate from 2005 to 2015. Historians are already speaking of the Eurozone’s lost decade, and it’s possible they’ll soon be writing about its last decade, too. The euro was introduced in 2002, but the cracks in the single currency arrangement, which began in 1999, became evident with the 2008 global financial crisis. Indeed, Greece and many periphery nations remain borderline or actually insolvent and this inconvenient truth has been largely ignored in recent months as it would clash with the cosy, and complacent, Eurozone "recovery" narrative. The recovery is unsustainable as the root cause of the crisis - humongous levels of debt in Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland - was not dealt with rather the debt can was simply kicked down the road. France, a nation with its own debt and economic issues, warned last week that the “window of opportunity” for a debt deal is closing after Athens and its creditors failed to find a solution to the country’s deadlocked bailout last week. French Finance Minister Michel Sapin warned that the coming volatile elections in Europe in 2017 would soon dominate the agenda and may make it much harder for Greece to reach a new 'bailout' deal. Jeroen Dijsselbloem who heads the Eurozone’s Finance ministers also said: “there is a clear understanding that a quick finalization of the second [bailout] review is in everyone’s interest” as reported by the Wall Street Journal. However, others such as Stark believe that eurozone "must break up if its members are to thrive again." Stark, who served on the ECB’s executive board during the financial crisis, said it was time to “think the unthinkable” and work towards a “reset” of Europe that pulled power away from Brussels as reported by the Telegraph. He said the creation of a two-speed eurozone, with France and Germany at its core, would help to ensure the smaller bloc’s survival and he said that the current eurozone may need to be destructed in order to create a new "two-speed eurozone, with France and Germany at its core". This "would help to ensure the smaller bloc’s survival." Stiglitz conclusion, in a little noticed or commented upon article in Fortune magazine is also not optimistic and underlines the importance of being properly diversified and not having all your eggs in the euro basket - be that euro bank deposits in Eurozone banks or indeed euro denominated assets. Stiglitz concludes by warning that: ...  It is at least as likely that the political forces are going in the other direction, and if that is the case, it may be only a matter of time before Europe looks back on the euro as an interesting, well-intentioned experiment that failed—at great cost to the citizens of Europe and their democracies. The full article can be read on Fortune here Whether we like it or not, there is an increasing possibility that there may be a return to national currencies in Europe. Periphery nations savers and investors are particularly exposed in this regard. Gold is an important hedging instrument and financial insurance that will protect people from the potential return to liras, drachmas, escudos, pesetas and punts. Hoping for the best but diversifying and being prepared for less benign financial outcomes remains prudent. Gold and Silver Bullion - News and Commentary Gold up on weaker dollar, sluggish U.S. economic data (Reuters.com) Dollar Slips After Trump Move, Asia Stocks Decline (Bloomberg.com) Gold Goes Cold Turkey as Chinese Stop Buying for Year of Rooster (Bloomberg.com) U.S. Economic Growth Cools on Biggest Trade Drag Since 2010 (Bloomberg.com) New "Housing Bubble" Developing In Dublin (NewsTalk.com) Trump Sitting On Ticking Fiscal Time Bomb - Stockman (DailyReckoning.com)     Would the real Donald Trump please stand up? - McWilliams (DavidMCWilliams.com) Gold is world's ultimate currency - Former Indian central banker says (IndiaTimes.com) Real story behind 'Gold' movie is crazier than fiction (CalgaryHerald.com) Gold Prices (LBMA AM) 30 Jan: USD 1,189.85, GBP 949.38 & EUR 1,112.63 per ounce27 Jan: USD 1,184.20, GBP 943.81 & EUR 1,108.77 per ounce26 Jan: USD 1,191.55, GBP 945.14 & EUR 1,111.95 per ounce25 Jan: USD 1,203.50, GBP 956.90 & EUR 1,119.62 per ounce24 Jan: USD 1,213.30, GBP 972.22 & EUR 1,130.07 per ounce23 Jan: USD 1,213.75, GBP 974.03 & EUR 1,130.12 per ounce20 Jan: USD 1,199.10, GBP 974.87 & EUR 1,127.03 per ounce19 Jan: USD 1,203.35, GBP 976.76 & EUR 1,129.34 per ounce18 Jan: USD 1,212.50, GBP 984.91 & EUR 1,134.78 per ounce Silver Prices (LBMA) 30 Jan: USD 17.10, GBP 13.65 & EUR 16.03 per ounce27 Jan: USD 16.70, GBP 13.32 & EUR 15.61 per ounce26 Jan: USD 16.86, GBP 13.39 & EUR 15.71 per ounce25 Jan: USD 16.93, GBP 13.46 & EUR 15.74 per ounce24 Jan: USD 17.10, GBP 13.73 & EUR 15.92 per ounce23 Jan: USD 17.14, GBP 13.78 & EUR 15.97 per ounce20 Jan: USD 16.89, GBP 13.73 & EUR 15.87 per ounce19 Jan: USD 16.95, GBP 13.75 & EUR 15.89 per ounce18 Jan: USD 17.12, GBP 13.93 & EUR 16.01 per ounce17 Jan: USD 17.00, GBP 13.91 & EUR 15.87 per ounce Recent Market Updates - Dow 20K … US Debt $20 Trillion … Trump and $15,000 Gold- Switzerland’s Gold Exports To China Surge To 158 Tons In December- Blockchain – Central Banks Banking On It- Sharia Standard May See Gold Surge- Gold Price To 2 Month High As Fiery Trump Declares New American Order- Gold’s Gains 15% In Inauguration Years Since 1974- Turkey, ‘Axis of Gold’ and the End of US Dollar Hegemony- Gold Up 5.5% YTD – Hard Brexit Cometh and Weaker Dollar Under Trump- Bitcoin and Gold – Outlook and Safe Haven?- Physical Gold Will ‘Trump’ Paper Gold- Gold Lower Before Trump Presidency – Strong Gains Akin To After Obama Inauguration- Gold Rallies To $1,207 After Trump Press Conference Shambles- Prince Owned Land and Gold Bars Worth $800,000 www.GoldCore.com

28 января, 19:45

Текст: Европа предлагает «Ограничения платежей наличными» ( finview.ru )

Начав с прекращения выпуска банкнот номиналом в 500 евро, теперь Европа полностью определилась со своим будущим, которое, вероятно, будет связано с построением утопического общества без наличных. Спустя лишь несколько дней после того, как давосские элиты пришли к выводу о том, что “миру нужно избавляться от наличных”, Европейская Комиссия представила предложение по “ограничению платежей наличными”. С учетом того, что и Рогофф, и Стиглиц, и Саммерс и многие другие призывают покончить с кэшем – из-за террористов и наркодилеров, которые используют кэш (а не потому, что кто-то хочет установить тоталитарный контроль за богатством наций) &...

14 апреля 2016, 23:21

Стиглиц: что не так с отрицательными ставками?

За лауреатом Нобелевской премии Джозефом Стиглицем уже давно закрепилось амплуа скептика, который ни при каких условиях не согласится с тем, что мировая экономика стала восстанавливаться после кризиса 2008 года.

08 февраля 2016, 17:29

Что тормозит мировую экономику?

НЬЮ-ЙОРК – В 2015 году, семь лет спустя после глобального финансового кризиса, разразившегося в 2008-м, мировая экономика продолжала балансировать на грани. По данным доклада ООН «Мировая экономическая ситуация и перспективы 2016 года», средние темпы роста экономики в развитых странах после кризиса …

05 октября 2015, 16:20

США удалось достичь крупнейшего торгового соглашения за 20 лет

Представители США и 11 государств Тихоокеанского пояса достигли соглашения по договору о Транстихоокеанском партнерстве. Как отмечает Bloomberg, эта договоренность является крупнейшей для США за последние 20 лет

15 мая 2015, 18:05

Стиглиц: Обама продвигает захват мира корпорациями

По мнению известного американского экономиста Джозефа Стиглица, договоры о свободной торговле со странами Европы и Азией, которые пытается продвигать администрация Барака Обамы, ставят частные корпорации выше государственного регулирования.

22 августа 2014, 02:12

Стиглиц: Аргентина стала жертвой фонда-стервятника

  Курс валюты национальной валюты Аргентины продолжает стремительно обесцениваться. Курс песо по отношению к доллару США снизился на 3,2% до рекордно низкого уровня 14 песо за доллар.  Аргентина на грани дефолтаПричиной такой динамики песо послужил "технический" дефолт Аргентины по своим долгам. Напомним, Аргентина оказалась в состоянии дефолта второй раз спустя 13 лет. В 2001 г. Аргентина оказалась не в состоянии выплатить долги кредиторам на общую сумму порядка $95 млрд, объявив рекордный дефолт в мировой истории. Экономика страны оказалась в достаточно затруднительном положении, даже не смотря на то, что фактически у Аргентины были средства для выплаты кредиторам. На взгляд, лауреата Нобелевской премии Джозефа Стиглица, фонды-хищники пытаются заработать на том, что Аргентина оказалась в крайне затруднительном положении из-за крайне спороного судебного решения. Об этом Стиглиц пишет в своем материале, опубликованном на портале Project Syndicate. В 2005 и 2010 гг. Аргентина предлагала инвесторам обменять старые долговые бумаги на новые с дисконтом от 75% до 79%. Более 92% кредиторов Аргентины согласились на потерю 25-29 центов за доллар от инвестиций. Однако группа инвесторов во главе с хедж-фондом Elliott Management Corp. стала отстаивать свои интересы в судах Ранее окружной судья США Томас Гриза обязал Bank of New-York Meloon отослать обратно платеж Аргентины в размере $539 млн в счет процентов по реструктурированному долгу. Американский суд постановил первым делом расплатиться по долгам c "несогласными", то есть с теми, кто не пошел на реструктуризацию долга. "Средства массовой информации назвали это дефолтом Аргентины, но хэштег твиттере #Griesafault был гораздо точнее. Аргентина выполнила свои обязательства перед своими гражданами и перед кредиторами, которые приняли ее реструктуризацию. Судья Гриза, однако, предпочитает ростовщическое поведение, угрожает функционированию международных финансовых рынков, и пренебрегает основным принципом современного капитализма: неплатежеспособные должники должны начать новую жизнь", - отмечает Стиглиц.  Стиглиц о фондах-стервятникахДля Аргентины, путь к ее дефолту 2001 года начался с раздутия ее суверенного долга в 1990-х годах, который произошел наряду с неолиберальными экономическими реформами “Вашингтонского Консенсуса”, кредиторы которого верили, что обогатят страну. Эксперимент провалился, и страна пережила глубокий экономический и социальный кризис, с рецессией, которая длилась с 1998 по 2002 года. К концу года, с рекордом в 57,5% аргентинцев были в нищете, а уровень безработицы взлетел до 20,8%. Аргентина реструктировала свой долг в двух турах переговоров, в 2005 и 2010 году. Более 92% кредиторов приняли новую сделку, и получили биржевые бонды и индексированные по ВВП облигации. Это хорошо сработало, как для Аргентины, так и для тех, кто принял реструктуризацию. Экономика выросла, поэтому облигации, индексированные по ВВП полностью себя оправдали. Но так называемые инвесторы-стервятники увидели возможность заработать еще больше. Стервятники не были ни долгосрочными инвесторами в Аргентине, ни оптимистами, которые верили в то, что политика Вашингтонского Консенсуса сработает. Они были просто спекулянтами, которые налетели после дефолта 2001 года и скупали облигации за долю от их номинальной стоимости у паникующих инвесторов. Затем они подали в суд на Аргентину, чтобы получить 100% от этой стоимости. NML Capital, дочерняя компания хедж-фонда Elliot Management, во главе с Полом Сингером, потратила $48 млн на облигации в 2008 году; благодаря решению Гризы, NML Capital должны сейчас получить $832 млн -это возврат более 1600%. Цифры настолько высоки отчасти потому, что хищники стремятся заработать прошлый интерес, который, для некоторых ценных бумаг, включает в себя страновой риск – предлагалась более высокая процентная ставка, когда они были выпущены, чтобы компенсировать большую вероятность дефолта. Гриза констатировал, что это было разумно. Хотя, с экономической точки зрения, это не имеет никакого смысла. Когда страна платит страновой риск по своим долгам, это означает, что дефолты возможны. Но если суд решит, что страна всегда должна погашать свой долг, нет никакого риска дефолта, чтобы его компенсировать. Погашение на условиях Гризы опустошило бы экономику Аргентины. NML Capital и другие стервятники составляют лишь 1% кредиторов, но получат в итоге $1,5 млрд. Другие несогласные (6,6% от общего количества кредиторов) получили бы $15 миллиардов. И, так как реструктуризацией долга предусмотрено, что все кредиторы, которые приняли это могут потребовать те же условия, какие получают те, кто не согласились с реструктуризацией в 2005 и 2010 годах. В результате Аргентина может оказаться на крючке в еще $140 млрд. Таким образом, каждый аргентинец будет должен больше, чем $3500 - более одной трети среднегодового дохода на душу населения. В Соединенных Штатах, применение эквивалентной пропорции, означало бы насильное принуждение каждого гражданина выплатить примерно $20000 - все, для того, чтобы набить карманы некоторых миллиардеров, руководствовавшихся намерением опустошить страну. Более того, существование кредитных дефолтных свопов (англ. credit default swap, англ. CDS), создает возможность дальнейшего обогащения для хищников. CDS страхует от дефолта, покрывая финансово, если этого не делают облигации. Они могут принести существенную отдачу, независимо от того, погашаются облигации, или нет - тем самым снижая стимулы их владельцев к достижению соглашения.

08 октября 2012, 18:31

Стиглиц: эффект на экономику от действий ЕЦБ и ФРС

Центральные банки по обе стороны Атлантики в сентябре приняли чрезвычайные меры кредитно-денежной политики: долгожданное QE3 со стороны Федеральной резервной системы США и заявление Европейского центрального банка о том, что он будет скупать неограниченные объемы облигаций проблемных членов еврозоны. Рынки ответили эйфорией, и цены на акции в США достигли максимума после рецессии, пишет на Project Syndicate нобелевский лауреат по экономике Джозеф Стиглиц. ФРС и ЕЦБ сообщили три послания, которые должны были предоставить передышку рынкам Некоторые, особенно с политическим правым уклоном, опасались, что недавние меры денежно-кредитной политики подстегнут инфляцию в будущем и поспособствуют необузданным государственным расходам.В действительности, как опасения критиков, так и эйфория оптимистов, являются необоснованными. Сегодня, с такими большими неиспользуемыми на полную мощность производственными мощностями и столь мрачными ближайшими экономическими перспективами, риски серьезной инфляции минимальны.Тем не менее действия ФРС и ЕЦБ сообщили три послания, которые должны были предоставить передышку рынкам. Во-первых, они говорили, что предыдущие действия не сработали, более того, что крупнейшие центральные банки несут большую часть вины за кризис. Но их способности по исправлению этих ошибок ограничены.Во-вторых, заявление ФРС о том, что она будет держать процентные ставки на чрезвычайно низком уровне до середины 2015 г., подразумевает, что она не ожидает восстановления в ближайшее время. Это должно стать предупреждением для Европы, чья экономика сейчас гораздо слабее, чем американская.Наконец, ФРС и ЕЦБ сообщили, что рынки быстро не восстановят полную занятость самостоятельно. Нужен стимул. Он должен стать ответом тем в Европе и Америке, кто призывают к прямо противоположному ‑ дальнейшей жесткой экономии.Но стимул, который нужен ‑ по обе стороны Атлантики, ‑ это финансовый стимул. Денежно-кредитная политика оказалась неэффективной, и большая ее часть вряд ли сможет вернуть экономику к устойчивому росту.В традиционных экономических моделях повышенная ликвидность приводит к увеличению кредитования, в основном инвесторов, а иногда и потребителей, тем самым увеличивая спрос и занятость. Но рассмотрим случай Испании, где так много денег наводнило банковскую систему и продолжает наводнять, по мере того как Европа говорит о реализации общей банковской системы. Просто добавляя ликвидность и продолжая нынешнюю политику жесткой экономии, нельзя возродить испанскую экономику.Также в США мелкие банки, которые в основном финансируют малые и средние предприятия, были проигнорированы. Федеральное правительство – во времена как президента Джорджа Буша, так и Барака Обамы – выделило сотни миллиардов долларов, чтобы поддержать мегабанки, позволяя при этом сотням таким критически важным, менее крупным кредиторам обанкротиться.Но кредитование бы не работало, даже если бы банки были здоровы. В конце концов, малые предприятия полагаются на залоговые кредиты, а стоимость недвижимости ‑ основная форма залога – все еще на треть ниже докризисного уровня. Кроме того, учитывая величину избыточных активов в сфере недвижимости, снижение процентных ставок не сильно поможет восстановлению цен на недвижимость, тем более раздутию еще одного потребительского пузыря.Конечно, не стоит исключать маргинальный эффект: небольшие изменения в долгосрочных процентных ставках от QE3 могут привести к небольшому росту инвестиций; некоторые богатые воспользуются временно высокими ценами на акции, чтобы потреблять больше; и некоторые домовладельцы смогут рефинансировать свои ипотечные кредиты, а меньшие выплаты также позволят им повысить свой уровень потребления.Но большинство богатых знают, что временные меры приводят лишь к мимолетным всплескам цен на акции, чего вряд ли достаточно, чтобы поддержать неудержимое потребление. Кроме того, доклады свидетельствуют о том, что лишь немногие из преимуществ снижения долгосрочных процентных ставок просачиваются до домовладельцев; основными бенефициарами, по-видимому, являются банки. Многие, кто хотят рефинансировать свои ипотечные кредиты, по-прежнему не могут этого сделать, поскольку они "находятся под водой" (имея долг по своей ипотеке выше, чем стоит залоговое имущество).В других обстоятельствах США могли бы выиграть от ослабления обменного курса, что следует из более низких процентных ставок. Это своего рода конкурентная девальвация "разори своего соседа", что произойдет за счет торговых партнеров Америки. Но, учитывая более низкие процентные ставки в Европе и глобальное замедление экономического роста, прибыль, вероятно, будет малой даже здесь.Некоторые беспокоятся, что свежая ликвидность приведет к худшим результатам, например сырьевому буму, который будет действовать наподобие налога на американских и европейских потребителей. Пожилые люди, которые были разумными и держали свои деньги в государственных облигациях, получат более низкие доходы, что приведет к дальнейшему сокращению их потребления. И низкие процентные ставки будут стимулировать фирмы, которые действительно делают инвестиции, приобретать в качестве основного капитала машины высокой степени автоматизации, обеспечивая, тем самым то, что, когда придет восстановление, оно будет относительно безработным. Короче говоря, выгода, в лучшем случае, небольшая.В Европе у денежной интервенции больший потенциал для помощи, но с таким же риском усугубить положение. Чтобы развеять беспокойство по поводу расточительности правительств, ЕЦБ встроил условия в свою программу скупки облигаций. Но если условия действуют как меры жесткой экономии ‑ введенные без значительных сопутствующих мер роста, ‑ они будут больше похожи на кровопускание: пациент должен рисковать жизнью, прежде чем получить подлинное лекарство. Из страха потерять экономический суверенитет правительства будут неохотно обращаться за помощью к ЕЦБ, и только когда они будут обращаться, будет какой-нибудь реальный эффект.Для Европы есть и дополнительный риск: если ЕЦБ слишком много внимания будет уделять инфляции, в то время как ФРС пытается стимулировать экономику США, разницы в процентных ставках приведут к более сильному евро (по крайней мере относительно того, каким бы он был в противном случае), подрывая конкурентоспособность Европы и перспективы ее роста.Для Европы и Америки опасность состоит теперь в том, что политики и рынки считают, что денежно-кредитная политика может оживить экономику. К сожалению, ее основное воздействие в этой ситуации состоит в отвлечении внимания от мер, которые бы по-настоящему стимулировали экономический рост, в том числе экспансионистской налогово-бюджетной политики и реформ финансового сектора, которые увеличивают кредитование.Нынешний спад, который продолжается уже половину десятилетия, не закончится в ближайшее время. Это то, о чем в двух словах говорят ФРС и ЕЦБ. Чем скорее наши лидеры признают это, тем лучше.