Liberalizare suplimentară sau neo-dirijism selectiv? Întrebarea rămâne identică şi atunci când se caută vinovaţii pentru stările de supărătoare alternanţă avânt-declin (boom-bust) din economie, şi atunci când se caută remediile, recuperarea, relansarea. În prezentul crizei economice globale, ideea însăşi de „tranziţie”, una care a făcut şcoală pe la sfârşiturile socialismului, capătă sensuri (citire vectorială) noi. Tranziţia între sisteme de guvernare a economiei mai poate merge/trebuie să mai meargă şi „înapoi”?

The above motto does not, of course, cover all the fundamental values. Two closely associated ones are clearly missing: growth and material welfare. Other analysts of the post-socialist transition have examined their realization (see, e.g., EBRD 2008 and 2009.) Permit me to leave these extremely important issues to other studies and focus my attention on the three fundamental values in the title of my paper.

I have written these words at a time of a deepening financial crisis which is ricocheting worldwide and causing tremendous anguish and tremors, a spreading economic downturn. It is also not a long while after the European Parliament passed a report which I worked out together with a Dutch colleague, Ieke van de Burg, in which we argue in favour of an overhaul of the regulatory and supervision frameworks of financial markets in the EU.

Aristotle presents virtue as an ability to look for righteous valuation, an exercise embraced in the hope that excesses will be suppressed, and shortages recovered. A research program seems to be the representation of this type of virtuous exploration in the scientific field. It accounts for the actual state of the theoretical field, and guides us towards a good collection of its basic elements.

I state it from the beginning: I’m in favour of selective public intervention in the economy. Selective does not mean fundamentalism and neither ideology. Selective means pragmatic, where it is needed (a reaction approach) or where it might be (a preventive approach). This paper briefly recounts ideas from my book "Sfârşitul economiei iluziei. Criză şi anti-criză: o abordare heterodoxă".

Without detailing the argumentation of various positions, it can be said that there are five main doctrinal orientations, with as many corresponding forms of political action – classical liberalism, welfare state, Keynesianism, direct interventionism, neo-liberalism – each expressing a certain attitude towards State presence in the economy, whether or not the latter is facing a crisis.

The objective of this paper is to try to briefly evaluate the logical and epistemological foundations of the economic science, with the purpose to overcome a series of incoherencies and inconsistencies in modelling the economic process, which has been considered (and still is) an extension of the natural process and, because of that, we argue, entered a paradigmatic impasse.

Inside the modern mainstream economic literature of welfare economics there are two main branches, named the “old” and the “new welfare economics”, respectively, but either one having troubles with their foundational premises. The “old” welfare economics tried to turn upside down the laissez-faire conclusions of the Classic School(s), based on the marginalist utility theory.

The dynamic of financial markets is determined by the corporate earnings prospects change but the capital investments also move as investors shift their tolerance to risk. In the finance theory, one of the most important observations is that investors expect higher return for taking higher risk (compared with risk-free situation). The risky assets are exchanged against risk free assets (treasury bills) only if there is an additional return for doing this. The relationship between risk and return is submitted to be a positive one.

After 30 years of restructuring, high economic growth and development, China could face the global crisis from a very favourable position. Its prompt response with a comprehensive interventionist package seems to have yielded the expected results, but these results might prove unsustainable in the longer run if the Chinese development model is not changed.

When people are trying to get into the possession of a certain good, and that good is scarce, and by virtue not abundant, we say that we deal with a property problem. Which one of the many will possess that good? It is clear(isn’t it?), that we need a theory of property rights or, more practically, how we can get, ethically (or, on no conflict basis), into the possession of the respective good.