Gure esku dago? Zer?

Hasteko ikus ‘Puntua’[1] izeneko sarrera.

Ez, Baionan ez zuten ‘puntua’ ukitu.

Hauxe utzi zuten garbi goi mailako adituek (sic)[2]:

“…agerian geratu zen Euskal Herrian oraindik bide luzea geratzen dela Eskozia edota Kataluniaren egoerara iristeko. Izan ere, euskal independentismoak ez du ez herri proiektu bat, ez horretara heltzeko estrategia bateratua adostu oraindik.”

Gogora ditzagun:

a) http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2014/06/13/gure-esku-dago-zer/

b) http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2014/10/29/gure-esku-dago-zer-13/

Hortaz, zer gertatu da? Beste aukera bat galduta, militantismoan eta aktibismo hutsean murgilduta?

Non ote daude aukera ezberdinak eztabaidatzeko lan teorikoak? Ala ez dira behar lan teoriko horiek?

Nork, noiz, nola aipatuko dituzte lan teorikoak, eta horien ondorioz, egon daitezkeen bide praktiko desberdinak?

Alegia: zer egin daiteke orain? Zer egin dezakegu?

Zeren esperoan gaude?

 

[1] Ikus http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2014/11/19/puntua/.

[2] Ikus Euskal independentismoak ez du adostasunaren bidea egin oraindik: http://www.naiz.eus/eu/hemeroteca/gara/editions/gara_2014-11-24-06-00/hemeroteca_articles/euskal-independentismoak-ez-du-adostasunaren-bidea-egin-oraindik.

Job Guarantee (espainieraz)

Blog honetan behin eta berriz aipatu dugu JG delakoa[1].

Orain Ezker Batua, agian hobe Izquierda Unida, ildo horretatik abiatu da.

Izan ere, ‘Trabajo garantizado’ delakoa zabalduz doa, non eta Espainian.

Mon dieu! Azkenean Espainian zerbait interesgarri azaldu da!

Hona hemen zenbait link:

a)      IU responde a la propuesta de renta básica de Podemos con otra de empleo garantizado a los parados

http://www.eualdaia.org/spip.php?article2923

b)      ¿Qué es el Trabajo o Empleo Garantizado?

http://www.lamarea.com/2014/10/09/que-es-el-trabajo-o-empleo-garantizado/

c)      Empleo Garantizado, la alternativa

http://unrojoporelmundo.blogspot.com.es/2014/11/empleo-garantizado-frente-la-renta.html (ikus bertan dauden linkak)

Bejondeiela!

 

[1] Ikus besteak beste sarrera hauek:

Langabezia: zer egin?:

http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2014/04/27/langabezia-zer-egin/,

Errenta unibertsala? Ez, lan unibertsala!:

http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2014/10/21/errenta-unibertsala-ez-lan-unibertsala/.

Visca Catalunya lliure!

Mas proposa divuit mesos excepcionals per fer la independencia:

http://www.vilaweb.cat/noticia/4221199/20141125/mas-proposa-divuit-mesos-excepcionals-independencia.HTML

Catalan President ready to call early elections to achieve independence from Spain in 18 months:

http://english.vilaweb.cat/politics/catalan-president-ready-to-call-early-elections-to-achieve-independence-from-spain-in-18-months

Gora Katalunia askatua!

Long live free Catalonia!

Italiaz hitz bi (1)

Italia dugu aztergai[1].

Bill Mitchell Italian egon da[2].

Hona hemen Mitchell-ek aipatzen dituen ideia batzuk:

i)                 Talde oso interesgarri bat dago Italian[3].

ii)                Ahantzi behar dute DTM ibilgailu eratzaile gisa dela, eta helburu publiko eta oparotasunari lotzea[4].

iii)               Izan ere, DTM agregatu makroekonomikoari buruzko erabaki ekonomikoak (publikoak eta pribatuak) ulertzeko marko bat da, ez da politika agenda bat[5].

iv)               Bestela, arrisku bat dago, alegia, taldea DTM kultu bilakatzea.

v)                Florentzia utzi nuen kezkatuta. EB aparteko aldaketak behar dira aipaturiko politika helburuetara itzuli baino lehen. Eliteak bere horretan darrai, eta langabeziak urtetan iraungo du[6].

vi)               Egoera oso tristea da.

Testuingurua, alta, ezaguna da:

a)      Italian dauzkaten arazoak diseinutik datoz. Borondatez sistema monetario bat sortu zuten, gastu ekonomiko astintze bat jasoz gero, porrot egingo zuena[7].

b)      Kasurako, baldin eta Greziak 2000-2008ko tartean izan zuen enplegu tasaren bidez hazten hasiko balitz, 2008ko krisia baino lehen egon zen enplegua lortzeko, 2034 urtea iritsiko litzateke[8].

c)      Alegia, 2034ko ekainean, langabezia tasa %17 baino altuagoa izango litzateke[9].

d)      Sistemak ez du funtzionatzen, krisirantz jotzen du eta baztertu behar da.

e)      Italiak sistema horretatik irten behar du.

f)       Politikoki ‘ezker’ aldeko jende batzuek ez zuten irteera hori onartu eta sisteman integrazioa bultzatu nahi zuten[10].

g)      ‘Argudioa’ zen irteera hori puntako ‘eskuinekoek’ nahi zutela[11].

Esperientziak:

1)      Alemanian 1930eko hamarkadaren lehen urteetan nazional sozialistak, naziak, keynestarrak ziren Keynes baino lehenago, Depresio Handitik irteteko neoklasikoen ortodoxia baztertuz.

2)      Kudeaketa makroekonomikoa primerakoa zen, enpleguaren hazkundea beste edozein lekutan baino azkarragoa izanik.

3)      Noski, haien helburu nazionalak ikaratzekoak ziren, haien politika sozialak ziren bezalaxe.

4)      Baina, baztertuko ote zituzkeen ‘ezkerrak’ sektore publikoko pizgarri makroekonomikoak naziak gauza hori egiten ari zirelako?

Gainera,

A)     ‘Ezkertiarren’ beste sasi-argudioa bat. Jendea ez da gehiago fidatzen bere sistema politiko nazionalez eta uste du Brusela/EBZ politika egiteko askoz egokiagoa dela.

B)     Egia da kulturak eta ekonomiak elkarri eragiten diotela.

C)     Kasurako, nahiz eta DTMko ideia nagusiak ongi ulertu, politika disfuntzional batek emaitza kaxkarrak izango ditu[12].

Langabeziak hamarkadatan iraungo du. Errentaren eguneroko galerak. Bankuak ez dira seguruak. Errenta eta aberastasunaren desberdintasunen tartea. Hazkunde geldiketa edo atzerapen ekonomikoa (7 urte eta gero!). Deflazioa. Ezegonkortasun soziala. Eskuinaren igoera. Pobreziaren areagotzea. Azpiegitura publikoaren degradatzea. Krisia baino lehenagoko egoera okerragoa orain…[13]

Argudioak:

I)                 Gobernua ez da existitzen aurrekontu bat orekatzeko edo beste arau fiskal bat betetzeko.

II)               Politika fiskalak beti egon behar du oparotasunaren zerbitzurako, zeinak gutxienez, enplegu osoa eta prezio egonkortasuna lortu behar dituen.

III)              Baldin eta fiskalitate gogor batek edo beste arau batek enplegu hazkundea bermatzeko gobernuaren ahalmena oztopatzen badu, orduan neurri horiek desegokiak dira.

IV)              Politika parametroak nahiko malguak izan behar dira (gorantz eta beherantz) gobernuari ahalbidetzeko ekonomian gastu osoaren maila egokiei eusteko.

V)               Lehentasunak argi daude. Azken hiru urteetan %9,9ko langabezia tasa jasan duen gobernu bat ez dago desorekaturik, zeren muga beroa %10 baita, zeren “The Commission chose this very high threshold due to a “focus on adjustment in labour markets and not on cyclical fluctuations”.”

VI)              Alegia, langabezia arazoa ez dagokio enplegu ez nahikoari, gastu maila ezegokia egon delako, baizik eta ‘egiturazko’ arazoei.

VII)            ‘Egiturazko arazo’ horiek ‘merkatu oztopoek’ markatzen dituzte, neoliberal estandarraren mezuak dioenez, hots, eskaintza-aldeko joera, zeinak porrot egin baitu 1990eko hamarkadako lehen urteetan fokapen nagusia bilakatu zenetik.

VIII)          Ondorioz, langabeziari buruzko edozein erreferentzia lotuta dago alokairuei: soldatak oso altuak direla eta produktibitate hazkundearekin batera murriztuak izan behar direla esanez.

IX)              Ez da onartzen irauten duen atzerapenak biak sortu dituela: produktibitate hazkundearen beherakada eta lanpostuak desagertzea, gasturik eza dela medio.

X)                Horrela, europar politikariak ‘pozik’ daude langabeziaren maila oso altuekin, nahiz eta beren asmoa ezkutatu iruzurreko hizkera batean.

Afera aspalditik dator. Izan ere, ikus , gehigarri gisa, Mitchell-en beraren 2009ko lantxo hau: Balance sheet recessions and democracy.

(Segituko du.)

 

[1] Ikus Italia eta Euskal Herria: http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2014/10/30/italia-eta-euskal-herria.

[2] Ikus A depressing report from Florence: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=29550.

[3] Ingelesez: “There is a very committed group of people in Italy who want to build a political presence to counter the neo-liberal dominance, which has infested all the major parties here (and everywhere).”

[4] Ingelesez: “The first thing they need to do is to forget MMT as an organising vehicle and, instead, articulate a vision that advances public purpose and prosperity.”

[5] Ingelesez: “MMT is a tool box or framework to understand the consequences of economic decisions (private and public) on the macroeconomic aggregates. It is not a policy agenda.”

[6] Ingelesez: “Anyway, I left the Florence roundtable thinking that dramatic shifts are required in the way the EU is structured before Europe can make any significant return to those sorts of policy aims. I also concluded that the elite is so entrenched in its own neo-liberal Groupthink and its own advanced sense of preservation that very little will change and mass unemployment will persist for years to come.”

[7] Ingelesez: “… the problems they face are by design – they deliberately created a monetary system that would fail once a major economic spending shock came along and their policy positions are unsustainable.”

[8] Ingelesez: “I noted that if Greece could resume employment growth at the rate they achieved in the 2000-08 period (0.3 per cent per quarter) it would take until the June-quarter 2034 to get back to the peak before the crisis (June-quarter 2008).”

[9] Ingelesez: “With very modest population and labour force growth, the unemployment rate would still be above 17 per cent in June 2034 at that rate. That cannot be the product of a system that just needs some tinkering around the edges – which is the approach taken by the EU political elite.”

[10] Ingelesez: “I spoke to some people who would call themselves firmly ‘left’ in the political spectrum on both economic and social grounds and they were opposed to exit and wanted to strengthen integration.”

[11] Ingelesez: “The major reasoning that I could deduce for that extraordinary ‘left’ position in the current context was that the extreme right were leading the charge on the exit option and the ‘left’ couldn’t afford to be associated with Euroscepticism.

I argued that the challenge was to articulate the differences (and there are huge differences in terms of social policy and attitudes to immigration, climate change etc) even if on some of the economic issues, the left and the right were one.”

[12] Ingelesez: “But is that a recipe for sub-contracting major economic policy to the technocrats and self-serving politicians in the European Commission? Especially, when that system has delivered such a elevated level of incompetence – as is evident everyday in the data that Eurostat pumps out.”

[13] Honela segitzen du Mitchell-ek, ingelesez:

D) The centralised bureaucrats and politicians that have overseen that disaster are hardly worth putting a nation’s faith in.

E) There seems to be a desperate need for a new political force on the left to form and take on the mainstream parties.

F) I had a talk with an aspiring Greek politician at the Roundtable (an economist – I will not mention his name given his political aims at this stage) who thinks exactly along those lines – a new force is required to break down the dominance of the mainstream and challenge the legitimacy of Brussels/Frankfurt/Washington.

G) The mainstream national politicians or all persuasions have just behaved as surrender monkeys to the Troika and have been prepared to sell their national interests down the drain to sit in pretty with the Troika elite.

H) We are waiting for the ECB now to formally announce that there is deflation in the Eurozone, and for the senior officials including the Vice President to resign as a result of their failure to manage their main agenda properly.”

 

Euskara Jendea (2)

Gogoratzekoa:

Dokumentala[1]

Euskara Jendea: ikastaroa[2]

Berriak:

Muga eta lege guztien gainetik, Aro Modernoan euskaldunak izateko nahia erakutsi zuen euskal jendeak[3]

Etsipenak jota, gerren artetik bizirik irtetea lortu zuten euskaldunak[4]

Euskaldun sortu ginen, eta, nahigabe guztien gainetik, horrek gaitu betetzen[5]

 

[1] Ikus http://www.euskarajendea.com/dokumentala/?mtheme_featured=5131&lang=en

[2] Ikus http://elgoibarkoizarra.com/albisteak/euskara-jendea-ikastaroa-gure-hizkuntzaren-eta-herriaren-historia-hobeto-ezagutzeko.

[3] Ikus http://www.elgoibarren.net/content/view/5410/39/.

[4] Ikus http://www.elgoibarren.net/content/view/5427/39/.

[5] Ikus http://www.elgoibarren.net/content/view/5451/39/.

E-dirua, zergak, sasi-monetak eta… urre estandarra

E-dirua edo diru elektronikoa:PayPal delakoa[1].

Ikus dezagun PayPal diru elektronikoko fundatzaileak dioena[2].

Zergek dirua zuzentzen dute.”

Izan ere,

Ultimately, USA demand for PayPal money is driven by Uncle Sam’s taxes.”

Eta Bitcoin delakoaz,

He knows that BitCoin is not a rival. BitCoin is not denominated in US currency, and has no taxes behind it. BitCoin is driven by drug dealers and speculators.”

Hona hemen John Carney-k Peter Thiel-i egindako elkarrizketa[3].

Eta R. Wray-k, artikulu hori komentatuz, dioenez,

Oh, I know, someone will comment that PayPal is not using sovereign currency–it is e-money, all electronic. However, PayPal essentially operates as an intermediary between banks and recipients, with PayPal accounts funded by debits to bank accounts or advances through credit card accounts. Uncle Sam does not protect PayPal, but it does stand behind the banks that provide accounts and credit cards.”

Gainera,

And Uncle Sam’s taxes ensure there will be a demand for “that in which taxes can be paid”.”

Eta Euskal Herrian?

EHn, ezjakintasuna hedatuz doa, etengabe.

Izan ere, jadanik ikusi dugunez, “Zergak eta dirua” izeneko gaia dela eta:

-        http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2011/08/11/zergak-eta-dirua-jaulkitzea/

-        http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2014/02/02/ben-bernanke-eta-dirua-inprimatzea/

-        http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2014/06/17/diruari-buruz-pentsatzen-duzuna-okerra-da/

-        http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2014/08/24/dirua-garrantzi-handikoa-da/

http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2014/08/30/diruaren-kolorea/

Hala ere, Euskal Herrian,

a)      Oraindik ere, sasi-monetak erabiltzea goraipatzen da[4]. Batzuek Iparraldean batez ere, euskoa moneta faltsua segitzen dute bultzatzen . Noiz arte?

b)      Iruzurra hedatuz doa. Orain, dirudienez, eusko elektronikoa martxan jarri nahi dute[5].

c)      Beste batzuek urreak mundu mailako erreserba ‘moneta’ (sic) izaten segitzen duela diote, behin eta berriz.

Hezteko, astoak izaten ez segitzeko, ikus Mosler-ek urre estandarraz dioena[6].

Bai, egia da, Euskal Herrian ezjakintasuna hedatuz doa, etengabe.

 

[1] Ikus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PayPal.

[2] Ikus Founder of PayPal Says Taxes Drive Money:

http://www.economonitor.com/lrwray/2014/11/22/founder-of-paypal-says-taxes-drive-money/.

[3] Ikus http://www.vox.com/2014/11/14/7213833/peter-thiel-palantir-paypal. Aipurik interesgarrienak hemen, ingelesez:

In a recent interview Web site Vox, Mr. Thiel linked the value of money to the requirement that taxes be paid in the government’s currency. “You will not be able to pay your taxes in Bitcoin. You have to pay them in dollars. If you don’t pay them with dollars, there will be people who will show up with guns to make you pay them,” Mr. Thiel said.

The idea that taxes drive the value of money—known as chartalism—goes back at least as far as German economist Georg Friedrich Knapp’s 1905 book “The State Theory of Money.” Its proponents contrast it with the view that money gets its value from either its link to a commodity or from its acceptance as a medium of exchange.http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/11/21/peter-thiel-explains-why-bitcoin-isnt-money/?mod=WSJBlog.

[4] Blog honetan aspertu arte salatu dugu etengabeko iruzur hori. Aski eta sobera!

[5] Ikus “Eusko” moneta elektronikoruntz. http://www.enbata.info/articles/eusko-moneta-elektronikoruntz.

[6] Ikus Gold standard thoughts:

http://moslereconomics.com/2012/08/24/gold-standard-thoughts/.

BANKsters: GANGSTERS

Definizioak

i) Definizio ezaguna

Gangster[1]

ii) Definizio ez hain ezaguna

Bankster[2]: banker + gangster

Finantza-Bibliak, alegia The Economist aldizkariak, horrela ere definitu zituen bankariak[3].

Aipatutako artikuluan esaten zaigu gaurko krisia nola sortu zuten bankster-ek.

Kasu, Britainia Handiko bankuen Bankuak, hots Barclais bankuak, zer nolako eragiketak eta operazioak bultzatu zituen azpimarratuz.

Baina afera globalagoa zen[4]: “…many of the biggest names in finance: the likes of Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, UBS, Deutsche Bank and HSBC. Employees, from New York to Tokyo, are implicated.

PS: Aferak bere horretan dirau[5].

 

[1] Euskaraz: http://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangster. Ingelesez: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangster.

[2] Ikus http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=banksters. Ingelesez: “Bankster is a derogatory term and is often used to refer to members of the banking industry who use dishonest or fraudulent means to make money. The term is said to have been coined by Leon Degrelle, a right wing journalist, in the 1930s. It is a contraction of the terms gangster and banker and is frequently applied in situations where vulnerable people have been exploited, such as in the US subprime loan scandal that precipitated the 2007/2008 financial crisis.”

[3] Ikus How Britain’s rate-fixing scandal might spread—and what to do about it: http://www.economist.com/node/21558260.

[4] Ikus The rotten heart of finance: http://www.economist.com/node/21558281.

[5] Ikus Cochrane Demands that the Public Unilaterally Disarm while the Banksters Loot: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/11/cochrane-demands-public-unilaterally-disarm-banksters-loot.html.

‘Puntua’

Eskozia, Katalunia,…

Galdera hauxe omen da: Eskozia, Katalunia eta orain?

‘Eskozia, Katalunia eta orain?‘ foroa egingo dute larunbatean, Baionan[1]. Eta dirudienez goi mailako adituak (sic) arituko dira hausnartzen. Mon dieu!

‘Orain’ delako hori, dirudienez, Euskal Herriari dagokionez, iparrik gabe dagoen EHri, non eta Iparralden.

Iparrik gabe eta erabat galduta, ohiko pragmatismo itsu eta aspergarrietan murgilduz, benetako arazoak (hala teorikoak nola praktikoak) ukitu gabe. Beldurrez? Ezjakintasunez?

Zeren esperoan dago gure herria? zioen Gabriel Arestik.

Zeren esperoan dago

gure herria?

Nondik etorriko zaio

argi berria?

Nola kenduko zaio

lepotik uztarria?

Noiz onartu behar du

etorkizun berria?

Eskozian aukera ederra galdu zen[2]. Moneta propioa zeukaten (libera eskoziarra), Banku Zentrala eta Altxor Publikoa[3], baina ez ziren ausartu bide horretatik abiatzeko[4], nahiz eta batzuek bide hori aproposa zela aipatuz[5].

Ene ustez, bozketaren galtzea, hein handi batean, arazo horri zegokion. Zeren zertarako erabili libera ingelesa, Londresko Banku Zentrala eta Altxor Publikoa, de facto Britainia Handiko kolonia bilakatuz eta, arlo ekonomikoan eta finantzarioan, aurreko egoeran, edo okerragoan, segitzeko?

Eskozia ez da inoiz egon, orain arte, independentziarako bidean. Argi eta ozen esanda[6].

Alta, porrotak ez ditu eraman eskoziarrak benetako hausnarketa sakona egiteko.

‘Puntuan’ ez zuten asmatu.

Ez naiz bertsolaritzaz ari. Mundu berezi horretan ez naiz inoiz sartu, segur aski sartuko ere ez.

Baina ‘puntua’ moneta propioa zen eta bada oraindik.

Beste alde batetik, Kataluniako bozketa berezian ikusitako arrakasta apartekoa izan da.

(Euskaldunok asko daukagu Kataluniatik ikasteko, hasi metodologia arloan, segi lan egiteko maneran eta nazioarteko harremanak zaintzeko eran, eta abar luze batean. Benetan eredugarria emandako lezioa. Ikasiko ote dugu?)

Baina, dakidalarik, ‘puntua’ ez zen ukitu ere ez[7].

Ukituko ote dute Baionan laster bilduko diren ‘goi mailako adituek’ (resic) puntu berezi hori?

Ba ote dakite ‘puntua’ egon badagoenik?

Ba ote dakite ezer finantzaz eta diru teoria moneta berriaz?

Quosque tandem?

 

[1] Ikus http://www.berria.eus/albisteak/103902/eskozia_katalunia_eta_orain_foroa_egingo_dute_larunbatean_baionan.htm.

[2] Ikus, kasu, ondoko linkak: http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2012/10/08/bill-mitchell-ek-eskoziaz/ eta http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2013/10/31/eskozia-independentziaranzko-bidean/.

[3] Ikus http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2013/05/06/eskoziako-libra/.

[4] Ikus http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2013/04/24/eskozia-analisiak-moneta-eta-politika-monetarioa/.

[5] Ikus http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2014/09/06/eskoziaren-moneta-propioaz-zenbait-iritzi/.

[6] Ikus http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2014/06/29/eskozia-independentziarako-bidean/.

[7] Ikus http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2014/11/12/katalunia-eta-dtm/.

Gobernu defizitei buruzko dogma zaharkituek hiltzen gaituzte

Horrela dio R. Wray[1].

Eta horretarako, AEB eta Europari buruzko politika ekonomikoaz, ondoko link ona aipatzen du[2].

Darrell Delamaide-k DTM goraipatuz[3] eta teoria berri horrek suposatzen duen iraultza ptolemaikoa ekonomialariek ez onartzeak[4], ezta establishment politikoak eta jendeak ere[5], ekarriko digun katastrofea azpimarratzen du[6].

‘Belatz jarrera’ fiskala[7], gobernu defiziten aurkakoa, ezagunegia dugu eta blog honetan behin baino gehiago aipatua.

Jarrera horren aurka dagoen posizio zientifiko justifikagarri bakarra Abba Lerner-en Functional Finance izeneko metodoa da[8], gaur egun ‘defizit hontza’ ikuspegitzat ezagutzen dena.

Hona hemen Wray-k argi eta garbi dioena:

i)                 Ex ante-ko aurrekontua behar da lehentasunak markatzeko eta benetako baliabideak esleitzeko[9].

ii)                Gobernuak ez duela dirurik esatea erabat ergela da[10].

iii)               Defizit belatzen eta defizit usoen ergelkeria literalki jendea hiltzen ari da. Heriotza horiek erabat baztergarriak dira

 

[1] Ikus Obsolete Dogmas about Government Budgets are Killing Us: http://www.economonitor.com/lrwray/2014/11/15/2219/.

[2] Ikus Darrell Delamaide: Opinion: Obsolete dogmas are crippling the world economy (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obsolete-dogmas-are-crippling-the-world-economy-2014-11-14?page=2).

[3] Ingelesez: “MMT, which bases models on the reality that the U.S. dollar is a fiat currency created out of thin air through government spending…

[4] Ingelesez: MMT “represents a Ptolemaic revolution for flat-earth economists mired in an 18th-century view of the world.”

[5] Ingelesez: “… however, neither the political establishment nor the public are ready for this radical a change…”

[6] Ingelesez: “In the meantime, we will continue to suffer the travesty of citizens in the two richest economies in the world, the U.S. and the EU, thrust into poverty, stress, and lower standards of living by bumbling politicians using obsolete paradigms for understanding how the world works.”

[7] Ikus Modern Monetary Theory, an unconventional take on economic strategy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/modern-monetary-theory-is-an-unconventional-take-on-economic-strategy/2012/02/15/gIQAR8uPMR_print.html.

[8] Ikus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_finance eta http://k.web.umkc.edu/keltons/Papers/501/functional%20finance.pdf.

Izatez, “A government’s budget should be formulated with a view to achieve the public purpose. The ex post budgetary outcome–whether surplus, deficit, or balanced–should never be a goal and should never be a measure of success.”

[9] Ingelesez: “Sure, we need an ex ante budget to prioritize, to allocate real resources, and to hold project management accountable. In some cases, it might even make sense to loosely link government spending on some projects to certain tax sources (bridge building to gasoline taxes or tolls). But there is no sense in gauging government policy effectiveness against the difference between total government revenues and total government spending.”

[10] Ingelesez: “Foregoing needed infrastructure, healthcare, pensions, education, housing, policing, or defense on the pretense that a sovereign government “has run out of money” (as our President says all the time) is just plain stupid. If we have unemployed resources domestically (or can hire and purchase them from abroad) then we can “afford” to put them to use.”

Katalunia eta DTM

Katalunian egondako bilakaera politikoari segitu diogu blog honetan.

‘Bozketaren’ azken emaitzak ez ditugu eman, ezagunegiak baitira prentsan, hala Kataluniako prentsan nola Euskal Herrikoan.

Datu esanguratsuak hemen ikus daitezke:

La participació total del 9-N: 2.305.290 vots[1].

(Hemen ere: 2,305,390 million Catalans vote on independence[2].)

Baina funtsean, Bill Mitchell-ek dioenez, Kataluniako eztabaidetan eta bozketan ‘puntua’ faltan bota da[3].

Zein da ‘puntua’?

‘Puntua’ moneta propioari dagokio.

Blog honetan ikusi dugun bezala, Eskozian antzeko ‘puntua’ faltan bota zen[4].

Ikus dezagun, gaingiroki bada ere, Mitchell-ek Kataluniaz aipatzen duena.

1. Testuingurua

Testuinguruari dagokionez, hona hemen zenbait zehaztasun:

i)                 Atzerapen ekonomikoa, defizit fiskala, zorra, EBZ eta eskari agregatua dira ikertu behar diren aldagaiak[5].

ii)                EBZren ahalmen eskasa benetan gastu agregatua babesteko[6], hazkunde ekonomikorako iturri dena.

iii)               Kataluniaren egoera ekonomikoa euroguneko parte izateari dagokio[7], hein handi batean.

iv)               Egoera kezkagarri hori aldatu behar zen. Baina horretaz ez da ezer entzuten[8].

Kasurako, The Guardian delakoak mitoa aipatzen segitzen du, alegia, hazkundearen muga Europako kredituaren prezio handiari dagokiola. Ez da ezer esaten erabiltzen diren muga fiskalei buruz, ezta muga horiei segitzen dioten politika fiskal pro-ziklikoei buruz ere[9], benetan oso kezkagarriak direnak.

Hortaz, ondorioa argi dago: independentziaren esanahiak alde ekonomikoa ere kontuan izan beharko du.

2. Zenbait datu ekonomiko

Aipaturiko artikuluan Mitchell-ek Espainiako eta Kataluniako zenbat datu ekonomiko ematen ditu. Hona hemen batzuk (irudiak jatorrizko artikuluan ikus daitezke.)

a) 2000tik 2011ra doan tarteko Barne Produktu Gordin (BPG) erreala Espainiarako, Madrilerako eta Kataluniarako.

Katalunia atzerapen sakonagoa jasoz, hazkundera lehenago itzuli zen.

b) Langabezia: langabezia tasa totalak 2000tik 2013ra.

c) Gazteriaren langabezia (15-24 urtekoak).

Kataluniaren etorkizuna hortxe dago[10], gazteriarengan.

d) BPG per capita.

Katalunia eta Madril EBko bataz bestekoaren antzekoak dira 2000tik 2011ra. Geroago posizioa jaitsi da.

e) Pobreziaren arriskuan dagoen jendea, populazio osoaren portzentaian.

Azken urteko bukaerarako, %20 kataluniar egon ziren kategoria horretan, euroa martxan jarri zenetik % 17,7 igo dena.

f) Langabezia tasak

2013ko erregio desberdinetako langabezia tasen irudiak (osoa eta gazteriarena) ez dira batere politak.

3. Argudioak

Bukatzeko, Mitchell-ek ondoko argudio nagusiak azpimarratzen ditu.

1) Argudio nagusia:  ‘España nos roba”[11]. Ingelesezko prentsak argudio hori errepikatu du[12].

2) Datuak, alta, ez bide dira hain argi, Mitchell-en ustez[13].

4. Faltan botatzen dena

Artikuluan dagoen zatirik garrantzitsuena ondoan aipatzen da.

(i) Katalunia eta Europa

Independentziaren kasuan, Katalunia EBtik botako ote dute?[14]

Norvegia, Suitza eta Groenlandia ongi samar daude[15].

Islandia ere[16].

(ii) Katalunia eta zor publikoa

Taktika hau[17] Eskozian erabili zen, Eskoziako populazioa izutzeko.

Sasi-argudioa ondoko linkean ikus daiteke[18].

Beherago ikusiko dugunez, eta Mitchell-ek gogoratzen duenez, “hori guztia Kataluniak sistema monetarioarekin zer egiten duenari dagokio” (“…it depends on what Catalonia does with respect to its monetary system.”)

(iii) Fondo erregionalen likidezia

Mitchell-ek berak egindako analisi baten arabera[19], “It appears that in 2014, Catalonia is to receive 7,000 million euros or around 1/3 of the total disbursements by the fund.”

Argudiorik sakonenak segidan.

(iv) Estatu federalari dagozkionak

Financial Times berak aipatzen du estatu federalaren kasua, Kataluniaren fondoak aipatzerakoan[20].

Mitchell ados dago aurreko linkean aipatutako bi puntu horiekin, alegia, edozein estatu federaletan azaltzen diren puntuekin.

Afera da, eta hauxe da garrantzitsuena, ‘funtsezko puntua’ faltan botatzen dela, sezesionista gehienek ere galtzen dutena.

Zein da puntu hori?

Espainiar estatu ez da estatu federal bat, eta espainiar gobernuak ezin ditu bermatu lehen mailako zerbitzu publikoak zeren bere moneta propioa erabiltzeari uko egin baitzion eurogunean sartu zenean.

(v) Kataluniaren gaixotasun ekonomikoa: euroa

Katalunia jasaten duen gaixotasun ekonomikoa, beste kausa guztien gainetik eta batez ere, euroguneko parte izateari dagokio[21].

Baina Kataluniako politikariek ez dute nahi euroa uztea[22].

(vi) Moneta propioa

Moneta propiorik gabe Katalunia bono merkatuen biktima bilakatuko da, jaitsiera ekonomikoetan. Erosten egongo da Egonkortasun eta Hazkunde Akordioaren barruan (Stability and Growth Pact), zeinak EBko estatu kideei birtualki ezinezko egiten baitie oparotasun sostengatua lortzea.

Italian orain dela gutxi gertatu den moduan[23], Kataluniak amore emango du Bruselak austeritatea eskatuko dioenean.

Ondorioa

Bill Mitchell-ek dioen moduan,

Catalonia should develop its own independent nation and use its own currency to build on its prosperity. It certainly has the economic structure in which to prosper materially.

(Zabaldu, arren.)

 

[1] Ikus http://www.vilaweb.cat/noticia/4218762/20141110/participacio-total-9-n-2305290-vots.html.

[2] Ikus http://english.vilaweb.cat/politics/2305390-million-catalans-vote-on-independence.

[3] Ikus Catalonia’s vote largely misses the point: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=29454.

[4] Ikus, besteak beste, ondoko linkak: http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2012/10/08/bill-mitchell-ek-eskoziaz/ eta http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2013/10/31/eskozia-independentziaranzko-bidean/.

[5] Mitchell-en hitzez, ingelesez: “The bets are on at the moment that the Eurozone will dip back into recession for the third time since 2008 such is the incompetence of the policy makers and the policy framework they have erected to operate within. There is constant talk that the ECB will once again step in to save the day but all they can do is stop a nation going broke by guaranteeing their fiscal deficits and/or buying their debt.”

[6] Ingelesez: “The central bank has very limited capacity to actually stimulate aggregate spending, which is the source of economic growth when there is massive idle productive capacity. In this context, the vote on Sunday by Catalonians (well around 33 per cent of them), which was overwhelmingly yes (81 per cent), is interesting although I doubt it will lead to anything constructive – like the Community exiting the Eurozone and really becoming independent.”

[7] Ingelesez: “…the economic circumstances the Community finds itself in are a direct consequence of being part of the Eurozone. That would have to change for there to be any meaning to the calls for secession. I don’t hear those arguments coming out strongly at all.”

[8] Ingelesez: “That would have to change for there to be any meaning to the calls for secession. I don’t hear those arguments coming out strongly at all.”

[9]  Ingelesez: “In terms of the likelihood of the triple-dip recession, the UK Guardian article (November 10, 2014) – Stagnant growth raises spectre of recession across eurozone – continued to spread the myth that the constraint on growth was the high price of credit in Europe.

It claimed that “the eurozone risked slipping into a self-fulfilling period of stagnation without further efforts to cut the cost of credit”.

No mention of the fiscal constraints that are being imposed throughout and the pro-cyclical fiscal policies that follow those constraints.”

[10] Ingelesez: “Catalonia’s future is right there! Being undermined by its association with Spain and its use of the euro. Youth unemployment rates of this magnitude are a disaster and would normally require immediate attention using job creation programs.”

[11] Ingelesez: “They claim that their economic output (regional income) is siphoned off in the form of taxes by the central government to support the provision of public services elsewhere in Spain.

It is an interesting argument.”

[12]  Ingelesez: “The English media has also supported the argument that Catalonia is being ripped off – for example, the Financial Timesarticle (May 5, 2014) – Time to tackle the Catalonia crisis – claimed that secession was not a good idea given the uncertainty about EU and euro membership but that the region should gain more independence.

The FT rehearsed the usual arguments:

For years a healthy chunk of its tax revenues has in effect been given away to help fund the rest of the country’s public services. The sense that Catalonia is bailing out the poorer Spanish regions has become increasingly painful for its people.”

[13] Mitchell-ek dioenez, ingelesez: “It appears that the difference between what Catalonia pays in taxes from its regional income and what it receives back from the state is equal to around 8.5 per cent of its regional income per year.

If regional income was unchanged that amount reinvested back in the Community would be very beneficial. True enough. But perhaps that discrepancy is illusory once the Community would be responsible for the provision of all its infrastructure (significant amounts currently provided by the central government).

Apparently, that component is equal to around 2.7 per cent of Catalonia’s regional income at least.” (Ikus  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/22/economics-catalan-independence-dont-add-up)

[14] Ingelesez: “Then the question arises whether the regional income would endure as an independent nation. The claim by those opposing the secession is that Catalonia would be expelled from the EU and would suffer constraints on its trade and businesses would abandon the new nation.

I don’t believe that argument.”

[15] Ingelesez: “Nations such as Norway, Switzerland and Greenland do not seem to suffer from being outside the EU. Norway and Switzerland have never been members, but Greenland was part of the EEC, courtesy of Denmark’s membership.

Once it attained self-rule in 1979, strong domestic opposition against the EEC (particularly over fishing rights) led to Greenland formally leaving the EEC in 1985.

Nothing obviously bad has happened to them as a consequence. Interestingly, as part of its exit, Greenland negotiated the so-called ‘Greenland Treaty’, which allowed the nation to remain subject to some of the provisions of the European Treaties by dint of its status under the ‘Overseas Countries and Territories’ provision within the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Therefore it seems possible that any EU nation could abandon the euro unilaterally, negotiate to leave the EU, but on exit, sign a special ‘Catalonia Treaty’ (for example), which could, if there was the political will and the sense of mutual benefit, leave the nation within the EU scope.”

[16] Ingelesez: “It can also be argued that Iceland, another non-EU nation, has recovered from its financial collapse much more quickly and robustly as a result of exercising its own sovereignty.

It is highly unlikely that had it been part of the Eurozone, it would have navigated through the crisis as well as it did. The Troika would have surely imposed draconian austerity on it, forced it to prop up the zombie banks and carry the resulting financial burden, and demanded it to pay the spurious claims made by the British and Dutch governments for recompense for the losses their citizens incurred during the bank collapses.”

[17]  Ikus http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/22/economics-catalan-independence-dont-add-up.

[18] Ingelesez: “…the current Catalan public debt – the biggest in Spain by far – would have to be added the share of Spanish debt attributable to Catalonia in the division of assets according to international law. All that would produce an economic crisis that would last for many years, and the region that emerges from that crisis would not be the one we know now, but a much poorer Catalonia.”(Ikus http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/22/economics-catalan-independence-dont-add-up)

[19] Ingelesez: “I did some further exploration to analyse the distribution of funds under the – Fondo de Liquidez Autonómica – (Regional Liquidity Fund) or FLA, which was set up by the Spanish government in July 2012, to assist the regional communities that were unable to borrow in private bond markets to keep their local governments operating.

The FLA was endowed with 23,000 million euros from the central government funds. It then instructed the so-called – Instituto de Crédito Oficial – to manage the funds and make loans to the communities. In 2013, loans were provided to Andalusia, Catalonia, Asturias, Cantabria, Castilla-La Mancha, Valencia, Canary Islands, Murcia and the Balearic Islands.”

[20] Ingelesez: “Even the FT said that “any federal state, however loosely constituted, there are bound to be transfers from rich regions to poor” although it urged the transfers to be reduced so that Catalonia’s “public services should not be underfunded when compared with those in other parts of Spain”.”

[21] Mitchell-en hitzez: “I support the democratic rights of all citizens to determine their own fortunes. The introduction of the euro and the policy conduct since has not reflected that sort of process.

The citizenship had little idea of what their political leaders were taking them into (the leaders had little idea too).

The whole monetary system was imposed on the population and has since been justified with lies and fudged data.

But the reality is clear – it doesn’t work.”

[22]  Ingelesez: “The Catalan News Agency report (September 19, 2013) – The Catalan President guarantees that Catalonia “will have the euro as its currency whatever happens” – tells you what that the independence move is unlikely to help the Community much.

Yes, Catalonia accounts for about 18 per cent of Spain’s real GDP and is home to many multi-national firms. It has a sophisticated regional economy.

[23] Ikus http://moslereconomics.com/2014/10/29/italy-surrenders/.