Post-Brexit: Bill Michell eta kazetariak

Mitchell-en When journalists allow dangerous economic myths to pervade1

Mitchell askotan aritu da kazetaritzaz eta batez ere kazetariek daukaten erantzukizunaz.

Honetan ere gauza bertsua bertsuak aipatzen ditu2.

Baina garrantzitsuena da DTMz dioena, kazetariek erabiltzen dituzten ekonomia mitoak deuseztatzeko balioko liekeena.

Izan ere, lan honetan Mitchell-ek laburbiltzen du DTM-ren jarrera krisiari buruz, alegia, “there is no financial crisis so deep that cannot be dealt with by public spending” dioena3.

Hona hemen Mitchell-en aipamenak:

(a) DTM-koek esaten dutena eta ez dutena esaten, gastu publikoaz4

(b) Zehazki5

(c) Baliabideen mugak eta politika fiskala6

(e) Gobernu subirano baten ezaugarriak, diruaz eta zor publikoaz7

(f) Tasatze agentziez eta zabor hori guztiaz8

(g) Ebidentzia politika monetarioaz9

(h) Brexit eta kazetaritza10

(i) Baina laster… ridikulurantz abiatzen da11

Gogoratu ondoko lana: Post-Brexit: nor da nor?

(j) Erreferendumaz, Greziaz eta Britainia Handiaz12


(1) Komunikabideaz13

(2) Tasatze agentziaz14

Euskal Herrian, esan nahi dut Granada honetan (non Arestiren hitzez, dena baita posible), aldiz, Brexit-en inguru analisiak sakonagoak eta zientifikoagoak dira beste edozein lekutakoak baino, eguneroko prentsan irakur dezakegun moduan.

Gu libre gaude kazetarien ezjakintasunetik. Gainera, ekonomialarien eta politikarien laguntza ederra ere badaukagu. Badakigu, kasu, Syrizak eraman duela Grezia paradisura, Varoufakis pentsalaririk pentsalariena dela, Brexit eskuinak, erdi naziek eta arrazistek bultzatu dutela.

Izan ere, kazetariei esker, ekonomiaz eta finantzaz hainbeste teoria on eta sakonez jabetu gara. Neoliberalismoa gaindituta daukagu, gure intelligentsiari esker.

Benetan zoriontsu gaude, Euskal Herriko kazetarien (eta intelligentsiaren) informazioa aparteko zehatza eta zuzena delako.

Biba zuek eta gora gu!

2 Kasu: “Journalists have a lot to answer for in this modern era of constant media reporting across multiple modes of communication. I have previously argued that the trend has become one where journalists are used as broadcasting tools for press releases – that is, stories that appear to be news commentary are really just precised versions of some corporate press release or a statement from some right wing think tank. The lack of critical scrutiny where one line statements that on the face of it are highly contentious are allowed to ‘go through to the keeper’ is now the model for modern mainstream journalism.”

3 Ingelesez: “As I explained in this blog – There is no financial crisis so deep that cannot be dealt with by public spending – still! – the statement that – “There is no financial crisis so deep that cannot be dealt with by public spending” – does not mean that fiscal policy can bail an economy out of any problem.”

4 Ingelesez: “As an aside, the title of that blog was the title of a paper I published in 2009 – you can read the Working Paper version for free (fairly close to the final publication). It reflects a basic insight that is derived from MMT once you fully understand that school of thought – its scope and its limitations.

When I say (and the other leading MMT writers say) – “There is no financial crisis so deep that cannot be dealt with by public spending” I do not mean the following:

  • That fiscal policy can overcome the real losses to a nation’s standard of living that are associated with a major fall in its currency when there is a significant dependency on real imported goods and services.

  • That fiscal policy can ensure that debts denominated in foreign-currency (public or private) can be honoured at all times.”

5 Ingelesez: “What the statement means is that a situation can always be improved from where it is as a result of the operations of a crisis in the private financial markets.

It doesn’t mean the state reached after the fiscal intervention will be perfect. It means things can always be made better.

6 Ingelesez: “A nation has to ultimately confront its real resource constraints. Fiscal policy in the short-term cannot ease those constraints although it can ensure that the real resources available are utilised more fully.

A nation with heavy import dependencies (that is, real resource shortages) is also likely to suffer if its exchange rate collapses or world export markets for its goods and services slow appreciably. Fiscal policy can help to attenuate the losses but cannot ‘create food out of thin air’ like it can public spending capacity (money).

So in appraising what the statement means we should avoid setting up red-herrings or straw persons.”

7 Ingelesez: “The bottom line is that a sovereign government like Australia can never run out of money and never needs to issue public debt as a matter of necessity. The public debt issuance is entirely voluntary and such voluntary actions have a habit of being quickly changed if they present too many ‘political’ problems.

8 Ingelesez: “It is thus a total lie to claim that a government will inevitably run out of domestic funding sources. All the discussions about AAA ratings are also irrelevant (and for Britain today given the corrupt ratings agencies have tried to steal some limelight and downgraded the rating).

Please read my blogs – Ratings agencies and higher interest rates and Time to outlaw the credit rating agenciesfor more discussion on why the ratings agencies should be ignored in the context of public debt.”

9 Ingelesez: “The reality is that monetary policy is not a reliable policy tool to use if one wants to stimulate effective demand.

The evidence over the last several years indicates that while central banks can always ensure there is sufficient liquidity in the banking system (reserves) to prevent any payments failures their impact on effective demand is weak and should not be relied on as the primary counterstabilisation policy tool.

10 Ingelesez: “This myth that a currency-issuing government somehow can ‘run out of money’ is also playing out in the Brexit commentary elsewhere.

The Fairfax press syndicated an article from a UK Daily Telegraph journalist today (June 28, 2016) – Brexit hardball: the European Union will treat Britain like Greece.

It is a bizarre example of someone who claims to be expert but is deeply ignorant of the key element that is necessary to establish his proposition.

Apparently, the EU mafia (Juncker, Tusk and co) will play hardball with Europe because the Greek experience last year taught the journalist two things:

that in the cause of its salvation the European Union can be profoundly flexible and exceptionally brutal, and that events can swiftly take a momentum that is hard to control.

Okay, on the way Greece was treated we agree. It was “coup”. Greece is little more than a colony in receivership and its situation will worsen.

The journalist then speculates on what will become of the UK now that it “is almost certainly out the European Union”.

He claims that the Brussels elites “have been ready to say goodbye for a long time”, given Britain’s rather distant relationship with the rest of the nations.

They are now taking a cool, calm and collected approach to the excision. He speculates that while, according to the legalities of the Treaty, Britain retains full rights in the two year period while the exit is finalised, the reality will be differnt.

He thinks that the European Commission will rough-ride over Britain’s European presence (the insuffereable Jonathan Hill’s resignation being an example and Juncker’s demands that UKIP European Parliament members “pack their bags”) and things will get tougher not easier for Britain.

He argues that the European elite want to get rid of Britain as quickly as possible to head off other attempts within Europe to have membership referendums.

We can agree on that. The nightmare of their failed monetary system was already driving these exit movements. The empowerment of the British referendum will strengthen their demands.”

11 Ingelesez: “But then we descend into the ridiculous.

The journalist writes that even though Greece made it “plain they wanted to remain Europeans”, which engendered some “goodwill”, they were still treated brutally by the establishment in Brussels and Frankfurt.


No such goodwill exists for Britain, now an ex-member.

So he thinks that:

1. “a Norway deal that means European Economic Area status, retained rights for the City of London and immigration – is almost certainly off the table”. Which I would count as a good thing. Norway pays into the corrupt EU but gets no say about its policies.

2. “clearing houses that trade in euros and generate billions for Britain will have to be domiciled in the eurozone”. Britain needs to reduce the domination of the City of London anyway. It needs to outlay speculative capital flows that do not help the real economy.

3. “Britain is not getting access to the single market” because Wolfgang Schäuble said “Out is out”. Well, I think Dr Schäuble will take advice from bodies such as the Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie (BDI) which has already said that it would be counterproductive to block British trade access to Europe.

And, remember that Britain runs a current account deficit against Europe. I don’t expect any blocks to be put in place which would be any more significant than the 2 per cent tariff that the US faces. Trivial.

4. Exit “would likely result in a cut in GDP of six per cent and increase unemployment by 800,000, not including the risks presented by emergency spending cuts, or the “tipping points” presented by the crystallisation of financial stability risks”. None of which will remotely happen (there, that is a prediction) unless the British government abandons its responsibility to use its fiscal capacity.

And even the Tories in 2012, faced with on-going recession moderated their austerity ambitions and allowed the fiscal deficit to rise because they knew it would be electoral suicide to do otherwise (persist with their austerity obsession).”

12 Ingelesez: “And the wrath that the Referendum has demonstrates exists in the poorer parts of Britain, which will further militate against any fiscal abandonment.

So where does the headline fit in? Just to scare people who might not otherwise appreciate that Greece is a small economy that uses a foreign currency controlled by the ECB, who abandoned its own commitment last year to maintain financial stability by acting on behalf of the Troika to threaten (blackmail) a weak Tsipras and his elitist cronies in Syriza to tow the line.

Britain is a large economy, with its own currency that floats on international markets and sets its own monetary policy.

It can ensure domestic demand maintains employment irrespective of any tricks the EU elites try out on trade. Not that I think the EU countries (particularly Germany) will entertain trying to block Britain out anyway.”

13 Ingelesez: “The media has a lot to answer for in perpetuating these economic myths that help to sway public opinion away from sensible policy and help to create endemic uncertainty among households and firms.”

14 Ingelesez: “The claims that the AAA downgrade in Britain is a sign of economic collapse is are wrong and the fact that the media do not question those claims and, indeed, give them oxygen, demonstrates my point.”

Utzi erantzuna

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