Bill Mitchell-en artikulua: ECB should start funding government infrastructure and cash handouts1
Mitchell-ek Financial Times aldizkarian agerturiko eskutitz bat (Better ways to boost eurozone economy and employment) sinatu du, beste ekonomialari batzuekin batera.
Eskutitzean EBZtik pizgarri fikal hobeak eskatzen dira2.
Eskutitzaren punturik garrantzitsuenak:
-
Langabeziak %10ean segitzen du, nahiz eta QE erabili3
-
QE delakoa aberantsen aldekoa da, ekonomia errealari lagundu behar zaion bitartean4
-
Alternatiba bat dago. Sortutako diru berria finantza merkatuetan injektatu barik, gobernu gastuak finantzatzeko erabili behar da5, baita hiritarrei diru laguntza luzatzea ere
-
Ohiko politika monetarioak ez du funtzionatzen, politika fiskal berria behar da6
Mitchell aritu da banku zentraleko politika fiskalaz (Overt Monetary Financing, OMT): OMF – paranoia for many but a solution for all. Baita publikatzear dagoen liburuan ere: Eurozone Dystopia: Groupthink and Denial on a Grand Scale.
Politika fiskala oso efektiboa da7, bereziki moneta jaulkitzen duen gobernuarentzat8.
Eurogunea desberdina da: estatu desberdinetako defizit fiskalak jaulkitako zorrarekiko parekatzea beharrezkoa da9.
EBZ-k ez du funtzionatzen ohiko banku zentral batek jarduten duen bezala. Hortik datoz arazoak10.
Baina, nahiz eta ‘Egonkortasun eta Hazkunde Akordioak’ zutik iraun, EBZ-k moneta jaulkitzeko ahalmena dauka, baita gobernu zorra erosteko ere11.
Noski badago tabu12 bat, ezjakintasunean oinarrituta13.
OMF delakoak hauxe esan nahi du, alegia, gobernuaren besoa den altxor publikoak banku zentralari esaten diola berak kantitateren bat gastatu nahi duela. Banku zentralak segurtatzen du fondo horiek eskuragarri daudela gobernuaren banku kontuan.
Aipaturiko eskutitzean OMF bat proposatzen da, baita denbora-tarte baterako ‘demobeka’ bat, alegia, demografian oinarrituriko beka bat hiritar bakoitzari14.
Gobernuek finantzaketa erabil dezakete enplegua sortzeko programak eskaintzearren eta azpiegitura publiko degradatuak konpontzeko…
(Segituko du)
2 Ingelesez: “… called for a major fiscal stimulus from the European Central Bank (given it is the only body in the Eurozone that can introduce such a stimulus). The fiscal stimulus would take the form of a cash injection using the ECB’s currency monopoly powers.”
3 Ingeleses segitzen du: “This is hardly surprising: the evidence suggests that conventional QE is an unreliable tool for boosting GDP or employment.”
4 Ingelesez: “Bank of England research shows that it benefits the well-off, who gain from increasing asset prices, much more than the poorest. In the eurozone, where interest rates are at rock bottom and bond yields have already turned negative, injecting even more liquidity into the markets will do little to help the real economy.”
5 Ingelesez: “There is an alternative. Rather than being injected into the financial markets, the new money created by eurozone central banks could be used to finance government spending (such as investing in much needed infrastructure projects); alternatively each eurozone citizen could be given €175 per month, for 19 months, which they could use to pay down existing debts or spend as they please. By directly boosting spending and employment, either approach would be far more effective than the ECB’s plans for conventional QE.”
6 Ingelesez: “The ECB will argue that this approach breaks the taboo of mixing monetary and fiscal policy. But traditional monetary policy no longer works. Failure to consider new approaches will unnecessarily prolong stagnation and high unemployment. It is time for the ECB and eurozone central banks to bypass the financial system and work with governments to inject newly created money directly into the real economy.”
7 Ingelesez: “… it introduces spending capacity directly into the economy, which stimulates sales, employment and allows households to save more if they are exposed to large debt levels.”
8 Ingelesez: “It is clear that there is a significant misunderstanding of the debt issuance process. But even though increased public debt levels are of little relevance to the health of the economy, given that a currency issuing government can always meet its liabilities denominated in the currency it issues and that debt issuance is just tantamount to the government borrowing back past deficits, there is still massive public hysteria surrounding this matching process.”
9 Ingelesez: “The Eurozone is different, in the sense that at the Member State level, the matching of fiscal deficits to debt issuance is not voluntary but a required outcome of surrendering their currency sovereignty.
Further, a Member State of the Eurozone can clearly become bankrupt if it cannot issue debt at times they are running fiscal deficits. The corollary of that observation is that any debt they issue is subject to credit (default) risk, which is not a problem besetting nations that maintain their own currencies.”
10 Ingelesez: “That is, as long as the central bank (the ECB) refuses to take on the responsibilities that a central bank in a currency-issuing state assumes in order to ensure the economy is not subject to entrenched stagnation and the financial sector (banks etc) are not at risk of insolvency.
But the ECB, like any central bank, can create currency units (in this case, euros) at zero marginal costs – that is, out of thin air – and can never go broke, not even if all its ‘assets’ were degraded in value to some negative value.” Irakur The US Federal Reserve is on the brink of insolvency (not!) eta The ECB cannot go broke – get over it.
11 Ingelesez: “So even though the flawed design of the Eurozone places restrictions on the Member State governments with respect to fiscal policy latitude, which are compounded by the voluntary fiscal rules known as the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), the central bank (the ECB) has all the latitude it needs to issue currency (and buy as much government debt as it likes in the secondary bond markets).
Even though the Treaty governing the common currency prohibits so-called ‘direct’ bailouts of struggling governments, there is nothing in the Treaty that says the ECB cannot issue currency and make it available to whomsoever it chooses.”
12 Ingelesez: “Of course the idea that the central bank would just create liquidity which could be used to purchase goods and services is considered taboo by most nearly everyone. All of which who do not fully understand what would be involved anyway – and if they did the taboo would be gone immediately.”
13 Mitchell-ek dioenez, “... how can a relatively simple monetary operation between a central bank and its corresponding treasury department (both part of what we can call the ‘consolidated’ government sector) possibly be considered a taboo?”
14 Ingelesez: “In the FT Letter we propose OMF in this form as well as just giving out a demogrant (a payment of a certain sum to every citizen) for a period. No holds bars. Just get the credit in the bank account and spend it if you like.”
