Langabezia EBn

EU_Eurostat‏@EU_Eurostat1

#Unemployment rates in #EUregions ranged from 2.1% to 31.3% in 2016 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-press-releases/-/1-27042017-AP …

2017 api. 27

EU_Eurostat@EU_Eurostat2

#Unemployment rates in 32 #EUregions are more than double of the EU average rate; 12 are in Greece and 10 in Spain http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-press-releases/-/1-27042017-AP …

2017 api. 27


Warren Mosler eta DTM

DTM ez da berria

MMT Is Not New

Warren Mosler discussing the historical roots of Modern Money Theory, which is mostly a re-discovery of old ideas. Some previous thinkers include Georg Friedrich Knapp, Alfred Mitchell-Innes, Beardsley Ruml, Marriner Eccles, and Hyman Minsky.

Bideoa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2JkowoC3fQ&feature=youtu.be&list=PLZJAgo9FgHWaVkIgKXLTeQNjt6Cxxg6L2

Urre estandarra

The Gold Standard Mostly Ended in 1933-34

Warren Mosler, father of Modern Monetary Theory, on with Steve Grumbine of Real Progressives, discussing the gold standard. Although sometimes the dates of 1971 or 1973 (when the Bretton-Woods system fell apart) for the end of the gold standard, Mosler argues here that 1933-34, when the US suspended domestic convertibility into gold, is the better date to use. Though a strict convertibility regime would limit domestic policy (see here: https://youtu.be/3OJFjzckZYM?list=PLZ…), the US was able to mostly ignore these kinds of considerations because it faced very limited demand to convert dollars to gold.

Bideoa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzGP1Q7PG_4&feature=youtu.be&list=PLZJAgo9FgHWZvuoben7kGyEH292iPmoBo

Diruaren helburua

The Purpose Of Money Is To Provision Government (or, “How To Turn Litter Into Money”)

Warren Mosler, one of the founders of Modern Monetary Theory, on what the logical purpose of money is. This is not to say that it doesn’t achieve other ends as well, but rather that as a point of logic it is a solution to the problem of how to provision government.

“How To Turn Litter Into Money” demonstrates the mechanism by which acceptance (or “acceptation”) of money can be driven by the power standing behind the issuing authority. This contrast with the general public perception that so-called “fiat money” is accepted only because the government says so.

Bideoa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT4JLIuFhaA&feature=youtu.be&list=PLZJAgo9FgHWZzhpkjtMxIwZns26A0OdFz

Txina eta AEBko zorra

Aren’t We Financial Slaves To China?!?!

Warren Mosler on what it means that China buys our debt. China accumulates dollars at their Federal Reserve account because we run a trade deficit with them, so they get dollars when we buy stuff. They could sit on these dollars and do nothing, but they’d prefer to earn interest, so they purchase US Treasury bonds which are essentially savings accounts at the Fed.

These bonds are constantly maturing, and we are constantly paying them back, billions of dollars a week, by transferring the dollars from their savings account back to their reserve account. That’s it. We benefit enormously from this situation: we get real goods and services out of Chinese labor instead of American labor, and they only end up with numbers on an account statement.

If China decided they didn’t want to hold dollar-denominated assets anymore, then they could spend the dollars to buy stuff. If they buy real stuff, then that pushes up American employment. If they buy other currencies, then this could put downward pressure on the dollar’s exchange rate, which would cause our exporters to hire more people.

Gogoratzekoak:

Warren Mosler-ek merkataritza defizitaz. Nork nori hornitzen dizkio fondoak?

Maileguek gordailuak sortzen dituzte

Warren Mosler eta zergak

Gernika 80. urteurrena

Olariaga

Lekukoak:

George Steer kazetaria

Ondo gordetako lekukotzak

Gogoratzekoak:

Pablo Picasso

Gernika baino lehen, Durango

Gernika

Kontaketa1

Koadroa2

Picasso volvió a Francia dejando el cuadro en América y en París, en 1940, se topó con el ejercito nazi que había ocupado gran parte del país. Según se cuenta, un oficial alemán le preguntó a Picasso por esas fechas ante una foto del cuadro de Guernica: “¿Ha hecho usted esto?”. Picasso respondió: “No, han sido ustedes” …”


Sant Jordi (Done Jurgi)

Anna Arqué Solsona‏ @anna_arque1

Sant Jordi no tindria cap problema amb el drac de l’estat! ?Nosaltres tampoc!! https://twitter.com/nicolastomas/status/856038404756299776 … #NiUnPasEnrere #CatRef #Independència

2017 api. 23

Gehigarria:

Kataluniako Sant Jordi egunean


DTM da bera den moduan, ez bera izan beharko litzatekeen gisan

Bill Mitchell-en MMT is what is, not what might be1

(i) Sarrera2

(ii) Puntua: printzipioak eta balore ieologikoak3

(iii) Ezaguera faltsua: korronte nagusiko teoria4

(iv) Antzekoa gertatzen da makroekonomian5

(v) B. Mitchell-en bi etsenplu6

(vi) DTM erregimen aldaketa da7

(vii) Korronte nagusiko teoriakoen erasoak8

(viii) Zertan den DTM9

(ix) 19171ko abuztuaz gero, fiat-eko moneta sistema10

(x) Euroguneko estatu kideak11

(xi) DTM eta errealitatea12

(xii) Lan bermea, job guarantee13

(xiii) Jadanik bizi gara DTM-ko munduan14

(xiv) DTM-k permititzen digu mundu hori hobeto ikustea, iluntasunik gabe15

(xv) DTMk jendea ahalduntzen du, DTM marko berri bat da bizi gareneko sistema monetarioa nola funtzionatzen duen ulertzeko16

(xvi) DTM ez da ezkerrekoa, ezta eskumakoa ere! Ideologia argitzen du17

Ondorioa:

I hope that discussion helps some readers out there who have been struggling with this sort of issue.”

(Next week, I will present a blog forecasting the “first 100 days of a Melenchon Presidency for France”. Right-wing economists trading in fake knowledge have already published such an exercise. It is comical. I will try to be more serious.)


1 Ikus http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=35836.

2 Ingelesez: “One of the things I have noted with regularity is that readers and other second-generation Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) bloggers often fall into the error which we might characterise as the “When we have MMT things will be different” syndrome. Or the “we need to change to MMT principles to make things better” syndrome. Thinking that MMT constitutes a regime change is incorrect and steers one away from the core issues. In this blog, I reflect on that syndrome and some other aspects of the development of ideas, which I hope will provide readers with a clearer picture of what the core (early) MMT developers (Mosler, Bell/Kelton, Wray, Mitchell, Tcherneva, Fullwiler) had in mind when we set out in the early 1990s to construct a better way of doing macroeconomics.”

3 Ingelesez: “The point is that while MMT constitutes a regime change in economic thinking within the academy it does not constitute a regime change in the way the monetary system operates. We need to separate the operational principles exposed by MMT academics from their ideological values to really come to terms with the fact that MMT is what is, not what might be. (…)”

4 Ingelesez: “In economics, I characterise most of the mainstream theory as ‘fake knowledge’. Please read my blog – The failure of economics – reality and language – for more discussion on this point.

It doesn’t help us understand the way the monetary system operates. The mainstream explanations and characterisations are just plain wrong – and systematically so – one myth links into and reinforces another in a stream of logical nonsense.

But if you then ask why the mainstream adopt the position that they do, which in any reasonable assessment is ‘just plain wrong’ – then exploring that question is insightful because we enter the world of ideology and the role that ideas have in reinforcing existing power elites.

It is clear that the adoption of ‘free market’ conceptions help maintain the elite position in the deployment of real resources and the income flows that are derived.

There was a recent and interesting article in The Nation (March 6, 2017) – Our political economy is designed to create poverty and inequality – along these lines.

So, while mainstream economics is bunkum, understanding its role is important and helps us understand why ‘better’ ideas struggle to gain ascendancy in the contest of ideas. (…)”

5 Ingelesez: “Similarly, does an adherence by policy makers to the fake knowledge offered by mainstream macroeconomics force millions of people to endure unemployment and poverty unnecessarily. The answer is clearly yes. (…)

All of these stories (and there are many more I could write about) involve regime change. They involve a new set of ideas or explanations coming headlong against the perceived mainstream and then being undermined until it becomes self-evident that the facts support the new idea.

(…)

Once supplanted, the old theories are no longer considered valid knowledge. Kuhn also noted that there is a sort of mob rule among practitioners within a dominant paradigm and they vehemently hold onto their views even in the face of logical or empirical anomaly.

The dominant group becomes trapped in what Irving Janis called Groupthink and initially vilifies those who propose new ways of thinking.

(…)

Not all novel ideas face this sort of brick wall. But when the professional bodies become trapped by Groupthink and, typically, there is status and money at stake (particularly, commercial edge) then resistance can be fierce and prolonged.

So we can fairly say that the ideas discussed above resulted in regime change in their particular areas. In some cases, the regime confronted was dominated with real knowledge (…) but some assertions relating to that knowledge become exposed.

In other cases, the knowledge is fake all along and the dominance of the discipline is maintained through control of media, professional appointment and promotion, access to research funds, and other smokescreens that are erected to deter outsiders from knowing what the facts are.

Mainstream macroeconomics fits into that latter category. It is fake knowledge and always has been. But the Groupthink discpline among the profession is very tight and coercive. Anyone who has ever challenged its position will know what I mean.

6 Ingelesez: “I was giving an invited presentation once at a prestigious conference on my macroeconomic views (I was the token Keynesian they used to have along to say they were providing a balanced roster of speakers! Not!).

Anyway, after I had given the presentation, the discussant started off by saying (with a whirring noise to start his spiel) “ladies and gentlemen, I think we are being visited by a presence from Mars today!” He said very little after that and just rode on the laughter in the audience. That was meant to be serious professional interchange.

It was nothing more than bullying. There was huge laughter at my expense – but by this stage I was a senior professor and had experienced years of this sort of ignorance. Always water off a duck’s back! I was inured to it.

When I was starting out, my very first referee’s report on a journal submission was one sentence long (they are normally, at least, a few pages long). It said “the author obviously hasn’t read or understood the first chapter in Lipsey”, which was a major mainstream textbook at the time, preaching the sort of rubbish that goes for mainstream macro.

That was it. I had spent hours working on the paper ensuring it was very tight and all I got was that. I took it as a challenge. But many more sensitive younger aspirants would have been destroyed by it – their confidence shot and their motivation damaged.

The economics profession is brutal and you have to have a thick hide to survive if you take it on.

7 Ingelesez: “So in this sense, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) constitutes a regime change. It directly challenges (and exposes) the lies and deceptions of the dominant economic theories and provides a systematic and consistent alternative.

At first we were ignored – for the first 10 years at least of our work (the small group I noted above). Then the progressive side of economics (Post Keynesians) started criticising us – mainly because they attended similar conferences. They were hostile because MMT challenges some of the neo-liberal baggage that Post Keynesians still accept.

But as the message has spread further and the ‘second-generation’ MMTers on social media have become more vocal and numerous, there is now attacks coming from the mainstream economists.”

8 Ingelesez: “I wrote about a recent attack in this blog – When mainstream economists jump the shark and lose it completely.

These attacks are becoming widespread and represent the next stage in our development as a set of ideas. The neo-liberal Groupthinkers in the profession are now sensing that their position is weakening as more and more people are starting to eschew the value of the mainstream economics as a result of its massive failure in dealing with the GFC.

That event exposed my profession, which for years had been operating under the radar, so to speak. But its failures were manifest and the mob rule has began to erect all sorts of defences to protect their regime, including mounting public attacks on MMT.

9 Ingelesez: “But the regime shift that I have been talking about up to now is not the same thing as the blogosphere claims that ‘things will be better when MMT is adopted’.

That sort of sentiment implies that we can shift to a ‘MMT regime’ if enough politicians are convinced.

The point to understand is that MMT is a system of thought that allows us to understand how a fiat currency monetary system operates and the central role that government can play in a modern monetary economy.

Modern monetary economies use money as the unit of account to pay for goods and services. An important notion is that money is a fiat currency, that is, it is convertible only into itself and not legally convertible by government into gold, for instance, as it was under the gold standard or later versions of the gold standard.”

10  Ingelesez: “What is mostly ignored in mainstream economic commentary is that in August 1971, the monetary system agreed at the famous Bretton Woods conference in July 1944, which required the central banks of participating nations to maintain their currencies at agreed fixed rates against the US dollar, collapsed.

The system proved unworkable and when President Nixon abandoned the convertibility of the US dollar into gold, most nations moved to a fiat currency system.

Within a fiat currency system, the government has the exclusive legal right to issue the particular fiat currency.

Further, given that this money is the only unit which is acceptable for payment of taxes and other financial demands of the government presents the government with a range of options.

We know that the government is not just a ‘large household’. The latter is the user of the currency and must finance its spending beforehand, ex ante, whereas government, the issuer of the currency, necessarily must spend first (credit private bank accounts) before it can subsequently debit private accounts, should it so desire (raising taxes).

Clearly, a fiat-currency issuing government is always solvent in terms of its own currency of issue.

MMT also teaches us that the purpose of State Money (fiat currency) is to facilitate the movement of real goods and services from the non-government (largely private) sector to the government (public) domain.

Government achieves this transfer by first levying a tax, which creates a notional demand for its currency of issue. To obtain funds needed to pay taxes and net save, non-government agents offer real goods and services for sale in exchange for the needed units of the currency. This includes, of-course, the offer of labour by the unemployed. The obvious conclusion is that unemployment occurs when net government spending is too low to accommodate the need to pay taxes and the desire to net save.

This analysis also sets the limits on government spending. It is clear that government spending has to be sufficient to allow taxes to be paid. In addition, net government spending is required to meet the private desire to save.

If the Government doesn’t spend enough to cover taxes and the non-government sector’s desire to save the manifestation of this deficiency will be unemployment. The basis of this deficiency is at all times inadequate net government spending, given the private spending (saving) decisions in force at any particular time.”

11 Ingelesez: “Different nations (or blocs of nations) structure and use the capacity possessed by a fiat currency in different ways. The Eurozone Member States voluntarily ceded the capacity to Frankfurt and then imposed harsh rules on themselves with respect to net spending.

Other nations have evolved differently.

12 Ingelesez: “But the point is that every day, across every nation, monetary systems are in place that operate along the lines described and explained by MMT.

MMT has a very close relationship to reality, whereas mainstream macroeconomics is largely incapable of dealing with reality.

So to think that a better world is just a matter of moving to MMT is to misunderstand the reality. Monetary systems of all shapes and sizes already operate according to MMT.

So when I read comments like “if we introduced MMT …” or “under MMT policies …” or “when MMT becomes the norm”, which all imply that MMT is a regime that we would move to if society was more enlightened and would open up a new range of policy options that a truly progressive government might pursue I know that this point has been misunderstood.”

13 Ingelesez: “This is tied in with other comments, specifically about the Job Guarantee, which suggest that MMT is a progressive doctrine or a left-wing approach to economic policy-making and what is holding MMT back from being introduced is the right-wing conspiracy to maintain hegemony.

14 Ingelesez: “I understand all these comments are well intended and people are genuinely attracted to some of the policy options that MMT proponents advance. This is notwithstanding, what I consider to be some doctrinal and irrational resistance to proposals such as the Job Guarantee.

But the conception that we might move to an MMT world where enlightened policy will free us from the yoke of capitalist exploitation is plain wrong.

The fact is that we are already living in the MMT world. We interact with each other every day in the MMT world. The monetary system, whether it be in the US, Australia, Japan or any of the Eurozone nations, operates along MMT lines.

So it is not about moving to some new Shangri-La, which we might call the MMT world – we are already in, that world.

What MMT provides is a new lens to view the world we live in and the monetary system operations that are important in our daily lives.

This new lens opens up new insights into what is going on in the economy on a daily basis. It’s not something to move to, it already is.

15 Ingelesez: “MMT, as a new powerful lens, makes things that are obscured by neo-liberal narratives more transparent.

It means that the series of interlinked myths that are advanced by conservative forces to distract us from understanding causality and consequence in policy-making and non-government sector decision-making are exposed.

So when a Conservative politician or corporate leader claims that the government has run out of money and therefore cannot afford income support for the unemployed any longer at the levels previously enjoyed, MMT alerts us to the fact that this is a lie and that there must be an alternative agenda.”

16 Ingelesez: “MMT thus empowers a population who learn about it to see things for what they are and to ask questions that they never previously would have thought possible to ask or even relevant.

Previously, when a politician has said the government will run out of money or is maxing out its credit card, an uninformed population will take that statement as granted.

But an understanding of the MMT framework all its lens would mean that the population will now reject the “run out of money” obfuscation and instead demand to know why the government doesn’t want to support a particular policy option.

MMT thus, introduces into the policy debate, the possibility of new policy options and directions that have previously been dismissed out of hand through the use of spurious economic arguments that the politicians and their advisors know will not be properly scrutinised nor understood by the general population who they are trying to manipulate.

MMT is thus, a framework for understanding how the monetary system we live in operates and the capacities and options that are currency-issuing government has to advance our well-being.

It also allows us to understand the likely consequences of deviating from a truly sovereign state, which we define in terms of the currency-issuing status of the government (incorporating exchange-rate arrangements and central bank interest rate setting capacities).

In the latter context, the MMT lens provided us with a clear understanding of why the Eurozone would be a failure with significant negative consequences for the Member States.”

17 Ingelesez: “Further, MMT is neither left-wing nor right-wing.

Where the confusion lies is in conflating the theoretical and descriptive content of MMT with the value systems that the proponents of MMT overlay on this content.

It might be thought that MMT is left-wing because the values I expound are from the left. But that would be a wrongful inference.

The ideological persuasion of any perspective will manifest in the values that are expounded and the policy prescriptions that are proposed to advance those values.

What MMT has allowed is for the ideological persuasion to become much clearer when a person advances a particular policy proposal.

For example, when a politician, faced with rising unemployment, says that there is no fiscal space for the government to create jobs to deal with the mass unemployment, a person considering that comment through the MMT lens, will immediately realise that the government must have a reason for maintaining higher than necessary unemployment.

We know there must be a ‘hidden’ agenda because our understanding tells us that the government fiscal space is defined in terms of available real resources that the government can purchase with its currency-issuing capacity. So if there is mass unemployment then we know that there are such available real resources.

So why would the government refuse to purchase them and bring them back into productive use?

The focus then shifts on what that reason is and questions are likely to lead, for example, to an examination of corporate influence that might be leading the government to refuse to use their currency-issuing capacities to maintain full employment.

But when a right-wing politician inspired by MMT expresses a desire to ensure there is a reserve army of unemployed because it will suppress wage demands and enhance profits (which he/she values above worker dignity etc) then they would propose cutting the fiscal deficit because their MMT training tells them that is how they will achieve their goal.

MMT just tells us what the consequences of imposing our values on society via policy choices will be. Those values can take any political or ideological colour.”

Txanpon baten bi aurpegi (berdintsu)

PNV: A. Ortuzar

Ikus Estatus berria (eta mandanga:)

¿La consulta habilitante que pide el PNV en el nuevo estatus antes de ir al Congreso de los Diputados es una condición irrenunciable en la ponencia parlamentaria?

-Como empecemos todos a poner condiciones irrenunciables, no llegamos a nada. Hay que aspirar al máximo consenso posible. Nos gustaría esa consulta habilitante porque sería un elemento de clarificación de qué quiere la sociedad vasca; y un elemento de claridad de cara al Estado, de empoderamiento de las instituciones vascas poder ir a negociar de una manera más sólida. (…)

¿Cuál es el nivel de suficiencia, el Cupo?

-Es el umbral mínimo, pero hace falta más.

¿Las transferencias competenciales van en este paquete?

-La época de transferencias por Presupuestos, quitando cosas muy concretas, ya pasó. Hay que hablar de la globalidad del autogobierno, la calidad y la cantidad, el futuro del nuevo estatus... Podríamos empezar a negociar transferencia por transferencia, pero tendríamos que tener claro que esto es una estación intermedia, corta, para dar un salto al nuevo estatus.(…)!”

Galderatxoak:

Nork agintzen du Gure Esku Dago delako horretan?

Zer dago gure esku?

Zer dago ‘derecho a decidir’ aka mandanga1-ren atzean? Consulta habilitante (sic) de clarificación (re-sic)?

EH Bildu: A. Otegi

Arnaldo Otegi: «El futur d’EH Bildu exigeix convertir-se en un front ampli hegemònic2»

Ja no sé quantes entrevistes m’han fet en els últims dos dies”, assegura el líder de l’esquerra abertzale. “De Nova Zelanda, Austràlia, Alemanya, Itàlia, la BBC, Al-Jazeera, la de Reuters…”,

(…)

Però no preveu una onada sobiranista a la catalana.

No. Jo el que percebo és que s’estan començant a construir les condicions que podrien fer-la possible a curt i mitjà termini. Però de moment no estem aquí, no hi ha condicions encara perquè passi. Però sí que crec que cada vegada hi ha sectors més importants al país que estan arribant a fer la reflexió que els bascos i les basques necessitem un Estat, com a instrument que ens protegeixi, que no ens deixi a la intempèrie i que garanteixi tots els nostres drets socials, nacionals i econòmics.

(…)

Malgrat uns resultats que valora com a positius, estan en ple debat sobre la renovació d’EH Bildu.

Després de diverses eleccions considerem que cal afinar l’instrument. EH Bildu ha de ser l’eina amb la qual l’independentisme disputi l’hegemonia social i electoral del país. I crec que per això necessitem abordar una reflexió en profunditat, que ja hem començat. Hem de fer una oferta política clara, que s’entén amb claredat quina és la nostra oferta al país. Això és una cosa que farem en els propers mesos i amb la qual crec que serem capaços de marcar l’agenda política.

Sembla que el futur d’EH Bildu és deixar de ser una coalició i passar a ser un partit més unitari.

No exactament. Nosaltres no som favorables a convertir EH Bildu en un partit polític a l’ús. El que pensem és que el futur d’EH Bildu exigeix convertir-se en un gran front ampli. En ell els partits han de seguir tenint la seva pròpia personalitat, però la reflexió és que hi ha molta gent que s’identifica amb EH Bildu i el seu programa però que no s’identifica exactament amb cap dels quatre partits que formem la coalició. El que volem és convertir EH Bildu en un subjecte ampli on, a més dels partits, els sectors independents o altres sectors tinguin cabuda i amb el qual, al final, es pugui construir un gran front popular, sobiranista i antioligàrquic per disputar l’hegemonia.

Un dels problemes d’EH Bildu és la política de pactes. D’una banda ha de proposar un model alternatiu al PNB però, de l’altra, fer-ho exigiria pactes amb forces no independentistes. Com se surt d’aquesta disjuntiva?

Durant la campanya electoral vam fer una proposta basada en els grans acords de país. Les grans nacions en el món es construeixen sobre grans acords. Aquesta va ser la idea que ens va portar a fer una oferta molt concreta al PNB i a Podem: una gran aliança a tres que permetia avenços en termes nacionals i socials, tenint en compte que la nostra previsió, després complerta, era que entre EH Bildu i Podem sumaríem més que el PNB. Malauradament, el PNB ha fet una aposta per un altre tipus de tripartit, PNB, PP i PSOE. Això és una catàstrofe nacional i en tots els sentits. I a més, Podem es va posar de perfil des de l’inici, va renunciar a jugar el paper que estava destinat a jugar en aquesta triple aliança.

Pacte de Govern amb el PSE i, ara, pactes amplis amb el PP. La posició del PNB és còmoda o és de fugida cap endavant?

Al PNB se li fa certament incòmode defensar la seva posició davant els seus propis votants. Només cal recordar que, la nit que van guanyar les eleccions, la gent els va rebre a la seu amb crits d’independència. A partir d’aquí, és difícil explicar que t’oblidis de la nit electoral i pactis amb el PSOE i amb el PP. Al final aquests acords dependran molt de quina sigui l’evolució social i de mobilització d’aquest país, encara que jo sóc dels que creu que el PNB té interès que siguin acords estables. I un altre factor important serà què passa a Catalunya. Que un partit anomenat nacionalista pacti amb el PP, que està amenaçant les institucions catalanes d’empresonar els seus càrrecs electes, no és una posició gens fàcil d’explicar.

Podem, aliat o obstacle per als objectius de l’esquerra abertzale?

A vegades parlem de Podem i no sabem a què ens referim, de quin Podem parlem dels molts que hi ha. Per exemple, vam veure alguns tuits d’Eduardo Maura [diputat al Congrés Podem per Biscaia] absolutament fora de lloc respecte al desarmament, diferents d’altres de Podem. En qualsevol cas, a Euskal Herria estem a l’espera de conèixer quina és exactament la proposta de Podem pel país. A nosaltres ens sembla molt bé la idea d’estar a favor del dret a decidir, però no sabem quin model de relació amb l’Estat espanyol desitgen. Perquè dir que ets favorable a una consulta pactada està molt bé, tots ho som, però és que aquesta consulta no es produirà. A partir d’aquí, quina és la seva posició? No ho tenim gaire clar.

Quina previsió teniu sobre la ponència d’autogovern?

Hi ha un interès per part del lehendakari Urkullu que al final la ponència d’autogovern ens condueixi a una reforma de la reforma de la reforma de l’Estatut. L’altre dia el constitucionalista Javier Pérez Royo va participar a la ponència, convidat per Podem, i va resumir a la perfecció la nostra visió sobre el que ha de passar. Pérez Royo va explicar que reformar l’Estatut per ampliar les competències i que el País Basc sigui reconegut com a nació és impossible mentre no es reformi la Constitució espanyola mitjançant un procés constituent que porti Espanya a reconèixer-se com a Estat plurinacional. Ara bé, la segona reflexió de Pérez Royo va ser: d’això se’n poden oblidar perquè entre el PP, el PSOE i Ciutadans fan una majoria absolutíssima que ho impedirà. Aquesta és la nostra posició: que el camí existent és aquest i cap més. El PNB tractarà de fer una reforma de la reforma, però l’autonomisme està esgotat, l’ha esgotat l’Estat. Per nosaltres el nou estatut es diu Estat basc.

Per tant és segur que no veurem l’esquerra abertzale donant suport a una reforma de l’Estatut dins dels límits constitucionals?

Dins dels límits constitucionals no serem acceptats com a nació i no tindrem dret a decidir el nostre futur. Per tant, no, no hi serem.

I tampoc en una eventual reforma constitucional?

Si s’obrís la porta a un procés constituent al conjunt de l’Estat que permetés, ara sí, fer la ruptura que no es va produir en l’any 1978, que reconegués la plurinacionalitat i el dret a decidir de les nacions, nosaltres col·laboraríem amb aquesta reforma. El que no veiem és la possibilitat que això pugui succeir.

Laburbilduz

Biak ‘independentistak’, data finkorik gabe. Oraindik ez da garaia (sic), biak berdin.

Biak mandangaren alde, biak berdin-berdin.

Biak Estatus berri baten alde:

PNV estatus berria, aka, estatutu berria Baskongadetan.

EH Bildu, Estatus berria, aka, Estat basc (sic) (Baskondadetan? Nafarroan? Iparraldean? Nola, zeren bitartez? Mandagaren bidez. Zein epetan?

Biak geldirik:

PNV  “Consulta habilitante (sic) de clarificación (re-sic)” delakoaren zain gehi Katalunian gertatuko denaren zain.

EH Bildu PNVtik Podesmos-era, Laugarren karlistadatik (aka, Espainia bera erreformatzetik) Espainiaren ezinezko erreformara, alegia,  noraezean “in the middle of nowhere”, … iparrik gabe. Tartean, Katalunian gertatuko denaren zain, noski.

Aspaldiko galdera hauxe zen: Gure Esku Dago: zer?

Bertan ondokoak irakur daitezke:

Katalunia, geroari begira, eta Euskal Herria, berriz, iraganari lotua. Gatazkaren zauriak konpontzeko premia ez da aitzakia, bestelako dinamikak abiatzeko benetako eragozpena baizik.” (Imanol Murua)

Oraingo eztabaida ez da independentzia bai ala ez. Gauza sakonagoak landu behar ditugu.” (Andoni Ortuzar)

Aunque la izquierda aberzale la constituyeran solo cuatro, debería tener un plan, un proyecto, una hoja de ruta, un contacto constante con otras fuerzas y un recorrido por todo el mundo para dar a conocer sus objetivos.” (Javier Sádaba)

Eta nire aspaldiko galdera: Non daude laukotea osatzeko beste hiruak?”

Abisatu, mesedez!

Bihar, Done Jurgi eguna Santurtzin eta Sant Jordi eguna Katalunian.

Herri bat gara eta gure eskubideak oso ongi ezagutzen ditugu. Bihar egun ederra Euskal Herri osoan autodeterminazioa eskubideaz hausnartzeko:

Kataluniako Sant Jordi egunean

Gogoratzekoa:

2006ko Txillardegi


Kataluniako Sant Jordi egunean

Anna Arqué Solsona‏ @anna_arque1

Per #SantJordi vencerem els q creen dubtes sobre legalitat i legitimitat!! Som Poble i coneixem els nostres Drets @ICECintl #DemòcratesPelSí

2017 api. 21

Mutatis mutandi, antzekoa plazaratu dezakegu Santurtziko Done Jurgi egunean:

Referenduma: Gertaera Nazional Bat, Nazioarteko Irtenbidea

Demokratak Baiezkoen Alde

Euskal Herriko Referenduma Legala Da


Warren Mosler eta zergak

Hasierarako, ikus Zergek ez daukate inongo zerikusirik errentaren hornitzearekin

Segida:

(i) Taxes Drive Money1

“The difference between money and litter is the tax man.”
Warren Mosler

(ii) The Purpose Of Money Is To Provision Government (or, “How To Turn Litter Into Money”)2

Warren Mosler, one of the founders of Modern Monetary Theory, on what the logical purpose of money is.

This is not to say that it doesn’t achieve other ends as well, but rather that as a point of logic it is a solution to the problem of how to provision government.

“How To Turn Litter Into Money” demonstrates the mechanism by which acceptance (or “acceptation”) of money can be driven by the power standing behind the issuing authority.

This contrast with the general public perception that so-called “fiat money” is accepted only because the government says so.

(iii) Money, Litter and The Tax Man3

Warren Mosler Modern Money vs Austrian School

“The difference between money and litter is the tax man.”  Warren Mosler


Nahasketa: DUI, RUI, RUA

Ferran Armengol‏ @FerranArmengol11

Referèndum o referèndum : no hi ha Pla B

2017 api. 20

RUA: l’única sortida2

Ferran Armengol Ferrer – Professor de Dret Internacional

Una opció vinculant i admesa pel món seria el referèndum unilateral d’autodeterminació

L’anomenat “procés sobiranista”, tal com s’havia dissenyat fins a l’últim detall, ha entrat en un atzucac. Això ha posat sobre la taula dues opcions que han generat un debat encès entre opinadors i xarxes socials, entre l’anomenada “DUI” (declaració unilateral d’independència) i el que s’ha conegut com a “RUI” (referèndum unilateral d’independència), amb algunes variants i matisos que ara no vénen al cas. Sense oblidar l’opinió encara “oficial”, que cal seguir amb el procés previst i aprovar una constitució o una llei de transitorietat jurídica abans de proclamar la independència, o aquells que sostenen que el 9-N ja va ser un referèndum.

El debat revela, tanmateix, un elevat grau de confusió sobre el que realment està en joc. Es tracta de crear un estat sobirà amb la seva pròpia legalitat, que necessàriament ha de trencar amb l’existent a l’Estat espanyol. Per això mateix, el 9-N va ser una impressionant manifestació de protesta, però no un referèndum, ja que només es demanava l’opinió de la ciutadania. Per la seva part, el full de ruta “dels divuit mesos”, que intenta fer una transició “de la llei a la llei”, com la que va permetre a Espanya sortir del franquisme, podria ser útil en un context de reforma, però no en un escenari de ruptura, que aquí és inevitable. D’entrada, és ontològicament impossible aprovar una constitució i crear unes estructures d’estat sense abans haver trencat amb l’estat anterior: una constitució aprovada dins del règim autonòmic no serà res més que un estatut de màxims, en el millor dels casos. I, en segon lloc, és convenient recordar que l’operació d’enginyeria jurídica que don Torcuato i els seus van fer el 1977/78 va ser possible gràcies al consens de la immensa majoria dels poders públics i fàctics, interiors i exteriors, en la necessitat de posar fi al franquisme. No és aquest, certament, el cas del procés independentista català, que s’ha d’enfrontar a l’animadversió del govern espanyol. Això explica per què el full de ruta està en el punt que està. Les mesures que planteja haurien necessitat la complicitat, o almenys la tolerància, del govern espanyol. Rajoy i el seu executiu ho saben, i per això mateix han aplicat l’estratègia més eficaç per boicotejar-lo, el tancament absolut a qualsevol concessió. Estratègia que no variarà substancialment sigui quin sigui l’inquilí o inquilina de La Moncloa.

En aquesta tessitura, alguns plantegen que el Parlament de Catalunya aprovi una resolució declarant unilateralment la independència. El problema és que, perquè aquesta resolució fos eficaç, caldria que el Parlament controlés efectivament tot el territori català. I, com tots sabem, existeixen i actuen a Catalunya nombrosos organismes estatals (de la Guàrdia Civil a la Seguretat Social, passant per Hisenda i l’exèrcit) i fins i tot entitats privades que, amb tota seguretat, ignorarien la resolució del Parlament proclamant la independència. Catalunya no és Kosova, on pràcticament no hi havia administració sèrbia quan es va proclamar la independència, i per això mateix no es pot fer a Catalunya una DUI com la de Kosova, això deixant de banda l’escenari bèl·lic en què va tenir lloc. I encara hi afegiria que, en un supòsit com aquest, les accions que emprengués l’Estat espanyol per “restablir l’ordre constitucional i la integritat territorial” serien aplaudides per la comunitat internacional. Sorprèn, per tant, que aquells que diuen que el referèndum unilateral no es pot fer “perquè està prohibit”, defensin en canvi, l’opció de la DUI.

Per això mateix, la declaració unilateral d’independència només pot ser viable amb un referèndum d’autodeterminació, mecanisme acceptat per la pràctica internacional en nombrosos casos. L’anomenada Comissió de Venècia del Consell d’Europa ha fixat uns criteris que permeten acreditar els requisits mínims necessaris per reconèixer la legalitat d’un referèndum i acceptar el seu resultat. D’acord amb aquests criteris, la convocatòria, l’organització i els efectes del referèndum –que hauria de ser vinculant– haurien d’estar especificats en una llei del Parlament de Catalunya i s’haurien d’encomanar a un organisme imparcial, amb representació de totes les parts implicades, favorables i contràries a la independència. No hauria de ser, doncs, el govern de la Generalitat, sinó aquest organisme el que organitzés el referèndum en tots els seus aspectes, inclosos els logístics i de personal. Si es fes així, el resultat del referèndum seria vinculant i la comunitat internacional l’acceptaria. I llavors, si el resultat és favorable a la independència, correspon al Parlament proclamar-la. I és a partir d’aquest moment que caldria aprovar la llei de transitorietat jurídica, primera llei del nou estat, que garantirà la continuïtat dels drets de la ciutadania i les normes aplicables en aquell moment, fins que s’aprovi la nova constitució i les normes que la desenvolupin.”


Eurolandia: eurexit ala ez?

2014ko urtea, Italia, DTMko batzuk bertan,…

(i) Randall Wray

L.R. Wray, #6: Euro: uscire? Restare? Come?1

Una intervista esclusiva di Eurotruffa al prof. Larry Randall Wray.
(English with Italian subtitles)

Uscire dall’Euro o rimanere? E come? La risposta di L. Randall Wray arriva inaspettata… e desta stupore.

(ii) Warren Mosler

Mosler in risposta a Wray: Uscire o no dall’Euro?2

Una intervista esclusiva di Eurotruffa al prof. Warren Mosler, in merito ad una precedente risposta di Larry Randall Wray – http://youtu.be/hDGNA6a-Muw

Uscire dall’Euro o rimanere? E come?
(English with Italian subtitles)

Gehigarriak:

Italia (eta Euskal Herria ere) bidegurutzean

Italexit?

Italexit

Italexit dela eta, Italiako eztabaida