Austeritatearen hipokresia: armagintza

Bill Mitchell-en artikulua: Latest military expenditure data reveals the hypocrisy of austerity1. Eta bertan SIPRI-k ( Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) emandako azken datuak: World Military Expenditure 1988-2014, eta Press Release.

Interesgarria da austeritatezko era honetan zer nolako gastu militarrak egon diren eurogunean. Hipokresia begi bistakoa da.

(The following graph compares the movements in military expenditure at 1995, 2005 and 2014 for the Eurozone nations and some other selected nations as a per cent of GDP.)

SIPRI_Military_Ex_2014

Gastuak direla eta, Mitchell-ek makromaila eta mikromaila bereizi zituen: What is “good” at the macro level may well be disastrous at the micro level. Gastu agregatuak, printzipioz, enpleguaren alde baldin badira oso txarrak izan daitezke, kasu, “if that aggregate spending was [were] highly damaging to the environment we would consider it a bad.”

Orokorrean, DTM-ren arabera, inportazioak onurak dira herrialde baterako, eta esportazioak kostuak. Caveat batekin baldin eta inportazioek langileen soldatei eragin txarra egiten badiete2.

Antzekoa gertatzen da gastu militarrekin, are gehiago baldin eta inportazioekin loturik badaude.

Izan ere. Mitchell-ek dioenez,

In the case of military expenditure, we can go further than this and question the notion that such imports do represent a real benefit. One could easily argue that a society gains very little from such imports.”3

ikus dezagun Alemaniak eurogunera egindako esportazioak.

Irakur, sarrera gisa Mitchell-en lan hau: The value of government, argi ikusteko ezen “… the Eurozone armaments trade (…) is an intrinsic element in the imbalances that have arisen since the Eurozone was established.”

Orain, Mitchell-en arabera, datu gehiago daude (Bericht der Bundesregierung über ihre Exportpolitik für konventionelle Rüstungsgüter im Jahre 2013).

Kasu, badakigu 2013an armagintzan Alemaniaren esportazioek, “totalled 933.251 thousand euros”, eta horietatik:

  1. Greece imported 40,891 thousand euros worth from Germany (4.3 per cent of total).

  1. Ireland 169 thousand (0.01 per cent of total).

  1. Portugal 65 thousand euros (0.007 per cent of total).

  1. Spain 7,504 thousand euros (0.9 per cent of total).

  2. Italy 108,452 thousand euros (11.6 per cent of total).

Hau da, “Greece is Germany’s 7th largest customer for military equipment.”

Balizko baldintza batzuk…

a) Greziak askoz gutxiago gastatu izan balu armagintzan…4

b) Defizita txikiago izango zatekeen5.

c) Hobe egongo zatekeen Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) delakoa (defizita PBGren %3 baino gutxiagokoa dena) betetzeko6.

d) Gastu militarretan mozketa gehiagok7

f) Alemania egoera txarrago batean egongo zatekeen8.

Baina balizko olak burdinarik ez!

Eta “2 per cent of Greek GDP is wasted on military hardware…”9

Ondorio zuzena

Greziari dagokionez,

the basic numbers are stunning really. A nation in crisis that is still laying out 2 per cent of its GDP on military equipment is mad.


2 Ingelesez: “In general, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) considers for an economy as a whole, imports represent a real benefit while exports are a real cost. Net imports means that a nation gets to enjoy a higher living standard by consuming more goods and services than it produces for foreign consumption.

This doesn’t mean that there is not the possibility that severe distributional shifts (in costs and benefits) might occur on a microeconomic level within a nation undergoing a change in patterns of trade. So workers in manufacturing belts might lose their jobs because imported goods become cheaper and consumers (including the same workers who lose work) voluntarily choose to purchase the cheaper (and in some cases, higher quality) products. While this process is painful appropriate government policy can help to alleviate the costs of adjustment and engender an environment where the workers transit into other uses. Structural adjustment is always painful though and is best achieved at times of full capacity.”

3 Honela segitzen du Mitchell-ek, ingelesez: “Such spending generates no visible rate of return that allows the nation to service the liabilities to foreigners that build up as a result of external deficits. When a nation with an external deficit has a spending pattern that yields no long-term productive gains, then its ability to service the debt incurred as a result of those deficits might come into question.”

4 Ingelesez: “If Greece had have spent much less on military equipment in the lead up to the crisis it would be in much better shape now under the pernicious system that it chooses to situate itself within.”

5 Ingelesez: “The income drain from the imports would have been lower and its fiscal deficit would have been lower for a similar GDP growth rate.”

6 Ingelesez: “As the crisis hit, it would have been closer to meeting the fiscal rules of the Stability and Growth Pact (deficits must be lower than 3 per cent of GDP) even though the automatic stabilisers would have driven the deficit up substantially given the loss of employment and tax revenue.

7 Ingelesez: “Further cuts in military expenditure (cancelling contracts if need be) would have given the nation significant spending adjustment without cutting into spending that matters. This is because most of the military outlays stimulate other economies.”

8 Ingelesez: “Germany, in particular, that built its Eurozone strategy on savagely containing domestic spending via real wage cuts and fiscal austerity (after 2004), would have been in a worse position. This would have forced it to stimulate its own economy from within – for political reasons, and probably would have seen a return to their troubles with the Excessive Defecit Mechanism (as in 2002 and 2003). That would have seen a totally different dynamic (both economic and political) as the Eurozone descended into crisis after the housing collapse in the US.”

9 Honela segitzen du Mitchell-ek: “Yet, I don’t see any proposals for Greece to significantly cuts military spending.

But while the likes of Germany, Finland, and the Netherlands are lecturing it about fiscal austerity and the obligations of Greece to obey the rules of the EMU, Greece should note the failure of these nations to honour their NATO obligations. If all the NATO nations currently spending less than 2 per cent of GDP on military equipment etc honoured that commitment there would be an improvement in world economic activity, which might help Greece. But then we are back to the macro-micro dilemma. The last thing the World needs is an arms race. The 2 per cent NATO rule is ridiculous and should be abandoned. Greece should immediately halve its spending on weapons as a per cent of GDP and redirect the expenditure to buying “bandages” and other useful things.”

Iruzkinak (1)

Utzi erantzuna

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