• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании142
      • Показать ещё
      Разное142
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы92
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации40
      • Показать ещё
      Люди72
      • Показать ещё
      Издания10
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели14
      • Показать ещё
      Формат7
      Сферы2
Институт нового экономического мышления
05 декабря, 13:28

Ants, algorithms and complexity without management

Deborah M. Gordon, Department of Biology, Stanford University Systems without central control are ubiquitous in nature. The activities of brains, such as thinking, remembering and speaking, are the outcome of countless electrical interactions among cells. Nothing in the brain tells the rest of it to think or remember. I study ants because I am interested […]

24 ноября, 11:06

Links for 11-24-16

Environmental Regulations Really Work - RegBlog FOMC Minutes, November 1-2 - FRB Paying Bone Marrow - Tim Taylor Trumpism Has Dealt a Mortal Blow to Orthodox Economics - INET The consent of the governed: The hole at the heart of...

18 ноября, 10:15

Links for 11-18-16

Globalization’s Last Gasp - Barry Eichengreen Labor theory of value: a primer - Branko Milanovic Unwinding of the pound carry trade - VoxEU Ideology in economics - Stumbling and Mumbling The Simple Economics of Machine Intelligence - Digitopoly A higher...

12 ноября, 23:01

Технологии подрывают капитализм

Дальнейшее развитие технологий может привести к углублению социального неравенства и подрыву основ капитализма — так считает экономист Адэр Тернер, председатель управляющего совета в Институте нового экономического мышления.Адэр Тернер, бывший вице-президент европейского отделения банка Merrill Lynch и экс-руководитель британского Управления по финансовому регулированию и надзору в интервью изданию Business Insider рассказал о возможных социальных последствиях, которые сопутствуют развитию технологий. По его словам, четвертая технологическая революция может привести к тому, что все ресурсы будут сосредоточены в руках компаний-гигантов, у которых есть необходимые знания и навыки для создания софта, в то время как все остальные будут вынуждены довольствоваться крайне низкооплачиваемой работой.Если во время индустриальной революции развитие технологий всегда приводило к созданию рабочих мест, то текущая революция технологий приводит только к их сокращению. Например, если Генри Форд хотел построить две фабрики вместо одной, то ему требовалось в два раза больше рабочих. Теперь же, напротив, массовая роботизация вытесняет людей из сферы промышленности и производства: так, согласно докладу канадского Международного института развития в ближайшие десять лет роботы смогут заменить более половины шахтеров.В то же время с технологическим развитием преимущество компаний, подобных Facebook, Uber или Airbnb, будет только увеличиваться. Например, в Facebook при рыночной капитализации в $370 млрд. работают только 14 тысяч человек, и первоначальные инвестиции в компанию были не так уж велики. «Причина этого заключается в одном исключительном экономическом свойстве технологий — если вам удалось создать одну копию программного продукта, остальные несколько миллионов копий не будут стоить вам ничего», — говорит Тернер.Летающий автомобиль Ларри Пейджа замечен в аэропорту ХоллистерОдним из выходов из сложившейся ситуации может стать повсеместное введение безусловного базового дохода. По мнению Тернера, государство должно поддерживать людей, которые оказались в крайне невыгодном положении из-за развития технологий — по крайней мере, выплачивать им пособия, достаточные для оплаты расходов на продукты питания и здравоохранение. С ним согласен финский экономист и предприниматель Бьорн Валрус, который считает, что автоматизация в скором времени приведет к полному исчезновению рабочего класса.[link]

01 ноября, 10:06

Links for 11-01-16

Trade Plateaus (Wonkish) - Paul Krugman The revival of US economic growth - Dale Jorgenson, et. al. Denial of Access to Mortgage Credit for Black Americans - INET Will social democracy return? - Branko Milanovic Bank of Japan at the...

27 октября, 16:26

Inequality As Policy: Selective Trade Protectionism Favors Higher Earners

Dean BakerInstitute for New Economic Thinking, October 27, 2016 Read More ...

26 октября, 10:06

Links for 10-26-16

Labor Market Monopsony - Council of Economic Advisers Message to the candidates: Hands off the Federal Reserve - Alan Blinder The U.S. Job Recovery Is a Global Laggard - Narayana Kocherlakota Why unconventional monetary policy works in theory - Farmer...

20 октября, 10:06

Links for 10-20-16

Fiscal Foolishness (at the Debate) - Paul Krugman It’s a war of ideas, not of interests - Dani Rodrik Africa's prospects for enjoying a demographic dividend - VoxEU Looking for Local Labor Market Effects of NAFTA - RESTAT Income distribution...

14 октября, 10:06

Links for 10-14-16

The Mathematics of Cake Cutting - Scientific American Fiscal crisis quantitative easing works in theory, too - Ricardo Reis Unemployment Insurance Extension Did Not Destroy Jobs - INET China September Exports: Not Quite as Bad as They Seem? - Brad...

13 октября, 18:53

Three Things To Know To Hold Wells Fargo Accountable

Just about everyone wants to hold Wells Fargo accountable for a scheme in which sales quotas drove employees to set up phony credit card and bank accounts without customer knowledge. A Donald Trump advisor declared the behavior “stupid” and “greedy,” while Hillary Clinton proposes to make it easier for consumers to take companies to court for such behavior. So far, over 5,000 regular workers have been fired at Wells Fargo, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has fined the bank $185 million. “Hold Wells Fargo Accountable” even has its own Facebook page.Will it make any difference? Not much, warns William Lazonick, a leading expert on American corporations and co-author of a new study on CEO pay sponsored by the Institute for New Economic Thinking. Until critics truly understand why companies have strong incentives to create such schemes in the first place, they will go on doing so, hurting workers, customers, and taxpayers. The entire economy will be dragged down and economic inequality will continue to rise.   Until critics truly understand why companies have strong incentives to create such schemes in the first place, they will go on doing so. As Lazonick explains, the Wells Fargo cross-selling scandal and other scams that ripple across the headlines are born in a business culture in which executives are focused on jacking up stock prices in the short term so that they can cash in on stock options and awards. As long as this continues, the urge to cheat will be too tempting for most to resist.Here are three things anyone wanting to hold Wells Fargo accountable needs to know.1) American businesses have become stock manipulation machines.When a company does a stock buyback, it purchases its own outstanding shares, a financial trick that reduces the number of shares on the open market and boosts the price per share. As Lazonick points out, the 449 companies in the S&P 500 index that were publicly listed from 2003 through 2012 used over half their earnings to buy back their own stock, almost all through purchases on the open market. Buybacks continue apace.When companies do this, profits that could have been used to develop new products, pay workers fairly, and invest in the long-term health of the firm are diverted to prop up share prices. Executives love buybacks, because they often get paid in stock-based instruments. They can time stock price-boosting activity and cash in at the optimal moment to line their pockets.Before 1982, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) considered stock buybacks to be a potentially unlawful form of stock price manipulation. But that year, under the sway of Reagan-era enthusiasm for unfettered markets, the SEC loosened its rules. This change, plus a shift toward stock-based compensation for top executives, has exacerbated economic inequality by pushing pay at the top into the stratosphere while shortchanging workers. Instead of growing companies in the long term and paying workers what they deserve, executives have focused on boosting stock prices in the short term for their own benefit. Stock buybacks drain trillions of dollars from the real economy and produce nothing of value.2) Focusing on short-term stock prices leads to corruption.As long as companies are incentivized to boost stock prices in the short term, executives will be tempted to do that by any means necessary. The problem is not just buybacks, Lazonick emphasizes. They will also engage in all sorts of misconduct and even outright fraud, whether it’s Wells Fargo setting up fake credit card accounts or pharmaceutical firms resorting to price gouging, as Mylan has done with its EpiPen.Lazonick points out that even the most vocal critics of such shady business practices often don’t understand what’s behind them. “When Mylan raises the EpiPen price,” he explains, “they use a million phony arguments to justify why they are doing it, but the truth is that they are doing it to boost the stock price so that executives can gain.”Simply stopping a particular shady activity will not solve the problem, says Lazonick. As long as the incentives for stock price manipulation are there, companies caught in one scam will just move onto another. “It’s totally corrupting,” he observes. “There may be some ethical constraints going on in some companies, but the scams still continue. Price gouging has been going on in pharmaceutical companies for thirty years. No one should be surprised about Mylan. Or the next Mylan.”Lazonick notes that even if an executive doesn’t want to engage in unethical behavior to boost stock prices, the pressure to do so from, say, an activist investor may be too great. Her job may depend on it. “CEOs who resist may be gone pretty quickly,” he notes.3) Punishment means little until executive pay is understood.Big fines, clawbacks, and withholding executive pay may sound great in terms of punishing wrongdoing, but they don’t mean much when they are based on fiction.The Wells Fargo board announced that CEO John Stumpf would lose unvested stock awards and would not be paid his annual salary while the investigation into the cross-selling scam was going on. But how much does he actually get paid? How much are his stock awards really worth?Turns out, hardly anybody really knows.Lazonick’s research with Matt Hopkins shows that for decades, corporate executives have been making far more money than anybody reports, because the metric used to estimate what they take home is wrong.When people talk about how much a CEO like Stumpf makes, they are usually basing the number on something called ” estimated fair value” (EFV) of his or her stock options and stock awards. But that doesn’t represent what Stumpf puts in his bank account and reports on his tax return. In the case of stock options, that estimate derives from a celebrated economic theorem, often referred to as the “Black-Scholes” model after the two economists who formulated it. But the real numbers require looking at “actual realized gains” (ARG) — that’s how much stock-based pay is worth at the time executives actually cash in.When you use the EFV metric, Stumpf’s compensation numbers from 2006-2015, for example, add up to add up to $179 million. That’s a lot of money, to be sure, but if you use the correct ARG numbers, you see that Stumpf’s taxable, take-home pay for those years was actually $259 million. That’s 1.45 times more than the vast majority of reports indicate.Even the most progressive organizations have been incorrectly stating CEO pay, says Lazonick. The AFL-CIO, for example, has long decried a ratio of CEO-to-average-worker pay of about 350:1. The actual figure, according to Lazonick’s research, is more like 700:1. He warns that people need to realize that they have been given false information."Reporters and others who are questioning executives on these things just quote the wrong numbers. The executives must be laughing all the way to the bank. The ones who are doing all the buybacks and the price gouging and the scams to get their stock prices up are the same ones for whom the actual realized gains are far out-pacing this phony metric of estimated fair value. The public is being mislead."   No wonder executives are happy that nobody understands it. There's no accountability if there's faulty accounting. The actual numbers that determine what executives take home reflect stock price volatility — the kind of volatility that happens, for example, when a buyback or cross-selling scam jacks up the price.No wonder executives are happy that nobody understands it. There’s no accountability if there’s faulty accounting.Lazonick and his colleagues were surprised when they found out how far off reported estimates of actual CEO pay have been:"Once we really took a deep dive into how to estimate executive compensation, we realized how complicated it is to understand. We knew there was a there was a problem of measurement, but we didn’t know how systemic it was or the extent of it. The reality is astonishing."Lazonick points out that while understanding the CEO pay numbers is important, even more important is realizing what’s driving those numbers. Executives engage in stock price manipulations schemes because they expect to time the market and take home giant piles of money when those prices rise temporarily.Stock buybacks that shortchange workers and scams that defraud customers drive the numbers. They fatten the banks accounts of executives and leave everyone else high and dry.It would be helpful, of course, if regulators would catch misconduct and fraudulent activity earlier, but ultimately, says Lazonick, the solution must come from taking on the corrupt culture of self-centered stock manipulation behind these activities.The fix, he says, is a relatively simple one.“The rule that was changed in 1982 has become a big problem. The SEC should not allow stock buybacks that encourage corporate executives to benefit from stock-price manipulation and to engage in unethical behavior. It’s time that we recognize how corrupting to business and how damaging to our economy this has become.”  -- 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.

10 октября, 08:42

Sing for our time too, or what Homer can teach us about complexity

Last week’s Workshop on Complexity and Policy organised by the OECD New Approaches to Economic Challenges (NAEC) team along with the European Commission and the Institute for new Economic Thinking (INET) included a discussion about how you build a narrative around complexity. As one participant pointed out, “complexity economics” isn’t the most thrilling of titles, […]

04 октября, 11:19

Navigating wicked problems

Julia Stockdale-Otárola, OECD Public Affairs and Communications Directorate Knowing there is a single clear solution to any problem is certainly a comforting idea. As children we would raise our hands in class to answer increasingly difficult questions – always hoping that we would “get it right”. But sometimes the question itself is ambiguous and the […]

30 сентября, 11:03

It’s not just the economy: society is a complex system too

Gabriela Ramos, OECD Chief of Staff and G20 Sherpa Income and wealth inequality is not a new phenomenon. On the contrary, it seems that it is a permanent feature in human history, and over the years, its causes and consequences have become more numerous and more interconnected. The same is true for many social phenomena, […]

29 сентября, 08:37

Stop pretending that an economy can be controlled

Angel Gurría, OECD Secretary-General The crisis exposed some serious flaws in our economic thinking. It has highlighted the need to look at economic policy with more critical, fresh approaches. It has also revealed the limitations of existing tools for structural analysis in factoring in key linkages, feedbacks and trade-offs – for example between growth, inequality […]

28 сентября, 16:08

NAEC and the Sustainable Development Goals: The Way Forward

Mathilde Mesnard, Senior Advisor to the Secretary-General and OECD New Approaches to Economic Challenges (NAEC) Coordinator, and William Hynes, Senior Economist, NAEC Unit. This article is part of the newly-released Insights book “Debate the Issues: New Approaches to Economic Challenges“. While global integration has been an engine of growth since the emergence of capitalism, the […]

28 сентября, 11:59

A new role for science in policy formation in the age of complexity?

Vladimir Šucha, Director General, European Commission, Joint Research Centre The recent financial crisis was a wakeup call for both scientists and policy makers. It exposed new and unknown links between economic magnitudes but also between various parts of our modern, globalised world. It further helped to reveal the limitations of some approaches in economics as […]

27 сентября, 10:00

Big Data, Complexity Theory and Urban Development

Ricardo Herranz, Managing Director, Nommon Solutions and Technologies, Madrid We are living in the era of cities: more than 50% of the world population is already living in urban areas, and most forecasts indicate that, by the end of this century, the world’s population will be almost entirely urban. In this context, there is an […]

24 сентября, 10:06

Links for 09-24-16

Rethinking Macroeconomic Theory Before the Next Crisis - INET How Obama has narrowed the income inequality gap - The Washington Post Paul Romer, the “All Models Are False” Dodge - Uneasy Money Is the Digital Economy Much Less Competitive Than...

23 сентября, 10:06

Links for 09-23-16

Letter from an Aspiring Macroeconomist (with response) - Paul Romer Dynamic Analysis, Welfare , and Implications for Tax Reform - Jason Furman Bank of Japan: A Good Strategic Revision but Tactics Still Lag - Joe Gagnon How economic policy drives...

15 сентября, 10:24

Do U.S. Economists Ignore Inequality?

Arjun Jayadev at INET: Do U.S. Economists Ignore Inequality?: A thought-provoking report in The Atlantic seeks to explore an apparent paradox in the practice of economics in the United States: Despite the high levels of inequality that many view as...

06 мая 2015, 19:50

Йеллен: ценовые уровни рынка США "довольно высоки"

Председатель ФРС США Джанет Йеллен предупредила о потенциальных рисках, связанных с повышенными ценовыми уровнями американского фондового рынка.