Minimalna zarada i osobe sa invaliditetom

Popularno je shvatanje da minimalna zarada štiti zaposlene, garantujući im određen nivo primanja. Međutim, iz ugla tržišne ekonomije, time se deformiše tržište rada, budući da su oni koji su spremni da rade za manje od minimalne zarade onemogućeni da stupe u radni odnos, zbog čega se povećava nezaposlenost.

Philip Davies, član britanskog parlamenta, govori o štetnosti minimalne zarade za određene kategorije nezaposlenih, kao što su osobe sa invaliditetom:

"My view is that for some people, the national minimum wage may be more of a hindrance than a help. 

If those people who consider it is being a hindrance to them, and in my view that's some of the most vulnerable people in society, if they feel that for a short period of time, taking a lower rate of pay to help them get on their first rung of the jobs ladder, if they judge that that is a good thing, I don't see why we should be standing in their way."

Mr Davies was challenged over his remarks by fellow Tory MP Edward Leigh who told him: "Forget the fact there is a minimum wage for a moment. Why actually should a disabled person work for less than £5.93 an hour. It is not a lot of money, is it?"

Mr Davies replied that, irrespective of whether it was "right or wrong", that was "just the real world that we operate in".

To je iz teksta sa sajta BBC-a. A šta o tome misle osobe na koje se ovo odnosi? Ziggy Encaoua u tekstu pod nazivom "Not all disabled people want socialism" se ne bavi konkretno pitanjem zapošljavanja osoba sa invaliditetom, ali daje neke odgovore na pitanje statusa ovih osoba u društvu i načinima pomoću kojih im se želi pomoći:

My views have evolved from a combination of my own experiences as a disabled person and the treatment of disabled people in society. I believe that socialistic government helps to foster an attitude in society that there will always be a social worker or an institution to care for the disabled, and so why should any individual care so long as it's someone else's job.

But the bigger problem with social workers is they need people to be messed up because the more messed up people that there are then the more social workers can justify their jobs. I found this out when I used to be involved in a charity for people who had mental health problems. ... the charity relied upon government funding and the government didn't measure funding by how many people the charity helped to rehabilitate but by the number of people who were on their books. 

The more people the charity had, the more funding there was. And the social workers who worked there looked out for their job prospects. So instead of helping people get ahead and become useful members of society they decided generally to spoon feed them and wipe their backsides. 

Ceo tekst se može pročitati ovde. 

Levica sve manje popularna

The Economist daje grafik koji pokazuje broj levičarskih vlada u EU od 1993. godine do danas. Vidi se konstantan pad popularnosti levice od 2000. godine, tako da trenutno u EU 27 ima samo 5 levičarskih vlada.

Tekst se nalazi ovde, a post na istu temu ima i Daniel Hannan, na svom blogu, gde daje tumačenje ovog trenda:

Why? Mainly because people see that the money has run out. During the boom years, voters were happy enough to indulge big-spending parties. Now, they simply want competence.

Whether they will get it is a different matter. The single currency, and the associated plans for fiscal integration, seriously limit the ability of free-market parties to pursue growth strategies. The awful truth is that, as long as your country is in the euro, it doesn’t much matter how you vote.

Kit Ričards i ekonomska politika

Forbes donosi nesvakidašnji tekst o Kit Ričardsu, gitaristi grupe Rolling Stones, na bazi njegove autobiografije pod nazivom „Life“. Kao što naslov posta kaže, tekst se bavi odnosom između njegovog uspeha u bavljenju muzikom (kao i uspeha Rolling Stones) i različitih koncepcija vođenja ekonomske i socijalne politike:

O nejednakosti:

His first guitar cost 10 British pounds, but since his mother couldn’t afford to pay for it, she got someone else to purchase it, and then that someone eventually defaulted. … As he explained it, “I firmly believe if you want to be a guitar player, you better start on acoustic and then graduate to electric.” Rather than allow his reduced economic circumstances to act as a barrier to achievement, he accentuated the positive, that he had a guitar, and proceeded to “play every spare moment I got.” Clearly Richards started at the bottom, and had less financial resources to fund his development much as there’s inequality among children today, but this was no deterrent. 

Richards’ view is that “if you want to get to the top, you’ve got to start at the bottom, same with anything.” Wise words from a wise man, and something politicians would do well remember as they seek to achieve equality through legislative fiat. Being at the bottom often drives creativity, as Richards’ story attests. Thank goodness British politicians weren’t giving out electric guitars back in the ‘50s.

O porezima:

Considering income taxes more broadly, Richards exposes the hubristic absurdity of confiscatory rates. With England taxing the country’s highest earners at 83% by the 1970s, Richards saw those rates as the equivalent of “being told to leave the country.” As Richards recounts, “The last thing I think the powers that be expected when they hit us with super-super tax is that we’d say, fine, we’ll leave. We’ll be another one not paying tax to you.” Of course that’s the beauty of wealth of the mind, as opposed to immovable wealth of the earth (think oil). Wealth of the mind which the Rolling Stones possessed in abundance made them highly mobile on the way to the band producing its classic album Exile on Main St. away from England in the South of France. England made the cost of success in the ‘70s expensive, so the Rolling Stones moved on. Amen.

O koristima od trgovine:

Considering trade, the deal that ensured the Rolling Stones’ long-term success was a 1965 contract with Decca Records. As Richards recalls, “It was an incredibly successful deal for both parties. Which is what a deal is supposed to be. I’m still getting paid off of it; it’s called the Decca balloon.” So often economic journalists decry imports given the belief that they weaken us, or that trade between “countries” must be balanced, but as Richards reminds, trade is always a two-way street whereby individuals exchange what they have for something they don’t. The Rolling Stones’ surplus was popular music, and they exchanged it with a company whose surplus was successful distribution of that music.

Ceo tekst se može pročitati ovde.

U socijalizmu nikad nije vreme za reforme

Ivan Vujačić, bivši ambasador u SAD i član Političkog saveta DS govori za prošli broj srpskog Ekonomista:

Zašto u Srbiji tranzicija nije okončana ni posle 10 godina?

I. Vujačić: Dominantni razlog je što nije ni postojao konsenzus u društvu da bi suštinski trebalo da se odreknemo socijalizma, da u tržišnoj privredi država ne bi trebalo da igra ključnu ulogu. U socijalizmu nikad nije vreme za reforme. U dobra vremena nema potrebe za reformama, a kad je kriza niko ne želi bilo šta da menja, da se stvari ne pogoršaju. Zato javni sektor nije restrukturiran i živimo u začaranom krugu. Tog pogrešnog mišljenja se do danas nismo odrekli, a zbog krize sve je više razočaranih i protivnika tržišnog sistema, koji govore da bi država trebalo da rešava sve ekonomske probleme. Bez obzira na povratak „kejnzijanizma“, nigde se nije odustalo od tržišne privrede. Nema, dakle, povratka, koji ovde mnogi priželjkuju.

Novost je da ljudi koji ovako razmišljaju i dalje pripadaju DS-u.
Ima i nekih stvari sa kojima se ne slažem, npr u delu kada govori o privatizaciji:

Bilo je grešaka, koje su bile plod žurbe, neadekvatne kontrole pranja novca i načina sprovođenja aukcija. Nije dovoljno praćeno šta se dešava u privatizovanim firmama, pa se reagovalo kasno. Možda je model i bio dobar, ali njegova realizacija sigurno nije jer je poništeno 25 odsto kupoprodajnih ugovora.

Mislim da nije problem nedovoljne kontrole tih preduzeća nakon privatizacije, već činjenice da se smatralo da Agencija treba da ima bilo kakvu kontrolu nad njima nakon prodaje. Samim činom sticanja većinskog vlasništva, privatni vlasnik je jedini koji je odgovoran za njihovo poslovanje.

Država vs. strana konkurencija

Iako na sajtu Politike postoji opcija pretraživanja tekstova iz 90-ih godina, izgleda da ne radi baš najbolje jer ne otvara tekstove na željeni datum. To je velika šteta jer sam hteo da pronađem bilo koji tekst iz rubrike ekonomija iz tog perioda koji glorifikuje uspehe državnih preduzeća (verovatno ih je bilo sasvim dovoljno da se mogu pronaći pod bilo kojim datumom) a koji je po svojoj suštini identičan današnjem (da, baš tako, današnjem) tekstu koji je objavio B92: Srbijagas udahnuo život Agroživu.

Tamo ćete naći fraze tipa “u projektu iza kojeg je stala i Vlada Srbije” ili „država nije tek tako htela da ispusti živinsku industriju i tržište prepusti stranoj konkurenciji” i tome slično. 

Porez na dobit

Iako se porez na dobit korporacija od 10% u Srbiji često naziva vrlo niskim i time stimulativnim za strane investicije, na sledećoj slici vidimo kakva je situacija sa ostalim zemljama u Evropi (članice EU su prikazane). Srbija se dakle nalazi samo na polovini liste (kliknite na sliku za uvećanje).