DTM espainieraz (in progress, prozesuan)

Hasierarako, ikus Espainia aurrera bide doa…

Segida:

DTM-z, lan batzuk azalduko dira espainieraz…

Hona lehena:

La Teoría Monetaria Moderna: la alternativa a la ortodoxia (I)

 

En el caso de gobiernos que emiten su propia moneda, es decir, que tienen soberanía monetaria, y teniendo en cuenta la teoría económica de la TMM, (…) desmontan en sus libros toda una serie de mitos que se venden como verdades indiscutibles. Es falso que los gobiernos estén sujetos a restricciones presupuestarias como los hogares y empresas. Es falso que los déficits presupuestarios sean malos y una carga para la economía. Es falso que los déficits públicos aumenten los tipos de interés, desmantelen el sector privado y provoquen inflación. Es falso que los déficits públicos confisquen ahorros que podrían ser destinados a la inversión. Es falso que los déficits públicos supongan una deuda para las generaciones futuras. Es falso que los déficits públicos de hoy impliquen impuestos más altos mañana. Por mucho que ciertas afirmaciones estén asumidas en la psique colectiva, en realidad no tienen validez alguna en al caso de países emisores de su propia moneda.”

(Segituko du)

Gehigarria

Warren Mosler-ek ere badauka zertxobait espainieraz:

Warren Mosler-en liburua espainieraz

Elkarrizketa: Warren Mosler (espainieraz)

Warren Mosler espainieraz (2)


 

Nazionalizazioaz hitz bi

Bill Mitchell-en The case for re-nationalisation – Part 21

Hona hemen ukitutako punturik garrantzitsuenak:

(a) Albistea pribatizazioaz2

(b) Frantziako gobernua industria elektriko britainiarraren jabe3

(c) Aurrez esandakoa eta errealitatean azaldu zena desberdinak dira4

(d) Hortaz, ‘Manifestu Aurrerakoi‘ batek sektore askoko nazionalizazioa kontuan hartu behar du5

(e) Jadanik ikusitakoa: Post-Brexit: politika-paradigma berri bat behar da6

(1) Pribatizazioak ez du funtzionatzen:

(f) Ez, ez du funtzionatu7

(g) Gehiegi pribatizatu dute politikari neoliberalek8

(h) Ebidentziak dioena9

(i) ‘Monopolio naturalak’10

(j) Margaret Thatcher-en pribatizazioa izan zen Frantziarako bir-nazionalizazioa11

(k) Bir-nazionalizazioa, James Meek12

(l) Australian ere, antzekoa gertatu zen13

(2) Birnazionalizatutako enpresak eta ongizatea:

(m) 1981ean, Paul Cohen Frantzian14

(n) Mitterrand 1982an eta ideologia15

(ñ) Errealitatea Frantzian: ideologia eta gertakizunak16

(o) Eztabaidan galdutako puntua17

(p) Faltsukeriak pribatizazioa dela eta18

(3) Trenbideak:

(q) Zenbait datu adierazgarri19

(r) Birnazionalizatzeko abantailak20

(4) Bankugintza:

(s) Banku sistemaren birnazionalizazioa21

Ondorioak:

(i) Pribatizazioaren porrotaren ebidentzia: luze eta argia22

(ii) Politika aurrerakoi baten agenda bir-nazionalizaziorako23

(iii) Bankugintza eta nazionalizazioa24

When we consider the essential progressive reforms to the financial system (…),

a starting point will be

to return banks to being banks rather than gambling casinos


2 Ingelesez: “There was an interesting article written in the London Review of Books (September 13, 2012) by regular contributor James Meek in – How We Happened to Sell Off Our Electricity (…). It discussed how the obsession with privatisation in Britain, which was meant to reduce state control of this sector, has led to the state still being dominant in electricity production.

3 Ingelesez: “The only problem for the British is that the French government now owns a large swathe of the ‘privatised’ British electricity industry. The outcome demonstrates the absurdity of the whole privatisation debate. This example is not unique. State-owned enterprises have eaten up inefficient privately owned firms all around the world as governments sell off public assets in the belief that prices will fall, services will improve and costs will be lower.

4 Ingelesez: “(… in the belief that prices will fall, services will improve and costs will be lower. )

The reality now some 35 years or so into the privatisation experiment is that none of these claims have been realised. In many cases, costs are higher and the privatised firms rely on higher public subsidies than was the case when the operations were completely in public hands. Prices are no uniformly lower after privatisation. Profit-seeking firms seek to gain by cutting costs and under investing in essential infrastructure, which leads to poor outcomes for Society (blackouts, poor repair times etc). And, millions of jobs have been lost in this cost-cutting mania..“

5 Ingelesez: ”As a result, we argue that a ‘Progressive Manifesto’ must include the case for re-nationalisation of many sectors, which are intrinsic to advancing the well-being of Society. Progressive parties should start researching and demonstrating how this policy will take us into the next century where green, sustainable production is the norm and there are high levels of public service available from these key sectors, rather than allow critics to argue that the re-nationalisation agenda is just a return to the dark old days of inefficient state enterprises where cronyism, nepotism and corruption was rife.

6 Ingelesez: “In the first part of this blog (July 13, 2016) – Brexit signals that a new policy paradigm is required including re-nationalisation – I suggested that re-nationalisation of certain sectors has to return as a key industry policy plank for any aspiring progressive political party.

I have written about this in previous blogs (among others) which you can consult for reference and background purposes:

1. Privatisation … was yesterday’s joke (March 6th, 2009).

2. Public infrastructure 101 – Part 1 (March 20, 2009).

3. Public ownership rules airport rankings! (June 9th, 2009).

4. Nationalising the banks (October, 26, 2010).

5. Public infrastructure does not have to earn commercial returns (December 20th, 2010)

6. Qantas should be nationalised (again) (November 3, 2011).

7. Welcome to the world of privatised electricity and canned music (October 3, 2012).

8. Privatisation failure – the micro analogue of fiscal surplus obsessions (January 6th, 2015).

In this second part, I expand on that assertion to give it some evidence base.”

7 Ingelesez: “Privatisation didn’t work

There is a litany of evidence after 30-40 years of practice to show that the promises held out for privatisation of large state enterprises have not been delivered.

Privatisation was one of the first planks of neo-liberalism and governments around the world, increasingly infested with the Monetarist virus, rushed to outdo each other in how many state assets they could sell in the shortest possible time.

Legal firms and management consultants made a fortune in assisting these governments in what were often fire sales. Politically, a failed privatisation was seen as a disaster and to avoid that ignominy, governments sold assets at well below any reasonable market value to ensure the sales were quick.

Then they could parrot their neo-liberal epithets such as “we are all shareholders now” or “we are all capitalists now” as if that would convince us that the basic class divisions in capitalism were gone and we were all seeking profit.

Privatisation was part of the swing to market-based allocations and a blurring of public interest with private profit. The two rarely go together if ever.

8 Ingelesez: “Around the world, neo-liberal politicians in the pay of the lobbyists for big capital have privatised:

1. State banks.

2. Publicly-owned airlines and airport infrastructure.

3. State prison systems.

4. Energy generation, distribution and retailing.

5. Public transport systems.

6. Public hospitals and health care facilities.

7. Public employment services.

8. Public telecommunications.

9. Public water and sewerage utilities.

10. Public postal services.

among other central aspects of our Society.”

9 Ingelesez:The evidence suggests that none of these transfers to private ownership have resulted in improvements in the well-being of the Society.

In some case, the privatisation failed outright and the asset was returned back into public ownership (for example, Swissair) because the state maintained the risk of the activity (such as a hospital), despite the claims by proponents of privatisation that a major advantage of the sale was that the risk shifted to the profit-seeking private owner.

In the case of large-scale national infrastructure, the risk can never be shifted from the public to the private domain.

A maximum security women’s prison (Dame Phyllis Frost Centre) in Victoria (Australia) was built as a private enterprise in 1996. By October 2000, the Victorian government was forced to assume ownership and control after its private owners (Corrections Corporation of Australia) were deemed to have seriously mismanaged the facility. So much for the risk transfer!”

10 Ingelesez: “The case for state ownership is particularly strong where the sector is characterised by what we call natural monopoly.

A natural monopoly arises when the infrastructure costs of setup are high and the resulting market can only support one supplier. The single firm can exploit so-called economies of scale (size advantages) which reduce their operating costs to ensure the product/service is supplied at the lowest possible price.

The telecommunication, mass transport, postal services, electricity and water sectors are often considered to be prime natural monopolies.

In other words, in these sectors, transfer of ownership will just create a private monopoly, which then needs heavy regulation to ensure it delivers socially beneficial outcomes.

In the London Review of Books blog (June 19, 2009) – Liberté, Egalité, ElectricitéJames Meek wrote:

I paid my electricity bill today, and spent some time trying to work out how much of my bill goes to the French government to defray the costs of running that large, complex and hexagonal country. I don’t live in France. I live in London and, like millions of other Britons, buy my electricity from EDF, aka Electricité de France, which snapped up three of England’s privatised electricity minnows in 2002. Privatisation, a policy supposed to liberate us from the burden of allegedly inefficient state-owned industries, has led to more than five million households and businesses in this country buying electricity and gas from a state-owned industry in that country.

The French power company EDF is “85 per cent owned by the French government”.

He later expanded on that discussion in his 2012 LRB article cited in the Introduction. His central thesis, in relation to the privatisation of electricity in Britain, is that:

What has happened is not what they promised or intended when they put Britain’s state-owned electricity industry on the block.

11 Ingelesez: “While Margaret Thatcher berated the people with claims that the privatisations would reduce the role of the state in electricity sector the reality is that “the future of Britain’s energy supply now hinges on state-owned French companies based in Paris”.

Thatcher’s “patriotic tones of of how, with millions of people buying shares in former state industries, privatisation was giving ‘power back to the people’” have been shown by the reality to be hollow.

James Meek concludes that rather than give “power back to the people”, the privatisatinos have taken the “power away from the people”.

He considers Thatcher’s ideological pursuits to be “naive” because she failed to realise that other nations (such as France) were not going to privatise these key sectors but would exploit the British folly and ‘renationalise’ British assets that Thatcher had privatised.

But it has been a case of “Renationalised … for France”.”

12 Ingelesez: “James Meek documents the poor results that followed the early privatisations – major job losses, price gouging, massive profits, and reduced investment levels.

He documents the shift to gas-fired power which then compromised the profitability of the coal-fired technology and flooded the market with electricity that, in turn, undermined the viability of many firms within the industry that could no longer compete on costs.

Further, while wholesale electricity prices fell dramatically “customers saw no change in their bills”. The “squeeze in profits” brought about by the entry of gas-fired power stations did not benefit consumers. The private owners who could reduce costs the quickest were the beneficiaries.

The reality was that “(e)xcessive profit margins simply shifted from one set of electricity companies to another”.

And then the French arrived.

James Meek summarises the period of privatisation in this way:

Electricity privatisation hasn’t been a success in bringing down prices. Most recent figures suggest that British prices are typically right in the middle of the European average … It has been a failure in terms of British industry and management; the best measure of the scale of folly and betrayal by politicians of both parties is the simple fact that a reliable, badly run British electricity system was destroyed, rather than being reformed, only so that a large part of it could be taken over by a foreign version of the original. And it has been a failure in terms of clarity, in the sense that in order to fund investment, governments that boast about not raising taxes, or of taking low-earners out of the tax bracket, permit predominantly foreign-owned electricity companies to collect flat-rate taxes that hit the poor disproportionately.

13 Ingelesez: “… not only have prices risen and service quality falling in the privatised states, but the companies are generating massive profits, which are being eaten up by massive (and totally unjustifiable) executive salaries.

This pattern of abuse runs throughout the privatised sector and provides a powerful case for re-nationalisation.”

14 Ingelesez: “How re-nationalised enterprises can advance well-being

The point that James Meek makes in relation to French state companies dominating the privatised British electricity industry opens up another discussion that is relevant.

The 2010 study by Paul CohenLessons from the Nationalization Nation: State-Owned Enterprises in France – which I cited in Part 1 of this discussion, outlined how France did not go down the privatisation route that was taken by the Anglo nations.

It is clear that the austerity turn by Mitterrand’s government in 1983 was a major neo-liberal shift in French policy making and set in place France’s acceptance of the Delors Report in 1989 and the Maastricht process two years later.

But while France clearly abandoned much of its Post-World War 2 planning ethos in favour of a German price stability obsession, it did not follow the Thatcher governments obsessive privatisation agenda.

Indeed, as Cohen notes:

France’s embrace of nationalization did not in fact begin with the Socialist François Mitterrand’s 1981 election to the presidency, but decades earlier and under a right-wing president. With France’s economy in ruins at the end of the Second World War, ravaged by German requisitions and Allied bombing, the post-Liberation provisional government led by Charles De Gaulle, with broad support across the political spectrum, launched a wave of nationalizations in order to direct the reconstruction effort. Between 1944 and 1946, the state took control of businesses in energy, transportation, and finance. Private coal companies were reorganized into the public mining giant Charbonnages de France; gas and electricity producers were likewise nationalized to create Électricité de France and Gaz de France. The state absorbed Air France. It nationalized the country’s eleven largest insurance companies, along with Banque de France and the four biggest commercial banks (including Crédit Lyonnais, Société Générale, and what would later become BNP) … Taken together, these measures transformed the state into a giant economic actor: in 1946, it directly controlled 98 percent of coal production, 95 percent of electricity, 58 percent of the banking sector, 38 percent of automobile production, and 15 percent of total GDP. Beginning with Jean Monnet, the first director of the General Commissariat for Planning, the government managed public enterprises and drafted five-year plans in order to shape long-term economic development.

And the large public ownership did not undermine overall growth in France nor productivity growth relative to the US and other more market-oriented nations.

15 Ingelesez: “In 1982, Mitterrand expanded the French public ownership by taking over various industries (defense, computers, pharmaceutical and banking).

By then Monetarism was rife, and both the conservative and Socialist parties in France, reversed some of the nationalisations during the 1980s and beyond.

Cohen argues that this:

move away from state ownership was not in fact born of a rational economic calculus but rather of specific political choices.

The Right were infested with Monetarism and the Left was blinded “by its commitment to European unification and to France’s special relationship with its closest ally, Germany” (beginning with the austerity turn of Mitterrand), which meant France had to obey “the strict free market rules imposed by Maastricht and subsequent EU treaties” which “committed member states to privatization”.

The triumph of ideology over fact!

16 Ingelesez:”The facts were that the nationalised French industries were very successful.

The advantages that the nationalised industries gave the French government were many:

1. Cohen says that “successive governments used their stakes in France’s traditional smokestack industries to guide industrial reorganizations.”

This is particularly relevant for progressive aspirations for a green, sustainable energy sector based on renewables.

Public ownership allows the government to shift technologies within the energy sector more easily than if the sector is privately owned and operated.

The transitions from one labour intensive technology to renewable energy with less labour requirements is more easily managed with less cost to workers and their families given that the public sector can absorb the displaced workers more readily.

Cohen compares the impacts of the closure of coal-based power generation in France on the coal communities favourably with “Thatcherite Britain’s brutal mine closures and bloody union-police confrontations.”

2. Publicly-owned firms can ride out economic cycles more easily than for-profit firms. The subsidies to keep a public operation functioning in bad times are typically lower than socialising private losses (Cohen, 2010).

We saw during the GFC that many governments had to effectively nationalise several large banks to protect deposits. The fear of collapse would disappear if held in public hands.

Which then raises the question of rate of return. I covered that issue in this blog – Public infrastructure does not have to earn commercial returns – and demonstrated that some large public entities deliver community benefits that mean the concept of commercial profits is irrelevant.

Public service means just that!

3. Cohen provides evidence to show that even on commercial terms, publicly-owned enterprises that are largely producing for a consumer market, can be very successful. He uses the car industry to make his case.

He concludes that:

State management is no small part of the reason why France today is home to profitable automobile manufacturers whose product lines are focused on small, innovative, fuel-efficient cars.”

17 Ingelesez:”The point that was lost in the privatisation debate is that the actual legal ownership status of the activity is not the reason for success or otherwise.

Organisations are successful if they have a culture of success. That culture can survive in private and public enterprises. Neither sector has a monopoly on successful organisational culture.

Which means that if a public enterprise is organised and managed well and understands that its primary charter is to deliver benefits that advance the well-being of the people then it is typically preferable to maintain its public status rather than compromise its objectives by forcing it to pursue private profit.

4. Cohen also shows that “public investment to be an invaluable tool for creating new industries and stimulating growth”, which is an argument we will deal with in more detail when we consider the literature on the entrepreneurial state and the role the state plays in innovation.

(Gogoratu Mazzucato: Mariana Mazzucato-ren lanez hitz batzuk)

It is clear, that some state-owned enterprises have been disasters. But that sort of outcome is not exclusive to the public sector.

The GFC is testament to the fact that the private sector is capable of massive inefficiency and dysfunction.

Cohen concludes by saying that:

Over the entire period since the Liberation, French planning’s record of creating employment and prosperity is considerably better than neoliberal critics would have it. The state has used planning as a flexible tool to restructure companies and save jobs, to create new industries from scratch and promote job growth, to soften deindustrialization’s blow to workers and their communities, and to orient transportation and energy policy onto more sustainable pathways.

Which suggest that re-nationalisation should be part of a progressive policy agenda.

18 Ingelesez:”The arguments for privatisation based on textbook free market narratives, which were powerfully persuasive in the 1980s, have now been shown to be false.

Privatisation has accomplished many things (increased income and wealth inequality etc) but it has not delivered on the things that were claimed and used to justify the sell-offs.

It is time to rethink all of that and to understand the advantages that these state-owned sectors can play in advancing the well-being of Society and insulating it from the vicissitudes of capitalist fluctuations.”

19 Ingelesez: “In the recent British Labour leadership tussle, it was argued by the now leader Jeremy Corbyn and one of the principal challengers Andy Burnham that the UK railways should be renationalised.

A recennt study (Badstuber, 2015) found that:

the evidence suggests that integrating the UK’s expensive and fragmented rail network under public ownership could save hundreds of millions and also provide a better service.

[Reference: Badstuber, N. (2015) The case for re-nationalising Britain’s railways, August 28, 2015. LINK.]

And the people who use the service (the citizens) seem to agree. A 2014 survey from the London-based YouGov – Why the public want to nationalise the railways – showed that “British people support re-nationalising the railways by 60-20% – for the main reason that they should be accountable to taxpayers rather than shareholders”.

The three principal reasons given for thus support was accountability (62 per cent), lower fares (47 per cent) and increased cost effectiveness (43 per cent). Other concerns which drove the support for re-nationalisation were better working conditions for rail workers, better customer service, improved punctuality, and cleaner and more comfortable trains.

The results provide a damning assessment of the privatisation experiment which began in 1995 under the guise of “harnessing the management skills, flair and entrepreneurial spirit of the private sector to provide better services for the public” (see Secretary of State for Transport, 1992).

[Reference: Secretary of State for Transport (1992) New Opportunities for the Railways: The Privatisation of British Rail, White Paper, July, London, HMSO.]

A report prepared by the House of Commons Library (2013) showed that rail fares in Britain rose in real terms (that is, faster than the general inflation rate) after privatisation, especially for the long distance operators.

[Reference: House of Commons Library (2013) Railways: fares statistics,December 30, 2013. LINK.]

The House of Commons Library study found that by 2013, the real change in rail fares was 23 per cent.

The first phase of the privatisation specified under the 1993 Railways Act was a disaster. The private company responsible for the provise of rail network infrastructure proved to be incompetent – underinvesting and high cost – and a government body (Network Rail) had to be be created to take back the responsibility.

The so-called management excellence that the Tories foreshadowed in its early justifications for privatisation has proven to provide nothing more than a highly subsidised, inefficient service that does not advance the well-being of British society.

On December 17, 2012, the House of Commons received a report from the Transport Committee (2012), which showed that the total subsidy to the rail industry had risen (in real terms) from around “£2.75 billion (in 2011-12 prices) in the late 1980s to £4 billion today”.

[Reference: British Transport Committee (2012) Transport Committee – Seventh Report Rail 2020, December 17, 2012. LINK.]

Clearly, the railways in Britain continue to rely heavily on British government payments for survival (and profitability).

20 Ingelesez: “Badstuber (2015) outlines a viable path to re-nationalisation based on the expiry of the current franchises. She says that the British government could steadily re-create an integrated network and service by taking the franchises “back into the public sector one piece at a time, at no cost.”

She lists the benefits of the railways re-nationalisation (which are common for other large re-nationalisations) as:

1. Government would get the dividend payments not the private shareholders. Although this is a point commonly made by progressives who advocate re-nationalisation, from an Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) perspective the benefits to the public coffers only matter if the government running the services does not issue its own currency.

So in Australia, the railways are run by State governments (rather than the Federal government) and the increased revenue would allow the government to reinvest the funds to maintain a high quality service.

2. A range of so-called ‘savings’ on “subcontractors”, the operation of the tendering system and administrative costs of the regulative environment would be achieved.

Again, the issue for a national government is not that it cannot make these payments – it clearly can as the currency issuer. The real issue is why should it divert public spending into areas that do not advance public benefit but help to underwrite profits for a small group of shareholders, who would otherwise own insolvent companies.

But, more so, is that argument that the major arguments for privatisation – lower costs, lower prices, better services etc – have not been delivered.

It is clear that the railways in Britain (and elsewhere) should return to public ownership and used as part of a new strategy to take cars off the road and improve the attractiveness of mass transport systems.

21 Ingelesez: “Banking

Re-nationalising the banking system would eliminate the largely unresolvable tension that exists in the current system where banks occupy a special protected place and are not really allowed to fail by dint of government support (implicit or otherwise) yet at the same time behave just like risk-taking entrepreneurial firms, paying exorbitant executive salaries and skewing their operations to the interests of their shareholders.

The tension between the public nature of banking and the intrinsic social role they play and the greedy pursuit of private profit – or the privatisation of profit and the socialisation of loss – is palpable and unsustainable.

Socialisation the profits and loss and steering the activities of banks 100 per cent towards the advancement of public purpose would go a long way towards eliminating the worst features of the banking system which culminated in the global financial crisis.

The nationalisation of banks would mean that a key social institution is serving only one master the public rather than compromising its public charter to line the coffers of their private owners.

When we consider the essential progressive reforms to the financial system in a later blog, a starting point will be to return banks to being banks rather than gambling casinos.

Part of that process, should be the re-nationalisation of the banking sector.”

22 Ingelesez: “There is now ample evidence available which shows that the major arguments used to justify the wide-scale privatisations in the 1980s and 1990s have not been shown to have substance.

There is no unambiguous evidence that shows the the privatised sectors now offer lower costs, lower prices, better services and better working conditions.

It was often claimed that the privatisations would just shift workers from the public sector to the private sector and as a result their pay would rise in line with superior productivity growth arising from the better management.

What happened was that the major job losses were accompanied in many cases by suppressed wages growth and worsening conditions of work.

23 Ingelesez: “A progressive policy agenda should embrace re-nationalisation and a way to reduce the uncertainty for workers arising from the private spending fluctuations and to use these public enterprises as vehicles to accomplish necessary technology changes in areas such as mass transportation, energy and water.”

24 Ingelesez: “They should use a nationalised banking system to help stabilise financial markets and reduce the likelihood of another GFC arising, which was the direct result of a deregulated financial system running out of control through greed and corruption.

These large sectors, which provide necessary goods and services to citizens, should always be in public hands, with a service ethic rather than an ambition for private profit and cost cutting.

Non dago dirua Europar Batasunean?

Behin baino gehiago aipatu dugu Ezkerraren gabezia EB osoan, baita gure Euskal Herrian ere.

Aspalditik proposatu dugu irteera duin bat EHrako.

Bi kasuetan, oraingo euroa erabiliz (defizit publikoa handituz), eta EB-k hori ez onartzean, moneta propio erabiliz, edozein delarik haren izena.

Horretarako, Warren Mosler-en proposamenak erabili ditugu.

Hona hemen, berriz, esandakoa:

(1) Litekeena ote eurogunean austeritatearekin bukatzea?

http://www.unibertsitatea.net/otarrea/gizarte-zientziak/ekonomia/litekeena-ote-eurogunean-austeritatearekin

(2) Bideragarria ote da euskal estatu independentea?

http://www.unibertsitatea.net/otarrea/gizarte-zientziak/ekonomia/bideragarria-ote-da-euskal-estatu-independentea

(3) DTM lau eskematan (euroa eta lira)

http://www.unibertsitatea.net/otarrea/gizarte-zientziak/ekonomia/dtm-lau-eskematan-euroa-eta-lira

(4) Ongi etorri euskoa!

http://www.unibertsitatea.net/otarrea/gizarte-zientziak/ekonomia/ongi-etorri-euskoa

(Oharra: EHexit ezin da egin edozein modutan, desastre hutsa izan daitekeelako. Horretarako ere, beste edozein eginkizunetan bezalaxe, jakin behar da, nahikotxo gainera!)

Gainera erakutsi dugunez, egungo afera ez dagokio estatuaren tamainari, estatu horretan erabiltzen diren politika fiskal eta monetarioari baizik.

Hona eredurik ereduena:

(5) Islandia, eredurik ereduena

http://www.unibertsitatea.net/otarrea/gizarte-zientziak/ekonomia/islandia-eredurik-ereduena

EHn aldiz, uste da dirua zergen bidez lortu daitekeela. Izan ere, sasi-politika hauexek erabili nahi dira:

a) Zergak handitzea, dirua jasotzeko eta diru horrekin politika ekonomikoa martxan jartzeko

b) Errenta banatzea

c) Errenta unibertsala martxan jartzea, langabezia aurka

d) Lanpostuak banatzea

Badakigu, alta, langabeziaren kontra aritzeko, bidea ez dela horrelakoa.

Laburbilduz, hona hemen, proposatzen duguna:

(1) Estatuak, lehendabizi gastu publikoak egiten ditu, gero zergak bildu. Lehendabizi ‘tarta’ egiten da, gero tarta partekatzeko zerga progresiboak jartzen dira. Zergek ez dute ezer finantzatzen!

(2) Lan bermea dela eta, lan postu publikoak eskaintzea: 8/10€ orduko, 8 ordu egunero, 5 egun astean, 4 aste hilabetean.

(3) Keynes-en bitartez, finantza publikoaren bidez, 1930eko hamarkadan ekonomia martxan jarri zen. Orain, antzekoa, ez berdina. Enpresari pribatuek ikusiko dutenean ekonomia martxan dagoela, sektore publikoan langileek onak direla, trebeak direla, badakitela zer egin eta nola egin, inbertsioak egingo lituzkete, baldin eta enpresari horiek ‘azkarrak’ izango balira. Haien esku egongo da erabakitzea.

Lan bermeko programa ez da arduratzen enpresari pribatuen etekinez, langabezian dagoen jendearen egoeraz baizik, lan postu berriak sortuz.

Izan ere,

(i) Lehendabizi ‘tarta’, errenta, outputa handitu behar da, politika fiskal egokiaren bidez eta job guarantee, lan berme delakoaren bitartez

(ii) Gero, eta soilik gero, zerga progresiboak martxan jar daitezke, jadanik lortutako ‘tarta’ hori banatzeko

Argi?

Aspalditik dakigunez, lan bermea da Diru Teoria Modernoaren zutabe oso garrantzitsu bat.

Errenta unibertsalaz eta lan bermeaz

Ikus ondokoak:

Pavlina Tcherneva lan bermeaz (job guarantee)

Lan bermea: Espainian ikasi dute (batzuek!), Euskal Herrian ez!

Basic income ala job guarantee? Oinarrizko errenta ala lan bermea?

Pavlina Tcherneva: langabezia eta prebentzio-politikak

Eta dirua, non ote dago?

Andrea Terzi@ndrea_terzi

Draghi unusually offguard could have answerd: ECB is monopolist of euro, can’t run out of money, money is not wealth

Andrea Terzi(e)k gehitu du,

SerbanVCEnache @SerbanVCEnache

This should be ultra-viral in all EZ countries https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xda78gNm72o … @IdeasWhittler @ndrea_terzi @augustlights @Schuldensuehner

2016 uzt. 19

ECB can’t run out of money: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xda78gNm72o

So ECB can create money at will. ECB can create as much debt free physical or digital cash as they want. But only big banks (tier1 banks) are allowed to get digital cash since they are the only ones holding central banks accounts. The rest of the society are force into debt to the banks since the only money (besides physical cash) the society can get hold on are the banks so called “credit” that the banks create out of nothing and “lend” out. So why not let ECB create debt free digital cash so that the society can pay off their the debts the banks created from nothing? The simple reason is that the banks don’t wont to lose their debts slaves.”

As Fredrick Soddy, Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, put it:
“There is nothing left now for us but to get ever deeper and deeper into debt to the banking system in order to provide the increasing amounts of money the nation requires for its expansion and growth. An honest money system is the only alternative.”

Berriz:

… why not let ECB create debt free digital cash so that the society can pay off their the debts the banks created from nothing?”

Ez Dok Amairu

Euskara dela eta, hauxe idatzi nuen aspaldian: Idaztea? Izkiribatzea?

Eta bertan, Ez Dok Amairu dela eta, 3. oharrean hauxe:

(Ikus http://www.badok.info/artista.php?id_artista=36)

Ez Dok Amairu 1972ko abenduan desegin zen; barne krisia urtebete lehenago hasia zen. Hainbat arrazoik eragin zuten taldearen amaiera, kontu artistikoak eta sozialak elkartu ziren. Baga, biga, higa sentikariaren bi disko grabatuta zituen taldeak. Hasiera batean, sei kanturekin arazoak izan zituzten, baina azkenean zentsura igaro zuten diskoan grabatutako abesti guztiek. Dena den, kaleratu aurretik bi abestik eztabaida eragin zuten talde barruan: Lourdes Iriondok musikatutako Gabriel Arestiren poema batek eta JosAnton Artzeren kantu batek. Taldean ez zen adostasunik lortu, eta, azkenean, grabatuta zegoen disko hori ez zen inoiz argitaratu. (…)

Desegin ondoren, bi talde sortu ziren Ez Dok Amairuren errautsetatik. Batak sentikariaren ildotik segitu zuen lanean, Ikimilikiliklik ikuskaria sortuz. JosAnton Artzek, Mikel Laboak, Jose Mari Zabalak eta Jesus Artzek osatu zuten talde hori, Jose Luis Zumeta margolariaren laguntzaz. (…)

Ez Dok Amairuko beste kide batzuek berriz, Zazpiribai taldea sortu zuten. Bertan zeuden Lertxundi, Lete, Irigarai eta Iriondo, Ipar Euskal Herriko beste kantari batzuekin (…)

Gehigarriak:

(1) Gabariel Aresti dela eta:

Gogoratu Zelaieta-ren lana: Susa literatura – Gabriel Aresti (biografia)

Eta bertan: Lan Deia-ren erasoaldia

Gehigarria: Eranskina

(2) Ez Dok Amairu -ren bukaera dela eta:

Ikus Josemari Iriondo, Ez dok amairu erakusteta, 2007:

http://www.euskaltzaindia.net/dok/euskera/69532.pdf

Ez dok amairu-ren azkena

(…)

1965eko hondarretan eta 1966ko urtearen hasieran indartsu eta ilusioz beteta lanean serio hasi zen Ez dok amairu taldea eta berak erabaki gogorra hartu zuen 1972ko abenduan, sei-zazpi urte luzean egindako lana amaitutzat emanez. Nekea, asperkizuna, talde barruko eta kanpoko tentsioa, hartatik bizitzeko modurik eza, susmoak… Auskalo zer izan zen han; edota, denetik zerbait, seguru asko.

Taldea desegin zen behintzat, zoritxarrez. Eta Mikel Laboarentzat «Talde bezala inportantea izan zen» hura; Benito Lertxundirentzat, berriz, «Ez dok amairu fase historiko bat izan da. Buelta asko eman dizkiot gai horri, baina ez dut traumarik sentitzen, eta esango nuke euskaldunen susmo txarrak lehenagotik ere banituela eta gertakizun harekin areagotu egin zitzaizkidala». Joxan Artzerentzat, «gure bizitzako gauzarik garrantzitsuena izan zitekeela pentsatu genuen». Baina Xabier Letek 2003ko apirilean Usurbilen, Jexuxma-ri Artzeren heriotzako urteurrenekoan esan zuena belarri-ertzean gelditu zitzaidan:

etenaldiaren zergaitia, sekula inork kontatu ez duguna da, eta kontatuko ez duguna, seguraski, kontatu nahi ez dugulako. Baina desegin egin zen taldea; eta errealitatea horixe da.

Esan ez diren arrazoi horiexengatik, ez zen argitara eman taldearekin leiala izatearren grabatu ez nuen Baga, biga, higa ikuskari/sentikaria diskoa ere, nahiz eta grabazio ofiziala noiz eta nork egin zuen jakinekoa den.”

(3) Idoia Estornés Zubizarreta, 2013, Cómo pudo pasarnos esto. Crónica de una chica de los 60, Donostia,  Erein:

313 or:

Ez dok fue pastoreado por ellos, sus artistas constituyeron una nebulosa que giró en torno al ideario ELA-Berri .“

338 or.

“… Ez Dok Amairu, devorada por la paranoia entre elas y eladios de variado pelaje, se rompió en el año siguiente.“

371 or:

… la ruptura acaecida en el 69-70 había partido la organización. Por un lado estaban los eladios y por otro nosotros, los elas, …“

395 or.

…Saludé… a simpaizantes de ELA-Berri, como el pintor Zumeta, los Laboa-Bastida, Josean Arce.”

(4) Ondorio zuzena:

(a) Kontuan edukita bi talde desberdin azaldu zirela aipatutako Ez Dok Amairu-ren apurketa eta gero, alegia, Ikimilikiliklik eta Zazpiribai,

(b) Kontuan edukirik, Ez Dok Amairu taldearen zeintzu partaide egon ziren bi talde horietan,

(c) Kasu eginez Estornés Zubizarreta-ri, zeina ongi ezagutzen baizituen ela eta eladio azpitaldeen arteko tirabirak1,

Oso argi dago nortzuk ziren ela eta eladio horiek.


 1 Ikus Abandonando la casa del padre. Eusko Langileen Alkartasuna-Solidaridad de Trabajadores Vascos (movimiento socialista de Euskadi), 1964-1969: http://www.ehu.eus/ojs/index.php/HC/article/view/2143 eta Entre partido y sindicato. Eusko Langileen Alkartasuna-Solidaridad de Trabajadores Vascos (Movimiento Socialista de Euskadi, 1969-1976): http://www.ehu.eus/ojs/index.php/HC/article/view/1346.

Efizientzia (edo efikazia, 2)

Bill Mitchell-en Towards a progressive concept of efficiency – Part 21

Sarrera gisa, ikus Efizientzia (edo efikazia, 1)2

(i) Laburpena: ekonomia guretzat, guk kontrolatuta eta hiritar guztion ongizaterako3

Ikuspegi aurrerakoia:

a) Aurreko sarreran: mozkin pribatuen aldeko ‘efikazia’4

b) Efikazia eta ortodoxia5

(c) Aurrerakoiak: erdian Gizartea dago jarrita6

(d) Ekonomiaren bi ikuspegi7

(e) Ekonomia eta Gizartea8

(f) Jendea eta ekonomia9

(g) Depresio Handia: Ikasketak langabeziari eta gobernuari buruz10

(h) Finantza Krisi Globala, 2007an: ikasketa berbera11

(i) 1999ko Sharon Beder12

(j) Ikuspegi aurrerakoia eta efikazia13

(k) Langabezia eta Depresio Handian jasotako esperientzia14

(l) Langabezia eta kostu pertsonalak15

(m) Sektore publikoa eta enplegua16

(n) Sektore pribatua17

(ñ) Merkatu librea18

(o) Depresio Handia eta langabezia: Roosevelt-en New Deal19

(p) 2008an, Harry Kelber20

(q) Enplegua sortzeko programak eta efikazia21

(r) Nazionalizazioa eta efikazia22

(s) BPG eta berorren mugak23

(t) BPG-z haratagoko beste adierazle batzuk24

Ondorioak

(1) Tony Benn eta Depresio Handia25:

…if you can have full employment to kill people, why in God’s name couldn’t you have full employment and good schools, good hospitals, good houses?”

(2) Nahi kolektiboa26

(3) Neoliberalek nahi kolektiboa gorrotatzen dute27

Gehigarria: Job guarantee, lan bermea28

3 Ingelesez: “This is Part 2 of my discussion of how a progressive agenda can escape the straitjacket of neo-liberal thinking and broaden how it presents policy initiatives that have been declared taboo in the current conservative, free market Groupthink. Today, I compare and contrast the neo-liberal vision of efficiency, which is embedded in its view of the relationship between the people, the natural environment and the economy, with what I consider to be a progressive vision, which elevates our focus to Society and sees people embedded organically and necessarily within the living natural environment. It envisions an economy that is created by us, controlled by us and capable of delivering outcomes which advance the well-being of all citizens rather than being a vehicle to advance the prosperity of only a small proportion of citizens.”

4 Ingelesez: “In … – Towards a progressive concept of efficiency – Part 1 – we saw that what mainstream (neo-liberal) economists deem to be ‘best’ or ‘efficient’ is heavily biased towards the fortunes of private profit seekers.

If private firms are producing for markets at the lowest cost and meeting the demands of consumers for those goods and services, then they are maximising profits and being ‘efficient’.

The textbooks all show that under certain conditions (such as, there are no monopoly forces, people are rational and have knowledge of the future and all current alternatives, firms can freely enter and exit the market, ) then free markets are the only efficient way to organise economic activity.

To prosper, the textbooks then suggest we must bend the human settlement and use the natural environment so as to allow these free markets to work in the way prescribed.

We reach perfection when we achieve this state (so that the price of each good sold is exactly equal to the extra resources that were needed to produce it).

The key assumptions made to generate this ‘perfect’ outcome never hold in the real world. Mainstream economists thus deploy the strategy that any move towards this perfect state (for example, cutting minimum wages) will be an improvement and bring the economy closer to efficiency.

They ignore literature (for example, the Theory of Second Best) which shows that if all the assumptions of the mainstream theory do not hold then trying to apply the results of the theory is likely to make things worse not better.”

5 Ingelesez: “Almost all of the statements about ‘efficiency’ in mainstream economic theory are of this type.

Should any of these highly restrictive assumptions not hold (at any point in time), then the models cannot generate any reliable conclusions and any assertions one might make based on these economic theories are groundless – meagre ideological raving.

While the mainstream theory of efficiency does recognise the difference between private costs and benefits (borne and/or enjoyed by firms, individuals) and social costs and benefits (borne and/or enjoyed by all of us as a result of economic transactions between individuals), it rarely focuses on costs that are not quantifiable and private.

And when there are massive social costs arising from failed economic outcomes (for example, mass unemployment), mainstream economists have shown a willingness to define them away in such a way that the outcome remains consistent with their predictions.

So the example I gave yesterday was the claim that unemployment is always voluntary and therefore a product of free, maximising (and efficient) choice between income and leisure. There is a denial that the system can fail to provide enough jobs and thus render any choices that an individual might like to make powerless.”

6 Ingelesez: For a progressive, the essential goal of getting as much out of the inputs we muster in economic activity remains a goal. That is, this goal is shared with mainstream economists. Otherwise, there is wasteful use of human and natural resources which has no justification.

The questions though are what do we mean when we say we want to get “as much output” as we can and what the inputs that we are acknowledging?

At that point, a progressive vision of efficiency is a world apart from the narrow mainstream neo-liberal concept.

By placing Society rather than private corporations at the centre of our framework, progressives have a broader understanding of costs and benefits, which then conditions how we assess the ‘efficiency’ of an activity.

7 Ingelesez: “The right-side panel in the graphic above is what we call a progressive vision of the relationship between the people, the natural environment and the economy.

It leads to a solidaristic or collective approach to problems (sometimes called the All Saints approach), which has has a deep tradition in Western societies.

It recognises that an economic system can impose constraints on individuals which render them powerless. If there are not enough jobs to go around then focusing on the ascriptive characteristics of the unemployed individuals misses the point

Above all, it shifts our attention back onto Society rather than narrowing the focus to the ‘economy’ and corporations. Corporations are just one part of the economy, which is one part of the human settlement.

Once we work within this vision, our notion of efficiency becomes markedly different from that espoused within the neo-liberal vision.

8 Ingelesez: “Within this construction of reality, the economy is just one part of Society and it is seen as being our construction with people organically embedded and nurtured by the natural environment.

Shenkar-Osorio (2012: Location 1037) says:

This image depicts the notion that we, in close connection with and reliance upon our natural environment, are what really matters. The economy should be working on our behalf. Judgments about whether a suggested policy is positive or not should be considered in light of how that policy will promote our well-being, not how much it will increase the size of the economy.

In this view, the economy is seen as a ‘constructed object’ – that is a product of our own endeavours and policy interventions should be appraised in terms of how functional they are in relation to our broad goals.

Those broad goals are expressed in societal terms rather than in narrow ‘economics’ terms. In the neo-liberal vision, we are schooled to believe that what is good for the corporate, profit-seeking sector is good for us.

Within the progressive vision the goals are articulated in terms of advancing public well-being and maximising the potential for all citizens within the limits of environmental sustainability.

The focus shifts to one of placing our human goals at the centre of our thinking about the economy while at the same time recognising that we are embedded and dependent on the natural environment.”

9 Ingelesez: “In this narrative, people create the economy. There is nothing natural about it.

Concepts such as thenatural rate of unemployment’, which suggest that governments should not interfere with the market when there is mass unemployment and leave it to its own equilibrating forces to reach its natural state, are erroneous.

Governments can always choose and sustain a particular unemployment rate. We create government as our agent to do things that we cannot easily do ourselves and we understand that the economy will only serve our common purposes if it is subjected to active oversight and control.

In the progressive vision, collective will is important because it provides the political justification for more equally sharing the costs and benefits of economic activity.

Progressives have historically argued that government has an obligation to create work if the private market fails to create enough employment. Accordingly, collective will means that our government is empowered to use net spending (deficits) to ensure there are enough jobs available for all those who want to work.”

10 Ingelesez: “The contest between the two visions outlined in graphic was really decided during the Great Depression, which taught us that policy intervention was elemental in order to rein in the chaotic and damaging forces of greed and power that underpin the capitalist monetary system.

We learned that so-called ‘market’ signals would not deliver satisfactory levels of employment and that the system could easily come to rest and cause mass unemployment.

We learned that this malaise was brought about by a lack of spending and that the government had the spending capacity to redress these shortfalls and ensure that all those who wanted to work could do so.

From the Great Depression and responses to it we learned that the economy was a construct, not a deity, and that we could control it through fiscal and monetary policy in order to create desirable collective outcomes.

The Great Depression taught us that the economy should be understood as our creation, designed to deliver benefits to us, not an abstract entity that distributes rewards or punishments according to a moral framework.

The government is therefore not a moral arbiter but a functional entity serving our needs. Our experiences during the period of the Great Depression led to a complete rejection of neo-liberal vision.”

11 Ingelesez:We re-learned the lesson during the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). But still the neo-liberal vision dominates. This is in no small part due to the vested interests that bankroll the media, think tanks and academics to indoctrinate the public into accepting the logic of the neo-liberal vision.

The resurgence of the free market paradigm has been accompanied by a well-crafted public campaign where framing and metaphor triumph over operational reality or theoretical superiority.

This process has been assisted by business and other anti-government interests, which have provided significant funds to emergent conservative, free market ‘think tanks’.

12 Ingelesez: “Sharon Beder wrote in 1999 that these institutions fine tuned “the art of ‘directed conclusions’, tailoring their studies to suit their clients or donors” (Beder, 1999: 30).

Politicians parade these so-called ‘independent’ research findings as the authority needed to justify their deregulation agendas.

Multilateral organisations such as the IMF also continue to distort policy debates with their erroneous claims and, in the case of the IMF, incompetent and error prone modelling.

[Reference: Beder, S. (1999) ‘The Intellectual Sorcery of Think Tanks’, Arena Magazine, 41, June/July, 30–32.]”

13 Ingelesez: “How does the progressive vision expand our understanding of efficiency?

Once society becomes the objective and we recognise that people and the natural environment are the major components of attention, with the economy being a vehicle to advance societal objectives rather than maximising the lot of the profit-seeking, private corporate sector, then our conceptualisation of what is efficient and what is not changes dramatically.

This is especially the case once we understand that our national government is the agent of the people and has the fiscal and legislative capacity (as the currency-issuer) to ensure resources are allocated and used to advance general well-being irrespective of what the corporate or foreign sector might do.

It is clearly ludicrous to conclude that a society is operating efficiently when there are elevated levels of unemployment (people wanting to work who cannot find work) and where large swathes of a nation’s youth are denied access to employment, training or adequate educational opportunities.

It is inconceivable that we would consider a nation is successful if income and wealth inequality was increasing, poverty rates were rising and basic public services were degraded.

In each of these cases, the neo-liberal definition of efficiency could be satisfied, despite the overall well-being of citizens being compromised by the behaviour of the capitalist sector and the policy responses of government.”

14 Ingelesez: “As an example, consider the case for employment guarantees as a solution to mass unemployment.

We know that the job relief programs that the various governments implemented during the Great Depression to attenuate the massive rise in unemployment were very beneficial.

At that time, it was realised that having workers locked out of the production process because there were not enough private jobs being generated was not only irrational in terms of lost income but also caused society additional problems, such as rising crime rates.

Direct job creation was a very effective way of attenuating these costs while the private sector regained its optimism.”

15 Ingelesez: “It is well documented that sustained unemployment imposes significant economic, personal and social costs that include:

  • loss of current output;

  • social exclusion and the loss of freedom;

  • skill loss;

  • psychological harm, including increased suicide rates;

  • ill health and reduced life expectancy;

  • loss of motivation;

  • the undermining of human relations and family life;

  • racial and gender inequality; and

  • loss of social values and responsibility.

Many of these ‘costs’ are difficult to quantify but clearly are substantial given qualitative evidence. Most of these ‘costs’ are ignored by the neo-liberal concept of efficiency, in part, because they accumulate outside the ‘market’ and are not quantifiable in the narrow terms of the exchange between buyers and sellers.

Most people do not consider the irretrievable nature of these losses. Every day that unemployment remains above the full employment level the economy is foregoing billions in lost output and national income that is never recovered and the unemployed individuals and their families endure the other related costs.

The magnitude of these losses and the fact that most commentators and policy makers prefer unemployment to direct job creation, shows the powerful hold that neo-liberal thinking has had on policy makers. How is it rational to tolerate these massive losses which span generations?

16 Ingelesez: “When direct public sector job creation is mooted as a solution, the neo-liberals chime in with their relentless claims about waste and inefficiency.

They use terms such as ‘boondoggling’ and ‘leaf-raking’ to condition our responses that these schemes just make useless work for the sake of it.

The terms ‘boondoggling’, ‘make-work’ and ‘leaf-raking’ are all synonomous and are meant to imply that nothing good comes from this type of program.

Please read my blogs – Boondoggling and leaf-raking … and The ultimate boondoggle courtesy of slack government policy – for more discussion on this point.

17 Ingelesez: “The same conservatives laud the virtues of the private sector as they create hundreds of thousands of low-skill, low-paid, precarious and mind-numbing jobs but hate, with an irrational passion, the idea that the public sector could employ workers that the private sector doesn’t want and get them to work on community development projects at some socially-inclusive wage.”

18 Ingelesez: “While these free market zealots only see the massive waste of public sector job programs (because ‘the market’ didn’t create the jobs) they fail to see that:

1. National income is being produced which multiplies into more income via increased spending throughout the economy.

2. The massive loss of national income from mass unemployment are attenuated.

3. The huge intergenerational damage that entrenched unemployment to individuals, their families and the broader society is reduced.

19 Ingelesez: “These attacks on public sector job creation reached hysterical proportions during the Great Depression in the US, when President Roosevelt introduced his New Deal program, which included the Public Works Administration (PWA) initiative.

The facts are clear. The Public Works Administration (PWA) created hundreds of thousands of jobs and the work helped restore ageing public infrastructure (such as, roads, dams and bridges). Many new buildings were constructed during this period (schools, recreational spaces, libraries, hospitals) and have delivered benefits to the generations that followed.

There are huge reminders of the legacy of this era of public intervention by way of direct job creation. The Tennessee Valley Authority was a huge hydro-electricity project which brought electricity and prosperity to some of the poorest rural areas of the US.

20 Ingelesez: “As Harry Kelber wrote in 2008, at the time, the private electricity providers stridently opposed the challenge to their monopoly control. The upshot was that the project forced them to reduce their power charges.

In general, the dynamism of the public sector at that time caused huge outcries from the capitalists who didn’t want challenges to their cosy profit making industries from public sector enterprise.

The capitalists lost out to society! It is a repeating lesson that progressives seem to have forgot.

There are many examples of how job creation programs around the World have left a positive legacy while attenuating the immediate damage of mass unemployment.

[Reference: Kelber, H. (2008) ‘How the New Deal Created Millions of Jobs
To Lift the American People from Depression ‘,
The Labor Educator, May 9, 2008. LINK.]”

21 Ingelesez: “Thus, when evaluating whether job creation programs are ‘efficient’ we have to consider the benefits for the workers and their families of having a job both in income terms and in the broader socio-psychological terms.

We have to consider the reduction in the intergenerational costs of children growing up in households where the parents work. We know from research that the disadvantage of unemployed parents is passed onto to their children, which means the costs of the lack of jobs extends well beyond the immediate period.

We have to consider the benefits of social stability where all citizens have access to work and income security. And many more factors that are ignored by the neo-liberal vision and its concept of efficiency.”

22 Ingelesez: The same sort of evaluation would be relevant when assessing whether re-nationalisation was a worthwhile strategy for a progressive government to take.

The old hoary that the conservatives raise that these industries were havens of ‘inefficiency’ always ignore the benefits of workers having secure employment and their families enjoying stable incomes. They always ignore the other pathologies that accompany mass unemployment.

And as we will see when I write the second part on the benefits of nationalisation, these conservative attacks on re-nationaisation also ignore a range of progressive benefits of having key sectors like energy, banking and transport in public ownership.

For example, it is much easier for a government to deal with climate change if it owns the energy companies. Technology shifts are much more efficient in this context. ...”

Laster arituko gara nazionalizazioaz.

23 Ingelesez: “We noted … that the mainstream vision measures success in terms of GDP. Higher growth is deemed good and vice versa.

However, GDP is a flawed measure of societal or community well being and it largely ignores issues relating to environmental sustainability.

Instead of measuring success, for example, using GDP, progressives will seek to use other measures which capture essential characteristics of Society that are define its health.”

24 Ingelesez: “Such measures as the Index of Social Health (ISH) (which includes indicators of child poverty, child abuse, infant mortality, unemployment, wages, health insurance coverage, teen suicide rates, teen drug abuse, high school dropouts, old age poverty, crime rates, food insecurity, housing, and income inequality) provide a broader index of social well-being.

Other measures such as the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) also provides a broader measure of the state of the nation and the role the economy is playing in advancing social and environmental well-being.

The GPI, in particular, attempts to estimate the long-term environmental damage that our economic settlement creates.

A similar approach is taken by the Gross Sustainable Development Product (GSDP) measure.

The United Nations Human Development Index (UNHDI) “was created to emphasize that people and their capabilities should be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country, not economic growth alone.”

Once again, the focus of our attention is on Society, community and environment. The economy serves us not the other way around.

25 Ingelesez: “In an interview with the American radio service – PBS – on October 17, 2000, British Labour politician Tony Benn was asked whether the Great Depression led to a “huge loss of faith in markets and governments”, to which he replied:

Well, before the Great Depression, the gamblers ran capitalism and brought the economies down. And what happened? The war followed the Great Depression. In war you mobilize everything. Governments tore down the railings in Britain and America to make bullets. They rationed food, they conscripted people, and they sent them to die. The state took over. And after the war people said, “If you can plan for war, why can’t you plan for peace?” When I was 17, I had a letter from the government saying, “Dear Mr. Benn, will you turn up when you’re 17 1/2? We’ll give you free food, free clothes, free training, free accommodation, and two shillings, ten pence a day to just kill Germans.” People said, well, if you can have full employment to kill people, why in God’s name couldn’t you have full employment and good schools, good hospitals, good houses? And the answer was that you can’t do it if you allow profit to take precedent over people. And that was the basis of the New Deal in America and of the postwar Labor government in Great Britain and so on.

This is clearly is a compelling basis for a progressive narrative which does not see the economy as a separable, natural entity from the people and the natural environment.”

26 Ingelesez: “Collective will is important because it provides the political justification for sharing the costs and benefits of economic activity more generally.”

27 Ingelesez: The neo-liberals hate collective will because they desire the powers of the state to be exercised to their own advantage.”

28 Ingelesez: “There is a further dimension to efficiency that progressives need to come to terms with. I deal with it in this blogIf you can have full employment killing Germans ….”:

So if we can have full employment by killing Germans, then as long as we value alternative activities such as first-class health care, education, recreational services, environmental care services etc then we can certainly “productively” engage any idle labour that the capital system creates by offering a Job Guarantee.

The introduction of a Job Guarantee is not the panacea for all ills. But it should be an essential part of any progressive policy intervention.”

Austeritaterako ideiak

Twitterrak:

Yannis Koutsomitis@YanniKouts1

Alternative austerity measures: You stage a coup and get the pretext to lay off half of the public sector. #austerityideas

2016 uzt. 19

Makis Spyratos@makisv1

@YanniKouts I was thinking the same !

Ουίνστον Σμιθ@Ouinston

@YanniKouts only problem is that if one attempts this in Greece, a successful coup will follow immediately.

mark kinnear@spike4169

@YanniKouts @ptcherneva The EU will be impressed ! It may demand all member states to hold a coup yearly.

eigenscape@eigenscape

@YanniKouts Alternative anti-austerity idea: Instead of QE printing €1 trillion to park it in bank reserves, put it in people’s accounts.

Kevin@kevin_global

@YanniKouts @ptcherneva Alternate Austerity ideas – Allow a part of your country to secede to cut the size of Govt. (Scottish referendum)

Kevin@kevin_global

@YanniKouts @ptcherneva Alternate Austerity ideas – Shut down Govt & default at Debt ceiling and then present plan to cut down debt.

Gehigarriak:

Yannis Koutsomitis@YanniKouts

#Turkey suspends licenses of 21000 private school teachers. /via @FercanY This is not a #TurkeyPurge anymore, it’s a quite pogrom.

2016 uzt. 19

Yannis Koutsomitis@YanniKouts

#Turkey‘s Education Ministry sacks 15,200 staff ~Anadolu [Fifteen thousand ]

2016 uzt. 19

Yannis Koutsomitis@YanniKouts

#Turkeys higher education board asks 1,577 faculty deans from various universities to submit resignations. /via @MahirZeynalov #TurkeyPurge


Efizientzia (edo efikazia, 1)

Bill Mitchell-en Towards a progressive concept of efficiency – Part 11

(i) Nazionalizazioaz baino lehen2

(Ikus Post-Brexit: politika-paradigma berri bat behar da)

(ii) Laburpena: efikaziaren neoliberalismoaren ikuspuntua eta ikuspuntu aurrerakoiarena3

(iii) Neoliberalismotik eta indibidualismotik at4

(iv) Austeritatetik kanpo5

(v) Manifestu aurrerakoi baten partea6

(vi) Manifestuan ukituko diren gai politikoak7

Efikazia ulertuz:

(a) Efizientzia (edo efikazia) ulertuz: neoliberalen efikazia versus aurrerakoiena8

(b) Nazionalizazioa, kapitalen kontrola, bankugintzaren erregulazioa, pizgarri fiskalak erabiltzea9

(c) Gizartea eta Ekonomia10

Two_visions_of_of_the_economy

(d) ‘Ekonomian’ bizitzea11

(e) ‘Jasotako’ gobernuaren rola12

(f) Indibiduoa (gizabanakoa) eta gizartea13

(g) Ez dago gizarterik14

(h) Manifestua15

(i) Kapital finantzarioa16

(j) Ekonomia, neoliberalen ikuspegian17

(k) Ekonomiaren osasunaren errekuperazioa18

(l) Ondorioa: efizientziaren ulermen berezia19

(l) Ekonomia eta efizientzia edo efikazia20

(m) Merkatuaren efizientzia, kanpo-efektuak21

(n) Ingurugiroaren kutsadura22

(ñ) Ondasun komunak: airea, eta abar23

(o) Indibiduo arrazionalak24

(p) Langabezia eta merkatuaren efizientzia25

(q) Eurogunearen testuingurua26

(r) BPG da garrantzitsuena27

(s) Diziplina28

(t) Aurrerakoiak eta austeritate fiskala29

Ondorioak

(i) Ondoko sarreran aurrerakoien ikuspegia eta efikazia nola ulertu behar dugun ikusiko da

(ii) Neoliberalen ikuspegia laga eta Gizartea kontuan harturik, ez gizabanakoa, politika aukerak nola baloratzen diren ere aldatzen da, posibletasun eta ulermen berriak azalduko dira

(iii) Mundu aurrerakoian sartuko gara eta atzen utzi neoliberalismoak sortu duen austeritate amets gaiztoa


2 Ingelesez: “Before I present the second part of my discussion about the relevance of re-nationalisation to what I would call a truly progressive policy agenda, we have to take a step backward. I note after the first part – Brexit signals that a new policy paradigm is required including re-nationalisation – there were a few comments posted (and many more E-mails received – apparently readers are happier berating me personally rather than putting their ideas out in the public domain) that I was advocating a return to the ‘bad’ old days of nationalisation where cronyism, inefficiency and trade union bastardry were the norm. The obvious next point was – how can I claim that is progressive and part of the future.”

3 Ingelesez: “In this two part blog (…), I offer a framework for assessing these claims. Today’s blog foscuses on the neo-liberal vision of efficiency and reveals how narrow and biased towards private profit it is. In Part 2 (…) I will present the progressive vision and how it conditions the way we think of efficiency.“

4 Ingelesez: “Once we break out of the neo-liberal constructs and refocus our attention on Society rather than the individual then the way we appraise policy options also changes – it becomes enriched with new possibilities and understandings.”

5 Ingelesez: “We enter the progressive world and leave behind the austerity nightmare that neo-liberalism has created. We are then able to see how our old conceptions of nationalised industries or public sector job creation are tainted with these neo-liberal biases. And we are then able to see how policy initiatives that invoke scorn from the conservatives and many so-called modern progressives (obsessed with post modern constructs) have a vital role to play in a truly progressive manifesto. …”

6 Ingelesez: “This blog is part of Part 3 of next book (…). Part 3 will present what we are calling a ‘Progressive Manifesto’ to guide policy design and policy choices for governments that are struggling to see a way beyond the neo-liberal macroeconomics which we posit blights any hope of mounting a progressive agenda.

We also hope that the ‘Manifesto’ will empower community groups by demonstrating that the TINA mantra, where these alleged goals of the amorphous global financial markets are prioritised over real goals like full employment, renewable energy and revitalised manufacturing sectors is bereft and a range of policy options, now taboo in this neo-liberal world, are available.”

7 Ingelesez: “... Part 3 will consider the following specific policy topics (…), framed within an exposition of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and a progressive language.

1. Environmental constraints on growth – the need for growth and the change in composition of growth. The use of regulation versus the price system to engender resource allocation changes – for example, carbon taxes (price system) versus legislated bans on polluting activities (closure of coal mining etc). The role of the public sector as an investor, producer and employer in shifting growth priorities.

2. Employment guarantees versus income guarantees – role of work in society, use of job guarantees as a means of shifting perspectives on productive work. The rise of robotic manufacturing etc. Understanding the concept of efficiency in a societal sense as opposed to narrow private profit-based conceptions.

3. The entrepreurial state – the role of government in the innovation process. The concept of brainbelts replacing rust belts and the revitalisation of manufacturing (away from cheap towards smart).

4. External sector constraints – understanding the power of financial markets viz-a-viz the state. Understanding when capital and import controls (trade protection) are appropriate. Free trade myths and the gains from fair trade.

5. Reducing income and wealth inequality and household debt dependence – redressing the growing gap between real wages growth and productivity growth and the increasing reliance on private credit growth for growth. Restoring the role of trade unions as progressive forces.

6. Addressing the unproductive nature of financial markets – financial market regulation and bank reform – bank nationalisation – outlawing significant financial market transactions. Critiquing financial regulation that relies on the price system (Tobin Tax proposals etc).

7. Returning to a mixed economic vision with state planning – abandoning the concept of the self-regulating ‘free’ market, advancing the role of the state in the production and distribution system. Arguments to support the re-nationalision of key industries, taking the example of pre-1980s France as a positive case study.

8. Re-writing the international framework’, with proposals for redesigning the international funds system, including the dismantling of the IMF and replacing it with a new body that will help poor nations survive balance of payments problems (for example, when they are dependent on imported food or energy). We will demonstrate that a progressive manifesto that recognises the power of the state also acknowledges the importance of the international dimension by contrasting internationalism against supranationalism!

9. Moving beyond the post modernist progressive trap.

8 Ingelesez: ”As background to most of these topics, we thought a discussion of what we mean by efficiency is important because the way we construct that concept determines how we evaluate the propositions we are advancing.

For example, one of the oft-repeated claims that large-scale public job creation programs (like a Job Guarantee) are wasteful, ‘make work’ schemes that lead to the economy’s resources being utilised in sub-optimal ways.

The critique is based on what we consider to be a narrow-based conception of efficiency, the type that dominates mainstream economics.

The mainstream neo-liberal version of the concept that economists like to repeat ad nauseum seems to think it is efficient to have 25 per cent unemployment (and 50 or more percent youth unemployment in some cases) as long as the fiscal balance is in surplus or below some ad hoc threshold.

This private cost and benefit construction of what is efficient and what is not is bereft of credibility in a progressive vision which evaluates things in terms of society rather than economy, human well-being rather than private profit.

The other example, which came up last week (as noted in the Introduction), were the claims that the nationalised industries in 1950s and 60s Britain were havens of waste and inefficiency as they were in other nations during that period. By what reckoning would we draw that conclusion? Once we broaden our view of efficiency then some of those conclusions become meaningless.

They are just neo-liberal constructions and concepts deployed to advance a particular class interest at the expense of society and the workers within it.

So this blog is about how we think of efficiency as a precursor to developing the components of our ‘Progressive Manifesto’.

9 Ingelesez: “When we talk about re-nationalisation, capital controls, banking regulations, or using fiscal stimulus, there is a tendency, even among progressives to shrink and accuse us of being anachronistic Keynesians, harking back to the 1950s as if that decade or thereabouts was some sort of nirvana.

Can’t we see that the world has changed irrevocably and that the old, labour intensive, state run industry with big deficits and lots of regulations that restricted how the private sector operated is no longer possible? Are we so out-of-touch that we cannot see all of this?

Well let us get one thing absolutely clear from the outset. The 1950s were not nirvana! That is obvious.

The conditions in the immediate Post World War 2 period were fairly dire as nations struggled to reconstruct and restore production capacity and distribution channels etc.

Trade unions were largely male-dominated institutions that exhibited many of the prejudices that we now seek to expunge – racism, homophobia, sexism, ageism etc.

Women were poorly represented in the workforce and positions of authority and there were social constraints to ensure this division was maintained. As a result, the economic potential was limited by these social constraints

The growth of heavy industry was encouraged without any real understanding of the long-term consequences for the impact on the natural environment.

Work was, in many instances, repetitive and boring, and often conducted in unsafe and harsh conditions.

In many cases, the publicly-owned industries were riddled with cronyism and unions often played a destructive role, but then there was no monopoly on the cronyism, corruption and poor decision-making in the public sector. All organisations can lose their way, irrespective of ownership status.

So when we say we can make a case to re-nationalise the railways, for example, we have a vision that is not remotely like the 1950s state-owned and run railway systems around the world.

And, when we say that we want to develop policies that revitalise manufacturing, we are not envisaging going back to dirty, boring jobs on assembly lines that deployed swathes of unskilled or low-skilled labour in the 1950s and 1960s. We are thinking about smart, high-skill manufacturing of high technology components and using manufacturing to help assist other goals, such as repositioning production to be environmentally-sustainable. That vision is light years away from where we have come from.

The dinosaurs are extinct. We cannot bring them back!

10 Ingelesez: “To cement an overall vision, consider the following two-panelled diagram, which might be summarised with the epithet: Its about Society not the Economy!

I have produced a version of this graphic before. But it is very useful as a way of motivating notions of efficiency.

The graphic is derived from Anat Shenker-Osorio’s 2012 bookDon’t Buy It: The Trouble with Talking Nonsense about the Economy and provides two alternative visions of the way we think of the people, our natural environment and the economy.”

11 Ingelesez: “Understanding the differences between these visions helps us understand different constructions of the concept of ‘efficiency’.

The left hand panel represents the dominant neo-liberal view, where the basic assumption is that “people and nature exist primarily to serve the economy” (Shenker-Osorio, 2012: Location 439).

(…)

In the 1980s, we began to live in economies rather than societies or communities as the neo-liberal narrative gained supremacy.

It was also the period that unemployment persisted at high levels in most OECD countries.

The two things are not unrelated. Unemployment arises because there is a lack of what we term to be collective will.”

12 Ingelesez: “We have been indoctrinated to believe that government is somehow an impost on us rather than being the essential facilitator for economic well-being.

We support governments, which deliberately constrain aggregate spending below the level necessary to maintain jobs for all, which in turn, creates a class of unemployed who become dependent on increasingly pernicious welfare regimes.

Income support when unemployed used to be considered a right of citizenship and, typically, of a short-term duration, as new jobs emerged with government fiscal support. In this new neo-liberal world, income support is vilified as bludging of the hard work of others.

This narrative is reinforced on a daily basis by a virulent media aided by a bevvy of right-wing think tanks, which heaps scorn on the victims of the jobs shortfall as if the unemployed individuals are to blame for their own plight.

We have been dumbed down to eschew previous understandings – that systemic constraints in the form of the failure of the system to produce enough jobs – renders these individuals powerless to change their circumstances.

If there are are insufficient jobs generated someone must miss out! We now deny that basic reality of macroeconomics. If there are insufficient jobs we now lay the blame on sloth or other attitudinal deficiencies of those standing, desperately, in the jobless queue.

13 Ingelesez: “We have been schooled to think individual and ignore the collective. The demise of collective will in the public setting has been a principal casualty of the influence of neo-liberalism.

Remember Margaret Thatcher’s famous epithet while being interviewed by Women’s Own magazine (published October 31, 1987):

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and … there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—“It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it”. That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people: “All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!” but when people come and say: “But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!” You say: “Look” It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!”

There is also something else I should say to them: “If that does not give you a basic standard, you know, there are ways in which we top up the standard. You can get your housing benefit.”

But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society … There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.“

14 Ingelesez: There is no such thing as Society! This is the vision laid out in the left-panel of the graphic.

And, unfortunately, that mentality has even infested the progressive movements and their political organisations.”

15 Ingelesez: “This Manifesto is designed to disabuse progressive thinkers of this mentality and to, once again, create a widespread understanding of macroeconomic constraints wrought by insufficient spending and the way those constraints push disadvantage in multiple forms on some of our fellow citizens.

The neo-liberal narrative tells us that a competitive, self-regulating economy will deliver maximum wealth and income if it is ‘allowed’ to operate with minimum government policy intervention.

Governments have a restricted role to play, which is generally limited to maintaining property rights so that private benefits are secured and to maintain defence again foreign incursion.

While this mimimalist role is the public dogma, the reality is that the neo-liberals desire the state to play a much more significant role which can be summarised as ensuring profits are privatised and losses are socialised.

There was little complaint made when the national governments bailed out the banks during the early days of the GFC and protected the perquisites of the senior managers that created the problem in the first place. Public deficits for that purpose didn’t seem to matter!

16 Ingelesez: “Once the position of financial capital was secured by the rising fiscal deficits, then the scorn resumed and governments were told they had to cut deeply into the spending that was of assistance to the most disadvantaged in our society.

So within the masquerade of self-regulation and efficiency of the market is a deep hypocrisy that reveals that class interests are alive and well and will use the state and its fiscal capacity whenever it can advance the self interest of capital and eschew it otherwise.

17 Ingelesez: “In the neo-liberal vision, the economy is elevated to the level of a ‘deity’, whose purpose is, somehow, removed from the people, even though this ‘deity’ recognises our endeavours and rewards us accordingly.

We serve the economy. That is our purpose. Our natural environment also is seen, largely as a free resource, to assist private entrepreneurs in their profit-seeking ventures.

People are required to have faith (confidence), work hard and make the necessary sacrifices for the good of the ‘economy’.

It follows that those who are disadvantaged must have refused in some way to make these sacrifices and as a result are rightfully deprived of such rewards. They are miscreants – recidivists – sinners!

The overtones of morality are never far from the surface. In mainstream university textbooks, economics students learn about robustly independent income earners and those who have ‘chosen’ to be welfare dependent.

The economy is also figured as a living entity. If the government intervenes in the competitive process and provides an avenue where the undeserving (lazy, etc.) can receive rewards without due sacrifice then the system becomes ‘sick’.”

18 Ingelesez: “The restore the health of the economy, the government has to abandon regulations and other interventions such as minimum wages, job protection, and income support.

The key messages are ‘self-governing and natural’, which force the obvious conclusion that we are better off when government cuts spending and allows the market to adjust to this ‘natural’ state.

Although subscribers to this view would have us believe this is a rational narrative, in fact it represents a type of ‘magical thinking’ more appropriately associated with medieval views on the relationship between individuals and the world.

This narrative engenders a particular concept of efficiency.

19 Ingelesez: “Students rote learn that a ‘freely competitive market’ will maximise efficiency because individuals determine through their desire to buy how much they value particular goods and services and the prices firms offer these goods and services at are an indication of the cost of resources used in their production.

The desire of consumers is to maximise their satisfaction from the goods and services they buy and producers desire to maximise their profits by minimising their costs while supplying what the consumers demand.

By coming together, the two sides of the market (demand and supply) ensure that the available productive resources are allocated to production in such a way that the economy maximises the production of goods and services aat the lowest cost.

This is what the mainstream economists consider to be a state of efficiency.”

20 Ingelesez: “[a state of efficiency] It is based on the ‘costs’ that the private producers incur rather than the total costs of production and is focused on private profits and the satisfaction of those who have the cash resources available to facilitate purchases.

The neo-liberal concept of efficiency does allow for market-failure where the true costs of a productive activity are not reflected in the private supply costs of the firm and are thus not reflected in the final price we pay in the goods and services we buy.”

21 Ingelesez. “As a result, the ‘market’ over-allocates resources to those particular products and ‘fails’ to achieve efficiency.

The most obvious divergence are the so-called negative externalities arising from say air or water pollution which the firm does not pay for.

According to the mainstream economic theory, in these cases, efficiency is maintained as long as the government guarantees property rights so that the pollution can be properly priced in the market so that the true costs of all resources used in production are reflected in the final price of the supply product.

22 Ingelesez: “Accordingly, the problem of environmental pollution and resource depletion is seen as a problem of incomplete specification of property rights such that the market price for the use of the natural resources is unable to be correctly arrived at.

For example, a firm might emit pollution in a river which impacts on people downstream. But if there are no enforceable property rights on that river then the firm will not consider the ‘cost’ of that pollution and thus overproduces the product that causes the emission.

The mainstream approach is to argue that the property rights to clean water should be defined and enforced which would give those downstream, legal recourse to push the ‘price’ of the product up, and, according to market logic, drive the demand down to some optimal and equilibrium level – reflecting the true use values and costs.

This approach ignores the obvious question: What if the river dies and cannot be replaced in the same way that a worn-out piece of machinery can be replaced or renovated?

23 Ingelesez: “There are also unresolvable problems in trying to assign property rights to resources that we consider to be common to all – such as the air quality.

The private conception of efficiency also tends to ignore mass unemployment or rather redefine it as a maximising outcome of free choices taken by rational individuals seeking to achieve the best outcomes for themselves and their families.

Accordingly, mainstream economists claim that unemployment is largely a voluntary state reflecting the free choice of workers to trade-off income for leisure (non-work).”

24 Ingelesez: “Rational individuals consider the benefits they gain from not working, which they construct as enjoying leisure against the costs arising from the loss of income. They are conceived as continually monitoring the wages on offer and adjusting their labour supply to maximise satisfaction.

There is no hint that the economy may not offer sufficient jobs, which would render these choices, if they do indeed occur, redundant.

Mainstream economists further claim that this individual choice is often distorted by the provision of income support payments by governments to the unemployed.

They claim that if the government withdrew these benefits then it would alter the calculation individuals make when choosing to remain unemployed – that is, leisure would become more ‘expensive’ relative to work once the subsidies against job search (the income support) are withdrawn.

25 Ingelesez: “In other words, they at various times deny that mass unemployment impairs the efficiency of the market, while at other times, they claim that government income support payments distort efficiency by perverting the labour-leisure choice of individuals.

In the recent crisis, we have seen mainstream economists regularly redefine what is they claim to be the ‘efficient’ or full employment level of unemployment.

For example, a Wall Street Journal report (September 19, 2013) – Austerity Seen Easing With Change to EU Budget Policy said that:

some of the bloc’s weakest economies are operating relatively close to full capacity … For example, the latest commission estimate is that the Spanish gap is just 4.6% of gross domestic product, despite nearly 27% of Spain’s labor force being officially unemployed … The commission believes that the “natural” rate of unemployment — if the Spanish economy were operating at full potential — is 23%.

Similar claims have been made about other nations during the crisis. It is inconceivable that a progressive agenda should accept that a state of mass unemployment where 25 per cent of available labour (and in come nations more than 50 per cent of its available youth workers) are idle could constitute ‘efficiency’.”

26 Ingelesez: “This perversion of the concept of getting the ‘best’ out of available resources has, in the Eurozone context, been refined to the point where price stability is the top priority and politicians judge success according to adherence to arbitrary financial ratios. They tolerate mass unemployment as if there is no choice.

Further, economists measure success in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which measures the total flow of spending on goods and services over any given period valued at market prices.

27 Ingelesez: “We continually use GDP as if it measures anything that really matters.

It is a vastly imperfect measure of societal well-being.

According to this measure, an economy can achieve high rates of GDP growth by producing large quantities of military equipment, while polluting its natural environment, subjecting its workers to gross violations of human rights and enduring mass unemployment, high levels of income and wealth inequality, and elevated levels of poverty.

Another economy can achieve low rates of GDP growth, but provide high levels of first-class health care, education and quality of life, with reduced negative impacts on the natural environment, an advanced sense of human rights, reductions in income and wealth inequality, and full employment.

The neo-liberal vision tells us that the former economy is the more successful.”

28 Ingelesez: “In this vision, discipline and sacrifice are eulogised even as poverty rates rise and a generation of youth is rapidly becoming dislocated from the normal pathways that provide for individual prosperity and maintain social stability.

Of course, discipline is a moving feast. The banksters and financial elites have different rules for themselves about what sacrifice and thrift is required.

The neo-liberal narrative also demands that we conclude that our own individual outcomes are dislocated from the success of the system and so our success and failure are both represented as due primarily to our own efforts. Similarly, the unemployed are seen as being responsible for their jobless status, when in reality a systemic shortage of jobs explains their plight.

This narrative is so powerful that progressive politicians and commentators have become seduced into offering ‘fairer’ alternatives to the mainstream solutions rather than challenging mainstream assumptions root-and-branch.

29 Ingelesez: “For example, progressives timidly advocate more gradual fiscal austerity – the so-called ‘austerity-lite’ approach – when they should be comprehensively rejecting it on the basis of evidence that it fails, and advocating larger deficits to solve the massive rates of labour underutilisation that burden most economies.

The euro Groupthink is so strong that progressives design all sorts of solutions to the crisis that will preserve the euro, when in fact it is the euro that is the problem.

Progressives and conservatives are hostage to the same erroneous vision about the way the economy operates; yet the public is compelled to believe there is no alternative to the damaging economic policies being introduced.

Once we reject this individualistic conception and reintroduce the notion of society a range of alternative narratives are available.

Bi izpiritu, bihotz bat eta bost genero

Duane Braybou-ren Two Spirits, One Heart, Five Genders1

Zenbait zipriztin:

all Native American societies acknowledged three to five gender roles: Female, male, Two Spirit female, Two Spirit male and transgendered. LGBT Native Americans wanting to be identified within their respective tribes and not grouped with other races officially adopted the term “Two Spirit” from the Ojibwe language in Winnipeg, Manitoba, 1989. Each tribe has their own specific term, but there was a need for a universal term that the general population could understand. The Navajo refer to Two Spirits as Nádleehí (one who is transformed), among the Lakota is Winkté (indicative of a male who has a compulsion to behave as a female), Niizh Manidoowag (two spirit) in Ojibwe, Hemaneh (half man, half woman) in Cheyenne, to name a few. As the purpose of “Two Spirit” is to be used as a universal term in the English language, it is not always translatable with the same meaning in Native languages. For example, in the Iroquois Cherokee language, there is no way to translate the term, but the Cherokee do have gender variance terms for “women who feel like men” and vice versa

(…)

I will leave the last words to the late Lakota actor, Native rights activist and American Indian Movement co-founder Russell Means: “In my culture we have people who dress half-man, half-woman. Winkte, we call them in our language. If you are Winkte, that is an honorable term and you are a special human being and among my nation and all Plains people, we consider you a teacher of our children and are proud of what and who you are.””

Ojibwe tribuko Bob Roubideau zenak (aka Razor Blade) esan zidan, Bartzelonan, bere tribuan homosexualek kategoria berezia zeukatela, haientzat ohore handikoak zirelako.

Bob Robideau-ri buruz, ikus

https://www.scribd.com/doc/60786902/Robert-Robideau-in-Memoriam, non euskaraz egindako bi liburuki aipatzen diren

Gehi:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/57990291/Interview-with-Bob-Robideau-on-Annie-Mae

American Indian Movement dela eta, ikus:

(1) Annie Mae Pictou Aquash delakoaz: https://www.scribd.com/doc/57927453/Annie-Maeren-poesia

(2) Leonard Peltier-i buruz:

2005eko idazkia, Leonard Peltier-en 61. urtebetetzea zoriontzeko:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/273381098/Northwest-Territories-2005

gehi:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/57989925/Prison-Writings-Leonard-Peltier

https://www.scribd.com/doc/58874673/Mendeku-baten-historia


DTM italieraz (Randall Wray-en ildotik)

Randall Wray-k egindako liburua1, orain italieraz.

Il Primer MMT, un’opera lunga un anno2

Itzultzaileak:

Andrea Sorrentino e Maria Consiglia Di Fonzo sono i traduttori dei 53 blog del Primer MMT di Randall Wray (MMP nella versione originale), che terminerà domani con la quarta parte del blog “Conclusione: la natura della Moneta”. Il Primer MMT è stato pubblicato sotto forma di blog su New Economic Perspectives tra il 6 giugno 2011 e il 27 giugno 2012 ed, in seguito, come libro per l’editore Palgrave-Macmillan.

2015ean hasi zen itzulpena:

Andrea e Maria Consiglia hanno iniziato il lavoro di traduzione del Primer MMT quasi un anno e mezzo fa, nel marzo 2015. Per 65 settimane ne hanno curato la traduzione, senza mai saltare un lunedì, assicurando ai fedeli e costanti lettori continuità e completezza nella lettura.

Ad agosto 2015 il sito MMT statunitense New Economic Perspectives ha dato risalto al MMT Primer in Italian e lo stesso prof. Wray si è complimentato con Rete MMT per l’imponente lavoro di traduzione di quello che rappresenta uno dei principali testi sull’approccio MMT alla macroeconomia. Guarda il video del prof. Wray che riceve la stampa dei Primer MMT in italiano.

Liburuaren bukaera:

Ingelesez: Liquidity and Default Risks on Money IOUs (in Conclusion: The Nature of Money)

Italieraz: Liquidità e rischio di default sugli ITD monetari (in MMP Blog #52: Conclusione: la natura della Moneta (4)) 

 

Noiz euskaraz?

DTM-ri buruzko liburu batzuek, ez gehiegi, mereziko lukete euskarara itzultzea. Hauxe da bat.


Maldan behera… abiadura oso bizian, gainera

Gaurkoa:

Ez du ezer ulertu: En el aniversario del referéndum griego

Erantzuna, uztailean:

In Post-Brexit: Grezia, Eskozia eta Katalunia

Greek Reporter ‏@GreekReporter1

U.S. Economist Galbraith Explains Varoufakis’ Plan B for Greece http://dlvr.it/LkHTH4  #Greece

Warren B. Mosler@wbmosler

@GreekReporter Would have been an even worse disaster than what did happen...

Aspaldiko desastrea, joan den urtekoa (W. Mosler eta B. Mitchell-en eskutik):

Warren Mosler eta A Modest Response

Troika? Ez aipatu, arren! (2)

Troika? Ez aipatu, arren! (eta 3)

Grexit ala kapitulazioa?

Grexit: elkarrizketak, zurrumurruak, erdi egiak, gezur potoloak, eta are gehiago…

Ez, ez dute ezer ikasi, ez Galbraith-ek ezta hemengo progreek ere.

Granada honetako progreek segitzen dute Galbraith-ekin, eta bluff itzela den Varoufakis-ekin, alegia, zabor intelektual guzti horrekin.

Ikasiko al dute inoiz hemengoek? Gero eta zailago ikusten dut afera hori. Ia ezina…

Dena den, Arestirekin segitzeko, dena da posible Granadan:

Orain progreek RUI aipatzen dute, bihar-etzi agian CUP aipatuko lukete.

Horrela segituz gero, baliteke etzidamu DTM aipatzea, mon dieu!

Who knows?

Hamaika ikusteko jaioak omen gara!