Ülo Ennuste majandusartiklid

NB! Phelps’i inimõimiltsemisest

Kui ilus oleks igaveste õilmitsev sidusalt Maarjamaa

Üks tänapäeva teadusvõimsamaid ökonoomika Nobeliste E. Phelps (sünteesinud Keynes’i ja Friedman’i teooriaid stohhastikaga ning töötuse kõrvale tööhõive olulisemaks modelleerinud jne – muide 2008 kohe Kriisi alguses PM Merkel kutsus just tema NY’st kohale kiirkonsultatsioonideks – ja pangem tähele et Kriisis just Saksamaal eksklusiivselt tööhõive ei kahanenud (Krugman momendil veel Nobelist ei olnud)) – et viimatistel aastatel Phelps on süüvinud tema oma sõnade järgi „rahvaste igaveste inimõilmitsemise arendamise teooriate arendamisse majandusteaduses*.

Mõtleks – Maarjamaalgi kui ilus oleks ka taolisi teooriaid parteiprogrammides kasvõi valimiseelselt lipukirjaks võtta: nt kasvõi intellektuaalse õitsengu igipõlistamiseks – kasvõi vähemalt Nobelistide säutssõimu pärssimisega juhtkonna poolt – ja – mis veelgi tähtsam et nt kasvõi taasiseisvumise veteranide hulgas kah mõnegi akadeemilise kuju mainimise juhtkonna poolt jne.

 

*) vt nt 23.VIII 2014 lõppenud „Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings“ abstraktidest lk 24-44: http://mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/videos/33963/joseph-stiglitz/meeting-2014-eco Phelps’i oma lk31-2:

Edmund S. Phelps

Bringing Dynamism, Homegrown Innovation and Human Flourishing

into Economics

Session: Wednesday, 20 August, 09.30 hrs

The economics practiced today is basically neoclassical with an overlay of

Keynesian theory from which the unknowable, animal spirits and longterm

expectations have been removed. Abstraction is always fruitful. But

this standard amalgamated economics, which met many earlier problems,

seems not to meet the syndrome of problems faced by the West in our time;

nor some old problems faced by historians. That is because the standard

economics excludes the heart of these problems – the sources are hidden in

some variables interpreted as “shocks” or some time trend. As a result, this

economics offers us the policy tools of the standard models with which we

can hope to obtain symptomatic relief from our illness, but cannot expect

a cure.

In my theory, prevailing values, or felt needs, are basic to an economy. In

any nation there are people who feel the need for individual expression – to

exercise their curiosity, ingenuity or creativity; whose vitalism stirs them

to “act on the world” and make a difference; and who need careers that are

a journey into the unknown – a voyage in which, as they form ideas, create

and discover outcomes, they test, discover and create themselves. Such

needs fuel a desire to innovate: The extent and intensity of this desire, together

with the capacity and talent of people to hit upon new products that

would be adopted, and the latitude society is willing to give to innovations,

constitute a nation’s dynamism – its ability, or propensity, to innovate. This

dynamism largely determines the nation’s homegrown innovation – the

supply of it, to be precise, while various market forces impact on the actual

innovation achieved. And the nation’s rate of innovation is the main source

of the prosperity there – in all its dimensions, including what is called

flourishing. By the 1800s, the accretion of modern values gave birth to the

dynamism sparking the epoch of innovation in Britain and America, later

Germany and France. Now, losses of dynamism have cost us much of our

prosperity.

 

 

august 25, 2014 - Posted by | Uncategorized

Kommentaare veel pole.

Lisa kommentaar

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Muuda )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Muuda )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Muuda )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Muuda )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: