What is economic value, and who creates it? | Mariana Mazzucato

Prevoditelj: Djurdjica Ercegovac Recezent: Sanda L

Value creation.

Stvaranje vrijednosti.

Wealth creation.

Stvaranje bogatstva.

These are really powerful words.

To su uistinu moćne riječi.

Maybe you think of finance, you think of innovation,

Možda pomišljate na financije, pomišljate na inovacije,

you think of creativity.

pomišljate na kreativnost.

But who are the value creators?

Ali tko su kreatori vrijednosti?

If we use that word, we must be implying that some people aren't creating value.

Ako koristimo tu riječ, podrazumijevamo da neki ljudi ne stvaraju vrijednost.

Who are they?

Tko su oni?

The couch potatoes?

Lijene dangube?

The value extractors?

Oni koji izvlače vrijednost?

The value destroyers?

Oni koji uništavaju vrijednost?

To answer this question, we actually have to have a proper theory of value.

Da bismo odgovorili na ovo pitanje, moramo imati ispravnu teoriju vrijednosti.

And I'm here as an economist to break it to you

A ja sam ovdje da vam kao ekonomistica objavim

that we've kind of lost our way on this question.

da smo se nekako izgubili po tom pitanju.

Now, don't look so surprised.

Nemojte biti tako iznenađeni.

What I mean by that is, we've stopped contesting it.

Time sam htjela reći da smo ga prestali propitkivati.

We've stopped actually asking really tough questions

Mi smo, zapravo, prestali postavljati stvarno teška pitanja

about what is the difference between value creation and value extraction,

o tome koja je razlika između stvaranja vrijednosti i ekstrakcije vrijednosti,

productive and unproductive activities.

proizvodnih i neproizvodnih djelatnosti.

Now, let me just give you some context here.

No, dozvolite da vam ovdje dam neki kontekst.

2009 was just about a year and a half after

2009. godine prošlo je baš oko godinu i pol dana

od jedne od najvećih financijskih kriza našeg vremena,

one of the biggest financial crises of our time,

second only to the 1929 Great Depression,

najveće poslije Velike depresije 1929. godine,

and the CEO of Goldman Sachs said

a direktori Goldman Sachsa su rekli:

Goldman Sachs workers are the most productive in the world.

Radnici Goldman Sachsa najproduktivniiji su na svijetu.

Productivity and productiveness, for an economist,

Učinkovitost i produktivnost za ekonomistu

actually has a lot to do with value.

zapravo su usko povezani s vrijednošću.

You're producing stuff,

Vi nešto proizvodite

you're producing it dynamically and efficiently.

i proizvodite to dinamički i učinkovito.

You're also producing things that the world needs, wants and buys.

Vi također proizvodite stvari koje svijet treba, želi i kupuje.

Now, how this could have been said just one year after the crisis,

Kako je to moglo biti rečeno samo godinu dana nakon krize

which actually had this bank as well as many other banks --

u kojoj je zapravo ta banka, kao i mnoge druge --

I'm just kind of picking on Goldman Sachs here --

Goldman Sacs sam samo izabrala kao primjer --

at the center of the crisis, because they had actually produced

bile u središtu krize zbog toga jer su ustvari proizveli

some pretty problematic financial products mainly but not only related to mortgages,

neke prilično problematične financijske proizvode

uglavnom, ali ne isključivo, povezane s hipotekama

which saw many thousands of people actually lose their homes.

zbog kojih je više tisuća ljudi stvarno izgubilo svoje domove.

In 2010, in just one month, September,

2010. godine, samo u jednom mjesecu, rujnu,

120,000 people lost their homes through the foreclosures of that crisis.

120,000 ljudi izgubilo je svoje domove zbog ovrha uslijed te krize.

Between 2007 and 2010,

Između 2007. i 2010.

8.8 million people lost their jobs.

8,8 milijuna ljudi izgubilo je posao.

The bank also had to then be bailed out by the US taxpayer

I banke su morale biti spašavane na teret poreznih obveznika SAD-a

for the sum of 10 billion dollars.

u ukupnom iznosu od 10 milijardi dolara.

We didn't hear the taxpayers bragging that they were value creators,

Nismo čuli da su se porezni obveznici hvalili

da su oni bili kreatori vrijednosti, ali očito je, budući da su spasili

but obviously, having bailed out

one of the biggest value-creating productive companies,

jednu od najvećih kompanija generatora vrijednosti,

perhaps they should have.

možda su trebali.

What I want to do next is kind of ask ourselves

Ono što želim sljedeće učiniti jest da se nekako zapitamo

how we lost our way,

kako smo izgubili put, kako to ustvari može biti

how it could be, actually,

that a statement like that could almost go unnoticed,

da izjava poput te prođe gotovo neprimjećena,

because it wasn't an after-dinner joke; it was said very seriously.

jer to nije bila prigodna šala, to je rečeno vrlo ozbiljno.

So what I want to do is bring you back 300 years in economic thinking,

Dakle, željela bih vas vratiti 300 godina u prošlost ekonomskog razmišljanja

when, actually, the term was contested.

kada je taj izraz ustvari bio osporavan.

It doesn't mean that they were right or wrong,

To ne znači da su bili u pravu ili u krivu,

but you couldn't just call yourself a value creator, a wealth creator.

no niste se tek tako mogli nazivati kreatorom vrijednosti, odnosno bogatstva.

There was a lot of debate within the economics profession.

Bilo je mnogo diskusija u okviru ekonomske profesije.

And what I want to argue is, we've kind of lost our way,

A ono što ja tvrdim je da smo na neki način zalutali

and that has actually allowed this term, "wealth creation" and "value,"

i to je zapravo omogućilo da taj termin, "stvaranje bogatstva" i "vrijednost",

to become quite weak and lazy

postane prilično slab i lijen

and also easily captured.

i također lak plijen.

OK? So let's start -- I hate to break it to you --

U redu? Pa počnimo -- ne volim vam to odati --

300 years ago.

prije 300 godina.

Now, what was interesting 300 years ago

Ono što je bilo zanimljivo prije 300 godina

is the society was still an agricultural type of society.

je da je društvo još uvijek bilo poljoprivredno društvo.

So it's not surprising that the economists of the time,

Stoga ne iznenađuje da je ekonomistima tog vremena,

who were called the Physiocrats,

koji su se nazivali fiziokrati,

actually put the center of their attention to farm labor.

u središtu pažnje zapravo bio rad u poljoprivredi.

When they said, "Where does value come from?"

Kada su rekli, "Odakle dolazi vrijednost?"

they looked at farming.

gledali su na poljoprivredu.

And they produced what I think was probably the world's first spreadsheet,

I smislili su nešto što ja smatram vjerojatno prvom proračunskom tablicom,

called the "Tableau Economique,"

koju su nazvali "Tableau Economique",

and this was done by François Quesnay, one of the leaders of this movement.

a to je napravio Francois Quesnay, jedan od vođa tog pokreta.

And it was very interesting,

I to je bilo vrlo zanimljivo

because they didn't just say, "Farming is the source of value."

jer nisu tek rekli "Poljoprivreda je izvor vrijednosti."

They then really worried about what was happening to that value

Oni su tada stvarno brinuli što se događa s tom vrijednošću

when it was produced.

nakon što je proizvedena.

What the Tableau Economique does --

Ono što radi Tableau Economique,

and I've tried to make it a bit simpler here for you --

-- pokušala sam to ovdje malo pojednostaviti --

je da društvo razbija na tri klase.

is it broke down the classes in society into three.

The farmers, creating value, were called the "productive class."

Poljoprivrednici koji stvaraju vrijednost, zvali su se "produktivna klasa".

Then others who were just moving some of this value around

Zatim drugi koji samo prenose dio te vrijednosti naokolo,

but it was useful, it was necessary,

ali i to ima svrhu i potrebno je,

these were the merchants;

to su bili trgovci;

they were called the "proprietors."

njih su nazivali "gazde".

And then there was another class that was simply charging the farmers a fee

Postojala je još jedna klasa koja je samo seljacima naplaćivala naknadu

for an existing asset, the land,

za postojeću imovinu, zemlju,

and they called them the "sterile class."

i oni su se nazivali "sterilna klasa".

Now, this is a really heavy-hitting word if you think what it means:

To je zaista teška riječ kad razmislite što ona znači:

that if too much of the resources are going to the landlords,

da ako previše resursa odlazi zemljoposjednicima,

you're actually putting the reproduction potential of the system at risk.

vi zapravo ugrožavate reproduktivni potencijal sustava.

And so all these little arrows there were their way of simulating --

I tako su sve ove male strelice ovdje bile njihov način simuliranja --

again, spreadsheets and simulators, these guys were really using big data --

proračunske tablice i simulatori, ti momci su stvarno koristili velike podatke --

they were simulating what would actually happen under different scenarios

simulirali su što bi se stvarno dogodilo promjenom scenarija,

if the wealth actually wasn't reinvested back into production

ako se bogatstvo ustvari ne reinvestira ponovo u proizvodnju

to make that land more productive

kako bi se povećala produktivnost zemlje,

and was actually being siphoned out in different ways,

nego se ustvari izvlači na razne načine

or even if the proprietors were getting too much.

ili čak ako gazde dobivaju previše.

And what later happened in the 1800s,

A ono što se kasnije dogodilo tijekom 1800.-tih,

and this was no longer the Agricultural Revolution

a to više nije bila agrarna revolucija

but the Industrial Revolution,

nego industrijska revolucija,

is that the classical economists,

bilo je to da su klasični ekonomisti,

and these were Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, the revolutionary,

a to su bili Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, revolucionari,

also asked the question "What is value?"

također postavili pitanje "Što je vrijednost?"

But it's not surprising that because they were actually living

No, nije iznenađujuće da, budući da su zapravo živjeli

u industrijsko doba s pojavom strojeva i tvornica,

through an industrial era with the rise of machines and factories,

they said it was industrial labor.

oni su rekli da je to industrijski rad.

So they had a labor theory of value.

Dakle, oni su imali radnu teoriju vrijednosti.

Ali ponovo, njihov je fokus bio na reprodukciji,

But again, their focus was reproduction,

this real worry of what was happening to the value that was created

toj stvarnoj brizi o tome što se događa sa stvorenom vrijednošću

if it was getting siphoned out.

ako se ona izvlači iz sustava.

And in "The Wealth of Nations,"

U knjizi "Bogatstvo naroda"

Adam Smith had this really great example of the pin factory where he said

Adam Smith je dao zaista sjajan primjer tvornice pribadača gdje, kako je rekao,

if you only have one person making every bit of the pin,

ako samo jedna osoba radi cijelu pribadaču,

at most you can make one pin a day.

tada možete napraviti najviše jednu pribadaču dnevno.

But if you actually invest in factory production and the division of labor,

Ali ako zaista investirate u tvorničku proizvodnju i podjelu rada,

new thinking --

novo razmišljanje --

today, we would use the word "organizational innovation" --

mi bismo danas upotrijebili riječ "organizacijska inovacija" --

then you could increase the productivity

tada biste mogli povećati produktivnost,

and the growth and the wealth of nations.

rast i bogatstvo naroda.

So he showed that 10 specialized workers

Tako je on pokazao da bi 10 specijaliziranih radnika

who had been invested in, in their human capital,

u koje se investiralo, u njihov ljudski kapital,

could produce 4,800 pins a day,

mogli proizvesti 4800 pribadača dnevno

as opposed to just one by an unspecialized worker.

nasuprot samo jedne koju proizvede jedan nespecijalizirani radnik.

And he and his fellow classical economists

On i njegovi kolege, klasični ekonomisti,

also broke down activities into productive and unproductive ones.

također su podijelili aktivnosti na proizvodne i neproizvodne.

(Laughter)

(Smijeh)

And the unproductive ones weren't --

A one neproizvodne nisu bile --

I think you're laughing because most of you are on that list, aren't you?

mislim da se smijete jer je većina vas na toj listi, zar ne?

(Laughter)

(Smijeh)

Lawyers! I think he was right about the lawyers.

Odvjetnici! Mislim da je bio u pravu što se tiče odvjetnika.

Definitely not the professors, the letters of all kind people.

Svakako ne profesori, bilo koji ljudi od slova.

So lawyers, professors, shopkeepers, musicians.

Dakle, odvjetnici, profesori, vlasnici dućana, glazbenici.

He obviously hated the opera.

Očito je mrzio operu.

He must have seen the worst performance of his life

Mora da je gledao najgoru izvedbu u svom životu

the night before writing this book.

veče prije no što je pisao ovu knjigu

There's at least three professions up there

jer najmanje je tri profesije tamo gore povezane s operom.

that have to do with the opera.

But this wasn't an exercise of saying, "Don't do these things."

No to nije bila vježba da se kaže, "Nemojte raditi te stvari."

It was just, "What's going to happen

To je bilo tek, "Što će se dogoditi ako zaista

if we actually end up allowing some parts of the economy to get too large

na kraju dozvolimo da neki dijelovi ekonomije postanu preveliki

without really thinking about how to increase the productivity

bez da razmišljamo o tome kako povećati produktivnost

of the source of the value that they thought was key,

izvorne vrijednosti koju su smatrali ključnom,

which was industrial labor.

a to je bio industrijski rad.

And again, don't ask yourself is this right or is this wrong,

Ponavljam, nemojte se pitati je li to ispravno ili pogrešno,

it was just very contested.

o tome se samo mnogo raspravljalo.

By making these lists,

Sastavljanje tih listi

it actually forced them also to ask interesting questions.

zapravo ih je natjeralo da postavljaju zanimljiva pitanja.

And their focus, as the focus of the Physiocrats,

A njihov fokus, kao i fokus fiziokrata,

was, in fact, on these objective conditions of production.

bio je ustvari na tim objektivnim uvjetima proizvodnje.

They also looked, for example, at the class struggle.

Također su, na primjer, obratili pažnju na klasnu borbu.

Njihovo razumijevanje nadnica

Their understanding of wages

had to do with the objective, if you want, power relationships,

moralo je biti povezano s objektivnim odnosima moći,

the bargaining power of capital and labor.

pregovaračkim snagama kapitala i radnika.

But again, factories, machines, division of labor,

I još, tvornicama, strojevima, podjelom rada,

agricultural land and what was happening to it.

poljoprivrednom zemljom i onim što se s njom događalo.

So the big revolution that then happened --

Tako je velika revolucija koja se tada dogodila --

and this, by the way, is not often taught in economics classes --

a to se, uzgred, ne predaje često na nastavi ekonomije --

the big revolution that happened with the current system

velika revolucija koja se dogodila s današnjim sustavom

of economic thinking that we have,

ekonomskog razmišljanja kojeg imamo,

which is called "neoclassical economics,"

a naziva se "neoklasična ekonomija",

was that the logic completely changed.

bila je u potpunoj promjeni logike.

It changed in two ways.

Promijenila se na dva načina.

It changed from this focus on objective conditions to subjective ones.

Fokus se premjestio s objektivnih uvjeta na subjektivne.

Let me explain what I mean by that.

Dozvolite mi da objasnim što pod time mislim.

Objective, in the way I just said.

Objektivni na način koji sam upravo opisala.

Subjective, in the sense that all the attention went to

Subjektivni u smislu da je sva pažnja okrenuta

na to kako različiti pojedinci donose svoje odluke.

how individuals of different sorts make their decisions.

OK, so workers are maximizing their choices of leisure versus work.

Dobro, radnici maksimiziraju svoje izbore dokolice nasuprot radu.

Consumers are maximizing their so-called utility,

Potrošači maksimiziraju svoju takozvanu korisnost,

which is a proxy for happiness,

što je zamjena za sreću.

and firms are maximizing their profits.

A tvrtke maksimiziraju svoj profit.

And the idea behind this was that then we can aggregate this up,

A ideja iza toga je da tada sve to možemo spojiti zajedno

i vidjeti u što se to pretvara,

and we see what that turns into,

which are these nice, fancy supply-and-demand curves

a to su ove krasne, elegantne krivulje ponude i potražnje

which produce a price,

koje proizvode cijenu,

an equilibrium price.

ravnotežnu cijenu.

It's an equilibrium price, because we also added to it

To je ravnotežna cijena jer smo joj još dodali

a lot of Newtonian physics equations

mnogo jednadžbi Newtonove fizike

where centers of gravity are very much part of the organizing principle.

gdje je centar gravitacije uvelike dio principa organizacije.

But the second point here is that that equilibrium price, or prices,

No, druga važna stvar ovdje je da ravnotežna cijena, ili cijene,

reveal value.

iskazuju vrijednost.

So the revolution here is a change from objective to subjective,

Dakle, revolucija je ovdje promjena s objektivnog na subjektivno,

but also the logic is no longer one of what is value,

ali također logika više nije ona: što je vrijednost,

how is it being determined,

kako se ona određuje,

what is the reproductive potential of the economy,

koji je reproduktivni potencijal ekonomije,

which then leads to a theory of price

što onda vodi do teorije cijena,

but rather the reverse:

nego je obrnuto:

a theory of price and exchange

teorija cijena i razmjene

which reveals value.

koja iskazuje vrijednost.

Now, this is a huge change.

Dakle, to je ogromna promjena.

And it's not just an academic exercise, as fascinating as that might be.

A to nije tek akademska vježba, koliko god možda bilo fascinirajuće.

It affects how we measure growth.

To utječe na to kako mjerimo rast.

It affects how we steer economies to produce more of some activities,

To utječe na to kako usmjeravamo ekonomiju da proizvodi više nekih djelatnosti,

less of others,

a manje drugih,

također kako honoriramo neke djelatnosti više od drugih.

how we also remunerate some activities more than others.

And it also just kind of makes you think,

I to vas također navodi da razmislite

you know, are you happy to get out of bed if you're a value creator or not,

ustajete li veselo iz kreveta bez obzira jeste li kreator vrijednosti ili ne,

and how is the price system itself if you aren't determining that?

i kako sam sustav cijena, ako ne vi sami, utječe na to.

I mentioned it affects how we think about output.

Dakle, spomenula sam da utječe na to kako razmišljamo o outputu.

If we only include, for example, in GDP,

Ako, na primjer, u BDP uključimo samo

those activities that have prices,

one djelatnosti koje imaju cijenu,

all sorts of really weird things happen.

događaju se svakakve neobične stvari.

Feminist economists and environmental economists

Feministički ekonomisti i ekološki ekonomisti

have actually written about this quite a bit.

zaista su mnogo o tome pisali.

Let me give you some examples.

Dozvolite da vam dam neke primjere.

If you marry your babysitter, GDP will go down, so do not do it.

Ako oženite dadilju svoje djece, BDP će pasti, zato nemojte to činiti.

Do not be tempted to do this, OK?

Nemojte doći u iskušenje da to učinite, u redu?

Because an activity that perhaps was before being paid for is still being done

Zato jer neka djelatnost za koju se prije možda plaćalo

još uvijek se radi, ali više nije plaćena.

but is no longer paid.

(Laughter)

(Smijeh)

If you pollute, GDP goes up.

Ako zagađujete, BDP raste.

Still don't do it, but if you do it, you'll help the economy.

Ipak to nemojte raditi, ali ako radite pomažete ekonomiju.

Why? Because we have to actually pay someone to clean it.

Zašto? Zato jer nekome zapravo moramo platiti da to očisti.

Now, what's also really interesting is what happened to finance

Također je zaista zanimljivo ono što se dogodilo s financijama

in the financial sector in GDP.

u financijskom sektoru BDP-a.

This also, by the way, is something I'm always surprised

Usput, to je također nešto što me uvijek iznenađuje

da mnogi ekonomisti ne znaju.

that many economists don't know.

Up until 1970,

Sve do 1970.-e

most of the financial sector was not even included in GDP.

najveći dio financijskog sektora nije bio ni uključen u BDP.

It was kind of indirectly, perhaps not knowingly,

Na to se nekako indirektno, možda nesvjesno,

still being seen through the eyes of the Physiocrats

još uvijek gledalo očima fiziokrata

as just kind of moving stuff around, not actually producing anything new.

kao na tek neku vrstu premještanja stvari naokolo,

a ne stvarnu proizvodnju nečeg novog.

So only those activities that had an explicit price were included.

Dakle samo one aktivnosti koje su imale eksplicitnu cijenu bile su uključene.

For example, if you went to get a mortgage, you were charged a fee.

Na primjer, ako ste podigli hipoteku, naplaćena vam je pristojba,

That went into GDP and the national income and product accounting.

to je ušlo u BDP i nacionalni dohodak i račun proizvoda.

But, for example, net interest payments didn't,

Ali, na primjer, plaćanje neto kamata nije,

the difference between what banks were earning in interest

razlika između onoga što su banke zarađivale od kamata,

if they gave you a loan and what they were paying out for a deposit.

ako su vam dali kredit, i onoga što su isplaćivali kao depozit.

To nije bilo uključeno.

That wasn't being included.

And so the people doing the accounting started to look at some data,

I onda su ljudi iz računovodstva počeli gledati neke podatke

which started to show that the size of finance

koji su počeli pokazivati da je veličina financija

and these net interest payments

i tih plaćanja neto kamata

were actually growing substantially.

ustvari značajno porasla.

And they called this the "banking problem."

I to su nazvali "bankovni problem".

These were some people working inside, actually, the United Nations

To su bili neki ljudi koji su radili unutar Ujedinjenih naroda

in a group called the Systems of National [Accounts], SNA.

u grupi zvanoj Sustavi nacionalnih računa - SNA.

Oni su to nazvali "bankovni problem",

They called it the "banking problem,"

like, "Oh my God, this thing is huge, and we're not even including it."

kao, "O Bože, ta stvar je ogromna, a mi je nismo ni uključili."

Pa umjesto da stanu i stvarno naprave Tableau Economique

So instead of stopping and actually making that Tableau Economique

or asking some of these fundamental questions

ili postave neka od tih fundamentalnih pitanja

that also the classicals were asking about what is actually happening,

koja su postavljali i klasičari o tome što se stvarno događa,

the division of labor between different types of activities in the economy,

podjeli rada između raznih vrsta djelatnosti u ekonomiji,

oni su jednostavno tim plaćanjima neto kamata dali ime.

they simply gave these net interest payments a name.

Tako su komercijalne banke to nazvale "financijska intermedijacija".

So the commercial banks, they called this "financial intermediation."

That went into the NIPA accounts.

To je ušlo u NIPA račune nacionalnog dohotka i proizvoda.

And the investment banks were called the "risk-taking activities,"

A investicijske banke su nazvane "djelatnost preuzimanja rizika",

and that went in.

i to je ušlo unutra.

U slučaju da nisam ovo dobro objasnila,

In case I haven't explained this properly,

ova crvena linija pokazuje koliko je brže

that red line is showing how much quicker

financial intermediation as a whole was growing

rasla financijska intermedijacija kao cjelina

compared to the rest of the economy, the blue line, industry.

u usporedbi s ostatkom ekonomije, plava linija, industrijom.

And so this was quite extraordinary,

A to je bilo prilično neobično

because what actually happened, and what we know today,

jer ono što se ustvari dogodilo, a što mi danas znamo,

and there's different people writing about this,

a različiti ljudi pišu o tome,

this data here is from the Bank of England,

a ove podatke ovdje objavila je Bank of England,

is that lots of what finance was actually doing

jeste da je mnogo onoga što su financije zapravo radile

from the 1970s and '80s on

od sedamdesetih i osamdesetih pa nadalje

was basically financing itself:

bilo je u biti financiranje samih sebe:

finance financing finance.

financiranje financijskog financiranja.

And what I mean by that is finance, insurance and real estate.

A pod tim podrazumijevam financije, osiguranje i nekretnine.

In fact, in the UK,

Naime, u Velikoj Britaniji

something like between 10 and 20 percent of finance

oko 10 do 20 posto financija

finds its way into the real economy, into industry,

nađe svoj put do stvarne ekonomije, do industrije,

say, into the energy sector, into pharmaceuticals,

recimo energetskog sektora, farmaceutskog sektora,

into the IT sector,

informatičkog sektora,

but most of it goes back into that acronym, FIRE:

ali najveći dio se vraća u taj akronim FIRE:

Financije, Osiguranje (Insurance) i Nekretnine (Real estate).

finance, insurance and real estate.

It's very conveniently called FIRE.

Vrlo je primjereno nazvan FIRE.

Now, this is interesting because, in fact,

To je zanimljivo jer, zapravo,

it's not to say that finance is good or bad,

time se ne želi reći da su financije dobre ili loše,

but the degree to which,

već stupanj do kojeg je,

by just having to give it a name,

već zato što im se morao pridjenuti naziv,

because it actually had an income that was being generated,

jer su ustvari imali prihod koji se generirao,

as opposed to pausing and asking, "What is it actually doing?" --

umjesto da se stalo i upitalo, "Što se tu zapravo radi?" --

that was a missed opportunity.

to bila propuštena prilika.

Similarly, in the real economy, in industry itself, what was happening?

Slično tome, u stvarnoj ekonomiji, u samoj industriji, što se događalo?

And this real focus on prices and also share prices

I taj stvarni fokus na cijene i također cijene dionica

has created a huge problem of reinvestment,

generirao je golemi problem reinvestiranja.

again, this real attention that both the Physiocrats and the classicals had

Ponovo, ta stvarna briga fiziokrata kao i klasičara

to the degree to which the value that was being generated in the economy

o razini do koje se vrijednost koja se generira u ekonomiji

was in fact being reinvested back in.

zapravo reinvestira natrag u nju.

And so what we have today is an ultrafinancialized industrial sector

I tako ono što danas imamo je ultrafinancijalizirani industrijski sektor

where, increasingly, a share of the profits and the net income

gdje se sve više dio profita i neto prihoda

are not actually going back into production,

ustvari ne vraća u proizvodnju,

into human capital training, into research and development

u obuku ljudskog kapitala, u istraživanje i razvoj,

but just being siphoned out in terms of buying back your own shares,

nego se jednostavno izvlači kupovanjem vlastitih dionica,

which boosts stock options, which is, in fact, the way

zbog čega rastu dioničke opcije, što je zapravo način na koji se

that many executives are getting paid.

plaćaju mnogi izvršni direktori.

And, you know, some share buybacks is absolutely fine,

Otkup izvjesne količine vlastitih dionica apsolutno je u redu,

no ovaj sustav je potpuno izmakao kontroli.

but this system is completely out of whack.

Ovi brojevi ovdje pokazuju

These numbers that I'm showing you here

da je u zadnjih 10 godina 466 kompanija od Standard & Poor's 500 kompanija

show that in the last 10 years, 466 of the S and P 500 companies

have spent over four trillion on just buying back their shares.

potrošilo preko četiri bilijuna samo na otkup vlastitih dionica.

And what you see then if you aggregate this up at the macroeconomic level,

I što onda vidite ako sve to zbrojite na makroekonomskoj razini,

so if we look at aggregate business investment,

dakle ako pogledamo sveukupno poslovno ulaganje,

which is a percentage of GDP,

koje je postotak BDP-a,

you also see this falling level of business investment.

vidite također ovaj padajući nivo poslovnog ulaganja.

And this is a problem.

I to je problem.

This, by the way, is a huge problem for skills and job creation.

To je, uzgred, golemi problem za kvalifikacije i generiranje poslova.

You might have heard there's lots of attention these days

Mogli ste čuti ovih dana da se velika pažnja poklanja pitanju

to, "Are the robots taking our jobs?"

"Preuzimaju li roboti naše poslove?"

Well, mechanization has for centuries, actually, taken jobs,

Pa mehanizacija je ustvari stoljećima preuzimala poslove,

but as long as profits were being reinvested back into production,

no sve dok su se profiti reinvestirali natrag u proizvodnju

then it didn't matter: new jobs appeared.

to nije bilo važno: pojavljivali su se novi poslovi.

But this lack of reinvestment is, in fact, very dangerous.

Ali ovo odsustvo reinvestiranja ustvari je vrlo opasno.

Similarly, in the pharmaceutical industry, for example, how prices are set,

Slično tome, u farmaceutskoj industriji, na primjer, kako se utvrđuju cijene?

it's quite interesting how it doesn't look at these objective conditions

Prilično je zanimljivo kako se pritom ne gleda na te objektivne uvjete

of the collective way in which value is created in the economy.

kolektivnog načina na koji se stvara vrijednost u ekonomiji.

So in the sector where you have lots of different actors --

Tako u sektoru u kojem imate mnoštvo različitih sudionika --

public, private, of course, but also third-sector organizations --

javni, privatni, naravno, ali također i organizacije trećeg sektora --

creating value,

koji stvaraju vrijednost,

the way we actually measure value in this sector

način na koji mi zapravo mjerimo vrijednost u tom sektoru

is through the price system itself.

je kroz sam sustav cijena.

Prices reveal value.

Cijene iskazuju vrijednost.

So when, recently,

Tako kada je nedavno

the price of an antibiotic went up by 400 percent overnight,

cijena jednog antibiotika narasla 400 posto preko noći

and the CEO was asked, "How can you do this?

upitali su direktora, "Kako ste mogli to učiniti?

People actually need that antibiotic.

Ljudima je zaista potreban taj antibiotik.

That's unfair."

To je nepravedno."

He said, "Well, we have a moral imperative

On je rekao, "Ali imali smo moralni imperativ

to allow prices to go what the market will bear,"

da dozvolimo rast cijena koliko god tržište može izdržati,"

completely dismissing the fact that in the US, for example,

potpuno zanemarujući činjenicu da u SAD-u, na primjer,

the National Institutes of Health spent over 30 billion a year

Nacionalni institut za zdravstvo troši preko 30 milijardi godišnje

za medicinska istraživanja koja ustvari vode do tih lijekova.

on the medical research that actually leads to these drugs.

So, again, a lack of attention to those objective conditions

Dakle, ponovo, nedostatak brige za te objektivne uvjete

and just allowing the price system itself to reveal the value.

i dozvoljavanje da sustav cijena sam iskazuje vrijednost.

Now, this is not just an academic exercise,

Međutim, ovo nije tek akademska vježba,

as interesting as it may be.

koliko god možda bilo zanimljivo.

All this really matters [for] how we measure output,

Sve ovo zaista je važno za način na koji mjerimo output,

to how we steer the economy,

kako upravljamo ekonomijom,

to whether you feel that you're productive,

hoćete li se osjećati produktivnima,

to which sectors we end up helping, supporting

koje sektore ćemo na kraju pomoći, podržati

and also making people feel proud to be part of.

i također učiniti da ljudi budu ponosni što su dio njih.

In fact, going back to that quote,

Ustvari, vraćajući se na taj citat,

it's not surprising that Blankfein could say that.

nije iznenađujuće da je Blankfein to mogao reći.

He was right.

On je bio u pravu.

In the way that we actually measure production, productivity

Po načinu na koji zapravo mjerimo proizvodnju, produktivnost

and value in the economy,

i vrijednost u ekonomiji,

of course Goldman Sachs workers are the most productive.

naravno da su radnici Goldman Sacsa najproduktivniji.

They are in fact earning the most.

Oni zaista zarađuju najviše.

The price of their labor is revealing their value.

Cijena njihovog rada iskazuje njihovu vrijednost.

But this becomes tautological, of course.

No ovo postaje tautologija, naravno.

And so there's a real need to rethink.

Stoga postoji stvarna potreba za preispitivanjem.

We need to rethink how we're measuring output,

Moramo preispitati način na koji mjerimo output

and in fact there's some amazing experiments worldwide.

i zapravo postoje neki sjajni eksperimenti diljem svijeta.

In New Zealand, for example, they now have a gross national happiness indicator.

Tako, na primjer, na Novom Zelandu imaju bruto nacionalni indikator sreće.

In Bhutan, also, they're thinking about happiness and well-being indicators.

U Bhutanu također razmišljaju o indikatorima sreće i blagostanja.

But the problem is that we can't just be adding things in.

No problem je u tome da ne možemo samo pridodavati stvari.

We do have to pause,

Zaista moramo zastati,

and I think this should be a moment for pause,

a mislim da bi ovo trebao biti trenutak za stanku,

given that we see so little has actually changed

budući da vidimo kako se malo toga uistinu promijenilo od financijske krize,

since the financial crisis,

to make sure that we are not also confusing

kako bismo bili sigurni da također ne brkamo

value extraction with value creation,

ekstrakciju vrijednosti sa stvaranjem vrijednosti.

so looking at what's included, not just adding more,

Dakle promatrajući ono što je uključeno, ne samo dodavati više,

to make sure that we're not, for example, confusing rents with profits.

kako bismo bili sigurni da, na primjer, ne brkamo rentu s profitom.

Rents for the classicals was about unearned income.

Za klasičare je renta bila nezarađeni prihod.

Today, rents, when they're talked about in economics,

Danas je renta, kada se o njoj govori u ekonomiji,

is just an imperfection towards a competitive price

tek jedna manjkavost u odnosu na konkurentnu cijenu

that could be competed away if you take away some asymmetries.

koja bi se mogla prevladati ako uklonite neke asimetrije.

Second, we of course can steer activities into what the classicals called

Drugo, naravno da bismo mogli usmjeriti aktivnosti

prema onom što su klasičari zvali

the "production boundary."

"granica produktivnosti".

This should not be an us-versus-them,

To ne bi trebalo biti mi-protiv-njih,

big, bad finance versus good, other sectors.

velike, zločeste financije protiv dobrih drugih sektora.

Mogli bismo reformirati financije.

We could reform finance.

There was a real lost opportunity in some ways after the crisis.

Postojala je, na neki način stvarna izgubljena prilika nakon krize.

We could have had the financial transaction tax,

Mogli smo uvesti porez na financijske transakcije

which would have rewarded long-termism over short-termism,

koji bi nagrađivao dugoročnost nasuprot kratkoročnosti,

but we didn't decide to do that globally.

ali nismo odlučili učiniti to globalno.

We can. We can change our minds.

Možemo. Možemo se predomisliti.

We can also set up new types of institutions.

Možemo također uspostaviti nove vrste institucija.

There's different types of, for example, public financial institutions worldwide

Na primjer, postoje različite vrste javnih financijskih institucija širom svijeta

that are actually providing that patient, long-term, committed finance

koje zaista omogućavaju to strpljivo dugoročno predano financiranje

that helps small firms grow, that help infrastructure and innovation happen.

koje pomaže rast malih tvrtki i razvoj infrastrukture i inovacija.

But this shouldn't just be about output.

No, ne mora se to odnositi samo na output.

This shouldn't just be about the rate of output.

Ne mora to biti samo u vezi stope outputa.

We should also as a society pause

Trebali bismo, kao društvo, zastati

and ask: What value are we even creating?

i upitati: Koju mi to vrijednost uopće stvaramo?

And I just want to end with the fact that this week we are celebrating

I željela bih samo završiti činjenicom da ovaj tjedan slavimo

the 50th anniversary of the Moon landing.

pedesetu godišnjicu spuštanja na Mjesec.

This required the public sector, the private sector,

To je zahtijevalo da javni sektor, privatni sektor,

to invest and innovate in all sorts of ways,

investiraju i inoviraju na razne načine,

not just around aeronautics.

ne samo u vezi s aeronautikom.

It included investment in areas like nutrition and materials.

To je uključivalo investicije u područjima poput nutricionizma i materijala.

There were lots of actual mistakes that were done along the way.

Bilo je mnogo stvarnih grešaka koje su učinjene usput.

In fact, what government did was it used its full power of procurement,

Ustvari, ono što je vlada učinila je da je iskoristila punu snagu posredovanja,

for example, to fuel those bottom-up solutions,

kako bi potakla rješenja odozdo-prema-gore,

of which some failed.

od kojih su neka bila neuspješna.

But are failures part of value creation?

No jesu li neuspjesi dio stvaranja vrijednosti?

Or are they just mistakes?

Ili su samo greške?

Or how do we actually also nurture the experimentation,

Ili kako mi zapravo njegujemo eksperimentiranje,

the trial and error and error and error?

pokušaj i grešku i grešku i grešku?

Bell Labs, which was the R and D laboratory of AT and T,

Bell Labs, koji je bio laboratorij za istraživanje i razvoj AT&T-a,

actually came from an era where government was quite courageous.

zapravo dolazi iz onog doba kada je vlada bila prilično smiona.

It actually asked AT and T that in order to maintain its monopoly status,

Zapravo je od AT&T-a tražila da, kako bi zadržao svoj monopolistički status,

it had to reinvest its profits back into the real economy,

mora reinvestirati svoj profit natrag u stvarnu ekonomiju,

innovation

inovacije

and innovation beyond telecoms.

i inovacije izvan telekomunikacija.

That was the history, the early history of Bell Labs.

To je bila povijest, rana povijest Bell Labs-a.

So how we can get these new conditions around reinvestment

Pa kako onda možemo postići nove uvjete u vezi reinvestiranja

to collectively invest in new types of value

da kolektivno investiramo u nove vrste vrijednosti

directed at some of the biggest challenges of our time,

usmjerene prema nekim od najvećih izazova našeg vremena,

like climate change?

poput klimatskih promjena?

This is a key question.

To je ključno pitanje.

But we should also ask ourselves,

No moramo se također zapitati,

had there been a net present value calculation

da je postojao izračun neto tržišne vrijednosti

or a cost-benefit analysis done

ili analiza troškova i dobitka

about whether or not to even try to go to the Moon and back again

u vezi s time treba li ili ne, čak pokušati, otići na Mjesec i natrag

in a generation,

u jednoj generaciji,

we probably wouldn't have started.

vjerojatno ne bismo niti započeli.

So thank God,

Zato, hvala Bogu,

because I'm an economist, and I can tell you,

jer ja kao ekonomistica mogu vam reći,

value is not just price.

vrijednost nije samo cijena.

Thank you.

Hvala.

(Applause)

(Pljesak)