Traduzione italiana di "Replica a Wray - Parte 2"

Voci dall'estero ha gentilmente tradotto la seconda parte della mia replica a Wray.

Seconda parte dell'intervento di Sergio Cesaratto in risposta a Randall Wray nel dibattito MMT/Eterodossi,  sull'origine della crisi dell'Eurozona.

"La UEM potrebbe facilmente autodistruggersi anche in assenza di deficit delle partite correnti " (Wray qui)

"Le questioni commerciali all'interno della zona euro ... resteranno una fonte di stress economico e politico, anche con una soluzione completa dei problemi di liquidità ..." (Warren Mosler)

Nella parte 1 ho esaminato il punto di vista della MMT secondo il quale la piena sovranità monetaria è la chiave per le politiche di piena occupazione in tutti i paesi, a condizione che quelli con problemi di partite correnti (CA) abbiano un accesso sicuro a fonti alternative di liquidità estera - cosa che non esiste in realtà. Ho anche esaminato l'affermazione della MMT che la zona euro (EZ) non può avere al suo interno problemi di bilancia dei pagamenti (BdP), a condizione che vi siano dei trasferimenti fiscali da un significativo bilancio federale sostenuto da un'autentica banca centrale europea (BC) - cosa che ancora una volta non esiste in realtà. In questo post si tornerà sulla negazione di Wray dell'origine della crisi dell'EZ come crisi di BdP.

Replica a Wray - Parte 2

Ecco la seconda parte. La risposta di Wray è qui http://www.economonitor.com/lrwray/2012/08/29/minsky-and-mmt-in-the-news/. Utile perché contrappone due scuole: Kaldor-Thirlwall per i quali il vincolo della bilancia dei pagamenti è l'ostacolo principale alla crescita, l'altra (l'MMT) secondo cui con una moneta sovrana, oplà, il problema scompare.

A reply to Wray - Part 2

“The EMU could easily have self-destructed even with no current account deficits anywhere.” (Wray here)

“Trade issues within the eurozone …will remain a point of economic and political stress even with a full resolution of the liquidity issues…” (Warren Mosler)

In the part 1 I reviewed the MMT view that full monetary sovereignty is the key to full employment policies in all countries, provided that those with current account (CA) troubles have safe access to alternative sources of foreign liquidity - what is not the case in reality. I also examined the MMT’s claim that the Eurozone (EZ) cannot suffer from internal balance of payment (BoP) troubles as long as fiscal transfers from a significant federal budget backed by a genuine European CB are provided - what again is not the case in reality. In this post we shall return on Wray’s denial of the BoP origin of the EZ crisis. I agree with Wray, Bell-Kelton and other MMTs that in a currency union local states are partially deprived of fiscal policy as a tool to sustain aggregate demand[1]  (without forgetting that this power is anyway in many countries subject to the foreign constraint even with full monetary sovereignty), while the institutional design of the EMU is not able to assure full employment and the preservation of the traditional European welfare state in a non-OCA. As Godley 1991 pointed out:

“The fact that individual countries no longer have their own currencies and central banks will put new constraints on their ability to run independent fiscal policies. However, the collective formulation of fiscal policy would be a far more difficult business than passive ‘coordination’. Fiscal policies of the whole Community could be co-ordinated and expansionary: but they could also be co-ordinated and contractionary. How is the common formulation of fiscal policy to be achieved? By what institutions and according to what principles?”

But Godley found even

“more disturbing … the notion that with a common currency the ‘balance or payments problem’ is eliminated and therefore that individual countries are relieved of the need to pay for their imports with exports. Quite the reverse: the existence or a common currency makes a country more directly dependent on its ability to sell exports and import substitutes than it was before, particularly as it will then possess no means whereby it can (in the broadest sense) protect itself against failure” (hat tip to Ramanan).

Indeed, the crisis did not stem from an undisciplined fiscal behaviour of some peripheral countries  – they knew very well that “markets” would have punished them (the EMU was designed for this purpose) – but from the loss of competitiveness of some member countries, as Godley feared, and from some additional events brought about by monetary unification that nobody (with one exception) foresaw.