(Segida)
Ikus EBZ: zertan dabil eta zertan ibili beharko litzateke?(1)1.
Abba Lerner-ek jakin zuen finantza funtzionalaz2.
Mitchell-en hitzez, gobernuaren gastu dela eta, altxor publikoak banku zentralari agindua luzatzen dio fondo batzuk transferitzeko banku baten kontutik sektore pribatuko kontu batera, gastuaren jasotzaileak edukitako kontura3. Antzekoa gertatzen da gobernu txeke bat hiritar bati luzatzen zaionean, haren bankuan txeke hori gordailatuz4.
Transakzio guzti horiek elektronikoki egiten dira, konputagailuen bidez5.
Inflazioari dagokionez,
“… it is spending that creates the inflation risk. And as long as total spending is at the appropriate level (…), then “printing money” will be an appropriate accompaniment to total government spending.”6
Garrantzitsuena:
“So if the ECB takes our advice, the Eurozone malaise would disappear very quickly and much of the current angst about Greece and other depressed economies would be over. Instead, there could be a genuine dialogue about growth and job creation and renewed prosperity.”
Pizgarri fiskalak, besteak beste, bi arlo desberdinetan aplika daitezke:
a) Langabeziaren aurka, lan bermeko programetan (Job Guarante), eta
b) Garraio, irakaskuntza edo eta osasungintza publikoetan
Beraz, Mitchell-ek dioenez,
“… the ECB should follow our advice and the Eurozone malaise would end very quickly.”
1 Ikus https://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/heterodoxia/2015/04/01/ebz-zertan-dabil-eta-zertan-ibili-beharko-litzateke-1/.
2 Ikus Bill Mitchell-en Functional finance and modern monetary theory.
3 Ingelesez: “… governments spend by drawing on a bank account they have with the central bank. An instruction is sent to the central bank from treasury to transfer some funds out of this account into an account in the private sector, which is held by the recipient of the spending.”
4 Ingelesez: “A similar operation might occur when a government cheque is posted to a private citizen who then deposits the cheque with their bank. That bank seeks the funds from the central bank, which writes down the government’s account and the private bank writes up the private citizens account.”
5 Ingelesez: “All these transactions are done electronically through computer systems. So government spending can really be simplified down to typing in numbers to various accounts in the banking system. When economists talk of printing money they are referring to the process whereby the central bank adds some numbers treasury’s bank account to match its spending plans and in return is given treasury bonds to an equivalent amount in value.
That is where the term ‘debt monetisation’ comes from. Instead of selling debt to the private sector, the treasury simply sells it to the central bank who creates new funds (or financial assets) in return. This accounting smokescreen is, of-course, unnecessary. The central bank doesn’t need the offsetting asset (government debt) to function given that it creates the currency ‘out of thin air’. So the swapping of public debt for account credits is just a convention.”
6 Honela gehituz, ingelesez: “The point to note is that the inflation risk lies in the spending not the monetary operations (debt-issuance etc) that might or might not accompany the spending. All spending (private or public) is inflationary if it drives nominal aggregate demand faster than the real capacity of the economy to absorb it. Increased government spending is not inflationary if there are idle real resources that can be brought back into productive use (for example, unemployment).”
joseba says:
Gehigarria:
Wage rises are required – real wages must grow in line with productivity
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=30537
“A fundamental shift in our attitudes to national income distribution is required to allow consumption growth to be driven by real wages growth and to stay in line with productivity growth (so that inflation is kept in check).
That ideological shift is one part of an overall shift in economic policy thinking that is required to allow economies to grow again in a stable fashion without the extreme income inequality that is now entrenched.
Otherwise, a new crisis will emerge – and given the existing private debt levels, the next crisis will be worse than the GFC.
What are the chances of that sort of shift in thinking? Not great at the moment. The policy making circles are thick with neo-liberal Groupthink aka arrogant blindness.”