1. Autorius iskele ABEJONIU, kad mano pateikta E.Phelpso citata rusu kalboje neatitinka tikroves, t.y. originalo..
Na, tai imkime ir sulyginkime*).
Abieju sistemu pagrindas -privati nuosavybe. Taip, kad socializmo cia nera. Didziausias skirtumas tame, kad TIKRASIS kapitaizmas JAV, Kanadoje ir D.Britanijoje skatina, finansisskai remia INOVACIJU atsiradima ir diegima praktikon, o KORPORATIZMAS Vokietijoje, Italijoje, prancuzijoje (ir tt) smaugia inovacijas, trukdo naujoms firmoms ieiti i rinka.

Daugiau nekomentuoju; tik galiu isversti i lietuviu kalba labai tiksliai. Su vienu baisiu terminu, kurio lietuviai nepripazista: "entrepreneurs" pavadinsiu "antrepreneriais", bet ne tradiciniais verslininkais.
99, 5 proc Rusijos zmoniu taip pat nesuvokia sio skirtumo.
Visi kiti terminai aiskūs.

2. Pasikartosiu del Kanados gero kapitalizmo ("free enterprise") pavyzdzio Lietuvai. Rasiau, kad pasinaudoti Lietuva negali, nes tam reikia įvykdyti daug institucinių (institutų) reformų. Kultūrinių (pvz, STIGMA of failure) taip pat.

Yra ženklų, dešinioji Kubiliaus Vyriausybė eis ta kryptimi. Ziurėkite, kiek institucijų (žaidimų TAISYKLIŲ) jau pakeista. 2009 ir veliau vyks reformos.
Tai prisidėkime prie tų reformų aktyviau.


---------
*)
"Dynamic Capitalism
Entrepreneurship is lucrative–and just.
BY EDMUND S. PHELPS
Tuesday, October 10, 2006

There are two economic s y s t e m s in the West.

Several nations–including the U.S., Canada and the U.K.–have a private-ownership system marked by great openness to the implementation of new commercial ideas coming from entrepreneurs, and by a pluralism of views among the financiers who select the ideas to nurture by providing the capital and incentives necessary for their development. Although much innovation comes from established companies, as in pharmaceuticals, much comes from start-ups, particularly the most novel innovations. This is free enterprise, "a k a" capitalism.

The other s y s t e m – in Western Continental Europe–though also based on private ownership, has been modified by the introduction of institutions aimed at protecting the interests of “stakeholders” and “social partners.” The s y s t e m’s institutions include big employer confederations, big unions and monopolistic banks. Since World War II, a great deal of liberalization has taken place. But new corporatist institutions have sprung up: Co-determination (cogestion, or Mitbestimmung) has brought “worker councils” (Betriebsrat); and in Germany, a union representative sits on the investment committee of corporations. The system operates to discourage changes such as relocations and the entry of new firms, and its performance depends on established companies in cooperation with local and national banks. What it lacks in flexibility it tries to compensate for with technological sophistication. So different is this system that it has its own name: the “social market economy” in Germany, “social democracy” in France and “concertazione” in Italy".

...................................................
Dynamism and Fertility

The American and Continental systems are not operationally equivalent, contrary to some neoclassical views..."

Keliskart rašoma, kad Europai bus blogiau, kad ji irgi pūtė didelį burbulą, bet jokių konkrečių priežasčių ar faktų nepateikiama. Kokius gi papildomus burbulus Europa pūtė? Ko ji neteks labiau?

Socializmų bei "tikrų kapitalizmų" etikečių klijavimas irgi nieko nepaaiškina. Stalino komunistams taip pat reikėjo "tikros" idealios visuomenės. Kada gi baigsis tas "tikrumo" žaidimas? Kai klaidinga idoeologija visiškai sužlugdys pasaulį?

Taip, puikiai kalbu rusiskai nuo gimnazijos laiku, kai buvai ilgai "perauklejamas" Komsomolskaya Pravda tekstais:)

Deja, vertimuose ir ypac zurnalistams viskas labai supaprastinama, ypac Nobelistu su dideliais EGO, daznai redaktoriu iskraipoma ("lost in translation") kaip tekste zemiau; taip, teko sutikti ar dirbti su eile zymiasiu Rusijos, Ukrainos, kitu postsovietiniu patareju: nuo Aganbegyan iki Illarionov, Mau, kitu.

Pagarbiai. Valdas Samonis.

Taip, sutinku.
Bet.
1. Autorius pateikia nauja supratima apie ES saliu ekonomine sistema, pavadindamas ja "socialdemokratine".
Tik tai nesutampa, pvz, su Nobelisto Edm. Phelps'o klasifikacija. Pagal ja JAV, kanadoje, Didž. Britanijoje veikia tikras, "dinaminis kapitalizmas".

Tuo tarpu Kontinentineje Europoje, ypač Vokietijoje, Italijoje, Prancuzijoje, isitvirtines KORPORATYVIZMAS, kuri savo laiku sukure Musolinis.
.
Koks skirtumas tarp siu sistemu?

Turint galvoje, kad Autorius kartu su grupe Nobelistu dirbo prezidentui Jelcinui ir vicepremjerui Nemcovui, tikėtina, kad jis (ir daugelis komentatoriu cia Lietuvoje) moka rusu kalbą. Todėl tą skirtumą pateiksiu Felpso straipsnio gabaleliu rusišku vertimu, primindamas, kad Rusija labai daug verčia i savo kalba garsiausių pasaulio mokslininku straipsniu:
-----------------------------------
10, ноябрь 2006 года
"Динамический капитализм"
Эдмунд ФЕЛПС, Wall Street Journal

"На Западе существуют две экономических системы. В таких государствах, как США, Канада и Великобритания, действует принцип частной собственности, который характеризуется готовностью воплощать новые коммерческие идеи учредителей. Еще одной его чертой является множество различных взглядов со стороны предпринимателей, которые выбирают, какие замыслы следует воплотить, а затем финансируют и всячески стимулируют этот процесс. И хотя достаточно много новаций предлагают уже сформировавшиеся компании, например, фармацевтические, немало новшеств внедряется и молодыми предприятиями. И нередко последние предлагают что-то совершенно новое. Эта модель представляет собой свободное предпринимательство, также известное как «капитализм».

Другая система, которая действует в континентальной Западной Европе, также базируется на частной собственности. Различие заключается в том, что эта модель характеризуется появлением организаций, цель которых — защита интересов совладельцев или партнеров. К ним относятся крупные объединения и банки-монополисты. После Второй мировой войны произошла либерализация многих отраслей, которая привела к появлению большого числа корпоративных предприятий. А в управленческой структуре действовал принцип «кодетерминации», особенно распространенный в Германии, когда работники занимали места в совете директоров вместе с акционерами. Такая система не приветствует радикальных перемен — перемещения или прихода новых фирм. Ее эффективность зависит от сформировавшихся компаний и их взаимодействия с местными и национальными банками. Отсутствие гибкости она старается компенсировать технологическими изысками. Система настолько своеобразна, что даже получила свое собственное название: в Германии ее именуют «социальной рыночной экономикой», во Франции — «социал-демократией», а в Италии — «сыгранностью»...."

2. Pasimokyti Lietuvai iš Kanados neišeina, nes mes dabar priklausome ES ir privalome vykdyti jos teisę. Institucinės reformos viduriniajai klasei stiprinti pas mus lieka kalbomis. Žinoma, jei atvažiuotų į Lietuvą krūva minėtų Nobelistų ir imtų aiškinti Vyriausybei, prezidentui, seimui, gal kas ir išeitų. tačiau tai tik svajonė.

Vienžo - amerikonų kapitalizmas(liberalusis - nekontroliuojamas) žlugo.

to INZ

RE: Tu pasiulymu buta ivairiu ir per 18 metu.

Taip, bet komunistu pasiulymai daugiausia sukasi apie ES socialdemokratiniu saliu modelius (kurie napasiekimi, kaip nepasiekiamas buvo Svedijos dabartinis modelis Svedijoje apie 1920 metus!), kas naudinga TIK KOMUNISTAMS, NES ISLAIKO JU LIETUVAI UZDETA ILIUZIJA-KILPA!

Tuo tarpu modernus valstybes vaidmuo salyse kaip Kanada, Airija geriausiai varo pazanga VIDURINIAM SLUOKSNIUI. Pvz. Kanados vidurinis sluoksnis yra pats sekmingiausias case study pasaulyje ir galima is sio krasto LABAI DAUG pasimokyti.

DEL NOBELISTU, TAI TUREJAUS RYSIU IR SIEK TIEK DIRBAU SU PENKIAIS: Leontieff, Arrow, Tobin, Solow, Klein, ypac kai dirbau Stanford Economic Transition Group, SETG. Dalis musu SETG darbu buvo skirta Prezidentui Yeltsinui ir ypac Rusijos buvusiam Vice-Premjerui B. Nemtsovui.

O ka as sakau, juk tai tas pats ir tie ir anie uz stipria valstybe, koks skirtimas po kokius koridorius tampe ir is kokiu universitetu mete. Tu zmogau ieskok kito , teisingesnio kelio. Su saldziais straipsniukais ispudzio nepadarysi.Perfrazuosiu"Vilnius asaromis netiki."

manau protingai zmogus sneka :) nera ko pridurti

Cia straipsnyje ir komentaruose buvo kalbeta apie postkomunizmo negatyvius reiskinius ir apie pasiulymus ("pasinaudoti pasaulio pirmūnų patirtimi ") Lietuvai po krizes pasivyti civilizuotus krastus. Tu pasiulymu buta ivairiu ir per 18 metu... Bet pateikiu naujausia - vieno Amerikos Nobelisto ekonomikai atsakymus zymiam Lietuvos mediju atstovui Aušrai (en): ----------
------------------------------------------
"Is America afraid of competition"

Aushra Q: Is there anything surprising for you in the recent 20 years of the world’s economic development?

SC: One of the events was certainly the collapse of the Soviet Union and the economic system, which evolved in this region. Obviously, if anyone asked me some time ago if that system would last forever I would give a negative answer. Yet, it was something unexpected. It seems to me that the majority of humankind’s achievements are largely surprising. One of the accusations against the school of classical economics is that it does not anticipate any possibility of unexpected changes, e.g. structural changes. In the preliminary period of post-communist economic development I was astonished that it was so slow. Nevertheless I realized that it takes time and we can see now that the growth rate in recent years has rapidly picked up. In addition, at some point I started to have an impression that the US economy experiences stagnation, but America has once again started to gain speed. This century has already brought about two crises —the burst of the internet bubble in 2000-2001 and the current financial crisis. Was it possible to anticipate any of them?
I think that they were predictable. The current crisis is more serious than the one at the beginning of the century. Only one risky speculative element could have been distinguished then. Many areas of the economy were sound. But an advantage of this period was the creation of the giant Internet infrastructure e.g. optical fibre. Recent years brought many innovations based on concepts and solutions, which were devised in the times of the internet bubble. I don’t think that the economic correction, which occurred later on, was any kind of catastrophe. This was a sort of crisis, but the banking system dealt with it very well. The banks simply stopped financing certain investments.

Aushra Q: It is similar to the current situation. The banks reduce financing. But I think that there are more similarities.

SC: At present we have to do with a crisis caused by a boom on a subprime mortgage market. And it has much more speculative character than the internet crisis. The NASDAQ index needed only a few years to pick up after the events of 2000 and 2001. The current crisis is even more surprising for me because I did not realize that it is so closely related to the banking sector. I was aware that operations in the mortgage market bring high risk but I did not know that they could cause so extensive damage to the economic system as a whole.

Aushra Q: We have recently observed that affluence has extended all over the world. Do you think that this phenomenon has any boundaries? Eventually, not all the countries can be as rich as the USA or Western European states, for example.

SC: I think that there are no such boundaries. The pattern of development is simple — consistent and with endless growth. I do not believe that the economic growth can have any limits. GDP, salaries and the level of affluence will always increase. However, if we look at it from the point of view of human self-realization it does not mean that it is better. The most developed societies or most talented, dynamic people are not happier nowadays than they were in Vienna in 1819, London in 1776 or New York in 1940. These dates are not chosen at random — for me these are places and times when I would have been happier than now.

Aushra Q: Don’t you think that the extension of wealth takes place through the fast development of low-cost countries? They are the ones, which provide the rich with cheap goods, enhancing the feeling of being wealthy. If there is no boundary for expansion of wealth what would happen if the effective low-cost markets would be in short supply?

SC:The problem in this situation is rather that there are not enough countries like Lithuania, and merely a few like the United States. If out of the blue China, currently a low-cost country, would become the second America, from the point of view of smaller economies such as Lithuania, it would be only beneficial. First of all there would be twice as many countries from where investment capital originates and where Lithuanian products could be exported. There is a great number of economies with similar size and aspirations to Lithuania— e.g. Vietnam or Latin America countries such as Colombia. Lithuania will certainly sooner or later join the group of rich countries, but there are also many other countries following the same objective which is expected to relatively extend the time in which Lithuania can arrive at that point. If there would be one such country — all investments and talented young people would go there. Provided that there are more such countries the point of reaching a certain level is delayed.

Aushra Q: Lithuania has all of a sudden stopped being a low-cost country with the increase in wealth. What can we do to have a certain advantage in catching up with the level of the richest ones?
SC: When a country joins the group of developed countries it can no longer compete with cheap labour and the inflow of capital, or the development of commercial exchange no longer gives the same economic effects. The only thing which can be done at that time is to increase INNOVATIVENESS. And companies must pursue, in terms of production or service quality, the highest available standards e.g. the ones applied by American companies. Equalization of chances in their own country is added on the top of that.

Aushra Q: Yet the process of diminishing low-cost countries can affect the United States. Finally, cheap goods from China or Vietnam increase the purchasing power of the Americans. Some time ago Japanese cars were a cheap, worse alternative to American ones, today they set the standards and US automotive concerns have difficulties in competing with them. The same can happen in the future with China.

SC: I do not think that the feeling of success and affluence which the Americans have would depend on that, i.e. the price and quality of cars. This does not even depend on commercial exchange. It might sound shocking, but I think that the majority of Americans do not care at all about prices of cars, houses, cinema tickets or imported products. They are concerned with their jobs or their role in the society. Certainly, they are afraid of hiking petrol prices and whether due to this reason they will be able to arrive safely to their workplaces every day, or if they would be able to feed their children without a necessity of changing their lives entirely. If the USA, as it has been so far, can demonstrate stable growth at a rate of 3 percent a year there is no reason to be afraid of commercial competition of aspiring countries. In addition, the majority of competitive advantages in this regard result from technological differences. And here the United States have still an advantage.
-------------

na tu inz esi uzsispires, kaip komunistas/bolsevikas. Kas dabar klausys Nobelio premiju, gal jau lenino premijatu greiciau.

Kada tokie politrukai (like inz) isdves, reikia Mozes paklaust.