• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди540
      • Показать ещё
      Разное719
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы755
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации124
      • Показать ещё
      Компании322
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели123
      • Показать ещё
      Формат39
      Издания78
      • 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
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) &...

27 января, 11:09

Валютцид: Запланированная глобалистами аннигиляция ваших сбережений и вашей свободы

Стюарт Догерти (Stewart Dougherty) После потраченного десятилетия на подробнейший и психологически тяжелый анализ, Доктор Рудольф Руммель заключил, что в 20-м веке правительства убили 262 млн. собственных граждан. Эта цифра дополняется еще 40 млн. погибших во время войн, случившихся в этом…читать далее →

26 января, 20:58

Currecide: The Globalists’ Planned Annihilation of Your Savings and Freedom

Hold your real assets outside of the banking system in one of many private international facilities  -->    https://www.sprottmoney.com/intlstorage          Currecide: The Globalists’ Planned Annihilation of Your Savings and Freedom Posted with permission and written by Dave Kranzler & Stewart Dougherty (CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL)       I wanted to share some of Stewart Dougherty's thoughts, which are raw, unedited and quite insightful:   I totally agree with what you wrote me previously about gold going ballistic this year. It’s probably better set-up right now than at any other time in history, for a large number of reasons. I hope it can finally overwhelm, once and for all the schemers who work to keep it down. I continue to think that cash elimination is the biggest story out there. It is a fraud of epic proportions, and its implications are dark and deeply disturbing. I realize that I keep coming back to this theme, but it’s because it registers with me as being so incredibly important. Sometimes, you have to say something five times before people say, “Wow. This is important. I better do something about it.” If people decide to “do something about it,” they are going to find that their options are limited. Gold being one of the few of them. Gold demand would go nuts if only the people could finally understand why they need to buy it right now. I feel a bit like Don Quixote, but I also think that the dam of realization is coming very close to breaking, and that there could be an outright flood of new, popular awareness and action. After a decade’s worth of sharply detailed and psychologically painful analysis, Dr. Rudolph Rummel determined that in the 20th Century, governments killed 262 million of their own citizens. This was in addition to the roughly 40 million persons killed in combat during the same century, in government-waged wars. In all, governments were responsible for the murder of more than 300,000,000 people in the 1900s alone.   Rummel coined a term for this mass annihilation: “Democide,” which he defined as “the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder.”   He concluded that the root cause of the 20th Century democidal onslaught was the addiction to and miscarriage of power. Recasting Lord Acton’s famous quote, Rummel said: “Power kills; absolute power kills absolutely.”   Summarizing what he had learned from his research into the recurring problem of government mass murder, he wrote: “The problem is power. The solution is democracy. The course of action is to foster freedom.”   Last week in Davos, Switzerland, a small clique of rich and powerful people met to refine and advance their command, control and exploit agenda for humanity, the primary objective of which is to destroy human freedom.   Despite the warning shots aimed their way by an increasingly plundered and disgusted populace, it was clear that the Davos elite had not heard or sensed a thing. For them, it was full speed ahead with their plans to exert increased control over and wring greater profits from the embattled citizens of the world.   One of the core principles of Inferential Analytics, the forecasting methodology we have developed and use, is that all happenings represent Life Forces in action. All Life Forces consistently strive to become stronger, expand their reach and achieve positions of dominance. They do not merely wish to survive; they seek to prevail.   To illustrate, Greed is not simply an unquenchable thirst for money exhibited by certain people; it is a fundamental Life Force that drives those people, who are its hosts. Greed constantly searches for new ambassadors who will carry it to new heights of achievement. Occasionally, Greed hits the jackpot by locating particularly talented hosts capable of radically expanding its domain. An example being people who create slush funds that pose as “foundations,” in order to steal money intended for some of the poorest people in the world, such as Haitians. The criminally insane are particularly fine vehicles for the Life Forces of Evil, including Greed.   Dr. Rummel proved that Genocide is another Life Force constantly striving to scale new mountains and seize new territory. Genocide, which is far from being done with humanity, instinctively knows, as all Life Forces do that it must adapt, modernize and transform itself in order to achieve even greater success as it plows through time.   Genocide realizes it has big shoes to fill in the 21st Century if it is to exceed last century’s astonishing achievement of 262,000,000+ murdered people. And while Obama did everything possible to destroy U.S. relations and provoke hostilities with Russia and China, and Merkel does her absolute best to orchestrate the slaughter of civilization within Germany and throughout Europe, Xi is not Mao and Putin is not Stalin. Genocide is asking itself, “Where are all the dead people supposed to come from in the next 83 years, if I am to surpass the record I set last century?”   Life Forces will do whatever they must to invent new tactics, create new shapes, conquer new territory and set new records. They are paragons of evolution. And true to its innate instincts for high achievement, Genocide is currently evolving right before our eyes, which we can easily see if only we look.   Genocide has realized that its destructive opportunities in this world are far greater than it had previously envisioned. It now understands that annihilating human beings is not its only form of expression. It can annihilate something even better: human freedom, a much larger target that is easier to destroy. It has reached the profound insight that it is impossible for people to be free if they are financially enslaved. And that financial enslavement can be engineered on a mass scale if people are buried in debt, made completely dependent upon bankers, and then systematically impoverished while having no means of escape. It has comprehended that 21st Century enslavement will be digital, and it is extremely excited about its future.   In Davos, the Deep State oligarchs intensified their push for the elimination of cash. They recruited additional shills to help promote their agenda, including Dan Schulman, CEO of Paypal, and Columbia University Professor and Nobel Prize holder Joseph Stiglitz. They joined other Deep State operatives who have been beating the same cashless drum for some time, including Group of 30 members Lawrence Summers and Kenneth Rogoff, both of whom were also in attendance at the Davos full court press.   An oligopolized, international digital payment system is the keystone of the Deep State’s globalist agenda, and a prerequisite to the implementation of full-spectrum, for-profit, transnational governance and control. The oligarchs realize that if they can gain control of the people’s money, then they can gain control of the people themselves. Accordingly, they are now pushing the agenda harder than ever, before the people wake up to its extraordinarily evil intent and ramifications, and rise up to reject it.   We view the cash elimination agenda as Genocide staking a modern claim to 21st Century terrain, using a host even more powerful than governments: the Deep State Oligarchy that owns and controls them. Genocide is embarking on the equivalent of a corporation launching a new product line. We have named its new brand Currecide, which stands for the mass murder of currency. But it will go beyond that. Currecide will result in the annihilation of the people’s savings, and with it their freedom.   Currecide represents the most pernicious, expansive and potentially profitable fraud ever committed against the people in history. The plan is simple, and if successful will produce epic returns for the Deep State perpetrators who are engineering it: trap the people’s money within their financial institutions, and then systematically plunder it via negative interest rates, transaction charges and constantly escalating monthly and annual account maintenance and other fees. As the people’s savings vanish, they will be forced to turn to the banks for loans, and the interest charges on their added debt will further impoverish them in a vicious, self-reinforcing cycle.   The timing of Currecide is financially lethal to the people, because it is happening just as the pension funds and government entitlement programs are going bankrupt. Therefore, the people’s savings will be under attack at the exact time when they need them the most, in order to survive.   Currecide will result in the imposition of an entirely new and incremental form of taxation: financial. The money generated by these financial taxes will not flow to governments; they will flow to the owners of governments: the bankers and Deep State oligarchs. In addition to rendering unto Caesar, the people will be forced to render unto Mammon.   The financial self-interest of the hucksters of cash elimination is blatant. Paypal is in the business of digitized payments, and a payment system oligopoly will personally enrich Schulman. Summers is a director of Lending Club (digital money) and a “senior advisor” to Digital Currency Group (digital money). He, too, is expecting a big payday from Currecide. Virtually all of the academic promoters of cash elimination provide consulting services to or are otherwise funded by bankers, the orchestrators and beneficiaries of the fraud. The entire promotion is a tangled web of self-interest, greed and especially the lust for power, about which Rummel warned us so starkly.   A mere 7 days after Prime Minister Narendra Modi demonetized 86% of India’s cash by surprise edict, Bill Gates, the world’s richest man at $92 billion and counting, happened to show up in New Delhi. Gates met with Modi and praised his gambit, even though it had created unprecedented financial chaos and personal hardship for hundreds of millions of Indian citizens. Gates hailed it as a “bold step by the government.”   According to the BBC, Gates urged Modi to allow mobile phone companies to move into the consumer finance market. In a speech, Gates said, “these [digital financial] services can transform your mobile phone into a kind of digital bank branch, allowing you to pay for goods and services, transfer money and even get loans at the push of a key. … A move into the digital realm [in other words, the ultimate elimination of cash, a potential windfall for Microsoft that he has long advocated] will cut transaction costs, allow government to pay benefits directly to those who need them, and make credit easier and cheaper for everyone.”   Gates made the Deep State’s true agenda crystal clear: First: addict hundreds of millions of additional citizens to the toxic, expensive drug it peddles: debt. This is what he meant when he said that a cashless, digitized financial system would enable people to “get loans at the push of a key,” and “make credit easier and cheaper for everyone.” With western citizens choking on debt, the Deep State must expand its horizons, and Gates is doing his part. Second: trap the people’s money within the banking system, with no option of cash withdrawal. Third: digitize humanity’s vital needs (such as for money) in order to gain maximum control, and make it possible to “turn off” trouble makers who are not on board with the globalist agenda being imposed upon them.   The planned Currecide is incontrovertible proof that the Deep State oligarchs, and not governments are in control. There is not one elected representative in Congress we can find who ran for office on a platform that included cash elimination as a plank. To the best of our knowledge, the members of Congress have been completely silent on this subject. The cashless agenda is not coming from the people, or their representatives. It is coming from the Deep State bankers who intend to make a monumental fortune from it, at the enormous expense of the people’s financial independence and personal liberty.   To protect your money and freedom, you must possess assets that are timeless and true. There are very few ways you can do this, and your current options will not exist forever. Supplies of the few things that can protect you are completely inadequate compared to the strong, upcoming demand that will wipe them out. We say this again and again, because it is so important. In our research, we see no greater threat to the people than Currecide, given its fundamentally evil design and sweeping, destructive ramifications should it take hold. In our view, gold and silver can help protect you as few other solutions can. We urge you to beware the Normalcy Bias, which tells you there is no rush to act, because the system has basically held together thus far, and therefore, it always will. The Normalcy Bias, which is a powerful psychological force, puts one at extreme risk. We hope you will seriously consider taking action now, while you can, and ignore the Normalcy Bias’s Siren song. We write solely in an effort to inform and, we hope, help people.   Please email with any questions about this article or precious metals HERE       Currecide: The Globalists’ Planned Annihilation of Your Savings and Freedom Posted with permission and written by Dave Kranzler & Stewart Dougherty (CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL)

24 января, 04:25

Global Growth: Democratic Capitalism's Coming Waterloo

Eras in which population growth furthered the public good are behind us. The global costs of population growth now outweigh the benefits on the whole. Humanity must transition to a new understanding and global commitment in which economic growth is not subsidized by population expansion. Economic growth must come from improvements in education and decision-making: a more prudent ingenuity, enhanced business efficiency, improved loss control, better consumer and lifestyle choices and the overhaul of partisan politics. Standard fare business and popular political goals can no longer be trusted. We must reevaluate the growth paradigm at democratic capitalism's core. Paradoxically, the growth paradigm that helped build democratic capitalism is now set to bring it down. Ecological Logic Versus Economic Design When competent biologists examine the terrestrial ecological system, the arrangement's functionality makes sense: it is scientifically justifiable. Absent improvident human intervention, the system is self-adjusting and sustainable. It rebounds from catastrophes, even if it must alter life forms. Competition for natural resources limits species growth as does scarcity and hardship at the margins of species' habitats. While this is a good arrangement for the plant and animal kingdom it is far from desirable for humankind, especially in the modern context where people's sensitivities are increasingly actuated by global communications and comparative images. Social media's impact upon African and Asian emigration is a case in point. An awareness of relative deprivation is not something people enjoy, whether in terms of lost opportunities or impossible outcomes. Who can justify wealth concentration for the few by widening the economic gap for the many? Sensed injustice is the mother's milk of populism. When informed and objective economists examine the financial architecture of the global economy, what they see is irrational and unethical. It is truly bizarre that in 2014 the world's 85 richest people had as much wealth as the bottom half of the world's 7.5 billion population: a situation that Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz sees as becoming more extreme. But this is merely half the problem. The other half is that neither the population growth nor the economic system of asset appreciation predicated upon growth is sustainable. Unfortunately, each feeds off the other, making needed reforms difficult to attain. While it may be possible to moderate a tragedy of the commons by incentivizing a curtailment of population growth in densely populated and developmentally challenged nations, a master plan of incentives is not achievable until several things happen. First, financial markets must be redesigned so that reasonable asset values are not dependent upon growth. Secondly, the field of investment must be restructured so that those who invest responsibly in sustainable development are not penalized competitively. Finally, business success must be measured and rewarded in new ways, thus increasing the logic of businesses growing better instead of bigger in order to succeed. Reforms: Do Davos Leaders have the Answers? The problem is that multiple competitive money cults on every continent have been allowed to evolve asset markets into forms that elevate the value of growth capital over prudently measured merit. As a result wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of the few: an unsatisfactory outcome under any reasonable system of social justice. Is there something that can be done? Joseph Stiglitz thinks so. He says the world's top one percent should pay their taxes and forego tax dodges such as offshore tax havens. Additionally, the ultra-rich should pay their employees decently, invest in the future rather than in stock buybacks and dividend maximization, and cut back on the lobbying that continually rewrites market rules in favor of the largest capital holders. Remedial actions on the recommendations offered by Stiglitz are overdue. Perhaps dangerously overdue with or without Davos elites influencing the world's economic architecture. Stiglitz writes: "If a majority of citizens feel that they are not getting what they view as a fair share of the economic gains, they may turn against our economic and political system, or at least those parts of it that they blame. If a majority believes that globalization is hurting them, they may turn against globalization." What is Stiglitz arguing? Does he hope that elites will dial back enough of the excesses to prevent electorates from tearing down the existing system? Or does he argue something else? Would Stiglitz approve of a market design that impedes huge fortunes because it works to reward people on the basis of merit soberly measured? A Coming Demographics Cold War? The subsidization of asset appreciation by imprudent population growth generates largely undeserved gains for those with concentrated capital. On a planet of finite size (diameter 7,917 miles) where limited natural resources are already under siege, some caution is in order, especially since well over half of the world's population cannot earn a modern (European equivalent) lifestyle. Human population is growing at a net rate of 80 million people annually. During President Obama's eight years enough people were added to the world's population to triple the population of the USA, or match the population of the European Union and Russia combined (i.e., 640 million net additions). Is it any wonder that struggling people are overflowing in a profound emigration dynamic that threatens to overthrow the world order not through nuclear weaponry but through excessive reproduction in democracy's equality of persons environment. Asia and Africa are set to win a demographics cold war. What is the future of nation-based democracy (i.e., one person, one vote) if responsible low population growth countries get washed out by emigration emanating from high population growth countries? The acceptance of democracy is threatened less by weapons of mass destruction or jihadist terrorism than by the endless efforts of multinational corporations to cultivate growth markets for their products and services. Heat is added to this unfortunate dynamic by investors longing for asset appreciation and by wealthy philanthropists inadvertently subsidizing unsustainable population growth in their quest to address recalcitrant human welfare problems. Military conquest now has a challenger. Emigration and immigration are the world's new vehicles of conquest, as facilitated by the unfettered corporate hunger for growth and the desire of debt-laden and entitlement-burdened governments to stimulate new tax revenues. Replacing Growth with a Steady State Environment Tragically, the international money cult (consisting of plutocrats, global financiers and wannabe elites) is locked in by a market paradigm designed to enlarge capital assets by financially leveraging the growth of human population. Financial elites cannot imagine abandoning the growth paradigm, as half of the current value of the world's $60 trillion dollars bet on stocks is dependent upon the prospect of continued growth. If growth were to languish, dividend yields would rise dramatically to justify risk versus reward ratios in equities. Such a retreat would undermine the viability of the bond market which predicates the repayment of debt based upon projected income streams. Add the potential impact of a retreat from growth upon the universe of derivatives and it becomes evident why the world's central bankers are not willing to contemplate an exit from a market design predicated upon growth. Nonetheless, phased in remedies are less painful than dead-end calamities. As Asia's environmental problems worsen, observers are educated as to the complications of bringing hundreds of millions of people into modes of living that require higher resource consumption and heightened risks of human actuated climate change. Meanwhile, the asset appreciation design of today's financial markets forces young investors to purchase inflated assets that carry high risk hazards as the feasibility of continued growth peters out. The longer we hold off reforms, the smaller the prospect for a soft landing. It is imperative to move to a sober politics which redesigns the global economy in accord with a steady-state design. A prudent overarching ethos must guide the world toward a sustainable state: ecologically, demographically and economically--an idea long advocated by Herman Daly. A modern and ecologically responsible standard of living is available for perhaps two to four billion individuals in the context of today's best technology. This calculus leaves behind half of the world's existing population. So, what is the justification of growing the world's population toward a dangerous 2050 projection, especially in countries with demographic profiles where technological and learning aptitudes lag? If the central rationale of growth is the generation of business profits to support asset prices, the system's ethics are defective. If the world's human population is already excessive, and the number of people left behind rises faster than the number wisely accommodated, a policy dead-end awaits. What will it take to show the current jockeying for growth as brutish and short-sighted? Where can America find a president, Democrat or Republican, who will confront these critical issues straight on? -- 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.

21 января, 14:19

Текст: Стиглиц: Америке надо «избавляться от валюты» ( khazin.ru )

В середине 19-го века, когда Соединённое Королевство все еще являлось доминирующей силой в мире, английский ученый Фрэнсис Гальтон написал серию трудов, доказывающих пользу селекционного разведения человеческих особей. Идеи Гальтона позднее получили название евгеника. Концепция его идей проста: необходимо, чтобы гении и таланты передавали свои врожденные способности из поколения в поколение, тем самым улучшая качества человеческого рода. Таким образом, самые выдающиеся и яркие представители человечества, по замыслу ученого, должны были разводиться, как скот. Ученые вскоре стали измерять углы носов и покатость лбов, чтобы установить корреляцию между физическим обликом и талантом. Ученое сообщество пришло к выводу, что человек с определенными физич...

20 января, 04:35

Socialism, Not Oil, Is The Cause Of Venezuela's Problems

Submitted by Benjamin Powell via InsideSources.com, Venezuela’s economy has collapsed. Unfortunately, most people mistakenly believe Venezuela’s policies created a successful economy prior to the collapse in oil prices. The truth is that Venezuela’s socialist policies held back its economy during the oil boom and are the direct cause of its economic collapse today. Upon Hugo Chavez death in 2013, and before the collapse in oil prices, Salon published an article titled “Hugo Chavez’s Economic Miracle” that praised the success of his brand of socialism. Salon was far from alone. Numerous left-leaning pundits and celebrities, and even some very influential economists, have held up Venezuela as a rare example of a successful socialist economy. For example, in a 2007 speech sponsored by the Bank of Venezuela, Joseph Stiglitz — 2001 recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences and former senior vice president and chief economist of the World Bank — claimed that “Venezuela’s economic growth has been very impressive.” However, a new academic study reveals that Venezuela’s economic performance during Chavez’s tenure as president was far from impressive. Economists Kevin Grier and Norman Maynard use a sophisticated synthetic control methodology to compare how Venezuela performed under Chavez to how it should have been expected to perform based on similar oil producing and Latin American economies that did not also change to socialist economic policies. Rather than an economic success, they find a chronically underperforming economy. After Chavez’s first five years, they find that Venezuela’s income per capita was more than $3,500 below what should have been expected. Even during the subsequent oil boom, its income per capita never closed to within $2,500 of its predicted value. Grier and Maynard also find that Chavez’s socialist policies did not simply sacrifice economic growth in favor of redistributive policies that helped the poor. They find that neither poverty rates nor health outcomes improved more than they should have been expected to improve without the changes in policy. To the extent that inequality declined, they find that it largely occurred by reducing the income of the wealthy, rather than by increasing the income of the poor. The global oil boom simply allowed Venezuela, which sits on the world’s largest proven oil reserves, to mask many of the harmful effects of Chavez’s socialist economic policies. Now that oil prices have collapsed, so has Venezuela’s economic performance. The recent actions of the government’s “consumer protection agency,” Sundde, illustrate why the economy is collapsing. The agency dictated that retailers reduce the price of a range of goods by 30 percent in early December, despite the country’s recent experience with high inflation rates. When the agency deemed that Kreisel, a toy distributor, had too high of a mark-up margin, officials seized nearly 4 million toys from the warehouse to redistribute to the poor. This action might have made some toys freely available this past Christmas but it also destroyed the incentive for any company to attempt to provide toys next holiday season. Some will surely object that this example is trivial in light of the broader issues facing Venezuelans, but what happened to Kreisel has happened in many industries. The Venezuelan government fixes prices, while constantly inflating its currency, and then seizes products and jails producers, who try to maintain profitable production by charging market prices. As a result, the production of everything has collapsed. I recently spent a week in Cucuta, on the Colombian-Venezuelan border, and observed this collapse directly. Thousands of Venezuelans crossed the two bridges joining these countries on foot each day to buy essentials in Colombia that are unavailable in Venezuela. I met a couple from Cuidad Bolivar, who had traveled for three days to get to the border. They had come to buy rice, medicines, car parts and toiletries for their family. They have been making the journey approximately every three months. Their story was not uncommon. There is no need for Venezuelans to be poor. In 1980, as measured in the Economic Freedom of the World Annual Report, Venezuela ranked the 14th-freest economy in the world and it had one of the highest standards of living in Latin America. Then, as its economic freedom declined, so did its prosperity. After its embrace of socialism under Chavez, only the oil boom could delay its complete collapse. Yet, there is reason for some optimism. In recent years, many countries in Latin America, including Argentina and Brazil, have moved away from populist and socialist policies and begun to embrace economic freedom. If Venezuela follows their lead, it could resuscitate its economy and eventually return to prosperity.

20 января, 00:51

Nobel Prize Winner Tells Davos' Elite, US Should "Get Rid Of Currency"

Submitted by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com, In the mid-1800s at a time when the United Kingdom was still the dominant superpower in the world, an English scientist named Francis Galton wrote a series of papers arguing for the selective breeding of human beings. Galton’s ideas became known as eugenics. The concept was that genius and talent were hereditary traits passed from generation to generation, and that, to ensure the growth of our species, the best and brightest should be bred like cattle. Scientists soon began taking measurements of nose angles and forehead slopes in order to establish a correlation between a physical features and talent. The scientific community concluded that a person with certain physical features was predisposed for great success and achievement. But it worked both ways. If your forehead was too wide, or your nose to jaw ratio too slight, you were viewed as morally and intellectually inferior. Given that many races share similar physical features, this phony science became the moral justification for segregation, slavery, and even genocide. Today our species is clearly more enlightened, and we can stand amazed that such ridiculous ideas used to be taken seriously. There will come a time, however, when our descendents say the same thing about us. Case in point: half a world away at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Nobel Laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz made remarks earlier this week that the US should “get rid of currency.” He means paper currency, as in the US should not only get rid of $100 bills… but ALL paper currency– 50s, 20s, 10s, 5s, and even 1s. You guessed it. Stiglitz suggests that regular people don’t need paper money, and that it’s only useful for drug dealers, terrorists, tax evaders, and money launders. This thinking is so 20th century, and it’s simply wrong. ISIS is a great example. The US military has literally blown up more than a billion dollars worth of ISIS’s stockpiles of physical cash during airstrikes. But this hasn’t affected their terrorist activities one bit. That’s because the most notorious terrorist group on the planet famously uses both the world’s oldest currency (gold) and the world’s newest currency (Bitcoin). Professor Stiglitz has likely never been anywhere near a terrorist, so he likely doesn’t have a clue how they conduct financial transactions. Stiglitz also relies on the old claim that cash facilitates illicit activity. Again, this thinking only highlights a Dark Ages mentality. In the today’s world, drug dealers and prostitutes accept credit cards. No matter what you’re selling on a street corner, whether it’s hot dogs or marijuana, there are plenty of solutions (like Stripe, Square, or PayPal) to easily allow anyone to accept credit card payments. But these intellectuals seem stuck in a Pablo Escobar fantasy that drug dealers have entire rooms filled with cash. What Stiglitz, and perhaps many law enforcement agencies, fail to realize is that one of the biggest tools in masking illegal activity is actually Amazon.com. Specifically, Amazon gift cards. If you’re looking to quietly and easily pay large sums of money, even tens of thousands of dollars, you can do so with Amazon gift cards. Amazon gift cards are essentially a “cash equivalent”. Amazon sells just about everything on the planet, so its gift cards can either be spent or quickly resold for cash. (You can obscure a financial transaction even more by using an Amazon gift card to buy another gift card…) Curiously there are no loud, universal calls to ban Amazon gift cards. That’s because these policymakers and academics are stuck in the 1980s. Instead, they’ve nearly all jumped on board the “cash ban” bandwagon. These guys just don’t get it. Cash isn’t about tax evasion or illegal activity. It’s about having a choice. Any rational person who actually looks at the numbers in the banking system has to be concerned. In many parts of the world, banks are pitifully capitalized and EXTREMELY illiquid. This is especially the case in Europe right now where entire nations’ banking systems are teetering on insolvency. In the United States, liquidity is also quite low, and banks play all sorts of accounting games to hide their true financial condition. Plus, never forget that the moment you deposit funds at a bank, it’s no longer YOUR money. It’s the bank’s money. As a depositor, you’re nothing more than an unsecured creditor of the bank, and they have the power to freeze you out of your life’s savings without even giving you a courtesy call. Physical cash provides consumers another option. If you don’t want to keep 100% of your savings tied up in a system that’s rigged against you and has a long history of screwing its customers, you can instead choose to hold physical cash. There’s very little downside in doing this, especially since most people are barely making any interest in their checking accounts anyhow. Physical cash means there is no one else standing between you and your savings. But Professor Stiglitz and his colleagues don’t want that. They want a massive, centralized bureaucracy to have control over your savings. This, coming from a man wrote in his 2012 book The Price of Inequality, “[T]he success of [Apple and Google], and indeed the viability of our entire economy, depends heavily on a well-performing public sector. There are creative entrepreneurs all over the world. What makes a difference. . . is the government.” Sam Walton, Richard Branson, Steve Jobs, and millions of other entrepreneurs are apparently worthless. To paraphrase Barack Obama, “They didn’t build that.” All that matters is the government. Just like his call to eliminate cash, Stiglitz’s entire book is an impassioned argument for MORE centralization and government control. 150 years ago, Francis Galton’s appalling ideas were considered science. Stiglitz’s ideas are what pass as science today. They’re equally ludicrous. And one day our future descendants will look back on our own time and wonder how so many people could have allowed themselves to be fooled. Do you have a Plan B?

19 января, 17:02

Overheard At Davos: "So Many People Feel That This Is One Of The Most Dangerous Times"

One of the better summaries of the tense mood at this year's Davos proceedings, where globalists from around the world are confronted with the new protectionist, populist reality that was unleashed in 2016, comes from the NYT which recounts a dinner conversation on Monday evening as the forum got underway, in which Ian Goldin, a professor of globalization and development at Oxford University, celebrated the connectedness of the global economy and the technological advancements that have liberated humans from disease, poverty and the drudgery of manual labor. Here are some of the highlights of what he said: “There’s never been a better time to be alive, and yet we feel so glum,” Mr. Goldin said. “So many people feel anxious. So many people feel that this is one of the most dangerous times.”   He denounced the frightened retreat from globalization manifest in Mr. Trump’s threats of a trade war with China, and in Britain’s abandonment of Europe, commonly known as Brexit.   “You can’t stop managing an entangled environment by disconnecting,” he said. “This is the fundamental mistake of Brexit, of Trump, and of so many others. We are not simply connected. We are entangled. Our lives, our destinies are intertwined. What happens in China, what happens in Indonesia, what happens in India, what happens across Europe, and what happens in North America, across Africa and Latin America will affect all of us in dramatic new ways. The idea that somehow we can forge our future in an insular way, even for the biggest countries like the U.S., is a fantasy.” And yet, Mr. Goldin said, if the benefits of globalization are not spread more equitably, the world could be in for a replay of the Renaissance, an extraordinary period of scientific progress, commercial growth and artistic creativity in Europe that ultimately yielded popular resentment. The gold leaf landing on cathedrals was not bettering the lot of the peasantry. The spices coming in from Asia were too expensive for most. The Medici family that ruled Florence was sent packing by the mob. Intellectuals were persecuted and books burned.   “We need to learn these historical lessons and realize that this is the most precious moment in human history,” Mr. Goldin said. “We need to make the choices to ensure that globalization is sustainable, that connectivity is sustainable, that we deal with the intractable problems that are worrying people.” Perhaps a more apt analogy is the gilded age, which ended with mixed results for America's captains of industry. Goldin's speech led into the previously highlighted panel on Wednesday morning, in which Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, "injected a rarely heard word into a conversation about the crisis for middle-class households: redistribution." It is also the most hated word of any person present at Davos: “There are things that can be done,” she said. “It probably means more redistribution than we have at the moment.” But then the conversation moved on to other subjects. Ray Dalio, founder of the American investment firm Bridgewater Associates — who took home $1.4 billion in compensation in 2015 — suggested the key to reinvigorating the middle class was to “create a favorable environment for making money.” He touted in particular the “animal spirits” unleashed by stripping away regulations. The biggest irony is that for years economic inequality has ranked as one of the most discussed issues at Davos, both in the formal conference agenda and in the conversations that fill hallways and the private parties and dinners held throughout town. And yet, for years, little to nothing has changed. Which prompted the following statement from Joseph Stiglitz, a vocal critic of economic inequality.  "That agenda is anathema to a lot of Davos men and women. More rights to bargain for workers, that’s the part where Davos man is going to get stuck. The stark reality is that globalization has reduced the bargaining power of workers, and corporations have taken advantage of it.”   "People talk about inequality, how it’s a major problem, the greatest threat to globalization and the global economy. You have to recognize that the way we have managed globalization has contributed significantly to inequality. But I have not yet heard a good conversation about what changes in globalization would address inequality.” That is not an accident, he surmised. Any sincere list would have to include items that involve transferring wealth and power from the sorts of people who come to Davos to ordinary workers via more progressive taxation, increased bargaining rights for labor unions, and greater protections for labor in general. Which brings us to the NYT's conclusion: Same as every other year, Davos is again plastered with the slogan of the World Economic Forum: “Committed to Improving the State of the World.” But whatever improvements are supposed to be made, one can safely assume they will not conflict with those in attendance continuing to enjoy the state of the world as it is now, with canapés and aged Bordeaux and private jets at the ready. Which means that the global populism insurrection is unlikely to lose momentum anytime soon. Here's to looking at Davos 2017 where we expect the echo chamber will be in full force for one more year, even as the world's rapidly shrinking middle class gets angrier with each passing day.

19 января, 16:01

Message from Davos: Carbon pricing is back

On the eve of the World Economic Forum's Annual Meeting in Davos, CDP announced the Carbon Pricing Corridor initiative, the world's first industry-led initiative aimed at defining the investment-grade carbon prices needed for the power and industrial sectors to meet the Paris Agreement. The initiative seeks to address the emerging questions on how companies can manage climate change risk through the use of carbon price scenarios. The announcement was a part of the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition's "Doubling The Wave" event, where Heads of state and business leaders convened to discuss progress and uncover the challenges of achieving its goal of doubling the coverage of emissions subject to carbon pricing by 2020, and doubling it again within the next decade. In a further emphasis of the need for scenario analysis, the Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) has called for the potential impact of different scenarios, including a 2C scenario, on an organisation's business, strategy and financial planning. The considerations associated with these scenarios is a key step to better understanding the potential financial implications of climate change. As Stuart Gulliver, CEO of HSBC said in Davos, "Carbon disclosure and pricing are two sides of the same coin, together they enable an assessment of risk and where required a reallocation of capital." Introducing the Carbon Pricing Corridor By bringing together CEOs and chief investment officers on an expert panel, we will create the reference scenario of carbon-related price signals that deliver the ambitions of the Paris Agreement, in the short-to-medium term. The three critical audiences for this work are: investors, as they undertake stress-testing of their portfolio's against a Paris-compliant economy; corporations, when running Cap-ex and Op-ex decisions against an internal carbon price; and policy makers, giving them a clear picture of price signals needed to drive private sector investment. In a session in Davos on the TCFD there was general consensus that consideration should be given to evolve the scenario analysis recommendation to agree reference scenario, for example those of the IEA or the reference scenario emerging as part of the corridors initiative. Why is this different to anything that has been done before? Economists internationally have done similar things within the IPCC and the IEA, offering a range of numbers for a direct carbon price. But that hasn't been updated for a long time, it has always been done by macro-economists and scientists, and it has always projected into the very long term. Our Carbon Pricing Corridor instead involves the investors and CEOs directly, from the finance and utility sectors right out to industry. This is industry talking about the factors that they take into account - the barriers to and drivers of to high or low carbon investments. Then, and only then, can you talk to governments to say 'here are the carbon pricing corridors needed if you want to make a clear investment signal for the private sector'. From economic theory to real world application Currently, most price signals for carbon are weak and inconsistent - they limit the effectiveness of existing schemes and the ability for the private sector to prepare for future pricing, particularly at the scale and speed needed to deliver on Paris. Furthermore, apart from a few good practice examples, there is little information on how prices will develop - improve and strengthen - in the coming years. Without stronger prices and more reliable information, carbon pricing policies will remain limited in their effectiveness, which impacts not only government efforts to decarbonize, but those by the private sector too. Investors are asking for clear signals which will help them to place a monetary value against the risks they may face in their portfolios as we transition to a low-carbon economy. At this point, there are a plethora of economic signals which either increase or decrease the costs associated with high carbon activities. It is sometimes said that investors are good at pricing risk, whilst not so good at pricing uncertainty, this work aims to translate the uncertainty of future carbon prices into scenarios of risk so this can be integrated into investment analysis. The Carbon Pricing Corridor offers a Paris-compliant reference scenario; which can serve as a guide for investors to help them monetise transition risk, updated twice a year, by a panel of business CEOs and investment insiders. There will be two publications a year, the first of which will be coming out this Spring, to tie-in with the G20 finance ministers meeting in Baden Baden, Germany and the IMF Spring Meeting in Washington DC. At the outset, the publication will present future carbon price signals as a global adapted average for the G20. Over time, we expect to develop corridors specific to key markets and regions. We want to hear from you The Carbon Pricing Corridor, facilitated by We Mean Business and CDP, will also feed directly into the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition (CPLC) facilitated by the World Bank Group. It will complement the work of leading economists such as Joseph Stiglitz and Nick Stern who will also be reporting on needed carbon price levels in the Spring of 2017, focusing on the social costs of carbon, among other topics. The make-up of the panel will be 70% business and investors, 30% related experts. Our initial panel of 15 includes Else Bos, CEO, PGGM, Gérard Mestrallet, Chairman, Engie, Jose Ignacio Sanchez Galan, CEO, Iberdrola, Rana Kapoor, CEO of YesBank, Abyd Karmali, Managing Director of Climate Finance, Bank of America Merrill Lynchand Saker Nusseibeh, CEO of Hermes Investment Management. The ultimate target is a panel of 30-50 experts. With the momentum now building following our successful launch at Davos, we are keen to hear from other senior leaders and investors who want to be involved. Together we can make carbon pricing the mechanism that ultimately delivers a well below-2 degree world. -- 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.

18 января, 21:03

More Davos Elites Suggest Banning Cash...

A central theme for the Davos World Economic Forum is a push to ban cash. Yesterday we outlined how Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz was urging the US to do away with physical cash. Today, Paypal CEO Dan Schulman is doing much the same thing although in this case he claims that getting rid of cash will end “leakage” (Stiglitz and most elites usually suggest a cash ban will end money laundering or crime). The digital revolution is making transactions cheaper and easier for millions of people worldwide and will eventually push out traditional forms of payment, like cash, PayPal's Dan Schulman told CNBC on Wednesday… "I think what we came to the realization of is that the war is really against cash and against waste," Schulman said, speaking from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. "There's tremendous leakage in the system." Source: CNBC These arguments are getting tiresome. If you want to see the real reason everyone at the top of the economic food chain wants to ban cash, take a look at what the Godfather of cash bans, former Chief Economist for the IMF, Ken Rogoff, stated in his research on the subject in 2014: http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/rogoff/files/c13431.pdf Rogoff has been calling for cash bans for years. He’s even written a book entitled “The Curse of Cash.” Does Rogoff want to ban cash to end money laundering/corruption or reduce “leakage” in the system? Nope. His primary concern… the #1 reason he wants to ban cash… is to permit Central Banks to cut rates BELOW zero. This is what it’s all about… closing a loophole that permits you to save your cash from NIRP… even though there is no evidence ANYWHERE that NIRP is a successful policy. After all, as long as you can take you money out of the bank in physical cash, you can escape NIRP. This is why the elites, particularly economists, want to ban cash… it has NOTHING to do with cutting down on crime and EVERYTHING to do with increasing Central Bank control of the financial system. Indeed, we've uncovered a secret document outlining how the Fed plans to ban physical cash and incinerate savings in the coming months. We detail this paper and outline three investment strategies you can implement right now to protect your capital from the Fed's sinister plan in our Special Report Survive the Fed's War on Cash. We are making 1,000 copies available for FREE the general public. To pick up yours, swing by…. http://phoenixcapitalmarketing.com/cash.html Best Regards Graham Summers Chief Market Strategist Phoenix Capital Research      

18 января, 16:31

Война с наличными продолжает набирать обороты

Теме развернутой властями «Войны с наличными» уделяется довольно много внимания на страницах этого журнала. Самым крупным, хотя и неудачным, мероприятием подобного рода в последние месяцы 2016 года стал вывод из обращения властями Индии банкнот в 500 и 1000 рупий, составлявших 86% всей находящейся в обращении наличности. Для страны, где 97% расчетов происходит именно в наличной форме, этот шаг правительства во главе с премьер-министром по демонетизации основной массы наличных был поистине революционным. Вряд ли этот кавалерийский наскок можно отнести к значительным успехам в «Войне с наличными», однако это совсем не означает, что другие варианты движения в этом же направлении окажутся столь же неэффективными.Другая инициатива, предложенная премьер-министром Индии, заключается в создании индийскими штатами «умных городов». По большому счету в подключении города или какого-то иного населенного пункта к интернету в настоящее время нет ничего нового или особенного. Однако в данном случае особенностью проекта является то, что в качестве главной цели, которую должны достичь городские власти, является осуществление всех городских платежей исключительно безналичным путем. Наиболее активными в реализации планов партии и правительства оказались власти Панаджи, столицы штата Гоа, и Чандигарха, столицы штатов Пенджаб и Харьяна. В Панаджи, чтобы поощрить местное население к безналичным расчетам, власти предоставляют скидки на покупку железнодорожных билетов и прочий общественный транспорт.В Европе, например в Лондоне, многие магазины и рестораны перестали принимать банкноты и монеты, позволяя своим клиентам рассчитываться только с помощью пластика. В Швеции, особенно в Стокгольме и Гетеборге, происходит то же самое. В Амстердаме, где многие бездомные пытаются заработать себе на жизнь, продавая журналы, все меньшее число жителей покупает их из-за отсутствия наличных и перехода на электронные расчеты. Поэтому там началось обсуждение, чтобы открыть бездомным банковские счета, чтобы покупатели могли перечислять им средства на них. В Южной Америке, в Уругвае власти были одними из первых, кто объявил, что часть расчетов может осуществляться исключительно в безналичной форме. Довольно интересно, что в отличие от гораздо более распространенных лозунгов, под которыми ведется «Война с наличными», вроде борьбы с коррупцией, преступностью, терроризмом, черным налом, уклонением от уплаты налогов и т.д., в этом случае лозунгом стала «помощь бедным». Поэтому власти потребовали, чтобы к марту текущего года вся заработная плата перечислялась исключительно на счета трудящихся, что вызвало волну широчайших протестных выступлений тех же самых трудящихся.Самой свежей инициативой в «Войне с наличными» стало выступление в Давосе Джозефа Стиглица, известного тем, что он является профессором Колумбийского университета, и ему в свое время была вручена премия Банка Швеции имени Нобеля по экономике, ошибочно зачастую называемая Нобелевской премией. В ней он высказал мнение, что таким странам как Соединенные Штаты следует избавиться от наличных и двигаться к цифровой экономике, и они могут это сделать, поскольку в долгосрочной перспективе «выгоды перевесят затраты». Лозунги, под которыми он выступал, уже довольно заезжены – борьба с коррупцией, уклонением от уплаты налогов и преступностью в целом. Чтобы победить в этой борьбе, необходимо вывести наличные из обращения и припасть к электронным валютам. Есть определенные проблемы с кибербезопасностью и конфиденциальностью частной жизни, но уж слишком велики для власть предержащих те преимущества, которые предлагает новый, на этот раз электронный концлагерь, чтобы на них обращать внимание.«Война с наличными» продолжается, и чтобы вам и вашим сбережениям не стать ее жертвой, имеет смысл держать их вне современной финансово-банковской системы и в таких формах, которые не зависят от тех или иных политических и/или новомодных экономических веяний, например, в традиционных деньгах, которыми исторически были физическое золото и серебро.Мои книжки «Крах «денег» или как защитить сбережения в условиях кризиса», «Золото. Гражданин или государство, свобода или демократия», «Занимательная экономика»,«Деньги смутных времен. Древняя история», «Деньги смутных времен. Московия, Россия и ее соседи в XV – XVIII веках» можно прочитать или скачать по адресу http://www.proza.ru/avtor/mitra396

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.