Tento web používá soubory cookie. Dalším používáním webu s tímto souhlasíte.
jméno
heslo
přihlásit
zaregistrujte se
zapomněli jste heslo?
Ekonomie - střet ideí
_BENNY
v tomto klubu resime ekonomii na vyssi odborne urovni, neresime ktera ekonomicka skola je nejlepsi, ale jak se od sebe jednotlive skoly lisi, co nabizeji, v cem boduji a kde selhavaji. neboli (neo)klasika vs. (neo)marxismus vs. (neo)keynesianstvi vs. monetarismus vs. rakouska skola.
Máte k tomu co říct? Vložte se do diskuze.
_BENNY --- 17:42:48 5.5.2013
Seznam úděsných ministrů financí (Lester Telser) | Týden.cz
http://kovanda.blog.tyden.cz/clanky/6413/seznam-udesnych-ministru-financi-lester-telser.html
NAKASHI --- 21:53:28 13.3.2013
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12202.pdf

At the height of the Great Depression a number of leading U.S. economists advanced a
proposal for monetary reform that became known as the Chicago Plan. It envisaged the
separation of the monetary and credit functions of the banking system, by requiring 100%
reserve backing for deposits. Irving Fisher (1936) claimed the following advantages for this
plan: (1) Much better control of a major source of business cycle fluctuations, sudden
increases and contractions of bank credit and of the supply of bank-created money.
(2) Complete elimination of bank runs. (3) Dramatic reduction of the (net) public debt.
(4) Dramatic reduction of private debt, as money creation no longer requires simultaneous
debt creation. We study these claims by embedding a comprehensive and carefully calibrated
model of the banking system in a DSGE model of the U.S. economy. We find support for all
four of Fisher's claims. Furthermore, output gains approach 10 percent, and steady state
inflation can drop to zero without posing problems for the conduct of monetary policy.

This paper revisits the Chicago Plan, a proposal for fundamental monetary reform that
was put forward by many leading U.S. economists at the height of the Great Depression.
Fisher (1936), in his brilliant summary of the Chicago Plan, claimed that it had four
major advantages, ranging from greater macroeconomic stability to much lower debt levels
throughout the economy. In this paper we are able to rigorously evaluate his claims, by
applying the recommendations of the Chicago Plan to a state-of-the-art monetary DSGE
model that contains a fully microfounded and carefully calibrated model of the current
U.S. financial system. The critical feature of this model is that the economy’s money
supply is created by banks, through debt, rather than being created debt-free by the
government.
Our analytical and simulation results fully validate Fisher’s (1936) claims. The Chicago
Plan could significantly reduce business cycle volatility caused by rapid changes in banks’
attitudes towards credit risk, it would eliminate bank runs, and it would lead to an
instantaneous and large reduction in the levels of both government and private debt. It
would accomplish the latter by making government-issued money, which represents equity
in the commonwealth rather than debt, the central liquid asset of the economy, while
banks concentrate on their strength, the extension of credit to investment projects that
require monitoring and risk management expertise. We find that the advantages of the
capital adequacy requirements.

Chicago Plan go even beyond those claimed by Fisher. One additional advantage is large
steady state output gains due to the removal or reduction of multiple distortions,
including interest rate risk spreads, distortionary taxes, and costly monitoring of
macroeconomically unnecessary credit risks. Another advantage is the ability to drive
steady state inflation to zero in an environment where liquidity traps do not exist, and
where monetarism becomes feasible and desirable because the government does in fact
control broad monetary aggregates. This ability to generate and live with zero steady
state inflation is an important result, because it answers the somewhat confused claim of
opponents of an exclusive government monopoly on money issuance, namely that such a
monetary system would be highly inflationary.
DOGITO --- 17:01:36 13.2.2013
ENDER: asi ma blbou naladu, ze ho vysoupli za aeroholdingu ;)
APOSTRI --- 1:41:12 13.2.2013
HONIK: Jak jsem rikal, to je spis pravni ci politicka otazka, nikoliv ekonomicka. Z pohledu ekonomie jsi porad soucasti transakce ze ktere mas nejaky uzitek, i kdyz treba mensi nez kdyby jsi tech 200kc utratil dle vlastni vule. Tedy uzitky a ceny tehle transakce na tebe se porad pocitaji jako jeji soucast nikoliv jako externality.

Rekneme ze tento zakon vesel v platnost referendem, ve kterem jsi ty hlasoval proti nemu. V takovem pripade by se dalo rict ze na politicke rovine je tvoje povinost ucastnit se vysledné transakce externalitou demokratickeho procesu. Ale i to je problematicke. V zastupitelske demokracii je to uz nadmiru komplikovane, protoze byt zastupovan ma sve zasadni uzitky a na druhe strane jsou ceny, z nihz jedna je agency cost, totiz ze nejsi vzdy zastupovan ve tvem vlastnim zajmu.
ENDER --- 17:44:22 11.2.2013
Kohout je někdy až moc zaujatej :)

Proč rakouská škola vznikla v Rakousku | Finmag.cz
http://www.finmag.cz/cs/finmag/ekonomika/proc-rakouska-skola-vznikla-v-rakousku/
Pavel Kohout: O porouchaných regulátorech | Finmag.cz
http://www.finmag.cz/cs/finmag/ekonomika/pavel-kohout-o-porouchanych-regulatorech/
_BENNY --- 12:44:46 6.2.2013
Top Economists: Iceland Did It Right … And Everyone Else Is Doing It Wrong - Washington's Blog
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/top-economists-iceland-did-it-right-everyone-else-is-doing-it-wrong.html
HONIK --- 17:58:41 30.1.2013
APOSTRI: Heled, a kdyz musim ze zakona platit obci 200 kc za to, ze mi odklizi snih okolo domu, jsme taky osoby ucastnici se transakce?
APOSTRI --- 23:48:10 29.1.2013
APOSTRI: Nakonec je to zrejme i z toho ze pokud si nekdo najme nekoho jineho na trestny cin, pak jsou vini, a tedy "puvodci" oba.

Jinak je zajimave ze na ideologicke urovni je skoro vzdy snaha prisoudit zasluhy, cili v tomto smyslu puvodcovstvi predevsim jedne ze stran. Marxismus zasluhy prisoudi primarne tomu kdo praci vykonal a naopak vulgarni zpolitizovane pojeti neoklasicke ekonomie (cili jednim slovem neoliberalismus) je zas primarne prisoudi tomu kdo si nekoho na praci najal.
APOSTRI --- 23:31:54 29.1.2013
HONIK: Pokud uzavreme transakci resp. v pravnim smyslu kontrakt tak se oba dva stavame puvodci uzitku i ceny na obou stranach. Protoze na to aby vznikl nejaky kontrakt a z nej plinouci uzitky a ceny, potrebujes obe strany. Bez obou neni nic z toho.

Predstav si ze ti zaplatim treba 200kč za to ze uklidis snih okolo meho domu. Oba dva se tim stavame puvodci toho ze je ten snih uklizeny, ja protoze jsem prisel s tim napadem a zaplatil ti za to a ty protoze jsi to udelal. Oba dva jsme dokonce i puvodci toho ze mas ted v penezence o 200kč vic, ty svoji praci a ja tim ze jsem ti tech 200kč nabidl a pak dal. Ja ted pozivam uzitku s toho ze neuklouznu a ty pokud by jsi bydlel ve stejnem dome taky (a hralo by to roli pri rozhodnuti jestli na moji cenu pristoupis). Nicmene uzitku z uklizeneho snehu pozivaji i dalsi lidi ktery se naseho uvodniho kontraktu neucastnili, nezaplatili zadnou cenu, ani praci. A to je prave externalita (v tomto pripade positivni).

Nakonec z textu na anglicke wikipedii je to zrejmejsi "an externality... is incurred by a party who was not involved as either a buyer or seller of the goods or services causing the cost or benefit."

Otazka dobrovolnosti a nedobrovolnosti nejakeho vztahu my prijde spis problem prava. Pokud se na nejake transakci podilet musis (a v tom pripade to neni kontrakt), tak pak se nepodilis na urcovani nabidky ci poptavky tedy ani ceny a nejednas na zaklade sveho uzitku a tim vsim prestavas byt predmetem vetsi casti ekonomie.
HONIK --- 11:40:32 25.1.2013
APOSTRI: A jak definujes to ucastneni se na transakci? Jako ze jde o umyslnou ucast? Co kdyz jsi ucastnikem nejakeho vztahu nedobrovolne, na zaklde pravni normy?

A proc podle tebe v tom umyslne zalozenem vztahu neni skodlive jednani agenta externalitou? Kdyz externalitou se rozumi "vnější účinek nějakého ekonomického rozhodnutí, resp. činnosti, tzn. část dopadů činnosti, kterou nese někdo jiný než její původce"? Podle me to uplne presne sedi treba i na reditele firmy, ktery si sobe do kapsy prihraje cast penez firmy.