M.I.T. banda na oblasti. In?

Paul Krugman pravi, da so Chicago boys (hvalabogu) out in da je oblast prevzela “M.I.T. banda”. Fantje, ki so doktorirali na univerzi z najboljšim doktorskim programom iz ekonomije. Fantje, ki so doštudirali v 1970. letih pod vplivom Rudigerja Dornbuscha in Stanleyja Fischerja. Na šoli, kjer sta odprtost do dejstev in pragmatičnost pred free market ideologijo. Na šoli, kjer ima uporabnost v oblikovanju ekonomske politike primat pred v “čisto” teorijo preoblečeno ideologijo. No, ti fantje danes obvladujejo monetarno vejo oblasti v ZDA in Evropi ter so zelo glasni v javni diskusiji: Ben Bernanke, ex-predsednik Fed, Stanley Fischer, podpredsednik Fed, Mario Draghi, predsednik ECB, Olivier Blanchard, odhajajoči glavni ekonomist IMF, Maurice Obstfeld, prihajajoči glavni ekonomist IMF, pa seveda Paul Krugman, najvidnejši sodobni ekonomski komentator z velikim vzvodom v liberalnem New York Timesu.

Toda, kot se priduša Krugman, čeprav ima M.I.T. ekonomska šola bolj prav glede receptov za sedanjo krizo in čeprav so M.I.T. fantje prevzeli monetarno vejo oblasti, to še ne pomeni, da so tudi prevagali v ekonomski politiki. V evropski politiki prav gotovo ne, kjer v javnem diskurzu nemška ordoliberalna moralika prevladuje nad pametjo. No, ta ordoliberalna ideologija dejansko zgolj maskira realne interese nemške politike, ki je z evrom  dosegla to, kar ji ni uspelo z dvema vojnama. Podreditev Evrope. Problem je, ker tudi ključni evropski politiki nimajo doktoratov iz M.I.T., da bi to razumeli.

This open-minded, pragmatic approach was overwhelmingly vindicated after crisis struck in 2008. Chicago-school types warned incessantly that responding to the crisis by printing money and running deficits would lead to 70s-type stagflation, with soaring inflation and interest rates. But M.I.T. types predicted, correctly, that inflation and interest rates would stay low in a depressed economy, and that attempts to slash deficits too soon would deepen the slump.

But has the intellectual success of M.I.T. economics led to comparable policy success? Unfortunately, the answer is no.

True, there have been some important monetary successes. The Fed, led by Mr. Bernanke, ignored right-wing pressure and threats — Rick Perry, as governor of Texas, went so far as to accuse him of treason — and pursued an aggressively expansionary policy that helped limit the damage from the financial crisis. In Europe, Mr. Draghi’s activism has been crucial to calming financial markets, probably saving the euro from collapse.

On other fronts, however, the M.I.T. gang’s good advice has been ignored. The I.M.F.’s research department, under Mr. Blanchard’s leadership, has done authoritative work on the effects of fiscal policy, demonstrating beyond any reasonable doubt that slashing spending in a depressed economy is a terrible mistake, and that attempts to reduce high levels of debt via austerity are self-defeating. But European politicians have slashed spending and demanded crippling austerity from debtors anyway.

Meanwhile, in the United States, Republicans have responded to the utter failure of free-market orthodoxy and the remarkably successful predictions of much-hated Keynesians by digging in even deeper, determined to learn nothing from experience.

In other words, being right isn’t necessarily enough to change the world. But it’s still better to be right than to be wrong, and M.I.T.-style economics, with its pragmatic openness to evidence, has been very right indeed.

Vir: Paul Krugman, New York Times

%d bloggers like this: