Home > Teoria > Neo-Liberalismo Vs. Keynesianismo

Neo-Liberalismo Vs. Keynesianismo

15 January, 2010 Leave a comment Go to comments

Muitos teóricos afirmam que 1973 foi um divisor de águas para a economia mundial. Os governos de Nixon, Carter, Reagan e Tatcher representariam o fim da “era de ouro” do capitalismo, assim como é identificada a fase em que predominaram políticas de cunho dito Keynesiano, e o nascimento do Neo-liberalismo, sendo que por Neo-liberalismo entende-se em geral a prevalência de mercados desregulamentados, flexibilização de diretios trabalhistas, queda do salário real, e aumento da competição internacional tanto em mercados de bens e serviços quanto nos mercados de trabalho. O Neo-liberalismo seria, assim, um novo padrão de acumulação de capital. Alguns ainda vão afirmar que o Neo-liberalismo também deve ser identificado com o processo de financeirização, ainda que não haja consenso sobre como este termo deva ser definido.

Dentro deste interessantíssimo assunto, divulgo aqui dois textos do professor James Crotty que objetivam justamente comparar esses dois padrões de acumulação. Crotty faz uso de ideias de Keynes, Marx, Minsky, Schumpeter, J. M. Clark e A. D. Chandler.

Cito abaixo algumas interessantes passagens:

“large NFCs operating in oligopolistic markets were the main source of most of the capital investment, technological change and productivity growth in the Golden Age and, in the US at least, for most of the twentieth century. I argue that in the 1970s and thereafter, NFC performance was adversely affected by two major changes in their environment created by the impact of neoliberal globalization on product and financial markets: (1) a slowdown in the rate of global AD growth and an increasing intensity of competition in key product markets; and (2) a shift from “patient” finance seeking long-term growth to impatient financial markets that raised real interest rates, forced NFCs to pay an increasing share of their cash flow to financial agents, drastically changed managerial incentives, and helped shorten NFC planning horizons. The combined effect of changes in both sectors lowered NFC profit rates, raised NFC indebtedness, slowed the rate of capital accumulation, and forced NFC top management to switch to short-term ‘survivalist’ strategies that involved attacks on white and blue collar labor and on key firm suppliers. NFCs were eventually placed in what I refer to as a neoliberal paradox: intense product market competition made it impossible for most NFCs to achieve high earnings most of the time, but financial markets demanded that NFCs generate ever-increasing earnings or face falling stock prices and the threat of hostile takeover”

“neoliberalism created chronically weak global aggregate demand growth. Slow demand growth, in turn, intensified competitive pressures in key industries, leading to inadequate profits, chronic excess capacity, excessive debt, and shifts in corporate strategies that exacerbated the original demand deficiency – a neoliberal vicious circle”

“The combination of sluggish demand growth and coerced investment leads to chronic excess capacity”

“slow demand growth and more intense competition reduced average NFC profit rates well below their Golden Age levels. Second, while NFC investment spending eventually declined, coerced investment delayed the decline and limited the extent of its fall. This meant that investment spending exceeded internal funds for most of the period.
Third, the gap between internal funds and investment in both real and financial assets, forced NFCs into ever-rising indebtedness”

“financial markets slowed the growth, eroded the profitability, and shortened the planning horizons of the large NFCs that generate most of the good jobs, implement most important new technologies (even when they do not invent them), own most of the private capital stock, undertake most national and global investment spending, and
normally appropriate the lion’s share of profits”

“the maximum competitive intensity sought by Neoliberal reforms may lead not to efficient resource allocation, but to the dynamic inefficiency associated with long-term excess capacity, low profits or losses, and excessive indebtedness”

“By reducing the trend growth rate of aggregate demand, Neoliberal policies created an initial problem of excess supply in most core industries. This destroyed the conditions necessary for corespective competition. An
outbreak of destructive competitive processes then caused over-investment in many global manufacturing and service industries, which, as explained below, continuously reproduced excess capacity. Neoliberalism destroyed the conditions necessary for corespective behavior”

“Neoliberalism has created massive coordination failures that make it individually rational for firms to behave in
ways that are collectively destructive”

.

Clique aqui para ler “The Effects of Increased Product Market Competition and Changes in Financial Markets on the Performance of Nonfinancial Corporations in the Neoliberal Era” (Outubro de 2002)

Clique aqui para ler “Structural Contradictions of Current Capitalism: A Keynes-Marx-Schumpeter Analysis”. (Maio de 2001)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s