the beginning of a long economic crisis in the West do not see the end and increases throughout the world for risks of war, in October 2008, "Micropolis" published a large excerpt from Polish economist Michal Kalecki article, introduced by an explanatory note Renato Covino. I propose again because I think still a good tool to guide, at least in Europe and North America. (SLL)
 |
| Michal Kalecki |
Presentation
Let's face it: in the last months we have heard and seen all kinds. From moralism on bankers prey (but not always?), The "told you so" anise Gasparri, suddenly become statist and anti-neoliberal, preening to the inventor of creative financing that Tremonti has at least had the merit of writing a bad book in which he caught, however, some trends dispiegatesi in recent weeks. More simply, is no longer a liberal around even to pay their weight in gold, except for some stupid lingered in the PD was reduced filoglobalizzatrici and anti-statism. All into public favor, but with due caution: it must be temporary and short-lived. Quietly note that IRI was born as a provisional entity in 1933 and remained active until the early nineties of the last century, only to say that in Italy, not only in Italy, there is nothing more permanent than what is proposed temporary.
someone other hand, not only in America, went to the trouble socialism. Almost that public intervention to banks and companies in crisis is a social measures, not an intervention in the economic cycle. Again: the beginning, in the wake of the considerations della scuola economica austriaca iperliberista degli anni trenta (Von Hyeck e Von Mises), si è ritenuto che l’esplosione della bolla finanziaria e bancaria fosse effetto di un cattivo funzionamento del sistema capitalistico, di una speculazione incontrollata. Si è dovuto prendere atto che la speculazione è effetto di una crisi che trae le sue radici dalle difficoltà dell’economia reale.
Passato il primo sconcerto è iniziata la reazione. La prima a suonare la diana della riscossa è stata Emma Marcegaglia, combattiva leader di Confindustria. Parlando al convegno dei giovani industriali a Capri ha tenuto a precisare con piglio battagliero che c’è una crisi serious of capitalism, but capitalism is not dead, it is right that the state should intervene but quickly re-establish normal market mechanisms.
The fact is that the "captains of industry" suffer and ask for state intervention during crises, but censor and abhorrent when the crisis ends. Many will wonder why a seemingly schizophrenic attitude. We had thought to explain to our readers. Then, poking around in memory, we remember that a great economist, Michal Kalecki, had already done well 65 years ago in an article entitled "Political aspects of full employment in volume on contemporary capitalism , Roma, Editori Riuniti, 1975, that one of our partner, Mario Mineo, had published a lengthy excerpt from the late seventies on "praxis" the magazine wrote then on which some of us.
We went to re-read: The article answers many of our questions and, hopefully, to those of our readers, despite the release in 1943. We have a little 'integrated than the skeletal version mineiana and propose to our readers.
We discussed whether he should re-publish an article published in a volume of a once prestigious publisher. The book actually has circulated only in esoteric circuits of communists and orthodox economists. Kalecki was a Marxist economist and brilliant without blinkers, and although he had had towards the end of his life some prestigious role in the nomenclature of Poland, ended his life in disgrace. More reason to publish the text, sharp and punctual, and remember the lesson, at a time when it seems increasingly difficult to find teachers. (King Co.)
 |
| After the 1929 crash. The Great Depression in the United States. |
capitalist economic crisis and government intervention
The problem of ensuring full employment from the expansion of public spending, financed with
loan, has been widely discussed in recent years. This discussion, however, focused on the purely economic side of this issue, without due consideration of its political aspects. The premise that the government of a capitalist state will maintain full employment if you only know how to do it is by no means obvious. The dislike of big business to the maintenance of full employment through
government spending has a fundamental importance in this regard. It 'clear that a higher level of output and employment is conducive not only to workers but to the capitalists, because their profits are growing. On the other hand, the policy of full employment, based on government expenditures financed deficit, no adverse impact on profits because they do not require the imposition of new taxes. In a crisis the "captains of industry" pine for the recovery. So why not welcome with joy the "artificial recovery" that the state gives them? [...]
The reasons for opposition of the capitalists full employment made by the government through public spending can be divided into three categories: 1) the aversion to state interference in the issue of employment in general, 2) the aversion to the direction of public expenditure (investment and grants of consumption), and 3) the aversion to social and political transformations resulting from the constant maintenance of full employment [...]
Every state in the economic expansion is viewed with suspicion by capitalists, but the growth of employment through government spending has a particular issue that makes their opposition particularly intensa.
Nel sistema del laisser faire il livello dell’occupazione dipende in larga misura dalla così detta atmosfera di fiducia. Quando questa si deteriora, gli investimenti si riducono, cosa che porta ad un
declino della produzione e dell’occupazione (direttamente o indirettamente, tramite l’effetto di una riduzione dei redditi sul consumo e sugli investimenti). Questo assicura ai capitalisti un controllo automatico sulla politica governativa. Il governo deve evitare tutto quello che può turbare “l’atmosfera di fiducia”, in quanto ciò può produrre una crisi economica. Ma una volta che il governo abbia imparato ad accrescere artificialmente l’occupazione tramite le proprie spese, allora
tale “apparato di controllo” perde la sua efficacia. Anche per questo il deficit del bilancio, necessario per condurre l’intervento statale, deve venir considerato come pericoloso. La funzione sociale della dottrina della “finanza sana” si fonda sulla dipendenza del livello dell’occupazione dalla “atmosfera di fiducia”. L’avversione dei “capitani d’industria” alla politica di espansione della spesa pubblica diventa ancora più acuta quando si cominciano a considerare i fini per cui tali spese possono venir destinate, e cioè gli investimenti pubblici e la sovvenzione del consumo di massa. Il fine cui mira l’intervento statale richiede che gli investimenti si limitino agli oggetti che non competono con l’apparato produttivo del capitale privato (ad esempio ospedali, scuole, strade, ecc.), in caso contrario infatti l’accrescimento degli investimenti pubblici potrebbe avere un effetto negativo sul rendimento degli investimenti privati, e la caduta di questi potrebbe compensare l’effetto positivo degli investimenti pubblici sull’occupazione. Tale concezione è per i capitalisti privati interamente di loro gusto, ma l’ambito degli investimenti pubblici di tale tipo è piuttosto ristretto e vi può essere la possibilità che il governo [...] possa spingersi a nazionalizzare i trasporti
o i servizi pubblici per poter allargare l’ambito del suo intervento. Ci si può quindi attendere che i “capitani d’industria” e i loro esperti abbiano una disposizione più favorevole nei confronti del sovvenzionamento del consumo di massa (tramite gli assegni familiari, i sussidi volti alla riduzione dei prezzi degli articoli di prima necessità, ecc.) piuttosto che nei confronti degli investimenti pubblici: nel sovvenzionare il consumo lo Stato infatti non interferirebbe in alcuna misura nella sfera della “attività imprenditoriale”. In realtà tuttavia la questione si presenta altrimenti: la sovvenzione dei consumi di massa incontra una avversione ancora più aspra [...]. We come here because in principle a "moral" of the utmost importance: the capitalist foundations of ethics requires that "you earn your bread by the sweat of your brow" (unless you live in the capital gains).
We have already considered the reasons political opposition to the policy of job creation through public spending. But even if that position was defeated, which may actually occur under the pressure of the masses, maintenance of full employment would lead to political and social transformations that would give new strength to the opposition to the "captains of industry." In fact, in un regime di continuo pieno impiego, il licenziamento cesserebbe di agire come misura disciplinare. La posizione sociale del “principale” sarebbe scossa, si accrescerebbe la sicurezza di sé e la coscienza di classe dei lavoratori. Gli scioperi per un salario più alto e il miglioramento delle condizioni di lavoro sarebbero fonti di tensione politica. E’ vero che i profitti sarebbero più elevati in un regime di pieno impiego, rispetto al loro livello medio sotto il laisser faire . Persino la crescita dei salari derivante dalla posizione più forte dei lavoratori verrebbe ad agire piuttosto in direzione di un accrescimento dei prezzi che di una riduzione dei profitti e in tale maniera verrebbe a colpire soprattutto gli interessi dei rentiers .
Ma “la disciplina nelle fabbriche” e la “stabilità politica” sono più importanti per i capitalisti dei profitti correnti. L’istinto di classe dice loro che una continua piena occupazione non è “sana” dal loro punto di vista perché la disoccupazione è un elemento integrale di un sistema capitalistico normale. […] Il periodo nel quale i “capitani d’industria” potevano permettersi di combattere qualsiasi forma di intervento statale, avente come scopo una attenuazione delle crisi economiche, appartiene ormai al passato. Attualmente non si pone in questione la need for public intervention in times of crisis. The dispute relates more to the direction of the intervention and whether it should only be put in place to mitigate the crisis and should also aim to ensure a steady full employment.
In the ongoing discussions on this issue comes up constantly is the idea that the crisis must be tackled through the stimulation of private investment. The capitalist is the intermediary through which the intervention is to be made. If the political situation does not give him confidence, then you do not "buy" and does not increase its investments. At the same time this type of intervention does not lead the state "to play the investment" (government) does not "throwing away money" in aid consumption. E 'can nevertheless show that the encouragement of private investment is not an appropriate method to prevent mass unemployment [...]
The situation is now as if the "captains of industry "and their experts had a tendency to accept as a" lesser evil "an easing of the crisis through government expenditures financed by the budget deficit. However, it appears that they are still stubbornly opposed to an increase in employment been subsidizing the consumption and efforts to maintain full employment. This situation is perhaps symptomatic for the future economic system of capitalist democracies. In times of crisis or in response to pressure from the masses, and perhaps even without that, you will set in motion public investment financed through the budget deficit in order to combat mass unemployment. But if you make attempts to use such methods in order to maintain the high level of employment achieved in the next boom, you will probably encounter fierce opposition from the "captains of industry." As we have shown above, they absolutely do not wish a full employment steady. Workers in this situation become "recalcitrant" and "captains of industry" have become eager to teach them a lesson. " Furthermore, growth of prices in times of boom acts to the detriment of small and big rentiers so that today they begin against the boom. In such a situation is likely to form a block of big capital and income, and this block is probably more of an economist ready to declare that the situation is extremely unhealthy. The pressure of these forces, and in particular of big business, certainly induce the government to return to the traditional policy of balancing the budget. In this way takes over crisis, in which lapolitica expansion of public spending again regains its meaning.
This pattern of "political business cycle" is not entirely hypothetical because of the events of a similar development occurred in the United States in the years 1937-1938. The interruption of the boom in the second half of 1937 was actually the result of a sharp reduction in budget deficits. On the other hand the crisis in the AC again ensued, the government quickly returned to the policy of expansion of public expenditure. So the regime of "political business cycle" would not provide full employment except che nel punto massimo del boom, ma le crisi sarebbero relativamente moderate e di breve durata.
0 comments:
Post a Comment