Blog jest częścią NAWIGATORA do mojej książki Wędrujący świat www.wedrujacyswiat.pl. Jej Czytelnicy mogą tutaj kontynuować frapującą i nigdy niekończącą się debatę na temat światowej społeczności, globalnej gospodarki i ludzkich losów, a także naszego miejsca i własnych perspektyw w tym wędrującym świecie.
Tutaj można przeczytać wszystkie wpisy prof. Grzegorza W. Kołodko.
Zapraszam do dyskusji!
Blog is a part of NAVIGATOR to my book Truth, Errors and Lies. Politics and Economics in a Volatile World www.volatileworld.net. The readers can continue here the fascinating, never-ending debate about the world’s society, global economy and human fate. It inspires one to reflect also on one’s own place in the world on the move and one’s own prospects. In this way the user can exchange ideas with the author and other interested readers.
Here you can download archive of all posts professor G. W. Kołodko.
You are invited to join our debate!
(1842.) TVN24, zaledwie trzy miesiące temu: „W październiku okaże się, że sytuacja finansowa Polski jest dużo gorsza niż się mówi, a rząd winę za to zrzuci na “resztę świata” – uważa prof. Grzegorz Kołodko. – Pan Kołodko kłamie, bo absolutnie tak nie jest – odpowiada mu minister finansów Jacek Rostowski.”
Po sejmowej debacie nad stanem gospodarki, 19 sierpnia br., zostałem zaproszony do TVN24, aby odpowiedzieć na pytania dotyczące rzeczywistego stanu polskiej gospodarki i finansów Państwa. Później, po audycji z moim udziałem, pojawił się tam również minister finansów Rostowski. W rozmowie z nim prowadzący dziennikarz przywołuje moją wypowiedź, w której dowodziłem, że rząd i minister finansów pewne rzeczy w odniesieniu do faktycznej sytuacji gospodarki i finansów publicznych ukrywają i dopiero po wyborach powiedzą, że jest dużo gorzej i zaczną ciąć wydatki. Minister Rostowski odpowiedział, że ja kłamię, gdyż absolutnie tak nie jest (dosłowny fragment cytuję poniżej, podając także stosowny link internetowy).
Jak jest naprawdę, przyznał – choć wciąż nie wszystko i nie do końca – premier Tusk w swoim expose, czyli wkrótce po wyborach, które łatwiej było wygrać, manipulując cynicznie opinią publiczną. Jest źle, będzie jeszcze gorzej, więc cięcia, cięcia i cięcia…
I kto tu kłamie, Panie Rostowski? Chyba że Pan się tylko mylił, ale to jeszcze większy wstyd, bo profesjonalistom tak ogromnych błędów popełniać nie wypada. A czym się różnią i skąd się biorą błędy i kłamstwa w ekonomii i polityce, o tym piszę szerzej w I rozdziale „Wędrującego świata”.
Swoją drogą ciekawe, czy minister finansów przeprosi telewidzów za to, że świadomie wprowadzał ich w błąd… Jak Państwo sądzicie? Można na coś takiego liczyć? Byłbym zaskoczony!
TVN 24 – 19 sierpnia 2011 (http://www.tvn24.pl/-1,1714600,0,1,rostowski-pan-kolodko-klamie-nic-nie-ukrywamy,wiadomosc.html):
Red. Morozowski: “Pan Kołodko dla przykładu twierdzi, że niektóre rzeczy nie są znane, ponieważ ukrywacie je przed wyborcami, bo dopiero po wyborach niektóre rzeczy można będzie prosto wyborcom powiedzieć. Te nieprzyjemne, prawda? Czy może będzie jeszcze gorzej? I pewne cięcia trzeba będzie przeprowadzić?”
Rostowski: “To ja powiem jasno, że pan Kołodko kłamie, bo absolutnie tak nie jest.”
(1841.) China, due to comprehensive structural reforms and gradual institutional building, has been a market economy since some time. Actually, such status was confirmed by welcoming this emerging giant to the World Trade Organization, WTO, already ten years ago. The more so China deserves now to be recognized as market economy by the West, both the USA and the European Union. Forthcoming (mid-December) state visit to Beijing of Poland’s President, Bronislaw Komorowski, is good opportunity to support decisively the Chinese claim to be acknowledged as market economy. And it should not be linked to the otherwise justified call for further going democratization. This should be said at the time of Poland’s European Presidency, which is coming to conclusion by the end of this year.
(1840.) Panie Profesorze, czy z Pańskim doświadczeniem życiowym, oraz zebraną przez lata więdzą jest szansa na bardziej sprawiedliwy podział tego co jest wytwarzane przez ludzkość w danych ustabilizowanych regionach takich jak UE? jeżeli potrafi Pan to proszę wybrowadzić mnie z błędnego myślenia, bo mam przeczucie na podstawie wiedzy z działalności finansowych, politycznych oraz ekonomiczo-gospodarczych przemian, którą zbieram i sledzę na bierząco, że nie jest to realne w świecie wielkich grup interesów bankowych i chciwości jaką sie kierują, czyli przeciwieństwem “pro publico bono”, które Pan głosi.
A dlaczego? bo jak słyszę że największy bank na świecie Goldman Sachs (GS) jest oskarżany przez np. “władze stanowe Massachusetts o celowe wypuszczenie złych hipotek” które jak wiedzą zainteresowani są problemem obecnego kryzysu finansowego na świecie(oczywiście nie tylko ten bank takim procederem sie zajmował bo i Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch & Co w Bank of America Corp, które zbankrótowały i wielki GS je przejął, wchłonął) i prawnicy GS wolą wynegocjować i zapłacić grzywnę 60mlUSD, jednocześnie nie przyznając się do winy. A za co jest kara? za przewinienie. Tylko szkoda że ta kara nie jest adekwatna i bardziej dotkliwsza za tak ogromne przestępstwa finasowe, ale w zamian za to dostają dofinansowanie z Planu Paulsona. I mam jedno przekonanie że bez zmiany wewnętrznej tych ludzi u góry (nie na dole, czyli nas jak zazwyczaj chce się zmieniać) w sieci powiązań bankowych, to nie przyjdą sprawiedliwsze czasy. Kto jest cwany, chciwy z nabytą wiedzą i inteligencją na swoja korzyść wykorzystuje masy, to żyje się jemu dostatnio;)często przez Pana przypomionane złe cechy “greed is good”
Niektórzy uważają, że utkana przez amerykański bank Goldman Sachs (GS) sieć wpływów w USA np. Henry Paulson 1974 Paulson podjął pracę w banku inwestycyjnym Goldman Sachs. Przechodził w tym banku kolejne szczeble kariery, zarówno w oddziałach lokalnych jak i centrali, by w czerwcu 1998 zastąpić Jona Corzine na stanowisku prezydenta i dyrektora wykonawczego.Podobnie jak kilku jego poprzedników na czele Goldman Sachs, m.in. Jon Corzine i Robert Rubin, przeszedł następnie do administracji państwowej. W maju 2006 po rezygnacji Johna Snowa prezydent George W. Bush mianował Paulsona sekretarzem skarbu. Senat zatwierdził jego kandydaturę pod koniec czerwca, Paulson został oficjalnie zaprzysiężony na stanowisku 10 lipca 2006 i wprowadził(tzw.Plan Paulsona”Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008″ i obciążył tym act. przyszłe pokolenie amerykanów i ciekawe gdzie te wszystkie pieniądze sie teraz znajdują, na których kontach prywatnych banków?
A w Europie czytając różnego rodzaju rzeczywiste informacje, działa na kształt masonerii. Na różnych poziomach emblematycznymi figurami tej gęstej sieci są: nowy prezes Europejskiego Banku Centralnego Mario Draghi, nowy premier Włoch Mario Monti i nowy premier Grecji Lukas Papadimos. Pierwszy z nich był wiceprezesem Goldman Sachs International na Europę w latach 2002-2005. Był odpowiedzialny za oddział „przedsiębiorstw i suwerennych państw”, który niedługo przed jego przybyciem pomógł Grecji podretuszować konta długu publicznego dzięki wchłaniającym część długu publicznego transakcjom „swapowym”.
Drugi był doradcą międzynarodowym Goldman Sachs od 2005 do czasu nominacji na szefa włoskiego rządu. Według rzeczników banku jego misja polegała na doradzaniu w „sprawach Europy i w ważnych kwestiach światowej polityki”. Zadaniem Mario Montiego było „otwieranie drzwi”, przenikanie do europejskich władz i bronienie od środka interesów GS.
Trzeci, Lukas Papadimos w latach 1994-2002 był prezesem greckiego banku centralnego. W związku z tym odegrał pewną (niejasną) rolę w operacjach „retuszowania” przy pomocy banku Goldman Sachs kont publicznych. Zarządcą długu greckiego jest z kolei Petros Christodoulos, dawniej spekulant giełdowy amerykańskiego banku w Londynie.
O dwóch innych szychach z sieci Goldmana w Europie też było głośno w związku z kryzysem strefy euro – to Otmar Issing, były członek zarządu Bundesbanku i były główny ekonomista Europejskiego Banku Centralnego oraz Irlandczyk Peter Sutherland, administrator Goldman Sachs International, który od środka zna kulisy operacji ratowania Irlandii.
Jak doszło do powstania tej sieci zauszników i pośredników? W Stanach Zjednoczonych ten magiczny krąg składa się z ludzi, którzy stali na czele tej instytucji, a potem zabrali swe manatki i objęli najwyższe stanowiska w państwie. W Europie wygląda to trochę inaczej – tu Goldman Sachs został apostołem kapitalizmu wspartego na „znajomościach”.
Lecz w przeciwieństwie do swoich konkurentów bank ten nie interesuje się ani emerytowanymi dyplomatami, ani wysokimi urzędnikami państwowymi lub międzynarodowymi, a w jeszcze mniejszym stopniu eks-premierami czy ministrami finansów. Goldmanowi zależy przede wszystkim na prezesach banków centralnych i na byłych komisarzach europejskich.
A na naszym podwórku to bank inwestycyjny Goldman Sachs dokonywał transakcji obliczonych na spadek wartości złotego. Przyznał, że na osłabianiu walut z naszego regionu zarobił więcej niż zakładał. Chciał 6-procentowego zysku, a zarobił prawie 8 procent. W końcu uznał, że gra na dalsze spadki to za duże ryzyko.
oraz “Robienie z Kazimierza Marcinkiewicza spekulanta to działanie na granicy przyzwoitości” – stwierdził szef rządu Donald Tusk. Wczoraj bank Goldman Sachs przyznał się do gry przeciwko naszej walucie. Temu bankowi doradza właśnie były premier PiS Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz. Jest w nim specjalistą od Europy Środkowej.
A może te wszystkie działania prowadzą do wprowadzenia światowej waluty, o której pan również wspomina, ale jak wiem to pokojowo nie jest możliwe ośiągniecie takiego celu. Więc może czekają nas z tego powodu niespokojne czasy…
(1839.) Do Piotra (wpis1833) Premiera filmu “Margin Call” tytuł polski “Chciwość” w Polsce planowana na 23.12.2011 podaje link do strony na której jest informacja o filmie: http://monolith.pl/19/?user_monolith_pi1pointer=0&user_monolith_pi1mode=1&user_monolith_pi1is_plus=0&user_monolith_pi1screen_year=666&user_monolith_pi1screen_month=666&user_monolith_pi1showUid=322
(1838.) Polecam obejrzeć film dokumentalny pt. “Kanciarze z Wall Street” tytuł angielski “Plunder: The Crime of Our Time”, przedstawiający zarys problemów do jakich doprowadzili inżynierowie z Wall Street i z jakimi problemami borykać będą się amerykanie przez najbliższe lata
(1837.) @ Piotr (wpis 1833)
Tak, “Margin Call” to film godny obejrzenia. “A must”, jak powiadają Amerykanie. Pokazuje on z jeszcze innej perspektywy moralną miernotę współczesnego leseferyzmu, czyli neoliberalizmu. Ciekawe, dlaczego nie ma go i nie jest nagłaśniany w Polsce?…
(1836.) Dear Mr.kolodko
I just want to say THANK YOU FOR YOUR BOOK!!!This is best book I ve ever read.BEST REGARDS AND GOOD HEALTH TO YOU AND TO YOUR FAMILY.
(1835.) Twenty years after the collapse of Soviet Union I’ve been asked some questions by “Mir Pieremien” (“The Changing World”), the quarterly of Russian Academy of Science, where I serve on the International Scientific Board. Here are the answer:
1. What did you feel when you learnt of the collapse of the USSR? How did you think it would affect personally you, the country, the world?
Although I was expecting such event, I was taken by a surprise. It came sooner than I did foresee it at that time. When I came back from my visit to Moscow in December 1990, where I discussed the economic challenges with Russian colleagues after the plan “500 days to market system” was published, I organized at the Institute of Finance (of which I was director in 1989-93) seminar called “In 500 days to hyperinflation”. And then I was concerned that a combination of hyperinflation, severe recession, and breaking of the Soviet Union hardly will go peacefully. Yet, in general, it was so.
I hadn’t care even for a second how it may affect myself personally. As for my country, Poland, my train of thought had been that it will make post-socialist transformation easier than otherwise. As for the world, I didn’t expect such great changes in the economic position of particular countries and regions, especially I didn’t anticipate that the output in the former Soviet Union will collapse by over half and the Chinese production will grow so fast. If one told me twenty years ago that Russia’s GDP – being then three times higher than China’s – will be just a fifth of Chinese GDP two decades later, I wouldn’t believe it. And as for the globe, I wasn’t betting that the world, under the Western influence, will be for so long to such big extent following the neoliberal model of capitalism – with all the devastating outcome we face contemporary.
2. Currently, the former Soviet republics (apart of the Baltic States) are trying to interact within the CIS framework in accordance with the Byelovezha agreement (1991). So far, it does not satisfy the member countries, although some of these days some of them signed the Agreement on Free trade zone. Does this unification have prospect of real integration?
The most sensible way forward for the countries of former Soviet Union – aside of these which are already, or have a realistic chance to be in the future, the members of European Union – is to reintegrate. Of course, this time it must be a process of voluntary integration, based on the principles of market economy and democratic institutions. I do hope it will go into such direction. This is the only chance – a chance, and not the guarantee – for this region to stand the winds of irreversible globalization. As I argue in my books, including “Mir v dvizhenii”, the world of the future will be even more inter-depended planetary economy than it is now. Instead of being divided into more or less integrated and cooperating 200 national economies, it will consist of dozen of large regional integration groupings (and, of course, China, which is big enough without integrating with any particular country, but just with the entire world). CIS should be one of them.
3. Unification processes in the post-Soviet space are sometimes presented in the West as an attempt to recreate “the empire of evil”. Does it correspond to real political and economic imperatives of joint development of the states of the region?
An accusation of ‘an attempt to recreate “the empire of evil”’ is ridiculous, yet it is – and will be – repeated from time to time, by some Polish newspapers too. Why regional integration is good in EU or ASEAN, in Mercosur or NAFTA, in SADC or ECOWAS, and it supposed to be ‘evil empire’ in the case of post-Soviet countries? Because they are former SOVIET republics? Because it will be under the dominance of regional giant, that is Russia? The regional integration process must be seen as a reasonable escape forward, not as a journey back in the past. The former is possible, the latter unrealistic. It is on the behalf of the world economy that there will be a prosperous, market-based regional grouping at the lion share of the former USSR territory. Such integration process should be supported and assisted, and not torpedoed.
4. 20 years ago the CEE states coexisted with the USSR within the framework of the Warsaw Pact and COMECON. Today, some of them are in EU and NATO, others – members of the CIS and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Mutual connections have been significantly curtailed, which affects particularly the economic sphere. Perhaps, such phenomena correspond to the current state of mutual relations, but are there fundamental grounds for their significant expansion in the future?
The world of the future will definitely be the multi-pillars world. It will be more complex that the world at the time of Cold War and the world during two decades since the collapse of state socialism in East Central Europe and the Soviet Union. Some of the organizations will evolve and mature, some of them will become obsolete and will vanish. One cannot be at the same time in the EU and CIS, in NATO and CSTO, but one can belong to certain structures, if they serve different purposes.
But in the future there will be more integration – not only at the economic fields – but for sure some of contemporary structures, intentionally aiming at co-operation and integration, will find their place in the store of history. In my part of word a such is co-called Central European Initiative, going all the way down from Finland and Estonia in the north through Slovakia and Austria in the center to Croatia and Italy in the south. Nobody needs such structure anymore. So will be the case with certain political structures trying still to find their place in the new world. They won’t. But the CIS will. Even if it will be called by another name.
(1834.) One week in Moscow and Beijing was extremely busy. Lectures, interviews, books presentations, meetings, consultations, and yet there was a time to enjoy three performances! From Philip Kirkorov show at Kremlin Palace, through classical Russian opera at Bolshoi, to Polish piano music played by Krzysztof Jablonski in Beijing. Yet the main reason for this trip was hard work, not having fun…
As for the lectures in Moscow, both at the Lomonosov University and University of Technology and Management (the latter in Russian) I have found the students very well prepared, intelligent and interested in the topics of globalization and development. They ask difficult questions and, since they do read the literature, they know what to ask about. The same impression one has in Beijing. These are the new generations, with different values, different views, different agendas than their fathers and grandfathers. Yet, aside of universities and academia circles – with all due caveats about so many differences between contemporary Russia and China, and between robust in different ways culture in Moscow and Beijing – one has this growing feeling that there is a limit for state capitalism, which indeed is the current economic system in both these countries. It must change. And it will, though it may take another generation-lasting time.
In Beijing, I have presented my just published in Chinese book, the translation from English “Truth, Errors, and Lies: the Politics and Economics in a Volatile World.” There were two presentations: one hosted by the Poland’s embassy and H.E. Tadeusz Chomicki (on the right at attached photo) and attended by the directors of the publisher, the Foreign Languages Press, and another one, in the lobby of the “Caixin Summit: China and the World”. Because of the book and because of the summit, at which I presented a keynote speech on the ways out of global crisis, I have given a dozen interviews, answering the questions of Chinese media. There is a great desire to learn from our experience what works and why and what doesn’t as well as keen interests in understanding the dynamics of European and world crisis. Now, we have to read the Chinese papers and watch Chinese TV.
The Chinese professionals – from academia, financial sector, managers, media, and politicians – are catching-up with the world. The discussion at the Caixin Summit was pure pragmatic and technocratic, without much of ideology and politics. Sometimes I have the feeling that certain debates in Poland are more ideologically driven, as strange as it may be. But there is an urgent need not only to discuss, but to overhaul the current state of affairs, namely too much of inequality and too great interference into the economic matters by the government (central and local) bureaucracy.
Both, Russia and China, are indeed at the crossroads. And they will be there for a while. But it is impossible to stay there forever. Better to escape forward.
(1833.) Od czasu do czasu mówi się tu o ciekawych filmach. Chciałbym więc polecić “Margin call” (z Kevinem Spacey w roli głównej). Jego akcja rozgrywa się w ciągu 24 godzin, tuż przed wybuchem obecnego kryzysu, w wielkim banku, który właśnie stanął na skraju przepaści. Nagle okazuje się, że bank ma miliardy dolarów utopione w aktywach, które tak naprawdę nie są nic warte. Próbuje więc w ciągu kilku godzin wszystkiego się pozbyć.
Jeżeli komuś podobał się film “Wall Street: money never sleeps” Olivera Stone’a, to “Margin call” też przypadnie do gustu.
Panie Profesorze, widział Pan już ten film? Z tego, co wiem, “Margin call” nie jest dostępny w żadnym z polskich kin, wyszedł chyba tylko na DVD.
(1832.) I wonder what would be like the reaction of media and Western political circles if now China and Russia would start to preach and teach about the civil rights, and criticize the USA government for a lack of respect for democratic protests and human rights to express people thoughts? The ideological and political hypocrisy is unlimited, as it is proved again and again, this time by recent police actions taken against the protesters across the USA (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15732661).
As for London, the tent city is still at the steps of Saul Paul cathedral. For how long? And where is the financial transaction tax, promised by the European Union President, Mr. Barroso, and supported by both, French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, and German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. Pity that Poland, at the Presidency of the European Union, stays silent at such extraordinary time.
(1831.) If you speak Russian, and if you are interested in the future matters, as you ought to, you may find interesting and inspiring the book called “Strategicheskiy globalnyi prognoz 2030″ (“The Strategic Global Forecast 2030”), written by a team of Russian social scientists and edited by professor Aleksandr A. Dynkin. The book, issued recently by the publishing house MAGISTR (478 pp.), covers a wide range of issues – from politics to economics, from environment to migration, from technology to security – and attempts to show how and by what trends and forces the world future can be shaped.
Interestingly, the authors reveal (I don’t) the opinion, dominant among the demographers, that Russia’s population in 2030 will be smaller than it is now (just 140 million people), while the Russia’s share in the world output (in terms of GDP) will remain at the current level, while the Chinese output’s part in the planetary production is expected to double. If the latter scenario is possible, the former seems the be too pessimistic, and strange it is that this is the opinion of Russian leading professionals. Notwithstanding, it is very interesting to learn how the Russian scholars see the next two decades of the world affairs and further course of globalization.
Do have another glance at the book’s cover. It shows the painting (1936) by Rene Magritte, the great Belgian surrealist, and it’s so much telling. One can try to show the future just through extrapolation of the recent trends, which so often happens to be a serious error, because there is sometime much more of change than of continuation. If continuity prevails, the painter should just draw a larger egg… Yet the future is much more about the qualitative and quantative changes, and instead of larger egg there will be the bird! So, what, where, why, for whom, and by what mean there will be around in the world of 2030? The Dynkin’s team book says a lot of interesting things about it.
(1830.) @ Piotr (wpis 1824): “Minister finansów poinformował dziś, że przygotował na przyszły rok trzy wersje budżetu. Jedna zakłada w 2012 r. wzrost PKB 3,2 proc., druga – 2,5 proc., a trzecia – spadek PKB o 1 proc. Która wersja – Pańskim zdaniem – jest najbardziej prawdopodobna?”
Jeśli minister finansów głosi takie prognozy – natychmiast po wyborach parlamentarnych, podczas kampanii wyborczej do których wraz z premierem świadomie manipulowali opinią publiczną, wprowadzając ją w błąd – to powinien ze wstydu zapaść się pod ziemię. Do wyborów upierano się, że wzrost PKB w 2012 roku wyniesie 4 proc. i na takim, celowo fałszywym założeniu oparto projekt budżetu. Od początku było oczywiste, że to nierealistyczne. Skądinąd, to zdumiewające, jak tak jawne okłamywanie ludzi uchodzi w polskiej polityce nie tylko bezkarnie, ale jeszcze jest nagradzane wygraną w wyborach…
Co zaś do przebiegu realnych procesów gospodarczych w 2012 roku, to można oczekiwać wzrostu PKP w granicach 1-2 proc. w. zależności od dynamiki eksportu. Po krajowej polityce gospodarczej, ze względu na kontynuację dotychczasowej linii, nie należy spodziewać się niczego przełomowego. Miast możliwego, zważywszy na potencjał gospodarki i społeczeństwa, przyspieszenia tempa wzrostu, skazani jesteśmy na jego powolne zwolnienie. Oczywiście, winny będą „ono”, czyli kryzys i zagranica….
(1829.) Ja na uczelnię przyjeżdżam rowerem, nawet gdy pada deszcz. A co tam … trzeba być w dobrej formie. Nie jestem wegetarianką jak Profesor, ale staram się jeść dużo warzyw i przede wszystkim jeść rybę kilka razy w tygodniu. W ten weekend byłam z moim chłopakiemw Pekinie. Jestem zauroczona różnorodnością tamtej kuchni. Polecam….
(1828.) Dear prof. G.W. Kołodko,
since when have you been interested in vegetarianism ? Don’t you like fish or meat ? Do you prefer more Chinese or Italian cooking which are rich in fresh vegetables ?
What kind of sports do you train ? Do you like ride bicycle, play tennis or jogging ? How often do you do it during the week ?
(1827.) Panie Profesorze. Czy mocne -wobec pozostałych głównych walut świata- euro, nie jest zasadniczą przyczyną jedynie śladowego wzrostu gospodarczego w państwach należących do strefy tej unijnej waluty?
(1826.) Panie Profesorze!Dot. wpisu 1797,pkt.7 i 8.Zgadzam się z Panem,lecz należy uwzględnić pewną”drobnostkę”- wybory kosztują.Pieniądz daje władzę,władza pieniądze.Gdyby było inaczej psy już dawno byłyby spuszczone ze smyczy.Jak mawiał pewien drań o pseudonimach”Koba”,”Soso”o wszystkim decydują kadry.Tereso (1786)przywileje emerytalne należy traktować jako pewien ekwiwalent zarobków:zarabiają mniej ale za to mają obniżony wiek emerytalny.Przykład górników:praca pod ziemią to niejednokrotnie”siła razy gwałt”,człowiek np.60.letni,na dole stwarza zagrożenie dla siebie i innych a żaden przytomny medyk nie wyrazi zgody na zjazd na dół.Że na emeryturze dorabiają?Jedni tak inni nie a jeżeli odprowadzają należne składki to w czym problem?Chętnych do odbierania im przywilejów jest więcej niż kiedyś chętnych do pracy w kopalni.Ktoś powie żeby się przekwalifikowali,tak np. na programistów,doradców podatkowych itp.Czy zastanawialiście się dlaczego węgiel jest tak opodatkowany jak np.czekolada,samochody?I jakie są tego konsekwencje?Górnicy w większości nie są intelektualistami,ale w końcu się połapią jak są wykorzystywani.Policja: komuś np.z BCC lub Lewiatana niedobrzy ludzie robią krzywdę.Nie wołają oni mamo,tato,ludzie ratujcie!Wołają Policja!Zgłoszenie odbiera załoga radiowozu z dwoma “dziadkami”po np.50.Jasiu,mówi jeden do drugiego,bardzo boli mnie kręgosłup,więc jedz wolniej bo droga dziurawa.Dobrze,mówi drugi,będzie zmiana pogody,bardzo bolą mnie stawy,może mu nic takiego złego nie zrobią.Nie jestem przeciwnikiem reform, ale robionych z rozumem(rzecz wyjątkowo cenna i ogólnie trudno dostępna)Robercie,(wpis 1807)polecam Gazetę Prawną nr.115 z 13-06-2008 a w niej poradnik dłużnika.I to by było na tyle.
(1825.) Dear prof. G.W. Kołodko,
I am writing to you in relation to the short entry on your internet pages at the end of October about the cancer diseases. I am a doctor of medicine from Warsaw and I would like to ask you about the new government’s health policy in Poland. We can observe the steady rising tendency of some kinds of tumors for example – breast cancer. There is observed more hypertension, obesity, diabetes mellitus type 2.etc. Among the other things, this state of affairs is caused by an improper diet and an insufficient daily fitness.
In connection to these facts in the last few years there were introduced in Poland some new medical treatment methods like a biological treatment (immunotherapy ) or a gene therapy together with the old classical treatment methods give the better therapy results and give a guarantee for the longer time survivor for the patients. For example, the oncology biological therapy helps the immune system fight cancer. Chemotherapy attacks the cancer cells directly. Using those methods in the therapy is much more effective than using the only one. The gene therapy is a treatment that involves introducing genetic material (DNA or RNA) into a person’s cells to fight disease. This new methods are very expensive. So my question is, if the government’s health policy take care of them sufficiently ? I mean health promotion or private health insurance. Is it possible to buy a private health insurance police which gives a guarantee to cover the costs of the biological or the gene treatment in Poland ? Where can I get the information about it ?
I remember the time when you were deputy prime minister and finance minister and in that time I often observe you in mass media. I also remember you not only as a person who takes care of the financial and social policy, but as a person who gives an excellent example how to take care of health of many millions of Poles.
I would like to ask you about your own prescription of a healthy life. Could you write us about your diet or fitness. Could you write us about how often you go to your doctor for prophylactic examinations like OB, morphology, cholesterol, RTG, USG, etc.
Do you think promoting healthy lifestyles for people is an important governmental responsibility ?
Do you think that my questions are important to this issues ?
(1824.) Panie Profesorze!
Minister finansów poinformował dziś, że przygotował na przyszły rok trzy wersje budżetu. Jedna zakłada w 2012 r. wzrost PKB 3,2 proc., druga – 2,5 proc., a trzecia – spadek PKB o 1 proc. Która wersja – Pańskim zdaniem – jest najbardziej prawdopodobna?
(1823.) Kapitalizm to już pzreżytek? Jest to ustrój, który nie ma zadnych zasad opócz zysku i chciwości. Na tych zasadach nie mozna budować ani gospodadrki ani więzi ludzkich ani wspólnoty ludzkiej i politycznej. Czas zmienić ten nieludzki ustrój który nie umie i nie chce się reformować i działa od kryzysu do kryzysu, wcale nie zmieniając zasad i reguł. Dziwne w tym tylko jest to , że nasi robotnicy strajkowali, modlili się za takim ustrojem, który człowieka ma za nic i liczy sie tylko zysk a nie człowiek. Takich czasów doczekaliśmy niestety. I nawet nobliści nie maja recepty na to co sie dzieje.
(1822.) On my opinion the most interesting themes are globalization and crisis. As I’m interested in both I decided to write my essay about global financial crisis, because it is challenging in modern life.
For example, the financial crisis that started with the meltdown of the U.S. mortgage market in 2007 became global and had an effect on every country. The financial globalization played an important role in the recent financial crisis. First, more than half of the rise in net borrowing of the U.S. non- financial sectors since the mid-80s has been financed by foreign lending. Second, the collapse of the U.S. housing and mortgage-backed-securities markets had worldwide effects on financial institutions and asset markets. The serious subprime crisis began in June of 2007 when two Bear Stearns hedge funds collapsed. This had a rapid effect on other parts of the financial markets worldwide which reached the crisis level and the number of foreclosures for sale in August-September of that year and temporarily froze the money market sector that is critically important to banking and financial operations. The subprime mortgage market continued to be solid as long as the housing market continued to escalate and interest rates didn’t go up. As subprime mortgages began to reset in droves and result in foreclosure, housing prices also declined. Because of the way these loans and CDOs were globally distributed, it knocked the whole system out of whack. As the defaults continued, the worldwide CDOs took a major hit and the entire thing went down like a house of cards.
Many analytics consider that the start point of the unfolding of the late-2000s global financial crisis was the collapse of Lehman Brothers. It is considered to be the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history, and is thought to have played a major role in global development of the crisis.
In simple words, global financial crisis affected the housing market, financial markets and the entire US economy , and worldwide employment, economy, political situation in countries etc.
As for the rest of the world, while globalization came to seem more and more like historical inevitability, the financial crisis has turned on its head the assumption that local markets of developing economies would be driving by economic balances, not politics.
Both the growth of emerging markets and the determination of political officials around the world to avoid the social upheaval that the global financial crisis might generate have injected politics and political motivations into performance of global markets on a scale we haven’t seen in decades.
The one of the reasons why many thinks that actions of Bush’s administration might lead to the crisis.
This problem could have been averted (in theory) as people had been pointing to these issues for decades. Anyway, each of us (individuals or economic institutions) should make its own conclusions and take better steps in future to have no problems like Greece.
(1821.) Transformation, globalization, integration and crisis, by definition, are different, but still very related. Each topic very interesting, but due to recent events I would really like to address “crisis” as the theme relevant today than ever. Greece, the USA, Russia – the most evolved country for me. All this is very similar to a house of cards or a chain reaction. Terrible crisis in Greece and very twofold situation and that of it, I would like to talk: as if the reasons are clear – the country was not ready to join the Eurozone, in the words and Nicolas Sarkozy, on the other side, can we say about each entered the country and think about other causes. It is possible that everything is thought out and rigged, for example, specifically its loans – France and Germany – Greece loans when it is in this desperately needed. Indeed, in Greece before that had its own national currency – the drachma and the people lived, nothing needed, but after the entry into the Eurozone the Greeks had to adjust and adapt to changes in the country. And what happens now? Government has increased the time to increase productivity without increasing costs is likely to have started to cut wages, it may even reduce. As is well known in Greece, a large fleet (as they were at war with the Turks and hindered their onslaught) ports, shipping lines, natural resources (a lot of oil fields, gas – recently opened a new natural sources) and now when the country is so vulnerable – destroy it personal it is not necessary to subdue and to dictate the “rules”. Karolos Papoulias – President of Greece has openly declared the situation in the country (this is a cry for help), and insolvency, even after the French and German banks have written off some debt. Also, the referendum was announced, though of it had to think long ‘before’, now it does not help, except to add votes in the upcoming election. Personally, I still see a few developments of these events: first, the banks are completely forgiven Greek national debt and the country is starting to “recover”, the second, Greece comes out of the Eurozone and returns to the issue of its currency, the third, a miracle happens and the developed countries to help in this situation not only in word but in deed. The second scenario possible negative effects such as, for example, the default, the currency devalued and it will remind all of Belarus, with its exchange rate, cuts in thousands, and so on, addiction to innovate will last 10-15 years, and is not a fact. Domestically, all the worse – default and inflation together will be felt – it would be difficult to live in the country, not to mention the fact that somewhere to go – after exchanging drachma to the euro and other currencies will be very costly. And when you exit Greece from the Eurozone should not forget that everything is interconnected and it will hit both in the euro, and on the world economy as a whole. Eurozone initially planned to bring together and mutual assistance, but in reality it is only words and formality. Time stands still, it makes all the country live on the principle of “every man for himself” and “survival of the fittest.” Already known facts In the history, when dictators wanting to seize power and domination – is substituted or drop to their “friendly power,” not realizing that it will harm them and ourselves in the first place.
PS I apologize for my English.
Best regards, Margarita Morozova (MSU-MSE).
(1820.) Thanks to the one-week course of professor Grzegorz W. Kolodko about transformation, integration and globalization I have known a lot of interesting things . And I want to say some words about the last one. The globalization has become a buzzword that some will use to describe everything that is happening in the world today.The dictionary definition is the “process enabling financial and investment markets to operate internationally, largely as a result of deregulation and improved communications”.
So how does the globalised market work? It is modern communications that make it possible; for the British service sector to deal with its customers through a call centre in India, or for a sportswear manufacturer to design its products in Europe, make them in south-east Asia and sell them in north America.
Not everyone agrees that globalisation is necessarily evil, or that globalised corporations are running the lives of individuals or are more powerful than nations. Some say that the spread of globalisation, free markets and free trade into the developing world is the best way to beat.
Globalisation can be seen as a positive, negative or even marginal process. And regardless of whether it works for good or ill, globalisation’s exact meaning will continue to be the subject of debate among those who oppose, support or simply observe it.
As for me I think that globalization creates a big positive impact on most counties.One of the most important influences of globalization is strength of competition in trading. This effect has several significant aspects – benefits for consumers and drawbacks for producers of goods or services. The first means that arising business competition entails improvement of quality of goods and services and also those foreign producers who, in bounds of globalization, will come to the market and make choice of offered goods wider. The second (drawbacks for producers) means that companies now should compete harder. I will suggest that in fact every company dreaming of being monopoly, because it gives them plenty of benefits and just simplifies their life. So in conditions of globalization it will be harder to establish monopoly and companies should apply more sophisticated methods to gain more demand.
Another way that globalization affected our world is cultural transformations, and also It has concern to the world economy. When someone wants make business abroad, what will he first of all learns foreign language – very often it’s English. Nowadays being of successful businessman requires maintenance of three or more languages – and such language mixing plays certain role in the cultural life of country. So business is becoming international. There are also several important effects such as social differentiation – I will suggest that it is easier for young people to face claims of globalization than for old people – so sometimes we can see growing misunderstanding between different society groups, but this is not an unsolvable problem, I think.
So I think that changes in trading and changes in style of making business are the most significant ways that globalization has affected the contemporary world economy.
(1819.) We are living in a time of a globalization. We can accept it, or deny, or even ignore, but it is a fact. Facing this fact, we should be prepared as much as we can for the new system of governmental organization. Each country on each step to the integration in the world economy should learn something from more “globalized”, more open to the world economy country. In order not to make dramatic mistakes. In my opinion, it would be unfair if some countries gain, while others lose.
It is some kind of transformation of the economy. And there is no right answer for everybody: how to prepare to the globalization, and get everything that we can from this new level of development.
I’d like to give a piece of advice for some countries, or it will be better to say “type” of countries.
1) Developed countries. They should think more about the future, about the cultural and ethical parts of globalization. It is In a human psychology to have “his” nation, “his” culture etc. I think some of the problems of Modern European Union exist because people of Netherland do not understand, that they are united with Greeks. It is a problem of solidarity. An enormous work should be done to make people understand, that the European Union is like a marriage, and countries should share both happiness and problems.
2) Emerging countries. The majority of such countries are just transformed from planed economy to the market economy, not all of them have a sustainable industry, agricultural sector etc. First of all they have to “grow” competitive products, which can compete with the big companies of developed countries, in order not to be merged or destroyed, when they will enter global market. A very good point for developing countries and businesses in those countries could be finding a particular niche, to invent a new products, new technologies.
3) Underdeveloped countries (poor African countries, for example). In my opinion, that kind of countries should be taken under the responsibility of developed countries. Of course this is the case for the countries with the high level of solidarity. Nevertheless, developing countries do not gain anything, but lose from a globalization. They almost have nothing, and even if they can create some productive industry, they will lose it, because of its uncompetitivness. As it was with Mali, when the only sector, which was brining income, was agriculture and after signing WTO agreement, they lost everything.
A few words about globalization and the role of Russia. I think Russia is an emerging country. It is not ready; it has not found its own product to be competitive in the world market. Possibility to sell oil and gas is not a specific product. It is too early for us to enter WTO. Only researches, investments into revival of national industry – is our way to move to the globalizing world and to be prepared to enter the global market.
(1818.) In this comment I would like to raise some weaknesses of globalization processes and in the second part give a small opinion on success of transformation in Poland and Russia.
It is not a secret that global economy deals with such issues as material hardships, distributive justice, individual liberties, cultural diversity, ecological problems and many others. All of these issues are quite essential to discuss in order to improve. What of them and why (in my opinion) people cannot solve?
• Overpopulation, production wastes and deficit of resources are essential problems. If we have huge amount of people who lives under the total poverty conditions when there are 7 billion people, what would be in 30-50 years? If we have ozone holes according to today`s production level what would be in several decades? (Almost all political leaders talk about increasing in GDP, productivity etc.)
• Governing within the global economy. Before the XXth century there were no global crises, there was no so close relations between everybody. In this case regulation was a “private” affair. Economic practice shows that during the periods of upturn free enterprise and relations can work without control (according to the common sense). But this deregulation leads to the crises. So the argument is that there is no balance between regulation and deregulation of the economy. Mainly on the global level. The people`s factor frustrate models and is very independent to be predicted.
Of course there are features of the globalization process but during the pursuit of dream and income the most powerful community on our planet shouldn`t forget about the reverse side.
Besides the case of globalization I would like to touch upon the issue of transformation and transition processes. Really new for my understanding of this process was the professor`s Kolodko explanation of the meaning of this two terms. Because of different causes (in terms of the final goal and motive and streaming of these processes) the results became so different. I mean that success of Poland lies in their desire to get rid of the Soviet influence and economy collapse and cooperate with a strong and seemed that time successful Europe (especially considering the integration actions and possibilities). And Russian failure was in the absence of the final aim (it was very dilute and may be in some kind unthinkable).
But both Polish and Russian ways of reformation lose if we compare them with Chinese one. Gradual but very successful changes in collaboration with strong governmental control became one of the greatest phenomena of the last 20 years.
(1817.) Good evening, Professor Kolodko.
I have been reading your book, which is called “Wedrujacy swiat”, for the past few days and I find it quite interesting and thought provoking. Unfortunately I won’t be able to finish it before the end of your course, so I can only debate on what I have already read. It is hard not to agree with your point of view on what is happening in the world today, but there is one subject I find difficult to accept. In the forth chapter you mentioned that the introduction of euro currency in 1999 was the triumph common sense and a display of ability to make long run decisions. It is obvious that the EU should have one currency. However, the euro can easily be blamed for the today’s economic difficulties in Greece, Italy, Portugal and other Union countries.
Euro means one monetary policy for all countries that have adopted it. Nevertheless, the economy, teaches that a monetary policy is only suitable for a group of countries that can meet four conditions.
Firstly, the EU member states should have a compatible economic structures that do not produce similar types of goods and services, as well as the same level of economic diversification.
Secondly, the economic cycles of the euro countries should be similar. It means that they must come and go out of recession and expansion at the same time. To do that all members need the same adjustments in interest rates at the same time and one monetary policy.
Thirdly, the EU single market must be complete to ensure that goods, services, capital and labor can move freely across the borders of EU member states in response to price signals.
Finally, the fourth political condition should be added to these economic reasons. Politicians and citizens, who give them power in all EU members have the same culture of economic policy.
As we can see, the member countries do not meet these conditions since wages and prices are inflexible, labor is immobile, and since the system of interstate financial support doesn’t really work. The euro countries face asymmetric economic shock, their business cycles diverge, and politically important industries in some countries, develop competition problems. The negatively affected countries do not have the mechanisms necessary to adjust and they suffer a lot of economic problems.
The euro was supposed to be the culmination of a project developed in response to the challenge of globalization of production. The main objective of the European governments was to overcome the constraints imposed by the division of the continent into national economies, leading to clashes on monetary and fiscal policies, tariffs and other forms of regulation of trade and investment. But as we know from today’s news reports the objective wasn’t achieved.
“Unhappy victory of politics over economics was the creation of the Euro ten years ago. This was an example of an attempts of political abuse of the economics, rejection of economic laws, and the consequences of this step, we see very clearly in today’s Europe “- said Klaus Václav, the president of the Czech Republic.
(1816.) Globalization. Is it good or bad?
Globalization not only refers to the increasing unification of the world’s economic order. It is also a historical and spontaneous process of liberalization and integration of markets for commodities, capital, labor, technologies and know-how, into one interrelated world market. Globalization is an open process, which leads to interdependence in the world. According to the definition globalization is an irreversible process, but it can be slowed down by different crises.
Globalization is not a new phenomenon, the first stage of globalization was in 1492 – 1830. It is considered that 1914-1989 years were lost to globalization but I think that years from 1945-1989 weren’t lost. It had a place to be, but was split on two fronts: capitalist countries and socialist countries. In capitalist countries in that time were a lot of international organizations like IMF, OSCE and OPEC. In social countries was Comecon.
There is no an unequivocal answer to question about the impact of globalization on the world. Majority of people think that the globalization has a good influence, because there are a lot of positive results like increasing of international trade in manufactured goods, emergence of financial markets and better access to external financing for borrowers, realization of a global common market, based on the freedom of exchange of goods and capital, growth of cross-cultural contacts, increasing of capital flows and dissemination of new technologies.
Rests of the people think differently, because unfortunately there are also negative effects, not only positive results. These people criticize the policy of global institutions: WTO, IMF – which, in their view, use globalization in the interests of some of the most developed countries, to the detriment of the majority of countries on the planet. They claim that globalization is leading to brain drains in poorer countries, weak labor unions, income inequality, westernization of culture, to the destruction of national industry in countries with weak economy and to the exploitation of foreign impoverished workers. They also claim that the globalization exacerbates environmental catastrophe on the planet. Climate change is absolutely global process because it is a result of economic activity and people activity. This problem is not often discussed on world forums, because national governments have many others more pressing problems and the consequences of climate changes will show up after many years.
In my point of view globalization is more positive phenomenon than negative. I think so because in the end all countries will benefit from it. This is confirmed by the fact that growth of economy is faster in globalized countries then in rich countries and less globalized countries. And different international organizations struggle with hunger, diseases, for fair trade and for the preservation of nature.
(1815.) Globalization – is it good or bad?
From my point of view – globalization is certainly good for world economy.
First of all – what globalization is? It’s a historical and spontaneous process of liberalization and simultaneously going integration of thus far separately performing markets for commodities, capital and (with certain delay and to limited extent) the labor, as well as technologies and know-how, into one, interrelated world market.
So, what are the positive sides of globalization? Firstly, it develops world trade both in terms of international and intra-firm trade (which takes 40% in international trade nowadays). Secondly, it provides wide spread of new technologies, so countries can boost their economy by using foreign technologies as well as foreign resources. And by resources I mean not only natural ones (gas, oil, etc.), but also labor resources, as globalization provides tons of possibilities for workforce to travel around the world, which is also a positive side of this process, because specialists are not bound by single national economy chains and can find the best place to apply their skills elsewhere. Therefore, companies can use whatever resources they need, in countries, where they need them, making their production much more effective. Regarding factors of production – open borders for capital (or partly open), if it’s possible to say so, gives those who have money plenty of options for investing their capital in most effective companies, so competition on markets is breaking country borders and become worldwide, giving further stimulation to the world economy.
Of course, there are not only positive sides – almost all points, mentioned as positive, can be reversed and turned into negative ones. The main point is that good and bad sides of globalization processes are separated. Labor resources are moving from poor countries, which make them even poorer, to rich countries. Foreign resource usage is sometimes exists just in form of “robbing” countries (African republics are a good example). And free capital flow makes money “run away”, when problems in national economy begin. This leads to concentrating the “goods” of globalization in more developed countries and “bads” in less developed, boosting inequality between them. And not only between countries – even in developed, rich countries Gini coefficient can be quite high (45-49 for USA).
But still, despite controversy about globalization effect, in my opinion – it is good process, which must serve to further improvement of world economy, and negative sides are just a consequence of bad world economy regulation.
(1814.) My view on globalized process.
On this week I studied the course Globalization, Transformation and Development that was read to us by professor Grzegorz Kołodko. With some ideas and arguments I can agree, but in some things I have another point of view to the process of globalization.
First of all, the main idea that I bring from the curse is that breaking-off the USSR should be considered as a part of process of globalization. As I understand, from professor Kolodko point of view that period of time since 1913 till 1989 process of globalization was slow down because a great part of the world – socialism block – was left out from this process, 1/3 of the world developed in principal other way, that rest world, communication, trade, migration – main process that characterized globalization – was, if not stopped at all, disturbed and freezed on very low level. I can’t agree with this. Main world institutes, that was based to unite nation, such as United Nations, IMF, World Bank, was founded and got their development in this period. World trade, migration got in this period to a really giant scale. In this period the world was divided on two parts and integration between them was stopped, but inside this blocks process was going faster and faster. The fact, that the world was divided in two parts but not in plenty, from my point of view, is important argument that globalization process was going faster and faster. After decayed of the USSR this process, that was going separately in two parts of the world, was consolidated in one and, because of synergism effect, goes much faster than before.
From my point of view broken-off the USSR can be considered as the result of globalization. Because of process of globalization could not be continued in such political and economic situation, where was very high borders between social countries and capitalism countries, some forces, may be unwittingly, broke the system. Surly, was broken a less economic effective part, that was communism block. Economic growth in this countries was less and less in the last period of existing of the USSR. Transformation of post-socialism countries was new step of globalization process, that is endless process. First of all, leading position in this process takes eastern European countries, who tried integrated in European Union, who opened their borders, who mad big steps of liberalization and privatization of their economies.
Lastly, I’d like to thanks professor Kolodko for his course, I find their something new and useful for me in it.
(1813.) Nowadays we can hear a lot about Globalization, but what exactly does it mean? We can find a lot of definitions of this process, but none of them could cover the whole picture. Is it threat or opportunity, who will gain and who will lose? We can say that globalization is a historical process, but also we should assume, that it still continue to develop. Does this process really spontaneous, or, in some ways, our action can lead it in specific manner? For instance, we can say that there are threats and opportunities in each moment of time for every country. What should we do in this situation? Of course, obvious thing, that we should grasp the opportunity and minimize threats (or in best occasion turn them into possibilities). And then should we think about aftermath of our actions for others? Maybe, it’s more philosophical question, but I think it’s worth to mention in this case. What is the nature of human: egoistic or good? And what should we do in case of trade off between individual liberty and social benefit? Certainly, we can say, that people try to face global problems (climate changes, hunger, poverty). But there are many problems (sphere of interest, difficulties in organization, increasing complexity of the problems, question about responsibility and so on). And while we try to do something time is running.
Of course, globalization has an influence in every sphere. Today, when we want to embody some policy (in politic sphere or economic), we have various instrument and possibilities, but all our efforts can be abandon by external shock. And we shouldn’t forget about human factor. People do mistake, but on the other hand charismatic leader can direct some action. The question is how we can use these factors. We should know for ourselves that each problem may not be as easy as we see it at a first glance. We should have critical aspect, gain some information about the problem. We should think about different scales or levels of the situation (global, local, regional, interregional, national, trans-governmental, etc.), or ask yourself various questions, such as who will gain from it, or who will suffer from these measures. We should think of different problems that can arise, about efficiency, social benefits and ecology. Take into account that sometimes ideas can be used in a wrong way, not way you supposed it to be. We could give fish for starving person or fishing rod.
Today’s world is something more complex than the sum of its separate parts. As economists we shouldn’t see only economic part of the world using the assumption “ceteris paribus”, or see economy only as ‘production-distribution-consumption’. In order to see the whole picture we should also examine different points of view (history, politics, geography, social and cultural differences). If we don’t take into account these other aspects we won’t know how things actually work and can’t make actions. Of course, it is a difficult matter, but at least we shouldn’t stay still and wait better times to come.