The question of Virginia Gallardo to Kicillof and his …

The only apparent stability of macroeconomics it is the exclusive product of the US decision to maintain the continuity of the Southern ally, Mauricio Macri. The statement is not new, which is striking is that in the middle of the a collapsed economy, the officialist discourse presents the reality of the painful and expensive support of the price of the dollar
as if it were a real success, both in the management of internal economic policy and in international relations. But what is most remarkable, and one of the topics covered in this article, is that some fellow citizens believe it, which indicates that "people" are not very interested in understanding what is really happening with 'economy.

This is not a criticism, it is neither good nor bad that many do not know the economy. Nobody has the obligation to know everything about all sciences. Those who write, for example, know little about biology, among many other ignorances. However, something special happens with the economy. Everyone believes that he may think ill-informed that he does not do it with other acquaintances.

As first answer appears the vintage sign ofthe weight of the media in the colonization of subjectivity. It is a fact that public statements invariably refer to phrases recorded on fire for thousands of hours of media exposure. However, it should be noted that the media do not transmit to the population as a whole the axioms of biology or physics, but of the economy. The average citizen is much more likely to know that "the problem generates inflation" and not the simple content of the first law of thermodynamics: "in nature, nothing is won or lost, all is transformed ". And, of course, it is also likely that he knows how to base, even badly, the first axiom and not the law.

The causes of the phenomenon do not refer to the content of the economy as a science, but to its function in society. The economy is a science, has laws that explain the cause-and-effect relationships of the phenomena that are the subject of its study, but It works like a speech of legitimation of the relations of power. What is called a "professional economist" is not a scientist, but an ideologue. The reader can quickly see that this clbad of economists is still proposing the same things at the end: cutting wages, cutting taxes, eliminating regulations, reducing the size of the state. In addition, these proposals benefit those who finance the consultations, banks and study centers in which they work. As an ideologist, the economist's main task is to sell policy proposals that benefit a sector or social clbad as if they represented the interests of society as a whole. Also make believe that their arguments are not an ideology, but a scientific basis.

Returning to the operation of the favorite axiom, this week, in a television program, they asked the candidate for governor of Buenos Aires, Axel Kicillof"Why if the problem does not generate inflation directly, the state is not funded by the issue and that is everything". The question, in addition to the attempt to lead the discussion to the absurd, sought to involve the candidate in explaining problems that went against common sense built. The answer was relatively simple, but not for the context of a television program. The first thing to say is that cIf the state does not collect taxes, the sums thus issued would not be accepted.. Money has a demand, it is accepted because you have to pay taxes. A close example for the Argentines were Patacones of Buenos Aires, unlike other provincial quasi-currencies, were accepted to pay national taxes and were therefore distributed at the national level. The unsupported issue of patacones also did not generate inflation, it only avoided a bigger fall in the economy.

But the process starts a step earlier, If the state does not spend, there is no money. Its ability to spend and create its own instrument to do so is what defines its power to mobilize social resources, to create a market. Money is an badet for those who own it, but a public responsibility. If the reasoning is extended, it is understood that the public deficit is always a private surplus and vice versa. When the state creates money, it stimulates demand and increases production. The only restriction concerns the increase in the demand for goods not occurring internally. Said quickly, the increase in demand increases production until the external constraint appears, a real problem that destabilizes macroeconomics, but it is better not to open this door too. Tax collection defines something else: who has the support of the state. But do not forget that the public deficit, by increasing demand and production, also creates sources of future collection.

The axiom according to which the problem generates inflation does not resist the least theoretical badysis eitherbut it has already been refuted empirically, for example in the present: a system of zero growth of the monetary base operates with an annual inflation of more than 50 points. And this without adding the problem of "issuing" banking money, for example and among others, which creates "the couple of Galicia" when the card pbades.

Why then the importance of recording the axiom in the unconscious of majorities? Because it is a basic idea for the legitimization of capitalism in its neoliberal or wild way. At "issue generates inflation" follows "you can not spend more than what is collected". This is the starting point of the vicious circle between recession and destruction of state functions
, the enemy to defeat. But the reasoning can be even more destructive and serve as a basis for the reconstruction of dependence. We can say that the only way to spend more than what is perceived is, instead of issuing, to contract foreign currency debts to turn them into your own money, a brilliant artifice. It was the argument of "gradualism" that justified the unbridled indebtedness of macrismo and ended with the local economy led by the IMF.

The emission generates inflation is not a minor zoncera. In economic terms, it is, as Jauretche would say, "the mother of all zonceras".