Renowned economist Stiglitz says, the situation in the U.S. is more resembles the situation in Egypt and Tunisia

The famous economist Stiglitz says, the situation in the U.S. is similar to the situation in Egypt and TunisiaJoseph Stiglitz soon becomes an economic "guru". The point here is not only the fact that he — the winner of the Nobel Prize in economics (how much do you know more Nobel Prize winners?), And in his perfect reputation. As a major global bank economist, in the 90 years he said the truth about how Russian privatization, which aroused the wrath of a number of "kryshevateley" group "prihvatizatorov" Gaidar — Chubais, first — Larry Summers, the deputy, and later Secretary of the Treasury (Minister of Finance) USA. At last, the general opinion, the stigma of a gun. For those who have read his letters Chubais at a time when last was the first vice-premier in the government Chernomyrdin, it's that simple of course. Despite this, Stiglitz practically dared go against authority (anyone beheld as meet in the World Bank Governors of the U.S. Treasury?), For which he was seriously injured: a couple of years, his efforts were not allowed Summers to any major world economic "get-together".

Perhaps because of this history, and perhaps because of innate intelligence and honesty, but now Stiglitz highly respected not only in the economic, and the political establishment, and every word he weighs quite a lot. And there is information in the press that Stiglitz wrote for the May issue of the magazine Vanity Fair article, so important that leaks from her appeared in the press for a long time before official publication. Stiglitz writes that after all?


Joseph Eugene Stiglitz (born February 9, 1943, Gary, Indiana) — south american neokeynsianets economist, Nobel Laureate in Economics (2001), 'for the analysis of markets with asymmetric information. " He studied at Amherst College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he received his doctorate. Dr. Colombian Institute. He was awarded the John Bates Clark Medal (1979), winner of the Rektenvalda (1998). Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to U.S. President (1995-1997), chief economist at Global Bank (1997-2000), foreign member of the Economics Section Branch Russian Academy of social sciences. Known as a tough critic of unlimited market, monetarist and neo-classical school of political economy in general, and awareness of the neo-liberal globalization policies of the IMF on developing countries and the liberal reforms in Russia.

"The Americans were watching the protests against the oppressive regimes that concentrate more wealth in the hands of a small elite. Yet, in our democracy at its 1% of the population account for almost 25% of the national income. This — the inequality, which would have to regret — Stiglitz writes. — "The Golden percent" Yankee holds the key to 40% of assets in the United States. Another 25 years ago, they could brag owning 33% of the wealth. A quarter-century back to the richest people in America had only 12% of government revenue. In the last decade they have to earn 18% more, while middle-class incomes have fallen. In terms of income equality America lags behind any country of old Europe … In the middle of our closest neighbors — Our homeland with its oligarchs and Iran. Many of the old centers of inequality in Latin America, such as Brazil, in recent years, rather successfully worked to improve the bit of the poor and the reduction of income disparities. America has made the growth of inequality. "

Then I let myself for a little digression. The fact is that the very model of credit to stimulate the economy, which originated in the U.S. in 1920., But quite established in the 1980s. in the framework of the economic policy of Reaganomics, initially involves severe redistribution in favor of real assets is not even 1% of the richest people, but just for the benefit of the principal beneficiaries of the big money institutions.

Shred monetary sector in the profits of companies in the United States before the crisis rose to 50% at the moment, maybe even higher, with the "natural" rate of less than 10%. And Stiglitz could not have known how much more when he was in his own work of international financial institutions. What was then the subject was not worried, says that he does not have his economic model that, even now, he says, about the consequences more rapidly than the real reasons.

Further Stiglitz tries all the same finding somebody to blame for the current situation and concludes that it is — the heads of companies that only contributed to the economic downturn the last 3 years. He believes that the forthcoming reduction in the welfare of the majority of people threatened by the negative effects on the economy such as South American, in the long term. Namely, a decrease of equality abilities as a result of the growing income gap does not allow a fine to use the main asset — human resources. Distortions that promote inequality, such as the monopolization of power and the preservation of tax breaks for the wealthy, also reduce the efficiency of economic activity.

And again, I will try … does not even make an objection, but rather to add. Executives, of course, use of the opportunities for personal enrichment (in some American corporations pay more control than all other workers taken together), but this very opportunity created not by them. In this sense, we are back to the analysis of the basic circumstances of occurrence of Reaganomics, which are not so much economic (In the narrow sense of the word), but political economic, cultural, civilizational, political and geopolitical character. In some sense we can say that the current situation in the U.S. is "postvozdeystviem" already dead USSR and very weakened, but not too far disappeared "Red" global project.

Next Stiglitz says that the situation is changing and the behavior of those who are not beneficiaries of modern monetary schemes: they are more attuned to live beyond their means. "Inequality leads to severe kink in our foreign policy," — says Stiglitz. He recalls that the rich kids do not want to go to the "completely voluntary" South American army. In addition, the rich do not feel the tax increase when the U.S. is starting to wage war. "For our adventures there are no restrictions. And contractors are benefiting from it. "

Here, I could not agree more, although again I repeat that the premises are much deeper — in the value foundations of modern capitalism and made on the basis of their ideology exchange of "success." I wrote a lot about it, but the topic is clearly beyond the range of interests Stiglitz (in any case, its public interests).

And then he goes on to say that in the U.S. grows a sense of injustice system. Stiglitz believes that such a system is specifically identified the rise of dissent in the Middle East, and rising food prices and the continued unemployment among young people were only a "fuse." About 20% of American youth sit without work, and in some places and in a number of socio-demographic groups, this figure is twice as high. One of the six Yankees willing but unable to work full-time, one of the 7 sits on grocery cards for the poor, says Stiglitz, and then crosses to the situation in Egypt and Tunisia, where less than 1% of the population are kept under the control of the lion's share of wealth. Stiglitz believes that the Yankees need to ask the question: when public resentment poured out on the streets of America? "For a number of fundamental issues our country has become like one of these distant alarm points" — he concluded.

All in all, a decent text of the South American patriot, which uptake, which is fully real dangers facing his country. Another thing is that, as I mentioned, he is very aware of the Stiglitz basic circumstances of the problems that occur in his country. He did not give to understand that sees that that paradigm of development that ensures the growth of the United States last century and a half, exhausted. A configuration of the economic paradigm requires configuration in the political paradigm (which determines the economic policy), it is necessary to change the basis of values. He did not talk about the fact that the modern financial model was the natural progression of the development of capitalism, since its very existence may be only in the framework of deepening division of labor, the possibility now stopped … In general, this is — is another story.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: