A Manifesto for Economic Sense (2012) – 1

Als Kontrast zu dem hysterischen, alarmistischen und unsachlichen “Schwachsinnsaufruf” der deutschen “Top-Ökonomen” (?!) um Hans-Werner Sinn, über den ich schon ausführlich in diesem Blogartikel geschrieben habe, will ich hier jetzt mal ein intelligentes Manifest  mit dem Titel “A Manifesto for Economic Sense” von den Wirtschaftswissenschaftlern Richard Layard (LSE) und Paul Krugman (Princeton University) anbringen, in dem auf präzise Weise über die Ursachen und vor allem die möglichen Lösungen angesichts der weltweiten Finanzkrise ab 2007 geredet wird.

Die Verfasser dieses Manifestes, das offensichtlich seit Ende Juni “online” ist, sind der Engländer Richard Layard und der Amerikaner Paul Krugman. Siehe hierzu den Blogeintrag vom 28.6. von Paul Krugman in den “Opinion Pages” der “New York Times” mit dem Titel “A Manifesto for Economic Sense“. Dieses Manifest findet ihr auf zahlreichen Seiten im WWW. Hier habt ihr das Manifest mit dem Titel  “A manifesto for economic sense” auf den “Opinion Pages” vom 27.6. der “Financial Times“.

Hier habt ihr zum Vergleich nochmals den “Protestaufruf” dieser 172 Deppen, angeblich deutsche “Top-Ökonomen(?!) im Wortlaut in einem Artikel vom 5.7. in der “FAZ” mit dem TitelProtestaufruf: Der offene Brief der Ökonomen im Wortlaut“. Meine Ausführungen zu diesem Schwachsinnsaufruf von Hans-Werner Sinn und Konsorten findet ihr in meinem Blogartikeln “Trotz des eitlen Selbstlobs von Wolfgang Schäuble: Die Eurokrise ist massiv zurückgekehrt 63” und nachfolgende Teile.

Aber um auf das Manifest von  Richard Layard (LSE) und Paul Krugman (Princeton University) mit dem Titel  “A manifesto for economic sense” zurückzukommen: Die aktuelle Eurokrise in der Eurozone ist im Grunde auch nur ein Teil und ein Ausläufer dieser weltweiten Finanzkrise ab 2007. Und hier in der Eurozone werden seitens der aktuell in der Eurozone herrschenden Politiker und ihrer Wirtschaftsberater  in noch stärkerem Masse die gleichen Fehler bei der Bekämpfung der Eurokrise begangen wie in den USA. Das gilt leider ganz besonders für die aktuelle deutsche schwarz-gelbe Regierungskoalition (Kabinett Merkel II) und vor allem für Angela Merkel selbst. Barack Obama hat bei der Bekämpfung der Finanzkrise ab 2007 bisher zumindest schon einige sichtbare Erfolge erzielt. In der Eurozone geht es aber seit Beginn der Eurokrise klar und deutlich abwärts.

Dieses Manifest mit dem Titel “A Manifesto for Economic Sense“, das bisher schon von sehr vielen US-Ökonomen und US-Akademikern unterzeichnet wurde, kann man auch als PDF downloaden.

Da dieses Manifest Verstand beweist, gebe ich es hier im vollen Wortlaut wider.

A Manifesto for Economic Sense

More than four years after the financial crisis began, the world’s major advanced economies remain deeply depressed, in a scene all too reminiscent of the 1930s. And the reason is simple: we are relying on the same ideas that governed policy in the 1930s. These ideas, long since disproved, involve profound errors both about the causes of the crisis, its nature, and the appropriate response.

These errors have taken deep root in public consciousness and provide the public support for the excessive austerity of current fiscal policies in many countries. So the time is ripe for a Manifesto in which mainstream economists offer the public a more evidence-based analysis of our problems.

  • The causes. Many policy makers insist that the crisis was caused by irresponsible public borrowing. With very few exceptions – other than Greece – this is false. Instead, the conditions for crisis were created by excessive private sector borrowing and lending, including by over-leveraged banks. The collapse of this bubble led to massive falls in output and thus in tax revenue. So the large government deficits we see today are a consequence of the crisis, not its cause.
  • The nature of the crisis. When real estate bubbles on both sides of the Atlantic burst, many parts of the private sector slashed spending in an attempt to pay down past debts. This was a rational response on the part of individuals, but – just like the similar response of debtors in the 1930s – it has proved collectively self-defeating, because one person’s spending is another person’s income. The result of the spending collapse has been an economic depression that has worsened the public debt.
  • The appropriate response.  At a time when the private sector is engaged in a collective effort to spend less, public policy should act as a stabilizing force, attempting to sustain spending. At the very least we should not be making things worse by big cuts in government spending or big increases in tax rates on ordinary people. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what many governments are now doing.
  • The big mistake. After responding well in the first, acute phase of the economic crisis, conventional policy wisdom took a wrong turn – focusing on government deficits, which are mainly the result of a crisis-induced plunge in revenue, and arguing that the public sector should attempt to reduce its debts in tandem with the private sector. As a result, instead of playing a stabilizing role, fiscal policy has ended up reinforcing and exacerbating the dampening effects of private-sector spending cuts.

In the face of a less severe shock, monetary policy could take up the slack. But with interest rates close to zero, monetary policy – while it should do all it can – cannot do the whole job. There must of course be a medium-term plan for reducing the government deficit. But if this is too front-loaded it can easily be self-defeating by aborting the recovery. A key priority now is to reduce unemployment, before it becomes endemic, making recovery and future deficit reduction even more difficult.

How do those who support present policies answer the argument we have just made? They use two quite different arguments in support of their case.

The confidence argument. Their first argument is that government deficits will raise interest rates and thus prevent recovery. By contrast, they argue, austerity will increase confidence and thus encourage recovery.

But there is no evidence at all in favour of this argument. First, despite exceptionally high deficits, interest rates today are unprecedentedly low in all major countries where there is a normally functioning central bank. This is true even in Japan where the government debt now exceeds 200% of annual GDP; and past downgrades by the rating agencies here have had no effect on Japanese interest rates. Interest rates are only high in some Euro countries, because the ECB is not allowed to act as lender of last resort to the government. Elsewhere the central bank can always, if needed, fund the deficit, leaving the bond market unaffected.

Moreover past experience includes no relevant case where budget cuts have actually generated increased economic activity. The IMF has studied 173 cases of budget cuts in individual countries and found that the consistent result is economic contraction. In the handful of cases in which fiscal consolidation was followed by growth, the main channels were a currency depreciation against a strong world market, not a current possibility. The lesson of the IMF’s study is clear – budget cuts retard recovery. And that is what is happening now – the countries with the biggest budget cuts have experienced the biggest falls in output.

For the truth is, as we can now see, that budget cuts do not inspire business confidence. Companies will only invest when they can foresee enough customers with enough income to spend. Austerity discourages investment.

So there is massive evidence against the confidence argument; all the alleged evidence in favor of the doctrine has evaporated on closer examination.

The structural argument. A second argument against expanding demand is that output is in fact constrained on the supply side – by structural imbalances. If this theory were right, however, at least some parts of our economies ought to be at full stretch, and so should some occupations. But in most countries that is just not the case. Every major sector of our economies is struggling, and every occupation has higher unemployment than usual. So the problem must be a general lack of spending and demand.

In the 1930s the same structural argument was used against proactive spending policies in the U.S. But as spending rose between 1940 and 1942, output rose by 20%. So the problem in the 1930s, as now, was a shortage of demand not of supply.

As a result of their mistaken ideas, many Western policy-makers are inflicting massive suffering on their peoples. But the ideas they espouse about how to handle recessions were rejected by nearly all economists after the disasters of the 1930s, and for the following forty years or so the West enjoyed an unparalleled period of economic stability and low unemployment. It is tragic that in recent years the old ideas have again taken root. But we can no longer accept a situation where mistaken fears of higher interest rates weigh more highly with policy-makers than the horrors of mass unemployment.

Better policies will differ between countries and need detailed debate. But they must be based on a correct analysis of the problem. We therefore urge all economists and others who agree with the broad thrust of this Manifesto to register their agreement at http://www.manifestoforeconomicsense.org, and to publically argue the case for a sounder approach. The whole world suffers when men and women are silent about what they know is wrong”.´

Und im Anschluss an dieses “Manifesto for Economic Sense” findet ihr eine sehr lange Liste von Unterzeichnern, zum grossen Teil amerikanische Akademiker und Ökonomen. Wer will, kann das Manifest hier unterzeichnen. Ich habe es schon getan.

So sieht ein vernünftiges Manifest von britischen und amerikanischen Ökonomen mit dem Titel “A Manifesto for Economic Sense” aus. Lest euch nochmals zum Vergleich in der “FAZ” im Artikel mit dem TitelProtestaufruf: Der offene Brief der Ökonomen im Wortlaut” den primitiven Unfug durch, den die deutschen “Top-Okonomen” (?!) um Hans-Werner Sinn produziert haben.

Creative Commons Lizenzvertrag A Manifesto for Economic Sense (2012) – 1 Klaus Gauger steht unter einer Creative Commons Namensnennung-NichtKommerziell-KeineBearbeitung 3.0 Unported Lizenz

One thought on “A Manifesto for Economic Sense (2012) – 1

  1. Pingback: Paul Krugman / Richard Layard: Manifest für ökonomische Vernunft – Übersetzung « Denkraum

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s