Für Deutschland kennen wir die Antwort: Die “Reichen” sollen zahlen. Natürlich wissen wir, dass es am Ende wieder die Masse ist, die bezahlt und die wirklich Reichen ihr Geld schon in Sicherheit gebracht haben. Und im Ausland setzt man auf Schulden auf EU-Ebene und selbstverständlich die EZB, in welcher Form auch immer. MMT?
Die Diskussion wird auch woanders geführt, so in Großbritannien wo The Telegraph fragt: “Central banks prop up the world after Covid – but who pays?”:
- “Once upon a time before the financial crisis of 2007, ‘unconventional’ monetary policy was exactly that: an emergency tool only reached for by Japan in its decades-long fight against deflation. In the decade since then, previously outlandish measures such as quantitative easing (QE) to buy up government debt have become commonplace.” – bto: Der konsequente nächste Schritt ist MMT, nachdem die Helikopter gekreist sind.
- “(….) has Covid irrevocably blurred the boundaries between monetary and fiscal policy? Has central bank independence become a shibboleth, and who pays the price?” – bto: Ökonomen wie Marcel Fratzscher würden das Problem nicht sehen, weil sie auf die positive Beschäftigungswirkung blicken.
- “(…) we have to place the Covid-19 crisis against a backdrop of secular trends pushing down the natural or ‘equilibrium’ rate of interest, known as r*, for decades: that is, the rate at which the economy can achieve trend growth without fueling inflation. (…) it is unsurprising that central banks around the world have struggled to lift interest rates off the zero lower bound since the financial crisis.” – bto: So kann man es sehen, ich würde sagen, es lag bereits an der viel zu hohen Verschuldung.
- “Research by the University of California’s Oscar Jorda into previous pandemics suggests a ‘long economic hangover’ from Covid-19. His study of previous outbreaks over the past millennium shows the natural rate of interest falling by as much as 2pc in the decades following, due to a surplus of capital versus diminished (or deceased) labour, as well as increased precautionary savings.” – bto: Leser von bto kennen diese Studie bereits: → Die Lehren aus früheren Pandemien
- “(…) the job of central bankers has become that much more difficult, with rates being cut by just 0.65 percentage points this year by the Bank of England, compared to 525pp from the peak in 2007 to the post-crisis trough in 2009. (…) it has not escaped the attention of commentators that its QE purchases since March have broadly matched the Treasury’s own frantic gilt issuance to pay for both Covid-19 support measures and the black hole in revenues caused by the shutdown of the economy.” – bto: Die Bank of England hat doch offen gesagt, dass sie direkt finanziert.
- “According to Takashi Miwa, an economist at Nomura, the ‘dismount will be difficult’ for central bankers as higher debts in turn mean a harder time dealing with higher rates, so ‘we are likely stuck with unconventional monetary policy for many years to come. (…) The distinction between central banks and governments has likely blurred. Central banks will be supporting large budget deficits for many years to come, and the line for most – in only buying in secondary markets – looks pretty thin, with brokers/investment banks being the temporary intermediary.’” – bto: Wir haben faktisch MMT, werden es aber nicht so nennen, weil es sich dann besser umsetzen lässt.
- “Andrew Sentance, a former Bank of England rate-setter at the hawkish end of the spectrum, says independence has ‘definitely been eroded’ and argues there is ‘something slightly unnerving’ about the Government selling gilts and the Bank of England buying them virtually in lockstep: ‘It sort of looks like an official Ponzi scheme and that is a little bit worrying from a financial perspective.’” – bto: Das ist natürlich Quatsch. Was soll denn daran Ponzi sein? Es gibt ja keine Verpflichtung, irgendwas zurückzuzahlen.
- “Sentance adds: ‘When we come back to reconstitute economic policy after this current crisis, maybe we will decide that central bank independence is not as important as we thought it was in the past. It was, after all, a reaction to the inflation excesses of the 70s and 80s and we haven’t had them.’” – bto: Und solange das Geld nicht für alle offensichtlich an Wert verliert, wird das auch intensiviert kommen.
- “The long-term legacy of this is quite problematic. Difficult decisions are just kicked down the road. Economists and academics worry about the independence of the institution but there is also some relevance for Joe Public here in terms of who is ultimately going to pay the bill? The bill isn’t paid by QE, it is deferred by QE.” – bto: weil die Anpassungen erfolgen müssen und wir natürlich mit dem Schaffen von Geld noch keinen Wohlstand schaffen.