Lagun zaharrak eta adiskide berriak

1980ko hamarkada. Europako Ekonomia Elkartea. Paradisua. Ahots kritiko gutxi: Stuart Holland[1], tartean. Nahiko ikasi genuen:  paradisua banku handientzat eta enpresa handientzat zen[2]. Ortodoxiak paradisua bultzatu zuen. Baita EHn ere, hala Iparraldean nola Hegoaldean.

2000ko hamarkada. MMT, hots, DTM. Paradisua? Ez, mila esker! Ahots berri interesgarriak: Warren Mosler[3], Randall Wray[4],… Etengabeko ikasketa[5].

Modern Money Theory, hots, Diru Teoria Modernoa da marko teorikoa, marko praktikoa lan bermeko programa[6] den bitartean. Tartean idolo batzuk deuseztatu dira[7] eta moneta (dirua, alegia) zer den ikasi dugu[8].

Bidea argi dago. Segi dezagun bide horretatik.


[2]  Lan garrantzitsuenetarikoa: Uncommon Market, 1980. Holland-ek segitu du kritikatzen. Hona bi etsenplu: http://varoufakis.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/the-us-new-deal-and-resolving-the-eurozone-crisis-dec-2011.pdf; http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/pn_11_03.pdf.  

[5] Ikus http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia, batez ere eta bereziki 2010eko urtarriletik aurrera.

[6]  Ikus Wray-ren http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/03/mmp-blog-42-introduction-the-the-job-guarantee-or-employer-of-last-resort.html eta hurrengo sarrerak. (Laster blog honetan arituko naiz programa horretaz.)

[7]  Hona hemen urtetan zehar ortodoxiak gurtu duen idolo baten inguruko zipriztinak: http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/did-greenspan-blow-it.

Iruzkinak (3)

  • Hala ere, EH-ari dagokionez, aipatzen duzun bidea (DTM) Europar Banku Zentralak (EBZ) bakarrik jorratu dezake, ezta? hau da, EBZa benetako altxor-publikoa bihurtuz, politika monetario egokia gauzatzea al da bidea? horrela bada, EHko erabaki ahalmenetik urrunegi gelditzen da EBZa. Zein neurri zehatz aplikatu ditzakegu EH mailan? moneta-politikarekin lotuta ez dauden neurriak izango lirateke. Beraz, krisiaren irtenbidea gure erabaki-ahalmenetik haratago dago?

  • joseba felix tobar-arbulu says:

    Kaixo Unai:

    Puntu horiek guztiak aspalditik ukitu izan ditut blog honetan.

    Erantzun laburrak.

    Ez, EBZ eta Europako Altxor Publikoa, biak, dira beharrezkoak.

    Politika monetarioa (EBZ-k markatua) eta politika fiskala (Altxor Publikoaren bidez), biak dira beharrezkoak.

    Ikus http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=11218

    EH independentea baledi, bere Euskal Banku Zentrala eta Euskal Altxor Publikoa, biak, ukan litzake, ukan beharko lituzke.

    Oraingo baldintzatan, EH erabat lotuta dago espainiar eta frantziar estatuei, alegia, EH espainiar eta frantziar Banku Zentralen eta bien Altxor Publikoen menpe dago. Bi estatu horiek ez dira moneta jaulkitzaileak, moneta erabiltzaileak baizik. Alegia, frantziar eta espainiar estatuak ez dira subiranoak. Biak daude EBZ-ren menpe. Jaulkitzaile bakarra EBZ da.

    Krisiaren irtenbidea erabat politikoa da. Baina ezin da edozein politika aplikatu: aldez aurretik, moneta zer den oso ongi ulertu behar da.

    Blogean badaude hamaika aipamen EHren independentziari buruz. Azkenak, hemen:

    http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/euskal-herria-krisiaren-aurrean

    http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/euskal-herria-krisiaren-aurrean

    http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/balizko-olak-burdinarik-ez

    http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/europar-batasunaz-berriz-ere

    http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/europar-batasuneko-eta-ebko-estatu-desberdinetako-bonoak-mosler-bonoak

    http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/eb-batasun-fiskala-versus-zatiketa

    http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/greziarako-proposamena (Greziari buruzkoa Espainiari eta Frantziari aplika dakieke, noski)

    http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/diru-teoria-modernoaren-irtenbidea-greziarako

    http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/warren-mosler-eta-aebetako-fed

    Hemen gehiago:

    http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/ueu-ko-hitzaldia

    Azken finean moneta zer den eta nola erabiltzen den jakin behar da. Hona hemen sarrera dotore bat, hori guztia ulertu ahal izateko:

    http://www.slideshare.net/MitchGreen/money-is-no-object.

    Bestela, bueltaka eta zorabioen zorabioan ibil daiteke, etengabe gainera. 

    joseba

  • joseba

    Stuart Holland:

    In http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2018/07/19/ezkerraz-hitz-bi-gehiago-tartean-alexandria-ocasio-cortez/

    (vi) Ezkerraren abdikazioa
    Stuart Holland Not An Abdication By The Left
    (a) The abdication of the Left – redux – Part 1

    (…)

    (b) The abdication of the Left – redux – Part 2

    (…)

    The obvious question is why bother? The ECB has through its QE programs demonstrated that they can deal the private bond investors out of the equation when it came to setting yields on government bonds.
    The ECB can effectively set yields at any level it desires including zero, which means that a Member State can only run out of money if the ECB refuses to exercise its power to buy unlimited volumes of the government’s debt.
    The SMP program kept the Eurozone together, but by imposing austerity as a pre-condition for participation, it failed to address the core problem that Southern Europe is in depression and the only way out is for fiscal deficits to expand.
    The most direct way forward would have been for the ECB to invoke its OMT facility and facilitate increased government spending.
    Varoufakis, Holland and Galbraith (2013: 5) acknowledged that the OMT program “has succeeded in taming interest rate spreads within the euro-zone” but conclude that the implicit threat against bond markets, described above, is “non-credible”.
    Allegedly, bond dealers will eventually call the ECB’s bluff and expose the OMT program as a paper tiger. This criticism is without foundation.
    How exactly can the private bond markets “test the ECB’s resolve”? (p.5).
    The ECB has unlimited euro capacity to purchase all the secondary market bonds it desires.
    To think otherwise is hardly progressive or Left. The belief that the bond markets have the power over the state is core neoliberal thinking.
    It was also difficult to see the ‘Modest Proposal’ as being consistent with Article 104 of the Treaty if a Member State failed to make payments as agreed. In that case the ECB would have to fund the deficiency, which would be equivalent to offering the prohibited ‘overdraft facility’ to the state.
    The ‘Modest Proposal’ would also probably promote perverse bond market behaviour and deliver massive corporate welfare to the investment banks.
    The debt policy would see the ECB take bank reserves out of the system in return for ECB-bonds. It wouldn’t take long for the bond markets to work out that they could ask for a premium on the ECB-bonds and the ECB would be under pressure to concede. With interest rates low, the private banks could then borrow from the ECB to buy the bonds, which would pay a return higher than the short-term cash.
    Conclusion
    I felt the need to respond to the Stuart Holland article because it is a good example of how the progressive, social democratic Left has lost itself in the woods of denial, historical revisionism and plain stupidity.
    I know the Europhile Left will be tweeting it and feeling good about it because it provides validation for their own cognitive dissonance.
    But as a view of what has happened over the last 40 or so years within the political Left it definitive – completely losing track of reality.”

Utzi erantzuna

Zure e-posta helbidea ez da argitaratuko. Beharrezko eremuak * markatuta daude