Cosenza (Italy), 10 Novembre 2010
Mentre tutto il mondo sta bocciando la proposta prima velata, e poi esplicita, di introdurre quote sul commercio internazionale e controlli sui movimenti di capitale, la diplomazia statunitense prosegue inesorabile nella sua opera di convincimento generale. La soluzione proposta? Restringere i mercati. L'idea che si nasconde dietro questa soluzione? Immaginare che l'economia mondiale possa ruotare esclusivamente intorno al Dollaro USA, che svolgerebbe il ruolo di "moneta-àncora" dell'economia mondiale come avveniva fino al collasso del sistema Gold-Exchange Standard nel 1973.
Di seguito riporto alcuni degli articoli più recenti in tema:
- Reuters 9 Novembre "World Bank Chief Says Supports US Plan on Current Account": il Presidente della Banca Mondiale Robert Zoellick ha sostenuto che prendere in considerazione limiti agli squilibri di conto corrente è una buona idea (Perchè poi la Banca Mondiale? A parlare non dovrebbe essere in caso il Fondo Monetario Internazionale? Ah ecco, guarda caso chi parla è statunitense, ndr);
- Bloomerg 9 Novembre "World Bank Says Asia May Need Some Capital Controls (Update1)": Il Direttore Esecutivo della Banca Mondiale Sri Mulyani Indrawati sostiene che le economie asiatiche potrebbero avere necessità di introdurre controlli sui movimenti di capitale per eliminare gli effetti negativi del QE statunitense, che causa afflussi di capitale nelle economie emergenti (vedi nota 1)...Ma perchè invece di introdurre i controlli sui movimenti di capitale non si elimina il QE?
Al momento l'unica voce autorevole che si è apertamente schierata contro simili proposte è quella del Prof. Nouriel Roubini, per come riporta il seguente articolo CNBC del 9 Novembre "Roubini: Here's Why a Gold Standard Won't Work". Il Prof. Roubini spiega come controlli sui movimenti di capitale e limitazioni al commercio estero acuiscano i cicli economici, che da anti-ciclici diverrebbero prociciclici. Non solo, la politica monetaria diventerebbe dipendente dal ciclo economico e dunque incapace di risolvere problemi di surriscaldamento o di depressione del ciclo economico (vedi nota 2). Il Prof. Roubini illustra le stesse argomentazioni da me riportate su questo blog!
AGGIORNAMENTI
10 Novembre 2010: Sull'onda di proteste internazionali, il Presidente della Banca Mondiale scende di nuovo in camop per chiarire il suo pensiero. Ora sostiene che non aveva intenzione di approvare la proposta di ritorno al gold-standard, ma di sottolineare la necessità di maggiore cooperazione internazionale.
Per una panoramica della vicenda, rinvio all'articolo CNBC di oggi "Zoellick Sees 'Elephant,' Not Endorsing Gold Standard": "[...] Instead, Zoellick called for a more international currency system that could involve the dollar, euro, yen, pound and yuan. He said in the FT that gold could be used as an "international reference point of market expectations about inflation, deflation and future currency values". The dollar's dominance on world markets is changing and now multiple currencies are playing a greater role in the trade of assets, Zoellick told CNBC. Because of this, there is the need to create a framework of greater cooperation, he added".
NOTA
1) "Asian economies may need to turn to capital controls as quantitative easing by the U.S. threatens to spur asset bubbles in the region’s stock, currency and property markets, the World Bank said. Any curbs should be “targeted,” temporary and tailored to address specific problems, Sri Mulyani Indrawati, a World Bank managing director, said in an interview. This could include countries tying up funds for as long as a year to help limit hot-money, she said. The U.S. Federal Reserve last week announced plans to buy $600 billion of long-term government bonds in its second effort at so-called quantitative easing, or QE2, aiming to stoke U.S. economic growth. Policy makers from Asia to South America have responded by warning it could have the side-effect of depressing the dollar and sparking capital flight to emerging markets. “Certain assets will become, potentially, bubbles,” Sri Mulyani said in Kuala Lumpur late yesterday. “The quantitative easing will create a lot of liquidity flooding to the East Asia Pacific region, because it is the most dynamic and attractive with a higher return on investment.” Real-estate prices are a concern in China, Australia and parts of Southeast Asia, she said. Japan, Thailand and Malaysia have seen their currencies surge more than 10 percent against the dollar this year, while some of the region’s stock markets have jumped more than 50 percent, Sri Mulyani said. Sri Lanka’s benchmark stock index is up more than 90 percent this year, while the measures for Thailand and Indonesia have exceeded 40 percent, according to Bloomberg data".
2) "A gold standard would just make business cycles more extreme, according to economist Nouriel Roubini. What's more, a gold standard would make central banks unable to fight inflation or deflation, much less do anything to combat persistent unemployment, Roubini said in an interview with NetNet yesterday. "A fixed exchange regime, even if it is not a gold standard… that world just doesn't work. Because in that world, monetary policy by definition instead of being countercyclical becomes procyclical," Roubini told NetNet. "Suppose you have a fixed exchange rate regime...it just exacerbates the business cycle." Roubini asks us to imagine two countries: One that's growing very quickly, and one that's growing very slowly. The economy that is growing quickly would tend to "overheat"—an economic phenomenon characterized by accelerated growth, inflation and the potential for asset bubbles. In the economy that is growing more slowly, there would be a tendency toward deflationary pressure and recession. So, instead of having a central bank with the capacity to successfully counter-balance these tendencies, an economy with a fixed exchange rate regime would continue to reinforce the existing negative trends in the business cycle, Roubini argues. Although he is best known as an economist who challenges conventional views, Roubini pretty well lines-up the consensus view of mainstream economics on the gold standard or fixed exchange rate regimes: "You have the opposite of what any optimal rule about monetary policy will tell you," Roubini said. The ranks of the gold standard advocates, which have long included many Austrian economists and others worried about central bank manipulation of the money supply, were seemingly joined this week by World Bank President Robert Zoellick. Hardcore gold standard folks, however, are skeptical of Zoellick. Nouriel Roubini agrees with the skeptics. "In fairness to him [Zoellick], he was speaking about a wide variety of issues in the global economy…so it was not a proposal centered around going back to some modified gold standard," Roubini said. Roubini seems to think a gold standard is a pretty awful idea. "There are many fundamental problems with any variant of a gold standard," he said. A general summary of Roubini's position on the issue would likely begin by saying that, generally speaking, a fixed exchange rate regime or gold standard limits the flexibility and range of actions that central banks can take to improve a nation's economy in fundamental ways. (For example, in a fixed exchange rate regime, central banks have less ability to maximize employment, stimulate growth and manage price stability.) And, as Roubini specifically pointed out to me, fixed rate regimes inhibit the ability of banks to provide lender of last resort support to an economy when necessary.
According to Roubini, there are other major feasibility issues with the proposals for a transition to a global gold standard. One of the principal problems with such proposals is the current level of central banks' gold reserves. Roubini raises the following question: If you are on a gold standard, or modified gold standard, what do you do in the event of a bank run—if you don't have enough gold to fully back the currency? Roubini explains that most central banks in today's economy have far greater financial liabilities than gold in reserve. In fact, according to Roubini, in the case of most central banks today that ratio is about 40 or 50 to 1.
Of course, many who support a gold standard would say that limiting the ability of central banks to increase their leverage would be a benefit of adopting the gold standard. Aside from the issue of central banks' insufficient current gold reserves, there are the issues that historically plagued gold standard economies. One of the most intractable of those issues was the impact that the gold standard had on traditional business cycles. Historically speaking, Roubini says, during the days of the gold standard economies were constantly imperiled by spasmodic cycles: "When you had a traditional gold standard, boom and bust with severe swings in economic activity were the norm—really big ones. It was only once we moved to fiat money that central banks were able to smooth the business cycle, and make it less volatile, as we did during the financial economic crisis," Roubini said. Of course, this directly contradicts Austrian business cycle theory, which argues that boom-bust cycles are caused by central banks departing from the gold standard. In short, Roubini's views challenge the Austrian economists where they live: at the intersection of monetary policy and the business cycle.
We eagerly await the response. Over to you Ron Paul and the Mises Institute!"
Matteo Olivieri
>> Le informazioni qui contenute non (!) costituiscono sollecitazioni ad investire.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento