Vaccination in India Photo: Sonu Mehta / Hindustan Times / TASS

Why the rejection of patents on vaccines will not help in the fight against pandemia, which is why it is now easier to realize the American dream not in the USA, but in Norway, that “fines” the capital tax and what the Marxist “class struggle” was transformed: the main thing in economists blogs.

The article was first published on the ECCON website

The rejection of patents on the vaccine will not bring the end of the pandemic in any way, Convinced co -author of the influential economic blog Marginal Revolution Alex Tabarkrock, criticizing solution The administration of Joe Biden support the refusal to protect the pharmaceutical patents for vaccines to overcome the global health crisis. The problem of lack of vaccines in the world is not in protecting intellectual property, but in a lack of raw materials and production capacities, Tabarrok points out. Vaccines are already produced in unprecedented volumes around the world, since licenses for them are widely available. For example, Astrazeneca licensed its vaccine for production in factories in India, Brazil, Mexico, China, Argentina, South Africa; J& J vaccine is made under license by several firms in the USA, Spain, France, South Africa; "Satellite V" licensed for production in South Korea, India, China, Brazil and Waiting approval The European Agency for Medicines for release in Europe, the economist lists. But the transfer of technology is not easy, and the reserves of raw materials are limited - so, novavax Faced with a lack Such a variety of components such as plastic bags for bioreactors and Chilean crust. The abolition of patents will please the left anti -marketers, but will not lead to an increase in the availability of vaccines.

There are no production capacities in the world that would stand in anticipation of vaccines. Technology MRNA The relatively new and never before was used for mass production: Pfizer and Moderna were forced to build factories and sales systems from scratch. China has not yet produced The MRNA vaccine is not at all because of fears to violate the rights of intellectual property, Tabarrok notes. Moreover, Moderna six months ago She stated that she would not protect her patents on vaccines during the pandemic, but no one has begun production, because no one can simply conclude an economist. There are no simple and cheap ways to increase the offer, he argues: real resources are needed. The state needs to finance investments in production capacities, the construction of plants, logistics chains, the development of replacements of such necessary To defeat the pandemia of the Chilean tree - and not try to solve problems at someone else's expense, waving the useless “magic patent wand”, Tabarrok is indignant and as a disclaimer to avoid “reproaches in reflex protection of patents”, indicates its own The “Tabarroka curve” illustrates that at a certain moment the further strengthening of the protection of intellectual property rights leads to a decline in innovation.

Rich countries should not only pay to the poor countries of the vaccine, but also provide subsidies and technical assistance for their delivery: This is much more effective than confiscating intellectual property for vaccines developers, He thinks Kenneth Rogoff, Harvard Professor and one of the most influential world economists. 16% of people in the world live in developed countries that have survived the pandemic and recover; The economy of China, where another 18% of the world population live, was the first to recover, including the ability of the state to restrain coronavirus - but what about the remaining 66%? Horrifying The Covid-19 wave in India probably serves as a harbinger of what the most part of the developing world is still faced, where poverty has increased sharply. The growing anger of people in countries with a lack of vaccines, that is, about two -thirds of humanity, can quickly overtake a more prosperous third, fear Rogoff.

Many of the pressing problems of today, including the pandemic and climate change, are global and require global solution, and the restraint of the pandemic and the climatic disaster largely depends on developing countries. Most of them pandemia found in a situation of high external debt, some have already announced default, many are not even able to acquire vaccines - what participation can be expected from them in the transition to the green economy or in cooperation on the restraint of terrorist groups, Rogoff reasoned. Rich countries provided their citizens with transfers during the pandemic, now they should do the same for developing countries, funding their vaccination: eliminating inequality between countries - a key factor in geopolitical stability in the 21st century, he concludes.

The share of the dollar in world foreign exchange reserves fell to a 25-year minimum - up to 59% in the IV quarter of 2020, report on the Blog of the IMF Fund experts. Fluctuations in exchange rates can have a great influence on the structure of reserves of central banks - so, during periods of weakening the dollar to other main currencies, its share in reserves usually decreased. Different factors, including monetary and tax-budget policies, can affect the cost of the dollar, in turn. For two decades since the introduction of the euro in 1999, the share of the dollar in world reserves decreased by 12 percentage points (from 71%to 59%), the share of the euro ranged in the region of 20%, while the share of other currencies, including the Australian dollar, the Canadian dollar and Chinese yuan, over this period increased from zero to 9%. However, the cost of the dollar in relation to other main world currencies all this time remained unchanged. Given this fact, the reduction in the share of the dollar in reserves indicates that the central banks really gradually depart from the American currency.

Some experts expect that the share of the dollar in reserves will continue to contract, since the central banks of developing countries are striving for further diversification of their foreign exchange reserves. However, with all structural shifts in the world currency system over the past six decades, the US dollar remains The dominant world currency and talk about any changes in this status, probably, can only be applied to the long term, the IMF experts note.

No matter how swiftly the development of the fintech, “ordinary” banks will not disappear anywhere, Writes On the blog of the Federal Reserve Bank Saint Luis, the senior vice president of supervision Karl White. Fintech companies, or neo-Banks, are often called destroyers-they very quickly conquer their shares in those segments where traditional financial institutions previously dominated: for example, in 2013, the US had 5% of the market of individuals, and in 2018-already 38% with the growth of this market. However, firstly, the technological developments that gave rise to financial institutions, such as great data or artificial intelligence, have been greater benefits and traditional banks, stimulating the emergence of new products, increasing efficiency and reducing costs; In addition, banks distribute the use of digital technologies (such as regtech) to many operations, including compliance with regulatory requirements and risk management. Secondly, many Fintech companies are not financial organizations with a full range of services and do not strive for this, cooperating with traditional banks and using mutually beneficial models.

Thirdly, banks remain a vital channel for conducting monetary and tax-budget policy. They turned out to be indispensable in the government during the pandemic, playing a major role in the deployment of programs for supporting the population and small businesses. In addition, banks are reliable, cheap and consistent suppliers of loans in both good and bad times, unlike competing organizations, the White is quoted by JPMorgan Chase Jamie Daimon. Obviously, the banking case will continue to evolve, and financial activities - to spread beyond the traditional sector of commercial banks, but the banks themselves will not go anywhere.

The American dream today is more real to realize in Europe than in the USA, Spent comparison intercoral profitable mobility group of sociologists of American and European universities. The hope that grown children will have a higher standard of living than parents in the United States has become a key component of the American dream - the idea of a “best life for children”, which attracts immigrants to this country for many generations. However, contrary to the idea of the “country of opportunities”, the probability that a child born in a low income family will reach the top of the distribution of income in adulthood, in the United States is relatively small compared to many other rich countries.

The authors conducted Research of profitable mobility The cohort of 1960-1987 for the United States, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK. Among 30-year-olds, 75% of the Norwegians, 65% of Finns, British and Dutch, but only 55% of Americans are now earning more than parents at the same age. For Americans born in the 1940s, this indicator in their 30s was 90%, for those born in the 1960s-75%.

Among the causes of inter-strut differences in the level of profitable mobility, a significant place is occupied by the rates of economic growth (for example, they explain about a quarter of the difference between Norway and a seriously affected by the global financial crisis by Denmark, where only 45% of those born in the 1980s live better than their parents against the 65% born in the 1960s, the authors explain). However, the main reason for the differences in the level and dynamics of profitable mobility is the intercoral economic inequality associated with the fact that young people in countries with low mobility now do not have time behind the growth rate of the economy: so, the income of 30-year-old Americans born in 1983 lagged behind the growth rate of the US economy by almost a third, while Norwegian revenues grew up comparable with the economy pace. In the United States, many studies and discussions have been conducting about "Problems of millennials" (Born in the early 1980s-the first half of the 1990s) that do not receive economic benefits that had previous generations. The study shows that the indicator of profitable mobility is not a given and that its increase and maintenance require institutions that can both generate economic growth and transform it into a higher standard of living of the whole society as a whole, the authors conclude.

For anyone who is familiar with the theory of finance, read about increasing taxation of capital growth is pain, Writes Scott Sumner from the University of George Mason in the Econlib blog post. Joe Biden's intention to increase capital tax up to almost 40% for earning more than $ 400,000 per year, that is, for the richest 1% of citizens, so that they "Paid a fair share" To combat poverty, caused criticism from economists. The middle class now pays in the form of taxes about 13% from its income, the richest 1% now pays about 30% from its income - in what this distribution is unfair, Interested in Greg Manku, Professor Harvard, co-author of the classic macro economy and head of the Council of Economic Consultants in the administration of George Bush Jr.. Studies show that the tax on capital occupies marginal share in budget revenues, while the costs of administration can be higher. The taxation tax is a tax on the difference between the cost of buying an asset and the cost of its sale, even if the real value of the asset has not changed, and the price increase is caused only by inflation. But the main thing is that this tax is taxed by the future consumption disproportionately more than the current (in contrast, for example, from the neutral salary tax in this regard), “fine” for patientness and, moreover, representing double taxation, Sumner explains.

He leads An example with coconuts: imagine that you have earned 100 coconuts and you can either eat them, or plant and eat 200 coconuts after 10 years; And then imagine that now a 40%“salary” tax on coconuts has been introduced-you can either eat 60 coconuts remaining after paying tax, or to plant them and get 120 after 10 years. In both cases, the proportion between the current and future consumption is maintained. And now someone suggests that for justice it is necessary to add the same tax on capital to a 40%tax on salaries. Then the 60 coconuts and growing 120 more of 24 coconuts (40%of the growth of capital in 60 coconuts have grown from them), thereby receiving 96 coconuts after 10 years, in this case, the current consumption tax is 40%, and 52%for the future: (200–96)/200. That is, people are encouraged to eat their capital today, and not invest it and increase consumption in the future, summarizes Sumner.

Any taxation system is primarily values, and if they are incompatible, they will undermine each other, He thinks Tyler Cowen, professor at the University of George Mason and co -author of the Marginal Revolution blog. America is a country of immigrants who created many of the most successful companies in the country, and the message “this is a suitable country to become rich” is preferable than “here you will not allow you to become too rich” to attract talented (sometimes greedy) people who will ultimately help solve social problems, he writes. The increase in capital provided Almost half US economic growth in 1948-1979, partially the growth of capital explains the growth of earnings - in 2000, the American worker in 12 minutes earned as many centuries ago in an hour (at comparable prices), He wrote Former WSJ editor Stephen Moore: capital can treat both the means of production and ideas-when Bill Gates brought to the MS-DOS market, he created capital. The more open the world becomes, the more the innovators should be encouraged, and taxes should only decline for them, Cowen concludes.

The ideas of Karl Marx are returning to the West - but the Marxist class struggle of "workers and capitalists" is no longer relevant, Reasoning In his blog, Branko Milanovich, professor of the New York University and one of the leading researchers of global inequality. The crisis, provoked first by the financial sector, which would not surprise Marx, and then aggravated by the growth of inequality and pandemia, makes Marxist ideas for young generations more attractive than for previous cohors. However, capitalism since Marx has changed a lot-and not even because the per capita income has grown 7 times since then, but because of the erosion of the Marxist concept of “classes”: today in the developed countries the top of the distribution of welfare has earned its income due to both capital and work. So, among 10% of the richest Americans, the third owners make up the third and they are at the same time workers - half a century ago there were barely one of five, and even earlier even less. Instead of an idle life, the current high -class can be reproached for passive income from capital, rather in workaholism - as Daniel Markovits writes in The Meritocracy Trap (“Trap of meritocracy”), the current Stakhanovites are “one percent”, asks Milanovich. There are no longer two classes that differ in level and origin - only inequality remains.

Hardworking rich, having inherited the initial capital or earned it, get married on their own kind and play an increasing political role, being a new elite. They transmit these advantages to offspring, paying for an expensive education to him - continuity is quite able, judging by the abbreviated intercoral profitable mobility, Milanovich notes. Overcoming “class distance” is the progress in the development of capitalism, but the formation of the highest class that is invulnerable to changes in the labor market (because it has capital), nor in the stock market (because it has high qualifications and earnings) and striving to convey these advantages from generation to generation, can represent the same evolution in a less positive light, and reflects Milanovich.

The ideas of Karl Marx are relevant again