Gero eta gehiago entzuten den leloa, baita ezkerretan mugitzen omen bide direnen artean ere, hauxe da: ez dago dirurik.
Beste lelo bat, oso hedatua dena: ez dago irtenbiderik, ez baitago dirurik.
Egia ote? Ez ote dago dirurik?
Defizit publikoaz gero eta eztabaida handiago daude. Neoliberal guztiak, baita beren buruak ezkertiar dauzkatenak ere, defizit publikoaren aurka azaldu dira, behin eta berriz: defizitak ekarriko omen duen inflazioa izanik sasi argudiorik ‘sakonena’.
Bill Mitchell-ek, beste DMT-koek bezalaxe, sasi argudio hori etengabe salatu du.
Irakur dezagun MMT-ko, hots, DTM-ko sortzaile horrek idatzi berri duena[1].
Defizitari buruzko eztabaida publikoa: AEBk dirurik gabe geldituko da, jendeak zahartasunarekin batera osasun- eta erretiro-sistemetan gero eta gehiago eskatzen duelako.
“The public debate about deficits has been dominated by futuristic predictions that the US (and other nations) will run out of money because of the increasing demands on the health and pension systems as a result of the ageing society.”
Baina, AEBko gobernu federalak, moneta jaulkitzaileko gobernu guztiek bezalaxe, ez dauka inongo finantza mugapenik AEBko dolarrak gastatzeko ahalmenean.
“The US federal government, like all currency issuers, does no face a financial constraint on its ability to spend in US dollars.”
Erretirorako eta osasunerako etorkizuneko eskaera betetzeko, AEBk beste muga desberdin bati aurre egin behar dio: baliabide errealen eskuragarritasunari.
“In meeting the future demand for pensions and health care, it faces a different constraint – the availability of real resources.”
Baliabide errealak eskuragarri dauden heinean, AEBko gobernu federala gai izango da etorkizunean haiek erosteko.
“As long as there are real resources available, the US federal government will be able to buy them for use in the future. There will never be a financial constraint stopping this.”
Afera politikoa da eta politikoki ebatzi behar da.
“The question about what will be made available in the future and to whom, assuming there are real resources, is a political one and will be resolved accordingly.”
Etorkizunean eskuragarri egongo diren baliabideak gaur egun zer gertatzen denari dagozkio.
“But the availability of real resources in the future depends crucially on what happens today.”
1) Defizit gastua funtsezkoa da enplegu osoa sortzeko eta heziketa eta erakundeak behar diren moduan finantzatzeko…[2]
First, deficit spending now is crucial to create full employment and to fund our educational institutions properly so that productivity growth is not undermined and few workers in the future will be able to produce more environmentally-sustainable output to cope with the rising dependency ratios.
2) Gero eta langile gehiago finantza ahanzturara orain behartzea ez da bidea etorkizuneko lan-indar oso produktiboa garatzeko.
“Second, forcing an increasing number of workers into financial oblivion now is not the way to develop a highly productive future workforce.”
Eta jadanik oso ezaguna dena, Bill Mitchell-ek gogoratzen digu:
“The trends in the recent decades where the elites have pocketed higher shares of real income are not sustainable. Nothing productive comes from that.”
Eta Europan, ba ote dago dirurik?
Bai! EBZ-n!
(Gogora dezagun dirua teklatuen bidez sortzen, jaulkitzen dela!)
Hortaz, aurreko ideia berberak errepika daitezke EBrako.
Diruak nola funtzionatzen duen ulertzean datza afera, besterik ez.
Ikasiko ote dugu inoiz?
Gehigarria (1):
Interest and keystrokes:
Pierre:
If Banks create money out of nothing to lend;
so, where does the interest on my savings come from?
L. Randall Wray;
Pierre: keystrokes. they credit your acct.
Gehigarria (2):
Maileguz emateek gordailuak sortzen dituzte:
Hepion:
(…)
I have to wonder why MMTers use mystical statements like “loans create deposits” that no-one knows what it means instead of explaining more clearly our monetary system.
L. Randall Wray:
Hep: It is not MMTers that came up with that. It is extremely well known, and very commonly used, by everyone who works in the endog money literature. “Loans create deposits and deposits create reserves” is short hand. It is NOT MMT. If you do not like it, complain to Marc Lavoie–who so far as I know popularized it.
Gehigarria (3):
In http://moslereconomics.com/2013/08/26/from-sce/
Soft Currency Economics, 1993
Orain dela 20 urte idatzitakoa, eta akats berean daude!
Oinarria hauxe da:
“The root of this paradox is the mistaken notion that savings is needed to provide money for investment.
This is not true. In the banking system, loans, including those for business investments, create equal deposits, obviating the need for savings as a source of money.
Investment creates its own money.
Once we recognize that savings does not cause investment it follows that the solution to high unemployment and low capacity utilization is not necessarily to encourage more savings.”
Gehigarria (4):
Reserves, no constraint:
TomUsher:
(…)
“The Fed does still require 10% regular reserves against bank loans made/outstanding. What’s the 90% if not a multiple?
…
If the Fed were to charge interest on excess reserves and if Glass-Steagall were reinstated, don’t you think the banks would cause excess reserves to move into regular reserve accounts by way of lending newly created money that would then represent that 90% mentioned above?”
L. Randall Wray:
“before the crisis it was more like 1% reserves against deposits. In any case what matters is causation, and you’ve got it backwards. We can certainly calculate an ex post ratio. So what? If the CB always accommodates, there is no constraint resulting from reserves. Which is the case.”
[1] Ikus “There is a class warfare and the workers are not winning”: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=25187.
[2] Honela segitzen du: “ … to fund our educational institutions properly so that productivity growth is not undermined and few workers in the future will be able to produce more environmentally-sustainable output to cope with the rising dependency ratios.”
