I started off with an article and discussion on a blog suggested by Gods’ Best Friend (dl); however, some of the claims made there are questionable. It’s a tough nut to crack, especially for those Romanians who are not getting the benefits of capitalism, just the downside (Income distribution data from a blog presented in the Spazier through Blogo.ro-oaie –similarly ranked blogs- vol IV; link also below, bdr):
There’s more info there, such as:
- an evolution of GDP / capita (PPP) among former communist countries (also, 1989, 1980, 1970),
- consumption by top 10% richest, 1989 vs 2007/8,
- Gini coefficient 1989-2008,
- Export vs Import 1960-1989 and 1990-2010
- Current account deficit, 1971-2010
- Real income, 1970-2010
- Average income vs inflation, 1970-1989
- GDP growth, 1971-2010, in $, GDP per capita, 1970-2010, in RON(2005?)
- Industrial net output 1970-2010, timeline 1971-2010, workers and net output per capita, 1970-2010
- GDP components timeline, 1970-2009, consumption in GDP, 1970-2009
- Foreign debt and interest payments, 1972-1989 and 1990-2010
Why is it worth looking at these numbers?
- First and foremost, though I’m not a Ceausescu fan, one has to start such a discussion with the observation that the old regime was not focused much on economic growth, yet they manage an explosion in the 70s that dwarfed the 2000s, and the wealth and gains (whether true or not) were far more equally distributed, allowing more people to live decently (well, that’s debatable, but still). In particular, the home ownership rates in Romania are nothing to be ashamed of, especially in the light Corinne Gendron’s views (shared by many) that social policy is more important and should trump economic policy
- Romania veche entered a major crisis in ‘81-82.
Coincidentally, those were the years when USA / Reagan took back MFN.LE: MFN was renounced by Ceausescu in 1988 to pre-empt the US Congress from doing the same; again, I cannot determine if the caused the contraction of 1988-1989 (wiki-rous)
This is a heavily politicized issue and it is virtually impossible for me to determine what happened first, and whether the impact of that decision was so disastrous or it simply added to pre-existing problems. This video clip and points might shed some light on those moments. What if the Conservative establishment seized the moment created by Pacepa’s revelations to put the squeeze on Ceausescu and squash it under the weight of increased interest / tariffs? - In 1989 the Romanian economy was already in a rather steep decline; this is extremely important when trying to speculate how the ancien regime would’ve performed.
- The “decadent West” we’re trying so desperately to catch up to is right now in a massive crisis – Liquidity Trap is only part of it (see links below). There’s also a significant ethical crisis, with more and more people discovering that the game is rigged, that the market is anything but free and continuing to ask the question I was asking in 2008: quo vadis my money? I still don’t think that the answer is more regulation, but the absence of regulation with a rigged market as a starting point
ismight be even worse. - Comparisons are even more difficult because on the one hand false stats may have been reported in Romania under communists, yet in the West in the past few years Quantitative Easing and the massive amounts of money pumped into the economy under the fear of deflation, etc. have made the dollar as well as PPP rather frail yardsticks.
Finally, these are the conclusions from BDR – will translate into English time-permitting.
- Daca vom compara cei 20 de ani comunism cu cei 20 de ani de capitalism vom observa ca, in prima perioada, cresterile de productivitate au fost mai mici, insa s-au realizat in conditiile in care numarul angajatilor a crescut semnificativ, iar in a doua perioada, castigurile au fost mai mari, insa au fost realizate cu pretul reducerii drastice a numarului de angajati. Practic, in 2010, valoarea productiei industriale era aproximativ egala cu cea din 1989, dar numarul angajatilor a scazut cu mai mult de 50%, de unde rezulta o crestere de productivitate de peste 100%.
- Daca vom calcula insa evolutia PIB in dolari la preturi curente, cresterea este de 1.230% in cazul Romaniei (de 13,3 ori in 40 de ani), de 1.500% in cazul Poloniei (de 16 ori), si de 2.047% in cazul Ungariei (21,5 ori). In ce priveste Romania, cea mai mare parte din acest castig s-a inregistrat insa in anii `70, nu in perioada de dupa 2000, cum probabil avem tendinda sa credem. Din acest punct de vedere, boomul economic dintre anii 1970-1979 a fost mult mai puternic decat cel dintre anii 2000-2008: in prima perioada, PIB-ul a crescut cu 135% (in lei 2005), iar in a doua perioada a crescut cu doar 63%. In plus, in anii 70 nu consumul a fost motorul cresterii, ci investitiile, am sa revin cu detalii intr-un alt articol.
- Este adevarat ca dezvoltarea sectorului industrial inainte de Revolutie nu a fost extrem de sanatoasa – multe dintre combinatele in care munceau zeci de mii de oameni erau ineficiente, energofage si produceau bunuri de slaba calitate, insa in ultimii 20 de ani, desi numai investitiile straine directe in industrie au depasit 20 miliarde euro, productia inca se afla sub cea din anul 1980, nivel pe care in vom depasi abia in 2013. Pe de alta parte, depasirea acestui varf se va realiza cu mai putin de jumatate din numarul de angajati existent in 1980, evolutie ce arata schimbarile dramatice prin care a trecut industria romaneasca in ultimii zeci de ani.
And a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1964):
We all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free market capitalism for the poor.
Sources / More info: dl, bdr, ec-macro, wiki-lt, wiki-mfn, wiki-rous, wiki-roec
Bre.
ReplyDeleteDacă tot vrei să scrii prostii... măcar informează-te dă la ăia mai reduși mintal:
http://dorinlazar.ro/ceausescu-zeul-industriei-romanesti/#comments
Ejti prost! Nu pricepi că ce contează e productivitatea! :-)
....................................
Românii nu o duc mai bine.
Țiganii însă...
http://www.google.com/search?q=gipsy+palaces&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=DtYYUtDdJYW84APQ3oDQDA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1182&bih=976
Hai mâncația-ș, mai zi-ne cum e cu hasuprirea minorităților... unde preșidintele ăla, băse ăla... duce coroane dă flori la regilii țigănesc, mort dă trai prea bun, da' strâmba dîn nas la regele Mihai.
Hai, poate te muți cu bicicleta la o șatră pitorească, pă la Baia-Mare, să zic.
Bleah, ham-ham-chelalau!
HuooOOO!
HuideoOO!
Uoarba după voi, socialisto-liberalilor dă sogintă comunistă... bicicliști dîn tată-n fiu!
ce fel de catel redneck esti tu daca n-ai hummer? ia-ti ham-hamar si p-orma vb-shte.
ReplyDeleteDe asemenea, vrei sa zici ca romanii nu plecau in vest pe vremea lui Ceasca din patrihotism sau din dorinta de a construi socialismul?
ReplyDeleteEviți subectu' la topic, văz bine.
ReplyDeleteȚi-am dat doo caterinci într-una - fics cum scrii tu:
Țiganii și comuniștii.
Acuma... să te văz dacă poți face un post doar cu subectu' ăsta!
Pă vremea Marelui Împușcat, românii pleca în vestu' sălbatec în scop dă blugi, combină muzicală, chiloți dă damă, ciungă, uischi, și alte asemenea
ReplyDeleteDăasemenea, lăsa famelia amanet. C-așa era regula în tenis.
Adevăr îți latru io ție: pă vremea lu' Ceașcă... se făcea SO(c)IALISM ADEVĂRAT!
Nu ecscrementos ce propovăduiești tu acuma... cu facultăți moca la țigani, lezbiene, dobitoci, negri și reduși mintal - că toți e egali, mdeah.
cam duci doru' matale..
ReplyDeleteia zi, cati tigani fac facultate moca?
taman asta te-ntrebam mai sus
ReplyDeleteToți.
ReplyDeletedeci toti tiganii de varsta respectiva intra si o fac? cati "take advantage of the offer"?!
ReplyDeleteTu faci pă prostu' ca să mă inervezi?
ReplyDeleteNu te hosteni, e în gena ta dă socialist/criptocomunist - mă inervezi dîn start.
ORICE ȚIGAN care intră la facultate... și o și face... O FACE PĂ GRATIS!
Ce pla mea e așa dă greu dă priceput?
Că-i băiatu' lu' Cioabă, ori a lu' Iulian hîmpăratu'... nu contează.
Nu dă NIMIC.
Nu plătește NIMIC.
Dă tu exemplu dă țigan care a plătit tacse dă venituri, banii pă semestru ori amenzi.
Hai, că ejti Marilii Măreț la lince dă minorități hasuprite... care minorități... e ele hamatoare dă portofele.
Ca să nu se zică că-s fascist, alea:
Țiganii nu e proști.
Ca dovadă... că din fier vechi și hoții dă buzunare, cerșit șˆtâlhărie pură... toate să transformă în haur la gâtu' pirandii.
Haur, bre!
Aia-i baza!
Da, au incercat comuniștii să le salte salbele...
Ia vezi, cum s-a terminat?
Cu țigani la ocnă și securiști morți în linia dă datorie...
sper ca tu intelegi ca daca asta-i o lege de care nu se folosesti niciun cetatean rom si deci exista numai pe hartie, e-o prostie. de-asta te-ntreb cati, dar tu latri si te-nvarti in jurul cozii
ReplyDeleteNumăru' UNU: Nu există cetățean "rom" - fin'că nu egzistă stat/guvern "rom" - care să dea cetățenie. Asta așea... hîn trecăt fie spus.
ReplyDeleteNumăru' DOI: Țiganii-s hoți, tâlhari, cerșetori - DA' NU PROȘTI! Ca urmare, ei nu se duc la facultate, la fel cum nici tu nu te duci la șatră.
Număru' TREI: Hapăii, mâncația-ș, cum rămâne cu "integrarea", "ajutorarea" și restu' de bălării, harfe și lacrimogene dăspre "comunitatea hasuprită"? Le dai școală moca, ei nu se duc; le dai case, blocuri moca, ei le distrug; le dai locuri de muncă, ei nu muncesc; le dai ajutoare sociale, bani, îi scutești dă tacse, ei îți dau în cap pă stradă și-ți fură telefonu'.
Lege pă hârtie... mă lași? TOATE LEGILE e pă hârtie! Kîkat, lege pă hârtie... e legi să nu furi portofele în tramvai? Este...
E lege să nu dai la cap, să furi telefoane, să nu înjunghii?
Este...
Respectă țiganii legile?
Respectă o rîlă...
Nu-nteleg de ce tot incerci sa schimbi realitatea. Stii ca sunt groggy si crezi ca-ti iese? :)
ReplyDelete1. Se poate spune "cetatean roman de etnie roma", sau, pe scurt, "cetatean rom".
2. Eu m-am dus la Satra: http://asa.zamo.ca/2009/03/mooovie-nite-email-address-change.html
3. Si Americanii au dat drept de vot negrilor cu multe decenii in urma, dar apoi le-au trantit taxe si teste de alfabetizare. E poveste lunga, 'geaba o faci pe prostu', printule.
... deci, te-ai dezmeticit?
ReplyDeleteObservă că am fost am fost salon și nu ți-am lătrat la ureche ieri.
1) Realitatea e că nu există cetățean "rom" în România, după cum nu există cetățean "bozgor".
Cetățeanu-i cetățen, BĂI TATĂ!
Haparține dă teritoriu' statului respectiv, indiferent dă credință, pigmentație, secsualitate preferențială ori magnetismu' dă portofele.
Tu faci ca pisica care dă să îngroape ce pute...
Ueit, UAT?!?
Uite una!
(Grrr, Mrrr, ChelalauUUU!)
2) Continuă să vezi filmulețe lacrimogene cu țigani fericiți, liberi și dă capu' lor. Încearcă să trăiești în realitate, nu în filme... măcar hocazional.
3) Asta-i dîn categoria bancurilor cu radio Erevan? Care răspundea la orice cu "Da' dv-stră dă ce-i asupriți pă negri?"
............................
Crez cu convingere că orice persoană obectivă care citește schimbu' nostru dă hopinii o să-mi dea MIE locu'ntâi.
Ca urmare, n-o să mai latru acilea - la p(r)ostu' ăsta, că e degeaba.
O să țin ochiu' rău pă sait, ca să nu ți-o iei în cap.
("Credeai c-ai scăpat?")
:-)
1) As it happens, Hungary gave citizenship to all Hungarian ethnics who have been born outside its border, and that includes those you call, with incredibly disdain and primitive hostility, "bozgors". :)
ReplyDeleteWithin the context of a conversation that includes only Romanians, I think it's ok to refer to different ethincs as citizen ~, as long as both interlocutors understand that it does not refer to a real citizenship, but rather to ethnicity. However, if one participant to the conversation refuses to engage in this rather benign agreement, and holds on literal meanings of words like Turk, then the meaning falls flat on its ass.
2) You missed the point. Sad, but to be expected.
3) It's a parallel. Meaning, things are not always what they seem, especially officially. But I do understand your reluctance to concede a point you cannot win, just like the others.
It's not your fault. It's just that you're simply not good enough. Which is why I think you should be offered a tuition-free spot in debating school. And if the government is unwilling to step up to the plate, I'll do that as a private donor. Take it as a voucher. :)
Also, a more apt troll would've noticed that I had said that Ceausescu gave up MFN in '81-82, when he actually did so in '88..
ReplyDeleteNu stiu cum sa o spun mai bine, dar: NU. Cu alte cuvinte: nu pot gasi vreo ''scuza'' regimului Ceausescu sau comunismului, iar ''distributia echilibrata'' a bunurilor in conditiile unei populatii precum cea a Romaniei nu e un argument pro nimic. Romanii nu o duceau mai bine. Romanii o duceau la fel de prost, doar ca in numar mai mare, motiv pentru care nu simteau presiunea sociala. Atunci cand exista totusi ''vecinu' care o duce bine'', atunci incepe ''revolta interioara'' (sau, in cazul unora, dorinta de a-i agresa intr-un fel sau altul capra).
ReplyDeleteThe socialist economy employed a few more millions, who find themselves today on social assistance. These people were definitely better off then. For those who were employed then and are still employed today, again, they seem to think they were better off then. If you argue they aren't, you are essentially trying to convince them that your scale of values is better than theirs. Not only that it's impossible, but it's not even morally or logically congruent to do so.
ReplyDeleteThey were better off then and they were just as ''unproductive''. They were better off then, but the overall stability and health of the economical system was worse.
ReplyDeleteYou've just conceded the point of the article. :)
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the rise of the employee numbers is not a Romanian or post-communist phenomenon.The service sector and the ''file transport sector'' (pointless jobs created to support the system which creates them) have massively increased in the past three decades.
ReplyDeleteThe Economist has a nice blog post countering this view - titled, surprisingly, On "bullshit" jobs: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/08/labour-markets-0 :D
ReplyDeleteI was actually going to reference the original article (the one which The Economist answers to).
ReplyDeleteI killed your reference "in fasha" :)
ReplyDeleteYou didn't, actually. "Industrialisation'' is far from a satisfying answer to the initial questions, but it does prove a valid point.
ReplyDeleteThe man argues that ''industrialization'' (rise of the ''machines'' as he puts it) is the main factor for the increase of the so called ''bullshit jobs''. However, the initial article points to the fact that many of these jobs exist only to support themselves (and are not truly administrative jobs).
ReplyDeleteThere's a lot to talk about on the subject of BS jobs. First of all, everyone will identify any job other than theirs as BS. I didn't, which is why I quit early on in my "corporate" career.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, the corporate sector tends to shed them regularly. If you watch "Suits", in one of the episodes of S03 (or S02), there's a merger, and the fat obnoxious guy meets his Nemesis in the person of a tall, thin and dehydrated dude from the other firm who, like him, was given the task of identifying "redundancies". They both identify each other as such and make a pact not to report it, but the fat one breaks the pact getting the other one fired. This does actually happens and no matter how you might see it when working there, many of these people have necessary jobs.
Thirdly.. well, let's see what u have to say so far.
I might know a bit more about the corporate environment, although advertising agencies seem to operate on their own principles within the corporate world.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, in most large companies (corporations or not), you can notice a tendency of ''creating jobs'', rather than making the current ones more efficient. There are lots of jobs which could be undertaken by simply increasing the ''productivity'' of current employees or by streamlining current resources.
Yes, I noticed this "trend" as well. Each boss is asking for a bigger chunk of the budget, which they use to hire more people, as that way their relative "power" increases. It's a weird effect, but once they get more people they also get more work to be done. Then again, if there's too many incompetents that get in during a hiring spree, the whole place becomes the DMV. But is this really a chronic phenomenon just because we happen to be familiar with it?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to be, since most people I know are familiar with it and since people feel the need to dedicate entire articles to it.
ReplyDeleteP.S: Is the DMV that bad?
..about as bad as Google: http://asa.zamo.ca/2011/10/google-dmv-online.html :)
ReplyDelete