Meglio la BCE o la FED?

[Murru]

Come è meglio che sia una Banca Centrale?
Meglio la BCE o la FED?
Perché?

Come quella giapponese.

[Hermes]

Al posto di "affitto" dovresti mettere "rendita" e lo nda e' sbagliato perche' il capitale puo' aumentare con gli investimenti, mentre la terra no (ed e' la ragione per cui il proprietario terriero riceve una rendita).

L'nda è sbagliato ma credo lo sia anche il testo originale, reali motivi per la scarsità del capitale ce ne sono. Sbaglio?

[pedro]

L'nda è sbagliato ma credo lo sia anche il testo originale, reali motivi per la scarsità del capitale ce ne sono. Sbaglio?

Si', ma mi riferivo al fatto che si parlava di rendite. Il capitale e' scarso come sono scarse le Micromachines, gli Ovetti Kinder e tutte le cose del mondo, pero' puo' essere aumentato.

Quel pezzo mi sembra un po' sgangherato. Keynes sapeva che il capitale non sono i soldi (quello e' Barnard) e quella nda cambia completamente il senso del paragrafo. Keynes si lamenta del fatto che secondo lui il capitale e' scarso perche' gli investimenti privati non sono ottimali:

An intrinsic reason for such scarcity [of capital] , in the sense of a genuine sacrifice which could only be called forth by the offer of a reward in the shape of interest, would not exist, in the long run, except in the event of the individual propensity to consume proving to be of such a character that net saving in conditions of full employment comes to an end before capital has become sufficiently abundant. But even so, it will still be possible for communal saving through the agency of the State to be maintained at a level which will allow the growth of capital up to the point where it ceases to be scarce.

Il pezzo "un aumento dell’offerta monetaria può essere attuato fino a che il capitale cessi di essere scarso … ciò significa l’eutanasia del rentier e di conseguenza l’eutanasia del sempre crescente potere oppressivo del capitalista di sfruttare la scarsità di capitale…" e' stato spostato alla fine, quando nel testo originale e' all'inizio del paragrafo.

Non riesco a ricostruire il pezzo che inizia con "punto di vista rigoroso di chi suggerisce un alto tasso di interesse". Questo dovrebbe essere l'originale in inglese:

The austere view, which would employ a high rate of interest to check at once any tendency in the
level of employment to rise appreciably above the average of, say, the previous decade, is, however,
more usually supported by arguments which have no foundation at all apart from confusion of mind. It
flows, in some cases, from the belief that in a boom investment tends to outrun saving, and that a higher
rate of interest will restore equilibrium by checking investment on the one hand and stimulating savings
on the other. This implies that saving and investment can be unequal, and has, therefore, no meaning
until these terms have been defined in some special sense. Or it is sometimes suggested that the
increased saving which accompanies increased investment is undesirable and unjust because it is, as a
rule, also associated with rising prices. But if this were so, any upward change in the existing level of
output and employment is to be deprecated. For the rise in prices is not essentially due to the increase in
investment; — it is due to the fact that in the short period supply price usually increases with increasing
output, on account either of the physical fact of diminishing return or of the tendency of the cost-unit to
rise in terms of money when output increases. If the conditions were those of constant supply-price,
there would, of course, be no rise of prices; yet, all the same, increased saving would accompany
increased investment. It is the increased output which produces the increased saving; and the rise of
prices is, merely a by-product of the increased output, which will occur equally if there is no increased
saving but, instead, an increased propensity to consume. No one has a legitimate vested interest in being
able to buy at prices which are only low because output is low.

Or, again, the evil is supposed to creep in if the increased investment has been promoted by a fall in
the rate of interest engineered by an increase in the quantity of money. Yet there is no special virtue in
the pre-existing rate of interest, and the new money is not “forced” on anyone; — it is created in order to
satisfy the increased liquidity-preference which corresponds to the lower rate of interest or the increased
volume of transactions, and it is held by those individuals who prefer to hold money rather than to lend
it at the lower rate of interest. Or, once more, it is suggested that a boom is characterised by “capital
consumption”, which presumably means negative net investment, i.e. by an excessive propensity to
consume. Unless the phenomena of the trade cycle have been confused with those of a flight from the
currency such as occurred during the post-war European currency collapses, the evidence is wholly to
the contrary. Moreover, even if it were so, a reduction in the rate of interest would be a more plausible
remedy than a rise in the rate of interest for conditions of under-investment. I can make no sense at all
of these schools of thought; except, perhaps, by supplying a tacit assumption that aggregate output is
incapable of change. But a theory which assumes constant output is obviously not very serviceable for
explaining the trade cycle.

...
Ci sono riuscito, il pezzo sui boom e' 3-4 pagine prima:

Thus the remedy for the boom is not a higher rate of interest but a lower rate of interest![5] For that
may enable the so-called boom to last. The right remedy for the trade cycle is not to be found in
abolishing booms and thus keeping us permanently in a semi-slump; but in abolishing slumps and thus
keeping us permanently in a quasi-boom.

Credo che l'articolista ci avrebbe dovuto risparmiare questo collage.

[Hermes]

Credo che l'articolista ci avrebbe dovuto risparmiare questo collage.

yep

[TEBELARUS]

Come quella giapponese.

Ti riferisci solo al fatto che stampa moneta a tutta manetta oppure anche a altre caratteristiche (organizzative, poteri)?
Comunque il Giappone non è una grande unione di Stati, è un piccolo Stato unitario.

In rete ho trovato delle analisi che mettono a confronto BCE e FED ma hanno un linguaggio complicato economico.
Io vorrei capire perché gli esperti economisti europei hanno scelto di creare una banca centrale con delle caratteristiche diverse dalla FED... Se solo perché preoccupati dal tenere meglio a bada l'inflazione oppure perché hanno riscontrato qualche difetto nella struttura della FED.

[pedro]

Ti riferisci solo al fatto che stampa moneta a tutta manetta oppure anche a altre caratteristiche (organizzative, poteri)?
Comunque il Giappone non è una grande unione di Stati, è un piccolo Stato unitario.

In rete ho trovato delle analisi che mettono a confronto BCE e FED ma hanno un linguaggio complicato economico.
Io vorrei capire perché gli esperti economisti europei hanno scelto di creare una banca centrale con delle caratteristiche diverse dalla FED... Se solo perché preoccupati dal tenere meglio a bada l'inflazione oppure perché hanno riscontrato qualche difetto nella struttura della FED.

Tutti volevano il marco tedesco perche' la Bundesbank ha il migliore track record per il controllo dell'inflazione (molto migliore di quello della FED) e quindi hanno replicato la BC tedesca su scala europea.

Mi giri i documenti che hai trovato? Sono curioso come una scimmietta.

[TEBELARUS]

Tutti volevano il marco tedesco perche' la Bundesbank ha il migliore track record per il controllo dell'inflazione (molto migliore di quello della FED) e quindi hanno replicato la BC tedesca su scala europea.

Ho il sospetto che sia così.

Mi giri i documenti che hai trovato? Sono curioso come una scimmietta.

Io li ho trovati facendo questa semplice ricerca su Google: link.

Tanto per citare uno dei risultati, che ho trovato complicato da intendere per un non-esperto di economia: link.

[pedro]

Ho il sospetto che sia così.


Io li ho trovati facendo questa semplice ricerca su Google: link.

Tanto per citare uno dei risultati, che ho trovato complicato da intendere per un non-esperto di economia: link.

Ho trovato questo:http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp742.pdf


Copio le conclusioni senza neanche leggerle:

5. Conclusions
This paper has analysed the similarities and the differences among the Eurosystem, the Fed and
the BoJ. It finds that, while several of their tasks and their respective legal statuses differ somewhat,
there are fewer differences in their institutional structures and monetary frameworks, as well as the
use of instruments. Central banking practices around the world have also evolved in the direction of
greater independence, transparency and the adoption of monetary policy committees, among other
developments. This has contributed to reducing the differences among the three institutions, a trend
that can also be observed among other central banks.
There are, however, some de facto differences in the way monetary policy committees operate.
For example, when taking monetary policy decisions, both the Governing Council of the ECB and the
Board of Governors of the Fed officially act by simple majority voting. In practice, both the
Governing Council and the FOMC operate as collegial committees. Yet, while the former functions as
a genuinely collegial committee practising consensus voting, in the latter the chairman has scope to
steer the agenda very tightly. The Policy Board of the BoJ, by contrast, operates in a much more
individualistic manner than the other two. In early 2006 the BoJ revised its framework by quantifying
its price stability objective in the medium and long term, and by setting a yearly revision of a more
precise target by the Policy Board members.
There are also some differences in terms of communication strategies, although, overall, the
responsiveness of the financial market seems high for both the Eurosystem (concerning monetary
policy inclinations) and the Fed (regarding monetary policy inclinations and views on the economic
outlook). However, the Fed does not quantify its definition of price stability, whereas the ECB and the
BoJ do. Nor does it spell out a fully fledged monetary policy (again in contrast to the ECB and the
BoJ). The ECB does not publish the minutes of its Governing Council meetings, unlike the Fed and
the BoJ, although it should be noted that the ECB does provide extensive real-time information after
interest rate decisions have been taken, and that the decision not to publish voting records has to be
seen against the background of potential public pressures that the members of the Governing Council
might face from their respective home countries. All these elements, however, seem to have little
impact on the actual conduct of monetary policy, and might mainly be explained by institutional
factors.
As for the economic and financial environment, over the past two decades all three central banks
have faced a series of diverse challenges, some of them country-specific (as in the case of Japan), and
others more global in nature. Early in the sample period, conditions differed considerably in the three
currency areas, with a much higher dispersion among euro area Member States than within the US
and Japan. However, these differences have abated in recent years.
A comparison based on a very simplistic policy reaction function framework à-la-Taylor shows
no striking differences in the implementation of monetary policy. It can, therefore, be concluded that,
in practice, the monetary policies of the Eurosystem, the Fed and the BoJ (if we exclude the more
recent challenging period) fundamentally do not differ that much.

[TEBELARUS]

It can, therefore, be concluded that,
in practice, the monetary policies of the Eurosystem, the Fed and the BoJ (if we exclude the more
recent challenging period) fundamentally do not differ that much.

Ecco, avevo anche il sospetto di questo.