Comments 6

欧洲央行和它的批评者

Jan 31, 2015 Jean Pisani-Ferry

巴黎—在北欧，特别是德国，欧洲央行决定采取量化宽松引起了舆论大哗。许多指责毫无根据甚至是无稽之谈。一些人则弄混了情况。也有人过于重视猜测的危险而忽视了实际危险。几乎没有人谈论实际问题，也忽视了潜在解决方案。

从批评看，你也许会认为零通胀是一种幸福。但若果真如此的话，全世界的央行早就将零利率作为它们的目标了。相反，所有央行都将物价稳定定义为较低、稳定但为正的通胀。

这是因为零通胀存在三个巨大的消极作用。首先，它破坏标准货币政策的效果（因为如果利率远低于零，存款人就会将现金从银行中抽出放入保险箱）。其次，它让相对工资（比如制造业相对服务业的工资）更加刚性，因为工资合同常常根据欧元确定。第三，它增加了过去的债务的负担，让解决公私债务危机的过程变得更加痛苦。

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

Featured

Should Economists Make Moral Judgments?

May 25, 2018 Jacek Rostowski
A Bilateral Foil for America’s Multilateral Dilemma

May 23, 2018 Stephen S. Roach
How Costa Rica Gets It Right

May 8, 2018 Joseph E. Stiglitz
Managing the Risks of a Rising Dollar

May 14, 2018 Mohamed A. El-Erian
Germany’s Great European Heist

May 15, 2018 Adam Tooze & Shahin Vallée

0 Comments on this paragraph, 16 in all 16 Comments on this article

jan olaf sipkes Feb 7, 2015

- Massive USA QE has not causesd the inflation and weak $ I(and many) expected
- prof. Jesus Huerta de Soto magnificently agues for
deflation (youtube antideflation paranoia). All Positive !
hari naidu Feb 3, 2015

Who is Prof Sinn? A neocon anti-Euro academic who got his chance to petition Karlsruhe with other Afd supporters? German Basic Law applies to the sovereign - Bundestag - not EU or Lisbon Treaty. And when Basic Law is in contradiction with Lisbon Treaty, Bundestag is by EU law required to make the appropriate legal changes.
ECJ advocate has already lodged his decision on opinion of German Court - i.e. ECB decision-making is within its treaty jurisdiction. QED.
- Peter Schneider Feb 7, 2015
  
  The problem is: we were never asked. Those few who are benefitting now just decided on their own to force it upon us who are suffering now. This is totalitarianism!
- Stamatis Kavvadias Feb 5, 2015
  
  That sounds great, but I believe you have given up your central bank to the European System of Central Banks, as the rest of us.
- Peter Schneider Feb 3, 2015
  
  @hari naidu:
  You don't seem to understand the situation. There is an eternity clause in the Basic Law that cannot be changed by the Bundestag but only by adoption of a new German constitution. Please read art. 79(3) and art. 20 and you will realise that European institutions (like the ECB or the ECJ) may not change the constitutional order in Germany e.g. by seizing control over the German budget or by rendering democratic elections in Germany completely ineffective. This is the exclusive right of the German people and cannot be taken away from them! And as long as we have a democracy in Germany this right will be protected by our constitutional court against all enemies from the outside and from the inside.
  
  You seem to be in complete denial about the actual nature of the EU. A federation it is only in your dreams.
Peter Schneider Jan 31, 2015

The president of the Bundesbank, Mr. Weidmann, has said that the risk of deflation is currently low. Then why should I believe a member of a socialist governement from a country with public debt approaching 100% of GDP trying to convince me to the contrary. I see no reason to distrust the president of the Bundesbank - but if I trust him then I clearly see the hidden (anti-German) agenda behind this article.

The author should remember the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court that the prohibition of debt monetization (art. 123 TFEU) may not be circumvented by functionally equivalent measures.

Furthermore, the author has to explain why he advocates a risk sharing of 20% of the purchased junk bonds among member states where the laws clearly prohibit a member state from taking on commitments of central governments or other public authorities of another member state (art. 125 TFEU).

Finally, the author should explain how the Greek central bank would be able to guaratee for 80% of the purchased Greek government junk bonds if the Greek government itself asks for negotiations on a debt cut.
- Stamatis Kavvadias Feb 5, 2015
  
  Firstly, about
  "the hidden (anti-German) agenda behind this article,"
  there is no such thing. This is an opinion article, not anti-German agenda. Professor Pisani-Ferry is a person, not a government or other institution. Even if we assume the professor knows the French government generally agrees with his views, still this is public consultation and not a conspiracy. For your information, it is (highly) possible that other Europeans do not agree with Germans on some issues. I assume, the Germans do not fully agree with each other, do they?
  
  It is interesting the way Germans interpret and understand law, especially when verified by their top courts. Nevertheless, a law of the EU formulated the same as a German law --even with the same wording-- will not necessarily be interpreted the same by EU courts; I suspect, similar cases could occur for German courts in the past or in the future.
  
  In any case, it will be interesting to see how Germany will handle whatever is ruled by the ECJ that may be in contrast with its law system. Denying to pay back the ECB in case of loses will be funny, since the ECB can take what is considered due (according to European law interpretation) any time it wants. Hopefully, it will not do so, since this would be a legal and political matter and not a monetary one.
  
  As for Greece, do not wary; it does not qualify for the program. After today's ECB decision, Greek bonds are not acceptable by the ECB. But, in any case, your approach, of not leaving any room for policy to the ECB, does not make any sense to me. You expect that the 20% of shared liability will go to "junk bonds" and not to European institution bonds, as they explicitly will!
- Peter Schneider Feb 2, 2015
  
  @hari naidu:
  According to Prof. Sinn (interview with Wirtschaftswoche) there is no relevant difference between the ECB programme and direct government financing by the central bank. In this case, the verdict of the Federal Constitutional Court that the prohibition of debt monetization in art. 123 (TFEU) may not be circumvented by functionally equivalent measures is applicable.
  
  Your assumption Karlsruhe would have no treaty jurisdiction on ECB decisions is wrong. In the words of the Federal Constitutional Court: "According to the established case-law of the Federal Constitutional Court, the Court's powers of review cover the examination of whether acts of European institutions and agencies are based on manifest transgressions of powers or affect the area of constitutional identity of the Basic Law, which cannot be transferred [to the European level] and is protected by Art. 79 sec. 3 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz - GG)."
- Peter Schneider Feb 2, 2015
  
  @hari naidu:
  According to Prof. Sinn (interview with Wirtschaftswoche) there is no relevant difference between the ECB programme and direct government financing by the central bank. In this case, the verdict of the Federal Constitutional Court that the prohibition of debt monetization in art. 123 (TFEU) may not be circumvented by functionally equivalent measures is applicable.
  
  Your assumption Karlsruhe would have no treaty jurisdiction on ECB decisions is wrong. In the words of the Federal Constitutional Court: "According to the established case-law of the Federal Constitutional Court, the Court's powers of review cover the examination of whether acts of European institutions and agencies are based on manifest transgressions of powers or affect the area of constitutional identity of the Basic Law, which cannot be transferred [to the European level] and is protected by Art. 79 sec. 3 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz - GG)."
- hari naidu Feb 1, 2015
  
  Weidmann doesn't rule the ECB and the a vote on QE was unanimous; i.e. Weidmann voted with the majority. The risk distribution was 80-20% decided by ECB Governing Council.
  
  For your info, Karlsruhe Court's has no treaty jurisdiction on ECB decision-making. Only ECJ can speak on matters relating to Lisbon Treaty. German Court can only address its own Bundestag - a sovereign body - responsible on all money matters on EU.
  
  Pisani is not advocating risk sharing of 20% by ECB; it's the decision of ECB Council he's reporting here. BTW ECB has bought Eurobonds earlier in this monetary crisis. It's legal!
  
  Your last q' begs your own intelligence to understand what's going on right now with Greece bailout policy by Troika.
- hari naidu Feb 1, 2015
  
  Weidmann doesn't rule the ECB and the a vote on QE was unanimous; i.e. Weidmann voted with the majority. The risk distribution was 80-20% decided by ECB Governing Council.
  
  For your info, Karlsruhe Court's has no treaty jurisdiction on ECB decision-making. Only ECJ can speak on matters relating to Lisbon Treaty. German Court can only address its own Bundestag - a sovereign body - responsible on all money matters on EU.
  
  Pisani is not advocating risk sharing of 20% by ECB; it's the decision of ECB Council he's reporting here. BTW ECB has bought Eurobonds earlier in this monetary crisis. It's legal!
  
  Your last q' begs your own intelligence to understand what's going on right now with Greece bailout policy by Troika.
Paul Daley Jan 31, 2015

Pisani-Ferry knows what the problems with QE are but he doesn't know how serious they are. Nor really does anyone else, though we'll soon find out. The basic argument is that QE, and monetary policy more generally, has a transmission problem. Capital markets have grown so large and the capital gains associated with real interest rate declines are so certain and so lucrative that it's likely that the force of any QE program will be entirely absorbed within capital markets and leak out to the real economy only slowly through relatively weak wealth and exchange rate effects.

Moreover, this only happens because real interest rate movements are allowed to affect capital values. If that wasn't the case, if capital gains tax rates were tied inversely to real interest rates, then capital values would remain largely unaffected by real interest rate movements and any QE shock would pass directly to the real economy.

So, the ECB did what it could under current circumstances and, as Pisani=Ferry says, it is the responsibility of governments to straighten out their taxes. But it would have been nice if someone had thought this out beforehand. As it is , we're all in for an uncomfortable ride as the real economy coughs and sputters in the wake of the QE program, assets inflate and inequality continues to grow.
- Stamatis Kavvadias Feb 5, 2015
  
  I totally agree.
Max Isert Jan 31, 2015

Mr. Draghi absolutely did the correct and wise thing to do in a dangerous situation like this.
I absolutely agree, the ECB should not be blamed for doing its job and taking the necessary steps to avoid a total economic and social meltdown in Europe.
I very much agree on social, globalization and immigration issues with European Conservatives, and I am even in favor of a Greek exit out of the Euro and even the EU, but they are absolutely wrong-headed when it comes to European Economic Policy, and I am very glad a Keynesian technocrat like Mr. Draghi heads the ECB at the moment.
Keynesian economics is the Truth, and the Truth shall set us free.....
hari naidu Jan 31, 2015

The moral of the QE complaints from leading German media and elite groups is that they're principally fixed on their own livelihood. Germany forgets it is inside EZ-19 and not all states are equal in competitiveness and productivity.
Yet to criticize ECB for doing its job and holding to its Treaty obligations, Germans are surrendering to anti-Euro sentiments and worse perhaps ECBs failure.

Then what? Will Germany get out of Euro or what? That might be a fools paradise!
Moral hazard is inevitable if present-day government's don't understand their own national obligations to Single Market and its transparency.

By adopting Euro + EMU under Maastricht Treaty, Germany and other's agreed to a fiscal union along with a monetary union. Yet it seems fiscal union doesn't belong to the political jargon of either Berlin and/or Paris.
- Stamatis Kavvadias Feb 5, 2015
  
  Fiscal union is highly unlikely, and I would say undesirable. It would mean a single economic policy, regardless of deferences in economic conditions or political preferences. Only a limited set of proposals on common fiscal policy may be accepted, with appropriate counter-offerings, I believe. In any case, a way forward in a mindset of perpetual rules, is only in the interests of markets and strong countries (e.g., as is the case with TTIP, etc) and highly undemocratic. This must stop. A useful way forward is through target-setting and maybe rewards to countries achieving them. The Procrustean grasp of perpetual rules is the way to uniformity and eurozone death.

http://prosyn.org/SMJKbne/zh;

Log in/Register

欧洲央行和它的批评者

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Featured

Should Economists Make Moral Judgments?

A Bilateral Foil for America’s Multilateral Dilemma

How Costa Rica Gets It Right

Managing the Risks of a Rising Dollar

Germany’s Great European Heist

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Trump Cancels, China Wins

The Coming Wave of Climate Displacement

Should Economists Make Moral Judgments?

The Perils of European Deposit Insurance

What Sank the Kim-Trump Summit?

The Myth of the “Aging Society”

Will Defunding Hungary and Poland Backfire?

The Value of Measuring Financial Inclusion

Cookies and Privacy