tu kā brits man varbūt vari pateikt.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Varbūt varu, bet es eju gulēt. Jūs visi bija/ir/busi vainīgi. He is the witchfinder and you with your public sector and your pensions are in a pagan land.

The same logic with which you will be stiched up will mot be applied to his sponsers (behind American acadamia to the neo-classical dogma of SSE). Read his blog on politika lv - for example "Should we give the keys back to the banks?". The hypocrisy is staggering. Nothing but a legal mind and a client.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

"Rit, ar skaidrāku prātu pētīšu iespējas braukt prom no šejienes"
tja :( kārtējais... nobijās... tja...

(Reply to this) (Thread)

varētu padomāt, ka cilvēkiem no citām zemēm ir pienākums te turēties ar zobiem un nagiem.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

nav protams...
nav pienākums

(Reply to this) (Parent)

ok, ok es palikšu.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

nē - es ne par to :)
tikai nevajag lēmumus šmigā nolemt...
rīts gudraks par vakaru
un es saprotu

(Reply to this) (Parent)

vari paskaidrot reakciju?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Es viņu pazistu. Man ļoti nepatik viņa attieksme, bet kamēr viņš tikai bija profs un rakstīja savu blogu, bija ok.

Viņam ir ļoti ciniska attieksme pret Latvijas iedzīvotajiem, kopā ar iedomīgu pārliecību par savu neo-classical ekonomiska uzskatu. Viss sliktākais, manuprāt, ir ka viņš uzvedās kā jurists, nevis objektīvs ekonomists (ja pastāv tāda suga). Mēs neesam viņa klienti.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

skan skarbi...
iedvesi piesardzību un nepatiku (ne pret sevi protams, pret to indivīdu)...
hmmm...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

šī ministrija vienmēr ir izteikti bijusi "apdalīta": http://www.em.gov.lv/em/2nd/?cat=30220

vismaz būs viens ekonomikas ministrs, kurš no ekonomikas kaut ko sapratīs. nu varbūt specifiskā un ne visiem pieņemamā izpratnē, BET SAPRATĪS. atšķirībā no 80-90% no iepriekšējā lūzeru bara, kuri ir izlikušies, ka vada šo ministriju.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

reizēm ir labāk, ja nesaprot.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

It will just give a pre-approved semblance of rational, competent understanding to a NON-DEBATE.

As you were - implementing IMF approved austerity measures to pay back creditors (with no analysis of how/why the debt was taken on and who is paying the highest price) and being efficient administrators of EU policy.

It is a non-debate because the real motive/concern is geoplitical - Latvians to the west, Russians to the east: that's it - there is really nothing more of any substance.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

frankly speaking, I did not understand anything. not in the sense of the words used, but the context and meaning. sorry, soy tonto.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

The economic policy implemented will be favourable to IMF/EU interests because from a geopolitical point of view that is what is important to most Latvians (keeping 'in' with these interests).

As a result, I think any debate within Latvian circles about economic policy is pretty redundant and lifeless.

Having an expert as FM, whose philosophy is in harmony with those advocated by those interest groups, will just make the debate all the more deadening.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

well, I really do not understand why one specific person in the post of Economy or Finance minister can kill the debate about the economic policy. after all everyone can debata whatever thing he wants in this country. the main problem, to my mind, is that there are too many "competent" debaters who do not have any understanding of economics at all.

what regards the specific minister(s): the voters who voted for the ZRP party (I didn't) should have known that their economic programme was developed by Vj.Dombrovskis. also the voters voted for and gave many pluses to Valdis D. and Vilks. If these two parties form the core of the government it would be very funny that they would implement different economic policies than promised before.

of course, there always is and should be place for a competent discussion (preferably not in the style and competence level of the "economist" R.Karnīte), and the government would do well if it listened to and participated in the discussion. on the other hand I do not see any important political reason for a democratically elected government not to implement the economic policies which they proposed to implement in their pre-election programmes.

after all (this is only my IMHO, well, as all the previously told), the economics is not really a science. it is a bunch of stories like "country A did thing X in the 19xx-ties and they succeeded; so everyone has to do the same". afterwards everyone does the same and 30% succeed, 30% fail and the rest do not change their performance in any way. to my mind, science means the possibility of a controlled repeatable experiment, which certainly is not the case in economics.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

In my opinion the breadth of discussion about economic policy is restricted by

a)Latvia's history and the association of state intervention with Soviet imperialism (freedom = the free market);

b)As I mentioned before, geopolitical necessities (I read somewhere about it being preferable for Latvians to drown in a clear western sea, then sink in Russian swamp);

c)A confusion of the kleptocracy (at the global level) we have now, with some kind of natural economic system governed by the 'free hand of the market.

Regarding Vj. Dombrovskis, well he believes (or states) that is a science, and he has very little (maybe no) inclination to discuss, debate or allow for differences from what I would regard as dogma.

This is what depresses me. Not any question about democracy or voting etc.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

njaa, taja 'it' pirmajaa teikumaa bija par to, ka Vjaceslavs Dombrovsksis ir kaut ko sapratis no ekonomikas .. piedod - biju noguris un mazliet dusmiigs (neviz uz to, bet ...)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

tāpēc es balsoju par ZRP, lai būtu interesantāk. (es gan fokusējos uz Robertu kā IZM vadītāju) ;)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

par iekavām - haha!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Zini, domaaju ka sociologiem, antropologiem utt. vajadzeetu biezhaak kritizeet/analizeet neo-classical ekonomika teorijas pamatus. Citaadi shiem ekomomistiem buus vieniigi, kam ir atlaujas vadiit.

(neliels labojums)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

man kaut kā vienbrīd likās, ka būs labāk, ka elektorāts un vispārējā iedzīvotāju masa saņemsies, ka būs iespējas attīstīties un attīstīt. ai, naivums. esmu uzlikusi sev nākamgadu par dedlainu.