Bitxikeriak (politikan eta ekonomian)

Egun hauetan hitzaldien zurrunbiloan murgilduta, bitxikeria batzuk entzun ditut.

 

Hona hemen batzuk:

 

a)      NATO da agintzen duena mundu mailan[1]

 

b)      Europa ez da ezer armada sendoa (sic) ez daukalako, are gehiago…[2]

 

c)      …  Europa AEBren kolonia (sic) da[3]

 

d)      Mundua polobakarrekoa da[4]

 

Itzul gaitezen eztabaida serioagoetara:

 

i)       Financial Times-eko Martin Wolf-ek artikulu interesgarri bat idatzi berri du bankugintzaz[5]:  Only the ignorant live in fear of hyperinflation[6].

ii)      Kontua da Wolf quantitative easing (QE[7]) delakoaren aldekoa dela[8].

iii)     Mosler-ek erakutsi duenez, QE ekonomiarako zerga bat da[9].

iv)     QE-k ez du funtzionatzen ekonomiari laguntzeko[10].

v)      Eta QE txarra da bankuetarako[11].

 

Dena den, jadanik aurreratu bezala[12], baliteke Mario Draghi-k quantitative easing (QE) bezalako politika bat EBn jartzeko ausartuko duela, nahiz eta, dakigunez, QE zerga bat izan.

 

Europar Batasunerako, askoz hobea izango litzateke Mosler-ek proposamen ederra[13].


[1] Ikus https://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2014/03/24/nazioarteko-zuzenbidea-ala-boterea/.

Ekonomia mailan,  gogoratu Hudson eta Mosler-en arteko eztabaida in https://www.unibertsitatea.net/otarrea/gizarte-zientziak/ekonomia/nazioarteko-ekonomia-eta-ainperialismoaa:

Aurretik egindako e-posten trukaketa. Galderak (beltzez) eta Mosler-en erantzunak (gorriz): 

Second question, foreign recycling of dollars to US T-Bonds should have absolutely nothing to do with US ability to finance its imperialism, since it can issue all the currency it wishes to, (however unintelligently), right?

right, all us govt spending is by ‘marking up numbers in bank accounts’ as bernanke reported.

So what is Hudson talking about? Do recycled dollars acquire a different nature by virtue of having been recycled? So Europe and Asia–and for that matter, idiot politicians–may think that recycled dollars are financing our foreign adventures, but that is mistaken, correct?

correct, it’s mistaken.”

Eztabaida bera. Hudson-en testua (beltzez) eta Mosler-en testua (gorriz):

this does indeed enable the U.S. military to spend abroad, with the dollars ending up in foreign central banks, to be recycled – to finance the domestic U.S. federal budget deficit!

Not at all. When the US military spends it buys real goods and services from willing sellers at market prices. It does this in most countries in the world, most of which do not have CB’s that continuously accumulate dollar balances to facilitate anything. It spends the same way the rest of govt.”  

[6]  Ingelesez: “First, banks are not just financial intermediaries. The act of saving does not increase deposits in banks. If your employer pays you, the deposit merely shifts from its account to yours.”

“Second, the “money multiplier” linking lending to bank reserves is a myth.”

“Third, expected risks and rewards determine how much banks lend and so how much money they create.”

“Fourth, the central bank will influence the decisions of banks by adjusting the price it charges (the interest rate) on extra reserves.”

“Fifth, the authorities can also affect the lending decisions of banks by regulatory means – capital requirements, liquidity requirements, funding rules and so forth.”

“Sixth, banks do not lend out their reserves, nor do they need to. They do not because non-banks cannot hold accounts at the central bank.”

[8]  Ingelesez: “Finally, quantitative easing – the purchase of assets by the central bank – will expand the broad money supply.”

Utzi erantzuna

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