Для обсуждения модели нормализованной экономики с участниками социальной сети для научных работников ResearchGate, загрузил мою книгу S-economics (на английском языке). Есть русскоязычная версия этой книги.
8 января 2014, предложил обсудить вопрос о государственном регулировании экономической деятельности.
Ниже приведен обмен сообщениями с Райаном Дейли (Университет Северной Дакоты).
For a discussion of the model of a normalized economy with participants of the social networking site ResearchGate
, I uploaded my book S-economics
January 8, 2014, I proposed to discuss the issue of state regulation of economic activity.
The following is an exchange of messages with
(University of North Dakota).
- Ryan Daly; VDI - Vladimir Dmitrievich Ilyin
VDI: What should be the main objectives of state regulation of economic activity in countries with developed market economies?
For economic agents seeking extraterritorial profit the main goal is not the economic development of their country. To achieve their goals corporations hire guest workers and seek locations, which offer cheaper labor, land, etc. (e.g. in China and other Asian countries). The result - the population of developed countries loses professional qualifications and switch to activities not related to the production of vital commodities.
RD: State regulation in any developed market should focus solely upon correcting those actions which cause negative externalities and losses to society. Problems arise from a delicate balancing act between what is better for the greater good and those who act as principle agents for their own good.
VDI: This balance - the result of political fight supporters of priority development of the national economy and those for whom is more important development of economy of extraterritorial profit?
RD: Yes, that is precisely where the majority of distortions within the state controls occur (from my observance, both in the US and globally). At least within the USA, the political system is designed to benefit those who are elected by a predetermined number count based upon divided geographical districts. As one of our former presidential elections showed, popular vote by gaining the majority of voters didn't mean the person was elected. I myself am not a political scientist, but do follow closely as an economist must do in order to analyze proper economic decisions.
Back to the question, I tried to summarize in as short as I could. Economics of optimization principles indicate that individuals, organizations, and business firms seek to maximize their own well being in any economy being it capitalism, socialism, import substitution industrialization, etc. If state regulation within certain market scenarios didn't exist, i.e. monopoly and cartel markets, then excessive profits can occur that cause losses to society as a whole.
However, given an entity can function freely, economics of capitalism dictate that firms will choose to produce where costs are the lowest. The side effect of this is not just lower costs and higher profits, but also lower prices to the consumer (if the market is left alone to self regulate).
When instances occur for these agents to maximize their wellbeing cause negative externalities to occur is where a state control policy should step in. The benefits of regulation can easily outweigh the costs associated with policy implementation and society's loss from the instance without regulation.
Now, when you discuss agents seeking extraterritorial profits through the use of globalization, historic data has thus far indicated it is possible to cause global society to be better off. A quick off-the-top-of-my-head example is the use of NAFTA to trade with Mexico. While in the short term jobs were lost domestically, consumers benefited greatly from a larger diverse product offering at cheaper prices. Same effect has occurred from US-China relations.
The side-effect of capitalism, domestic or globally, is the potential to lose competitive advantage in areas once thrived upon. Argentina's ISI policies come to mind with wine production. However, a benefit of operating with free-market activities is that it can create periods of innovation and skill/education in the long run. Shifts in professional qualifications occur during these periods that cause problems and benefits. If things operate in an efficient manner, the overall change in the end will be greater than before.
However as of late with these operations occurring for a few decades, labor costs have been rising within both of these external countries. Combined with rising energy costs globally, the US has now become under pressure to shift production back domestically. Incomes in China have risen to a point where when combined with transportation costs from overseas and risks associated with ocean transport, it is now cheaper to produce domestically.
Both of these historic instances can be shown that economic equilibrium will find itself even when agents seek to maximize profits through "exploitation" of labor and land resources. State regulation should exist solely when it will benefit society as a whole, not when it benefits small interest groups or individuals.
The definition of society is what should be questioned when determine who benefits. Politicians may define it as their constituents who've elected them into office. Lobbyists will argue it is in their best interest to maximize their firms wellbeing. Lawyers the same, being their defendant is guilty or innocent. As an economist, one must look at wellbeing as a whole given the situation and all external and internal effects of the activities involved.