In the crisis debate as well as in the general economic policy discussions always have the impression that "competition" is a fixed term for which there is a precise definition - and exactly one. So always know what all is spoken here.
This is definitely wrong. Over the decades, in economics, different competition theories developed. A distinction has to be there - in chronological order - the "all-perfect competition," the "workable competition", the "free competition" and the "evolutionary competition." . Kurzbe The drawings are for theories that compete in different ways define (1) What is special is that the most recent theory, the elderly does not automatically replaced, perhaps because they - like you should take - was better. On the contrary. All known competition theories have certain strengths and weaknesses. In other words, until today there is no perfect and universally accepted theory of competition. Instead, various are imperfect and competing Theories of choice . (2)
This is fatal. Finally, competition is the "engine" of the market economy, that is, he is to prosper in the growth, development and welfare requirements or increase the effect-in other words, market-economies can be ordered. And if it is unclear how competition works and under what conditions these "motor" running smoothly, so that the market economy prospers, how can you can then ensure that it does exactly? Or worse, how can you can then ensure that he does that again, if he is in fact been sluggish, in other words, if the economy in the crisis there - like now?
This is not an academic question, it is currently the highest practical relevance. In view of the very low economic growth, which the governments of a number of industrialized countries at least since the Lehman bankruptcy in fall 2009 represents a serious problem, this is obviously an absolutely key issue.
you look, for example, to Japan, we see that there eased monetary policy extreme, and in the meantime for the fifth stimulus package was agreed, without being sustained in a stabilization or even upward economic development is reflected would have found.
Or the United States: Banks and companies were rescued by an unprecedented financial costs, stimulating the economy with massive government incentives and the U.S. central bank flooded the markets with dollars at rates close to zero - just last week, it informed the next gigantic tables cash injection for the markets. Used all that has nothing. This year were already closed $ 143 credit institutions from the Bank Supervision - more than in the whole crisis of 2009 (3), which remains unemployment at record levels, economic growth is no longer on a quarterly overview of the region with a zero before the decimal point out.
the amazing thing that no one has devoted to this central question - to this day. Nevertheless, the effort with billions in financial markets have been supported, banks saved and implemented measures to aid economic development. Whether those who led this event, which was conscious or not is irrelevant. It was clear from the outset that these measures would be nothing more than a risky experiment with uncertain outcome - success would have been pure luck. Because how can you call it when someone in a sputtering, coughing and spitting "economic engine" tampered with, without really knowing how does it work?
This is not an exaggeration. Just think of the inability of the leading economists to foresee the crisis and their bewilderment at how you would respond to best effect. up to now they in eliminating their explanation deficits in principle not progress (4)
Once, however, the so-called experts -. Among them the economics professor Ben Bernanke - their knowledge to address major economic crises, without sustained success have been tested, (5) begins with you the big frown. What to do?
was now so a new experimental field identified: the monetary system. The World Bank President Robert Zoellick suggests about a revival of the gold standard before (6) to stabilize the foreign exchange markets. To make it short: No matter how trying the monetary system reform, it is for the markets do not have a stabilization effect, because it was not the cause of the instability of the markets (financial markets and the real economy). This pre-proach to the problem is nothing more than to propose that the "economic engine" stutter and cough, because the gasoline that is supplied to him was bad. To stay in the picture: The still says someone who has no idea how this engine works, and therefore would this brand new start nothing but a new experiment - one that could have just as little success as the previous.
Mind you, it shall not thereby be denied that reform of the monetary system alone would be useful perhaps. But we must not be expected to result in pressing the existing problems, the financial markets and real economy continued to cause turmoil and the crisis can be solved. After all, the gold speculators should be happy about Zoellicks'Vorschlag.
Links:
(1) Stefan L. Eichner, competition, Industrial development and industrial policy , Berlin 2002;
(2) Economic and Financial Crisis: Wrong theory, wrong policies (v. 17:11:09)
(2) capitalism in crisis: farewell to the free market economy, farewell to the competition? (v. 20:09:09)
(3) Bank Die: The kids pay the price (by 6:11:10);
(4) overcome the crisis: the dilemma of economists and central bankers (by 6:07:09);
(5) first and second Great Depression: A different situation, other measures, but the same crucial mistake - History Repeating? (v. 21.03.10);
(6) currency dispute: World Bank chief calls for new gold standard (by 8:11:10).
