Nakedkeynesianism ha appena pubblicato la prima parte della mia risposta a Wray, e a seguire inserirà la seconda. Certamente degli amici italiani le tradurranno. Buona lettura. 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 1
“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. … But more disturbing still is 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…”. Godley
1991
There are two aspects of the discussion that has taken
place in the last weeks (here,
here,
here,
here).
The first mainly concerns my
first post and regards whether monetary sovereignty is a condition both
necessary and sufficient for any country to pursue development and full
employment policies; the second concerns the Eurozone (EZ) crisis and was the
subject of my
second post. Wray mainly focuses on the second issue, and I will do the
same. In part 1 of my reply I will, however, briefly dwell on the first aspect
that is anyway preliminary and which will lead us to touch upon the EZ troubles
anyway. The two questions we deal with in part 1 will, respectively, be: are
balance of payments (BoP) preoccupations irrelevant for countries endowed with
full monetary sovereignty? Can a currency union suffer of internal BoP
troubles? Part 2 will then be
devoted to Wray’s explanation(s) of the EZ crisis.
