“For most people, the greatest challenge to near-and-dear convictions is MMT’s claim that a sovereign government’s finances are nothing like those of households and firms. While we hear all the time the statement that “if I ran my household budget the way that the Federal Government runs its budget, I’d go broke”, followed by the claim “therefore, we need to get the government deficit under control”, MMT argues this is a false analogy. A sovereign, currency-issuing government is NOTHING like a currency-using household or firm. The sovereign government cannot become insolvent in its own currency; it can always make all payments as they come due in its own currency because it is the ISSUER of the currency, not simply the USER (as a household or private business is). This issuing capacity means that the government does not face the same kinds of constraints as a private sector user of money, which in turn exposes the fallacy of the household analogy, so beloved in popular economics discourse.
Indeed, if government spends currency into existence, it clearly does not need tax revenue before it can spend. Further, if taxpayers pay their taxes using currency, then government must first spend before taxes can be paid. Again, all of this was obvious two hundred years ago when kings literally stamped coins in order to spend, and then received their own coins in tax payment.
Another shocking truth is that a sovereign government does not need to “borrow” its own currency in order to spend. Indeed, it cannot borrow currency that it has not already spent! This is why economists such as Mitchell see the sale of government bonds as something quite different from borrowing. [Ну дя, ну дя, цэ królewski sposób rządzenia — сбора даней и податей… на окна, дымы, пороги, etc., etc.]”
2) Hans-Werner Sinn, Professor of Economics and Public Finance at the University of Munich, is President of the Ifo Institute for Economic Research and serves on the German economy ministry’s Advisory Council. He is the author, most recently, of The Euro Trap: On Bursting Bubbles, Budgets, and Beliefs, Oxford University Press, 2014.
“MUNICH – More details about the European Commission’s €315 billion ($390 billion) investment plan for 2015-2017 have finally come to light. The program, announced by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker in November, amounts to a massive shadow budget, twice as large as the European Union’s annual official budget, that will finance public investment projects and ultimately help governments circumvent debt limits established in the Stability and Growth Pact.
An assessment of the application documents conducted by the Ifo Institute for Economic Research, of which I am President, found that the nearly 2,000 potential projects would cost a total of €1.3 trillion, with about €500 billion spent before the end of 2017. Some 53% of those costs correspond to public projects; 15% to public-private partnerships (PPPs); 21% to private projects; and just over 10% to projects that could not be classified.
…the program remains legally dubious, as it creates a massive shadow budget financed by borrowing that will operate parallel to the EU and national budgets, thereby placing a substantial risk-sharing burden on taxpayers. Because every country, regardless of its creditworthiness, can borrow at the same interest rate, projects will be undertaken in countries that recently have burned such huge amounts of capital that they can no longer tap financial markets for funding. Just like the many other “protective” measures taken during the crisis, this distortion of market processes will help to cement the sub-optimal allocation of European investment capital, hampering economic growth for years to come.
Making matters worse, only a fraction of the new borrowing enabled by the mutualization of liability will be factored into national budgets. This will render meaningless EU-wide debt-management agreements, including the Stability and Growth Pact, which limits the overall deficit to 3% of GDP, and the 2012 “fiscal compact,” which stipulates that countries whose debt-to-GDP ratios exceed the 60% limit should reduce them by one-twentieth annually until they are in compliance.
In recent years, banks have been berated for using shadow budgets, in the form of special-purpose vehicles and conduits, to take on excessive risk. It is worrisome, to say the least, that the EU is now resorting to similar tricks.”
Прилифф, ка-а-а-нешна-а-а, магутч — магёть паднятъ усих лотки, осоебливо с дырьями по бортам… Чиста для хлебцофф.
3) И да издрасти дерьмокрадия
“Розоватенькия и голубоватенькия какбе партии Швеции в субботу договорились о ротационном правлении до 2022 года.
По условиям сделки, получившей название «Мюнхенский сговор Декабрьское соглашение» и достигнутой в ходе закулисных торгов переговоров во время рождественских каникул, Лёвен дал согласие поддержать бюджет, принятый парламентом на 2015 год, хотя и заручился правом внести изменения. Затем, до следующих выборов, «Альянс за голубенькую Швецию» не будет блокировать бюджеты красножёлто-коричневойзелёной коалиции. Что же касается парламента нового созыва (с 2018 по 2022 год), то при отсутствии у одного из блоков абсолютного большинства (что наиболее вероятно, учитывая их примерно равнодерьмовые позиции) правительство меньшинства сформируют правоцентристы, а левоцентристы также не будут голосовать против их проектов бюджета. Кроме того, стороны договорились вырабатывать общие подходы в пенсионных, оборонных и энергетических вопросах…