Önsözden

Tüm bu çalışmalarımda gözlemlediğim ilk konu, teknolojik gelişmeler ve müşteri ihtiyaçları nedeni ile nakit yönetimi dünyasının hep dinamik olduğudur. İkinci konu ise, finansal okuryazarlık konusunda özellikle küçük işletmelere ve hane halkına yönelik çok fazla çalışma yapılması gerekliliğidir. Türkiye özelinde sermaye piyasalarının gelişimi adına, işletmelerin büyümesi ve sürdürülebilirliği adına nakit yönetiminin finansal yönetimin altındaki en önemli başlık olduğu kanaatindeyim. Borsa İstanbul’un toplam piyasa değerinin Facebook’un piyasa değerinden düşük olmasının nedeni Türkiye’deki işletmelerin, bankacılık sistemi dâhil, ölçeğinin küçük kalmasıdır. Bunun nedeni ise, başta KOBİ’lerde finansal yönetim ve nakit yönetimi esaslarına olan hâkimiyetin düşüklüğüdür. Uluslarararası bir finans merkezi olmak isteyen İstanbul’un Avusturya İktisat Okulu, Wharton, Harvard Business School, London School of Economics gibi bir iktisadi yönetim ekolü (doktrini, okulu) olması gerekliliğine inancım doğrultusunda, bu ilk kitabımda deneyimlerimden hareketle nakit yönetiminin önemini aktarmaya çalıştım

During the 19th century, British diplomacy towards the Ottoman Empire was based on rejuvenating and revitalising the administration system with a series of social and political reforms. Although British attitudes began to transform during the Near Eastern Crisis of 1876-8 and the Anglo-Ottoman alliance was interrupted, the policy changed dramatically on the eve of the First World War.Nonetheless, major events such as the Chanak Crisis in the British Cabinet, the occupation of Constantinople and Smyrna and finally the Turkish Nationalist Movementunder the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk effected the dynamics of Anglo-Ottoman relations. This book examines the ground of these policies and analyses how thisstorm was over in British foreign policies towards Turkey between 1918 and 1923.

In this book, we attempt to make a comparative evaluation of modern macroeconomic schools: Monetarism and New Classical School based on the Classical System that envisage automatic full employment or natural rate of unemployment (NRU) equilibrium (AFNE or ANRUE) vs. New Keynesian and Post-Keynesian Economics based on the Keynesian System which gives unemployment equilibrium (UNE) or non-automatic NRU equilibrium (NANRUE) due to insufficiency of aggregate demand.

In order to determine which school is relevant, first the basic assumptions of these systems are compared: i) rational vs. adjusted vs. heterogeneous expectations, ii) existence of perfect competition in all markets leading to flexibility of prices and wages vs. imperfect competition giving rise to rigidities, and iii) presence or lack of coordination between markets.

In the final phase of our evaluations the performance of the developed economies are surveyed to establish whether we meet with AFNE or ANRUE or else UNE or NANRUE; and whether policy prescriptions devised by respective schools solve or alleviate the problem at hand when implemented.

Our investigations point out that New Keynesian and Post-Keynesian schools are more relevant compared to Monetarism and New Classical School. The choice between New Keynesian and Post-Keynesian Economics, however, is more difficult to make although New Keynesian Economics seems more widespread than Post-Keynesian Economics. Objectively, Post-Keynesian assumptions seem more realistic; normatively, however, New Keynesian stands seems more fit to the present day move towards globalization.