Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Čovjek zaslužan za ekonomsko čudo Hong Konga


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
2 replies to this topic

#1 zg76

zg76
  • Members
  • 526 posts

Posted 13 February 2014 - 18:48

Tri put ura za Hong Kong, taj mali komad kamena u jugoistočnoj Aziji. Već dvadeseti put za redom, Indeks Ekonomske Slobode—kojeg publiciraju Wall Street žurnal i Heritage foundacija—rangira Hong Kong (HK) najslobodnijom ekonomijom na svijetu.
 
Iako je dio Kine, jer su ga Britanci ustupili 1997, Hong Kong ima lokalnu samoupravu. Do sada, Kinezi su ostali razumno vjerni svom obećanju da će ekonomiju Hong Konga ostaviti na miru. Ono što ga čini toliko slobodnim je muzika za uši svakome ko voli slobodu: Relativno malo korupcije. Efikasno i nezavisno pravosuđe. Poštovanje vladavine prava i imovinskih prava. Jednostavan poreski sistem sa niskim stopama i za pojedince i za korporacije, i celokupno poresko opterećenje koje je samo 14 odsto BDP-a (što je polovina porezne stope Sjedinjenih Država). Nema poreza na kapitalnu dobit, na prihod od kamata, niti čak na zarade izvan Hong Konga. Nema poreza na promet niti PDV. Ima veoma mali regulatorni dodir. Nema državnog budžetskog deficita i javni dug je skoro nepostojeći. Oh, i ne zaboravimo prosječnu carinsku stopu od blizu nule. Dobro ste pročitali: nula!
 
Ovo najnovije rangiranje u WSJ/Heritage izvještaju potvrđuje ono što je kanadski Fraser institut našao u njihovom najnovijem Indeksu ekonomske slobode, koji je takođe rangirao ekonomiju Hong Konga najslobodnijom na svijetu. Svjetska banka rangira “lakoću poslovanja” u Hong Kongu kao skoro najboljom na svijetu.
 
Kazati da je neka ekonomija “najslobodnija” znači kazati da je ona “najkapitalističkija.” Kapitalizam je ono što se desi kada se miroljubivi ljudi ostave na miru. Kapitalizam ne zahtijeva nekakvu složenu i umjetnu majstoriju tipa Rube Goldberg, spravljenu od strane redovnih centralnih planera u svojim kulama od slonovače. Ali, ako želimo da vjerujemo kritičarima kapitalizma, Hong Kong takođe mora biti prava paklena tvornica pohlepe, siromaštva, eksploatacije i očaja.
 
Međutim to nije tako. Ni blizu.
 
Možda je to razlog zašto socijalisti ne vole da pričaju o Hong Kongu: To nije samo najslobodnija ekonomija, već je takođe i jedna od najbogatijih. Njen prihod po glavi stanovnika, koji iznosi 264 odsto svjetskog prosjeka, se u posljednjih 15 godina više nego udvostručio. Ljudi ne bježe iz Hong Konga, oni hrle u njega. Na kraju Drugog svjetskog rata, njegovo stanovništvo je brojalo 750.000. Danas je skoro deset puta taj broj: 7,1 milion.
 
Pozitivni neintervencionizam
 
Vijest da je Hong Kong ekonomija ponovo ocijenjena kao najslobodnija na svijetu je prilika da proslavimo jednog čovjeka, najodgovornijeg za ova višegodišnja dostignuća. Ime Sir John James Cowperthwaite (1915–2006) treba da zauvijek zauzme najvišu policu u panteonu libertarijanskih velikana. Neki od nas pišemo o libertarijanskim idejama. Ovaj čovjek ih je pretvarao u javnu politiku za milione ljudi.
 
Pokojni Milton Friedman je u čast Cowperthwaite-a 1997 godine objasnio kako je izuzetno njegovo ekonomsko naslijeđe: "Uporedimo Britaniju - rodno mjesto industrijske revolucije, ekonomske supersile devetnaestog vijeka u čijoj imperiji sunce nikada nije zalazilo - sa Hong Kongom, komadićem zemlje, prenapučenim, bez prirodnih resursa, osim velike luke. Ipak, u roku od četiri decenije stanovnici ovog prepučenog komadića zemlje su postigli nivo prihoda koji je za trećinu veći nego što ga uživaju stanovnici njihove bivše matične zemlje."
 
Škot po rođenju, Cowperthwaite je pohađao školu Merchiston Castle u Edinburgu a poslije toga je studirao klasiku na univerzitetu St Andrews i na Christ's koledžu u Cambridge-u. Služio je u Britanskoj kolonijalnoj administrativnoj službi u Hong Kongu tokom ranih 1940ih. Poslije rata od njega je zatraženo da napravi planove vlade da se poveća ekonomski rast. Mora mu se priznati, imao je oči širom otvorene i primjetio je da se privreda već sasvim lijepo oporavljala bez uplitanja vlade. Dakle, dok se majka domovina zateturala u socijalističkom pravcu kod kuće pod upravom Clement Attlee-a, Cowperthwaite je postao zagovornik onoga što je on nazvao "pozitivni ne-intervencionizam" u Hong Kongu. Kasnije kao Financijski Sekretar kolonije od 1961 do 1971, on je lično rukovodio.
 
"U širokom polju naše privrede još uvijek je bolje osloniti se na "skrivenu ruku" devetnaestog vijeka nego da uplićemo nespretne birokratske prste po njenom osjetljivom mehanizmu," izjavio je Cowperthwaite 1962. "Konkretno, mi ne možemo sebi priuštiti da oštetimo njenu glavnu oprugu (privrede), slobodu konkurentnog preduzetništva." On nije volio protekcionizam ili subvencije za nove, čak takozvane "u kolijevci" industrije: "Industrija u kolijevci, ukoliko je zaštićena i pažena, teži ka tome da ostane novorođenče industrija i nikada ne odrasta niti se proširuje." On je čvrsto vjerovao da je "dugoročno gledano, sveukupan broj odluka pojedinačnih privrednika, donošenjem vlastitih prosuđivanja u slobodnoj ekonomiji, čak i ako bi često bili u zabludi, je vjerovatno manje štetno nego centralizovano odlučivanje vlade, a zasigurno je vjerovatno da će tako i šteta biti brže neutralisana".
 
Još od vremena John Maynard Keynes-a, ekonomija je prokleta shvatanjem da ljudsko djelovanje treba destilovati u brojeve, koji potom centralnim planerima postaju "pretvaranje o znanju." U mnogim kolegijalnim kursevima ekonomije, teško je reći gdje matematika prestaje i stvarna ekonomija počinje. Za Cowperthwaite-a, potraga planera za statistikom je bila omražena stvar. Stoga je on odbio da je prikuplja. Kada ga je Friedman 1963 pitao o "nedostatku statistike," Cowperthwaite je odgovorio, "Ako im dozvolim da izračunaju te statistike, oni će htjeti da ih koriste za planiranje."
 
Ako to zvuči neobično nazadno ili arhaično, dozvolite mi da vas podsjetim da su najveći ekonomski promašaji godina prošloga vijeka centralno planirani i bili su opsjednuti brojevima. Čitava ministarstva su bila posvećena njihovoj kompilaciji, jer su čak i loši brojevi davali planerima iluziju kontrole. Ali ne i u Hong Kongu!
 
Statistike, bez obzira koliko tačne ili obimne, nisu zamjena zdravim principima. Pokretana obiljem potonjeg pod Cowperthwaite-om, privreda Hong Konga je porasla tokom njegovog mandata. Pišući u novembarskom izdanju The Freeman magazina iz 2008, Andrew P. Morriss je primjetio da su u deceniji za vrijeme njegovog mandata kao finansijski sekretar, “realne zarade porasle za 50 odsto, a dio stanovništva u akutnom siromaštvu pao je sa 50 na 15 odsto.” Teško je raspravljati sa uspjehom. Nakon Cowperthwaite-ovog penzionisanja 1971, manje principijelni nasljednici bavili su se potrošnjom na socijalnu zaštitu, ali su to financirali prodajom zemljišta a ne povećanim oporezivanjem. Poreske stope su i dan danas tamo gdje ih je starac (Cowperthwaite) ostavio.
 
Komentar na temu društva Mont Pelerin Society
 
U septembru 2014, društvo Mont Pelerin Society—prestižna međunarodna organizacija ekonomista, privrednika i intelektualaca, posvećena ciljevima slobodnog društva—održaće svoj sljedeći opšti sastanak u Hong Kongu. Sir John je bio dugogodišnji član tog društva. Pošto sam i ja jedan od njih, želim tamo podići čašu u njegovu čast. Nikada ne smijemo zaboraviti čovjeka koji je u Hong Kongu pokazao da je slobodno preduzetništvo dobra teorija iz mnogo razloga, od kojih je u najmanju ruku to da za razliku od socijalizma ona zapravo funkcioniše u praksi.
 
 
 
1618600_598886910190487_729498941_n.jpg


#2 Ointagru Unartan

Ointagru Unartan
  • Members
  • 2,583 posts

Posted 13 February 2014 - 21:23

It is undeniable that the figures for Hong Kong's economy are impressive. Per-capita GDP by end 1996 should reach US$ 25,300, one of the highest in Asia and higher than many western nations. Enviable tax rates - 16.5% corporate profits tax, 15% salaries tax. In the first 5 years of the 1990's Hong Kong's economy grew at a tremendous rate -- nominal per capita income and GDP levels (where inflation is not factored in) almost doubled. Even accounting for inflation, growth was brisk. The average annual growth rate in real terms of total GDP in the 10 years to 1995 was six per cent, growing by 4.6 per cent in 1995. However, looking more closely, we find a somewhat different picture than that painted by those claim Hong Kong as an example of the wonders of free market capitalism. Once these basic (and well known) facts are known, it is hard to take Friedman's claims seriously. Of course, there are aspects of laissez-faire to the system (it does not subsidise sunset industries, for example) however, there is much more to Hong Kong that these features. Ultimately, laissez-faire capitalism is more than just low taxes.

The most obvious starting place is the fact that the government owns all the land. To state the obvious, land nationalisation is hardly capitalistic. It is one of the reasons why its direct taxation levels are so low. As one resident points out:


"The main explanation for low tax rates . . . is not low social spending. One important factor is that Hong Kong does not have to support a defence industry . . . The most crucial explanation . . . lies in the fact that less than half of the government's revenues comes from direct taxation.

"The Hong Kong government actually derives much of its revenue from land transactions. The territory's land is technically owned by the government, and the government fills its coffers by selling fifty-year leases to developers (the fact that there are no absolute private property rights to land will come as another surprise t boosters of 'Hong Kong-style' libertarianism) . . . The government has an interest in maintaining high property values . . . if it is to maintain its policy of low taxation. It does this by carefully controlling the amount of land that is released for sale . . . It is, of course, those buying new homes and renting from the private sector who pay the price for this policy. Many Hong Kongers live in third world conditions, and the need to pay astronomical residential property prices is widely viewed as an indirect form of taxation." [Daniel A. Bell, "Hong Kong's Transition to Capitalism", pp. 15-23,Dissent, Winter 1998, pp. 15-6]

 

The ownership of land and the state's role as landlord partly explains the low apparent ratio of state spending to GDP. If the cost of the subsidised housing land were accounted for at market prices in the government budget, the ratio would be significantly higher. As noted, Hong Kong had no need to pay for defence as this cost was borne by the UK taxpayer. Include these government-provided services at their market prices and the famously low share of government spending in GDP climbs sharply.

 

Luckily for many inhabitants of Hong Kong, the state provides a range of social welfare services in housing, education, health care and social security. The government has a very basic, but comprehensive social welfare system. This started in the 1950s, when the government launched one of the largest public housing schemes in history to house the influx of about 2 million people fleeing Communist China. Hong Kong's social welfare system really started in 1973, when the newly appointed governor "announced that public housing, education, medical, and social welfare services would be treated as the four pillars of a fair and caring society." He launched a public housing program and by 1998, 52 percent of the population "live in subsidised housing, most of whom rent flats from the Housing Authority with rents set at one-fifth the market level (the rest have bought subsidised flats under various home-ownership schemes, with prices discounted 50 percent from those in the private sector)." Beyond public housing, Hong Kong "also has most of the standard features of welfare states in Western Europe. There is an excellent public health care system: private hospitals are actually going out of business because clean and efficient public hospitals are well subsidised (the government pays 97 percent of the costs)." Fortunately for the state, the territory initially had a relatively youthful population compared with western countries which meant it had less need for spending on pensions and help for the aged (this advantage is declining as the population ages). In addition, the "large majority of primary schools and secondary schools are either free of heavily subsidised, and the territory's tertiary institutions all receive most of their funds from the public coffers." [Bell, Op. Cit., pp. 16-7 and p. 17] We can be sure that when conservatives and right-"libertarians" use Hong Kong as a model, they are not referring to these aspects of the regime.

 

Given this, Hong Kong has "deviated from the myth of a laissez-faire economy with the government limiting itself to the role of the 'night watchman'" as it "is a welfare state." In 1995-6, it spent 47 percent of its public expenditure on social services ("only slightly less than the United Kingdom"). Between 1992 and 1998, welfare spending increased at a real rate of at least 10 percent annually. [Bell, Op. Cit., p. 16] "Without doubt," two experts note, "the development of public housing in Hong Kong has contributed greatly to the social well-being of the Territory." Overall, social welfare "is the third largest [state] expenditure . . . after education and health." [Simon X. B. Zhao and l. Zhand, "Economic Growth and Income Inequality in Hong Kong: Trends and Explanations," pp. 74-103, China: An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1, p. 95 and p. 97] Hong Kong spent 11.6% of its GDP on welfare spending in 2004, for example.

 

Moreover, this state intervention is not limited to just social welfare provision. Hong Kong has an affordable public transport system in which the government has substantial equity in most transport systems and grants franchises and monopolised routes. So as well as being the monopoly owner of land and the largest landlord, the state imposes rent controls, operates three railways and regulates transport services and public utilities as monopoly franchises. It subsidises education, health care, welfare and charity. It has also took over the ownership and management of several banks in the 1980s to prevent a general bank run. Overall, since the 1960s "the Hong Kong government's involvement in everyday life has increases steadily and now reaches into many vital areas of socio-economic development." [Ming K Chan, "The Legacy of the British Administration of Hong Kong: A View from Hong Kong," pp. 567-582, The China Quarterly, no. 151, p. 575 and p. 574] It also intervened massively in the stock market during the 1997 Asian crisis. Strangely, Friedman failed to note any of these developments nor point to the lack of competition in many areas of the domestic economy and the high returns given to competition-free utility companies.

...

There are other explanations for Hong Kong's high growth rates than simply "capitalism." Firstly, Hong Kong is a city state and cities have a higher economic growth rate than regions (which are held back by large rural areas). This is because the agricultural sector rarely achieves high economic growth rates and so in its absence a high growth rate is easier to achieve. Secondly, there is Hong Kong's location and its corresponding role as an entrepôt economy. Wade notes that "its economic growth is a function of its service role in a wider regional economy, as entrepôt trader, regional headquarters for multinational companies, and refuge for nervous money." [Op. Cit., p. 331] Being between China and the rest of the world means its traders could act as a middleman, earning income from the mark-up they could impose on good going through the territory. This is why Hong Kong is often referred to as an entrepôt economy, a place that imports, stores, and re-exports goods. In other words, Hong Kong made a lot of its money because many Chinese exports and imports went through it and its traders marked-up the prices. It should be obvious if most of Western Europe's goods went through, say, Liverpool, that city would have a very good economic performance regardless of other factors. This option is hardly available to most cities, never mind countries.

 

itd



#3 trad

trad
  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 06 April 2014 - 11:48

Ne možeš uspoređivati Hong Kong i Europu. Tamo je jednostavno druačije ...