Gestern hatte ich einen Beitrag aus der F.A.Z. zu den Problemen mit dem Produktivitätswachstum. Heute diskutiert die FT, was man denn machen sollte, um das Problem zu mindern:
- “Brendan Duke at the Center for American Progress estimates that the US will produce $2.8tn less in goods and services this year than economists were forecasting just before the crisis, and the lion’s share of the shortfall was because of slower productivity growth.” – bto: Das ist eine Menge.
- “The Congressional Budget Office has found that rises in broader federal investment increase productivity via three channels: spending on physical capital like roads and bridges facilitates commerce; education expenditure boosts skills; and research & development promotes innovation.” – bto: Und selbst, wenn das nur indirekt ist, ist es allemal besser, als das Geld zu verbrennen.
- “Past studies have found construction of the US interstate highway system, that began in the mid-1950s, increased productivity growth as businesses found it cheaper to produce and transport their goods. That was a game-changing project, however: future advances may be more marginal.” – bto: Das ist der Punkt von Gordon.
- “Cut corporate taxes: The justification for taking action on business taxes is the US has the highest statutory rate among advanced economies, which may at the margin be deterring companies from investing here… The problem with focusing too much on corporate tax, however, is that America’s rates are in effect lower than the headline rate appears. (…) ‚There is no statistically significant relationship between corporate tax cuts and the size of the productivity slowdown‘ (…).” – bto: Die Unternehmen investieren schon heute nicht und machen lieber Buybacks. Weshalb sollte sich das ändern?
- “Immigration reform: Bringing more immigrants into the workforce and allowing them to take jobs better aligned to their skills carries a double-benefit, according to Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. It lifts potential growth by boosting the labour force, and it enhances productivity because immigrants are more likely to be entrepreneurs and innovators.” – bto: Das ist ein ganz klarer US-Punkt. Wie schon bei meiner Kritik am Deutsche-Bank-Volkswirt Folkerts-Landau müssen es natürlich auch qualifizierte Zuwanderer sein!
- “Boost competition: Big companies are capturing a growing share of revenues, and there is a widening gap between the productivity of frontier firms and that of laggards, suggesting Darwinist forces are not operating as effectively as they should. The share of start-up companies in the overall business world has been steadily declining.” – bto: Das ist ein wichtiger Aspekt, denn das Kartellrecht funktioniert nicht und das billige Geld hält Zombies am Leben!
- “Slash regulation: Among the changes that some economists urge are a crackdown on the country’s occupational licensing system. A quarter of workers require a licence to do their jobs, with the share of workers licensed at a state level up fivefold since the 1950s. This affects professions ranging from manicurists to interior designers, hindering people’s ability to move state and take up new positions.” – bto: Das stimmt sicher, wobei wir schon gewisse Qualifikationsstandards einhalten sollten. Doch darum geht es den Amerikanern hier ja nicht.