"How can I know what I think until I read what I write?" – Henry James


There are a few lone voices willing to utter heresy. I am an avid follower of Ilusion Monetaria, a blog by ex-Bank of Spain economist (and monetarist) Miguel Navascues here.
Dr Navascues calls a spade a spade. He exhorts Spain to break free of EMU oppression immediately. (Ambrose Evans-Pritchard)

sábado, 18 de julio de 2015

Un error con malicia

Gran artículo de Greg Mankiw , sobre Grecia, el euro y los tipos de cambio. Referencias a los mejores textos (Friedman, Feildstein) advirtiendo de las consecuencias del euro. Una reflexión: esos economistas que no fueron escuchados, eran en el 99% de EEUU o educados allí. De izquierdas o derechas. Nunca me canso de decirlo. Los economistas europeos, de izquierdas y derechas, metieron la pata y se corrompieron al apoyar el euro fanáticamente. Hicieron una carrera, los muy hiojs de puta. Por eso no me fío de ellos, me parece que no se les puede escuchar. Lo siento, no puedo creer que fuera un error sin malicia.

They Told You So: "Economists Were Right to Doubt the Euro"

... In 1997 [Friedman] he wrote: "Europe’s common market exemplifies a situation that is unfavorable to a common currency. It is composed of separate nations, whose residents speak different languages, have different customs and have far greater loyalty and attachment to their own country than to the common market or to the idea of ‘Europe.’
Mr. Friedman concluded that the adoption of the euro "would exacerbate political tensions by converting divergent shocks that could have been readily accommodated by exchange rate changes into divisive political issues."
Another euro skeptic was Martin Feldstein, my colleague in the Harvard economics department and, from 1982 to 1984, chief economist to President Ronald Reagan. Also writing in 1997, Mr. Feldstein called the euro "an economic liability."
But why? Monetary union works well in the United States. No economist suggests that New York, New Jersey and Connecticut should each have its own currency, and indeed it would be highly inconvenient if they did. Why can’t Europeans enjoy the conveniences of a common currency?
Two reasons. First, unlike Europe, the United States has a fiscal union in which prosperous regions of the country subsidize less prosperous ones. Second, the United States has fewer barriers to labor mobility than Europe. In the United States, when an economic downturn affects one region, residents can pack up and find jobs elsewhere. In Europe, differences in language and culture make that response less likely.
As a result, Mr. Friedman and Mr. Feldstein contended that the nations of Europe needed a policy tool to deal with national recessions. That tool was a national monetary policy coupled with flexible exchange rates. Rather than heed their counsel, however, Europe adopted a common currency for much of the Continent and threw national monetary policy into the trash bin of history.


No hay comentarios: