%2013.39.jpeg)
Acabei a leitura do capítulo 4, "Why investment matters" do livro "Creative Destruction", de Phil Mullan.
O capítulo começa com:
"The prolonged weakness of capital investment is the main explanation for the perpetuation of the Long Depression. Without the transforming investments that embody technological advances, innovation will remain deficient, sustained productivity growth will not occur and stagnation will continue. The research and science that come up with new ideas are insufficient to bring about progress on their own. They only acquire social value through the investment that realises them in innovating ways that add to human pleasure or prosperity."
Tal como no capítulo 3 o autor dedica parte importante do capítulo a ilustrar como um mundo de fantasia é criado com a manipulação dos indicadores, alargando o âmbito daquilo a que se chama de investimento.
No entanto, gostava de focar a atenção em dois tópicos:
"The more relevant economic proportionality for assessing investment needs is not between manufacturing and services, but between low value adding and high value adding sectors. Generally it is the low value activities, whether making goods or providing services, that are of low capital intensity. This applies to simple manufacturing assembly operations, as it does to serving food and drink, cleaning, personal care, or shelf stacking.
High value industries, in contrast, whether manufacturing, extractive or services, are more likely to require capital investment to increase their capacity to produce at high levels of productivity. This applies as much to a modern transport system or a communications network as it does to advanced manufacturing. Even agricultural activities like dairy production - traditionally regarded as low-tech and labour intensive - are becoming much more automated and capital intensive: robots now milk cows. A return to durable economic growth will require continuing levels of investment in higher value sectors - services or goods based - to expand, maintain and upgrade capital assets."
Algo que permeia este blogue frequentemente: a importância de subir na escala de valor para aumentar a produtividade à custa da eficácia e não da eficiência. Recordar o que significam as imagens e a sua sequência na figura que ilustra os Fliyng Geese.
"Calling spending on workers' skills 'intangible investment' while downplaying the role of capital investment again mystifies the production process. Production brings workers and tangible capital together; neither is effective on their own. A machine is just an inert piece of kit until humans activate it. A person can work just with their hands without any tangible capital but their activities will remain primitive: crop picking by hand, or a home-visiting masseur. Not much else is possible for humans without some tools, or premises, or raw materials to work with.
Prioritising the role of human capital can divert from the requirement for much more tangible, innovation-carrying, capital investment. Too little of the latter has been undermining effective production, thereby holding back the productivity of the workers who make up the human capital. People who do not have the opportunity of working with modern technology are not that productive, and most do not have fulfilling work experiences either.
...
Increasing workforce skills are of no value economically in the absence of the capital investment, technology and jobs to use them. Devoting extra resources to training will not produce economic benefits if there are insufficient high-skill, high productivity jobs for the workforce. A supply of skilled people does not create a demand for them, and skills that are not used are rapidly lost. To be effective, skills need to combine with other factors in production, especially those deriving from adequate amounts of capital investment in innovation."
O velho tema da "caridadezinha" aqui no blogue. Recordo:
- de 2021 - Lerolero
- de 2008 - Vamos brincar à caridadezinha
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário