publish this article of the French economist Maurice Allais (translated by Maurizio Blondet, original article 'Il faut proteger contre les délocalisations the travail, par Maurice Allais, Prix Nobel d'économie', published in December 2005 on French magazine "Marianne") on globalization, unemployment in Europe and needs of protectionism :
The views I express here is that of a liberal and socialist theory together. The two concepts are inseparable in my mind, their opposition seems false and artificial. The socialist ideal is the interest in equity ridistribuzione delle ricchezze, mentre i veri liberali si preoccupano dell’efficacia della produzione della stessa ricchezza. Ai miei occhi, sono due aspetti complementari della stessa dottrina. Ed è precisamente in quanto liberale mi autorizzo a criticare le insistite posizioni ripeture dalle grandi entità sovrannazionali in favore di un libero-scambismo applicato ciecamente.
Il fondamento della crisi: l’organizzazione mondiale del commercio
La recente riunione del G-20 ha di nuovo proclamato la sua denuncia del “protezionismo”, denuncia assurda ogni volta che viene espressa senza sfumatore, com’è nel caso attuale. Siamo davanti a ciò che chiamo “i tabù undisputed "whose negative effects are strengthened and multiplied over the years. Why liberalize everything, as we begin to occur, leading to the worst riots. In contrast, among the many that are unspoken truth is the true foundation of the current crisis is the organization of global trade, which must be radical reform, and before that of the other major reform is also essential, that the banking system.
The great leaders of the planet again show their ignorance of economics, because it confuses two kinds of protectionism. Some are harmful, while others are completely justified. The first category is the protection between Comparable wage countries, protectionism is not desirable. But on the other hand, protectionism between countries with very different levels of life is not only permissible, but absolutely necessary. It 's the case of China, to which you have deleted the customs border protection is simply insane. But this also applies to countries closer together, including some within Europe. Just ask on how to combat the production costs of less than five or ten times to understand that competition is not sustainable in these cases. Especially in the face of Indian and Chinese competitors, in addition to the minimum cost of labor, skills and spirit have taken.
Given that the high unemployment current is due to this liberalization of trade, the road taken by the G-20 is highly damaging. It will be a factor in the worsening of social situation. It 's a nonsense of the first magnitude, drawn from a contradiction incredible exactly how to allocate the 1929 crisis to cause protectionism is a historical contradiction. Its true origin was reckless in the development of credit in the years that preceded it. The protectionist measures applied after the arrival of the crisis have certainly contributed to better control it.
We are therefore faced with a criminal ignorance. That the Director General of the World Trade Organization (in 2005) Pascal Lamy has called for an acceleration of global liberalization seems to me a monumental mistake, I would say monstrous. Trade, contrary to what he thinks Lamy, should not be considered an end in itself, are nothing more than half. This individual, who was first in Brussels as European Commissioner for Trade, understands nothing, unfortunately. Faced with this stubborn suicide, advance my proposal: we must relocate Pascal Lamy, a major cause of unemployment.
More specifically, the rules apply to a simple absolute: unemployment comes from the relocation, in turn due to too large differences in pay. So, what you should do is self-evident: it is necessary to establish a legitimate protezione. Da più di un decennio ho proposto di creare degli insiemi regionali più omogenei, unendo in una zona economica diversi Paesi quando questi presentano le stesse condizioni di reddito e le stesse condizioni sociali. Ognuna di queste “organizzazioni regionali” dovrebbe essere autorizzata a proteggersi ragionevolmente contro le disparità dei costi di produzione che assicurano vantaggi indebiti a certi Paesi concorrenti; ciò, pur mantenendo allo stesso tempo, all’interno di ogni zona, le condizioni di una sana e reale concorrenza tra i suoi membri associati.
Il sistema che propongo non costituirebbe un danno per i Paesi in via di sviluppo. Oggi, le grandi imprese li utilizzano per i loro bassi costi, ma partirebbero if wages increase too. These countries have an interest in adopting my principle and join their neighbors with a similar standard of living, they also develop a domestic market large enough to sustain their production, but also balanced enough to ensure that no internal competition is based only on the maintenance of low wages.
This could be applied to countries such as Eastern Europe European Union, which were built without sufficient reflection, but also those from Africa and Latin America.
The absence of such protection will lead to the destruction of all activities of each country with higher income, comprising all industries Western Europe and those of developed countries. It seems to me outrageous that by closing unprofitable sites in France or licenzino, while you open areas at lower costs (...). If there is no limits, we can already announce the French as follows: a dramatic increase in the destruction of jobs, unemployment - not only in industry but also in agriculture and services.
I'm not part of the economists who use the term "bubble". I agree that there are movements that are generalized, but the word "bubble" seems wrong to describe the unemployment generated by the relocation. In fact, his progression is of un carattere permanente e regolare da oltre trent’anni. L’essenziale della disoccupazione che subiamo risulta precisamente da questa liberalizzazione sconsiderata del commercio su scala mondiale, senza preoccuparsi del livello di vita. Non è una bolla, ma un fenomeno di fondo, com’è la liberalizzazione degli scambi.
Crisi e mondializzazione sono legati
I grandi dirigenti mondiali preferiscono riportare tutto alla moneta; ora, questa è solo una parte del problema. Crisi e mondializzazione sono legati. Regolare solo il problema monetario non basterà, non regolerà l’essenziale, che è la nociva liberalizzazione degli scambi internazionali. Il governo attribuisce le conseguenze social causes of relocation money: it is a foolish mistake.
For me, I fought the relocation in my published writings, so that my message is unknown. While the founders of the common market had anticipated the delay of several years to liberalize trade with the new members accepted in 1986, after we opened the precautionary and Europe without leaving the external protection in the face of competition from countries with costs wages so low as to render illusory defense.
If the reader will want to resume my analysis on unemployment, which I published in the past two decades, judges that the events that we see today were not only announced, but described in detail. Yet, my analysis echoes have enjoyed more limited on the mainstream press. This requires silence to question.
A Nobel viewer
economic commentators that I speak regularly on TV to analyze the causes of the current crisis are the same ones who were first to analyze the good economy, with perfect serenity. They had announced the arrival of the crisis, and do not offer anything serious out of it. But there are still calls to talk shows.
As for me, I've never been invited on television when I announced and I wrote more than a decade ago that he would soon produced a crisis of the first magnitude accompanied by unemployment, uncontrolled. I am one of those who were not allowed to explain to the French what are the real origins of the crisis when they were dispossessed of any real power on their money, for the benefit of the bankers. In the past I did get to certain programs on the economy - to which I witnessed as a viewer - that I was willing to go there to speak about what? Of what have become gradually banks today, the role of traders really dangerous, and why certain truths in their confonti are silenced. No answer, even negative, is never coming to any television channel in recent years.
This attitude poses a problem repeated on major media in France: certi esperti vi sono autorizzati, altri invece proibiti. Benchè io sia un esperto internazionalmente riconosciuto sulle crisi economiche, specie quelle del 1929 o del 1987, io resto un telespettatore. Un premio Nobel... telespettatore.
Mi trovo di fronte alle affermazioni degli specialisti che sono regolarmente invitati in TV, e che garantiscono di capire bene quel che accade e che cosa bisogna fare. Invece in realtà non capiscono nulla. La loro situazione somiglia a quella che constatai nel 1933 negli Stati Uniti, dove ero andato con lo scopo di studiare la crisi che vi infuriava, coi suoi disoccupati e i suoi senza-tetto. Vi regnava una incomprensione intellettuale totale. C’è chi si inganna doppiamente in quanto ignora la propria ignoranza; but others who know and therefore conceal, deceive the French.
This ignorance, and above all the will to hide thanks to certain media, show a decay of the debate and intelligence, because of special interest related to money. These interests who want the current economic system will endure as it is, because it works to their advantage. Among these interests are the multinationals who are the main beneficiaries, in the stock market and banking environments, an economic mechanism that enriches them at the very moment in which impoverished the majority of the population, French but also worldwide.
This raises the question: what are the mainstream media truly free? I speak their freedom with respect to the financial world and spheres of politics. Second question: Who holds the power to decide that an expert is not authorized or entitled to give an opinion on the free press? Last question: why the causes of this crisis are presented from these figures that the French do not understand deeply the economic reality? This is ignorance on their part? Those who hold the power of decision we leave the choice between listening to the ignorant or deceptive.
The views I express here is that of a liberal and socialist theory together. The two concepts are inseparable in my mind, their opposition seems false and artificial. The socialist ideal is the interest in equity ridistribuzione delle ricchezze, mentre i veri liberali si preoccupano dell’efficacia della produzione della stessa ricchezza. Ai miei occhi, sono due aspetti complementari della stessa dottrina. Ed è precisamente in quanto liberale mi autorizzo a criticare le insistite posizioni ripeture dalle grandi entità sovrannazionali in favore di un libero-scambismo applicato ciecamente.
Il fondamento della crisi: l’organizzazione mondiale del commercio
La recente riunione del G-20 ha di nuovo proclamato la sua denuncia del “protezionismo”, denuncia assurda ogni volta che viene espressa senza sfumatore, com’è nel caso attuale. Siamo davanti a ciò che chiamo “i tabù undisputed "whose negative effects are strengthened and multiplied over the years. Why liberalize everything, as we begin to occur, leading to the worst riots. In contrast, among the many that are unspoken truth is the true foundation of the current crisis is the organization of global trade, which must be radical reform, and before that of the other major reform is also essential, that the banking system.
The great leaders of the planet again show their ignorance of economics, because it confuses two kinds of protectionism. Some are harmful, while others are completely justified. The first category is the protection between Comparable wage countries, protectionism is not desirable. But on the other hand, protectionism between countries with very different levels of life is not only permissible, but absolutely necessary. It 's the case of China, to which you have deleted the customs border protection is simply insane. But this also applies to countries closer together, including some within Europe. Just ask on how to combat the production costs of less than five or ten times to understand that competition is not sustainable in these cases. Especially in the face of Indian and Chinese competitors, in addition to the minimum cost of labor, skills and spirit have taken.
Given that the high unemployment current is due to this liberalization of trade, the road taken by the G-20 is highly damaging. It will be a factor in the worsening of social situation. It 's a nonsense of the first magnitude, drawn from a contradiction incredible exactly how to allocate the 1929 crisis to cause protectionism is a historical contradiction. Its true origin was reckless in the development of credit in the years that preceded it. The protectionist measures applied after the arrival of the crisis have certainly contributed to better control it.
We are therefore faced with a criminal ignorance. That the Director General of the World Trade Organization (in 2005) Pascal Lamy has called for an acceleration of global liberalization seems to me a monumental mistake, I would say monstrous. Trade, contrary to what he thinks Lamy, should not be considered an end in itself, are nothing more than half. This individual, who was first in Brussels as European Commissioner for Trade, understands nothing, unfortunately. Faced with this stubborn suicide, advance my proposal: we must relocate Pascal Lamy, a major cause of unemployment.
More specifically, the rules apply to a simple absolute: unemployment comes from the relocation, in turn due to too large differences in pay. So, what you should do is self-evident: it is necessary to establish a legitimate protezione. Da più di un decennio ho proposto di creare degli insiemi regionali più omogenei, unendo in una zona economica diversi Paesi quando questi presentano le stesse condizioni di reddito e le stesse condizioni sociali. Ognuna di queste “organizzazioni regionali” dovrebbe essere autorizzata a proteggersi ragionevolmente contro le disparità dei costi di produzione che assicurano vantaggi indebiti a certi Paesi concorrenti; ciò, pur mantenendo allo stesso tempo, all’interno di ogni zona, le condizioni di una sana e reale concorrenza tra i suoi membri associati.
Il sistema che propongo non costituirebbe un danno per i Paesi in via di sviluppo. Oggi, le grandi imprese li utilizzano per i loro bassi costi, ma partirebbero if wages increase too. These countries have an interest in adopting my principle and join their neighbors with a similar standard of living, they also develop a domestic market large enough to sustain their production, but also balanced enough to ensure that no internal competition is based only on the maintenance of low wages.
This could be applied to countries such as Eastern Europe European Union, which were built without sufficient reflection, but also those from Africa and Latin America.
The absence of such protection will lead to the destruction of all activities of each country with higher income, comprising all industries Western Europe and those of developed countries. It seems to me outrageous that by closing unprofitable sites in France or licenzino, while you open areas at lower costs (...). If there is no limits, we can already announce the French as follows: a dramatic increase in the destruction of jobs, unemployment - not only in industry but also in agriculture and services.
I'm not part of the economists who use the term "bubble". I agree that there are movements that are generalized, but the word "bubble" seems wrong to describe the unemployment generated by the relocation. In fact, his progression is of un carattere permanente e regolare da oltre trent’anni. L’essenziale della disoccupazione che subiamo risulta precisamente da questa liberalizzazione sconsiderata del commercio su scala mondiale, senza preoccuparsi del livello di vita. Non è una bolla, ma un fenomeno di fondo, com’è la liberalizzazione degli scambi.
Crisi e mondializzazione sono legati
I grandi dirigenti mondiali preferiscono riportare tutto alla moneta; ora, questa è solo una parte del problema. Crisi e mondializzazione sono legati. Regolare solo il problema monetario non basterà, non regolerà l’essenziale, che è la nociva liberalizzazione degli scambi internazionali. Il governo attribuisce le conseguenze social causes of relocation money: it is a foolish mistake.
For me, I fought the relocation in my published writings, so that my message is unknown. While the founders of the common market had anticipated the delay of several years to liberalize trade with the new members accepted in 1986, after we opened the precautionary and Europe without leaving the external protection in the face of competition from countries with costs wages so low as to render illusory defense.
If the reader will want to resume my analysis on unemployment, which I published in the past two decades, judges that the events that we see today were not only announced, but described in detail. Yet, my analysis echoes have enjoyed more limited on the mainstream press. This requires silence to question.
A Nobel viewer
economic commentators that I speak regularly on TV to analyze the causes of the current crisis are the same ones who were first to analyze the good economy, with perfect serenity. They had announced the arrival of the crisis, and do not offer anything serious out of it. But there are still calls to talk shows.
As for me, I've never been invited on television when I announced and I wrote more than a decade ago that he would soon produced a crisis of the first magnitude accompanied by unemployment, uncontrolled. I am one of those who were not allowed to explain to the French what are the real origins of the crisis when they were dispossessed of any real power on their money, for the benefit of the bankers. In the past I did get to certain programs on the economy - to which I witnessed as a viewer - that I was willing to go there to speak about what? Of what have become gradually banks today, the role of traders really dangerous, and why certain truths in their confonti are silenced. No answer, even negative, is never coming to any television channel in recent years.
This attitude poses a problem repeated on major media in France: certi esperti vi sono autorizzati, altri invece proibiti. Benchè io sia un esperto internazionalmente riconosciuto sulle crisi economiche, specie quelle del 1929 o del 1987, io resto un telespettatore. Un premio Nobel... telespettatore.
Mi trovo di fronte alle affermazioni degli specialisti che sono regolarmente invitati in TV, e che garantiscono di capire bene quel che accade e che cosa bisogna fare. Invece in realtà non capiscono nulla. La loro situazione somiglia a quella che constatai nel 1933 negli Stati Uniti, dove ero andato con lo scopo di studiare la crisi che vi infuriava, coi suoi disoccupati e i suoi senza-tetto. Vi regnava una incomprensione intellettuale totale. C’è chi si inganna doppiamente in quanto ignora la propria ignoranza; but others who know and therefore conceal, deceive the French.
This ignorance, and above all the will to hide thanks to certain media, show a decay of the debate and intelligence, because of special interest related to money. These interests who want the current economic system will endure as it is, because it works to their advantage. Among these interests are the multinationals who are the main beneficiaries, in the stock market and banking environments, an economic mechanism that enriches them at the very moment in which impoverished the majority of the population, French but also worldwide.
This raises the question: what are the mainstream media truly free? I speak their freedom with respect to the financial world and spheres of politics. Second question: Who holds the power to decide that an expert is not authorized or entitled to give an opinion on the free press? Last question: why the causes of this crisis are presented from these figures that the French do not understand deeply the economic reality? This is ignorance on their part? Those who hold the power of decision we leave the choice between listening to the ignorant or deceptive.
Maurice Allais
0 comments:
Post a Comment