At this point of the blog and despite few posts that I have noticed that bothers me terribly that people talk the talk, speaking without knowing the subject, that people who repeat everything you see in the media, people that instead of think is intended. That is why today I will address a particular topic, social plans. But rather than embrace it from the political implications I will try to explain what it means in economic terms and because they are a good idea.
To begin must do a bit of history of economic thought. The capitalist system was always a topic of fights among economists is that and participation must be the rule in the market. Since its inception it was thought that the State should mediate as little as possible, those who support this theory are known as liberal, said there was no to get into the market that had to let everything flow. Among them was a group known as Physiocrats, these people believed that all production was natural, agriculture, all that was the nature and the rest, as artisans, industrialists, etc were sterile (who reminds them that?). But the industrial revolution and the shift of people to urban centers showed that it is not. Also managed to establish a mindset of laissez faire laissez passer (laissez-faire, let go), this phrase advocated the non-state participation in the economy, leaving everything to the market. In the late nineteenth century capitalism broke down and the state had to intervene, this is where it restated its intervention, but the Liberals won again. Result we have the Great Depression of the '30s. In order to overcome the worst economic crisis facing capitalism had turned again to the state and economic theory Keynesianism, named after its greatest exponent John Maynard Keynes. This man said that the state had to get into the job driving the economy and consumption. He said that if necessary would have to pay people to remove the stones and replace, and based on that if people have jobs, received a salary and have a salary could buy things and so generate an increase in private consumption that would come to meet.
Here is when it begins a new "battle" between economists, on the one hand and the other liberal Keynesians. Some saying the state did not have market share and others said that the State was the one who should regulate it. Each side has its justifications and its theories. And the truth is that neither is completely wrong. For the 70 Keynesian capitalism is in crisis giving you the chance to return to the Liberals, now know as "neo liberal" (although in the background is the same.) Argentina suffered a great deal in this model through the imposition of U.S. imperialism. Since the last dictatorship began declining state involvement in economic issues, reaching almost complete reduction in the mid-'90s under the rules of the Washington Consensus macroeconomic (this was to get rid of all state regulation to avoid markets, etc.) and menemato. The results are well seen in 2001, people had no job, no money in the street, had gone to the situation of barter, not able to pay for commitments to external entities, etc..
postings in the past to explain some of the steps I use this model to overcome the crisis, social plans are also part of these economic measures. And this is very simple to understand, it works something like this:
For example take the Universal by Son, to every family with children who have unmet needs is awarded $ 180 each child. The first thing people think this gentrified thoughts encourages laziness, they will buy anything but what they need to live and that does not work, that only helps the poor and bla bla bla. Well what of vagrancy might be true as not, then spend it on anything that helps only the poor is a lie. The people who are given this plan has no capacity to save, it means that everything you give it spends, no matter what, but I spent. All that money you spend 33% more or less returned to the state in taxes and the rest goes to private. With the 33% levied by the state returns to fund more public works or more plans or whatever, and the rest covers the cost private and has a profit. But it turns out to be an increase in the population with purchasing power, private companies will have to increase production to meet demand for this, among other things, have to increase the workforce, thus creating paid jobs. If there is an increase of labor means that more people will be receiving a salary, the more people paid on average will have more things to buy and we will have to produce more, and the more there is more work will be, and so continues the vicious cycle that generates growth in the economy. This is one reason why the country emerged from the crisis.
Now assuming that all employers are honest and have a full blank payroll, paying good wages, fulfilling the law, etc.., With Over time the number of people living in social programs would decline because they are not part of the population with unmet needs, and the State in turn could use these funds to invest to improve the conditions of the country. This is what it says Keynesian theory and the results can be seen on the street (not the biased media).
The problem in Argentina is given in that 30 years of social neglect can not be fixed in 5 years, it takes time. There are guys who never saw their parents work through the policies of the '90s, people losing their jobs and not turned back to retrieve to various addictions, uneducated people who can not comply with jobs that require skilled labor, etc. Because let's be fair, an uneducated woman who lives in a box, which has 5 children, kids, is not able to go to work. That's why the state has the obligation to continue providing assistance, whether they spend it on anything, it is important that in future this means an increase in demand for labor, which will facilitate their children if you have access to decent work and that their grandchildren could be educated out of poverty and marginalization.
When watching a social plan, not to repeat what that tells the people of upper class. Think about what benefits it brings to the economy and what benefits it brings to people who really need it, the rich do not need the State to live well, the poor if the State need not live badly. So you have to be supportive and try to understand what the other person's. Because they said that living in a villa with a thousand pesos a month is not nice, do not go as well as many would have you believe.
A little long this post, but I wanted to get everything in one publication, I hope you serve something. Thanks to everyone who sent me messages of support and gratitude All I can say is that I know I owe you and I paid the primary, secondary and university, I just back what you helped me to get.
0 comments:
Post a Comment