Paul Krugman, nobelovec za ekonomijo s socialnim čutom

Nobelove nagrade so zanimiva reč. Predstavljajo prestižno nagrado za izjemno preteklo delo na določenem področju v svetovnem merilu. Hkrati pa se vseeno ni mogoče izogniti občutku, da je pri vsakoletni podelitvi posamičnih nagrad vedno tudi nekaj malega »politične kuhinje« iz švedske severne oaze. Zato se vsako leto nekako potihem sprašujemo, kaj je komite Kraljeve švedske akademije znanosti z izbiro posameznega laureata hotel sporočiti svetovni javnosti.

No, mene je letošnja izbira Nobelovega nagrajenca za ekonomijo Paula Krugmana s Princetona vseeno nekoliko presenetila, čeprav mi je po drugi strani seveda povsem logična. Bolj logična skorajda ne bi mogla biti. Naj povem, zakaj.

Prvič, zadnjih deset let, odkar na ekonomski fakulteti v četrtem letniku predavam predmet Ekonomika in politika mednarodne menjave in študente v drugi polovici kurza »mučim« z novejšimi teorijami mednarodne trgovine, tako pri teoriji trgovine na podlagi naraščajočih donosov in diferenciranih proizvodov kot tudi pri teoriji trgovine na podlagi ekonomske geografije, običajno povem, da bo tale fant, avtor teh teorij, Paul Krugman, enkrat v prihodnosti zagotovo dobil Nobelovo nagrado. Vendar pa, običajno razložim, da najverjetneje v soavtorstvu z Elhananom Helpmanom (Harvard) in Genom Grossmanom (Princeton). Trojka Krugman – Helpman – Grossman je namreč dala največji pečat sodobni zunanjetrgovinski teoriji s tem, ko je analizo trgovine prenesla na raven podjetja, vključila razpršene potrošniške preference, ekonomije obsega in diferencirane proizvode ter možnost inovacij in endogene rasti, ter s tem podala boljšo razlago, zakaj države med seboj trgujejo tudi s povsem podobnimi proizvodi. Denimo razlago tega, zakaj se Francozi v trgovini z Nemci ne specializirajo popolnoma na menjavo vina za denimo nemške avtomobile, ampak med seboj izmenjujejo denimo megane za golfe, dva tehnološko, velikostno in cenovno povsem podobna proizvoda. Švedski komite zadnja leta rad vsebinsko zaokroži posamezno področje in nagrado razdeli dvema ali trem ključnim avtorjem na tem za znanost in človeštvo pomembnem področju.

Drugič, hkrati pa sem pričakoval, da bo Krugman to nagrado dobil šele po 65. letu starosti. Povprečna starost Nobelovih nagrajencev za ekonomijo je namreč okrog 67 let. Med ekonomisti kroži anekdota, da švedska kraljeva akademija znanosti namenoma daje Nobelovo nagrado ekonomistom v tako pozni starosti, da ne bi s tem povzročila zmanjšanja njihove produktivnosti. Običajno je namreč, da po prejemu Nobelove nagrade ekonomisti zmanjšajo tempo raziskovanja in znanstvenega objavljanja in se lotijo bolj poljudnega podajanja ekonomskih nasvetov bodisi ekonomski politiki bodisi javnosti. Joseph Stiglitz je tipičen tak primerek Nobelovega nagrajenca, ki je po prejemu nagrade povsem prenehal objavljati v Top-10 akademskih ekonomskih revijah in se posvetil pisanju knjig in člankov za širše občinstvo, raziskovalne članke po objavlja le še v working paperjih v soavtorstvu s kolegi na začetku akademske kariere. No, Krugman s tem, kot kaže njegova znanstvena bibliografija, ne bo imel večjih težav, saj je z resnim raziskovalnim delom in objavljanjem v top akademskih revijah praktično nehal že okrog leta 2000 (pri starosti 47 let) in se posvetil novi karieri – javnemu angažmaju.

Seveda pa nič od zgoraj povedanega – solo nagrada in to pri relativno nizki starosti – ne zmanjšuje vrednosti Krugmanovega prispevka k znanosti in napredku človeštva oziroma vrednosti njegove Nobelove nagrade. Nasprotno, potrjuje, da je Paul Krugman dal izjemen prispevek k ekonomski znanosti, in to že v zelo zgodnjih letih svoje akademske kariere. Krugman je namreč dal izjemen znanstveni prispevek na treh področjih mednarodne ekonomije: (1) teorija mednarodne trgovine na podlagi ekonomij obsega in diferenciranih proizvodov (1979-1985), (2) teorija mednarodne monetarne ekonomije, tečajev in tečajnih kriz (1985-1995), ter (3) teorija mednarodne trgovine na podlagi ekonomske geografije (1991-2000). Vmes pa je še obdelal področje mednarodne trgovine, tehnološkega napredka in endogene rasti. Krugman ima izjemno serijo znanstvenih objav v Top-10 akademskih revijah, čeprav sam nikoli ni bil zelo zadovoljen z tretmajem, ki ga je imel pri urednikih teh revij. Velikokrat v zgodnji karieri so mu namreč – na podlagi standardnega double-blind postopka – zavračali objavo znanstvenih člankov v najboljših revijah. Hkrati pa, kot rad poudarja v svoji zgodnji avtobiografiji, nikoli ni bil zadovoljen s svojimi znanstvenimi dosežki, čeprav je dobil tudi John Bates Clarkovo nagrado, ki se podeljuje najboljšim ameriškim ekonomistom pod 40. letom starosti (in izmed katerih se običajno rekrutirajo bodoči Nobelovi nagrajenci).

Krugmanova Nobelova nagrada je z vidika prispevka k ekonomski znanosti čista kot solza. Toda bolj kot njegov izjemen prispevek k ekonomski znanosti se zdi, da je komite Kraljeve švedske akademije znanosti letos pri podelitvi nagrade vodil predvsem aktualni ekonomsko-politični premislek ter nespregledljiv humanistični prispevek Paula Krugmana k razumevanju tega aktualnega trenutka, njegovi kritiki in iskanju bolj učinkovitih in bolj pravičnih rešitev. Paul Krugman je namreč že od svoje zgodnje akademske kariere naprej družbeno precej anagažiran ekonomist. V prvem Reaganovem mandatu je bil eno leto član njegovega Sveta ekonomskih svetovalcev, kjer se je, kot pravi, naučil predvsem širšemu krogu razumljivo pisati o ekonomskih zadevah. Bil je tako dober, pravi, da so mu v tistem letu zaupali, da je napisal večino ekonomskih poročil predsedniku ZDA.

Kasneje je o aktualnih ekonomskih problemih začel pisati v esejističnem slogu v bolj poljudnih revijah (Fortune, Slate, Foreign Affairs, Harvard Business Review itd.), napisal knjige o monetarnih krizah (Currencies and Crises (1995), The Return of Depression Economics (2000)) ter nato še popularne eseje o mednarodni trgovini, s katerimi je hotel popularizirati ideje proste mednarodne trgovine širšemu občinstvu. Pisanje v preprostem jeziku za širše občinstvo je postal Krugmanov glavni hobi. Kot odkritosrčno piše v uvodu knjige Pop internationalism iz leta 1995, je v začetku 1990. let v sebi odkril novo kariero – kariero kolumnista oziroma znanstvenika, ki zna v preprostem jeziku širšemu občinstvu predstaviti ideje in spoznanja sicer zapletenih in matematiziranih ekonomskih modelov. In priznal, da se mu zdi ta nova kariera še bolj vznemirljiva od akademske. Zato seveda ne čudi, da je po reizdajah svojih popularnih esejev v Pop Internationalism (1995), Peddling Prosperity: Economic Sense and Nonsense in an Age of Diminished Expectations (1995), The Accidental Theorist and Other Dispatches from the Dismal Science (1999), leta 1999 postal tudi stalni kolumnist New York Timesa.

Prav s pisanjem rednih tedenskih kolumen za New York Times pa se je Krugman tudi zelo jasno humanistično profiliral. Namreč kot »ekonomski liberalec s socialno vestjo«, kar pomeni, kot je lepo zapisal Črt, »da priznava primat trgu (iz tega vidika je naslednik osnovne ideje von Hayeka ali Friedmana), ni pa ortodoksni liberalec tipa Friedman, Greenspan ali Randova, saj se zaveda pojava “market failure” in v njegovem reševanju vidi tudi vlogo države

Krugman je bil v 1990. letih velik kritik ekonomske politike Billa Clintona in njegove šefice Sveta ekonomskih svetovalcev Laure Tyson zaradi njune premajhne usmerjenosti k prosti mednarodni trgovini. V uničevalni kritiki, povzeti v esejih v Pop Internationalism in Accidental Theorist je obdelal z večino takrat modnih in uglednih komentatorjev in piscev knjig, ki so se zavzemali za zapiranje ZDA pred globalizacijo ter propagiranjem nacionalne konkurenčnosti kot temeljnega postulata mednarodne ekonomske politike ZDA.

No, z letom 2000 je na oblast prišel George Bush mlajši. Ki pa je seveda mednarodno ekonomsko politiko Clintonovih administracij postavil povsem na glavo, začel uvajati uvozne carine za domačo industrijo ter v mednarodnih odnosih trgovino zamenjal z vojno. V domači ekonomski politiki pa je, kot je Krugman zapisal v eni izmed kolumn, nadaljeval s politiko zniževanja davkov na kapital – z »očitnim ciljem znižanja davkov na kapital na nič«. Torej s popolnim in beozobzirnim favoriziranjem lastnikov kapitala, sploh pa tistega v naftnem in finančnem sektorju, na račun ostalih družbenih slojev. Kot je prejšnjo soboto na znanstveni konferenci v Boulderju (Coloradu), pokazal Matthew Slaughter z univerze Dartmouth ter v zadnjih letih član Bushevega Sveta ekonomskih svetovalcev, so se po uradnih ameriških podatkih v obdobju 2000-2007 realni prihodki večine (98,5 %) ameriških zaposlenih letno zmanjševali po 0,8 % do 5%. Povečevali so se le prihodki tistega 1,5 % zaposlenih z magisterijem v pravu ali poslovnih vedah, ki so zaposleni seveda kot top pravni svetovalci in menedžerji v podjetjih. Kot pravi Paul Krugman v The Conscience of a Liberal (2007), je Georgeu Bushu uspelo s svojo skrajno konzervativno ekonomsko politiko »nove desnice« skorajda povsem uničiti socialne dosežke New Deala ter srednji razred. Hkrati pa ameriško gospodarstvo iz Clintonove zapuščine velikega presežka v proračunu z nerazumno politiko zniževanja davkov na kapitalske donose in enormnega povečanja javnih izdatkov za oboroževanje spraviti v resne težave pri financiranju enormnega proračunskega primanjkljaja.

Paul Krugman je z nastopom mandata Georgea Busha mlajšega postal njegov najbolj oster kritik med uglednimi ekonomisti. Svojo kritiko Busheve politike, v povezavi tudi s kritiko politike tedanjega šefa Fed Alana Greenspana, zajeto v kolumnah v New York Timesu, je leta 2003 re-objavil v The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century. Naslednja leta opazovanj in kritike konkretnih politik Busheve administracije pa je Krugmana pripeljala do tega, da je lani napisal nekakšen liberalni manifest v The Conscience of a Liberal. V tem manifestu Krugman podaja kronistično sliko socialne slike v ZDA, od skrajno perverzno liberalne, asocialne in rasistične konzervativne politike pred veliko depresijo leta 1929, preko razvoja države blaginje z uvedbo New Deala po njej, ki je omogočila prosperiteto srednjemu razredu, do ponovne vrnitve skrajne konzervativne ekonomske politike »nove desnice«, ki je kulminirala z nastopom mandata Ronalda Reagana leta 1980 in privedla do skrajne asocialne politike v mandatih Georgea Busha mlajšega, kjer kar petina ameriškega prebivalstva nima niti osnovnega zdravstvenega varstva.

Krugman se v tem liberalnem manifestu zavzema za ponovno resocializacijo Amerike, za več države blaginje, vključno s splošnim zdravstvenim zavarovanjem. S tem pa je Krugman tudi najbolj celovito zajel sentiment tako večine znanstvenih kolegov kot večinski sentiment v ameriški družbi, ki si želi več socialne varnosti za vse. Sentiment, ki je kulminiral v meteorskem vzponu Baracka Obame, nekakšnem novem Martinu Luthru Kingu v boju za bolj socialno pravično Ameriko.

Lahko da se motim, toda menim, da je komite Kraljeve švedske akademije znanosti letos pri podelitvi Nobelove nagrade za ekonomijo vodil predvsem ta rastoč socialni sentiment v povezavi z aktualno globalno finančno krizo, ki sta jo s svojim neodgovornim opuščanjem regulacije domačih finančnih trgov omogočili prav obe Bushevi administraciji. In prav Krugman je tisti ugledni ekonomist z brezmadežno akademsko kariero, ki si je upal v tej kritiki skrajno socialno breozobzirne in ekonomsko neodgovorne konzervativne politike uradne Amerike najbolj izpostaviti.

Komite Kraljeve švedske akademije znanosti tako letos pri podelitvi Nobelove nagrade za ekonomijo pošilja uradni Ameriki in svetovni javnosti zelo jasno sporočilo – čas je za bolj socialno odgovorno in mednarodno odgovorno ekonomsko politiko. Čas je za spremembe. Na ekonomski ravni je to najbolj učinkovito v zadnjih letih promoviral prav Paul Krugman. Na politični ravni pa ta naloga čaka novega ameriškega predsednika. In ne bo me presenetilo, če bo Paul Krugman postal Obamov šef Sveta ekonomskih svetovalcev.

8 responses

  1. Clinton-ova NAFTA je vsekakor razlicna od GWB big oil! Skoda, da nagrada ni dodeljena trem znanstvenikom. Ekonomija ni veda temeljnih otkritij ampak zgodovinskih zakljuckov tipa 2008/1929.

    Mozgani pocasneje delujejo po Abrahamu. To se lepo vidi v ssahu. V ekonomiji se zdijo nasi socijalisticni struckoti vecnim 🙂

  2. Zelo lepa in vzorna domača naloga: PRO DOMO SUA. 5. To je: “za svoj dom”, za svoj ceh. Povsem razumljivo je, da so znotraj ceha eni pač boljši “čevljarji” – na primer – kot drugi; in prav je, da se na boljše pokaže in jih nagradi – z Nobelovo nagrado. A kaj imamo navadni ljudje od tega. Vsi ti “čevljarji” pač mislijo in delujejo v območju “čevljev” – in tam se stvari izidejo – izidejo se znotraj “škatle” obstoječega svetovnega ekonomsko-finančnega sistema. A kje so tisti ostali, ki razmišljajo in domislijo rešitve izven “škatle”, ki so tega sposobni in ki si upajo, čeprav je njihov glas morda šibak ali pa sploh ne pridejo do besede. Vse lepo in prav, kar je naredil in predlagal ter kam nas usmerja iz zdajšnje zagate letošnji Nobelov nagrajenec. A vse to je zgolj krasitev mrtve mačke in klic po spremembi – po kakšnih spremebah, takšnih, da bi vse ostalo isto! Prelaganje iz ene vreče v drugo, kakor prenaša mačka svoje mlade, nas ne bo popeljalo ven … Prihodnost smo si “zapravili” v kreditih in derivatih – torej je sploh nimamo. Potrebno je radikalno odstraniti bolno tkivo – odpisati, kar se odpisati mora – Jubilee year! in začeti na novo, drugače.

    PAUL B. FARRELL
    Derivatives the new ‘ticking bomb’
    Buffett and Gross warn: $516 trillion bubble is a disaster waiting to happen
    By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch
    Last update: 7:31 p.m. EDT March 10, 2008Comments: 370ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) — “Charlie and I believe Berkshire should be a fortress of financial strength” wrote Warren Buffett. That was five years before the subprime-credit meltdown.
    “We try to be alert to any sort of mega-catastrophe risk, and that posture may make us unduly appreciative about the burgeoning quantities of long-term derivatives contracts and the massive amount of uncollateralized receivables that are growing alongside. In our view, however, derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal.”

    That warning was in Buffett’s 2002 letter to Berkshire shareholders. He saw a future that many others chose to ignore. The Iraq war build-up was at a fever-pitch. The imagery of WMDs and a mushroom cloud fresh in his mind.
    Also fresh on Buffett’s mind: His acquisition of General Re four years earlier, about the time the Long-Term Capital Management hedge fund almost killed the global monetary system. How? This is crucial: LTCM nearly killed the system with a relatively small $5 billion trading loss. Peanuts compared with the hundreds of billions of dollars of subprime-credit write-offs now making Wall Street’s big shots look like amateurs.
    Buffett tried to sell off Gen Re’s derivatives group. No buyers. Unwinding it was costly, but led to his warning that derivatives are a “financial weapon of mass destruction.” That was 2002.
    Derivatives bubble explodes five times bigger in five years
    Wall Street didn’t listen to Buffett. Derivatives grew into a massive bubble, from about $100 trillion to $516 trillion by 2007. The new derivatives bubble was fueled by five key economic and political trends:
    Sarbanes-Oxley increased corporate disclosures and government oversight
    Federal Reserve’s cheap money policies created the subprime-housing boom
    War budgets burdened the U.S. Treasury and future entitlements programs
    Trade deficits with China and others destroyed the value of the U.S. dollar
    Oil and commodity rich nations demanding equity payments rather than debt
    In short, despite Buffett’s clear warnings, a massive new derivatives bubble is driving the domestic and global economies, a bubble that continues growing today parallel with the subprime-credit meltdown triggering a bear-recession.
    Data on the five-fold growth of derivatives to $516 trillion in five years comes from the most recent survey by the Bank of International Settlements, the world’s clearinghouse for central banks in Basel, Switzerland. The BIS is like the cashier’s window at a racetrack or casino, where you’d place a bet or cash in chips, except on a massive scale: BIS is where the U.S. settles trade imbalances with Saudi Arabia for all that oil we guzzle and gives China IOUs for the tainted drugs and lead-based toys we buy.
    To grasp how significant this five-fold bubble increase is, let’s put that $516 trillion in the context of some other domestic and international monetary data:
    U.S. annual gross domestic product is about $15 trillion
    U.S. money supply is also about $15 trillion
    Current proposed U.S. federal budget is $3 trillion
    U.S. government’s maximum legal debt is $9 trillion
    U.S. mutual fund companies manage about $12 trillion
    World’s GDPs for all nations is approximately $50 trillion
    Unfunded Social Security and Medicare benefits $50 trillion to $65 trillion
    Total value of the world’s real estate is estimated at about $75 trillion
    Total value of world’s stock and bond markets is more than $100 trillion
    BIS valuation of world’s derivatives back in 2002 was about $100 trillion
    BIS 2007 valuation of the world’s derivatives is now a whopping $516 trillion
    Moreover, the folks at BIS tell me their estimate of $516 trillion only includes “transactions in which a major private dealer (bank) is involved on at least one side of the transaction,” but doesn’t include private deals between two “non-reporting entities.” They did, however, add that their reporting central banks estimate that the coverage of the survey is around 95% on average.
    Also, keep in mind that while the $516 trillion “notional” value (maximum in case of a meltdown) of the deals is a good measure of the market’s size, the 2007 BIS study notes that the $11 trillion “gross market values provides a more accurate measure of the scale of financial risk transfer taking place in derivatives markets.”
    Bubbles, domino effects and the ‘bad 2%’
    However, while that may be true as far as the parties to an individual deal, there are broader risks to the world’s economies. Remember back in 1998 when LTCM’s little $5 billion loss nearly brought down the world’s banking system. That “domino effect” is now repeating many times over, straining the world’s monetary, economic and political system as the subprime housing mess metastasizes, taking the U.S. stock market and the world economy down with it.
    This cascading “domino effect” was brilliantly described in “The $300 Trillion Time Bomb: If Buffett can’t figure out derivatives, can anybody?” published early last year in Portfolio magazine, a couple months before the subprime meltdown. Columnist Jesse Eisinger’s $300 trillion figure came from an earlier study of the derivatives market as it was growing from $100 trillion to $516 trillion over five years. Eisinger concluded:
    “There’s nothing intrinsically scary about derivatives, except when the bad 2% blow up.” Unfortunately, that “bad 2%” did blow up a few months afterwards, even as Bernanke and Paulson were assuring America that the subprime mess was “contained.”
    Bottom line: Little things leverage a heck of a big wallop. It only takes a little spark from a “bad 2% deal” to ignite this $516 trillion weapon of mass destruction. Think of this entire unregulated derivatives market like an unsecured, unpredictable nuclear bomb in a Pakistan stockpile. It’s only a matter of time.
    World’s newest and biggest ‘black market’
    The fact is, derivatives have become the world’s biggest “black market,” exceeding the illicit traffic in stuff like arms, drugs, alcohol, gambling, cigarettes, stolen art and pirated movies. Why? Because like all black markets, derivatives are a perfect way of getting rich while avoiding taxes and government regulations. And in today’s slowdown, plus a volatile global market, Wall Street knows derivatives remain a lucrative business.
    Recently Pimco’s bond fund king Bill Gross said “What we are witnessing is essentially the breakdown of our modern-day banking system, a complex of leveraged lending so hard to understand that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke required a face-to-face refresher course from hedge fund managers in mid-August.” In short, not only Warren Buffett, but Bond King Bill Gross, our Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the rest of America’s leaders can’t “figure out” the world’s $516 trillion derivatives.
    Why? Gross says we are creating a new “shadow banking system.” Derivatives are now not just risk management tools. As Gross and others see it, the real problem is that derivatives are now a new way of creating money outside the normal central bank liquidity rules. How? Because they’re private contracts between two companies or institutions.
    BIS is primarily a records-keeper, a toothless tiger that merely collects data giving a legitimacy and false sense of security to this chaotic “shadow banking system” that has become the world’s biggest “black market.”
    That’s crucial, folks. Why? Because central banks require reserves like stock brokers require margins, something backing up the transaction. Derivatives don’t. They’re not “real money.” They’re paper promises closer to “Monopoly” money than real U.S. dollars.
    And it takes place outside normal business channels, out there in the “free market.” That’s the wonderful world of derivatives, and it’s creating a massive bubble that could soon implode.
    Comments? Yes, we want to hear your thoughts. Tell us what you think about derivatives: as “financial weapons of mass destruction;” as a “shadow banking system;” as a “black market;” as the next big bubble dangerously exposing us to that unpredictable “bad 2%.”

    The Devil’s Advocate!
    By Jim Kirwan
    10-14-8

    From the 1997 film of the same name
    Excerpts from a conversation between Al Pacino and Kevin

    “These people, it’s no mystery where they come from! You sharpen the human appetite to the point where it can split atoms with its desire. You build egos the size of Cathedrals; fiber-optically connect the world to every ego impulse; grease even the dullest dreams with these dollar-green gold-plated fantasies until every human becomes an aspiring Emperor that becomes his own God. And you go from there ~

    And as we’re scrambling from one deal to the next; who’s got his eye on the planet! The air thickens, the water sours, even the bee’s honey takes on the sour taste of radio-activity. They just keep come’n faster and faster; there’s no chance to think, to prepare: its Buy Futures; Sell Futures; when there is no Future! We got a runaway train boy! We got a billion Eddie’s all jogg’in into the future. Every one of them getting ready to Fist-f-k God’s ex-planet, lick their fingers clean as they reach out toward their pristine cybernetic keyboard to tote up their f—in bills-of-allowance!

    And then it hits home, you’ve got to pay your own way Eddie, it’s a little late in the game to ‘buy out now’ ~ Your belly’s too full, your dick is sore, your eyes are blood-shot and you’re scream’n for someone to ‘help’ But guess what ­ there’s no one there! You’re all alone Eddie, you’re God’s special little creature! Maybe it’s true, maybe God threw the dice once too often! Maybe he let us all down.

    Freedom baby is never have’n to say you’re sorry. This is ‘revolution’ ”

    Kevin: “Why the Law: Cut the shit dad, why lawyers, why the law!?”

    “Cause the law my boy puts us into everything. It’s the ultimate backstage pass it’s the new priesthood baby. Did you know there are more students in law school then there are lawyers on the earth -we’re comin out, guns blazin!”

    Does any of this sound familiar-it should, because we’re living it-and originally this was never our dream in the first place! This is part of what was created for us to fit ourselves into so that we could never escape from their plans to ensnare us all: This is our own national Tar-Baby and until now it has all worked out pretty well-for them!

    But the world above is not the world that most people dream about, it’s not even viable unless you first sell your soul to the darkest thoughts you’re capable of-and never look back! We’re better than that-aren’t we!

    That world ‘we lost’ it’s still there you know, we just deserted it to chase these impossibly vile dreams of personal wealth on the fringes of an empire that doesn’t give a damn about us. We have ignored the fact that these people NEED us far more than we need anything from them. Yet now we’re screaming for someone-anyone-to HELP us. “But guess what-there’s no one there” because we have helped them to kill what could save us from ourselves and from this collective madness! This is the nightmare world that we are living second by second: but we can end it: All we have to do are all those things that they’ve spent decades trying to keep us from knowing!

    We are the people in “We the People” this is our country-not theirs! But if we want it back then we must rediscover that it belongs not to each of us as a solitary being, but to all of us! That would mean that we must remember that we’re all in this together; which is ironic, because our owners have mortgaged our futures to prevent us all from realizing that simple fact. We are united by sweat and by fear, by blood and by sacrifice and especially by our dreams for a better tomorrow: Yet we have let these bandits steal those dreams and crush that hope, and now we are about to let them use our own troops against us, in a final act, that could see the population surrender to these creatures that are not human in any real sense of that term.

    We need to re-discover how to say “NO!” We need to discover how to start over-completely. But most of all we need to remember who we are by talking to other people about both these crimes against us all and more importantly, we need to begin to try and figure out where we go from here! This was our world and if we want it back; then we have to be willing to take care of ourselves and each other first-in order to deal with those that have plotted, almost from the beginning, to steal our very existence!

    “Yesterday is Gone” in so many ways! Innocence, pride, honor, law, all of it has gotten swept up with the illegal profits and the invasions of other countries-invasions that number over 200 in the 232 years of our official existence. That’s a huge weight, something that is far too heavy for any one nation to bear, and yet this administration still hungers for more blood, more stolen counties, more collateral damage and of course for still-more profits that we have not earned.

    Our owners do this they say, to protect us: to keep America and Americans “safe” in a hostile world. Yet every day we murder innocent people and call them terrorists. Everyday we pass more laws to infringe upon the lives of American citizens-and now we are finally being subjected to the ultimate shame-as our money and our reputation as a nation are both made worthless-in the eyes of the rest of the human race, as this shall come to be known to our children’s children as Our Great Refusal to defend ourselves!

    In the bogus campaigns the candidates want the public to believe that their criticisms of each other are “not personal”! Why NOT! When people lose their jobs, their homes, their savings and their way of life and most of what they thought might be their future- how is that not personal!

    From John Neihardt in The Twilight of the Sioux: listen to Sitting Bull’s wife; when the blue-coasts come to drag the Chief to certain death.

    “Whither do you go? There is a name that you have carried far, my man! Have you forgotten who you are that cowards come and drag you out of bed? It would be well if Sitting Bull were dead and lying in his blood! It would be well! But now what story will be good to tell in other winters?” The president, in Washington, was terrified that Sitting Bull might lead a rebellion against the whites ­ so like today they came in secret to arrest him.

    In our case it appears that we have forgotten who we were, so apparently we cannot know now, just who it is that we might be today! Do we really want to change this for the better; or is it just too much trouble! Maybe we might begin to talk about the things we never talk about, instead of all the mindless slop we chose to fill our time with now? If we don’t begin to do this, then those rather stark words from the film, back at the beginning of this;,might well come back to haunt us all. What does the future hold for any one of us-especially now?

    Have we the individual courage to alter that, or are we going to remain spectator’s even as our death’s are not just being planned; but are eagerly being sought by the same people that have always hated us, because to them, we are the major threat to all they chose to do! It’s up to us to change the subject now and to demand all our money back, with interest! Now that would truly be a new beginning!

  3. @ Anika – Ana M. Mayerhold – priznam, da angleškega teksta nisem bral, ampak tole: “Potrebno je radikalno odstraniti bolno tkivo – odpisati, kar se odpisati mora – Jubilee year! in začeti na novo, drugače.” to pa je po Leninu ponovno prvi pravi revolucionarni apel 🙂

  4. Res lepa in vzorna domača naloga in ekono-portret nobel-lovca, kot
    meni AnikaM. A ko se JPD na ramenih K-ja iz ekonomske poda v politično zgodovino, so takoj težave.Konkretno pri razločevanju med Clintonom in Bushem , ki da naj bi “Clintonovo mednarodno ekonomsko politiko postavil na glavo”: zares? NAFTA-ni ukinil; subvencij za kmete tudi ne.In če štejemo finančno deregulacijo tudi v “mednarodno e.p.”- ali ni po drugi strani Clinton odpravil zakona Glass-Steagull iz l.32, ki je ločeval investicijske od komercialnih bank-šele tedaj se je cela zgodba,ki je kulminirala v sedanji krizi, lahko sploh začela? To se mi zdi prej ista zgodba, kontinuiteta,privedena do skrajnosti, ne pa “postavljanje na glavo”.

    Irak: na lastna ušesa sem l.2002 slišal Clintona, ko je k.g. T.Blaira govoril na konferenci New Labour, da “se z Bushem ne strinja v ničemer razen glede Iraka”: torej je zelo možno, da bi tudi Clinton napadel Irak- načrti za napad so bili pripravljeni že v njegovem času- res pa bi najbrž imel napad in nato nation building bolj “človeški obraz” in “socialni čut”. Spet ujemanje namesto “postavljanja na glavo”.Itd.

    Umikam pa domnevo, da je K. neka podvrsta keynesjanca- bo že držalo, kot pravi JPD s Črtom, da je čisto navaden liberalec, le s “človeškim obrazom” in “socialnim sentimentom”; neke vrste teoretski Soros ali Gates, ali pa publicistični Carnegie, ki je omogočal krasne reči v NY in drugje-in nedvomno mislil krasne človekoljubne misli, medtem ko so delavci…Back to the fure, x-tič

  5. »da priznava primat trgu (iz tega vidika je naslednik osnovne ideje von Hayeka ali Friedmana), ni pa ortodoksni liberalec tipa Friedman, Greenspan ali Randova, saj se zaveda pojava “market failure” in v njegovem reševanju vidi tudi vlogo države.«

    Ali Črt resno verjame, da se Friedman, Greenspan in drugi niso (ali ne) zavedajo pojava “market failure”? Ni se mogoče ne zavedati dejstva, da obstajajo politiki, ki želijo na trgih obraniti interese vokalnejših (ne nujno vedno večinskih) interesnih skupin, ki so drugačni od tržne resničnosti. In temu se reče “market failure”.

    Npr. če se lokalni lastnik trgovine ne želi zaposliti na manj uglednem delovnem mestu v supermarketu, ki je prišel v njegovo sosesko in zbere dovolj veliko “civilno iniciativo” je to “market failure”. Če Primorci ne želijo nepremičninske konkurence in zato izganjajo graditelje družinskih stanovanj je to “market failure”. Ker je pojem tako širok se ga zlahka zlorabi za (kot so nekoč rekli) prodajanje mud za banane oziroma socializma za market failure preventivo.

    Tega se ne zavedajo Kruegman, Stiglitz in drugi bojda liberalni ekonomisti s socialnim čutom, čeprav bi v to kategorijo, kakor plehko je zdefinirana, zlahka spadala tudi Mao in Stalin.

    p.s.
    Ana in Igor: preden sprožita križarsko vojno proti derivatom – tudi če le ti motijo nobelove nagrajence oziroma spoštovane in ugledne makroekonomiste; ne pomeni, da je njihova prepoved dobra zamisel. Ugledni strokovnjaki in neodvisni namreč ne vedo o čem govorijo. Ne razumejo dovolj dobro kvantitativnih financ in tudi mehanizmov trga.
    1) Derivate je mogoče simulirati z drugimi vrednostnimi papirji. Tudi, če jih ukineš – bodo.
    2) Derivati ne obstajajo zaradi (tako Mencingerjanci, ki še nočejo v pokoj) špekulantov. Obstajajo zato, ker na trgu obstaja povpraševanje po tem tipu produkta.

  6. @ Tomaž Štih
    Na žalost v tem stanju odpovedo vse šole/doktrine ekonomije in ekonomike. Pod vprašaj ni postavljena zgolj trenutna finančna kriza, ki se seli v realno področje, ampka celoten sistem, ki ga skoraj ne moremo več imenovati monetaren – prekršena so vsa pravila in zakonitosti tako naravnih kot ekonomskih v ožjem smislu.
    “Obstajajo zato, ker na trgu obstaja povpraševanje po tem tipu produkta.” Kdo pa si je izmislil ta tip produkta? Tu se aludira na prost trg – da, a prost trg mora imeti smiselno podlago in trgovati se mora s produkti, ki imajo realno osnovo.
    Podira se visok babilonski stolp ali hierarhična piramida, ki stoji od babilonsko-asirskih časov. Prav je, da je stvar kulminirala do te mere, da “sužnji” ne moremo več z vsemi svojimi “energijami” (delom in početjem) zadovoljiti in pokriti ta kozmična števila fiktivnega denarja, ki je v “virtualnem” obtoku v napravah IT – pa četudi je prikazan v fantomskih derivatih – in ki bi ga morali nato “materializirati” s svojim delom in ustvariti realen svet. Stolp se podira in piramida tudi. Ali je denar sploh potreben? Ne vem, kako naprej … in tega marsikdo tudi od “poklicanih ne ve …

    Nekaj razmišljanj treznih …

    Not Enough Money In The
    World To Fix Things
    The Real Monster In The Meltdown Closet
    Written By Chris Floyd
    10-15-8

    http://www.rense.com/general83/noteno.htm

    Money
    The Ultimate Addiction
    Jim Kirwan
    http://www.rense.com/general83/money.htm

  7. @Anika
    “Ne vem, kako naprej … in tega marsikdo tudi od ‘poklicanih’ ne ve … ”

    Pojavil se je “nice guy”, ki pravi, da ve, kako naprej … in sledi mojim mislim .. opa!, ko pravi: “‘fizična’ vrednost je tista, ki šteje … opustimo mišljenje, da je denar vrednost … denar ne definira vrednosti … vrednost mora definirati denar!” Torej! Bankrot, potem pa naprej – edino in zgolj – v okviru “ameriškega sistema” in namesto monetarnega kreditni sistem! ??? Je kdo za? Prosim za komentarje, če bi se to izšlo in bi na ta način izplavali iz tega “dr….ka.?

    No Need For Panic: LaRouche Knows What To Do

    So probably, some time within a week to two weeks or so forth, we’ll have a fundamental change in the situation, in which we will essentially be on top of the situation: And that’s because, they don’t have any solution. I do. And none of the others do. You have people who are more sane or less insane than others, who will respond accordingly. But from what I see, nowhere, including Russia, is there a conception, a real conception of what I’m going to do. And that will take a couple of weeks, before that begins to become clear.
    But what we’re going to do, is simply, we’re going to shut down this whole system. How? Well, through bankruptcy. What do you do in bankruptcy? You shut the system down. You put it into receivership. Now, the game now, is to target derivatives, because until you destroy derivatives, you’re not going to be able to do any financial reorganization at all. Because the whole system is mortgaged to derivatives, and you’re talking about quadrillions.
    Remember what these are: Derivatives are nothing but gambling side-bets. They have no relationship to real value, they’re only gambling side-bets.
    ……..

    So, it’s physical values that count…. So therefore, we’ve got to think in these terms. Get away from the idea of money is value. Money does not define value. Value must define money! Ah! Again, American System! The foolish Europeans have no idea what this is, including the Russians. They want to go back to a Marxian Communist conception of the matter–which again, is another sidetrack, a dangerous one.

    http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/10/12/no-need-panic-larouche-knows-what-do.html

  8. Pingback: Paul Krugman: The Great Unraveling « Narod naš dokaze hrani

%d bloggers like this: