Komentar - Rado
27. oktober 2008 ob 14:40 | Vest |Po tem, ko sta socialistična režima Clintona in Busha z odsotnostjo ustrezne pravne regulacije skupaj z Greenspanovo politiko poceni denarja pripeljala do prve resne krize, ki jo čuti post – komunistična Slovenija, je precej nenavadno prišlo, do vsesplošnega idejnega triumfa anti-kapitalizma. Z oznanjanjem, da je trg mrtev, da je jasno, da lahko edino država regulira gospodarstvo in da je kapitalizem naletel na svoj Berlinski zid, so histerijo, na kratko, zadovoljili vsi zgodovinski relikti in profeti groze. Zdaj, ko je ta triumf skorajda že mimo pa se lahko verjetno začnemo o reševanju krize pogovarjati tudi na bolj racionalen način. Poleg ukrepov, ki zahtevajo zaščito pozitivnih eksternalij, lahko tako pričakujemo korekcije zakonodajnega okvira in špekulativnih balončkov na finančnih trgih. Slednjega bi morali biti veseli vsi tisti, ki jim sedaj denimo nepremičninski trgi davijo družinski proračun. Še več, če bomo za spodbujanje potrošnje in investicij, oziroma gospodarske rasti, doživeli znižanje davčnih stopenj, lahko pričakujemo tudi dolgoročni pozitivni učinek na zaposlenost. Kar pa je najbolj spodbudno pa je to, da je ob racionalizaciji stroškov kriza idealen trenutek za končno racionalizacijo nepotrebnih izdatkov za zdravstvo in rezanje parazitov s proračunskih jasli. Zato sta na tem mestu samo dve možnosti – da se nadaljuje s histerično debato o triumfu socializma in se po državi začne ustanavljati kolhoze ali pa da se kapitalizem in pravno državo, skupaj z zaščit posameznika, po tej lekciji, prvič vzame zelo resno.
Rado Pezdir, ekonomist
27. oktober, 2008 ob 15:00
Od kdaj pa so neoliberalisti a la Pezdir tako pametni, ko gre za odpravljanje
učinkov in posledi neoliberalizma?
27. oktober, 2008 ob 15:03
Če sta dve možnosti, potem moramo pač nadaljevati z debato o triumfu socializma, ker jemati tak kapitalizem resno, je naravnost smešno.
27. oktober, 2008 ob 15:07
Ta Pezdir pa je blebetač, rumene anallize.
27. oktober, 2008 ob 15:22
Destabilization of interest rates ― wrecker of productive capital
The problem goes right back to the U.S. government’s foolish
decision to destabilize interest rates by cutting the dollar adrift from
its gold moorings in 1971. It was a case of declaring bankruptcy
fraudulently. The unintended consequences of the default were most
serious, even though academia and media refused to analyze them.
They blithely assumed that the U.S. was free to renege on its
international gold obligation with impunity.
As a consequence of the default interest rates shot up to 20
percent by 1980, from where they started their long descent that still
continues.
The public’s perception is that declining interest rates are good
for you, and they are good for the economy. Not so long ago academia
and media were ecstatic in singing the praise of Alan Greenspan and
his Fed for bringing about the Nirvana of the regime of falling interest
rates.
This perception is a colossal mistake. A falling interest-rate
structure is lethal. It is an insidious destroyer of capital. It means that
wealth is stealthily siphoned away from the capital accounts of the
producers, in order to enrich the latter-day pirates, the bond
speculators who make obscene profits in the falling interest-rate
environment.
As is well known, falling interest rates and rising bond values
march in lock-step, albeit in opposite directions. We are all familiar
with the fate of TV manufacturers and steel-makers in America. What
has hit them? Well, their capital was destroyed by the relentless fall of
interest rates. The writing is on the wall concerning the fate of the
auto-makers. What is ailing them? The same thing: the fading of their
capital. Well-paid jobs in car-manufacturing will also migrate to Asia,
leaving the only jobs, hamburger-flipping that cannot be outsourced,
for the American workers.
Destabilization of interest rates ― wrecker of financial capital
For a time it appeared that capital devastation was confined to the
productive sector, that it would spare the financial sector. After all, the
latter was ready to try any and all innovations, fair and foul, in order
to squeeze the last drop of profits out of the system by juggling
mortgages, bonds, and equities. One of these innovations was
derivatives, in particular, credit-default swaps.
The present crisis did not start in August, 2007, as widely
assumed. It started half-a-year earlier, in February, when the price of
credit-default swaps (essentially the premium on insuring bond
values) took off like a rocket. It dawned upon the world that the
financial sector had no immunity to capital destruction. Bank capital
has been devastated just as insidiously as productive capital has.
Falling interest rates mean that bank capital has been financed at
rates far too high. The resulting shortfall in capital should be
compensated in the balance sheet by repeated injections of new
capital. If banks fail to do this, then they are paying out phantom
profits in dividends and compensation. They pile more losses upon
losses. When they run out of capital, as sooner or later they must,
capital dissipation stops, for there is nothing left to dissipate. For the
banks it means sudden death.
The wrecker’s ball of swinging interest rates
You may have seen the wrecker’s ball in action. It is lowered into the
building through the roof. Once inside, it is made to swing wide
enough to knock down the opposite walls. The action of swinging
interest rates on the economy is similar. Rising rates destroy capital by
rendering it submarginal. Falling rates, on the other hand, destroy
capital by raising the liquidation-value of debt, making it an
unbearable burden on the firm.
Interest rates have been falling for the past 28 years. The present
banking and credit crisis is a direct consequence of this prolonged fall.
A glance at the interest rate chart will convince you of that. It shows a
fairly stable curve leading up to 1971. At that point the swinging of
the wrecker’s ball started, driving the rate of interest to unprecedented
extremes, first up, then down.
Liquidation value of bonded debt
Falling interest rates destroy capital in a way that is more subtle than
destruction through rising rates. The liquidation-value of debt,
contracted earlier at higher rates, rises. ‘Liquidation value’ is the lump
sum it takes to liquidate debt, should it be necessary to retire it before
maturity ― for example, in case of takeovers, mergers, shotgun
marriages, bankruptcies, or the nationalization of the banking system.
The point is that as the rate of interest falls, the liquidation value of
debt rises. Why? Well, the stream of interest payments now has to be
discounted at a lower rate. Therefore at maturity it falls short of
liquidating the debt.
Here is a familiar example, the liquidation value of bonded debt.
When the rate of interest falls, the market immediately bids up the
price of bonds. The higher bond price represents the higher liquidation
value of the underlying debt. The fall in the rate of interest, far from
alleviating the burden of debt, aggravates it.
Bank capital has been eaten away by the fall of interest rates.
The impairment has been ignored and, after 28 years of negligence the
global banking system stands denuded of capital. Those shareholders
who can read balance sheets see through the fancy values banks are
putting on their assets. They dump the stock before bank capital goes
all the way to zero.
This is not a real estate crisis, nor is it a sub-prime crisis. This is
a crisis caused by the destruction bank capital across the board,
through the wrecker’s ball of swinging interest rates. In the final
analysis, it has been caused by exiling gold from the banking system.
Dissipating capital under false pretenses
People tend to have a religious faith in the Fed’s miraculous power to
create something out of nothing. They think that the Fed is above
capital requirement and accounting rules. They think that the Fed is
above the law. They dismiss the idea that the Fed, too, can suffer from
capital inadequacy, or that it may not be able to escape the ill effects
of falling interest rates.
The Federal Reserve Act (as amended) explicitly forbids the
Treasury from participating in the earnings of the Fed. The purpose of
this provision is to retain the undivided surplus in the Federal Reserve
System to meet emergencies precisely like the present crises. The
conspiracy of the Treasury and the Fed ignores this provision of the
law. Year in and year out the Fed remits about 90 percent of its
earnings to the Treasury under false pretences, calling it the “franchise
tax on Federal Reserve notes”. No sooner had the Treasury received
the remittance than it spent the proceeds, and more, on consumption.
As a result, the Fed is left with no undivided surpluses and no cushion
to fall back on in hard times. And the Treasury has debt far greater
than it has resources to retire. This high-handed disregard for the law
is motivated by the desire to foster a public image of the Fed as an
institution with supernatural powers. The Fed has the magic wand and
can wave it to solve any problem by throwing money at it. In this view
the Fed is not a bank, but the embodiment of divine power.
The printing press is sputtering
Chairman Ben Bernanke is given to boasting publicly that the
government has given the Fed a tool, the printing press, with which it
can print any amount of currency necessary to stop any deflation and
any depression.
I submit that the Chairman is wrong. The printing press is not
everything. The Fed has to operate under the same rules as all other
banks. It has to have capital; it has to have an unimpaired balance
sheet; it has to observe capital ratios. Above all, the Fed has to put up
collateral before it can print new Federal Reserve notes, or create new
Federal Reserve deposits. The fact is that the Fed, in addition to
dissipating its earnings decades after decades after decades, has also
been digging its own grave by pushing interest rates ever lower. Its
capital has been destroyed just as that of all other banks. Right now it
is near the point that it cannot put new currency into circulation in
want of collateral. The printing press is sputtering. The magic wand is
broken.
Dead man walking
The Supplementary Financing Program of the Paulson-Bernanke duo
means that, in preparation for the $700 billion bailout, the Fed is
given securities by the Treasury directly, bypassing the open market.
The last time this imprudent departure from the principles of sound
central banking has been invoked was during World War II, when the
exigencies of war finance were used to justify the bypassing of the
open market.
But what does it all mean in practical terms, if we strip away the
jargon created in order to mystify the public? It means that the Fed,
just like all other banks, has virtually zero capital. It means that the
Treasury must recapitalize the Fed by giving it $700 billion worth of
newly issued securities. It also means that the bad assets of the banks,
some of which have been absorbed into the balance sheet of the Fed,
are monetized through the back door.
But the worst part is that the Fed is now a dead man walking,
propped up by conspirators who want to conceal from the people the
fact of its demise. This is just the latest of conspiracies between the
Treasury and the Fed. In creating a central bank in 1913, the
government usurped powers not granted to it under the U.S.
Constitution. One successful usurpation calls for another. Now, 95
years later, the government is frantically trying to resurrect its
creature, the Fed, from the dead.
Lipstick on a pig
One expert observer, Thomas Szabo, calls the $700 billion bailout
“putting lipstick on a pig”, in the form of the Supplementary
Financing Program. Szabo does not beat around the bush. He tells it as
it is: The Federal Reserve is bankrupt, and the U.S. Treasury
Department quietly rescued ― actually, took over ― the world’s
largest central bank on September 17, the day the Supplementary
Financing Program was announced, which was nothing less than a
clandestine federal bailout, a de facto takeover of the Federal
Reserve. Szabo, who was a practicing auditor for 8 years, has gone on
record in saying that the Fed, if it were an ordinary business
enterprise, would have had to file for bankruptcy
http://www.professorfekete.com/
27. oktober, 2008 ob 15:23
Pezdir bi sprivatiziral še zrak, čudno pa je da še po vsem tem sranju kar se godi zadnje cajte sploh še upa blebetat, vsaj mičo mrkaić se je skril v mišjo luknjo.
27. oktober, 2008 ob 15:41
, jure pravi:
27. oktober, 2008 ob 15:23
vsaj mičo mrkaić se je skril v mišjo luknjo.
ha,Mičo je v ZDA. Poglej,kje je dolar!!
27. oktober, 2008 ob 15:52
Rado bi rad pa ne more al ne sme… Še zmer ne štekam tega “KOMUNISTIČA…” kje? fak a sm kej zgrešu? kolkr vem je prot koncu pisal SFRJ oz. SR Slovenija “S = socijalistična” Kje je MF K??? So jo pa upravlal komunisti, to pa to, pa še res je. Pa zgleda, da so jo dobr, ker če ne neb bli zdej tle, al kwa? Dejte mi Mićota!!!!!! Kje si pišek???? Denis a lohk zrihtaš en intervju s čudežnim dečkom? PLIZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
27. oktober, 2008 ob 15:54
Obama: ti tega ne razumeš nič ni res :)
27. oktober, 2008 ob 15:56
Joj kako je luštno poslušat te mlade kreativne ekonomiste.
Jaz sem pa mislil, da je stvar samo v temu,
da imam opravka z navadnimi lopovi, ki neverjetno napihujejo borze
skupaj s skorumpiranimi bančniki….
ta zadnje bsede so res fascinantne
“ali pa da se kapitalizem in pravno državo, skupaj z zaščit posameznika, po tej lekciji, prvič vzame zelo resno…. ??!??!??!
A je bila svetovna ekonomija do sedaj samo en štos ?
A sta Mićo in Pezdir bila samo dva komedianta ?
No,no sedaj bosta pa govorila zares, ne več zahec….
27. oktober, 2008 ob 16:06
Jaz sem za naše.
27. oktober, 2008 ob 16:10
Kreativni ekonomisti so sedaj v takem položaju, da morajo negirati vse kar so nakladali 15 let.
To pa mora seveda zveneti zelo učeno in verodostojno.
Rado ima pravilen pristop.
Njegov moto je ta “Za vse je kriv komunizem, pa tudi če ni….”
27. oktober, 2008 ob 16:53
Yep, zdaj smo pa tam. In glavno še pride. Ker v ZDA so tudi kartice pokrivali z drugimi, kjer banke sploh niso gledale sposobnosti vračila…
Pri nas so tudi zaposlili kreativnega ekonomista, sedaj pa več nimamo stimulativnega dela, pa vse gre navzdol…
Zdaj pa Rado, pa Mićo, pa XY, kdo je kriv?!?!
Smo verjetno kar sami, ker smo se pustili peljat v to :(
27. oktober, 2008 ob 17:02
Kaj pa, če bi se nadobudni ekonomisti že enkrat nehali za vsako ceno oklepati kapitalizma in razmisliti, da mogoče, mogoče, pa obstaja tudi kaj onkraj tega zgrešenega sistema?
Anti-kapitalsitični triumf socializma? Upam, da - nekoč. Zaenkrat je gre šele za klavrno reševanje bogatih kapitalistov in njihovega bogastva s sramotnimi socialističnimi intervencijami. A to se pa ekonomistom - zagovornikom prostega trga zdi kar okej?
Ne vem, kdo bo reševal delavce, ki bodo ob selitvi krize v realni sektor, izgubljali službe? Kje bodo takrat vse te državne mlrd. €?
In seveda, krivi so pa spet nepotrebni izdatki za zdravstvo in proračunski paraziti. A res? In ko ekonomisti začnejo govoriti o racionalizaciji stroškov, se tudi ve, kdo bo občutil to racioanalizacijo… Jao, jao.
Tak kapitalizem jemati resno? Get a grip, no, g. Pezdir, ravno zdaj je čas, da ga končno nehamo jemati resno.
27. oktober, 2008 ob 17:55
Rado s kapitalizmom je podobno kot z komunizmom!
Zavračanje kapitalizma pa isto kot zavračanje komunizma.
Čistega kapitalizma nikoli ne bo, tako kot nikoli ni bilo čistega komunizma. Gre za ideologijo, ki se ima za ideal. (Zato Berlinski zid)
Zagovorniki čistega kapitalizma uporabljajo enaki ideološki diskurz kot komunisti. Kapitalizem da, vendar po našimi pogoji, ali pa komunizem da, vendar pod našimi pogoji.
27. oktober, 2008 ob 17:55
Bantu logika ekonomskih neoliberalcev je očitno ni tranzitivna;
efekte gospodarske rasti čuti prebivalstvo le kot potencialno posledico, reševanje zasebnih gospodarskih interesov z javnim denarjem pa kot direktno in ne morebitno posledico.
Za malce dregniti Pezdirja in podobne oznanjevalce ekonomske “resnice”;
Nekdanji finančni guru oz. brezprizivna avtoriteta Alan Greenspan je na zaslišanju pred kongresno komisijo izjavil, da je potrebno premisliti tudi o ideologiji “svobodnega trga”, ki je v resnici sprožila sedanje dogajanje.
27. oktober, 2008 ob 17:56
@Kaktus,
ideja je bolj čista od njene udejanitve oziroma če realnost ne ustreza konceptu, je nekaj narobe z realnostjo. :)))
27. oktober, 2008 ob 17:58
Tako je Q. :)
27. oktober, 2008 ob 18:00
Kaj pa ce bi odredili odstrel na licu mesta za te bankirske lopove ?
Ali pa vsaj sramotilni steber za 60 dni…brez hrane in vode…
27. oktober, 2008 ob 18:07
jst bi ga vzela v bran(radota) k je malo ekonomistov (sploh) mladih ,ki znajo prikazati ,dejanska stanja…!
27. oktober, 2008 ob 18:12
@Šifra,
kaj pa je Pezdir razložil? Da so mogoče ZDA socialistične?!!!!
27. oktober, 2008 ob 18:17
Rumeni Pezdir je mislil socialo za žrelce, free market za delavce in sužnje.
27. oktober, 2008 ob 18:50
.@ MEDEK.v komentarju , deluje tudi meni nerazumljivo ..kaj je pravzaprav želel povedati?!
v “trnjih”(ZADNJIH) , razumljiv in “prodoren” ,za nekatre “neugoden”…!
IN ZAKAJ “RUMENI”?
27. oktober, 2008 ob 19:06
@JANEZ
no sej gre …z malo besedami, razumljivo, povedati “kam( in kako) pes taco moli” …!
27. oktober, 2008 ob 22:04
…ko so stvari slabe se bojda ljudje branijo s humorjem. Britanci so imeli zmeraj meni najboljsi humor ;):
“Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it’s just the opposite.”
“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the wickedest of men will do the wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.”
“A bank is a place that will lend you money - if you can prove you don’t need it.”
“If you think nobody cares if you’re alive, try missing a couple of car payments”
“Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell.”
27. oktober, 2008 ob 23:16
Ali pa s hipnozo :)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3196/2796899132_4c88c7dfb2_o.jpg
27. oktober, 2008 ob 23:38
Dve stvari me motijo na Vesti ena od njih je šport. Druga…
28. oktober, 2008 ob 3:02
Joj Rado, to poveličevanje prostega trga je že prav smešno. Prosti trg je ustvaril virtualno bogastvo, ki je temeljilo zgolj na obrestih(da ne bo pomote, da je to kakšna nenavadna stvar), kot vedno pa je šlo vse v kurac, ko ni bilo več naravnih bogastev, da bi odplačali te obresti na obresti……
Zaradi mene mi reči komunist ali bedak, ampak ko bo zmanjkalo surovin zaradi prekomernega črpanja naravnih bogastev, na čem pa bo potem temeljila rast BDP-ja? Tako kot je nekoč rekel Greenspan: vse je odvisno od obrestne mere(jaz pa dodajam, da je od obrestne mere tudi odvisno koliko časa bo še obstajal naš planet).
Da bo pa imelo za povprečnega bralca zgoraj napisano kaj smisla: krediti+obrestne mere so bile nekoč generator razvoja, danes pa so generator razkroja zaradi pohlepa in “novih ekonomistov”, ki jih boli kurac za vse, samo da je dobiček in to maximalni, pa četudi ga ne potrebuješ.
Tako kot je rekel moj stari oče: če nimaš srca, potem imaš denar.
28. oktober, 2008 ob 3:28
“Po tem, ko sta socialistična režima Clintona in Busha …” — pa kaj se ta zajebava?!
“… je precej nenavadno prišlo, do vsesplošnega idejnega triumfa anti-kapitalizma …” — če nam avtor ne pokaže, kje vse je idejno triumfiral anti-kapitalizem, gre za navadno strašilo. (Pa četudi bi idejno triumfiral, bi tudi ekonomsko?)
Kakor je zapisano v prvem komentarju (Zirosi) k prejšnjemu komentarju istega avtorja na Vesti, tukaj pa bo parafrazirano: če je to socializem, je to kvečjemu superhiksocializem, ki jemlje revnim in daje bogatim (natančneje: ki ohranja — kolikor je v teh razmerah mogoče — bogatim finančno vrednost, ohranitev le -te pa bodo plačali vsi — večina od teh ni bogatunov — davkoplačevalci). Morda bi moral avtor zgornjega komentarja več prebirati Alan Forda?! Pezdir pač tu nastopa v vlogi tistega vijeća (treh), ki zna Supehikova dejanja vedno znova opravičiti.
“Z oznanjanjem, da je trg mrtev …” — pa kdo to oznanja? V prejšnjem komentarju je Pezdir še opreriral (neposrečeno uporabil analogijo med gospodarstvom in človeškim organizmom ter ekonomskimi in zdravniškimi posegi vanju), sedaj pa mu je pacient že umrl?!
Nisem ekonomist, zato bi prosil, da mi nekdo razloži — očitno tehnični — izraz “eksternalije”. V prejšnjem komentarju se je Pezdir osredotočil na “negativne”, tu pa na “pozitivne”.
“… lahko tako pričakujemo korekcije zakonodajnega okvira in špekulativnih balončkov na finančnih trgih. Slednjega bi morali biti veseli vsi tisti, ki jim sedaj denimo nepremičninski trgi davijo družinski proračun.” — recimo, da sem sam med tistimi, ki nam “sedaj denimo nepremičninski trgi davijo družinski proračun”. Pri nepremičninskih trgih pomislim na denar, ki sem ga izplačal za gradbeno parcelo, in na denar, ki sem ga namenil gradnji družinske hiše. Ne razumem pa, zakaj bi se zaradi tega moral veseliti “korekcije zakonodajnega okvira in špekulativnih balončkov na finančnih trgih”. Denar, ki ga bom plačal banki za kredite, in denar, ki ga bom prispeval svoji državi (in tudi, seveda, ZDA) za t. i. ureditev trga, sem dolžan izplačati (banki “celo” po zaračunanih obrestih.)
Z “Kar pa je najbolj spodbudno pa je to, da je ob racionalizaciji stroškov kriza idealen trenutek za končno racionalizacijo nepotrebnih izdatkov za zdravstvo in rezanje parazitov s proračunskih jasl.” Pezdir vstopa v t. i. Mrkaićevo dilemo:
Denar dobijo bodisi asist. mag. Pezdir bodisi rakavi bolniki. Ker denar dobi asist. mag. Pezdir, ga ne dobijo rakavi bolniki.
Pezdir se, tako se zdi, ne more izviti iz primeža takšnih dilem, zato v tekstu ponudi svojo:
“Zato sta na tem mestu samo dve možnosti – da se nadaljuje s histerično debato o triumfu socializma in se po državi začne ustanavljati kolhoze ali pa da se kapitalizem in pravno državo, skupaj z zaščit posameznika, po tej lekciji, prvič vzame zelo resno.”
Mislim, tu mač! Navajam: “kolhozi”, “zgodovinski relikti in profeti groze” (komunizem in nacizem hkrati?) — nas ob sprejetju prvega kraka t. i. Mrkaićeve dileme res čaka vse to?! Br! Scary! (Je Pezdir imel v mislih kmetijske zadruge?)
28. oktober, 2008 ob 3:44
Trudim se , da bi koga ne užalil, ampak ta Pezdir je de facto bedak.
28. oktober, 2008 ob 3:46
Sem skoraj pozabil, bolj resno o razmerah tule: http://www.dnevnik.si/debate/kolumne/1042217942
28. oktober, 2008 ob 11:55
Za začetek s poroštvenimi zakoni, ki pred parlamentarno potrditvijo sploh še ne veljajo. Saj veste, je pač finančna kriza svetovnih razsežnosti.
http://www.dnevnik.si/debate/komentarji/1042217893
28. oktober, 2008 ob 14:45
Radota za precednika!
28. oktober, 2008 ob 17:57
Svobodni tjg je u kujcu!
28. oktober, 2008 ob 20:33
Stavim, da Rado pripravlja denar za delnice
28. oktober, 2008 ob 20:51
Jao, očitno nekateri nikoli ne dosežejo intelektualnega dna. A se da zlesti še nižje? Tega si niti Jules Verne ne bi mogu zamislit. :)
29. oktober, 2008 ob 21:09
samo za Radota:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10242008/watch2.html
30. oktober, 2008 ob 11:29
..nikoli končana zgodba, o mravljici…!