• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди915
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации92
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы570
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
02 декабря, 21:26

Paul Krugman: Seduced and Betrayed by Donald Trump

Be careful what you vote for: Seduced and Betrayed by Donald Trump, by Paul Krugman, NY Times: Donald Trump won the Electoral College (though not the popular vote) on the strength of overwhelming support from working-class whites, who feel left...

Выбор редакции
02 декабря, 04:39

PAUL KRUGMAN ON ELECTION NIGHT: “If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answe…

PAUL KRUGMAN ON ELECTION NIGHT: “If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.” Headline today: Dow Sees Highest Close on Record.

02 декабря, 00:00

Seduced and Betrayed by Donald Trump

Paul Krugman, New York TimesDonald Trump won the Electoral College (though not the popular vote) on the strength of overwhelming support from working-class whites, who feel left behind by a changing economy and society. And they’re about to get their reward — the same reward that, throughout Mr. Trump’s career, has come to everyone who trusted his good intentions. Think Trump University.

30 ноября, 18:51

Decade Of Negative Real Interest Rates: Who Benefited?

Submitted by Michael Shedlock via MishTalk.com, Rudy Havenstein Tweeted an interesting chart earlier today on real negative interest rates. I recreated the chart below and also share a chart from Doug Short on real median incomes to help put this financial repression by the Fed in proper perspective. Decade of Negative Real Interest Rates The above chart was created by taking the short-term treasury bill rate and subtracting the year-over-year rate of inflation as measured by the CPI. A massive housing bubble formed in the first period real interest rates were negative. In the current prolonged period of negative rates, bubbles formed in the stock market and bond markets globally. Outside the US, nearly three quarters of the world’s bond traded at negative interest rates. Doug Short at Advisor Perspectives updated his series of charts on Median Household Income earlier today. Median Household Income, Nominal and Real Median Household Income Growth Doug Short notes: The reality illustrated here is that the real median household income series spent most of the first nine years of the 21st century struggling slightly below its purchasing power at the turn of the century. Real incomes (the blue line) hit an interim peak at a fractional 0.7% in early 2008, far below the nominal illusionary interim peak (as in money illusion) of 27.2% six months later and the latest at 42%, a record high. The real median household income is now at -0.6% from its turn-of-the-century level. In essence, the real recovery from the trough has been frustratingly slow.” Who Benefited? Bailed out banks Government bodies via property tax hikes, income tax hikes, sales tax hikes and collection Asset holders – The wealthy The median guy lost. Those at the bottom end got clobbered much harder. Only the top 10% or so fared well. The primary beneficiary of QE, negative real rates, and inflation was the top 1%. The Election Writers still struggle to explain the election of Trump. The above charts explain clearly. The median guy on the street is fed up by financial repression. Thanks to mainstream media, the “deplorables” are upset at corporations, at globalization, and at the failure of government to hike minimum wages. Placing Blame Where It Belongs Thanks to mainsteam media, which parrots the idea that inflation is good, the “deplorables” fail to blame the institution most responsible: the Fed. Globalization is a good thing. Falling prices are a good thing. The average guy on the street understands the latter, but not the former. The average economist, brainwashed by years of Keynesian economic training fails to understand anything. Academia and mainstream media parrot patently false theories on the benefits of inflation and tariffs. Instead of picketing the Fed, the “deplorables” voted for Trump. Economist Paul Krugman need only look in a mirror to see one of the reasons the “deplorables” voted the way they day. Krugman still fails to understand what happened. Shortly after the election, Krugman made a confession: Krugman Admits He Is Clueless. That Progress will be Short-Lived Krugman is so engulfed in contorted economic positions, there is nothing he can say about fiscal stimulus that isn't blatantly hypocritical. — Mike Mish Shedlock (@MishGEA) November 19, 2016 Explaining Trump Here is a the key chart from Explaining Social Anger, Brexit, Donald Trump in One Chart. Shrinking Middle Class The above chart from the Wall Street Journal article IMF’s Grim Long-Term U.S. Outlook in Six Charts. Central banks systematically destroyed the middle class via monetary inflation even as they insist there is not enough price inflation. — Mike Mish Shedlock (@MishGEA) June 30, 2016 Economic Challenge to Keynesians Of all the widely believed but patently false economic beliefs is the absurd notion that falling consumer prices are bad for the economy and something must be done about them. I have commented on this many times and have been vindicated not only by sound economic theory but also by actual historical examples. For a synopsis, please see Deflation Bonanza! (And the Fool’s Mission to Stop It). My Challenge to Keynesians “Prove Rising Prices Provide an Overall Economic Benefit” has gone unanswered. There is no answer because history and logic both show that concerns over consumer price deflation are seriously misplaced. The Fed’s fight against deflation is amazingly counterproductive and the above charts provide ample evidence. Routine Deflation Harmless Routine CPI deflation is harmless. The Bank of International Settlements (BIS), did a detailed study and agrees. For details, please see Historical Perspective on CPI Deflations: How Damaging are They? In their attempts to fight routine consumer price deflation, central bankers create extremely destructive asset bubbles that eventually collapse, setting off what they should fear – asset bubble deflation. Mainstream media parrots, led by Paul Krugman, keep telling us rising prices are a good thing. The "deplorables" rightfully revolted. — Mike Mish Shedlock (@MishGEA) November 29, 2016 The final irony in this sad saga is Paul Krugman, Who Proposed Fight with Fake Outer Space Aliens to Stimulate the Economy, Now Worried About Quality of Trump’s Spending.

30 ноября, 11:06

Links for 11-30-16

Is Our Economic Future Behind Us? - Joel Mokyr How Many People Voted Themselves Out of Health Care? - Paul Krugman The Rust Belt demands an answer. What it is? - Jared Bernstein Defending globalisation: Isolation would cost us dearly...

29 ноября, 23:17

Can Courts Hold Trump Accountable For Violating The Emoluments Clause?

With Donald Trump positioned to profit immeasurably from the presidency, the American people are getting a lesson in advanced constitutional law, learning about a clause of the Constitution that many lawyers have never even heard of: the Emoluments Clause. While the Emoluments Clause has never ranked on a top-ten list of well-known constitutional provisions, its obscurity shouldn't cast doubt on its importance. Indeed, its inclusion in our nation's Charter was one of the many ways in which the Framers sought to prevent the corruption and self-dealing that they viewed as among the greatest threats to the future of the new Republic. But even as we are now recognizing the importance of the Clause, some have suggested that there's nothing that can be done, short of impeachment, to hold Trump accountable if he violates this provision of the Constitution. Those who are counting out the courts, however, are counting too fast. The Constitution twice makes explicit what should be common-sense: the President should be working for the American people, not himself, and thus should not be able to profit from the office. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution provides that "no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is specific to the President, providing that he "shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a compensation . . . and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them." In other words, the Constitution prohibits the President from receiving any "emolument"--any compensation, gift, or other form of profit or gain--other than his salary, be it from foreign governments, the United States, or state governments and their instrumentalities. These provisions reflect the Framers' fundamental belief that the Constitution needed to include anti-corruption measures if the new nation were to survive. Indeed, it was precisely because the Framers feared the dangers that corruption might pose--not only then, but also in the future--that they included these proscriptions in the nation's enduring charter. As Alexander Hamilton explained, "[n]othing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption." George Mason put it this way at the Constitutional Convention, "if we do not provide against corruption, our government will soon be at an end." To prevent that from happening, the Framers included in the Constitution measures--like the provisions quoted above--to ensure that "corruption was more effectually guarded against, in the manner this government was constituted, than in any other that had ever been formed." Thus, while those provisions might seem obscure now, they weren't at the Framing. Indeed, they have become obscure only because most Presidents have assiduously taken steps to ensure that they were not in violation of these clauses' proscriptions. Donald Trump now appears poised to depart from the precedent set by other Presidents of both parties because, in his view, "the president can't have a conflict of interest." Unfortunately for Trump (but fortunately for the country), that's not what the Constitution says, which is why countless stories have already been written about the various ways in which Trump, upon taking office, may violate the Emoluments Clause. Yet even as a consensus seems to be emerging that Trump will be in violation of the Constitution the very first day he takes the oath to uphold it, there also seems to be agreement in some quarters that not much can be done about it. Vox writes that "[i]t's not clear who would have standing to sue." Lyle Denniston writes that "so far as the Constitution is concerned, the American people must rely upon Congress - no matter which party controls the House and Senate - to monitor the relationship between a president and a family business." Paul Krugman put it more colorfully, "But who's going to enforce the Constitution? Republicans in Congress? Don't be silly." Why so much pessimism about the prospects of courts entertaining Emoluments Clause lawsuits? To be sure, there may not be examples of such lawsuits in the case books, but that's because we're in such unchartered territory. In fact, it's not difficult to imagine lawsuits that might satisfy the Constitution's requirements for standing to sue--in particular, its requirement that a plaintiff have suffered an injury-in-fact. Consider just a few possibilities. Perhaps a competitor of a Trump business can sue on the ground that it is being directly injured by a foreign entity's efforts to curry favor with the new President. Perhaps a state can sue on the ground that it is injured by another state's efforts to do the same. The Supreme Court has said that courts can hear "complaint[s] that certain specific government action will cause that person private competitive injury." In the same vein, perhaps a competitor of Trump Tower can argue that it is being injured by the Secret Service paying to rent a floor of the building. Or perhaps if Trump has an interest in a company that threatens the environment (at one time, for example, he had a stake in the Dakota pipeline), individuals who seek to use those natural resources could sue. The Supreme Court has said that courts can hear "complaint[s] that individual enjoyment of certain natural resources has been impaired" by specific government actions. Or perhaps a court might even conclude that the Emoluments Clause imposes a structural limitation on who can serve as President, thus making Trump ineligible to serve as President and giving a citizen or state the grounds to sue for an injury they suffer as a result of action he takes as president. It's far too early to know whether any of these theories would be successful in court, but that's exactly the point--it's far too early to say that they would not be successful, either. After all, it appears that there may be no shortage of different potential Emoluments Clause violations, and that's without even knowing the full extent of Trump's financial holdings. At the end of the day, whether a lawsuit will be successful will depend on the exact allegations of the claim and the injury alleged by the plaintiff. Consider, for example, the case of the Line Item Veto Act. In 1997, the Supreme Court held that members of Congress who sued to challenge the law did not have standing to sue. The very next year, the Supreme Court held that the City of New York and certain health care providers did have standing to sue to challenge the same Act because those parties, unlike the members of Congress who had previously sued, had alleged "a 'personal stake' in having an actual injury redressed.'" In other words, the details matter. The fact that not everyone may be able to sue does not mean that no one can. Finally, it's worth remembering that an important reason why our Framers created our federal courts was to serve as a check on illegal action by the other branches. The Framers understood that constitutional "[l]imitations . . . can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice." In the Virginia ratifying convention, John Marshall argued, "[t]o what quarter will you look for protection from an infringement on the Constitution, if you will not give the power to the judiciary? There is no other body that can afford such a protection." To be sure, the Supreme Court has observed that the fact that no one would have standing to sue is not a reason to find standing, but it does mean we should think twice before concluding that the courts have no role to play in policing the President's compliance with the Constitution. The Emoluments Clause is a critical part of our enduring national charter, designed to guard against the corruption that the Framers feared could destroy the country should it arise then or in the future. Given the numerous conflicts of interest posed by a Trump presidency, it's good that so many people are talking about this important part of the Constitution. But it's not good that so many are so quickly assuming that the courts have no role to play in that conversation. At the end of the day, the courts may be the only check on unconstitutional executive action that we have. -- 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.

29 ноября, 05:25

'Real' Money & Why You Need It Now, Part 2

In these volatile times, gold is more important than ever. Bonner & Partners' Bill Bonner explains in this two-part series (Part 1 here), the importance of 'real money' and why you need it now... Why You Will Need Gold What troubles my sleep is what is not in the textbooks. Central banks are in the process of making trillions in government debt disappear. Governments borrow money that doesn’t exist. The debt is bought up by the central bank, which creates money for that purpose. The interest paid to the central bank on the debt is paid back to the U.S. Treasury (that’s the deal between the Fed and the U.S. government). Then, when the bond matures, the “normal” thing would be for the borrower – the U.S. government – to repay the loan. This repayment money would have to come out of the economy and into the Fed’s vaults, thus reducing the amount of money in circulation and triggering an economic slump. The federal government would have to run a surplus in order to actually be a net payer of debt rather than a net borrower. That’s not going to happen. Instead, it borrows more – to repay the old loan – and adds further fuel to hot asset markets. The debt is never settled… it goes on forever… eternally unpaid, forgotten in the bank’s vaults. It is as if it had disappeared completely. The debt may disappear. But the credit – the money put into the economy to create the debt – lives on. It spends its days chasing asset prices. Stocks, bonds, real estate, art – all go up. Bread and automobiles remain more or less where they were. Who complains? Keynesian economists Larry Summers of Harvard and Paul Krugman of Princeton practically drool when they think of it… a paradise where governments can redistribute wealth and undertake huge capital investment projects – roads, hospitals, bridges, harbors – at no cost. The feds get to borrow money, hire people, and spend on pet projects. Then, as if by magic, the debt vanishes. What could be better? The only thing that might be better would be negative interest rates, in which the government is actually paid to borrow. That is already happening. In Europe, rates have fallen so low that currently, Switzerland can borrow for 10 years at a MINUS 0.2% rate. This allows the government – and only the government, because it is the only institution that can positively, absolutely guarantee that you will get your money when you are supposed to – to go to heaven without dying. Further disturbing my sleep has been a report from Japan that the central bank has intervened directly in the stock market. The significance of this is staggering. Because now, the feds have in place the means – apparently – to take control of nearly all our wealth. The government borrows. The central bank buys its debt. Then it never asks to be repaid. As Japan shows, it can also buy stocks with the same free money. Bidding against a buyer who gets his money for nothing will be impossible. Gradually, the feds could acquire a controlling interest in almost all the world’s publicly listed companies. And who would object? Stock prices would go through the roof. As for the nation’s debt – public and private – who minds if the feds buy it… and disappear it? Nobody. As the price of debt goes up, the financial industry becomes richer. And government – and recipients of government money – are happy, too; the money just keeps flowing in their direction. Leading economists – notably Ken Rogoff of Harvard and Willem Buiter of Citigroup – also encourage the feds to outlaw cash… giving them a trifecta of financial control. They would have a grip on America’s equity, debt, and bank accounts. Already, government-sponsored agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are backing approximately 60% of new U.S. mortgages since 2008. Meaning the feds effectively own $4.8 trillion worth of U.S. housing. The Federal Reserve owns a further $4.5 trillion in debt. And through the student loan program, 40 million young people count on the feds to not foreclose on their lives. The only significant asset that remains out of their grasp is gold. And they may grab that soon. It wouldn’t be the first time. In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt’s Executive Order 6102 decreed that all gold should be turned in to the U.S. Treasury at $20 an ounce. Then, after the gold was in his hands, he was able to devalue the U.S. dollar by 75%, pricing gold at $35 an ounce. Gold was cash back then. And Roosevelt was trying to avoid the very thing we’ve seen happen in Argentina, Cyprus, and, most recently, Greece – a dash for cash. With free money available to them, the feds today could easily close that door, too – declaring private gold reserves illegal. They might offer to buy it for, say, $1,500 an ounce. Who would object to a 25% premium? The feds are the lenders and buyers of last resort. As the quality of assets declines, more and more assets – debt and equity – end up in their hands. Gradually, they control more and more of the capital structure – bought with free money under cover of financial necessity. Gradually, there is less and less “free” in free enterprise. And gradually, there is less and less real wealth created. Gradually, too, the noose tightens around your financial neck, as there are fewer and fewer doors open and fewer places that are safe to keep your wealth. No one likes to have his wealth “nationalized” at the point of a gun. But everyone likes having it bought from him for more than it is worth. This is what has happened already in the QE programs in Europe and America… and even more so in Japan’s QE program (with an extra helping of equity buying). How much more of it the world can take is anybody’s guess. No one knows how far this can go. But as far as I know, no economy has ever been successfully Sovietized by printing money and using it to buy assets. Don’t Sweat the Ice Age Many economists are foretelling a long period of sluggish growth and low price inflation. The economy may want to go into a deflationary hibernation, they say. But since the feds can print and spend with impunity, it may be a long time coming. Plus, if the government is able to force people into bank accounts – and out of cash – it will be able to tax savings and further stimulate spending. With these new tools, the feds should be able to prevent a real correction for many years. They suggest that we prepare for an economic “Ice Age,” with little change year to year. Asset prices won’t fall because the central bank is actively buying bonds, and maybe even stocks, adding new money to the financial economy. Consumer prices won’t rise because there is no real growth in demand. Debt will increase – but it is hidden and forgotten in central-bank vaults. Maybe so. But I don’t think you should expect it. It could lead to a dangerous complacency. The feds might be able to hold this together and they might not. This Ice Age formula – dousing a debt-soaked economy with more debt – is not a way to build a healthy economy. It is just a way to shift real resources to the government and its cronies without causing either a frightening spell of inflation or deflation. It might work for a while. But the falcon of asset prices becomes deaf to the falconer of the real economy. Then, in a kind of financial never-never land, he gets lost completely and flies into a tree. Asset prices fall to the ground. Investors panic. Lenders call their loans. Art investors rush to auction off their tableaux. Lines form at ATMs. I am not going to speculate on how or when this occurs. “If you’re in a theater and one person walks calmly to an exit, it doesn’t attract much notice,” said Vern Gowdie, an Australian colleague. “Two… three… probably not much reaction either. But if you have three people suddenly run for an exit, you’ll have a panic.” What then?

28 ноября, 20:57

Paul Krugman: Why Corruption Matters

"So how bad will the effects of Trump-era corruption be?": Why Corruption Matters, by Paul Krugman, NY Times: Remember all the news reports suggesting, without evidence, that the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising created conflicts of interest? Well, now the man who...

28 ноября, 18:50

Our Liar-In-Chief--The Con Artist

The New York Post has confirmed what many of US already know. Prez-elect Donald Trump is not about to change his lying ways, which includes blatantly attacking anyone who threatens to uncover his many con games. The Post just reported at a meeting of TV execs and reporters in Trump Tower: "It was like a f−−−ing firing squad," one source said of the encounter. "Trump started with [CNN chief] Jeff Zucker and said, 'I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed,'" the source said. This is from The Liar-In-Chief, who has been and continues to be caught in his own lies and deceitful behavior, whenever someone questions his statements. USA Today reports he has at least 75 lawsuits against him, not counting the tentatively settled 3 Trump University class action lawsuits, one of which was for charges of fraud and racketeering. Why did he single out CNN in his rant? Because CNN caught him out. As Vox reported, Argentinian President Mauricio Macri and Argentinian officials denied there was any link between Macri's call to Trump and the revival of his Buenos Aires high-rise project, as soon as Trump won the Electoral College. "But as CNN reports, the YY Development Group, the company meant to build the Buenos Aires tower, announced just three days after the Trump-Macri call that construction on the tower could begin in summer of 2017. The project has a $100 million budget, and is "only waiting final approval from the city government." "The meeting was a total disaster," continued the Post source. "The TV execs and anchors went in there thinking they would be discussing the access they would get to the Trump administration, but instead they got a Trump-style dressing-down," the source added. A second source confirmed the fireworks... "Trump kept saying, 'We're in a room of liars, the deceitful, dishonest media who got it all wrong.' He addressed everyone in the room, calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars" In fact, we know what he wanted to hide. Revealing his tax returns, for instance, could confirm his extensive foreign business connections. A Financial Times investigation has found evidence that one Trump venture has multiple ties to an alleged international money laundering network, said the Times. "Title deeds, bank records and correspondence show that a Kazakh family accused of laundering hundreds of millions of stolen dollars bought luxury apartments in a Manhattan tower part-owned by Mr Trump and embarked on major business ventures with one of the tycoon's partners." And this is after his now infamous interview with the New York Times, in which he maintained that "Presidents don't have conflicts of interest," which is blatantly false. The U.S. Constitution doesn't allow foreign governments to benefit a U.S. President, because it might influence our foreign policy, which could endanger all of US. So now we know why he singled out CNN. Trump will accuse others of lying, in order to attempt to deflect attention from his own too obvious fabrications. It is classic con artist behavior as I discussed in my previous column, The Real Donald Trump--Part II. In it Maria Konnikova implied that Trump was a classic Con Artist with her now famous New Yorker article: "A grifter takes advantage of a person's confidence for his own specific ends--ends that are often unknowable to the victim and unrelated to the business at hand. He willfully deceives a mark into handing over his trust under false pretenses. He has a plan." Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has to be another classic con-artist to convince enough Wisconsin voters to back his plan to ban the collective bargaining of public school teachers (while exempting Police and Firemen's unions), which reduced teacher union-membership by half, which will in effect reduce their salaries and benefits. This flies in the face of modern economic theory, which says reducing bargaining power reduces incomes, which decreases the aggregate demand for goods and services for the 80 percent of workers with wages and salaries, which in turn reduces economic growth. Nobel economist Robert Shiller attributes such irrational behavior (behavior that is not in their best interests) in Trump's victory to a sense of economic powerlessness, or a fear of losing power, among his supporters. To them, his simple slogan, "Make America great again," sounds like "Make YOU great again": economic power will be given to the multitudes, without taking anything away from the already successful. Really? The result for Wisconsin has been job and economic growth has consistently underperformed that of its neighboring states, while the budget deficit has ballooned. The expected shortfall for the next two-year state budget starting in July 2015 has risen to nearly $1.8 billion, or about half of what it was when Gov. Scott Walker took office in January 2011, according to the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Sentinel Journal. This is also classic Republican Trickle-down economics, the theory that reducing taxes of the rich will credit more jobs and growth, whereas it has resulted in just the opposite since the 1980s--lower taxes and soaring budget deficits. This is also part of the larger con game that has made so-called red states that suffer the most from Republican politics now overwhelmingly Republican. Nobelist Paul Krugman in a recent Op-ed seems puzzled by this. "To be honest, I don't fully understand this resentment. In particular, I don't know why imagined liberal disdain inspires so much more anger than the very real disdain of conservatives who see the poverty of places like eastern Kentucky as a sign of the personal and moral inadequacy of their residents." But it is understandable if their regions have deteriorated economically and socially to such an extent that drug use and suicide rates have soared. These are the people that have suffered most from the fast-changing modern economy that left them behind. So why wouldn't they listen and be most susceptible to the siren call of such a snake-oil salesmen as Donald Trump or Scott Brown? How is it even possible for them to know what is in their best interest when blinded by the suffering of many in their own families and communities? In fact, Trump's call to revolution is really a counter-revolution, a return to a misty-eyed, white nation with a level of corruption not seen since that time. Harlan Green © 2016 Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen -- 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.

28 ноября, 02:41

PROGRESSIVES WITHOUT POWER: Hard times for the Sanctimonious White Lady Party. A very nice liber…

PROGRESSIVES WITHOUT POWER: Hard times for the Sanctimonious White Lady Party. A very nice liberal broadcaster asked me earlier this week whether I am worried about the future of the Republican party. Funny question. There are 25 states in which the state legislatures and governorships are controlled by Republicans, and two states with executive/legislative divides […]

Выбор редакции
27 ноября, 23:00

Masters Of Hypocrisy: The Incredible Lightness Of Liberal Thinking

Via Jesse's Cafe Americain blog,  "Listening to the leading figures of the Democratic party establishment, however, you’d never know it. Cool contentment is the governing emotion in these circles. What they have in mind for 2016 is what we might call a campaign of militant complacency. They are dissociated from the mood of the nation, and they do not care... What our modernized liberal leaders offer is not confrontation [with corporate corruption] but a kind of therapy for those flattened by the free-market hurricane: they counsel us to accept the inevitability of the situation." -Thomas Frank   "Too many of America's elites-among the super-rich, the CEOs, and many of my colleagues in academia-have abandoned a commitment to social responsibility.  They chase wealth and power, the rest of society be damned." -Jeffrey Sachs   "This elite-generated social control maintains the status quo because the status quo benefits and validates those who created and sit atop it.  People rise to prominence when they parrot the orthodoxy rather than critically analyze it. Intellectual regurgitation is prized over independent thought. Real change in politics or society cannot occur under the orthodoxy because if it did, it would threaten the legitimacy of the professional class and all of the systems that helped them achieve their status. -Kristine Mattis, The Cult of the Professional Class The continuing reaction of the liberal elite to the repudiation of the Democratic establishment by their traditional constituencies of the young and working people is a wonder to behold.  They thrash back and forth between a denial of their failure, and disgust at everyone else they can blame for it. cf Paul Krugman, The Populism Perplex. It could not possibly be because of anything they might have done or failed to do.   And so they are caught in a credibility trap. It is frustrating because they do not know how to extract themselves from it, admit their errors and reform the system, without undermining the very assumptions that entitle them, in their own minds at least, to rule as the highly honored insiders, the elect of professional accomplishment.   Mark Blyth, who accurately predicted Brexit and Trump, explains in clear language how globalization and capitalism are failing people throughout the world and why that means more Brexits and Trumps are on the way...

27 ноября, 21:13

On Krugman And The Working Class

Tim Duy: On Krugman And The Working Class, by Tim Duy: Paul Krugman on the election: The only way to make sense of what happened is to see the vote as an expression of, well, identity politics — some combination...

Выбор редакции
27 ноября, 00:00

Paul Krugman & the Damaged Political Psyches of the Left

Daniel Payne, FederalistThe election damaged the political psyche of liberals in ways that it will probably take a while for us to understand.

Выбор редакции
26 ноября, 02:40

PAUL KRUGMAN ON ELECTION NIGHT: “If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answe…

PAUL KRUGMAN ON ELECTION NIGHT: “If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.” CNBC, today: Stocks post 3-week win streak as major indexes post record highs.

25 ноября, 20:32

Paul Krugman: The Populism Perplex

What should Democrats do to win the votes of the white working class?: The Populism Perplex, by Paul Krugman, NY Times: ...what put Donald Trump in striking distance was overwhelming support from whites without college degrees. So what can Democrats...

25 ноября, 00:00

The Populism Perplex

Paul Krugman, New York TimesHillary Clinton won the popular vote by more than two million, and she would probably be president-elect if the director of the F.B.I. hadn’t laid such a heavy thumb on the scales, just days before the election. But it shouldn’t even have been close; what put Donald Trump in striking distance was overwhelming support from whites without college degrees. So what can Democrats do to win back at least some of those voters?

24 ноября, 18:49

Donald Trump’s conflicts of interest

THE NEW Trump Tower in Worli, a buzzing district of Mumbai, looks like any building site but its marketing sells a dream. A golden structure soars to the sky alongside a picture of Donald Trump. He is—potential residents are assured—the gold standard around the globe, a dealmaker without peer who operates across the gateway cities of the world and the man who built the American dream. Until a few days ago the developer, Lodha, carried a message on its website: “Congratulations Mr President-elect”. But now that a storm has blown up over the possible conflicts of interest between the various operations of Mr Trump’s group and his new job, it has been deleted. The self-embellished legend is of a global tycoon. In a kind of mirror image, outraged suspicion is mounting that the Trump Organisation could morph into a vast global network of cronyism. America has been treated to reports of multi-billion dollar projects across the planet, to photos of Mr Trump glad-handing businessmen and to images of exotic, Trump-branded buildings standing like monuments to the decay of American ethics. Paul Krugman, a left-of-centre economist, has suggested that the Trump...

23 ноября, 19:43

Procrastinating on November 23, 2016

**Over at [Equitable Growth](http://EquitableGrowth.org): Must- and Should-Reads:** * _[Should We Use Expansionary Fiscal Policy Now Even If the Economy Is at Full Employment? Yes! - Equitable Growth][]_ * _[Note to Self: Regulatory Uncertainty and Housing Finance - Equitable Growth][]_ * **Nick Bunker**: _[Lack of market competition, rising profits, and a...

Выбор редакции
23 ноября, 04:50

PAUL KRUGMAN TWO WEEKS AGO ON ELECTION NIGHT: “If the question is when markets will recover, a fi…

PAUL KRUGMAN TWO WEEKS AGO ON ELECTION NIGHT: “If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.” CNBC today: Dow closes above 19,000 as stocks notch record closing highs. “The Dow Jones industrial average rose about 70 points, closing above 19,000 for the first time ever, with Home Depot contributing the […]

23 ноября, 02:38

Thank Liberalism for Donald Trump

Like the Grinch who couldn't keep Christmas from coming to Whoville, the Democratic Party with all its might and money couldn't stop Trumpmas from coming to the American heartlands. It came just the same. But how? The answer to that question is not as elusive as one might think. As Thomas Frank recently suggested, the liberal establishment all but handed Trump the White House. We only add that in the process of giving life to the Trumpian monster, liberalism itself died violently in the birth. For months, the smug, Ivy League-educated Democratic party apparachiki and their army of policy wonks and marketing consultants, neoliberal pollsters and newspaper columnists ensconced at the New York Times and Washington Post, together smirked at the notion of a Trump victory. They treated legitimate public concerns about Hillary Clinton's character and policies with offhand contempt, scoffing at concerns over Clinton's mishandling of classified material while she was Secretary of State. They also did something worse. They engaged in a conspiracy to undermine the campaign of the only Democratic candidate who might actually have defeated Trump--Bernie Sanders. Despite polls consistently showing Sanders outperforming Clinton in a hypothetical match-up with Trump, Democratic elites spread the fiction that "only" Clinton could defeat Trump. Partly as a consequence, millions of Democrats voted for Clinton in the primaries not because they liked Hillary, or agreed with her positions, but because they perceived her as the "safer" of the two candidates. In reality, the opposite was probably true--only another populist, from the left, could have derailed the Trumpian juggernaut. Now the election farce is over. But what comes next is certain to be far worse than anyone today can possibly imagine. Ten years ago, I predicted the rise of a new form fascism in the United States and Europe, suggesting that the injustices and contradictions of the capitalist system were growing too large to be contained any longer by the existing liberal political order. In the absence of an effectual movement from the political left, I suggested, we would see the waning of liberalism and the consolidation of extreme right-wing and authoritarian movements and states in the West. That scenario is now coming true in spades, as millions of people disaffected with the political and economic status quo are flocking to nationalist and anti-immigrant movements. In an ironic inversion of Cold War "domino theory," one European state after another is likely to fall in the coming years, not to Communism, but to the extreme nationalist right. Brexit is just the beginning. Here in the US, it was inevitable that we would similarly see the coming of a right-wing, illiberal, hyper-masculine "strong man," a figure able to dominate the political landscape by capitalizing on the atavistic impulses of the American nation, which have been kept on continual boil by right-wing media for decades. The election at last tore off the colorful Band-Aid of multiculturalism and supposed feminist progress in America, revealing the old, ugly, ulcerous sores lurking just beneath the surface of our liberal polity--nativism and xenophobia, hatred of the feminine, a worshipful attitude toward aggressive white men. However, while Trump's victory was unquestionably an existential howl of protest from straight white men, who have seethed at the growing diversity and equality of their society and have feared the loss of their power and privilege, it also represented a misdirected gut reaction to the widening gulf between haves and have-nots, between the people and the arrogant, remote technocrats who rule them. On election night, Trump told his supporters, "The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer." The phrase eerily echoed Hitler's similar promise in the 1930s to avenge "der kleine Mensch," or "Little Man"--the overlooked individual long shoved to the side by society. As Goebbels wrote admiringly of Hitler, "He understood the cares and worries of the little man and spoke about them." The question then of whether Hitler genuinely cared for the "little Man" is of course of no more significance than the question now of whether Trump "really" cares about forgotten people. In politics, it is only appearances that matter, not truth. And what matters today is that Trump, like Hitler, is believed. Clinton too talked about the "forgotten," in her way, appealing especially to the half of the US population who continue to be treated as second class citizens in their own land--women. Yet even white women deserted Hillary in the end, having concluded that enough was enough of the old order. If Clinton's middle and upper class supporters misjudged the depth of the public's rage, it was because they themselves have been doing well economically, and so have been buffered from the violent shocks and insecurities that plague everyone else on our planet. Their folly was to take the essential rightness of the existing world order for granted, virtually as an eternal metaphysical truth. But they forgot, because they never in fact knew, that the precarious world they enjoy, with its "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me!", its Starbucks lattes and MacBook Airs, is based on ruthless violence. The fatal contradiction of liberalism is that it embraces diversity and claims of justice, yet accepts and colludes in a structure of inequality and exploitation. I am speaking of the capitalist project. Liberals are happy to welcome immigrants, but they never think to question the ravages of a capitalist world system that forces millions of people to uproot themselves and their families to try to eke out a living in the wealthier North. They support climate change reforms, but only so long as the latter do not disturb the prerogatives of the free enterprise system, or interfere with their right to order whatever they want, whenever they want it, on Amazon Prime. They despise Donald Trump, yet they continuously affirm the system that created him in the first place. Liberals like Paul Krugman at the Times seem to think that Trump and Fox News came to us from outer space. In fact, both are creatures of capitalism, and therefore too of the very liberalism Krugman and his ilk espouse. It was a liberal named Tony Schwartz who ghostwrote Trump's bestselling Art of the Deal. It was another liberal, Mark Burnett, creator of The Apprentice--and 2014 recipient of an Entertainment Industry Award from the Anti-Defamation League--who is responsible for making the racist, sexist, billionaire loud-mouth into a national celebrity. It was the Comcast corporation, the corporate behemoth which donated $5.6 million to the Democratic Party earlier this year, that produced The Apprentice through NBC (which it owns). And, as Maureen Dowd reports, it was a certain power-couple named Hillary and Bill who celebrated Donald Trump's wedding to Melania at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in 2005. Welcome to the merry-go-round of the liberal capitalist system, where political alliances and moral values are as fluid as a slush fund. With its death-embrace of capitalism, liberalism has sown the wind, only to reap the whirlwind. And the winds are only just beginning to blow--in mass species extinction, in catastrophic global warming, in regional war in the Middle East, in millions of refugees desperately overflowing national borders--and now in the rise of fascism. The guttural war-whoops issued by Trump's most zealous white supporters this week were the cries of people who smell not just victory but also blood in the air. A predatorial instinct has been unleashed in our nation, and it won't be sated until heads have been smashed, leftist dissidents are jailed or worse, and the nation has been plunged into war. And that other shuddering sound, of grief and confusion, of chaos sweeping through the land? It is the death rattle of liberalism as a viable political project. So I have terrible news for liberals who've begun consoling themselves this week with the thought that the nation only needs to get through the next four years, before things are finally set to rights again. There's no setting things to right. Because they were never right to begin with. -- 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.

31 мая 2015, 21:21

новая норма от Лиссабона до Владивостока

Прочитав статью о плачевном состоянии экономики Финляндии, Пол Кругман предложил посмотреть в странах еврозоны на изменение ВВП на душу с 2007 года. Латвия, которую Кругман продолжает ошибочно ругать за якобы неправильную антикризисную политику, на фоне остальных стран с фиксированным курсом выглядит совсем не плохо. Но в целом картинка окончательной победы Европейского союза довольно депрессивная. Полная деградация стран победившего евро-капитализма, губят людей европейские институты...Не удивительно, что кризис еврозоны все еще продолжается, сохраняется недовольство Грецией, растет нелюбовь к трудовым и прочим мигрантам. Это экономика, а не российская пропаганда, виновата в росте противоречий и популярности евроскептиков. Многие сейчас ругаются и переживают из-за замедления экономического роста в России после 2008. На всякий случай глянул на регион от Лиссабона до Владивостока :) За базу выбрал не 2007, а 2008. Картинка игнорирует докризисные темпы роста, которые, например, у прибалтов, России и Беларуси были очень высокими, намного лучше, чем в Польше. За такой длинный срок правильнее было бы сравнивать ВВП на душу, как у Кругмана, но есть некоторые сомнения в точности данных по населению. Если считать на душу, то рост Турции, Узбекистана и Таджикистана, естественно, был бы поменьше. Украина выглядела бы получше, но все равно была бы последней в списке. Беларусь и Польша так и остались бы рядом, как близнецы. В общем и целом сокращение разрыва между доходами богатых и бедных продолжалось.

10 декабря 2013, 22:28

Почему должны расти зарплаты

Наступила пора развлечений – или, во всяком случае, пора провести время в торговых центрах. Также, по традиции, это время подумать о положении тех, кому повезло меньше – например, о человеке по другую сторону кассы. оследние несколько десятилетий были трудными для многих американских рабочих, но особенно тяжело пришлось людям, занятым в розничной торговле – это категория, включающая продавцов Walmart и сотрудников McDonald’s. Несмотря на остаточное действие финансового кризиса, Америка сейчас гораздо богаче, чем 40 лет назад. Однако зарплата неруководящего персонала в розничной торговле, скорректированная с учетом инфляции сократилась почти на 30% с 1973 г. Так можно ли как-то помочь этим рабочим, многим из которых, чтобы накормить семью, нужны продуктовые карточки (при условии, что они смогут их получить), и многие из которых зависят от программы Medicaid (опять же при условии доступа к ней) для получения необходимого медицинского обслуживания? Да. Мы можем сохранить и расширить продуктовые карточки, а не сокращать программу, как этого хотят Республиканцы. Мы можем обеспечить успешное проведение реформ в сфере здравоохранения, несмотря на попытки правых подорвать процесс реализации программы. И мы можем повысить минимальную зарплату. Для начала - несколько фактов. Несмотря на увеличение минимальной, национальной, зарплаты несколько лет назад, она все же остается очень низкой по историческим меркам, значительно отставая от инфляции и средних уровней зарплаты. Кто же получает этот небольшой минимум? По большому счету, это мужчины или женщины, работающие на кассе: почти 60% американских рабочих, получающих минимальную зарплату, занимаются продажей продуктов питания или оказанием сопутствующих услуг. Между прочим, это значит, что один из аргументов, часто выдвигаемых против повышения зарплат - угроза конкуренции со стороны иностранных компаний – в данном случае не убедителен: американцы не поедут в Китай за гамбургерами и картошкой фри. Тем не менее, даже если международная конкуренция – не проблема, можем ли на самом деле помочь рабочим, просто законодательно установив более высокую зарплату? Не нарушает ли это закон спроса и предложения? Не поразят ли нас боги рынка невидимой рукой? Но есть множество свидетельств того, что происходит при повышении минимальной зарплаты. И результат является положительным: повышение минимальной зарплаты мало влияет, или совсем не влияет, на занятость, при этом значительно увеличивает доходы рабочих. Важно понять, насколько можно доверять таким доказательствам. Обычно экономическому анализу препятствует отсутствие контролируемых экспериментов. Например, мы можем увидеть, что случилось с американской экономикой после внедрения стимулов, предложенных Обамой, но мы не можем оценить состояние альтернативной вселенной, в которой не было стимулов, и не можем сравнить результаты. Однако существуют примеры, когда один штат поднимал минимальную зарплату, а другой нет. Если бы что-то подтверждало значительное негативное влияние повышения минимальной зарплаты на сферу занятости, подобный результат был бы очевиден при сравнении штатов. Но этого не произошло. Так что повышение минимальной зарплаты помогло бы низкооплачиваемым рабочим, без особых негативных последствий. И мы говорим о большом числе людей. В начале этого года Институт экономической политики подсчитал, что повышение минимальной национальной зарплаты с 7,25 доллара до 10,10 доллара принесло бы пользу 30 миллионам рабочих. Большинство получило бы непосредственную выгоду, поскольку сейчас они зарабатывают менее 10,10 доллара в час; а остальные получили бы косвенную выгоду, так как их оплата на самом деле привязана к минимуму – например, управляющие магазинов быстрого питания, получающие немного (но только немного) больше, работников, которыми они руководят. Сейчас многие экономисты испытывают неприязнь ко всему, что связано с установлением цен, даже при наличии положительных последствий. Некоторые из этих скептиков выступают против всего, что помогло бы низкооплачиваемым рабочим. Другие утверждают, что мы должны обеспечить субсидии и расширить программу E.I.T.C. (налоговый зачет за заработанный доход), которая, в сущности, оказывает значительную помощь малообеспеченным семьям. Между прочим, я полностью за расширение программы E.I.T.C. Но, оказывается, существуют веские причины рассматривать минимальную зарплату и E.I.T.C. как дополнение друг к другу, а не замену. Следует увеличить и то, и другое. К сожалению, учитывая политическую реальность, нет никаких шансов, что Конгресс примет закон об увеличении помощи работающему бедному населению. С другой стороны, минимальная зарплата может быть повышена благодаря огромной государственной поддержке. Эта поддержка исходит не только от Демократов или даже самовыдвиженцев; за повышение выступает подавляющее большинство Республиканцев (57%) и консерваторы (59%). Словом, повышение минимальной зарплаты помогло бы многим американцам, и, соответственно, американской экономике. Пол Кругман Подготовлено Forexpf.ru по материалам New York Times

12 ноября 2013, 19:58

Бернанке, не Кругман

Пол Кругман предложил вниманию читателей свою лекцию (с двумя моделями ) о роли политики обменного курса и наличия собственной валюты во время кризиса. Он настаивает на том, что спекулятивный кризис доверия практически не возможен в развитых странах с плавающим валютным курсом. Эту ситуацию он противопоставляет "греческим" кризисам в странах еврозоны, повторяя свои обобщения о природе кризиса в странах валютного союза. На доброжелательных ирландцев повторение пройденного большого впечатления не произвело.  Одним из важных элементов в рассказе Кругмана является хорошо знакомая роль правительственных и частных займов в собственной валюте, а не иностранной. Ничего нового для знакомых с "первородным грехом" в экономике и тех, кто слыхал о работах Кармен Рейхарт с коллегами про "боязнь плавания" и "неожиданные астановки"... В дополнение к лекции, за последние недели Кругман разместил в своем блоге серию записей с атаками на Германию, защитой Франции и критикой ЕЦБ с евробюрократами. Большинство из этих нападок повторяют тезисы 2-3-4-х летней давности. Как будто бы за это время мы не узнали ничего нового. Версию о том, что кризис в еврозоне был вызван потерей конкурентоспособности стран периферии в пользу Германии, мы обсуждали в начале 2010 здесь, и потом часто (начиная с немцы против немцев). С тех пор ко многим экономистам пришло понимание природы кризиса в Латвии, затем в Ирландии, затем в Италии и Испании.  Как здесь уже записано, огромным, хотя и запоздалым, ударом по позициям Кругмана была недавняя статья Бланшара о кризисе в Латвии. Благодаря внимательному изучению опыта этих стран, понимание кризиса в еврозоне стало намного более глубоким. На версию о потере конкурентоспособности теперь приходится, быть может, процентов 10-20 его объяснения :), и она теперь годится разве что для лекции в сельском клубе... Лекция Бернанке (там же, интересно) о кризисе как классическом набеге на финансовый сектор и панике на финансовых рынках, важна для понимания уроков кризиса в США, в еврозоне и Великобритании.  В еврозоне эти моменты были особенно важны, потому что банки там были слабее, и механизмы защиты от паники были институцуионально не проработанными. Рассмотрение еврозоны Кругманом как одной страны граничит с профанацией анализа.  Ожидать от правительства Германии действий не в интересах экономики своей страны, а в интересах экономики Греции или Испании, мне кажется верхом наивности. Конечно, валютный союз накладывает дополнительные обязательства на правительства еврозоны, и за время кризиса они обсуждались, менялись, кодифицировались. Но национальные правительства там пока никто не отменял, и избирают партию Меркель граждане Германии, а не кругманы. Критика Кругманом денежно-кредитной политики ЕЦБ, как мне кажется, тоже несправедлива, но об этом лучше черкнуть отдельно. Большинству, наверное, давно не интересно разбираться в уже разобранном, но Кармен Рейнхарт не поленилась указать нобелевскому лауреату на его ошибочные комментарии к картинке про Великобританию. А о том, что "греческий кризис" был только в Греции, что еврозона не страна, похожая на США, и что банковский кризис в еврозоне многим отличался от механики кризисов в других странах, никто уже блогеру не жаждет рассказывать... Офтопик: Своими грубыми нападками, часто выходящими далеко за рамки приличий, Кругман удобен тем, кому выгодно атаковать ЕЦБ, Европейскую комиссию и антикризисную политику в Европе.  С одной стороны, Кругмана нельзя игнорировать, потому что блогер-экономист пользуется популярностью и авторитетом среди читателей и многих коллег. С другой стороны, отвечать ему грубостями не каждый захочет и не каждый может себе это позволить. Поэтому европейцы пытаются отвечать взвешенными заметками, как Бути и Падоан здесь и, в ответ Кругману, здесь.  Или как только что тужился сделать один из бывших лидеров ЕЦБ Смаги в заметке "Аскетизм и тупость" :) Народная мудрость: "Против лома нет приема, если нет другого лома".  Для ответа Кругману, наверное, нужен евро-Ильвес с большой командой неглупых экономистов :) Рогофф и Рейнхарт, как мне кажется, лучше других защищались от гадких наездов Кругмана. По крайней мере в среде профессионалов им удалось поставить Кругмана на место. Но в популярном сознании Рогофф и Рейнхарт все равно подозреваются в тяжких грехах.  Утешение атакуемых Кругманом в том, что люди, принимающие решения по антикризисной политике, слушают не Кругмана, а его оппонентов. И народ, который свои правительства избирает, этих людей поддерживает.

26 апреля 2013, 12:44

Странглия, Мервин Кинг и Сергей Игнатьев

На графике ВВП Великобритании (картинка из свежайшей речи одного из лидеров Банка Англии, там другие есть). Красным показан докризисный тренд, а синим жизнь. Вчера все с напряжением ждали, объявят ли народу об уже ТРЕТЬЕЙ по счету рецессии, но бог миловал и объявили о небольшом росте в первом квартале. Почему нет роста в любимом россиянами Лондонграде и его окрестностях?Кругман, ДеЛонг и другие уверяют своих читателей, что это из-за бюджетной консолидации бюджетного аскетизма, как в России.  Они видят на этой картинке ошибку в статье Рейнхарт-Рогофф 2010 года, и письмо о бюджетной дисциплине, которое в феврале 2010 года подписал Кеннет Рогофф вместе с другими экономистами. Статья и письмо подтолкнули правительство Камерона на ужасную экономическую политику и лишили британцев благосостояния, измеряемого разницей между красной революционной линией и синей, преступной. Чтобы убедиться, что красная линия является для Кругмана и ДеЛонга критерием успеха, желающие могут почитать свежую заметку ДеЛонга про США или поискать его и Кругмана многочисленные атаки на Великобританию, а про Латвию с Эстонией я лучше промолчу.Вопрос на засыпку про бюджетный аскетизм упирается в Великобританию по ряду причин.  У страны своя валюта, которая, как постоянно повторяет Кругман и Ко. необходима для успеха.  С начала кризиса фунт стерлингов подешевел процентов на 20-25, что, по мнению Кругмана, должно было привести с скачку экспорта.  Инфляция была намного выше 2%, к чему тоже призывали Кругман и другие экономисты.  Много чего было в Великобритании в кризисные годы. А роста не было и пока нет.  Поэтому для Кругмана, ДеЛонга и их единомышленников  главным виновником преступления должен быть бюджетный аскетизм.  В Великобритании, по их мнению, нужен был значительный бюджетный стимул, достаточный для быстрого возвращения к красной черте.  На всякий случай напомню сразу, что дефицит бюджета в Странглии на автомате сразу скакнул к 10-11% ВВП (картинка).  Этого, по мнению борцов с бюджетным аскетизмом, было мало, надо было гораздо больше. По мнению Кругмана, инвесторы бы этого совсем не испугались, потому что никакой "Волшебницы доверие" нет (добавим от себя следствие: нет и "Волшебницы Недоверие").  Вот свежая заметка ДеЛонга, где он обвиняет Камерона и "правых" экономистов в попытке реализовать в Великобритании "стимилирующее сокращение" дефицита бюджета а ля Алесина.Как и в случае российских дебатов о замедлении роста, за более объективным мнением я обратился к уходящему руководителю центрального банка - Банка Англии - Мервину Кингу, коллеге Сергея Игнатьева. В своей январской речи Кинг подробно рассказывал о диагнозе, лечении и будущем экономики Великобритании.  Речь советую почитать. В отличие от Банка России, британцы публикуют речи своих руководителей, чтобы каждый желающий не гадал, какие у них мысли, а мог прочитать речь и поглазеть на иллюстрации к ней и даже почитать указанную дополнительную литературу.Кинг сразу же напомнил слушателям об избыточном докризисном энтузиазме:Much of this reflects the inevitable correction of exuberance on the part of borrowers and lenders, the conditions for which were created by the failure to tackle the global imbalances that left most major countries with unsustainable exchange rates, unsustainable paths of consumption, saving and borrowing, and unsustainably low long-term real interest rates.Затем отметил три фактора, сдерживающих рост, некоторые из них внутренние, некоторые внешние. Не буду пересказывать, но среди них упомянуты цены на еду и энергию.  Системный финансовый кризис привел к нарушениям в банковском секторе, толкнул банки к осторожности и затруднил доступ к кредиту, особенно для мелких и средних предприятий. Но среди причин анемичного роста у Кинга нет даже намека на излишний бюджетный аскетизм.  Единственное упоминание о бюджетной политике во всей речи сводится к ограничениям в ее использовании из-за большого госдолга:In many countries, including the UK, fiscal policy is constrained by the size of government indebtedness, and monetary policy has come to be seen as the only game in town.Нет бюджетного стимулирования и среди нескольких рецептов лечения (помимо денежно-кредитной политики КуЕ). Рецепта три, включая укрепление банков, увеличение экономического потенциала за счет структурных реформ и (все еще надежда на)  восстановление еврозоны и слабый фунт стерлингов/экспорт:What are those other policies? They come under three headings: restoring confidence in our banks, reforms to raise the future potential supply of our economy, and changes in the world economy and exchange rates.Этот диагноз, рецепты лечения и прогноз мы услышали от одного из сотен британских экономистов, которые в свое время в открытом письме возмутились преступным бюджетным аскетизмом Маргарет Тэтчер :). Кто-нибудь наверняка скажет мне, что старик Кинг кривит душой, что не хочет осложнять жизнь правительству Камерона. Но ведь он пожилой уже человек, ему нечего терять, кроме своего доброго имени. Не боится же он требовать значительного дополнительного увеличения акционерного капитала у всесильных банков, которые могли бы его подкармливать в старости. Неужели Кинг промолчал бы, если бы действительно верил во вред бюджетной дисциплины?Что такое ужасное делает правительство Великобритании, какой такой особый аскетизм в Лондонграде?  Смотрим еще раз на сокращение дефицита, ожидаемое в разных странах за три года 2011-2013, и видим, что у британцев сокращение дефицита очень похоже на небольшое сокращение в других странах, как у Франции или Бельгии, и меньше, чем в США, не говоря уже о больных еврозоны Испании, Ирландии и Ко., которым Кругман, кстати, тоже раньше регулярно предлагал активнее стимулировать экономику дополнительными бюджетными расходами (?!).Можно допустить, что сейчас, когда инвесторы успокоились после испуга 2008-2011 гг., британцы могли бы сокращать дефицит чуть медленнее, как это может себе теперь легко позволить Эстония или Латвия. Сейчас, а не в 2010, когда инвесторы, включая Билла Гросса, буквально тряслись от страха. И американцы могли бы сейчас дать слабину. Но надо же быть реалистами. К красной линии они бы все равно долго не вернулись. И Кругман с ДеЛонгом все равно будут ругать всех и вся во всю силу своих легких.  Никакого чрезмерного аскетизма в Великобритании нет, просто не нашли там вовремя сланцевый газ, банковский сектор там побольше и еврозона поближе. Разница между Великобританией и США еще и в том, что в Америке нет никаких бюджетных планов, а есть секвестр, знакомый нам по предкризисным 1990м. Там правит политический паралич. Планы же британцев известны заранее, и за выполнением планов уже давно следят специально обученные независимые люди в Офисе бюджетной ответственности, как и учил реалист Кеннет Рогофф.ДОП: Пока я кропал и выдергивал из интернета чужие мысли и картинки, появился пользительный пост zhu_s...Как я уже заметил в тексте, мы не можем ознакомиться с речью Сергея Игнатьева о причинах замедления роста российской экономики и посмотреть на познавательные картинки-иллюстрации к его увлекательному рассказу.  Но у нас есть zhu_s, который думает и пишет на эту важную для экономической политики тему.

28 февраля 2013, 20:13

Стимулирование или спад? МАКРОЭКОНОМИКА РЕЦЕССИИ

ДЕЛОНГ: Период между 1985 и 2007 – период «Великого Спокойствия» - Фед Резерв и Правительство США с одной стороны на Западе, а центральные банки и финансовые институты Евросоюза на востоке Атлантического океана обеспечили устойчивое макроэкономическое окружение в рамках которого частный бизнес сектор, рабочие и инвесторы могли реализовывать свои экономические устремления. В США в годовом выражении прирост номинального ВВП опускался ниже 4% только 3 раза в эти годы и превышал 7% только 2 раза в течение 22 лет, уровень потребительской инфляции был выше 5% 3 раза и падал ниже 2%  только 2 раза в течение этих 22 лет, а уровень занятости взрослого населения (отношение числа занятых к общей численности взрослого населения) колебался в границах 60-64%. Западная Европа переживала примерно такой же период «Великого Спокойствия» с низкой инфляцией, плавным ростом и снижающейся безработицей. Как говорил Роберт Лукас в эти спокойные годы: «проблема предотвращения депрессии была решена». Далее в 2008-2009-м гг. уровень прироста номинального ВВП в США рухнул к -3% - неожиданное значительное снижение для любого, кто ожидает «Великого Спокойствия» с прежним уровнем роста расходов, потребительская инфляция ушла в отрицательную зону (-2%), а занятость населения упала с 63% до 58-59%. В Западной Европе изначально рецессия была слабее, но последующая ситуация на рынке труда оказалась более разочаровывающей, так что в настоящий момент чистое снижение к тренду производства и занятости в Западной Европе превышает аналогичные показатели в США. Проблема предотвращения депрессии и её излечения не была решена. В этом контексте мы собрались обсудить следующие четыре вопроса: Может ли политика ФРС, ЕЦБ, государственных органов адоптироваться так, чтобы в короткие сроки вернуть уровень занятости к значениям которые мы в течение 1985-2007 считали «нормальными», а темпы роста занятости к уровням Рейгановского бума 1982-1989 гг.? Если может, какой должна быть эта политика? Если может, является ли эта политика приемлемой? Как ваше мнение на вопросы 1-3 отличается от мнения 6 лет назад?  Карло Коттарелли из Международного валютного фонда.