[ad_1]
The Department of Economics of the University of Chicago, where the future Minister of Economy, Paulo Guedes, and part of his team's leadership to form the next government, is transformed over time. In an interview with the state, the economist Robert Shimer believes that the school has a less isolated vision than at the time Milton Friedman had strengthened the defense of the free market. "I do not think many people think that markets are always and everywhere perfect and that the government is not involved anywhere." It's a vision of the Chicago school that you do not see here, at least in a lot of people. department today, "said Shimer.In university since 2003, Shimer badumes the position of" director "of the department – the director's equivalent – this year, but does not know the Guedes team. [19659002] Macaque in the trees ” title=”Robert Shimer”/>
was not here at the time of Milton Friedman, so it's a bit difficult to answer. </ p> <p> There are things similar between Chicago today and Chicago 30 or 40 years ago, but there are also things that have changed here. "At that time, the markets were under attack and leading economists were writing books about the potential superiority of the markets. "Planned economies" on the market economies, namely the Soviet system compared to the American system The controversy has been that the market could very well go and that there are limits to governments. The Chicago School was not saying that she was alone, but she was one of the first to think that markets can work very well and secondly, there are limits to what governments can do in economic matters.
And now?
I do not think people believe that markets are always, and everywhere, perfect and that there is no need for any government interference. This is a view of the Chicago School that you do not see here, at least in many people in this department today. But, on the other hand, some people think that market economies "work" very well in a number of ways and that governments are limited. This would be the mainstream. Chicago is less "isolated" in its visions than it was when Milton Friedman was here.
mentioned that the context was different at the time of Friedman. Is the context responsible for the change?
Brazil, for example, experienced a major political change. There are probably some unanswered questions about the roles of the market and the government.
What is important in economic policy in this period of change?
The market can do a lot of things and governments can do a lot of things. There are many experiences – and this is perhaps a slight word – of governments trying to manage the economy, forcing people to do things that they do not want. It does not seem to work in the long run. The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe are extreme examples. This does not mean, however, that markets are always right, there are limitations, such as externalities. One must be cautious about the role of government intervention in the markets, because it is not true that governments are always doing well. Governments are composed of individuals, who have their own interests. Governments do not always get perfect results.
Give a very fast context on Brazil. We currently have a high budget deficit. Among the measures advocated by the new economic team to solve the problem, it is worth mentioning an immediate pension reform and a process of privatization of public enterprises. Thinking about this scenario, what would be its badessment for restoring market confidence and generating economic growth?
This is not exactly my area of expertise, since a country like Brazil can not handle the same level of deficit as the states. United can. It makes sense that it is necessary to control the deficit. To do this requires a combination of tax increases and benefit reductions granted by the government. Or increase revenue differently, for example by selling state-owned companies. The question is what is the role of government in these businesses and which ones should be sold. In the case of national monopolies, where naturally there was only one company in operation, one must think of the regulations when the company is sold. I do not know exactly what would be considered in Brazil, but I imagine that it is possible to increase the efficiency of the economy as well as the income from these sales. On social security reforms, again, I do not know the Brazilian context. There are always problems when it comes to reforms like this – there are winners and losers. At the same time, everyone suffers in case of budget crisis, currency collapse. The question arises as to whether tax reform is necessary now or that the global financial markets will require it in a few years. But, again, I do not know enough about Brazil in particular.
Do you know any of these Brazilian professionals who have gone through Chicago, as the economist Paulo Guedes?
Unfortunately, no. I became president of the economic affairs department only this year and I do not have a network of contacts in Brazil in particular.
Paul Romer, one of this year's Nobel laureates of economics, had a pbadage. by the University of Chicago. What about the Nobel laureate this year?
About Romer, I find that his main observation is the role of innovation and the importance of innovation for technological advances. There is also a central aspect of innovation, which, once discovered, can be adopted by everyone in the world. With regard to the questions concerning Brazil, ideas discovered in one part of the world can spread very quickly to others. It's something we've seen dramatically over the last few decades in Asia, China and at a lower rate in Brazil. And the growth of Latin America compared to Asia has been disappointing. Part of the answer to this question, and I go beyond what Romer wrote, lies in the way ideas have moved from rich to less wealthy countries – that is by opening markets, by trade, to foreign direct investment. The information comes from the newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo
[ad_2]
Source link
