"We are in the greatest financial bubble of all time"
At the beginning of the new year I allow myself an interview with Steve Keen from Faz-adjusted online. It's about the Urasachen the crisis, Fiat Money, incompetent economists, failed policies and the insight: "The apparent prosperity that we in this time [of the financial bubble] is reached, in a sense an illusion. fact, the standard of living must fall within the framework of a necessary normalization. "
the courage of the man can not emphasize enough, even if his Schlußvolgerungen can hardly agree, they follow in turn the accumulation Logig, which can ultimately cause the total collapse of capitalist mechanics. But just because the statements are not from a Marxist freak, they are more valuable. the Scylla regular readers will be familiar at least not the issues raised too unknown. At times one might almost think, act is a summary of the Scylla-blog the last year.
January 2010. Contrary to optimistic expectations is not the economic and financial crisis is far from over, says Professor Steve Keen from the University of Western Sydney. He had warned in time for her. To
repeat of the financial crisis zu vermeiden, müssten dogmatische Ökonomen und der Finanzsektor zurückstecken, sagt
er. Er rechnet mit einer ausgesprochen deflationären Entwicklung, da der Geldmultiplikator nicht wirke.
Die Kurse an den Börsen steigen. Viele Strategen erklären, die Krise sei vorbei und das Wachstum begänne von neuem.
Glauben Sie das?
Nein, ich denke, der irrationale Überschwang, der vor der Krise dominierte, ist zurückgekommen. Ich vergleiche die
Entwicklung mit den Jahren 1929, 1930. Damals begannen die Kurse an den Börsen im November dramatisch nach oben zu
laufen. Viele dachten, das Jahr 1930 werde wirtschaftlich ein gutes werden. Allerdings war das nicht the case and
the rally ran out eventually.
What were the cause of the crisis and why it is not over?
The basic problem is that have been under a lot of speculative mania accumulated too much debt.
investors bought assets in the expectation of selling them later at higher prices and decreased in
this framework, more and more debt. This mechanism was central to the American economy. The
is, the money was not earned by producing goods, but by speculation. Rising
asset prices were driven by ever higher in the core relationships between Schulden und Einkommen. Solche
Prozesse laufen, bis sie brechen - und an genau diesem Punkt sind wir nun angelangt, denke ich. Der Private Sektor
muss seine Verschuldung vermindern. Das lässt die gesamtwirtschaftliche Nachfrage schrumpfen.
Die Krise schien den Prozess unterbrochen zu haben - aber nur, um wieder von vorne zu beginnen …
… ja in einem gewissen Sinne ist das so. Allerdings wächst die Wirtschaft nun primär auf Basis der öffentlichen
Ausgabenprogramme. Meine These ist, dass die traditionelle ökonomische Theorie mit für die Krise verantwortlich ist
und dazu beigetragen hat, dass sie nun schwerwiegender ist, als sie es sein müsste. Denn sie ignorierte
the absolute debt and was based on rational behavior of borrowers. If Alan Greenspan in 1987
not "saving" responds to the then stock market crash, we would then have had a purifying mini depression,
would have been overcome relatively easily. As governments and central banks, however, another 20 years
excessive consumption on credit 'on it saddled the relationship between debt and income is further diverged
and economic setback in size accordingly.
We Were not rational?
Economic policy was determined by neoclassical economists such as Robert Lucas and Thomas Sargent, who argued in
framework of the theories of rational expectations, governments can not influence the economic development
positive. They also calculated not at a crisis in the private sector, as we have now
. Edward Prescott, who won the Nobel economics prize in 2004, said even the capitalist system
was in a stable and disturbance could only come from the public sector. Meanwhile, there was a rethink
: Public expenditure programs in height of four to six percent of gross world product
prevented that we fell deeper into crisis. Also shows that the neoclassical theory is wrong.
Können die Staatsausgaben den Schuldenabbau der privaten Haushalte ausgleichen?
Sobald die Stimulierungsmaßnahmen auslaufen, wird der Entschuldungsprozess zu einer schrumpfenden Wirtschaft
führen. Vor allem in Staaten, die sich durch ein hohes Verhältnis von Schulden zu Bruttoinlandsprodukt auszeichnen
- wie die Vereinigten Staaten. Selbst wenn die staatlichen Stimulierungsstrategien verlängert oder erneuert werden
sollten, dürften sie kaum groß genug sein, um die depressive Wirkung ausgleichen zu können. Es zeichnet sich eine
ähnliche Entwicklung wie Japan ab. Dort war das Wachstum der vergangenen Jahren nicht groß genug, um das
Bevölkerungswachstum auffangen zu können. So nahm die Arbeitslosigkeit zu.
Wie ließe sich das vermeiden?
Im Kern muss man gegen die Schuldung vorgehen. In Ländern wie den Vereinigten Staaten, Großbritannien oder
Australien dienten sie in erster Linie zur Finanzierung von Vermögenspreisspiralen. Die Verantwortung dafür liegt
auf der Gläubiger- und weniger auf der Schuldnerseite. Im Jahr 1990 etwa lag das Verhältnis von Hypotheken zu
Bruttoinlandsprodukt in Australien bei 17 Prozent. Heute beträgt es mehr als 80 Prozent. Banken machten eben gute
Geschäfte damit, professionelle Spekulanten - ich sage ausdrücklich nicht Investoren - zu finanzieren. Als diese in
den 90er-Jahren Setbacks suffered by banks went on to to fund individuals and allow them to bet on rising house prices
. But for that we do not need the financial sector. He was alone on
be designed to serve industrial companies and start-ups, instead of promoting Ponzisysteme.
is this achieved?
No. Many of the rescue operations, especially in America are designed to save the existing financial system to
. But it has failed because of poor and extremely irresponsible lending long ago. The
would be best solution to remove the existing debts in one way or another. One way
would be to simply write them off. This would lead to bankruptcy of most banks, which may then be re-privatized and later nationalized
finally. Another possibility would be the debt over a
inflationary process. These variations are ignored. In Australia, the consumers of new
are encouraged to borrow even more strongly. New debt led to higher growth and this is good, so the logic.
is the long run, however, grow to be the wrong debt faster than the real economy -
and we must accept.
What would you do if you, as politicians Would have to say?
Thank God I'm not. In fact, my cure is difficult to implement. Because the American and British
economy has become over the past few years by the insurance, financial and real estate business depends
. Large parts of the production, however, were outsourced to China. If one were to reverse this process,
were about 20 percent of the American people are just unemployed. They currently not only
nothing useful, but much of what they do is counterproductive. The transition process would be very difficult
. For the purposes of Machiavelli, one can be happy in the short term, that radical measures are not implemented
be. So, however, it will probably take years to be clear that the act is now used recipes are not
. Only then can the problems and address imbalances that have arisen in the past 20 years
.
What is with the banks?
The banks have been spoiled. Without government bailouts most major American banks
had not survived, even Goldman Sachs would have gone down. The support measures, however, mean that they
behave the same again - though that led directly to the crisis. About 80 percent of the Tarp money that had to
thought to stimulate the economy, went straight into speculation on the stock markets.
alone so the share prices have risen so strongly. The banks have returned to business as usual ", even though the bill
growth before the crisis in the core alone fell on the growing relationship between debt and national product
. But it can not expand without limits.
does that mean?
If we look back in future be, we see that we are in the biggest financial bubble in history.
One reason is the banking sector, which is completely out of control. The second is the
neoclassical economic theory, the development theoretically presented and justified. To avoid repetition
, would bleed dogmatic economists and the financial sector. Instead, however, he
again encouraged the same behavior that brought us directly in the crisis.
you see someone who could bring about this change?
Not right now. Ultimately, Barack Obama but are forced to do so. After the first year in office, many voters are disappointed
. He has promised the change, the forthcoming so far. In the coming years it will probably throw out the swirl
and Summers, Geithner and other advisers of the neoclassical school. Otherwise he goes as
under Hoover during the Great Depression.
Many countries spend huge sums of money which they do not have. Can they afford that?
We live in a world that is a mix of credit and fiat Währungssytem. Banks can draw from practically nothing
loans and governments can issue bonds and finance them from nothing.
a country like the United States is able, with its own central bank to create as many dollars as it wishes
. Apart from the external value, there is no limit. For this reason, the dollar depreciation is possible.
What does this mean in general?
In the past 40 years, but especially during the past 20 years, has loans from the financial system and financed
created nothing except speculation so nothing substantial. We have not increased the production capacity
, however, the liabilities have increased dramatically. To recalibrate the system to
, we need to get away from the banks and credit creation, the return to the so-called Fiat Money
the central bank. What is financially in the past 20 years happened is not economically healthy. The apparent
prosperity, which we reached in that time, in a sense an illusion. In fact, the standard of living as part of a necessary normalization
fall. However, we are still far from being the akzeptieren zu
können. Das gilt vor allem auch für die politische Klasse.
... und für Anleger?
Ich denke, am besten blickt man zurück auf die 1920er-Jahre und beobachtet, wie man sich damals am besten verhalten
hat. Damals war es das beste, sich aus Aktien zu verabschieden und „in Cash zu gehen“. Wer in Wertpapiere und
Rohstoffe investierte, musste später deutliche Verluste hinnehmen. Ich bin kein „Goldbug“, da die Preisentwicklung
zu volatil ist. Aber wenn Papierwährungen an Wert verlieren, kann Gold gewisse Reize bieten - zumal die
Finanzvermögen viel zu hoch bewertet sind.
So sind sie ein Deflationist, So someone who believes in a chronic decline in prices?
Yes. First, for historical reasons alone. In the 30s of last century we had to
beginning of the great economic depression, a deflationary development of ten percent over two years. Secondly, I doubt
to the arguments of the Austrian School, which is derived from large amounts of money
an inflationary development. I fear that they understand the money creation process and the development of inflationary impulses
not correct. Do not underestimate the enormous amounts of money that would need to be created to lead to inflation
.
Why?
be in the United States, the private sector debt, around 42 trillion dollars. To provide for inflation, the central bank would have to
at least another 25 trillion U.S. dollars directly into circulation. Instead, it has only one trillion
printed in the expectation that the money multiplier would increase tenfold the amount. But that would require
, the American private sector would carry nine trillion dollars debt. But that is unrealistic
: Right now no one wants to make loans and no record - the mechanism can not work just
.
But whence comes the deflation?
follows from the classical mechanism of a debt crisis. First, unemployment is high and the
workers have to accept pay cut. Second, the companies intend to keep on falling demand
market share by lowering prices. That adds up to a deflationary spiral, regardless of what happens on
monetary level.
... and what is famous with Bernanke's helicopter?
empirical evidence that not the assumed money multiplier works. It would take a huge drop so
helicopter fleet with very large amounts of money can. I do not think the Americans will do that. The core is
: Conventional economic theories can only very difficult to explain how capitalism works
. Following their arguments, so you get into deep crises. If one tries to solve the crisis with them,
find no way out. I fear, Bernanke will do as long as the policies are wrong, until he loses his office
.
What do you expect of the coming years?
I think it will gradually become clear that the crisis is not over. You will encounter slowdowns and
high unemployment and over again with new stimulation measures, instead of addressing the debt problem
and the banks clean up. The growth will be insufficient and in America and Britain, the
Unemployment increase. Finally, to prevail in the knowledge that the mainstream economists
are the real problem.
Then change the politics of its methods?
Yes - and they will change their advisors. Franklin D. Roosevelt declared in his inaugural speech in 1933, ie four
after the start of the Great Depression, "the lender and the religion is the only way to solve the debt crisis
beat them even more certain debts. This is a beautiful image and can be applied to
present time.
Interview by Chris Leisinger
http://www.faz.net/s/RubF3F7C1F630AE4F8D8326AC2A80BDBBDE/Doc ~ ~ EE812E98924024354BC1DDBD34A5406C4 ATpl ~ ~ Ecommon Sspezia
l.html
0 comments:
Post a Comment