Hasteko, ikus Globalizazioa eta neoliberalismoa.
Segida:
Bill Mitchell-en artikulua: Globalisation and currency arrangements1.
Ukitutako puntuak:
(a) Globalizazioa eta estatu kontrolik eza: mito berria2
(b) Alderdien arteko ‘desberdintasuna’3
(c) Subiranotasuna eta urre estandarra. Sistema monetarioa 1971n aldatu zen, erabat4
(d) Monetak eta espekulazioa5
(e) Nazioarteko enpresen, multinazionalen hazkundea6
(f) 1971. urtea eta truke tasa flotatzaileak: politika fiskalaren eta monetarioaren esparru berriak7
(g) Raymon Vernon-en lana eta eragina8: nazioarteko transakzioak eta enpresa internazionalak9
(h) Vernon-ek gobernuei eta kapitalaren aldaketei buruz10; halaber, zerga tasen erregimenaz eta gobernuen kezkaz11
(i) Vernon-ek gobernuen gastuez eta zerga oinarriaz12
(j) Aipatutako azken argudioak erabiltzen dira defizitak kritikatzeko13
(k) Baliabide eskuragarrien ez gobernuko erabilera murriztu beharra dago14
Ondoko puntuak dira interesgarri:
(k-1) Murrizketa eta zergapetzea15
(k-2) Gobernu gastua16
(k-3) Langabezia17
(k-4) Gobernuko eta ez gobernuko sektoreak18
(k-5) Defiziten afera
(Hurrengo sarrera batean ikusiko dugu defiziten afera, gobernuak moneta jaulkitzaileak direnean.)
Gehigarri berezia:
Ben S. Bernanke eta DTM: ikus Ben Bernanke interview with Ezra Klein features MMT-like comments: http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com.es/2016/01/ben-bernanke-interview-with-ezra-klein.html
(The interesting comments start around the 25 minute mark.)
“Bernanke does go through basic Fed operations while answering a question about QE. His descriptions of these processes are nearly identical to what MMT has been saying over the past few years (or decades.)”
2 Ingelesez: “… the critique that commentators have made about the loss of state control of their economies as a result of globalisation. The thesis advanced by many analysts is that globalisation has reduced the capacity of the nation-state and forced governments to adopt free market policies at the microeconomic level and austerity at the macroeconomic level, for fear that capital flight will destroy their economies. It is a neatly packaged thesis that the political Left has imbibed, and, in doing so, has undermined the progressive basis of these institutions and left voters with little choice between right-wing parties and the social democratic parties…”
3 Ingelesez: “… The major distinguishing feature these days between these two types of parties, who were previously poles apart in approach and mandate sought, is that the so-called progressive side of politics now claims it will implement austerity in a fairer way. These austerity-lite parties, buying into the myth that globalisation has undermined the capacity of the state to pursue full employment policies with equitable income distribution, do not challenge the basis of austerity, but just quibble over who should pay for it.”
4 Ingelesez: “… the monetary system in most countries changed dramatically from August 1971 when the US president Richard Nixon abandoned US dollar-gold convertibility. (…) read… – Gold standard and fixed exchange rates – myths that still prevail – for more discussion on this point. … (…)
5 Ingelesez: “Whichever system we want to talk off – pure gold standard or USD-convertible system backed by gold – the constraints on sovereign government were obvious.
Further, it is incorrect to think that the era of speculative capital flows began with the advent of transnational capitalism and global supply chains (globalisation).
These speculative attacks on currencies took a different form in the earlier period but were nonetheless destructive and, along with the persistent differences in trading position between nations, were the undoing of the fixed exchange rate system.”
6 Ingelesez. “… in this context, … we can better appreciate the early literature on globalisation and economic sovereignty loss. (…) The central banks were responsible for setting domestic interest rates such that they could stabiise the exchange rate at the agreed parities. For nations with persistent trade deficits, this meant elevated interest rates and unemployment rates. That bias towards domestic recession was one of the principle reasons the system broke down in August 1971. (…) There is no doubt that in the 1960s international trade grew rapidly as technological improvements in transport and communication were made. This was accompanied by a substantial increase in the volume of capital flows between nations, and, particularly, the growing presence of US industry in Europe. (…) … this growing US involvement through multinational enterprises created some fear (…) these tensions persist today and are used as the basis for the claim that nation-states must compromise domestic policy to ensure they do not trigger a negative response from international capital and labour that is ‘parked’ within their borders….”
7 Ingelesez: “After 1971, as nations began the new era of floating exchange rates, the constraints on domestic policy setting were clearly reduced because no longer was monetary policy tied to defending the agreed parity. The exchange rate would now adjust to imbalances in trade and financial flows, leaving fiscal and monetary policy, within limits, to pursue domestic objectives previously unattainable on a sustainable basis.”
8 Ikus R. Vernon (1971) Sovereignty at Bay: The Multinational Spread of U.S. Enterprises,
9 Verrnon-en ustez, “… the nature of international transactions became more complex with the advent of multinational enterprises, in the sense that, many financial flows were now conducted within the same enterprise but across national borders.“
10 Ingelesez: “… governments could block flows for a short time, companies would develop new ways of shifting capital, which would leave “the regulating sovereign … increasingly at a disadvantage”.
Many commentators have used this line of reasoning to suggest that taxation bases are now unstable and can easily shift across national borders to exploit the most favourable tax regimes.”
11 Ingelesez: “Governments in turn, worried about losing these enterprises, offer competing tax environments.”
12 Ingelesez: “… the ‘tax shifting’ argument is used to demonstrate that the capacity of the government to spend is undermined as the tax base shifts. In order to overcome the limits imposed by a declining tax base, governments then have to run fiscal deficits, which, in the mainstream argument, push up interest rates, like the government with debt, and ultimately, lead to a refusal by bond markets to fund the government deficits.”
13 Ingelesez: “... the ‘tax shifting’ argument is used to demonstrate that the capacity of the government to spend is undermined as the tax base shifts. In order to overcome the limits imposed by a declining tax base, governments then have to run fiscal deficits, which, in the mainstream argument, push up interest rates, like the government with debt, and ultimately, lead to a refusal by bond markets to fund the government deficits.
These arguments are not really specific to concerns about globalisation because they are used to critique deficits under any circumstances.
As we will argue, much of this concern about tax shifting is misplaced when considering the options facing a currency-issuing government.”
14 Ingelesez: “There is no question that a government that aims to achieve full utilisation of all of available productive resources in the nation and provide public goods and services to enhance the well-being of the population needs to be able to restrict the non-government use of the available resources.”
15 Ingelesez: “Clearly this [murrizketa] can be done through regulation or dictate, but, mostly it is done through taxation.
Taxation functions to promote offers from private individuals to government of goods and services in return for the necessary funds to extinguish the tax liabilities.
The orthodox conception is that taxation provides revenue to the government which it requires in order to spend. In fact, the reverse is the truth.”
16 Ingelesez: “Government spending provides revenue to the non-government sector which then allows them to extinguish their taxation liabilities. So the funds necessary to pay the tax liabilities are provided to the non-government sector by government spending.
It follows that the imposition of the taxation liability creates a demand for the government currency in the non-government sector which allows the government to pursue its economic and social policy program.
This insight allows us to see another dimension of taxation which is lost in orthodox analysis.
Given that the non-government sector requires fiat currency to pay its taxation liabilities, in the first instance, the imposition of taxes (without a concomitant injection of spending) by design creates unemployment (people seeking paid work) in the non-government sector.”
17 Ingelesez: “The unemployed or idle non-government resources can then be utilised through demand injections via government spending which amounts to a transfer of real goods and services from the non-government to the government sector.
In turn, this transfer facilitates the government’s socio-economics program.
While real resources are transferred from the non-government sector in the form of goods and services that are purchased by government, the motivation to supply these resources is sourced back to the need to acquire fiat currency to extinguish the tax liabilities.
Further, while real resources are transferred, the taxation provides no additional financial capacity to the government of issue.”
18 Ingelesez: “Conceptualising the relationship between the government and non-government sectors in this way makes it clear that it is government spending that provides the paid work which eliminates the unemployment created by the taxes.
The point is that multinational corporations may be engaged daily in shifting revenue and costs across national borders in order to minimise their corporate tax liabilities under one regime relative to another.
That governments, as long as they can enforce the rule of law, have many options available to ensure they have sufficient taxing capacity to create the necessary real resource space to accommodate a public spending program.”
