%2014.45.jpeg)
"Creative destruction is central to long-term economic growth as it enables people, capital and other resources to be continuously better deployed. [Moi ici: A "destruição criativa" é essencial para o crescimento económico de longo prazo]...But pan out and it is not so obvious. 't is hard to measure directly, said Michael Peters, an associate professor of economics at Yale University. 'But, in America, if you look at entry rates, exit rates or the frequency of job-to-job transitions — which are proxies for business dynamism — they have been falling in the last decade.' [Moi ici: A concentração de mercado e o apoio estatal excessivo a empresas incumbentes podem limitar a dinâmica dos negócios e a inovação]...Protectionism is another growth-suppressive force. Tariffs and non-tariff barriers prop up domestic producers, stymying the innovative pressure of competitive forces. [Moi ici: Tarifas e barreiras regulamentares dificultam a entrada de novas empresas e limitam a disseminação de novas ideias]...A greater policy focus on economic agility would help. Trade and competition regimes should lower barriers to market entry. National retraining schemes need to support industrial transformation. [Moi ici: Reformas fiscais e regulamentares são necessárias para impedir a manutenção de "empresas zombi" e estimular um mercado mais competitivo]...Nimbysm, industrial lobbies and regulatory burdens are all examples. Red tape is a reason why California has the highest outflow of companies of any US state." [Moi ici: O impacte do poder corporativo no atraso da inovação e no bloqueio da alocação eficiente de recursos através do conluio com os poderes instituídos]
No livro de Phill Mullan, "Creative Destruction", ele escreve sobre isto (no DN de ontem) "BCE estima que impacto económico dos PRR vai ser mais fraco do que o previsto":
"Williams calculated that the increase in US real GDP for every incremental dollar of debt was $4.61 between 1947 and 1952, falling to $0.63 between 1953 and 1984. This period ended with the takeoff of debt-fuelled activity. Between 1985 and 2000 the additional value per dollar fell further to $0.24, declining by another two-thirds to $0.08 between 2001 and 2012.
...
"Zombification is more serious than the proliferation of zombie businesses. It promotes a broader economy that obstructs economic restructuring. State measures to artificially boost economic output and maintain higher employment levels obscure the urgency of restructuring and block the potential allocation of resources to more productive purposes.
...
Over time even the surface-level benefits from coping measures fade. This is not immediately apparent because the exhaustion of uplifting effects rarely leads to the particular support mechanism being openly abandoned. On the contrary, it usually prompts more of the same treatment. Efforts are redoubled on the presumption that there has not been enough of it."
O epitáfio:
"Accepting more dependency on state intervention to cope with sluggish economic conditions becomes the default position for individual business. This takes over from engaging in the risk and disruption involved in carrying out their own technological revolutions. Better to prosper in an environment of silent corporate dependency on the state, than risk all on a new entrepreneurial venture.
Individual businesses and their workforces may enjoy the immediate benefit of stability and continuity, but over the longer term the economy and all the people who rely on that economy for their livelihood and incomes will suffer. A zombie economy becomes a black hole that sucks in and dampens all activity, and frustrates creative impulses. It represents a 'trap'"
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário