The Hard Lessons of Easy Money

"What Went Wrong With Capitalism

By Ruchir Sharma

How Nations Escape Poverty

By Rainer Zitelmann

The pre-eminent problem facing nearly all Western liberal democracies in the 21st century -- this is one way to put it, anyway -- is that their political leaders have become pathologically obsessed with mitigating risk. Risk means that something could go wrong and that when things do go wrong somebody gets the blame. The problem, as we learned during the recent pandemic, is that risk mitigation can bring about more damage than the thing you wanted to avoid.

Fear of risk has, over the past half-century, robbed American capitalism of its capacity for robust growth. That, at any rate, is how I read Ruchir Sharma's superbly written and cogently argued "What Went Wrong With Capitalism" (Simon & Schuster, 384 pages, $30).

Mr. Sharma's contention: In the mid-1970s, the Federal Reserve began flooding the U.S. economy with money to ward off any hint of downturn; the private sector responded by taking on unnatural levels of debt; and Congress and regulators adopted the attitude that any big company looking wobbly had to be rescued. Meanwhile every part of government grew -- even during the 1980s, when progressives claim it shrank. In time, the U.S. government created a kind of safety net for large corporations, which increasingly put their resources toward lobbying and other forms of self-protection.

That deficit spending tends to encourage growth is, of course, a core tenet of Keynesian economics. But John Maynard Keynes's original prescription, Mr. Sharma reminds us, was that governments should borrow and spend to counter weak demand in hard times but to save in good times in order to manage the next downturn. Policymakers over the past half-century, however, have rejected the saving part of Keynesian doctrine and felt that they had to juice the economy in good times, too.

Leave aside the obvious and overwhelming consequences for the U.S. government -- $34 trillion in debt, massive and permanent peacetime deficits, $800 billion-plus spent on interest alone, and so on. The consequences for economic growth are equally dire. Here Mr. Sharma, chairman of Rockefeller Capital Management's international business, makes the book's most important point. For decades liberal economists ridiculed anyone who claimed that lowering government spending would improve overall economic growth or who doubted that pumping money into the economy was good for growth. More money in the economy, they pointed out, by definition expands it; how is that not pro-growth? As years went by and no calamity arose from constant deficit spending, the Keynesians seemed to have further reason to laugh at their critics.

But the real effect of easy money and permanent deficits, Mr. Sharma contends, is long term: financial markets distorted by trillions in misallocated capital. Decades of loose monetary policy have made the American economy -- and the same is true of the other debt-soaked economies of the developed world -- chronically lethargic. Multinational corporations, which, in an easy-money economy, can live on debt for years, have put more and more of their resources into activities that have nothing to do with their products and services. "The United States now has one manager for nearly every five workers," Mr. Sharma writes. "The C-suite has expanded to include Chief Officers of everything from Analytics and Digital to Collaboration, Customers, Ethics, Sustainability, Learning, and Happiness. And every chief needs his or her administrative minions."

The macroeconomic upshot: Recessions happen rarely, but growth and productivity are almost always anemic.

Expected recessions, like Godot, never show up: "A Promised Slump Refuses to Appear," announced a front-page headline in this newspaper two weeks ago. No one's going to complain about the infrequency of recessions, but Mr. Sharma makes a strong case that they can have what economists Ricardo Caballero and Mohamad Hammour once called a "cleansing effect," in which badly managed and unproductive companies die or get folded into better ones.

If Mr. Sharma describes the enervation of wealthy nations that attempt to insulate their economies from risk and failure, the German social scientist and entrepreneur Rainer Zitelmann, in "How Nations Escape Poverty: Vietnam, Poland, and the Origins of Prosperity" (Encounter, 240 pages, $29.99), relates what happens when poor nations with onerous planned economies scrap their plans and open themselves up to trade.

The depth of poverty into which the victorious communists plunged Vietnam after the fall of Saigon in 1975 would be difficult to exaggerate. Once an exporter of rice, by 1980 it couldn't grow enough to sustain its own population. For several years Vietnam was almost the poorest nation in the world. In 1986 the ruling party -- which, unlike some Western governments one might name, had sense enough to see what wasn't working -- began a series of reforms known as Doi Moi ("innovation" or "renovation"). The regime lifted restrictions on private manufacturing, abolished internal customs checkpoints, eliminated most subsidies and price controls, denationalized businesses, and returned land that the state had confiscated.

The turnaround wasn't instant, but nearly so. GDP growth shot up to 7% or 8% in the 1990s, rates of poverty plummeted and life expectancy improved. By the mid-2010s, Vietnam had become, despite continuing restrictions on speech and other freedoms, one of Southeast Asia's largest manufacturing hubs.

Mr. Zitelmann tells a similar story of economic unshackling in Poland, which in the space of three decades went from one of Europe's poorest states to one of its wealthiest, in time besting some European nations that had never fallen under Soviet control. I hold no brief for Vietnam's political class, which still considers itself communist. But the recent histories of both Vietnam and Poland teach the same lesson: that a nation can do wonders when it stops trying to manage itself into perfection and shield its citizens from risk." [1]

1. REVIEW --- Books -- Politics: The Hard Lessons of Easy Money. Swaim, Barton.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 22 June 2024: C.9.

 

Pagyrimas sugebėjimui girtis --- Keli patarimai, kaip švęsti savo pasiekimus, neatrodant, kaip kvailys

„Dauguma etiketo žinovų savęs šventimą vertina kaip blogą repą. Debrett's – britų gerų manierų Biblija – pasigyrimą vadina „vaikišku charakterio bruožu“. Vietoj to patariama „kur tik įmanoma, sumenkinti“. XVII a. Matematikas ir filosofas Blaise'as Pascalis panašiai pastebėjo savo „Pensees“: „Jei norite, kad žmonės apie jus gerai galvotų, nekalbėkite apie save gerai, tėvai man ne kartą buvo sakę, kad „ne vienam patinka pasirodymas“.

 

 Tačiau, remiantis naujausiais socialinių ryšių tyrimais, šis nusidėvėjęs patarimas yra klaidingas. Žinoma, kyla pavojus per garsiai arba per dažnai pūsti savo ragą. Tačiau slepiant savo pasiekimus yra ir pavojų, o netikras kuklumas dažnai yra blogesnis už begėdišką savęs pagyrimą. Daugeliu atvejų geriau girtis. Gudrybė yra žinoti, kaip tai padaryti.

 

 2021 m. žurnale „Journal of Personality and Social Psychology“ paskelbtame straipsnyje nustatyta, kad maždaug 80 % žmonių sako, kad dažnai sumenkina jų pasiekimus, kad neatrodytų arogantiški ir nekurstytų pavydą. Tačiau mokslininkai nustatė, kad toks užsispyrimas gali atsirūgti, ypač kai kiti sužino tiesą apie jų pasiekimus.

 

 Vieno eksperimento metu mokslininkai įdarbino 153 poras žmonių, kurie vienas kitą pažinojo kaip draugai, kolegos, romantiški partneriai ar šeimos nariai. Kiekvienoje poroje vienas asmuo turėjo užrašyti neseniai įvykusį įvykį, dėl kurio jie didžiavosi, džiaugėsi ar susijaudino. Atsakymai apėmė viską – nuo ​​sunkiosios atletikos geriausio rezultato iki populiarumo socialiniuose tinkluose. Tada tyrėjai perdavė šią informaciją kitam poros asmeniui. Pokyčiai slypi pristatyme. Pusėje atvejų tyrėjai teigė, kad partneris nusprendė perduoti informaciją; dėl likusios dalies jie (klaidingai) teigė, kad partneris pageidavo, kad tai liktų privati informacija.

 

 Šis skirtumas gali atrodyti nedidelis, tačiau jis pakeitė žmonių požiūrį į jų partnerio sėkmę. Jei jie tikėjo, kad jų draugai ar meilužiai nori gerąją naujieną išlaikyti paslaptyje, jie reagavo, jausdamiesi įžeisti ir ne tokie artimi. Jie taip pat buvo mažiau suinteresuoti leisti pinigus draugiškai elektroninei kortelei, skirtai švęsti jų santykius. (Po eksperimento dalyviai buvo išsamiai informuoti apie šią manipuliaciją, siekiant užtikrinti, kad šie kartūs jausmai nepasiliktų.)

 

 Kaip papildomą „nuolankumo bausmės“ įrodymą, tyrėjų komanda paprašė šimtų žmonių įsivaizduoti, kaip jie reaguotų į įvairius scenarijus. Pavyzdžiui, kaip jie jaustųsi, jei iš mamos sužinotų, kad brolis ir sesuo ką tik gavo didžiulį atlyginimą? Kaip jie jaustųsi, jei jų brolis ir sesuo pasidalintų gera žinia? Kiekvienu atveju dalyviai išreiškė pasipiktinimą pastangomis užmaskuoti tiesą. Sužinoję, kad kažkas, kas jiems rūpi, nepaminėjo sėkmės, žmonės tai suprato kaip nuolaidžiavimą, tarsi reikėtų valdyti jų trapų ego, todėl jie jautėsi mažiau artimi atitinkamam asmeniui.

 

 Matyt, taip pat problematiškas yra nuolankus būdas girtis – įprotis uždengti pasigyrimą skundu ar netikru nuolankumu. Ovul Sezer iš Kornelio universiteto SC Džonsono verslo koledžo parodė, kad nuolankūs pasipūtėliai daro žmones mažiau simpatiškus, nes jie atrodo nenuoširdūs. Šie įžūlūs pasigyrimai taip pat linkę suklaidinti žinią, kurią kas nors gali tikėtis perduoti. Sezer tyrimas rodo, kad teiginys „aš esu toks išsekęs, kadangi buvau išrinktas į vadovaujančias pareigas“, gali atrodyti, kad kažkas yra mažiau kompetentingas, nei būtų paprasčiau pasakęs: „Aš esu išrinktas į vadovaujančias pareigas“.

 

 Iš esmės, kai kas nors prisistato taip, kaip atrodo dirbtinai ar išgalvotai, viską, ką jie sako, priimame su žiupsneliu druskos, įskaitant jų teiginius apie sėkmę. Neatsiprašęs giedojimas atrodo kaip tikra pasididžiavimo išraiška, todėl sukelia mažiau įtarimų. Žinoma, tai veikia tik tuo atveju, jei šie teiginiai yra pagrįsti.

 

 Kai kurie teigia, kad mūsų pasibjaurėjimas nenuoširdžiais pasigyrimais turi evoliucinę kilmę. Didėjant bendradarbiavimui, žmonės išmoko būti atsargūs visiems, kurie atrodė linkę manipuliuoti kitais, siekdami asmeninės naudos.

 

 Tai taip pat gali paaiškinti, kodėl mes nemėgstame  pasigyrimo, apimančio atvirą socialinį palyginimą. Remiantis „išdidumo hipoteze“, mūsų puikavimasis paprastai yra gerai toleruojamas tol, kol negriauname kitų, kad pasiremtume. Jei atrodys, kad savo kolegas vertiname griežtai, pritrauksime mažai bendradarbių.

 

 Taigi, girdamiesi savo darbo rezultatais, geriau sakyti „turiu puikų pardavimo rekordą“, nei „turiu daug geresnius pardavimų rezultatus, nei mano kolegos“.

 

 Apibūdindami sėkmę žmonėms, kurių iš tikrųjų nepažįstate, taip pat verta paminėti kai kuriuos iššūkius, su kuriais susidūrėte kelyje. Tai puikus būdas pasaldinti bet kokius karčius jausmus, kuriuos kiti gali turėti dėl jūsų kilimo į šlovę, remiantis tyrimais, paskelbtais žurnale „Journal of Experimental Psychology“ 2019 metais.

 

Vienas tyrimas atskleidė, kad kai verslininkai atvirai kalbėjo apie nesėkmes, slypinčias už jų sėkmės, kiti buvo mažiau linkę juos vertinti, kaip „pasipūtusius“  ir labiau linkę sutikti su tokiais teiginiais, kaip „Aš labiau stengsiuosi gauti finansavimą savo veiklai, kai kursiu startuolįi kitą progą“ ir „Noriu būti, kaip šis verslininkas“. Kalbėdami apie nesėkmes, šie verslininkai pasiekimus, kurie galėjo įkvėpti pavydą, pavertė įkvėpimo šaltiniu. Štai kodėl gali būti taip padrąsinama, kai bestselerių autoriai pamini daugybę atmetimo laiškų, kuriuos gavo pirmiausia.

 

 Visa tai reiškia, kad egzistuoja veiksmingos girties taisyklės. Kol sakote tiesą, vengiate menkinti kitus ir pripažįstate iššūkius, su kuriais susidūrėte, turėtumėte suprasti, kad jūsų šventinimas yra ne tik toleruojamas, bet ir sveikintinas.

 

 Atrodo, kad mūsų baimės atrodyti įkyriai arogantiškais, jei pūsime mūsų ragą, kyla iš žmogaus prigimties neįvertinimo. Tyrimas vėl ir vėl rodo, kad žmonės dažnai yra daug malonesni, palankesni ir labiau priimantys, nei mes manome. Taigi, užuot nuolat kalbėjus apie schadenfreude – mėgaudamiesi kažkieno skausmu – galbūt, laikas švęsti mitfreude – džiaugsmą, kurį jaučiame iš kito malonumo.

 

 Kai dalijamės savo įspūdžiais su kitais, leidžiame jiems suprasti, kad norime, kad jie taptų mūsų laimės dalimi. Tokiu būdu girtis gali padėti mums jaustis labiau susijusiems su žmonėmis, kurie mums rūpi ir kuriems mes rūpime.

 ---

 Naujausia Davido Robsono knyga yra „Ryšio dėsniai: stipraus socialinio tinklo kūrimo mokslinės paslaptys“, kurią išleido leidykla „Pegasus“." [1]

 

1. REVIEW --- In Praise of Bragging --- Some tips for celebrating your achievements without seeming like a jerk. Robson, David.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 22 June 2024: C.5.

In Praise of Bragging --- Some tips for celebrating your achievements without seeming like a jerk

"Most etiquette mavens give self-celebration a bad rap. Debrett's -- the British bible on good manners -- calls boasting "a childish character trait." It counsels, instead, to "resort wherever possible to understatement." The 17th-century mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal similarly observed in his "Pensees": "If you want people to think well of you, do not speak well of yourself." Parents everywhere seem inclined to agree. I was certainly told quite a few times that "no one likes a showoff."

According to recent research on social connection, however, this well-worn advice is mistaken. Sure, there are risks to tooting your own horn too loudly or too often. But there are also dangers in hiding your achievements, and false modesty is often worse than shameless self-praise. In many cases, it is better to brag. The trick is in knowing how to do it.

A 2021 paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that around 80% of people say they often play down their achievements to avoid seeming arrogant and inciting envy. Yet the researchers found that this reticence can backfire, particularly when others learn the truth about their accomplishments.

In one experiment, researchers recruited 153 pairs of people who knew each other as friends, colleagues, romantic partners or family members. In each pair, one person had to write down a recent event that made them proud, happy or excited. Responses included everything from hitting a weightlifting best to going viral on social media. The researchers then gave this information to the other person in the pair. The twist lay in the presentation. In half the cases, the researchers said the partner had chosen to pass along the information; for the rest, they (falsely) claimed that the partner had wished for it to remain private.

This difference might seem small, but it transformed how people felt about their partner's success. If they believed their friends or lovers wished to keep the good news a secret, they reacted by feeling insulted and less close to them. They were also less interested in spending money on a friendly e-card meant to celebrate their relationship. (Participants were fully debriefed about this manipulation after the experiment to ensure these bitter feelings didn't linger.)

As further evidence of a "humility penalty," the research team asked hundreds of people to imagine how they would react to a range of scenarios. For example, how would they feel if they learned from their mother that a sibling just got a huge raise? How would they feel if their sibling shared the good news themselves? In each case, participants expressed resentment at efforts to mask the truth. If they learned that someone they cared about had failed to mention a success, people saw this as condescending, as if their own fragile egos needed to be managed, which made them feel less close to the person in question.

Apparently, humblebragging -- the habit of veiling a boast with a complaint or false humility -- is similarly problematic. Ovul Sezer at Cornell University's SC Johnson College of Business has shown that humblebrags make people less likable because they seem insincere. These cheeky boasts also tend to confound the message someone may hope to convey. Sezer's research shows that claiming "I am so exhausted from getting elected to leadership positions" can make someone seem less competent than if they had more simply said, "I get elected to leadership positions."

Basically, when someone presents themselves in a way that seems artificial or contrived, we end up taking everything they say with a pinch of salt -- including their claims of success. Unapologetic crowing comes across like a genuine expression of pride, so it arouses fewer suspicions. Of course, this only works if these statements are grounded in fact.

Some suggest that our aversion to insincere bragging has evolutionary origins. With the rise of cooperation, humans learned to be wary of anyone who seemed inclined to manipulate others for personal gain. 

This may also explain why we dislike self-praise that involves overt social comparison. According to the "hubris hypothesis," our brags are generally well-tolerated as long as we are not tearing others down to prop ourselves up. If it seems like we are judging our colleagues harshly, we'll attract few collaborators.

 So when boasting about your job performance, you are better off saying "I have an excellent sales record" than "I have a much better sales record than my colleagues."

When describing a success to people you don't really know, you would also do well to mention some of the challenges you faced along the way. This is a great way to sweeten any bitter feelings others may have about your rise to glory, according to research reported in the Journal of Experimental Psychology in 2019.

One study found that when entrepreneurs spoke candidly about the failures behind their success, others were less likely to see them as "smug" or "conceited," and more likely to agree with statements such as "I will try harder to obtain funding for my startup at the next opportunity" and "I want to be like this entrepreneur." By talking about setbacks, these entrepreneurs turned achievements that might have inspired envy into a source of inspiration. This is why it can be so encouraging when bestselling authors mention the many rejection letters they got first.

All of this is to say that there are rules for effective bragging. As long as you tell the truth, avoid belittling others and acknowledge the challenges you've faced, you should find that your self-celebration isn't just tolerated but welcomed.

Our fears about looking obnoxiously arrogant if we toot our own horn seem to stem from an underestimation of human nature. What the research demonstrates over and over again is that people are often much kinder, more supportive and more accepting than we presume. So instead of talking constantly about schadenfreude -- taking pleasure in someone else's pain -- perhaps it is time to celebrate mitfreude, the joy we feel in someone else's pleasure.

When we share our excitement with others, we are letting them know that we want them to be a part of our happiness. In this way, bragging can actually help us feel more connected to the people we care about and who care about us.

---

David Robson's latest book is "The Laws of Connection: The Scientific Secrets of Building a Strong Social Network," published by Pegasus." [1]

1. REVIEW --- In Praise of Bragging --- Some tips for celebrating your achievements without seeming like a jerk. Robson, David.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 22 June 2024: C.5.

N. Farage'as sulaukė kritikos dėl teiginio, esą Vakarai išprovokavo konfliktą Ukrainoje

"Jungtinės Karalystės antiimigracinę politiką palaikančios partijos „Reformuokime JK“ („Reform UK“) lyderis Nigelas Farage'as šeštadienį sulaukė aštrios kritikos dėl savo komentarų, kad esą Vakarai išprovokavo plataus masto konfliktą Ukrainoje.

 

Penktadienį duodamas interviu britų transliuotojui BBC jis sakė, kad „mes [Vakarai] patys išprovokavome šį konfliktą“.

 

JK ministras pirmininkas Rishi Sunakas žurnalistams pareiškė, kad N. Farage'o pareiškimas yra „visiškai neteisingas ir tiesiog pataikauja Putinui“.

 

N. Farage'ui septynis kartus nepavyko tapti JK parlamentaru, tačiau jis buvo europarlamentaru Briuselyje.

 

N. Farage'as taip pat yra buvęs Jungtinės Karalystės Nepriklausomybės partijos (UKIP) lyderis, įsteigęs naują politinę jėgą – „Brexit“ partiją, kuri vėliau pakeitė savo pavadinimą į „Reformuokime JK“.

 

Liepos 4 d. jis sieks būti išrinktas „Brexit“ palaikančioje Klaktono rinkimų apygardoje Pietryčių Anglijoje.

 

Šiuo metu partijos „Reformuokime JK“ apklausų rezultatai siekia apie 11%, todėl yra tikimybė, kad konservatoriams nepavyks gauti pakankamai vietų, kad laimėtų pakartotinius rinkimus. 

 

Tačiau šeštadienį jo komentarai apie tai, kad konfliktą Ukrainoje esą išprovokavo Vakarai, sulaukė pasipiktinimo.

 

Buvęs konservatorių vyriausybės ministras Tobiasas Ellwoodas šiuos komentarus laikraštyje „Daily Telegraph“ pavadino šokiruojančiais.

 

JK parlamento narys Johnas Healey pabrėžė, kad tokie teiginiai yra gėdingi, ir pridūrė, kad dėl šio požiūrio N. Farage'as yra „netinkamas eiti bet kokias politines pareigas mūsų šalyje“.

 

Interviu metu paklaustas apie savo požiūrį į V. Putiną, N. Farage'as pareiškė, kad „nemėgsta jo kaip žmogaus“, bet „žavisi juo kaip politiniu veikėju, nes jam pavyko perimti Rusijos valdymo kontrolę“."