Jende arruntaren botoa

El vot de la gent normal1

Anna Arqué

Diu el refrany que “un poble que canta mai no serà vençut”. I sembla que per uns moments, tot escoltant la Gemma Humet cantar aquell matí davant les quatre columnes de Puig i Cadafalch, ens permetíem escoltar-nos les emocions, acostumats des de fa mesos, potser anys, a preparar només les paraules que embastin arguments raonats, “com si la raó fos per si mateixa garantia de justícia i el sentiment ho fos només de desgavell”, em deia un bon amic que ho acabava reblant amb un “santa paciència”. Un silenci imposat a un poble per la força, perquè els silencis imposats sempre ho són per la força. Els catalans hem patit la imposició d’un silenci quotidià i amargant per part d’un Estat espanyol via TOP, per enumerar-ne un de tants, i que continua volent imposar-se, ara via TC. Una societat que assimila amb normalitat els silencis imposats per l’Estat a una població que vol autodeterminar-se mitjançant les urnes, té molt poc de democràtica i com ha fet fa pocs dies el Tribunal de Drets Humans d’Estrasburg, a l’Estat espanyol se li ha de recordar que el silenci imposat pot ser legal i raonat però també, i sobretot, és equivocat.

De l’emoció del cant al batec de la terra. El representant dels pagesos a l’acte, en Pep Riera, l’únic que amb urna a les mans utilitza la paraula autodeterminació, crida un sentit “Visca la terra!”. La terra, la “terreta” que en diuen els valencians, que sempre hi és, i vulguem tots que amb ella hi siguin sempre els pagesos, la falç i l’horta que atura tants espants.

El discurs final, la versió il·lustrada del batec, aquelles paraules seleccionades per a l’ocasió van ser pronunciades per l’exemple d’èxit català on millor es reflecteix l’ànima processista que s’aixeca aviat per fer feina i fer país: en Pep Guardiola. Em va encantar veure tantíssima gent contenta i per això, gràcies, Pep. El nostre Sean Connery, a nivell de punch internacional, donava titulars arreu del món encarnant la serenor i la racionalitat del qui sap que, efectivament: “Referèndum és democràcia”. Només un però, qui fos qui redactés el text va deixar-se portar per aquella pàtina d’incredulitat catalana, forçada pels fets viscuts durant anys i panys de funambulisme. Un vertigen que demana ajuda perquè es pensa que hi ha d’haver algú més important que el seu propi poble alçat i en marxa, alguna cosa més poderosa que el poder que el seu poble es dona exercint el dret que té a autodeterminar-se i que, en circumstàncies democràtiques, cap Estat pot obstaculitzar sense posar en risc el seu bon lloc entre els països democràtics.

Saber-te bo fent feina quan has perdut en la més gran de totes les tasques, la que preserva la teva llibertat, et permet sentir-te una mica cofoi, fins i tot feliç dins la captivitat

El director anglès David Lean ens mostra al film El pont del riu Kwai (1957) un grup d’anglesos que cauen presoners de guerra i s’esmercen a construir un pont perfecte perquè els qui els tenen en captiveri, els japonesos, hi passin i avancin posicions. Treballen per l’enemic mentre xiulen animadament. Es poden aconseguir moments de felicitat sense llibertat? Devia tenir raó Max Aub quan deia que “la llibertat no fa l’home feliç, la llibertat el fa home”. Saber-te bo fent feina quan has perdut en la més gran de totes les tasques, la que preserva la teva llibertat, et permet sentir-te una mica cofoi, fins i tot feliç dins la captivitat. Als catalans ens pot agradar que ens demanin ajuda, fer les coses bé i que se’ns reconegui, ens dona un bri de dignitat dins la castració que significa saber que com a poble no ens hem organitzat prou bé per a tornar a manar legislativament i executiva sobre la nostra vida. Tanmateix, en general, demanar ajuda no afalaga a qui escolta, ans el contrari, diria que causa una enorme desídia en un món en permanent alerta vermella. Com hem dit tan sovint dins i fora de Catalunya, “els catalans avui no ens queixem, no demanem, els catalans informem”. No demanem ajuda, convidem als demòcrates d’arreu del món que ens acompanyin, perquè ser al costat de la democràcia és sempre excitant i, per què no dir-ho, símptoma de felicitat. Ser al costat de Catalunya ajuda a definir-se un mateix i a definir l’Europa i el món que en definitiva volem.

Aquesta última petició d’ajuda al món, com la campanya “Let catalans vote”, que demana permís no sabem a qui, a tothom?, com els debats sobre el dret a l’autodeterminació de Catalunya que es van promoure a parlaments com el de Dinamarca, són accions tan ben intencionades com exponents soft de les rèmores d’una Catalunya empobrida d’ella mateixa que encara busca convençuda, i quasi necessitada, de qui li posi i tregui límits, però que sembla que Puigdemont, Junqueras, Gabriel i Rovira han decidit superar. Perquè, ei, la porta és oberta, només cal travessar-la.

El drama dels comuns

Des de la mort del dictador espanyol Franco, cap president de la Generalitat havia defensat la pràctica efectiva de l’autodeterminació ni havia parlat de fer vinculant el resultat del referèndum que l’aplica, fins ara, que el president Puigdemont ha anunciat data i pregunta apel·lant al dret de Catalunya a l’autodeterminació dels pobles. I només per això estem d’enhorabona, reconèixer-nos és una primera però enorme passa. Sobretot perquè trenca amb el contorsionisme discursiu de l’inconcret i poc garantista dret a decidir que fins fa ben poc feia de vas comunicant entre l’antiga Convergència i l’actual Catalunya en Comú.

Un partit, CeC, que sembla mentida que sigui el que més s’omple la boca exigint garanties a un referèndum d’autodeterminació —que les tindrà, totes—, alhora que és el primer valedor d’un dret a decidir sense cap regulació internacional. Sembla mentida que els qui més parlen de representar el poble i els treballadors afectats per un PP desbocat a retallar drets socials en l’àmbit estatal, siguin els qui anteposin un pacte pel referèndum, precisament, amb aquest govern espanyol trampós i corrupte abans que defensar la vinculació que el poble demana i que el poble atorga. Sembla mentida que els de la Catalunya en Comú, que repeteixen el concepte cupaire de “fer fora el règim del 78” (PP/PSOE) però el redueixen a conveniència quan hi pacten per mantenir-se a la capital catalana, siguin els qui contemplen la maquinària de l’Estat espanyol com a solvent procurador de garanties en lloc d’atribuir-ho a la força que emana de la determinació combinada d’institucions i ciutadania catalana, amb ells inclosos. Sembla mentida que qui representa voler ser la veu dels comuns dels treballadors vulgui reunions privades amb el president de la Generalitat en lloc de reunions col·lectives on sí que acudeix el secretari general de Podem a Catalunya. Un tracte molt selectiu, demana el partit dels comuns. Potser és que, malauradament, el més comú és la vella política.

Ens trobem davant el “Drama dels Comuns”: utilitzar partidístament el dret de tota una societat a autodeterminar-se, malmetent l’oportunitat col·lectiva només pel propi interès de marcar espai polític

Volem catalanes més compromeses amb la voluntat del poble que compromeses a representar el poble. I per sorpresa d’adversaris i, encara més, per incomoditat de propers, l’Albano-Dante Fachin ha demostrat que té criteri propi fent una consulta interna, però també ajudant els comuns a tenir un mínim de relat i no quedar-se estancats, que no seria gens propi dels qui volen anomenar-se activistes i han cantat més d’un cop amb el puny alçat allò de “no prendre part és prendre part per l’statu quo”. I encara que ara convergeixin tots en l’anomenada “mobilització no vinculant”, també, molt propi d’activistes socials entendre les mobilitzacions massives com a no vinculants (ironia), la disposició democràtica de Fachin i Urban dista de la d’en Domènech. Fachin explicava el resultat de la consulta interna en termes d’autodeterminació, de sobirania en mans del poble i de no sentir-se previnculat a un resultat sense saber la dimensió que la gent ha decidit donar-li amb el seu vot i els fets que se’n desemboquin. En Domènech, però, sense haver consultat les bases, continua aferrant-se al 9-N com a idea deslegitimadora i rebutja acceptar la votació de l’1 d’octubre com a referèndum perquè diu que és el full de ruta del govern català, tractant com a dada totalment prescindible el fet excepcional que més del 70% de la societat catalana estigui disposada a votar sense acord amb l’Estat (CEO). El domina més el partidisme de marcar distàncies amb el PDeCAT que les tossudes realitats que suren sense remei, només cal veure el resultat del PNR. Viuen amb el pas en fals, i ho saben. L’ecologista Hardin el 1968 feia evolucionar “la tragèdia dels comuns”, plantejada per l’economista Foster (1833), encunyant el conegut Dilema dels comuns: com evitar que els usos individuals malmetin els recursos comuns. Doncs, com si es tractés d’una involució, ens trobem davant el “Drama dels Comuns”: utilitzar partidístament el dret de tota una societat a autodeterminar-se, malmetent l’oportunitat col·lectiva només pel propi interès de marcar espai polític.

No creure que s’hagi de fer efectiva la voluntat de la gent comuna si no hi ha un Estat espanyol que digui que ho garanteix, no té cap mena de coherència amb l’històric activisme de mobilitzacions catalanes

El referèndum és, importantment, el full de ruta de la majoria de la societat catalana, de la majoria absoluta del Parlament i, en conseqüència democràtica, del Govern català, només faltaria. Però el que caldria recordar al secretari general dels comuns és que el que sí és el full de ruta del govern espanyol de Rajoy, és precisament negar a la gent de Catalunya la força vinculant del seu vot, exactament el que vol fer el senyor Domènech. Treure al poble la força vinculant del seu vot, no creure que s’hagi de fer efectiva la voluntat de la gent comuna si no hi ha un Estat espanyol que digui que ho garanteix, no té cap mena de coherència amb l’històric activisme de mobilitzacions catalanes; us diria el nostre noi del sucre.

Farem el referèndum l’1 d’octubre, amb totes les garanties electorals, i el vincularem oficialment i popular, com toca, com fa la gent que creu en la gent, la comuna i l’excepcional, la que lluita i per la que hem de lluitar perquè ella sola no pot. Perquè com dirien els que ja han treballat amb tants d’altres consentits: “Qui vol fer una cosa la fa, i qui no la vol fer només troba excuses”.

Tothom pot ser-hi, és hora de fer un pas endavant a favor de la gent normal.

Katalunian herria, lurra, autodeterminazioa,… jende arrunta.

Euskal Herrian ez dago herririk, … Herria? Hay que hacer pueblo (sic)… à la maoista?

Euskal Herriak autodeterminazio-eskubidea du, eta kito!

Zer gara gu, gu jende arrunta? Zonbiak?

Ez ote dira benetako zonbiak progre horiek guztiak?

Gora Euskal Herria, Gora Herria, Gora Lurra, Gora lur askea!

Biba Euskal Herri askatua!

Utikan progresia mota guztiak!


DTM: Warren Mosler eta Stephanie Kelton

Warren Mosler eta petrolioaren prezioa

What If OPEC Stopped Pricing Oil In Dollars?1

Warren Mosler discussing what if OPEC stopped pricing oil in dollars. The answer is that it basically does not matter at all. The relative price of oil (as priced by other goods and services) would not change, and therefore the price of oil to holders of dollars would not change. And, our imports and exports wouldn’t change either.

What would have an effect is if countries wanted to stop accumulating dollars and saving in dollar denominated assets. This would have some effects on our ability to import, and on financial asset prices. However, fewer imports would mean we would stop losing dollars to foreign bank accounts, so our government could have a smaller budget deficit. This is meaningless to the federal government, but could ease pressure on state and local governments.

Stephanie Kelton eta zor federala

Stephanie Kelton‏ @StephanieKelton2

The federal debt in 1939 reached $48B3. Cartoonists ridiculed the idea that this was OK.

2017 eka. 12

Stephanie Kelton‏ @StephanieKelton eka. 12

Replying to @StephanieKelton

By 1940, the debt surpassed $50B.

Stephanie Kelton‏ @StephanieKelton eka. 12

Then came WWII, and the debt more than quadrupled. The cartoonists had a field day.

Stephanie Kelton‏ @StephanieKelton eka. 12

Here’s the current picture. Somehow, all the bad stuff that was supposed to happen just didn’t. Don’t let the cartoons scare you.

Stephanie Kelton‏ @StephanieKelton eka. 12

The national debt is nothing more than the outstanding quantity one kind of financial asset, provided by the US government.

Warren B. Mosler‏ @wbmosler eka. 12

The national debt is the $US spent by gov that have not yet been used to pay taxes and constitute the $net financial assets of the economy.

Stephanie Kelton‏ @StephanieKelton eka. 12

Is it also what I said? ? I don’t like that language, probably because I hear “today’s debt = future taxes” and it burns my ears.

Warren B. Mosler‏ @wbmosler eka. 12

Just saying that your ‘one kind of financial asset’ is in fact just a tax credit, and an outstanding one at that… 😉

Dakienak badaki, ez dakienak baleki!


3 Amerikar bilioi bat = Mila milioi europar.

W. Molser: serie berria

Warren B. Mosler‏ @wbmosler1

The first in a series just posted by one of my summer interns:

MMT for You and Me Part 1

Bideoa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOM9suirjPA

An introductory video to get you thinking about where the money comes from.

Based on the works of Warren Mosler.

The 7 Deadly Innocent Frauds free PDF:
http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content…

2017 eka. 16

Mitchell Shapiro‏ @mitch_shapiro

Replying to @wbmosler

A simple & nicely provocative start. Looking forward to rest of series @StephanieKelton @stf18 #MMT @billy_blog @ptcherneva @FadhelKaboub

Geoff Coventry‏ @gladkiwi eka. 15

Nice job, @CoachC0v

Warren B. Mosler‏ @wbmosler

Replying to @TickyW

Goes without saying! Part 2 to follow… 😉

2017 eka. 14

Warren B. Mosler‏ @wbmosler 2

MMT for You and Me part 2:

MMT for You and Me Part 2: Taxing and Spending

Bideoa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aM-3so0t9c

An introductory video on the way how the US government taxes and spends.

Based on the works of Warren Mosler.

The 7 Deadly Innocent Frauds free PDF:
http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content

2017 eka. 21


Warren Mosler-en kreditu kontrola (3)

Hasierarako ikus Warren Mosler-en kreditu kontrola (2)

Segida:

Warren Mosler — Credit check update1

Tom Hickey:

Still not looking good. 

The US is 96 months into this recovery, which is the longest and flattest on record, and it is looking long in the tooth.

And now the US is headed into what looks like a another battle over the debt ceiling, unless Gary Cohn gets his way and the Trump administration accepts some of the terms of the fiscal hawks, which would reduce the government contribution to “save money.”

That leaves exports to make up the difference. The global economic outlook is pretty iffy, too, and so reliance on net exports is not likely to pan out.

Credit check2

More problematic by the week. Note the absolute level of c and I loans has been flat to negative since October:

Annual rate of growth remains sub 2%:

This is consistent with the weakening housing releases:

This is consistent with weakening consumer spending:

This is consistent with weakening vehicle sales:

Corporate bonds are not picking up the slack- quite the opposite:


Iruzkinak:

Matt Franko said…
Asset value of Bank credit up about 5% YoY even with 2 rate increases over the same period totaling 0.5% …. I don’t see this as a problem…

Interest income finally on the rise probably about an additional $50B annual increase so far in interest between IOR and interest paid on T-bills and increasing….

Mike has Leading flow +28b (0.8%) over same time last year not shabby…

Fed looking at starting to let QE run off later this year which will create 100s of $billions of room on bank bs for other assets …

Could be better… need more rate increases and draw down of the QE to get going…

MRW said…
People need jobs, Matt. Financial indices aren’t going to move the economy.
Warren Mosler said…
Bank credit contribution to growth this year a lot less than last year.
Greg said…
Matt sounds like Scott Sumner more and more everyday, except Sumner hates Trump.

Matt the monetarist

Matt Franko said…
Greg, I’ve only pointed out the small but still positive changes in flows not munnie supplies or anything monetarist…

Our only hope of getting out of this low growth environment is via automatic appropriation e.g. higher interest income from higher policy rate and a reversal of QE helping out banks do more financing of output assets … those seem to be starting

Everyone except the 1,000 or so of us thinks “we’re out of money!” hello….

Matt Franko said…
MRW,

I didn’t mention anything about financial indexes…

Increased interest income from from higher rates will result in higher expenditure and some employment increases… states (like Illinois) will get well too and be able to do more purchases…

Financial indexes will go up ex post of the increases in incomes… it’s not stochastic or complicated….

Matthew Franko said…
Tom from your link:

“Not only is the average annual growth rate of just 1.48% during Obama’s business cycle the weakest of any expansion since at least 1949, he has just become the only President to have not had even one year of 3% GDP growth.”

He was the only president to have ZIRP foisted upon him his whole 2 terms also… growth, as a function, has the policy rate in the numerator of one of the terms of the equation…

dont blame Obama or the “business cycle!” (‘cycle’ sounding very stochastic here)

Tom Hickey said
He was the only president to have ZIRP foisted upon him his whole 2 terms also… growth, as a function, has the policy rate in the numerator of one of the terms of the equation…

Matt, citing one potential factor with the implication that it is a major cause without providing substantiation is magical thinking. It’s a narrative and not a scientific explanation.

The problem in pseudoscience is choose your narrative and then argue with others with lots of handwaving but without providing compelling evidence.

Tom Hickey said…
Greg, I’ve only pointed out the small but still positive changes in flows not munnie supplies or anything monetarist…

But the point is where the interest payments are flowing and what happens then. If saving desire is still higher then spending desire (consumption and investment) at the macro level, then the flow will likely have little to no effect on growth.

Tom Hickey said…
Increased interest income from from higher rates will result in higher expenditure and some employment increases… states (like Illinois) will get well too and be able to do more purchases…

Financial indexes will go up ex post of the increases in incomes… it’s not stochastic or complicated….

Yes, it is complicated. If the increase flows to spending, then more growth. It is flows to saving, then no growth. So the ratio of saving to spending must be known rather than just assumed.

Moreover, there are seldom single causal factors in social situations, which is why it is difficult coming up with linear equations and writing functions in social science including economics.

One could do a statistical analysis of similar situations in the past to arrive at a probability distribution but it would be an estimate. Likely more accurate than a guess though, with the caveat that past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

Tom Hickey said…
I should qualify the statement, “Moreover, there are seldom single causal factors in social situations, which is why it is difficult coming up with linear equations and writing functions in social science including economics,” with the proviso that the outcome conforms to reality based on data.

Social scientists and especially economics simply their assumptions to make the math tractable and fit with their priors all the time, But the results are generally disappointing when compared with reality.

Not to worry though. Collecting data and processing it into useful information is difficult at the macro scale, so they are not caught out until embarrassing turning points when they get caught with their pants down.

Matt Franko said…
Tom, Functional equations often have more than one term and multiple variables…

State and local govts will spend any increase in govt interest income they get on their erisa accounts $4$ until the accounts become over funded … this will take a while …. so will modest income savers…

You guys are the ones who keep saying everything is going to hell meanwhile it isn’t happening … I’m telling you here why it isn’t happening the system is being provisioned with modest yoy3 increases of Treasury withdrawals so we will continue to see modest measures of growth…

Tom Hickey said
Matt, I am not saying your are wrong. I am waiting for your to spell out the argument so that is more than a narrative. I have shown ways that the narrative can be attacked, while you say it is not complicated. If it’s not show it with more than more narrative.

I appreciate that this takes time that you may not wish to devote to this, or sharing research that is proprietary. Those are good reasons, but then the claim remains an unsubstantiated assertion supported only by narrative.

This is an important claim, however, since it would radically revise current thinking. So I am pushing you on it. You are the one taking about competence, being qualified, writing deterministic functions, etc. So I am saying put up or shut up. : )

Warren Mosler said…
I was born in 1949…
Also, a positive policy rate is basic income for those with money…
😉
Matt Franko said…
Tom it always has to start this way

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem

“Scientists often look for Fermi estimates of the answer to a problem before turning to more sophisticated methods to calculate a precise answer. ”

It’s good enough for now, let’s see what happens we’ve had almost 10 years of zirp/QE and high savings resulting in tepid growth now let’s see what happens to growth as the zirp and QE is reversed leaving other fiscal areas slightly up to flat….

If we return to higher levels of growth then it would be worth more formal documentation…

Zirp/QE has certainly not led to decent growth in prices or output like the monetarist people claim it would….. just the opposite…

Tom Hickey said…
That’s post hoc ergo propter hoc aka questionable cause. It is an informal fallacy.

It’s another way of asserting something without showing substantiation.

Correlation is not causation.

To put it in your terms, where’s the determinism?

This requires showing a transmission mechanism, and I have offered objections to a simple linear model above. The flow can go in different directions that will influence the effect.

The Rombach Report said…
Warren Mosler said…

“Bank credit contribution to growth this year a lot less than last year.”

Warren – Happy Father’s Day!

The Rombach Report said…
Matt Franko said…

“Our only hope of getting out of this low growth environment is via automatic appropriation e.g. higher interest income from higher policy rate and a reversal of QE helping out banks do more financing of output assets…”

Matt – Flattening yield curve in the face of Fed rate hikes suggest the economy is losing traction. The Trump election has fueled 20% stock market gains on expectations for large fiscal expansion from tax cuts, defense & infrastructure spending, all of which is looking more doubtful now. Maybe it wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world for the Fed to hold off on further rate hikes until that policy agenda gets back on track.

Matt Franko said…
The transmission mechanism is govt crediting non non govt bank accounts…
Matt Franko said…
Tom I could demonstrate osmosis to you and the change in concentration across the membrane and you would say “where is the evidence!”…
Tom Hickey said…
The transmission mechanism is govt crediting non govt bank accounts..

That is saying that income leads to spending detemninisticallly. There are several issues with that.

First, income is either spent or not spent (saved). The portion that is saved doesn’t become someone else income and has no effect on growth. So the ratio of saving to spending is important here and that ratio is variable, determined by the liquidity preference those receiving the income.

Current low interest on the longer end of the yield curve would suggest that saving desire is still elevated. In addition, the one bright spot is financial investment in equities not to be confused with primary investment in production. The presumption is that a significant portion of an increase in income will flow into equities, which falls under saving.

Secondly, spending flows into different channels that have different economic effects, so affecting growth more than others. For example, the multiplier effect of productive investment is higher than consumption.

Different types of consumption and investment also have different effects. For example, its’ possible that Silicon Valley does very well as a result of the increased injection but the rest of the economy not so much.

Tom Hickey said…
Tom I could demonstrate osmosis to you and the change in concentration across the membrane and you would say “where is the evidence!”…

I am not asking for evidence but a fleshed out explanation that can be tested.

In the osmosis example, you would explain the theory and the mechanism behind it, and show how evidence supports it and no evidence contradicts it. You would further point out that the explanation is comprehensive, internally consistent and consilient with the rest of scientific knowledge, corresponds to evidence, is useful and economical. Moreover, there is no competing theory. As a result, I would agree that is is the best explanation.

You have not made that case wrt your claim.


3 Year Over YearYOY.

Warren Mosler-en kreditu kontrola (2)

Hasierarako ikus Warren Mosler-en kreditu kontrola (1)

Segida:

Warren Mosler — Credit check1

See any reason not to panic?
😉

Iruzkinak:

Matt Franko said…
Every time the govt shoves cash assets down the bank’s throat then Bank Credit including Loans & Leases always rolls over or flattens out until banks can make the required capital adjustments this is nothing new or anything to panic about:

https://twitter.com/i_deficit_moron/status/855594066783948800

Ryan Harris said…
When humpty-dumpty falls, you can’t simply put the money back in the TGA2 and everything goes back to normal. The economy isn’t a shmoo that uprights itself and returns to normal. It’s sets off an irreversible cascade where sales and production lost is gone forever and productive capacity is destroyed. This is pretty much case-in-point why congress and the whitehouse need to pay more attention to fiscal policy and less to monetary policy.

Everything is backwards. Central banks should issue treasuries bonds, bills and notes, not The Treasury. Congress should give authority for spending but not exact amounts but rather soft goals for the spending. And treasury should determine the actual amounts needed to reach congressional goals.

This is something that needs to be made clear to all the politicians in DC and fixed in our constitutions in the potential Convention of States this year. Too bad MMT doesn’t have a think-tank or policy center that could help draft legislation and create briefs for state lawmakers so they better understand the system in the months ahead before they fiddle with The US Constitution otherwise we might have to wait another generation to get it right.

Unfortunately the goofs like Peterson do have the power and they are hopelessly misguided by orthodox economists that dominate the educational and political system.

I’ll bet we could put together some political action people in Washington now that more people follow MMT and actually get enough money from the ruling billionaire classes to do it. Billionaires would benefit as much as anyone from a well run economy.

Matt Franko said…
Need $200M Ryan….
Noah Way said…
We shouldn’t have billionaires, tax policy should preclude it.
Warren Mosler said…
Agreed!
😉
Ralph Musgrave said…
Ryan Harris,

Not quite sure what you’re saying, but you seem to be working towards a system under which CBs determine the size of the deficit, while politicians (quite rightly) decide what % of GDP goes to public spending, and how that is split between education, health, law and order, and other public spending items. Positive Money has advocated that system for some time.

Bernanke also suggested that wouldn’t be a bad idea recently. See para starting “A possible arrangement..” here:

http://fortune.com/2016/04/12/bernanke-helicopter-money/

I agree that MMTers have not devoted much thought to the latter point, if that was what you meant to say.

Matt Franko said…
“what % of GDP goes to public spending”

Ralph I don’t think they can do that… I think they only could estimate how much they would spend (much is on automatic appropriation) and non-govt activity determines the complement of govt spending which is measured ex post to get NIA GDP…

Matt Franko said…
Here some history, you can see how at the changes in the reserve policy they caused the GFC in late 2008 and last year’s decent performance, and the current reduced YoY rate of growth, etc:

https://twitter.com/i_deficit_moron/status/855776819580207104

Tom Hickey said…
The central bank should be involved in monetary policy and financial regulation and oversight.

Basically, the function of a central bank is to manage financial risk in bank and finance.

One measure of risk in the system is the ration of safe to risky assets, that is, public to private debt. The cb should have the power to issue default-risk-free securities to manage the ratio.

The use of public funds in fiscal policy should be based on public input. “No taxation without representation,” was founding principle of the American republic.

Fiscal policy is constitutionally in the hands of the people’s representatives in the United States.

It would be a dereliction of duty for the people’s representatives to delegate that responsibility to the centra bank, i.e., technocrats that are drawn chiefly from the elite. And it would be folly for the people to allow them to do so.

The change that needs to be made is getting the money out of politics, ending the two party lock on power, ending lobbying, and locking the revolving door. Presently government has been captured by a relatively small coterie of the population and they are running the country for their cohort rather than the people as a whole.

Giving them more power, especially over the purse, would be the end end of the democratic republic, which would continue to exist only as a façade, that is, more of a façade than presently.

Tom Hickey said…
People see the world through the lenses of their own spectacle. Those in business, finance and economics see the world through the lens of wealth and its distribution. Politicians view the world in terms of power and its distribution. The lenses themselves (ideological blinders) are distributed through networks involving class structure, fences and gatekeepers. These are very limited lenses that are biased toward an angle of vision that is tilted toward the top and should not be chief basis of decision-making in a democratic republic, let alone the sole one that matters.
Matt Franko said…
Well maybe Congress could just say “were buying 100 F-35s” and leave the munnie out of it… let the purchasing agents negotiate the best price …

Or Congress could say “ZERO unemployment” and let the JG administrators figure out the munnie issues…

Matt Franko said…
And while they’re at it they could try not to periodically bankrupt their fiscal agents too for a change..
Matt Franko said…
Instead you have these CBO morons who’ve never taken an accounting course
Tom Hickey said…
Well maybe Congress could just say “were buying 100 F-35s” and leave the munnie out of it… let the purchasing agents negotiate the best price …

Or Congress could say “ZERO unemployment” and let the JG administrators figure out the munnie issues…

Matt, it’s responsibility, oversight, and accountability that is at issue. Then public is concerned not only with outcomes but also corruption, and most people don’t trust government procurement and administration. It’s not only a belief in greater efficiency and material capability of the private sector but also a strong conviction of government being highly susceptible to corruption. In a democracy, there is the assumption that the people can always through the bums out. This is a big reason behind the demand for limited government (the “$500 toilet seat” being a classical example.) “Waste, fraud and abuse.”

Matt Franko said…
$500 toilet seat is just the cost accounting Tom… Go try and get 1 custom thing injection molded its expensive… or 1 custom thing 3D printed …. its expensive…

Defense contractors are also regulated under cost plus contracts they have to document costs … so under the terms of the contract, if they have to apply minimum overhead costs to all material items, you end up with a “$500 toilet seat” so called by morons like Spinney and crew and all the other “were out of money!” morons who’ve never taken even Accounting 101 yet they are somehow looked at by the mob as qualified to comment/opine….

Tom Hickey said…
Congress appropriates spending in the budget. It’s allocated by programs and departments.

The executive branch is a giant bureaucracy that handles the administration, ostensibly professionally in accordance with standards and with oversight.

I don’t see issues here that private contractors could necessarily handle the administration better, that is, more efficiently and effectively, producing a superior result less expensively. That seems to be an assumption requiring substantiation other than ideological.

The issue is how spending is allocated. That’s half of fiscal policy.

The other half is tax policy. Under current rules — “pay-go” — most programs have to be funded by taxes.

These are political choices. The opposition is between through advocating for a market state and those advocating for a welfare state.

This is where the issues lie.

Government is already run largely by technocrats, that is, the administrative bureaucracy aka the civil service.

The real issue here is who is to make decision that allocate “spending,” that is, use of private sector resources, including labor, for public purpose.

One side wants more technocratic control, the other more democratic control.

Giving the cb technocratic control over fiscal policy, either in whole or part, seems to be to base the system more in favor of a market state and capital la than toward a welfare state and distributed prosperity.

The Fed already has a dual mandate but still uses employment as a tool to target price level regardless of the mandate.

See also Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978 (Humphrey-Hawkins)

Paul Volcker disregarded the law and pursued his own agenda.

Matt Franko said…
Well they are still disregarding that law Tom… cuz “out of money!”…

Tom Congress is not allocating use of private sector resources they are allocating “money” which is a figure of speech and which they think we are out of… they are complete disgraced unqualified under-educated libertarian morons…

Matt Franko said…
Look at the chart Tom in time domain linked to above, these idiots created 100s of $B of reserve assets in a very short time without granting any regulatory ratio waivers and crashed the whole system …. they’re idiots…
Matt Franko said…
And PS : Now they are getting ready to reverse the whole thing and perhaps create a big bonanza … which they will probably then reverse as before and crash the whole thing again…
Tom Hickey said…
Congress is not allocating use of private sector resources they are allocating “money”

Congress doesn’t just appropriate funds to the agencies to spend as they wish. They want to know beforehand how the funds will be allocated to projects. These are itemized, e.g., so many F-35s at an estimated cost of so much each, so much for maintenance of F-22s, etc.

Tom Hickey said…
Look at the chart Tom in time domain linked to above, these idiots created 100s of $B of reserve assets in a very short time without granting any regulatory ratio waivers and crashed the whole system …. they’re idiots…

I am still not clear on the accounting in terms of the Treasury books, the Fed’s books, the banks’ books, and the non-banks’ books.

Tom Hickey said…
Another huge issue in granting the cb more power over not only monetary policy but also fiscal is that it treats government as a big firm with the board in charge of making key decisions. Further complicating the matter is that the government is a currency monopolist, so that the cb effectively set prices in setting the interest rate, what it allows as collateral and lending against collateral, and in the case of fiscal, the prices it pays in markets.

This is a command economy that capitalism is supposed to replace. The chair of the cb would have dictatorial powers. Even if it is a board with equal votes, the ruling body is essentially a politburo.

Ryan Harris said…
If the central bank is responsible for issuing notes, bills and bonds, they aren’t in charge of fiscal.

On the contrary, they are in charge of monetary policy. They can decide on quantity, duration, and price of credit. They could choose not to issue any debt at all or they could issue more than the fiscal deficit. Leave it up to them based on needs of banking system, capital, currency price and external balance…

Matt Franko said…
Tom the CB would not be establishing public purpose they would just be in effect operating the water supply and sanitary systems…

One you decide to have clean water and a sewage system you need competent people to turn the wrenches…. I don’t see any….

Tom Hickey said…
The only question that really matters is who is in charge — the people (direct democracy) or the people through accountable representatives (democratic republic), or unelected decision-makers with no accountability.

It’s really about decision-making and accountability.

Administration can be arranged wrt to effectiveness and efficiency as long as there is accountability all the way through the process, with the people ultimately in charge.

Otherwise, it is dictatorial to some degree. j

Matt Franko said…
Its a Hobson’s choice between micro managing morons now and maybe corrupt morons then….
Michael Norman said…
Credit growth is slowing, but nominal levels of credit outstanding are at or near all-time highs.

Moreover, the whole slowdown has been due to extreme volatility of the Treasury’s General Account, as Matt alluded to. It is not saying anything, particularly, about credit demand. Mosler was late to seeing the slowdown, and he doesn’t see the connection between the TGA and bank credit.


2 TGA: Treasury General Account.

Warren Mosler-en kreditu kontrola (1)

Sarrera gisa ikus ondokoak:

Kreditu kontrola (egiaztapenak)

Kreditu kontrola (egiaztapenak 2)

Segida:

Warren Mosler — Credit check1

Iruzkinak:

MRW said…
Matt, is your discussion of Present Value meant to explain the downturn in the charts Mosler showed?
Ryan Harris said…
Matt is saying the banks have reported the value of their stock of loans in their “inventory” fell because of interest rate change adversely affected their value using that mathy formula.
Maybe someone could ask Warren. If anyone know bank loan values, it’s him, he owned his own bank and had to deal with annoying regulators and accountants
MRW said…
And FRED wouldn’t know? Historically did the value of the stock of loans in their “inventory” increase when the interest rate fell to 25 basis points a few years ago?
Ryan Harris said…
Doesn’t make sense BC growth slowed, amount didn’t fall.
Dan Lynch said…
Matt raised an interesting point, with some help from Ryan’s plain English translation.

I turned to FRED to see if, in the past, a rising discount rate correlated to falling credit creation. To the contrary, credit creation and the discount rate usually have risen and fallen together. FRED graph at link

The chart also tells us that not all downturns in credit creation led to a recession — sometimes there were bumps in the road during expansions. But all recessions were accompanied by a downturn in credit creation. Usually the credit creation downturn preceded the recession, other times it coincided with the recession.

Ryan Harris said…

This explains the problem with credit. Defaults and delinquencies rising amid a deep dive into low credit scoring consumers by finance and auto companies reaching for sales targets.
Early in a recovery, they can bet on lower credit scores improving but late in the cycle, it’s reckless. This is the first credit cycle we are going to enter with the new 6-10yr longer-duration auto-loans and larger portions of the workforce in disposable 1099 and part-time positions. The reason collateral values are falling is because Auto-companies are heavily discounting to keep volumes up which is late-cycle behavior before layoffs become the only alternative to keep profits from eroding.
Matt Franko said…
The other thing is that if you look at what Treasury has been doing with reserves, they have been fluctuating the reserves via the TGA and remember those reserves are assets to the depository institutions just like loans…

The reserves have been wildly fluctuating by +\- 500B over the last months…

If those institutions seek to maintain a constant capital to assets ratio, if Treasury runs the TGA down by 400B in a few months like they just did, then reserve assets increase at the institutions so the institutions may increase the rate of securitization of loan assets (sell the loans) to get them off the balance sheet which would show up on the H.8 as a decrease in loan assets… this would be in order to maintain a constant target capital:asset ratio at the institutions which they always seek to do

.i.e. If govt forces 100s of $billions more reserve assets onto the depository institutions balance sheets in a short period of time the institutions have to get rid of other assets to maintain a constant capital:asset ratio… so they sell the loans…

Matt Franko said…
The frequency response of bank capital is waaaaay lower than the frequency reponse of bank assets… and banks (depository institutions) seek to maintain a constant ratio of capital:assets and take action to do so…

DTM: ikuspegi australiar bat

Steven Hail-en Explainer: what is modern monetary theory?1

Modern monetary theorists aren’t concerned with budget repair.

(i) Ekonomiari buruzko pentsamendu-eskola berria: ekonomia orekatzea da helburu, ez aurrekontua orekatzea2

(ii) DTM eta Australiako Bill Mitchell3

(iii) Abba Lerner 1943an4

(iv) DTMren baieztapenak5

(a) Lehen baieztapena: Gobernu subiranoei dagokienez, ez dute inongo finantza-aurrekontuko mugarik6

(b) Bigarren baieztapena: Ekonomiek eta gobernuek muga errealak dauzkate7

(c) Hirugarren baieztapena: gobernuaren defizit fiskala beste baten superabit fiskala da8

(v) Beraz, gobernuak ezin du dolarrik gabe geratu; gobernuaren defizitak sektore pribatuaren aurrezkiak berdintzen ditu9

(vi) Australiako gobernuaren esperientzia10

(vii) Politikarien obsesioa: aurrekontua orekatzea11

(viii) Bill Mitchell eta lan bermea (job guarantee)12

(ix) Kasu gutxi, hala ere 13

2 Ingelesez: “There is a school of thought among economists who aren’t worried about the so called “budget black hole”, where tough choices have been called for to reduce government spending. Proponents of modern monetary theory, like Bernie Sanders’ chief economic adviser Professor Stephanie Kelton, claim the Australian government need not balance its budget and are instead calling for the government to balance the economy, which they argue is a different thing entirely.

3 Ingelesez: “Modern monetary theory is an approach to economic management developed since the 1990s by Professor Bill Mitchell, alongside American academics like Professor Randall Wray, Stephanie Kelton, and investment bankers and fund managers like Warren Mosler. It builds on the ideas of a previous generation of economists, such as Hyman Minsky, Wynne Godley and Abba Lerner, whose interpretation of the work of the famous economist J. M. Keynes was very different from that which became dominant by the 1980s.”

4 Ingelesez: “By the 1980s, most people saw Keynes as an advocate of budget deficits only during periods of high unemployment. Lerner, as early as 1943, in a paper entitled Functional Finance and the Federal Debt, had argued that Keynesian economics involved running whatever government deficit was necessary to maintain full employment, and that deficits should be seen as the norm. Keynes, in a letter to fellow economist James Meade written in April 1943, said of Lerner, “His argument is impeccable. But heaven help anyone who tries to put it across”.

5 Ingelesez: “While the theory has attracted its own interpretations and criticism it’s also gaining traction in a global economic environment that continues to defy the efforts of policymakers to restore sustained economic growth.

There are three core statements at the heart of modern monetary theory. The first two are:

6 Ingelesez: “1) Monetary sovereign governments face no purely financial budget constraints.

The first statement is the one which is widely misunderstood. A monetary sovereign government is one with its own currency and central bank, a floating exchange rate, and no significant foreign currency debt. Australia has a monetary sovereign government. So does the UK, the US and Japan. The Eurozone countries are not monetary sovereigns, as they do not have their own currencies.“

7 Ingelesez: “2) All economies, and all governments, face real and ecological limits relating to what can be produced and consumed.

The second of these statements confirms the obvious fact that governments can cause inflation, if they choose, by spending too much themselves, or not taxing enough. When this happens, the total level of spending in the economy exceeds what can be produced by all the labour, skills, physical capital, technology and natural resources which are available. We can also destroy our natural ecosystem if produce too many of the wrong things, or use the wrong processes to produce what we want to consume.

The Australian government is a currency-issuing central government. It cannot run out of Australian dollars. It’s never forced to borrow Australian dollars, although it can and does choose to do so, and its debt securities play a useful role in our financial system.

It doesn’t exactly need to tax us to pay for its spending either. Taxes exist to limit inflation. It’s necessary for us to pay taxes to keep total spending – government and private – at a level which will not be inflationary.

This doesn’t mean government spending and taxation have to equal each other, and in countries like Australia this rarely happens in practice. This leads to the third principle of modern monetary theory:”

8 Ingelesez: “3) The government’s financial deficit is everybody else’s financial surplus.

For every lender, there must be a borrower. That means that across our financial system, surpluses and deficits always add up to zero.

This is clear in the following chart, which shows the financial balances of the Australian private sector, the rest of the world, and the Australian government sector, since 1994.”

(Ikus lehen irudia)

For every saver who earns more than they spend, there must somebody or some institution which spends more than it takes in. If we want the private sector as a whole to save rather than go further into debt, the government will probably have to spend more than it taxes (depending on what the rest of the world is doing).

It works the other way around too. The Howard government was only able to run fiscal surpluses because the private sector went heavily into deficit.“

Familien zorra dagokionez,

Household debt trebled during the Howard years. Since then, we have been in a tie with a couple of other countries for the highest household debt to income ratios in the world.

9Ingelesez: “So, the government cannot run out of dollars; that doesn’t mean the government should “spend like a drunken sailor” or that we don’t have to pay taxes; it does mean balanced budgets are unnecessary. It also means government deficits can play a supportive role, allowing the private sector to build up its saving.”

10 Ingelesez: “Australian governments have nearly always run deficits anyway. None of the above ought to be shocking. On average, governments of both left and right have run deficits, ever since federation. It just might be that you have been misled by that metaphor of the government as a household.

In a country with nearly 15% underutilisation of labour, over 30% youth underutilisation, fragile private balance sheets, and a growing need for green and other infrastructural investments, it does imply that budget repair is a red herring. This means the government could and should be using its role as the currency issuer to promote full employment, social inclusion, ecological repair, and healthy private sector balance sheets.

11 Ingelesez: “Politicians are, according to modern monetary theorists, currently obsessed with something which doesn’t matter (balancing their budget), and are ignoring many things which do matter a great deal for the future of the country.

This is the perspective you get when you start to see Australia and the world through the prism of modern monetary theory. It’s based on nothing more than a comprehension of how modern financial systems actually work, and in that sense, perhaps it should not be controversial at all.

12 Ingelesez: “Modern monetary theory proponent, Professor Bill Mitchell, advocates for governments to use the policy space provided for them by monetary sovereignty to introduce a job guarantee and pursue a return to unemployment rates of 2% or less. These rates were achieved in Australian across the 1960s and early 1970s. He proposes a return to full employment through a federally funded and locally managed program of public employment. He does not believe that this need be inflationary – indeed the job guarantee is an essential part of the modern monetary theory framework for stabilising the economy and avoiding inflation.

13 Ingelesez: “In Australia, the three major political parties have as yet paid little attention to his ideas. But his fellow modern monetary theorists got close to government in the USA (with Senator Bernie Sanders) and two micro-parties have been set up in the last year with the express intention of promoting modern monetary theory as a frame for understanding economic issues. So you can expect to hear a lot more from both the proponents and the critics of modern monetary theory.”

Euskal Herriak autodeterminazio-eskubidea du, eta kito!

Progresiak dioena (erdara batuan):

Akizu y Zubiaga: «Hay que hacer pueblo, no primero el mapa y luego ya veremos»

Ez, Herria, Euskal Herria hortxe dago. Eta Herri horrek, beste edozein herrik bezalaxe autodeterminazio-eskubidea du, eta eskubide hori aplikatuz, bere etorkizuna aukeratuko du, progresia mota guztien gainetik.

Batere progrea ez zenak aspaldian argi eta garbi gogoratu zigun moduan: 2006ko Txillardegi

Kito! Akabo!

ICEC Euskal Herria – Manifesto in support of Catalan referendum

ICEC – EUSKAL HERRIA declares1:

– any decision on the political relationship with the State belongs to the Catalan people, through a referendum of self-determination.

– we firmly reject any threat or intervention of the Spanish state to limit the Catalan self-government

– we formally ask the two parliaments of Euskal Herria to support the Catalan authorities in their process of self-determination, as well as to promote one in Euskal Herria.

Links to articles:

www.noticiasdegipuzkoa.com/2017/06/13/opinion/cartas-al-director/kataluniako-autodeterminazio-erreferendumaren-alde

www.berria.eus/paperekoa/5101854/022/004/2017-06-14/kataluniako_erreferendumaren_alde.htm


1 Ikus http://icecexperiment.weebly.com/icec-news/icec-euskal-herria-manifesto-in-support-of-catalan-referendum.

Moneta global eta bakar bat?

Albistea: Currency Wars: Nazarbayev recommends the introduction of a global currency1

June 17th, 2017 – Fort Russ News –
-Pars Today – – translated by Frederick Assar –

In a speech at the Astana economic forum, Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev, proposed taking into consideration the introduction of a “global currency” that will free the world from currency wars.

“It is time to take seriously into account the introduction of an international payment unit that will free the world from currency wars, speculation, avoiding distortions in trade relations and reducing market volatility,” said Nazarbaev, stressing that “money should have a simple, transparent emission mechanism for consumers”. “Taking into account digitization, technology development, such as block-chain, this payment unit can only be set up as currency. It’s important that it is not based on abstract trust for specific resources,” he added. In his view, “the introduction of a global currency is possible through the creation of a pool of central banks, for example, by a special UN committee“.

Bancor izeneko moneta revisited?

Gogoratu ondoko linka:

Bretton Woods, John Maynard Keynes eta gaurko mundu ekonomikoa