Economics pentru papagali

Un articol al profesorului (de economie!) Bradford DeLong, despre cum a revenit la zi un vechi banc al economistului englez J.R. McCulloch, care afirma că pentru a fi un bun profesor de economie, un papagal trebuie să ştie să spună "cerere, ofertă, cerere, ofertă, cerere ofertă!", cuprinde o analiză cât se poate de lucidă a impasului în care se află acum gândirea economică, pusă în faţa unei crize căreia caută să-i afle soluţiile în teorii economice devenite între timp dogme.

Citez fragmentul din articol care se referă la datoria publică a statelor: "Once again, an adequately trained parrot, unlike many economists nowadays, would ask whether the economic problems that current levels of government debt are causing reflect too much public debt supplied by governments or too much public debt demanded by the private sector. If the problem were that supply is too great, then new emissions of government debt would be accompanied by low prices – that is, by high interest rates. If the problem were that demand is too great, then new emissions of government debt would be accompanied by high prices – that is, by low interest rates.

Guess which one the US and many other countries have? For a parrot, that’s a no-brainer: the public-debt problem is not that governments have issued so much debt that investors have lost confidence, but that governments have issued too little debt given the enormous private-sector demand for safe places to park wealth. The problem, the parrot would say, is that households and businesses are still trying to build up their stocks of safe, high-quality assets, and are switching expenditures from buying currently-produced goods and services to increasing their shares of an inadequate supply of government liabilities.

When economic historians examine the Great Recession, their overwhelming consensus is likely to be that its depth and duration reflected governments’ refusal to try to do more, not that they tried to do too much. They will agree with the parrots that falling inflation showed that the macroeconomic problem was insufficient demand for currently produced goods and services, and that the low level of interest rates on safe, high-quality government liabilities showed that the supply of safe assets – whether money provided by the central bank, guarantees provided by banking policy, or government debt provided through deficit spending – was too low.

The question that will be a mystery to them is why so many economists of our day did not know how to say: “supply and demand, supply and demand.”


UPDATE: că veni vorba de economiştii papagali. După ce ne-au futut la cap cu "austeritatea salvează bonitatea" sau aşa ceva, FMI vine şi spune că...austeritatea dăunează grav greşterii economice, că ei au subestimat riscurile reducerii rapide a cheltuielilor guvernamentale şi că, în general, e de mare porc ce-au recomandat ei proştilor. "Concluziile noastre demonstreaza ca, in mediul economic de azi, consolidarea fiscala va avea mai multe efecte negative pe termen scurt decat in mod normal...Sa nu ne pacalim singuri. Pe termen scurt, majorarea taxelor si reducerea cheltuielilor vor reduce si cresterea economica si vor conduce la cresterea ratei somajului", a declarat David Leigh, economist din cadrul FMI.


 
Ce spuneau cei doi idioţi care cică ne conduc, băsescu şi boc, precum şi papagalul şef de la BNR? Că austeritatea ne conduce fix la creştere economică?  Să nu-i bagi în pizda mă-sii? Şi să nu desfiinţezi fabricile de papagali cu pretenţii de economişti, de aici şi de aiurea?