Europako B planaz eta Keynes 1928an

Erdara batuan, aspaldian esaten zen moduan, “para entendernos todos mejor” (sic).

(Behin baino gehiagotan nire hitzaldietan entzundako leloa, noiz eta 2015ean/2016an!)

Albistea: Plan B Europa: cantos de sirena desde la izquierda

Hitz gehiegi, baina funtsean ados…

Varoufakis? Ez, mila esker!

Konparatu aurreko B plan hori Bill Mitchell-ek John Maynard Keynes-en How to Organize a Wave of Prosperity delakoaz gaur bertan plazaratutako lanarekin1.

Mitchell-ek dioenez,

(a) Produkzio industrialari dagokionez, Europa Batasun monetarioa atzerapenean dago2

(b) Keynes-en aipatutako lanaren testuingurua hauxe zen 1928an: langabezia masiboa3

(c) Langabeziaren aurka, Keynes-ek hedapen fiskala proposatu zuen4

(d) Jendeak egindako hanka-sartzea ez zuen ulertu5

(e) Egoera ez da gehiegi aldatu gaur egun6

(f) Politika monetarioak ez du funtzionatzen inon7

(g) Gaur egungo bankugintza ez dute ulertzen, ez gaude urre estandarreko sisteman, banku zentralek ez dituzte behar erreserbak8

(h) Bankugintzaren funtsa, hitz gutxitan9

(i) Keynes-ek aurretik jakin zuen, preszientea zen10

Izan ere,

He [Keynes] urged the Treasury and the Bank of England to abandon their conservative (austerity) approach to the economy and, instead, embark on wide-scale fiscal stimulus to create jobs and prosperity. He concluded that with thousands of workers idling away in mass unemployment that it was “utterly imbecile to say that we cannot afford” to stimulate employment via large-scale public works – building infrastructure etc. He considered the policy makers who opposed such options were caught up in “the delirium of mental confusion”. The stark reality is that 88 years later, he could have written exactly the same article and would have been ‘right on the money’. We are being led (euphemism) by imbeciles.”


1 Ikus We are being led by imbeciles: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=33072#more-33072.

2 Ingelesez: “Earlier this month (February 12, 2016), Eurostat told us that – Industrial production down by 1.0% in both euro area and EU28.

The report said that:

In December 2015 compared with November 2015, seasonally adjusted industrial production fell by 1.0% in both the euro area (EA19) and the EU28 … In November 2015 industrial production fell by 0.5% in both zones …

Among Member States for which data are available, the largest decreases in industrial production were registered in the Netherlands (-9.4%), Estonia (-8.8%) and Germany (-2.3%) …

Which means that the overall monetary union is back in recession if industrial production is considered.”

3 Ingelesez: “The context was the slowdown in British industry in that year and the subsequent rise in mass unemployment.

Keynes wrote:

Moreover, the more successful the efforts which are being made to restore the margin of profits by ‘rationalisation’, the greater the likelihood – at first anyhow – of increasing unemployment.

And the more successful the efforts of the Treasury, in the pursuit of so-called `Economy’, to damp down the forms of capital expansion which they control – telephones, roads, housing, etc., again the greater the certainty of increasing unemployment.

The resonance with contemporary events some 88 years later is frightening.

4 Ingelesez: “he [Keynes] said that:

the Chancellor of the Exchequer must remove and reverse his pressure against public spending on capital account.

Every public department and every local authority should be encouraged and helped to go forward with all good projects for capital expansion which they have ready or can prepare – roads, bridges, ports, buildings, slum clearances, electrification, telephones, etc., etc.

That is, a large-scale fiscal expansion.

5 Ingelesez: “The other resonating fact is that Keynes wrote:

The nature of the error committed will never be exactly understood by the public

6 Ingelesez: “Things have not changed much. We are once again in the thrall of ‘sound finance’ which Keynes so long ago demonstrated was damaging to the prosperity of the nation and only imbeciles would believe in it.

The UK Guardian article (February 29, 2016) –
China’s central bank attempts to boost economy with cash injection
– reveals, yet again, how
central bankers are caught up in a mindless Groupthink and do not even understand the policy instruments they are dealing with.

It also indicates that the journalists who wrote the article need to rethink their understanding of the material they write about.”

7 Ingelesez. “Part of the ‘sound finance’ dogma pertains to the superiority of monetary policy as a counter-stabilisation tool – that is, a tool to ensure spending fluctuations are minimised and growth and employment remains strong. (…)Lowering reserve requirements will do very little if anything to encourage bank lending in China or anywhere else.

I dealt with this issue in the following blogs – Lending is capital- not reserve-constrained and 100-percent reserve banking and state banks

This is the same sort of nonsense that has led central bankers to introduce negative interest rates in the hope that imposing a tax on bank reserves in the middle of a recession will mysteriously lead banks to lend more despite the fact that their are not too many borrowers knocking on their doors for funds – such is the stagnant state these policy makers have created.

Please read my blogs – The ECB could stand on its head and not have much impact and The folly of negative interest rates on bank reserves – for more discussion on this point.”

8 Ingelesez: “In the real world, bank loans create deposits and are made without reference to the reserve positions of the banks. The bank then ensures its reserve positions are legally compliant as a separate process knowing that it can always get the reserves from the central bank if it is short of reserves (requirements or not).

The only way that the central bank can influence credit creation in this setting is via the price of the reserves it provides on demand to the commercial banks.

Bank lending is not reserve constrained. Rather, limits are placed on banks by their capital. (…)

Commercial banks hold reserve accounts at the central bank for the sole purpose of facilitating the payments system (clearing house). Many countries have no reserve requirements other than the accounts must not be in the red on a sustained basis.

Reserve requirements are an artifact of the old gold standard and are irrelevant in the current monetary system. They do not reduce bank risk nor do they comprise a buffer that can be drawn on when there is a run on a bank.

To understand why reserve requirements do not constrain lending you have to understand how a bank operates. Banks seek to attract credit-worthy customers to which they can loan funds to and thereby make profit. What constitutes credit-worthiness varies over the business cycle and so lending standards become more lax at boom times as banks chase market share (this is one of Minsky’s drivers).

These loans are made independent of the banks’ reserve positions. Depending on the way the central bank accounts for commercial bank reserves, the latter will then seek funds to ensure they have the required reserves in the relevant accounting period. They can borrow from each other in the interbank market but if the system overall is short of reserves these horizontal transactions will not add the required reserves.

9 Ingelesez: “To summarise:

1. A bank’s ability to expand its balance sheet is not constrained by the quantity of reserves it holds or any fractional reserve requirements.

2. The bank expands its balance sheet by lending. Loans create deposits which are then backed by reserves after the fact. The process of extending loans (credit) which creates new bank liabilities is unrelated to the reserve position of the bank.

3. Any balance sheet expansion which leaves a bank short of the required reserves may affect the return it can expect on the loan as a consequence of the ‘penalty’ rate the central bank might exact through the discount window. But it will never impede the bank’s capacity to effect the loan in the first place.

4. It is the Basel capital requirements that place a limit on the expansion of a commercial bank’s balance sheet at any point in time.

Please read the following blogs – Building bank reserves will not expand credit and Building bank reserves is not inflationary – for further discussion.

10 Ingelesez: “Keynes warning was prescient at the time and remains a robust understanding of the causes of mass unemployment and the best policy cures.

He was fighting against ‘sound finance’ then and by the end of the Second World War had won the battle and the world entered a marvellous period of full employment and income growth with diminishing inequality and poverty.

But the conservative ideology is like a cockroach – hard to get rid of. And for the last three or so decades the world has been mired in its imbecilic nostrums that culminated into the GFC.

Rising poverty, mass unemployment and all the related ills are back – and we are too stupid to see these leaders for the imbeciles that they are!

Iruzkinak (1)

  • joseba

    Krisia nahita induzitua:

    Striking Admission By Former Bank Of England Head: The European Depression Was A “Deliberate” Act

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-02/striking-admission-former-bank-england-head-european-depression-was-deliberate-act

    “As the Telegraph reports today, according to the former head of the Bank of England Europe’s economic depression “is the result of “deliberate” policy choices made by EU elites. Mervyn King continued his scathing assault on Europe’s economic and monetary union, having predicted the beleaguered currency zone will need to be dismantled to free its weakest members from unremitting austerity and record levels of unemployment.”

    “But the biggest question about Europe’s depression has always been whether it was the result of sheer stupidity and poor economic decisions or deliberate. King’s answer was stunning: “it is appalling and it has happened almost as a deliberate act of policy which makes it even worse“.
    The reason this statement is profound, is because it validates what “that” 2008 AIG report predicted long ago, and certainly years before the European crisis was unleashed, namely that Europe would specifically create a financial crisis (as well as an environmental crisis, as well as terrorism) in order to fortify “Empire Europe.””

    “The tragedy for Europe is that it has all panned out just as Europe’s unelected, ruling oligarchy as expected, and while we should congratulate Brussels which has managed to not only preserve but solidify its power, it now rules over a decaying, economically insolvent continent, with an entire generation left unemployed, with millions of refugees scrambling to get in, and with Europe’s cultural “integration” back to levels not seen in decades.
    And whereas before we could speculate that all of this had been at most a chance occurrence, we now know better: it was premeditated from day one.”

Utzi erantzuna

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