O debate se faz necessário, qual o limite ideal de intervenção do Estado na Economia?
O que importa , no meu ponto de vista é a capacidade dos humanos de serem felizes e terem oportunidades reais na vida. Um crescimento sustentável com a maior taxa de bem estar das populações seria um dos melhores e mais confiáveis indicadores.
Por outro lado, as condições mínimas e necessárias para que isto ocorra , dependem de decisões políticas.
A encrenca é das boas e a discussão sempre saudável.
Um ponto que me parece capital é a existência de um dinheiro sonoro. A confiança na moeda é um bom indicador da honestidade dos governantes.
17:31 GMT +00:00
A rescue package from "Libertarian Land"
Economist.com l WASHINGTON
FREE-market ideology took quite the beating over the past few months, with government intervention becoming the norm and headlines frequently heralding the fall of the laissez-faire system. Proponents of libertarian policies quickly rushed to its defence. As Jeffrey Miron argued, one cannot pin blame on something if it never existed in the first place:
"Whatever one's views of libertarian policies, the incontrovertible fact is that the U.S. has not pursued such policies. Not in the past 10 years. Not in the past century. Indeed, except for a brief moment before Alexander Hamilton engineered the first U.S. bailout of financial markets, not ever. If the U.S. had truly been the "Libertarian Land" that Weisberg alleges, a huge range of policies that have helped fuel the current situation would have been radically different."
But what now? Though the implementation of libertarian policies hardly appears to be an option at present, economists like Mr Miron are still among the most vocal stimulus sceptics, reluctant to support the creation of programmes that could likely turn into permanent institutions. Now that tax relief is set to be a significant portion of the recovery package, Mr Miron follows up on a recent recommendation regarding tax cuts and elaborates on which policy measures would be most conducive to both recovery and preservation of a free-market economy:
"From the perspective of short-run stimulus, the best tax cuts are presumably ones that people are likely to spend, not save. This would suggest cutting income taxes for low-income individuals, except that most pay little or no income tax right now. That is why Obama is suggesting tax credits instead, essentially an extension of the EITC [earned income tax credit]. Alternatively, cutting payroll taxes affects a broad range of low and moderate income wage/salary owners, since they pay SS [social security] and Medicare taxes. The difficulty here is that this would reduce inflow to the SS and Medicare trust funds. That does not bother me, since I think we should gradually cut SS and Medicare benefits, and, we can always pay those benefits out of other taxes. But politically it will be hard to cut these."
Regulation, the other side of crisis policy, proves to be a "messier" issue. Mr Miron finds no easy answer to preventing future Bernard Madoffs or even future Freddie Macs:
"The problem is that, given certain regulations, others might make sense, but it’s not clear we would not be better off by just getting rid of the initial regulation and the subsequent further regulation that attempts to address the problems created by the first regulation. Consider regulation of bank balance sheets. Given the existence of deposit insurance, it makes sense to regulate the reserve/deposit ratios of banks and the kind of assets they can hold. Otherwise, they have a strong incentive to take excessive risk given the insurance. Yet regulating balance sheets is hard, so banks can still take excessively risky positions, which then precipitates failures and panics. Thus, perhaps one should consider eliminating both balance sheet regulation and deposit insurance. This is not perfect either, however, since under fractional reserve banking and a prohibition on the suspension of convertibility, banks are susceptible to runs. Maybe the answer is to allow banks to suspend convertibility, but this is a radical change in the nature of banks relative to current views… More broadly, some regulation sounds good, and may well make sense if easily enforced, but that a problematic assumption: financial markets are good at innovating around regulation. So, my hunch is that we want less overall, not more, at least in many areas."
Moving past any sort of ideological framework one may have, Mr Miron's final point addresses the crux of the regulation dilemma. Comparing monetary incentives, it makes sense that the financial world more frequently attracts top talent. Further, those cheating the system—or pushing its limits—stand to gain more than those charged with policing it. After all, Mr Madoff, for example, operated for as long as he did not due to lack of regulation, but rather because of regulatory failure.
Of course, the question still remains as to whether no regulation is preferable to poor regulation. At least we know how the residents of Libertarian Land would answer.