Atslēgvārdi:

Another great idea 41

I am growing really tired being on the (rapidly losing) side of the common sense. If the world seems to be going nuts, maybe I should just join it and enjoy the ride while it lasts.

Iesaki citiem:

So when another minister (this time it’s Kaspars Gerhards, responsible for economics) comes up with another idea, of how to support the local producer, why don’t I just join all the cheerful crowd (check out the comments in Latvian) in saying what a great idea it is?!

So, the large retailers should have the special shelves designated for “made in Latvia” products. At last! At last, all these illiterate people will get a chance to learn which products are made in Latvia! But why stop here? I’ve got an even better idea! Lets make it a separate section of the supermarket – the “Made in Latvia” section. Then, make it a law that the retailers will have to place this section right next to the entrance, so that every potential buyer would have to pass through it. If this is not enough, lets make the retailers make the foreign section as inhospitable as possible. Let them turn off the heating, stop cleaning it, make it less lit, and generally not observe the usual sanitary requirements.

But wait, it gets better! The entrance to the foreign section should be monitored by the video surveillance, which will track all those who would want to shop in the foreign section. Then we should put the pictures of these people on a special Internet site under “they didn’t support the Latvian producer” title, or something like this. This can be supplemented by their names and addresses so that the most patriotic farmers could… well, you know, bring their tractors to their homes in a “peace-loving protest”.

So, what do you think? Will I get a prize for the best idea on how to support the local producers?

Iesaki citiem:
Creative commons c6ae3e51884b139b45a669ce829ac99646bf0ceb328fc95963f1703a58a032d0 CREATIVE COMMONS LICENCE ĻAUJ RAKSTU PĀRPUBLICĒT BEZ MAKSAS, ATSAUCOTIES UZ AUTORU UN PORTĀLU PROVIDUS.LV, TAČU PUBLIKĀCIJU NEDRĪKST LABOT VAI PAPILDINĀT. AICINĀM ATBALSTĪT PROVIDUS.LV AR ZIEDOJUMU!

Komentāri (41) secība: augoša / dilstoša

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

Baron Tornakalns 20.02.2009 11:10
Strange that Gerhards and company waited until Riga was completely encircled by Rimis and Maximas, having forced many 'Latvian' shops to close, before they suddenly discovered the joys of home-grown products.
As an alternative, how about lifting the stupidly restrictive laws on where and when markets can be held (particularly in the regions)? Encourage farmers' markets and the like - and cut out the middle men completely. They have started doing this is Cesis with some success.
Or do we HAVE to buy our 100% guaranteed Latvian products from foreign-owned supermarkets sitting atop nice tasty real estate plots?

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

Econ 13.02.2009 19:12
Economic nationalism and protectionism leads to wearing-off of welfare, to poverty and to wars as well, it is a lose-lose situation. There are so many examples starting from ancient China to the wars in the last century. It is a very alarming situation and dangerous developments going on now and unfortunately no country (neither US nor Germany) wants to take the lead and say - that economic nationalism will only make things worse.

As regards Your example - Security Police might solve the problem as well - without the help of famers or others. And for the reason that nobody can cope with corruption or competition issues in the Latvian Government due to lack of any competence or willingness as well - might be it is better to return to Soviet-style economy.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

Hiacinte 13.02.2009 16:42
rrrr, būtu es zinājusi, ka manas provokācijas pieķers, būtu piepūlējusies kvalitatīvāk replikas izstrādāt:)))

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

P-P! > Arnolds 13.02.2009 15:24
Es nevarēšu iedot jums tādas visaptverošas saites, es neesmu lauksaimnieks, neesmu eksperts - motivācija rakāties, lai kaut ko mēģinātu saprast, ir vien tāda, ka pats "nāku no laukiem" :)

Var pārdot ierobežotu daudzumu tiešajā tirdzniecībā, un tas jau tiek darīts (2008./2009. gadu "kvotu perioda" trešā ceturkšņa beigās tās bija piepildītas par 78%, skat. iepriekš dotās saites). šī gada sākumā laikam pat tika atcelti noteikumi, kas par piena analīzēm vien, pēc LETAs aprēķiniem, gadā tādam zemniekam-tirgotājam izmaksāja Ls 700 ( http://www.apollo.lv/portal/news/74/articles/126217/0 ).

Mērogam - tās analīžu izmaksas vien būtu bijušas apmēram trešā daļa no ienākuma (un divas trešdaļas no papildienākuma), ko zemnieks gūtu šādi pārdodot 7000l jeb 7tonnas piena gadā, jūsu +15 santīmu virs pārstrādātāja iepirkuma cenas scenārijā.

Tiešās tirdzniecības kvota (11 307 tonnas) ir apmēram 2.83% no aptuvenā Latvijas iekšējā piena patēriņa pārtikā (400 000 tonnas, skat. piemēram Dr. Andri "Nozaru Norakstītāju" Miglavu http://ec.europa.eu/latvija/news/2008_05_01_04_lv.htm ). Kurus tirgus dalībmiekus jūsuprāt varētu ietekmēt atņemot šadu tirgus daļu - pārstrādātājus, veikalu ķēdes?

"Taisnīgā sašutuma" veicināšanai nocitēšu iepriekšminētā Dr. un LA žurnālistes 2004. gada "mārketinga" vārdus, kas patlaban skan kā zaimi ( http://www.agropols.lv/meklesana.php?meklesana=1&searchtext=... ):

"ES kopējās lauksaimniecības politikas reforma ir atbilstoša ne tikai Latvijas, bet visas Baltijas interesēm. Tā secinājuši Baltijas valstu zinātnieki.
(..)
A. Miglavs:— Mums jāsaprot, ka Latvijā zemnieks nebūs tikpat vienlīdzīgs kā Eiropā — ja tur piena cena kritīsies, tad Latvijā zemniekus tas neskars, jo mums jau tāpat ir uz pusi zemāka piena iepirkuma cena nekā Eiropā. Šī reforma nenozīmē cenu samazinājumu, tā nozīmē cenu izaugsmes iespēju ierobežojumu.
(..)
Latvijā vidējā piena cena noteikti pieaugs. Zinātnieki uzskata, ka Latvijas piena ražotājiem šī reformas daļa ir pozitīva un Latvijas piena produktu tirgum varētu pavērties plašākas produktu realizācijas iespējās ES. Reforma jau tuvākajā laikā daudziem ES zemniekiem liks izšķirties — palikt vai aiziet no piena sektora.
(..)
A. Miglavs: — Manuprāt, daudziem šī izšķiršanās būs par nepalikšanu. Un tas varētu atbrīvot tirgus telpu mūsu zemniekiem. Uzreiz piebildīšu, ka tās ir tikai spekulācijas. Viss būs atkarīgs no mūsu saimnieku un pārstrādātāju reakcijas, jo nebūsim vienīgie, kas pretendēs uz ES tirgu. Mūsu konkurenti ir visas ES kandidātvalstis.
(..)
A. Miglavs norāda, ka Eiropas kopējā interese ir ekonomiski dzīvotspējīga lauku vide, kas ir saistīta ar lauksaimniecību. Nekas labāks par lauksaimniecību, kas spētu uzturēt dzīvību laukos, nav izgudrots. Bez tās lauku vide nav dzīvotspējīga. Un Latvijai šāda pozīcija ir izdevīga."

Tagad iedomājieties, ka jums izdosies šo cilvēku diskreditēt sabiedrības acīs kā šarlatānisku Slakterkunga padomnieku - vienu no pārstrādes uzņēmumu privatizācijas likumdošanas izstrādātājiem 90. gados, vai pierādīt, ka viņš ir nopirkts, vai citādi piespiest politisko varu viņu aizvākt - teiksim, bloķējot, vai ja tas nelīdzēs, izdemolējot "ES māju" Aspazijas bulvāri 28. Un kas..? Kas tieši būs mainījies, viņu aizvietojot ar citu ES kopējās laukksaimniecības politikas īstenotāju? Ar to es vēlos pateikt, ka manuprāt ceļš kā kaut ko šeit mainīt varbūt būtu "izdarīt sāpīgi" citu ES dalībvalstu uzņēmumiem Latvijā. Varbūt...

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

user 13.02.2009 13:19
Piekrītu P-P.
Es pat uzskatu, ka nevienlīdzīgā subsidēšana savā ziņā ir priekš tam lai vājinātu ES neizdevīgos ražotājus no Latvijas. Kad viņi (mūsu ražotāji) būs miruši, tad subsidēšanu pārtrauks, jo konkurenti no ES telpas uz mūsu zemnieku kauliem un atņemtās tirgus daļas rēķina jau paši būs spējigi izdzīvot.
Kopumā tas nozīmē tikai to, ka mūsu zemnieki ir iespējams pat efektīvāki kā Lietuviešu vai Poļu zemniekiem, bet nevienlīdzīgā subsidēšanas sistēma vienkārši neļauj mūsu zemniekiem izdzīvot šajā kroplajā tirgū. Tāpēc nekas īpaši ļauns nenotiks, ja valdība izgudros veidu, kā mūsu zemniekus aizsargāt ar minimālām izmaksām tik ilgi līdz ES subsidēšanas sistēma pārstās savu nevienlīdzīgo politiku. Un vēl viena neliela tirgus kropļošana var pasargāt no bezjēdzīgiem bankrotiem mūsu pilsoņus.

Par to, ka mūsu zemniekiem ir jāpārkvalificējās par piena/siera tirgotājiem, jābrauc darbu meklēt pilsētās, jāemigrē vai kā citādi jāatvadās no lauksaimniecības, pārliecināt mani varētu tikai sakarīgs pētījums un kvalitatīvi risinājumi ar atbildi uz jautājumu "ko varam darīt?" nevis asprātīgi raksteļi un to komentāri internetā.
Runājot par siera iepirkšanu, naudas dāvināšanu zemniekiem utt - tur es piekrītu, tie nav dzīvotspējīgi risinājumi...

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

arnolds 13.02.2009 12:56
Labi, cik noprotu, tu esi šos jautājumus ļoti dziļi pētījis/usi, atsūti linkus uz doķiem, kas regulē piensaimniecību, gribētu palasīt un saprast, kur ir problēma.

Ok, iespējams tev ir pilnīga taisnība, jo es par šo problēmu runāju balstoties uz ļoti minimālu izpratni, tāpēc, lūdzu, tevi ļoti nopietni atbildēt uz jautājumu vai piensaimnieki var pārdot pienu pa tiešo un, ja nevar, un tas tiek nokārtots vai tas uzlabos/glābs situāciju un viņi varēs strādāt ar peļņu?

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

P-P! > arnolds, x 13.02.2009 12:46
Mīļo cilvēk, vai tiešām tas liekas tik neticami, ka, saskaņā ar "likumu", Latvija vairs nevar neko "[at]risināt" - tā var vienīgi "īstenot Eiropas Savienības kopējo lauksaimniecības politiku"? :)

Ka runājot par arhiregulētu un nevienlīdzīgi subsidētu sfēru, visi 2.4 miljardu eiro gadā propagandas (un nezināma lobēšanas un uzpirkšanas) budžeta balstītie teikumi, kur ir iekšā "brīvs tirgus", "tirgus ekonomika", "konkurence", "ilgtspēja", "produktivitāte", "efektivitāte" un tamlīdzīgi vārdi, ir nekas vairāk kā primitīva, tomēr respektabli izskatošās un efektīva mānīšanās?

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

x 13.02.2009 10:59
nu, nu Dombrovska kungs! Neuztraucieties! Nav jau nu uzreiz kaut kadu pukjishu- hicintishu delj vientuljam jasajutas. gan jau, ka nevajag but ekonomika s guru, lai saprastu shadas lietas, grupu un personu intereses pamanitu. vienigi- cilveki tak ipashi neinteresejas, doma apmeram, ka desas un svieksc izaug veikalos (bet pensijas- kokos)un vienigi ljaunie veikalnieki izvelas polju, lietuvieshu, turku utml. preci, atskjaida visu ar udeni utml:) ne ka cenu pacelshanos inicie parstradataji, ka nodoklji aug, ka pircejs nu ljoti jau shobrid naudinju skaita un pek- cik var letak- un ta joprojam:))
Vairak un biezhak jastasta- jaatkarto, ar vienu reizi jau nav gana- par petijumu par konkurenci mazumtirdznieciba, jakavai...
es , protams, neesmu pret latvijas preci.es domaju, ka butu tikai etiski pashiem sevi pabarot. bet to tak nevar atrisinat, piem. ar smirdigam siera rezervem:)

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

Hiacinte 13.02.2009 09:51
Jūstos ļoti pagodināta par šo uzmanību! Paldies!;)
1. Pieprasījums ir, esmu veikusi aptaujas, ar lielāku izlasi kā Latvijas Fakti ikmēneša aptaujā. Ja lobisms pastāv, un tas kropļo tirgu par sliktu vietējiem, tad tas ir jāignorē? Ja dāņu kompānija pasaka, ka nepārdos tehnoloģisko iekārtu, ja produkcija parādīsies ārpus valsts robežām, bet ja tas tiks pārkāpts, tad nepārdos rezerves daļas, tad tas ir brīvs tirgus? Ja pat starptautiskajās institūcijās notiek šādas spēka demonstrācijas, kas neļauj pieņemt lēmumus pēc tirgus pamatlikumiem un ieguvumu/zaudējumu aplēsēm? Piemēram, ja JPM draud nobloķēt kor.kontus, ja netiek pieņemts tas vai cits lēmums? Varbūt vienreiz derētu atzīt, ka Jūsu zināšanas par reālo tirgu, šeit un tagad, nav pietiekami plašas? Jūs prasāt faktus, bet tajā pat laikā tos ignorējat. Pat ASV, Kanāda ne tikai Francija jau vedina uz protekcionismu.
2. Nevienu brīdi neteicu, ka devalvācija ir tas pats kas finanšu sistēmas pašregulācija, lai gan atzīstu, ka neveikli saliku kopā un tā varēja padomāt. Devalvāciju minēju kā pasākumu, kas sasitīta ar iepriekšējo teikumu. pa lielam, nav būtiski vai šobrīd runājam par monetārās vai fiskālās politikas instrumentiem. Finanšu tirgus pašregulāciju minēju tikai kā piemēru vienam no brīvajiem tirgiem, kas ir beidzies ar krahu un kas aizsācies liberālākajā no valstīm "attīstītajā daļš" un tieši šī daļa šobrīd pārskata savus viedokļus. Tājā pusotrā grāmatā, ko dzīvē esmu izlasījusi, parasti piemin dažādus virzienus, sākot no klasiķiem un keinistiem, neoklasiķiem un neokeinsistiem. Protams, tos 99%, ko acīmredzot Jūs esat izlasījis, man nav dots izlasīt, patiesi nepretendēju.
3. Augstprātība nav kompetences pazīme.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

arnolds 12.02.2009 23:58
Dear P-P, quite frankly I do not understand your point or your sarcasm. Yes, CAP is something barbaric, yes, almost every cleary thinking person understands that, but it is what it is and it would and will require Herculean effort to change it.

But at the same time we have a problem and it is solvable withing the existing framework, even though the framework is rather f--cked up. So there are two choices, sorry three choices, either to cry about the framework and do nothing, do something within the framework, and I do not believe that a profit can not be made selling milk produced in Latvia in Latvia or there is the third solution which is to come up with a "solution" to the problem that is as f--ked up as CAP itself. The good thing is that the choice is ours, the bad thing in all of this is that I do not have great confidence that we are capable of making a right choice...

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

P-P! > V Dombrovskis 12.02.2009 23:52
Thanks, and yes - tremendous investment of time just to begin to grasp something.

Just two more things, so you don't write off Latvian farmers so easily :)

- in 2006 "Latvian farms [were] the most profitable in terms of Return on assets [20.25%] (ROA, expressed as
FNVA divided by average total assets), as Latvian farms obtained the largest income from
their assets (before external and internal factors are paid))." http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/fadn/reports/hc0102...

- please understand that it is not we who can solve problems with agriculture, because it was mandatory for all new member states to give up their national agricultural policies when joining EU and to implement CAP.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

V Dombrovskis => P-P! 12.02.2009 22:19
I think I might be beginning to understand something about your position.

The problem is when you say something like this:
"So, anything and everything government can do to support locals while staying within EU's rigged rules, it is perfectly justified in doing. In fact, screw the rules, free market or otherwise..."

This is just wrong. The end does not justify the means: the human kind should have learned it so long ago. If the agricultural system is so hopelessly distorted, you should not take the infection to the other sectors. I apologize for a parallel that is too strong, but do you sympathize with a suicide bomber who goes after innocent people to make his point? If you want to solve problems with agriculture, that's where you have to solve it - in agriculture.

About who is efficient and who is not in agriculture. I am afraid I just don't have a solid idea of what's going on there. CAP is a pretty arcane thing and understanding its impact within the EU requires substantial investment of time.

I had a very quick look at this 2006 document you referred to and there are many things that, at the first glance, look strange. Somehow, median EU direct payment per farm in Latvia is less than half of what they are in Estonia, and some 50% less than in Lithuania. I don't know what may explain this.

But anyway, you've made your point that something fishy might be going on with these subsidies, in a sense that there are serious disparities. A natural thing of me to say would be that we need a research on the agricultural sectors of LT, LV and EE to understand what's happening. But it's not clear who would pay for such a study. So far, bashing the supermarkets seems to be working just fine.

Anyway, thank you for a great discussion, everybody. I've got to move on

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

V Dombrovskis => Ilze 12.02.2009 21:59
I sympathize with your good intentions, but let me tell you the following story. I think it comes from the Discovery Channel. There is this large reservation (somewhere in California, I think). So now and then the woods would catch fire, and the fire fighters would work hard to put out that fire as soon as possible. But then, once in about every ten years, there would be this terrible fire, that would be impossible to stop, a real disaster. For a very long time they couldn't quite figure out what was the cause of this huge fire. And then they did. The big fire happened because of lots of dry dead wood that would accumulate in the forests. The little fires (that the firefighters were quick to extinguish) actually served the function of eliminating the surplus of dry dead wood. So, ironically, the firefighters were the main cause of this big fire, that ravaged the woods once in every so many years.

The morale of this story is that sometimes, it's best to let go, no matter how painful it is, and how much you want to help this people. Sometimes, the market economy is about reallocation of resources, which can be quite painful to the "resources" (e.g. workers). If we want to help, we should help this people to reallocate, to find new jobs, start new businesses. "Helping" them to stick longer to what is no longer efficient will solve nothing, postpone the disaster, and give them false hope.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

P-P! > Arnolds 12.02.2009 21:41
Excuse my sarcastic tone, but would that be, like, meant to increase efficiency?

When it comes to selling milk, you are living in a socialist system, which hides its shamelessness and avarice behind EUR 2.4 billion yearly propaganda budget ( http://www.openeurope.org.uk/media-centre/pressrelease.aspx?... ) - more than Coca-Cola on advertising worldwide. You can't just take up place next to Maxima and start selling your milk to willing buyers - that wouldn't be "marketly" :)

Latvia's 2008./2009. quota for direct selling is 11 306 tons. As of end of third quarter, December 2008, it is 78% filled. http://www.ldc.gov.lv/?u=lv/piena_kvotas/informativais_mater...

Of course, screw the rules could apply here too; possible fines approach 0.20 Ls per liter, no idea about loss of quotas. http://www.zm.gov.lv/index.php?sadala=206&id=8034

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

arnolds 12.02.2009 20:27
My calculations

1. I believe that you can sell milk to wholesale buyers for 0.15 LVL. That would meen that buy selling 100 liters you get 15 LVL;

2. I also believe that buy taking the milk to the city one could sell it for 0.3 LVL easily, right? So that would mean that 100 litres would give you 30 LVL.

3. 30 LVL - 15 LVL = 15 LVL larger profit for the farer and 70 LVL - 30 LVL = 40 LVL savings for the consumer. Surely 15 LVL more than covers the gasoline cost, right? And if this scheme is carried out not with 100 litres but 1000 the profit soars to 150 LVL, right? So, where is the problem? Laziness? Is there overproduction of milk? Surely this would make absolutely everyone happy, excep supermakets, but they would have no problem to survive, right?

To me this problem shows that tampering with free market f--ks things up always!

If the problem is with the EU regulations, surely, we could go to EU and cry about it and get the exception, no? I honestly do not understand why we have to invent some crazy solutions when one just could remove restrictions and that's it.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

arnolds 12.02.2009 20:17
Well, I haven't analyzed the situation very closely, but to me it seems that the easiest solution would be the best one. As far as I understand there are some kind of restrictions that make it hard and expensive for the farmers to sell their products directly - food safety issues, licensing, anybody knows?

I remember the time when the only milk that I drunk was purchesed in the market and carry home in 1,5l Cido Tonic bottle, nobody died, got sick and the milk was tasty. So why not remove the restrictions and allow the farmers to sell directly? If it is the food safety, then make the farmers sell their milk under a big sign "By purchasing this milk risk of contracting syfilis is increased:)" And then the people who can afford and are affraid of said disease will go to the supermarket and buy packaged milk and those who can't and don't care about said disease will go to the market. Surely the EU regulations do not forbid such a solution, do they?

That would be a very simple market solution, no problem.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

Kinza > Dombrovskis 12.02.2009 20:04
Yes, you get the prize!

One question: has anyone (including our esteemed Minister of Economy) thought of the fact that already now, since we live in a free country, there exist free choice to support with your consuming behaviour Latvian, Dutch or any other farmers we choose? Why has the society not been more supportive of the local produce - are they simply too stupid and lazy to read the labels or go to the market? Or do they simply want the cheaper (Dutch) product? In any event, the choice is already there and people should start consciously changing their shopping habits if they want to make a difference. Farmers, on the other hand, should start thinking out of the comfortable box about how to produce something the public will want and could afford to buy. And Gerhards, well, he should perhaps go to the farmer's market in Berga Bazars on a Saturday, if he hopes to be elected next time.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

arnolds 12.02.2009 19:06
By madmen I didn't mean foreign politicians, but investors since to subsidize we need to borrow and we can borrow from investors... Was no clear, apologize!

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

P-P! > arnolds 12.02.2009 18:41
I can think of whole lot of people willing to subsidize "inefficient" industry across EU unequally WHILE precluding people "somewhere abroad" of even trying to even those subsidies out - from their own pocket. Just try suggesting to them that all subsidies should be abolished, right now, right here. They - the efficient ones should still be able to outclass those inefficient in the market... right? RIGHT? :)

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

What measures of productivity are those?

The best comparative data on median subsidies per ha I have seen (total EU direct payments + national "top-up" payments, which are caped under CAP) are unfortunately two years old and come from EU itself, year 2006 (see page 20) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/fadn/reports/hc0304... :

EL620EUR
FI550EUR
CY420EUR
BE420EUR
DE340EUR
FR320EUR
AT310EUR
NL310EUR
DK310EUR
LU290EUR
UK290EUR
IE280EUR
SI270EUR
SE250EUR
EU-25230EUR
PL210EUR
IT 200EUR
CZ180EUR
ES160EUR
HU140EUR
SK110EUR
LT100EUR
EE90EUR
LV80EUR
PT 70EUR

How is somebody in Latvia supposed to compete with, for instance, German or Dutch or even Polish cheese, should the producers decide to absorb the losses and drive prices though the floor and for any prolonged period of time... well maybe some clever "marketly" people can explain that. Does it still make sense to talk about productivity after looking at those numbers?

You are precluded by law from slapping pa punitive tariff on those goods, you are precluded by law from raising your national subsidies above certain to try to level playing field. You can't, apparently, pressure foreign retail chains threatening to bring in those goods, because it's not "marketly". I say - screw the "free" market rules then...

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

arnolds 12.02.2009 17:51
Dear user, I have a very simple question to you, what factors will keep the inefficient labour in this country in the case when the government gives them a chance to continue to pursue their inefficient activities. I think it is fair to assume that even in a case of a huge government support these activities will still generate very low return.

Your argument also raises two other interesting questions. First who will finance the subsidies to the inefficient? We don't have natural resources to sell or large reserves to tap, I can't think of any madmen from other countries that would be willing to finanance an inefficient industry not only in their own countries but even more somewhere abroad. So the second question is - what will the efficient part of society think, do and go where when they see that they do not have enough capital and other resources to pursue their activities in addition to being heavily taxed to provide support for the inefficient, when surprise, surprise it is they who provide growth? If I were you, I would think about these questions.

I would also like to add that this question of people leaving has been troubling me lately. I do not think that we should be very concerned about people who are going away now, because quite frankly we should be rejoicing about them - they will not be a strain on the state unemployment budget and will send money back to their families, as cruel as it might sound to you. I am more worried about what will happen when the world recovers and there will be many and easy opportunities for highly-skilled people. That actually could be a catastrophe, maybe even an apocalypse.

Funny thing is that the solution to this problem is quite simple. Unity in society, we should recognize that we are in the same boat all together and by working together we will get out of it sooner AND we very desparetly need a NEW COMMON DREAM ABOUT WHAT FUTURE HERE MIGHT BE! If we are able to generate it, then the risk of people leaving would be decreased because quite frankly I haven't met many people who really want to leave. 99% want to stay here.

Seriously, user, there is only one instrument to keep people from going and it is closing of borders and totalitarian state control. You want that? Do we have resources to implement it?

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

user 12.02.2009 16:24
Little correction: In my previous comment with "economy" I mean "economics".

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

user 12.02.2009 16:15
In comment You wrote: "I do think that the inefficient should leave the market and do something else".

In theory You are right. Practically our labor really are doing something else when they loose niche in the market. They simply leave this country to become a cheap labour in foreign countries.

Mr. Dombrovsky, do You really think that outflowing labour is very beneficial and healthy for our economics?
I still call it social and economic contraction... But later in "good times" when economy will start to grow, we will be forced to import cheap labour from Asia, which of course will lead to social disasters and more expenses for law enforcement institutions.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

P-P! > Slava 12.02.2009 15:53
So, your definition of "inefficient" is those who can't compete in a "free" market against those with higher subsidies? How "marketly"! :)

Fret not - there is a natural way how those "inefficient", who still could afford to sell (give away) milk from their couple, or even sole cow for Ls 0.12 a litre (because they were in it for something to do in their retirement, not money) quietly and peacefully leave the market. No need to hurry them, I think - unless you can show any of those over 100 years old former US farmers still "productively employed elsewhere".

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

ilze 12.02.2009 15:48
I do know smth about the subsidies of EU and it is indeed one of the reasons why our prices are incompetitive (why did we need the subsidies in first place? wouldn't we be better of if none of the EU countries had them?), but by no way you can argue that it is the only one! In Estonia, for example, the productivity is twice as high as here, so it must have some effect on the prices...

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

P-P! > ilze 12.02.2009 15:24
"Free market" talk, when it comes to heavily regulated and unequally subsidised (among member states) sphere of agriculture in EU, is a transparent con job. In its entirety - from start till end.

I'm not an expert, but I think there are only two obvious reasons for "cheap" wholesale intra-EU imports:
- discriminatory subsidies, which are taxed and paid out of the pockets of consumers anyway, and which enable at "appropriate moments" to sell significantly below production cost;
- increasing access of "third world" produce into this regulated market, courtesy of "save the world" do-gooders pressure.

Yet, all one can hear from EU's spokespeople is concern about "Alpine milk farmers" going out of business. So, anything and everything government can do to support locals while staying within EU's rigged rules, it is perfectly justified in doing. In fact, screw the rules, free market or otherwise - anything government can do without risking significant sanctions is justified as well. Otherwise the rules won't ever change, or change only when it will be too late for Latvian farmers.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

V Dombrovskis 12.02.2009 15:06
P-P!

My dear nemesis (from agriculture?):

Of course you have everything against "free markets", especially when they seem to work in the direction that is painful to you. What you write about not letting the farmers fail is ample evidence for this.

Let me tell you this. A few hundred years ago some 97 out of 100 Americans were farmers. Today, about 3 out of 100 Americans are. And the rest are not leaving on welfare. They're being productivel employed elsewhere. The fact that this sort of reallocation has happened in the U.S. (and it was painful when it happened) is what makes it a great country of todate. Looking at most of the comments, I am not very optimistic about what will happen here.

So for the record, I do think that the inefficient should leave the market and do something else. I don't think I'll get a prize for this because, believe it or not, there were hundreds of thousands of some very smart people who figured this out before me.

And thanks for reminding what I said about the banks. I stand by what I said. I understand it's a surprise to many, but sometimes it's ok to let a farm (or some firm) fail, but it will not be ok to let a bank fail. And that's also part of what you call a "free market". I don't want to go into the details but banks are ... well, important. And there is a rather special role for them (and special privileges) in the architecture of the modern market economy. Did you ever think about why deposit insurance schemes exist, and why we don'thave something similar for other firms?

Yes, the markets for agricultural goods are not "free". And there are good political economy explanations for this. If farmers can get 26 million LVL by raiding the capital, how much incentive do they have to compete? Not much, I am afraid, is the answer.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

ilze 12.02.2009 14:49
I would like to think that I understand the priciples of free market and thus the nonsense of choosing something expensive but made-in-Latvia over smth cheaper but imported, but in this specific crises-driven environment, don't you think that supporting our producers makes sense at least in short run? I mean we could all optimize and by cheap import products but I don't see how this would anyhow improve the situation here - we will still be stuck with our low productivity, even lower output and thus higher costs and higher prices!?
I am one of the label-readers looking for Made in Latvia and will keep doing so even if I could pay less for the same stuff (and thus support the exports of Lithuania for example)!

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

Kalvis, ZoRRo 12.02.2009 14:13
ZoRRo: >> Vai "agresīva kampaņa par Latvijā ražotu produktu patērēšanu" ir garantija, ka patērētājs momentā izvēlēsies LV produktu, kurš ir dārgāks par ārvalstīs ražoto produktu (nerunāju par cenas un kvalitātes ziņā analogiem produktiem)? Daļa patērētāju, iespējams - jā. Bet cik liela būtu šī daļa?
Ja valdība nolemj iejaukties šādā veidā, vai pirms šādas iespējas apcerēšanas nevajadzētu mēģināt skaidri saprast, kādēļ LV produkcija ir dārgāka par analogu ārvalstu produkciju...
=====

Piekrītu, ka tad, ja pieņem par patiesu kādu racionālu "spēļu teorijas modeli" par patērētāju uzvedību, tad ilgstošā laika posmā uzvarēs kaut kāda objektīvi labākā prece. Un no šī viedokļa var runāt arī par spēļu teoriju (cietumnieku dilemmu), kuru te jau komentētāji pieminēja, utml.

No otras puses, mēs jau dzīvojam nevis stacionārā, objektīvā pasaulē, bet strauji mainīgā un subjektīvā (vairākas Nobela prēmijas ekonomikā ir piešķirtas tieši pētījumiem, kuri pamato no klasiskās ekonomikas viedokļa "neracionālu" patērētāju uzvedību - sk. 2002.g. balvas ieguvēju Daniel Kahneman - http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2005/nf200510... .) Ņemot vērā to, ka latvieši kā tauta jūtas apdraudēti un mums nav svešs nacionālistu sentiments, varbūt nākamā Nobela prēmija būs par patriotiski noskaņoto mūsu patērētāju uzvedību ;))

Par patērētāju nepatriotisko uzvedību (tiesa, ar uzsvaru uz rūpniecības precēm) ir sarakstīts nosodošs Sergeja Mihalkova dzejolis "Dve podrugi" (sk. http://www.deti.spb.ru/books/stihi/mix_podruga/ .) - tas ir pazīstamā kinorežisora tēvs (arī PSRS himnas vārdu autors):

Мы знаем, есть ещё семейки,
Где наше хают и бранят,
Где с умилением глядят
На заграничные наклейки...
А сало ... русское едят!

Cilvēkam jābūt patriotam viscaur - gan runās, gan domās, gan tepiķu, gan speķu pirkšanā. Par laimi, mana draudzene aktīvi iestājas par biodinamisko lauksaimniecību un biozemnieku atbalstu un mums ir arī lauku radi. Tādēļ patērējam diezgan daudz vietējās produkcijas. Pēdējā laikā esmu atteicies arī no importētā siera pirkšanas - jo man (kā jau racionālam tirgus dalībniekam) ir būtiski dzīvot saskaņā ar savu draudzeni un manu bērnu māti.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

P-P! 12.02.2009 12:55
And btw, just tell the readers please, Mr. Free Market, was it not you, who in December figured out these "right" and "wrong" criteria for the marketplace:

"Was nationalization the right thing to do? If the alternative was to let Parex fail, then I believe authorities did the right thing. Failure of Parex would risk triggering panic and bank runs. Resulting loss of confidence in the banking system would risk plunging this country into a deep recession - not unlike the Great Depression in the 1930s."

Why so "unmarketly" - what, can't let one bank go bust? And have you opened some "Patriot's deposit" at Parex already? :)

For the record, I have nothing against free markets, but the markets for agricultural goods in EU are manifestly not free.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

P-P! 12.02.2009 12:19
Why - your other suggestion, proposed in all seriousness, that local milk farmers, who already get paid second lowest farm-gate prices in the EU's "free" market, in essence, should just go bankrupt because they can't "compete", already beats any and all of 'em the ideas.

Just figure out how to get them on some sort of EU's welfare - that's the best kind of support for them, and THEN, rest assured, - you and all consumers will really start benefiting, for all eternity, from "competitively priced" imported foodstuff.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

asparags 12.02.2009 11:44
In the latest "DnB NORD Latvijas barometrs" Roberts Kilis states:

"Un, lai arī izvēlēties Latvijas preci ir prātīgi no makroviedokļa, proti, katrs pircējs tādā veidā kopumā stiprina Latvijas ekonomiku, nodokļu bāzi un tuvina ekonomiskās augšupejas atsākšanos, katram atsevišķi ir labāk, ka visi pārējie pērk Latvijas preci, bet es ‐ to lētāko, kas ir imports. Tādējādi gan Latvijas ekonomika tiek stiprināta (to dara citi), gan manai ģimenei vieglāk (jo pērku lētāk). Klasiska cietumnieku dilemma, jo, ja tā dara visi, tad neviens nepērk Latvijas preci un tiek stiprinātas citu valstu ekonomikas."

For English readers, the basic idea is that choosing Latvian products for Latvian consumers is kind of a Prisoner's dilemma.

Any comments on that, Mr. Dombrovski?

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

user 12.02.2009 11:40
Why not to expand initial Gerhard's idea even more. I think it's good idea to seperate the supermarkets in two groups: those who sell only Latvian products and the rest supermarkets. Latvian national supermarkets should have some privileges, for example smaller profits tax rates while "the rest supermarkets" still pay full taxes.

Free market and democracy in our case is just a nice system which invites others countries with idea: "Please, rule us, tell us what to do!".

Here is the message for Lithuanians:
"We cant produce even our food anc clothing cheaper than You do it for Us, so We want to be Your slaves, working for the food You give Us!".


So - we need solution. Here it real sollution.
Did You ever noticed, that world market is a bit wilder than You expected. Look for example KOSHER certification program, where particular products with this certificate are with increased price. Here is list of products in Greece with voluntarily applied Kosher tax: http://www.etz-hayyim-hania.org/_cont/kosher.html
Here is some information of specially created Kosher markets: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3723/is_9_10/ai_53449...

I think our wholesaler could come together and invent a new tax and new certification program to support Latvian country.
It would be very similar like jews did with Kosher certification program in various countries to support Judaism.
Wouldn't it be great sollution for worlds free market? The market without any distortions!

I allways have been telling that we have to keep learning from smart countries how to bargain, how to manufacture, how to rule and how to apply taxes in foreign countries for foreign products! ;)

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

ZoRRo 12.02.2009 10:52
Vai "agresīva kampaņa par Latvijā ražotu produktu patērēšanu" ir garantija, ka patērētājs momentā izvēlēsies LV produktu, kurš ir dārgāks par ārvalstīs ražoto produktu (nerunāju par cenas un kvalitātes ziņā analogiem produktiem)?
Daļa patērētāju, iespējams - jā. Bet cik liela būtu šī daļa?
Ja valdība nolemj iejaukties šādā veidā, vai pirms šādas iespējas apcerēšanas nevajadzētu mēģināt skaidri saprast, kādēļ LV produkcija ir dārgāka par analogu ārvalstu produkciju (ja ir kaut cik līdzīgi kritēriji, kas nosaka ražotāju kapacitāti ražot konkrētā veida produkciju), kā arī saprast, vai šajā aspektā ir ko iespējams mainīt (neiestrēgstot, piemeram, pie viena paša, it kā nemaināma fakta, ka, piemēram, LV lauksaimnieku sanemamais kopējais ES subsīdiju apjoms ir mazāks, nekā, piemeram, LT lauksaimniekiem pieejamais).

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

V Dombrovskis (Slava) 12.02.2009 10:28
Hiacinte:

Es Jums atbildēšu, jo Jūs esat tik spilgts piemērs tam, ko doma daudzi citi, bet varbūt nav tik drosmīgi to pateikt.

1. "pieprasījums jau sen ir" - te ar Jūsu vārdiem nepietiks. Jābūt kādiem faktiem. Bet ok, parunāsim par pieprasījuma apmierināšanu privātajā un valsts sektorā. Ari par lobismu. Protams, lobisms ir ari tirgū (vai es kaut kur teicu ka nav?) Tas ir tāpec ka "tirgus" ir cilvēki. Un ari "valsts" ir kaut kādi cilvēki. Galvenā starpība ir viņu motivācijā. RIMI ir vairāk ieinteresēts uzzināt par patērētāju pieprasījumu jo no ta viņi var nopelnīt. Vai Jūs nopietni domājāt ka valdībai (jeb "valstij", whatever) it tik pat liela motivacija apmierināt Jūsu pieprasījumu? Tas būtu smieklīgi, ja tas nebūtu tik skumji.
2. Varu tikai noradīt "devalvācija" nav viens un tāds pats ka "finanšu sistēmas pašregulacija". Lēmumus par devalvācija (ja valutas kurss ir fiksēts) parasti pieņem centrālas bankas.
3. Par gramātu pārrakstīšanu. Es Jums tomēr ieteiktu sākt no gramātu lasīšanas. Negaidiet jaunas gramātas, ticiet man: 99% paliks ka ir. Jo gramātās vienmēr bija rakstīts ka valdībai jāiejaucas ekonomikā... noteiktos gadījumos. Un valdības visu laiku iejaucās. Es Jums te nestastīšu par šiem gadījumiem - ja Jums ir interesanti, palasiet gramātas.
3. Un pēdejais: es neesmu vientulis, pat šajā valstī, neesmu. Cilvēkus, kuriem te Latvijā ir kaut kāda minimāla izprātne par to ka darbojas tirgus ekonomika, var, diemžēl, saskaitīt pa pirkstiem. Tieši tapēc te notiek ši krīze. Jo nebija praktiski neviena kurš varētu teikt Jums (un daudziem citiem) par to, kas īstenībā notiek. Un vel: man ir skaidrs, ka esmu tik ārkārtīgā mazakumā te, Latvijā. Bet pasaulē (ta attīstītajā daļā) ir ļoti daudz tādu cilvēku kuri domā ka es (jeb es domāju ka viņi). Es taču neesmu pats izdomāju visu to, par ko es rakstu, un ko es saku. Es visu to iemācījos, lielākā mērā no ekonomistiem attīstītajā pasaulē.

Tatad ta ir Jūsu izvēle, Hiacinte, kurā pasaulē Jūs vēlāties dzīvot.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

Krish 12.02.2009 10:25
For once i can agree with Mr. Gerharts, the idea is worth looking in to. While some of the new European countries have found a way to brand their products, we have been the teachers pet!

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

Hiacinte 12.02.2009 09:48
Un ja es kā klients vēlos redzēt to Latvijas preču stendu, jo mani tracina tas, ka jāpēta etiķetes un nevar reizēm saprast, kas ražojis, kas starppatēriņa preces piegādājis?
Tirgus pats noregulēsies, ja būs pieprasījums? Pieprasījums jau sen ir, bet lobisms darbojas arī tirdzniecībā, lai kā to Slava negrib atzīt.
Un kaut kā tā arī nav dzirdēts, kādi tad ir ārējās tirdzniecības bilances problēmu risināšana varianti šobrīd. Devalvācija? Pat FED priekšnieks atzina, ka paļaušanās uz finanšu sistēmas pašregulāciju ir bijusi kļūda. Tagad pārrakstīs grāmatas, ar pierādījumiem, faktiem, tabulām, ka valdībai ir jāiejaucas. Šobrīd visā pasaulē valdības iejaucas ekonomikā, tikai Slava vientuļi sapņo par ilūziju par brīvo tirgu.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

ZoRRo 12.02.2009 08:22
"The entrance to the foreign section should be monitored by the video surveillance, which will track all those who would want to shop in the foreign section."

After that, Security Police should make a black list of these citizens who have shown their inappropriate affection towards foreign production. Further, this black list should be taken into account, whenever any decisions have been made from public authorities' side.
For instance, if there is a necessity to fire some police officers, priority should be given to those from the black list.
Another example - if somebody will apply for a credit (guaranteed from the state), he/she shouldn't receive it (or receive it with considerably higher interest rates) until the moment the person with his/her behaviour shows the change of shopping habits.
Finally, Public Procurement Law should be amended in order to prescribe that persons from black list (or enterprises where persons from black list are owners or employees) are excluded from tender procedures.

And I believe, the government is capable to brainstorm unlimited pile of even better ideas :P

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

Kalvis 12.02.2009 07:23
Atbildību par Latvijas preču pārdošanas veicināšanu nav visai loģiski uzvelt mazumtirgotājam. Kā sakārtot preces lielveikalu plauktos - tā ir marketinga augstā māksla, kuru ministriem un ierēdņiem būtu grūti diktēt no malas.

No otras puses, valsts un privātpersonu līmenī ir vajadzīga agresīva kampaņa par Latvijā ražotu produktu patērēšanu. Eiropas Savienībā pastāv brīva preču kustība un tiešs latviešu ražotāju protekcionisms bieži vien nav fiziski iespējams. Nacionālo valūtu devalvēt mums arī šobrīd neviens neļaus (turklāt - tad, kad pievienosimies eirozonai, mūsu rīcībā šāda instrumenta visvienalga vairs nebūs). Tādēļ ir vajadzīgi citi atjautīgi risinājumi, kā atbalstīt vietējos rūpniekus un zemniekus. Nav loģiski, ja skolas un valsts iestādes iepērk importa mēbeles, pārtikas produktus, utml., ja ir Latvijā ražoti analogi - sabiedriskā doma var palīdzēt.

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

arnolds 12.02.2009 01:01
I think that we all should unite our forces to ensure that not only the products but also the shelves are made in Latvia. In fact, why not create a special shelf-regulation office instead of KNAB that could carry out this task for the benefit of the people.

I think that people living here very soon will develop a sense of humour that will rival the famed english one:) Are elections coming or have I missed something?

5278633172 71b63f7fe4
Komentētājs

ray-banned glasses 12.02.2009 00:41
I think that you won't get a prize because all you did - just gradually expanded Gerhards idea :)

Citi autora darbi