[ad_1]
from fgci.info
The euro, we know, is a bankruptcy construction that caused only damage to Italy and Europe , as is obvious to everyone. At the moment, say that it no longer causes scandal, as was the case in 1992 when the Communists (Rifondazione) voted against the Maastricht Treaty. On the contrary, some commentators linger there and announce it urbi et orbi every two days. Among them, Joseph Stiglitz stands out as a very authoritative voice in the economy certainly not heterodox or, ever, Marxist
Precisely because of his authority and given the publication of his new book, Politico.eu hosted an article on how Italy could leave the euro later taken over by many newspapers. Since Stiglitz claims to be a leftist, which is not the case, as a FGCI, we want to quickly delete this article and avoid confusion for readers who are less interested in economic issues. Stiglitz is certainly a liberal, like Oscar Giannini or Berlusconi, who can only be leftist in American society.
Thus putting itself in order, S tiglitz recognizes that the euro has centralized monetary policy ] (interest rate and exchange rate), taking it from the states from Bankitalia to the ECB . Stiglitz then attributes to this the problems of the European Union, which is not true: the problems stem from the German mercantilist policy (compression of wages and production system aimed at exports ) which reduces the wages of the workers, they destroy the internal market and create speculative financial bubbles (the profits of the bosses who play them on the stock market). From this error, Stiglitz then draws a hypothetical solution to the crisis: the pan-European deposit guarantee fund as a measure to prevent capital flight. But even that is false: the fleeing capital was not granny deposits, but interbank loans of several million euros that are not covered by any guarantee fund in the world, nor in Germany and Greece . In any case, Stiglitz, in part rightly, says that this guarantee fund will never be made for the opposition of Germany and other countries (Holland and Baltic in particular).
After these unjustified premisses, Stiglitz presents his plan for Italy: devaluing! Here Stiglitz discusses different options, which are only feasible in his head, but the heart of his argument remains the same: with the devaluation, Italian products would be cheaper for foreigners, who would buy more (exports increase), and at the time the same foreign products would cost more Italians, who would buy cheaper substitutes made in Italy (imports fall and substitute for Italian products).
This is exactly what we tried to do in Italy with Monti, Letta, Renzi, Gentiloni and ten years of austerity: reduced wages and export-led growth. If Monti wanted to reduce the number of euros in paychecks every month (internal devaluation), Stiglitz wants to keep the same number in pay but no more than the euro, but a currency that is worth less (external devaluation) ). The result is the same: the economy starts again because the workers take less, but only starts again for the bosses who get bigger. It's a clbadic mercantilist model with variable exchange rates.
Not only does this model relieve workers of the costs of the crisis, but it is even based on false data: Italy already has a substantial surplus of exports over imports, a result of the social butcher of the Monti and PD (in fact, Italian exporting firms are making record profits in recent years). In addition, this model has a very strong limitation: it only works for exports where there is price competition (mature industries, such as the car in Germany) and not of any kind. innovation (developing industries, such as artificial intelligence and biotechnology). Devaluing again, it is still reducing wages, makes sense only in a blind and crazy bet on exports, on the destruction of the internal market and on the abandonment of scientific research, as he made Germany and as Trump wants to prevent it starts again. In essence, Stiglitz, as a clbadical liberal right-wing economist, offers Italy a mercantilist system to the detriment of the workers, based on data and erroneous theories and beyond the maximum time of these systems. We gladly leave his unsolicited advice and do the opposite
In fact, as FGCI, we clearly say that we only get out of the crisis with renewed public intervention in the economy . We do not want to get out of the euro, but only because it is an instrument of German imperialism and because the current European rules and macroeconomic mechanisms prevent us from doing the big campaign of the euro. 39 public investment (mainly research and high technology). ) which serves to stimulate employment and labor productivity. An exit is necessary, but must be progressive (the one proposed by Stiglitz is not), otherwise it is worth staying inside and save the effort. All the rest, including Stiglitz, is fuffa
of Frunze
[ad_2]
Source link
