Freitag, 23. Januar 2009

Sollen Banken nationalisiert werden?

Ein Überblick zusammengestellt von Steve Randy Waldmann (Interfluidity):

Dillow bemerkt zu Willem Buiters Aufruf zur Verstaatlichungen der Banken, dass ihm vor allem das Argument

Costly partial state ownership and the fear of future state ownership (partial or complete) are themselves discouraging banks from lending…if the state’s financial assistance is priced punitively or has other painful conditionality attached to it, existing shareholders and management will do everything to avoid making use of these government facilities…Such a bank will therefore be reluctant to take any risk, including the risk of lending.

ins Auge gestochen ist, dienn dies ist eine spezifische Form eines allgemeinerem Arguments
modelled by Herschel Grossman (such as this pdf), Roland Benabou (section 4 of this pdf) or Jess Benhabib and Aldo Rustichini (pdf). These papers show that the threat of future taxes or other forms of appropriation can reduce capital accumulation and economic growth. In such circumstances, it’s theoretically possible that full-scale revolution might be more economically efficient than gradualist social democracy. This is because social democracy exposes the capitalist class to the threat of future full or partial expropriation - thus depressing current economic activity - whereas sudden revolution does not. Instead, by restoring secure property rights, revolution can stimulate investment.
The gut instinct that social democracy, gradualism or progressiveness is more sensible than outright revolution can therefore be false. Sometimes extremists can be rational and hard-headed, whilst moderates are woolly-headed economic illiterates.
Buiter’s argument is that this is true for banking nationalization.

Keine Kommentare:

Kommentar veröffentlichen