Pavlina Tcherneva: Joerg Bibow-ek helikoptero diruaz


Pavlina R Tcherneva@ptcherneva

Great piece by @JoergBibow … via @FT

Joerg Bibow-en eskutitza: ‘Helicopter money’ is a muddled fiscal policy by another name –

Ukitutako puntuak:

(a) Helikoptero dirua politika fiskala da, beste izen batekin1

(b) Milton Friedman, monetarismoaren aitapontekoa eta helikoptero-banku zentralaren fikzioa eta nahastea2

(c) John Maynard Keynes-en pentsamendu esperimentua3

(d) Keynes eta demokrazia: afera aukeratutako gobernuei dagokie4

(e) Banku zentralen eginkizuna5

Bibow-ek dionez,

It is unlikely that economists will persuade elected politicians to pursue more responsible fiscal policies by propagating muddled ideas about imaginary helicopters that no one really needs

DTM-koek  ideia muddled horiek argitu dituzte, (in Donald Trump):

Warren B. Mosler@wbmosler

@greg_ip @morningmoneyben And in fact all US gov spending is ‘printing money’/crediting accts. at the Fed. ‘Printing’ is not a distinction!

Gauza bertsua Randall Wray-ri egindako elkarrizketan: Can the U.S. ‘Print Money’ to Pay Down the National Debt?

1 Ingelesez: “Stephanie Flanders’ reflections in “The hurdles to ‘helicopter money’ are shrinking” (May 12) make it clear that so-called “helicopter money” is fiscal policy by another name.

2 Ingelesez: “Milton Friedman, the figurehead of monetarism, disingenuously used a thought experiment featuring fiscal policy to prove the supposed powers of monetary policy. His famous helicopter-central bank fiction remains the source of confusion until this day.

3 Ingelesez: “John Maynard Keynes also offered a thought experiment that illuminated what is at issue, in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, namely: “If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coal mines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again  . . . , there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing.”

4 Ingelesez: “I believe Keynes, who also greatly cared about “the economic possibilities for our grandchildren”, would agree that a more sensible approach would be to invest in transforming the energy infrastructure to mitigate climate change, rather than to bury stuff in the ground, then dig it up again. The issue is one for elected governments rather than unelected central bankers to decide though.”

5 Ingelesez: “As long as central banks take their price stability mandate seriously and buy government bonds in the open market when their mandate requires, governments can focus on spending and not worry about helicopters. The fact that today’s elected governments renege on their responsibilities and ruin our grandchildren’s economic possibilities is regrettable. But it does not mean that unelected central bankers should mail out cheques (money drops) to taxpayers instead.”

Utzi erantzuna

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