Trinitate saindua

Blog honetan ikusi genuen bezala, erlijioak aparteko eragina dauka ekonomian.

Izan ere, Europar Batasuna eraikitzean, EBko estatu desberdinen defizit publikoen muga BPGren %3an jarri zen[1].

Neurria erabat ilogiko zen, inongo teoria ekonomikorik oinarritua, baina Erlijioa zen, eta da nagusi[2].

Erlijioa alde batera utzita, hona hemen azken bolada honetan, behin eta berriz, erabili ditudan 3 power point, Mundua, Europa (hobeto esanda, Europar Batasuna) eta Euskal Herria ulertzeko eta beraiek onerako aldatzeko, baita krisia ulertzeko eta berari irtenbide duin bat emateko ere:

(i)                https://www.unibertsitatea.net/otarrea/gizarte-zientziak/ekonomia/europa-munduan-power-point

 

(ii)              https://www.unibertsitatea.net/otarrea/gizarte-zientziak/ekonomia/euskal-estatua-bideragarria-al-da-ekonomikoki

 

(iii)             https://www.unibertsitatea.net/otarrea/gizarte-zientziak/ekonomia/krisia-nahita-izan-da-induzitua

 

(Be sociable, share. Zabaldu, mesedez. Feel free to use them, alegia, erabil ditzakezu power pointak, nahi duzun beste eta nonahi.)


[1]  Ikus https://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2013/05/17/trinitate-saindua-3a/. Bill Mitchell-ek ere, argitaratzear daukan liburu berrian, berriki gogoratu digunez (Options for Europe – Part 40: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=27236), “In another interview, Abeille added that …: We imagined the 3% figure in less than an hour, it was a ‘back of an envelope’ calculation, without any theoretical reflection … Mitterrand wanted us to quickly provide him with an easy rule, which sounded economic, with which he could confront the ministers who marched into his office asking for more money … We needed something simple … 3%? It was a good figure, a figure that has stood the test of time, it was reminiscent of the Trinity … Mitterand wanted a standard, we gave it to him. We did not think it would endure beyond 1981 … [the] … Minister of Finance, who was the first to talk about the deficit as a percentage … 100 billion francs was huge … he preferred to speak of 2.6% …”

Abeille also said that while he worked as a diligent economist, the 3 per cent “number was no based on economic theory” … and that “it was sometimes necessary to understand the political constraints”…

Iruzkinak (2)

  • joseba

    In Options for Europe – Part 96

    http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=27962:

    “Once again, the French, in trying to exert influence, scored an ‘own goal’ by leading the way in defining the tough binding rules that would become the SGP. The Germans were using the so-called ‘Golden Rule’, which meant that governments could borrow only to cover their investment expenditure. That rule was being promoted as the way forward for the new economic and monetary union. But when Mitterand turned neo-liberal in 1983, his government had invoked a stricter fiscal regime – that deficits could not exceed 3 per cent of GDP, which it subsequently pushed at the pre-Maastricht conferences in 1990. The development of this rule in 1983 was comedic. The person who came up with the rule admitted in 2010 that economists in the French Ministry of Finance were told that Mitterrand wanted a simple, practical deficit rule which carried the semblance of authority by being endorsed by economists and would provide an image of fiscal discipline so that he could resist the demands for more funds from his government ministers. A ‘back of the envelope’ calculation was produced in a few minutes which had had no theoretical basis in economics. France proposed the rule in the negotiations leading up to Maastricht to outdo the German’s ‘golden rule’ in terms of ‘fiscal toughness’. The rule stuck and it is now used to enforce policies that have led to millions losing their jobs.”

Utzi erantzuna

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