Há muitos anos que uso a assinatura "promotor da concorrência imperfeita".
Hoje, comecei a leitura de "How Rich Countries Got Rich and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor" de Erik S. Reinert, publicado em 2007.
Já este ano li grande parte de um livro do mesmo Reinert que achei fascinante, "The Visionary Realism of German Economics: From the Thirty Years' War to the Cold War".
Há anos li "Why Nations Fail" de Acemoglu e Robinson e considerei que a hipótese dos autores tem razão de ser. Reinert tem outra base, vamos ler.
Entretanto, nas primeiras páginas de Reinert apanho:
"At this point it is necessary to introduce and explain two sets of key terms that describe the differences between the economic activities that typically dominate the poor countries and those that dominate the rich countries: `perfect' and `imperfect' competition and `increasing' and `diminishing' returns.
`Perfect competition' or `commodity competition' means that the producer cannot influence the price of what he produces, he is facing a `perfect' market and literally reads in the newspaper what the market is willing to pay. ... Perfect competition and diminishing returns are assumed to be the normal state of affairs in standard textbook economics.
...
Rich countries display generalized imperfect competition, activities subject to increasing returns, and, as I gradually began to understand, all have become rich in exactly the same way, through policies steering them away from raw materials and diminishing returns activities into manufacturing, where the opposite laws tend to operate."
BTW:
"The logic that died with the Berlin Wall was that it is better to have an inefficient manufacturing sector than not to have a manufacturing sector at all, and such an approach has led to falling real wages in many countries in Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America."[Moi ici: Let that sink in deep!!!]
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário