Randall Wray-ri egindako elkarrizketa[1].
(Ikus hemen[2] elkarrizketaren lehen partea.)
G: Zein da DTMren iritzia errenta desberdintasunaz? Saihestezina ala baztergarria politika zuzenekin eta zeintzuk dira politika zuzen horiek?
W-k: Ongi, oso erreza da errenta baxutik, pobreziatik, alokairu baxuetatik datorren desberdintasuna murriztea: egin behar duzuna da lanpostuak eskaintzea[3]. Alokairu minimo batekin ere, pobreziaren bi heren eliminatzen dituzu[4]. Pobreziarik handiena enplegurik gabetasunari dagokio[5].
Hala ere, oraindik badago beste ezberdintasun mota bat, “due to extremely high income at the top.”
Programa hau ez da aritzen desberdintasun mota horrekin. Afera ez da aberatsak zergapetzea aberatsak direlako, pobreen artean inbertitzearren. Hori okerra da, ez dugu behar gehiago zergapetzea aberatsak pobreen artean gastatzearren, zeren gure moneta subiranoan ezin baita dirurik gabe geratu, eta gobernuak beti gehiago gasta dezake pobreengan aberatsei zergapetu barik.
Hala ere, aipatutako afera hori, “extremely high income at the top,” ukitu behar da, zeren nahi duzu aberatsak zergapetzea aberatsak direlako, ez pobreei gehiago emateko. Aberatsak zergapetzen dituzu oso aberatsak direlako, eta beraz, ezin duzu biak, aberatsak eta pobreak, lotu politikan batera.
Jendeak uste du politika biak egin behar direla batera, baina biak politika bereiziak dira[6].
(Gainera, Wray-k uste du AEB ia ezina dela horrelako aberatsen gaineko zergapetzea martxan jartzea[7].)
Hori saihesteko bide bakarra da, gutxienez AEBn, hasieratik haiei eragoztea errenta altuak irabazteko, kasu CEO[8] delakoentzako irabazi maximoa ezartzea[9].
G: Harremanik ote dago errenta desberdintasun gutxiagoa izatearen eta gobernua nolako demokratikoa denaren artean? Hau da, herrialdea bere hiritarrekiko demokratikoagoa baldin bada, errenta berdintasuna azaltzen da, kasu Danimarkan bezala?
W-k: Eskandinaviako herrialdeak eredu onak dira, errenta ezberdintasuna ez da oso handia eta jendeak parte hartzen du gobernu demokratikoan, prozesu politikoan.
Afera kulturala ere bada, baina ez dut uste zuk planteatzen duzun harremana hain zuzena denik. Uste dut demokrazia egingarri bat izan dezakegula Eskandinaviako herrialdeek daukaten ezberdintasuna baino maila altuagoarekin. Hala ere, gaur egun daukaguna ez da batere egingarria. Oso desberdina da eta gauzak okerragora doaz, gobernuek korporazioak jendea balitz bezala hartuz. Hori zoramena da. Hori erabat ez-demokratikoa da, korporazioei aukera emanez nahi duten beste politikari erosteko. Haien nahia demokrazia erabat azpikoz gora jartzea izanik.
G: Zure blog batean, New Economic Perspectives delakoan, Wall Street zital gisa definitu zenuen. Zer egin daiteke Wall Street, eta oro har, goi-finantza bertutetsuagoa bilakatzeko?
W-k: Kultura erabat aldatu behar dugu. Egungo kultura, oinarrian, hauxe da: edozein gauzak balio du, anything goes.
Egin dezakegun guztia egin dezakegu jendea bere dirutik banatzeko, eta horixe da, oinarrian, Wall Street-ek egiten duena[10].
Kultura aldatzeko lehen urratsa hauxe da: auzitara eramaten hastea jarduera kriminalagatik. Ez dugu hori egin. Kasu zibilean aritzen da, korporazioei isunak ordainarazteko, zeintzuek ez dioten inongo minik egiten goi zuzendaritzari[11]. Maiz aseguruak ordaintzen ditu isunak.
Haietako ehunka, agian, milaka, espetxeratu behar dira, eta horrek kultura sakonean aldatuko du[12].
Bigarren urratsa: kontsumitzaile babes legeak behar dira. Wall Street murriztu behar da[13], sakonean gainera.
(Zabaldu, arren.)
[2] Ikus https://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2014/08/05/dtm-koek-politika-egiten-dute-1/.
[3] Ingelesez: ” Minsky did a calculation [in] 1974 and Professor Kelton and I did one around 2000. We showed that if you just give a job to anyone who wants to work you will eliminate two thirds of all poverty, even if you pay only the minimum wage.”
Are gehiago, “We would like to see the job pay more than that, but even at a minimum wage you eliminate two-thirds of all poverty. So most poverty is due to joblessness. People who cannot get jobs or maybe they get jobs that last a few months and then they are unemployed again.
[4] Ingelesez: “We showed that if you just give a job to anyone who wants to work you will eliminate two thirds of all poverty, even if you pay only the minimum wage.”
[5] Ingelesez: “So most poverty is due to joblessness. (…) We need permanent jobs that pay a decent wage and you’ll eliminate most poverty. You’ll still need some kinds of anti-poverty programs but the jobs are the best anti-poverty programs there are, then you need something else to fill the gaps.”
[6] Ingelesez: “You set the tax on the rich not to equal spending on the poor. You set the tax on the rich and make it high enough so that they’re not rich. If that’s your goal – get rid of the excessive riches of the rich –you tax enough so they are not excessively rich. It’s an extremely hard thing to do politically. The final thing is rather than trying to do this with taxes, which is hard because once people have income, especially high income, they have an incentive to protect it, the means to protect it, the means to influence policy, and they are extremely powerful.”
[7] Ingelesez: “… In practice I think in the US, it is actually impossible to take away income from the rich through taxes because they buy off the politicians, they get special exemptions, they never pay high tax rates, they hide their income, they put it overseas, and so on.”
[9] Kasurako, “…There is no reason why a CEO should be earning 300, 500, or 600 times more than the average worker. Set a maximum and say if a corporation pays more than the maximum, it should not be more than 50 times the average employee. If a corporation pays more than that they lose their papers of incorporation.”
[10] Ingelesez: “It separates people from their money as Matt Taibbi said, it’s a giant bloodsucking vampire squid.”
[11] Ingelesez: “We haven’t done that at all. No top Wall Street person is being investigated much less charged with criminal activity. What they’re doing is just going after civil cases against their firms and the firms happily pay fines. Often they have insurance to cover the fines, which do not hurt their top management at all, so there is absolutely no reason to change the culture on Wall Street.”
[12] Ingelesez: “Say that criminal activity will not be permitted on Wall Street and right now that signal is exactly the opposite. Eric Holder has said we won’t do it. He said it would damage the reputation of their firms if we went after their top management for the criminal activity, in which we all know they have engaged. We have got their emails, and we know they have engaged in criminal activity, but Holder says we won’t prosecute them because it damages the reputation of their firms. This is absolutely ridiculous.”
[13] Ingelesez: “…we need consumer protection laws, new ones, as well as enforcement of the ones we already have. We need to massively downsize Wall Street. The sheer size alone is probably most of the problem. We need to downsize finance sufficiently so that it becomes almost insignificant. That is where finance was in the early postwar period – finance was insignificant. It has become maybe, the most important sector contributing about 40% of corporate profits. There was a time when Wall Street was hiring the top students in every field from all the top colleges in the United States. That is where they all went. Again, that is crazy, you don’t need that much brainpower on Wall Street, except these guys are all trying to find clever new ways to suck economic rents out of the economy.”
