Display:
It's a definition of the terms being discussed. Firms don't own things -- people do. So when economists talk about the welfare effects of policies, they are not referring to inanimate objects or metaphysical placeholders for real people.  They are talking about real live people, some of whom win at the expense of other real live people. Capiche?
by santiago on Fri Feb 5th, 2010 at 07:02:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Firms don't own things -- people do.

Legal persons own things.

En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 5th, 2010 at 07:31:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, but that's not what relevant when trying to determine welfare effects of policies. We care about what the agents and principals in a firm are doing and how they make out in the end, not what their avatar does.
by santiago on Sat Feb 6th, 2010 at 12:58:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That has nothing - at all - to do with the question.

The question is - what evidence do you have that proves your contention that wealth is transferred from owners to workers?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Feb 6th, 2010 at 05:56:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, sorry.  I'm not claiming that this what definitely occurs.  I'm saying that this is what needs to be researched on a case by case basis before one can claim that currency devaluations are a bad thing for social equity and welfare.

The same question goes the other way:  What evidence do you have that wealth is transferred from workers to owners when a currency crisis occurs?  It might just as easily be a transfer of wealth from capitalist-owners to capitalist currency traders and thus have only minor welfare effects in terms of workers and other more vulnerable populations.

by santiago on Sat Feb 6th, 2010 at 12:39:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I would guess it depends on political climate and the actions it begets, rather then economics.

Sweden had in 70ies and 80ies fought unemployment with a series of devaluations, all the while having a high inflation which ate the gains of the devaluations. This had several effects, one of them was creating a generation with next to no mortgages on their houses, as inflation had been higher then interests rates for a long period.

On the other hand Sweden had a currency crises in the early 90ies which served as the starting point for neoliberal reforms and the socdems taking the third way. Similar crises, same country, different result.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Feb 6th, 2010 at 03:30:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series