Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Unione Europea

Green Deal. ‘The hypocritical deal on climate neutrality by 2050’. [C Hasselbach]

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-12-17.

Pagliaccio 001

Fa davvero molta specie che un giornale così posizionato sull’ideologia liberal socialista esca con un simile titolo:

«The hypocritical deal on climate neutrality by 2050».

*

«They all agree, but they won’t all agree to participate»

«The hypocritical deal on climate neutrality by 2050 reached at the EU summit demonstrates how isolated Germany is on this issue»

«All 27 heads of state and government, including Poland …., have agreed that the EU should be climate neutral by the year 2050. However, Poland has been granted a concession — it can take a bit longer to get there»

«Ursula von der Leyen’s contortion allows her to save face, but only with the greatest of difficulty»

«She even went so far as to compare it to the first moon»

«Hypocritical pretense of unanimity»

«In doing so, she put pressure EU governments to fall into line»

«If just one country had refused to go along with the resolution, the European Council would have stabbed von der Leyen in the back. The EU as a whole would have looked utterly ridiculous. Hence this hypocritical pretense of unanimity»

«However, in order to achieve it, concessions had to be made. Poland will not only essentially be able to decide for itself when to decommission its many coal-fired power stations — it currently derives almost 80 percent of its electricity from coal»

«The Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland also managed to ensure that nuclear power was specifically mentioned in the closing statement as an energy source en route to climate neutrality»

«French President Emmanuel Macron, supposedly Germany’s closest ally, is of course also behind this. As is well known, France generates the majority of its electricity in CO2-emission-free nuclear power plants; it’s planning to build several new nuclear reactors, and sees absolutely no reason why that should not be acknowledged as a contribution to climate protection»

«This summit has shown how little the German model is regarded as a desirable example»

«Worse still: Although Ursula von der Leyen is responsible for the whole of the EU, many eastern Europeans still see her as the German who’s now trying, in the EU’s name, to impose a German agenda in climate policy, too»

«German Chancellor Angela Merkel tried to get her position on refugee issues accepted as the policy of the EU as a whole — and failed»

«Germany now needs to acknowledge that other countries also have views on climate policy that differ from its own.»

* * * * * * *

Riassumendo.

L’European New Green Deal ricorda strettamente le famose grida di manzoniana memoria.

Senza unanimità e sostanziale adesione di tutte le componenti, più che un provvedimento è una farsa.

Senza poi finanziamenti adeguati, la farsa diventa anche una tragedia.

«Grida fresca: son quelle che fanno più paura».

La massima di oggi viene pronunciata dall’Azzecca-garbugli nel terzo capitolo dei Promessi Sposi, e potrebbe addirittura essere presa come un monito contro i decreti legge, e contro il riformismo e le novità legislative in genere.

*


Deutsche Welle. 2019-12-14. Germany’s climate policy doesn’t suit the EU

They all agree, but they won’t all agree to participate. The hypocritical deal on climate neutrality by 2050 reached at the EU summit demonstrates how isolated Germany is on this issue, says DW’s Christoph Hasselbach.

How can you obtain a unanimous decision from which one country is excepted? But this is exactly what the European Council has done. All 27 heads of state and government, including Poland (the British prime minister, Boris Johnson, was understandably absent), have agreed that the EU should be climate neutral by the year 2050. However, Poland has been granted a concession — it can take a bit longer to get there. How long has not been stipulated.

Ursula von der Leyen’s contortion allows her to save face, but only with the greatest of difficulty. The new president of the Commission was keen to demonstrate at the start of her term in office what the EU, and she herself, are capable of. Shortly before the EU summit, parallel to the World Climate Conference in Madrid, she announced the great aim of “European climate neutrality in just 30 years.” She even went so far as to compare it to the first moon landing — as if climate neutrality were an event that could be pinned to a specific date!

Hypocritical pretense of unanimity

In doing so, she put pressure EU governments to fall into line. If just one country had refused to go along with the resolution, the European Council would have stabbed von der Leyen in the back. The EU as a whole would have looked utterly ridiculous. Hence this hypocritical pretense of unanimity.

However, in order to achieve it, concessions had to be made. Poland will not only essentially be able to decide for itself when to decommission its many coal-fired power stations — it currently derives almost 80 percent of its electricity from coal! The Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland also managed to ensure that nuclear power was specifically mentioned in the closing statement as an energy source en route to climate neutrality.

French President Emmanuel Macron, supposedly Germany’s closest ally, is of course also behind this. As is well known, France generates the majority of its electricity in CO2-emission-free nuclear power plants; it’s planning to build several new nuclear reactors, and sees absolutely no reason why that should not be acknowledged as a contribution to climate protection.

Memories of Merkel’s refugee policy

Germany, on the other hand, is phasing out both coal-fired power generation and nuclear power over a relatively short period of time. No other European country is taking this route, and it looks as if it’s going to stay that way.

This summit has shown how little the German model is regarded as a desirable example. Worse still: Although Ursula von der Leyen is responsible for the whole of the EU, many eastern Europeans still see her as the German who’s now trying, in the EU’s name, to impose a German agenda in climate policy, too.

And that’s gone wrong before. German Chancellor Angela Merkel tried to get her position on refugee issues accepted as the policy of the EU as a whole — and failed. Germany now needs to acknowledge that other countries also have views on climate policy that differ from its own.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Unione Europea

Timmermans prende atto che il ‘Clima’ è morto stecchito. Originale il mezzo.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-12-17.

Diavolo

I liberal socialisti dell’Unione Europea hanno una fantasia galattica e sottilmente malvagia.

Avevano posto grandiose speranze nella riunione Onu Cop5, fallita in modo definitivo per la mancata adesione di Stati Uniti, Cina, India e Russia alle ardite tesi liberal. Nessun accordo è stato possibile.

Orfani del Cop25, in attesa di un futuribile Cop26, adesso i liberal devono confrontarsi nel parlamento europeo e con la Commissione.

Ben poco possono Herr Timmermans e sodali contro il Consiglio e la Commissione Europea.

Troppo orgogliosi per ammettere la loro sconfitta, si dedicano ad un sport in cui i liberal eccellono: mutare il significato delle parole.

Si sono generati un loro proprio dizionario specifico, che può trarre in inganno qualsiasi Lettore. Per esempio, ‘human rights’ per i liberal indica ciò che la loro ideologia reputa essere tali, anche se il resto del mondo non se ne cale più di tanto.

* * * * * * *

«”Taxonomy”: is the process of naming and classifying things such as animals and plants into groups within a larger system, according to their similarities and differences.».

Il termine equivalente italiano sarebbe tassonomia.

«EU ambassadors have agreed on a slightly-modified version of the EU sustainable investment taxonomy – which aims to clarify which sectors are fully sustainable»

«The previous version was blocked last week by nine countries (France, UK, Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia), because they wanted more guarantees regarding “technological neutrality”.»

«Now MEPs will have to decide if the newly agreed council position is strong enough.»

«A classification system for sustainable investments, known as EU taxonomy, is currently being negotiated with the European Parliament by the European Council, which comprises heads of EU states. Following the negotiation, one taxonomy is set to be implemented into all EU legislation»

«The ministers also endorsed the council’s action plan on climate change, which is aimed at reducing carbon emissions across Europe by 2030. To accomplish that, the EU has said it needs an estimated €180 billion ($198 billion) in investments»

«As the voice of the European asset management industry, we support the EU’s political objective to fight climate change and meet the Paris agreement goals, and have been following closely the negotiations on EU taxonomy regulation. (It’s) crucial that investee companies are required to disclose all key data needed to evaluate the investment against the EU taxonomy.»

* * *

«Energia nucleare e gas sono da intendersi come ‘di transizione’, quindi gli investimenti nei settori ad esse associate non vanno considerati ‘verdi’ tout court ma capaci di contribuire a un’economia a emissioni zero»

* * * * * * *

Ricapitoliamo.

– La richiesta di finanziamenti di 180 miliardi euro in dieci anni significa 18 miliardi l’anno, ossia quanto basta a non far morire di fame i liberal socialisti. La richiesta iniziale era stata di 1.300 miliardi….

– Classificandoli come ‘di transizione’ anche nucleare e gas possono legalmente essere sostenuti da fondi europei.

– È in corso la battaglia per l’uso del carbone e, più specificatamente, della lignite. Nessuno dubiterebbe però che a breve un ritocchino della tassonomia lo renda benvenuto e bene accetto.

*


Clima: Paesi Ue, continuiamo negoziato su investimenti verdi

Compromesso su nucleare e gas, è ‘transizione’ a emissioni zero

BRUXELLES – Energia nucleare e gas sono da intendersi come ‘di transizione’, quindi gli investimenti nei settori ad esse associate non vanno considerati ‘verdi’ tout court ma capaci di contribuire a un’economia a emissioni zero. E’ il compromesso tra i paesi Ue su cui si basa il nuovo mandato alla presidenza finlandese per negoziare con l’Europarlamento la classificazione degli investimenti sostenibili (tassonomia). Mercoledì scorso gli Stati Ue avevano bocciato un accordo già raggiunto con l’Eurocamera per disaccordi sul nucleare.

Gli eurodeputati incaricati del negoziato vedranno le carte nelle prossime ore, e stasera decideranno il da farsi. La tassonomia su cui le istituzioni europee stanno discutendo potrebbe avere importanti ricadute economiche e finanziarie, quale primo passo per dare una patente di sostenibilità agli investimenti in determinati settori. La settimana scorsa, nella sua prima conferenza stampa da presidente della Bce a Francoforte, Christine Lagarde, si era detta “dispiaciuta” del naufragio dell’accordo tra Pe e Consiglio

*


EU countries agree on ‘sustainable investment’


EU ambassadors have agreed on a slightly-modified version of the EU sustainable investment taxonomy – which aims to clarify which sectors are fully sustainable. The previous version was blocked last week by nine countries (France, UK, Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia), because they wanted more guarantees regarding “technological neutrality”. Now MEPs will have to decide if the newly agreed council position is strong enough.

*


EU finance ministers endorse ‘green’ taxonomy

Officials also pledge to help move private capital toward sustainable investments

Setting their priorities for the coming years, European Union finance ministers endorsed a classification system for sustainable investments and said they would work to direct additional private capital to such investments at an Economic and Financial Affairs Council meeting Thursday.

A classification system for sustainable investments, known as EU taxonomy, is currently being negotiated with the European Parliament by the European Council, which comprises heads of EU states. Following the negotiation, one taxonomy is set to be implemented into all EU legislation.

The EU finance ministers did not provide additional information on how they planned to increase private capital allocated to sustainable investments.

The ministers also endorsed the council’s action plan on climate change, which is aimed at reducing carbon emissions across Europe by 2030. To accomplish that, the EU has said it needs an estimated €180 billion ($198 billion) in investments.

The ministers said they will continue to engage with each other on issues such as sustainable finance, green budgeting, carbon pricing, green taxation and environmentally harmful subsidies.

Responding to the political agreement, Fiona Reynolds, CEO of United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment, said in an emailed comment that the classification system underpins disclosure requirements and bridges the gap between the 2015 Paris Agreements and investment practices.

“The taxonomy will enable investors to determine the proportion of revenue from sustainable economic activities financed by the investment portfolio,” Ms. Reynolds said. “The taxonomy will also support active ownership efforts: Investors and companies can use the taxonomy to identify future growth opportunities.”

Tanguy van de Werve, director general of European Fund Management Association, said in an emailed comment: “As the voice of the European asset management industry, we support the EU’s political objective to fight climate change and meet the Paris agreement goals, and have been following closely the negotiations on EU taxonomy regulation. (It’s) crucial that investee companies are required to disclose all key data needed to evaluate the investment against the EU taxonomy.”

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Unione Europea

Cop25, EU e ‘clima’. Una cosa è esternare i desiderata, un’altra finanziarli.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-12-17.

2019-11-30__Putin 001

Uno dei tanti problemi del ‘clima’, sempre che tale problematica esista, è la discrepanza tra i proclami enunciati a gran voce e l’impossibilità concreta di trovare un accordo ragionevole tra gli stati. È una visione ideologica oltremodo costosa, e nessuno nei fatti vuole investirvi.

Non solo.

I liberal che hanno il ‘clima’ come visione ideologica sono relegati solo in una parte dell’Europa: se anche questa andasse ad emissioni zero, essa costituisce solo un sei per cento delle emissioni mondiali totali.

Un accordo che non coinvolga Cina, India, Federazione Russa e Stati Uniti è solo un pezzo di carta con unica utilità propagandistica.

Il fallimento è evidente, come candidamente ha ammesso Miss Greta.

Cop25, Greta e ‘Clima’. La fine che si sono meritata.

«We have been striking for over a year, and basically nothing has happened»

«The climate crisis is still being ignored by those in power, and we cannot go on like this»

*

Il problema è esplicitato, per esempio, da questo report:

Germany: Poverty gap widens between rich and poor regions

«Although the poverty rate has fallen across Germany, at least a quarter of 95 regions surveyed have witnessed an increase of 20% over the past decade»

«Despite the good news that the national poverty rate has dropped to 15.5%, the gap between affluent regions on the one hand and poverty-stricken regions on the other is growing steadily and clearly»

«Bavaria had the lowest poverty rate with 11.7%, while Bremen had the highest with 22.7%.»

«The Ruhr region in North Rhine-Westphalia — the most populous German state — was considered “problem region number one,” according to the report»

«It had a poverty rate of 21.1% with a population of about 5.8 million»

*

Che la Ruhr, un tempo il cuore del’industria tedesca, abbia un tasso di povertà del 21.1%, la conta lunga sullo stato della Germania, che si sta avviando alla deindustrializzazione.

Sostenere il ‘clima’ sarebbe la distruzione di quel poco che ancora rimane. La miseria generalizzata a tutti i tedeschi, già alle prese con una severa recessione.

* * *


Cop25 senza accordo, colloqui proseguono

Riunione ripresa in piena notte, accordo di Parigi a rischio.

I colloqui sul clima alla Cop 25 di Madrid sono appena entrati nel loro ‘secondo tempo supplementare’: dovevano terminare venerdì ma nessun accordo è stato ancora raggiunto, e sono ormai entrati, di domenica, nel loro quattordicesimo giorno. I funzionari di quasi 200 Paesi non sono riusciti a superare i loro diversi punti di vista su alcuni punti chiave. Così, a tarda ora di sabato, la presidente della conferenza, la ministra cileno dell’Ambiente Carolina Schmidt, ha detto ai delegati già stremati di tornare a riunirsi all’ 1.30 per esaminare i nuovi accordi elaborati dalla sua squadra.
“Le cose si stanno mettendo a posto”, ha detto prima di tornare in sala. Ma i rappresentanti dei Paesi in via di sviluppo e i gruppi ambientalisti hanno invece affermato che le bozze circolate hanno rischiato addirittura di annullare o bloccare gli impegni assunti nell’accordo di Parigi del 2015, accentuando la forbice tra quello che richiedono gli scienziati e quello che i negoziatori sono disposti a offrire.

*


Green New Deal Ue, salta già tutto? I paesi Visegrad minacciano il veto

Polonia, Ungheria e Repubblica ceca stanno minacciando il veto sull’obiettivo della neutralità climatica entro il 2050

Ue: Polonia, Ungheria e Cechia minacciano veto su clima

Polonia, Ungheria e Repubblica Ceca stanno minacciando il veto sull’obiettivo della neutralità climatica entro il 2050 contenuto nella bozza di conclusioni del Consiglio europeo, se non ci riceveranno maggiori garanzie sui finanziamenti per la transizione verso le emissioni zero.    Il giorno dopo la presentazione del Green Deal, i 27 capi di Stato e di governo rischiano dunque di non trovare un accordo sul principale obiettivo della strategia illustrata ieri dalla presidente della Commissione Ursula von der Leyen. “Ci sono ancora tre paesi che per diverse ragioni hanno problemi a impegnarsi all’obiettivo” della neutralità climatica entro il 2050, ha detto una fonte europea. “Non so se se ci sarà un accordo sulla bozza di conclusioni” preparata dal presidente del Consiglio europeo, Charles Michel, ha confermato un’altra fonte: “Alcuni paesi dicono che possono dare il loro accordo solo se si conoscono le implicazioni finanziarie”.

Green New Deal Ue già a rischio

In particolare, Polonia, Ungheria e Repubblica ceca vogliono avere maggiori garanzie su quante risorse riceveranno dal “Just Transition Fund” (il Fondo della transizione giusta, ndr), annunciato ieri da von der Leyen nell’ambito del Green Deal per aiutare i paesi e le regioni che si trovano in ritardo nella transizione climatica perché dipendenti da energie fossili. La Repubblica ceca, inoltre, insiste affinché nelle conclusioni ci sia un chiaro riferimento al nucleare come fonte indispensabile per raggiungere la neutralità climatica entro il 2050. Ma la richiesta della Repubblica ceca sul nucleare è ritenuta inaccettabile da Austria, Lussemburgo e Germania. L’attuale bozza di conclusioni del Consiglio europeo ribadisce che gli Stati membri sono liberi di scegliere il loro mix energetico, ma è considerata dalla Repubblica ceca troppo vaga per assicurare che il nucleare riceva finanziamenti Ue. “La discussione sarà difficile sul ruolo del nucleare nell’ambito del finanziamento e della neutralità climatica entro il 2050”, ha spiegato una terza fonte. In questo contesto, con Michel e von der Leyen che vogliono evitare un fallimento al loro primo Consiglio europeo, diversi diplomatici europei prevedono una lunga notte di trattative al Vertice. 

*


Leaders face crucial EU summit for climate action

Heads of government from each of the EU member states will gather at the EU summit starting on Thursday (12 December) at which leaders will try to agree on the EU’s long-term budget and endorse the goal of making the EU climate-neutral by 2050.

EU leaders will meet in three different formats: a regular summit, a European Council (Article 50) meeting, and a European summit.

This will be the first EU summit chaired by Charles Michel, replacing Donald Tusk, since he was elected the president of the European Council by EU leaders in July.

Women at table

It will be also the first EU council for his successor, Sophie Wilmès, who is the new prime minister of Belgium and the first female head of government in the country’s history.

Likewise, the Finish social democrat Sanna Marin will also attend the summit for the first time, after the former prime minister Antti Rinne stepped down last week.

As a result, the gender balance of the EU council will improve slightly, having five female and 23 male heads of government in the European Union.

This will likely be the last EU summit for Malta’s prime minister Joseph Muscat, who has officially said that he will resign in mid-January, following protests over the assassination scandal of the anti-corruption journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia.

Additionally, this may also be the last EU summit with the EU-28 format, since the UK is due to leave the EU on 31 January.

Climate-neutral refuseniks

EU leaders are expected to unanimously agree on the commitment of making the EU climate-neutral by 2050 during the EU council, just after the commissioner for the Green Deal, Frans Timmermans, unveils the first package of proposals on Wednesday.

However, Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary objected to the EU’s 2050 climate-neutrality goal.

The controversial proposal by the Finish presidency for the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) will also be discussed at the summit, including the ‘Just Transition Fund’ for coal-dependent member states.

EU leaders will also considered the idea of a Conference on the Future of Europe starting in 2020 and ending in 2022.

During the European Council (Article 50) meeting scheduled for Friday, leaders are expected to discuss the result of the general election in the UK – taking place on Thursday night, with exit polls at 11PM European time and a result by Friday morning – and its consequences for the Brexit process, as well as the future EU-UK relations.

The Euro summit taking place on Friday will focus on the revision of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) treaty which assists member states in financial difficulty, the budgetary instrument for convergence and competitiveness (BICC) – the long-awaited eurozone budget – and technical work on the strengthening of the banking union.

In the EU summits, heads of government from each of the EU member states, the EU council president and the president of the EU commission meet once every quarter to define the EU’s overall political direction and priorities – by consensus, double majority or unanimity.

Pubblicato in: Energie Alternative, Fisco e Tasse, Ideologia liberal

Germania! Vuoi burro o alternative? La sciagurata rispose.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-10-24.

Surriscaldamento 001

«VOLETE BURRO O CANNONI?». Mussolini pronunciò questa frase dal balcone di Palazzo Venezia poco prima della dichiarazione della Seconda Guerra Mondiale e la folla gridò entusiasta «Cannoni! Cannoni!». Poi chi ha pagato il conto di quella guerra sono stati tantissimi giovani che purtroppo non avevano capito a tempo…

* * *

La storia si ripete, mutatis mutandis.

I tedeschi hanno condiviso l’entusiasmo di Frau Merkel per le energie alternative, ed adesso iniziano ad arrivare i conti da pagare.

«Germany’s power network operators (TSOs) will hike by 5.5% next year the fee consumers have to pay to support the country’s shift toward renewable energies»

«The surcharge is a key part of Germany’s policy to switch to lower carbon sources of energy, known as Energiewende, but has sparked criticism from consumers because it makes up 21% of their final bills»

«A joint statement from the four TSOs said the fee to pay producers feed-in tariffs under Germany’s EEG renewable energy act will increase to 6.756 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) in 2020 compared with 6.405 cents in 2019»

«A household consuming 5,000 kWh per annum would pay another 18 euros more next year to account for the EEG»

«In Germany, some 23% of power bills are made up of grid usage fees, which have increased due to the higher handling costs of renewable power»

«The remaining 25% represent procurement and retail distribution»

* * * * * * *

Una Germania in piena recessione, con un drammatico calo della produzione industriale, si trova a sbattere il volto sul granito dei costi legati alle energie alternative ed a quelli della distribuzione, che dovrebbe essere rifatta di sana pianta, ancorché possa servire a qualcosa. Le distanze infatti tra gli impianti ed i luoghi di consumo sono troppo elevati per gli attuali elettrodotti, e la dissipazione elevata.

Energia. Il problema degli elettrodotti a lunga distanza. Le dissipazioni.

Già.

Pochi ci hanno pensato.

In una Germania che si dice andare incontro ad un surriscaldamento, le dispersioni degli elettrodotti sono vere e proprie stufette elettriche.

*


Germans to pay 5.5% higher levy for renewable power in 2020

FRANKFURT (Reuters) – Germany’s power network operators (TSOs) will hike by 5.5% next year the fee consumers have to pay to support the country’s shift toward renewable energies, they said on Tuesday, confirming what a source earlier told Reuters.

The surcharge is a key part of Germany’s policy to switch to lower carbon sources of energy, known as Energiewende, but has sparked criticism from consumers because it makes up 21% of their final bills.

A joint statement from the four TSOs said the fee to pay producers feed-in tariffs under Germany’s EEG renewable energy act will increase to 6.756 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) in 2020 compared with 6.405 cents in 2019.

Think-tank Agora and consumer prices comparison companies on Monday said the fee would likely hit a range of 6.5-6.7 cents.

The TSOs said in their statement that more renewable power production was forecast for next year, which could see more pay-outs to renewable power producers.

At the same time, the account in which the collected fees are held had been drawn down this year by relatively high green power output, which is driven by variable weather patterns, it said.

A household consuming 5,000 kWh per annum would pay another 18 euros more next year to account for the EEG, prices portal Check24 said in a press release on Tuesday.

In Germany, some 23% of power bills are made up of grid usage fees, which have increased due to the higher handling costs of renewable power. The remaining 25% represent procurement and retail distribution.

Agora predicted that the fee should peak in 2021, because by then wind turbines built last decade would gradually drop out of the fixed 20-year subsidy scheme that was reformed in 2017.

Pubblicato in: Ideologia liberal

Merkel e ‘clima’. La fronda cresce e prende sempre più forza.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-09-29.

Germania. Große Koalition kaputt. Thinking the Unthinkable. 001

Il 24 ottobre 2021 la Germania tornerà alle urne. Due anni passano presto.

L’ultimo sondaggio di propensione a voto indicherebbe questi risultati, accanto ai quali tra parentesi riportiamo le percentuali conseguite nelle elezioni del 2017.

Union, ossia Cdu e Csu, 26% (32.9%), Sp 14% (20.5%), AfD 16% (12.6%), Fdp 8% (10.7%), Linke 8% (9.2%), Grüne 22% (8.9%).

L’attuale Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel ha dichiarato che non si presenterà per un nuovo mandato, e la formazione di una nuova Große Koalition sembrerebbe essere impossibile.

Come possano evolversi le cose di qui a due anni è cosa impossibile da prevedersi: l’unico elemento certo sarebbe quello che il nuovo cancelliere potrebbe anche mutare radicalmente la Weltanschauung politico economica tedesca, situazione che verosimilmente raccoglierà ridotta a pezzi.

* * * * * * *

Già adesso si iniziano a notare segni di scollamento nella politica sul ‘clima’. I Grüne sono in reflusso, ed i cittadini sembrerebbero essere sempre più insofferenti.

Germania. Energie alternative. Quasi tutto bloccato dai residenti.

Ma gli ostacoli principali alle politiche energetiche di Frau Merkel sarebbero quelli economici.

«German climate protection plans involving the closure of some coal plants might cost 1.2 billion euros ($1.32 billion) by 2030 without achieving the desired reductions in carbon emissions, an independent study said on Monday»

«A draft law detailing the plan to shut hard coal fired power plants by offering operators fiscal incentives in auctions, seen by Reuters on Sept. 5, showed Germany will start shutting coal plants from next year, under a long-term exit plan up to 2038»

«The government aims to meet a target of reducing carbon emissions to 55% of their 1990 level by 2030»

«“Because of planned price caps, more plants might have to be forced to close on top (of those awarded money in the closure auctions), which brings the risk of compensation lawsuits and delays,”»

«The draft law envisages that by 2022, around 12 plants run by operators including RWE, EnBW and smaller competitors would be shut, leaving 30 with 15 gigawatts (GW) capacity»

«Aurora said that an assumed maximum price of 150,000 euros compensation per megawatt – with taxpayers’ costs in mind – may achieve the first round of closures, with the desired outcome of idling old plants in north Germany not crucial for meeting demand in the industrial south»

* * * * * * *

Fare piani al 2038, ossia un arco di tempo di venti anni, presuppone la certezza che le attuali volontà politiche restino immutate, cristallizzate, almeno per tutto questo lungo lasso di tempo. Ma con l’ottobre 2021 Frau Merkel uscirà di scena e la depressione economica si sarà fatta sentire con tutta la sua forza.


German coal closure auctions could be costly, insufficient: study

FRANKFURT (Reuters) – German climate protection plans involving the closure of some coal plants might cost 1.2 billion euros ($1.32 billion) by 2030 without achieving the desired reductions in carbon emissions, an independent study said on Monday.

A draft law detailing the plan to shut hard coal fired power plants by offering operators fiscal incentives in auctions, seen by Reuters on Sept. 5, showed Germany will start shutting coal plants from next year, under a long-term exit plan up to 2038.

The government aims to meet a target of reducing carbon emissions to 55% of their 1990 level by 2030.

“Because of planned price caps, more plants might have to be forced to close on top (of those awarded money in the closure auctions), which brings the risk of compensation lawsuits and delays,” said the study from Aurora Energy Research.

The draft law envisages that by 2022, around 12 plants run by operators including RWE, EnBW and smaller competitors would be shut, leaving 30 with 15 gigawatts (GW) capacity.

Aurora said that an assumed maximum price of 150,000 euros compensation per megawatt – with taxpayers’ costs in mind – may achieve the first round of closures, with the desired outcome of idling old plants in north Germany not crucial for meeting demand in the industrial south.

But later on, the lawmakers might offer decreases down to 100,000 euros/MW up to 2030, Aurora said, stressing this was an assumption as the draft had not specified the levels yet.

Fewer operators might accept these pay-offs, causing undersubscribed auctions and necessitating ordered shutdowns that could cause more emissions and messy lawsuits that the exit plan was meant to avoid, Aurora said.

The country’s energy regulator will have to decide on mandated closures on the basis of the plants’ age.

After 2030, there will be no more compensation for plants over the age of 25 years.

Other factors that operators will bear in mind to prepare themselves for the auctions were raw material and wholesale prices as well as power demand in coming years, Aurora said.[EL/DE]

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal

Macron scarica Greta Thunberg con male parole.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-09-27.

2019-09-27__Trump-Greta

Il problema è ben più sfaccettato di quanto possa superficialmente sembrare. Ma davvero molto.

L’istogramma delle propensioni al voto nel Baden-Württemberg è oltremodo esplicativo. I Grüne sono arrivati al 38%, primo partito davanti alla Cdu al 26%. Almeno nell’Unione Europea il potere dei liberal socialisti non è minacciato dagli identitari sovranisti, bensì dai Grüne, ossia dalla fazione da loro fatta artatamente crescere nella presunzione di poterla poi governare a piacere. Conto questo dimostratosi poi essere stato un pacchiano errore. Si possono governare masse solidamente inquadrate e che non reclamino soldi, non un coacervo di persone, ciascuna delle quali la pensi a modo suo.

2019-09-27--Baden--

Infine, la Greta Thunberg ed i suoi agenti pubblicitari hanno trasbordato i limiti: nemmeno a Gretina è permesso di attaccare in modo così viscerale l’establishment. I capi di governo non ci stanno per nulla a farsi prendere a pesci in faccia da un ragazzina. Chi può innalzare può anche abbassare.

* * * * * * *

Solo considerando questi argomenti si può comprendere il vero significato delle parole di Mr Macron.

«Il personaggio Greta sembra essere sfuggito di mano»

«Sono posizioni molto radicali»

«Ma quali sono le soluzioni che propone? Nessuno le conosce.»

«Et la France est directement ciblée par Greta Thunberg. Aux côtés de 15 autres jeunes, elle a déposé une plainte inédite devant le Comité des Droits de l’Enfant de l’ONU, contre cinq pays, l’Argentine, le Brésil, la Turquie mais aussi l’Allemagne et donc la France»

«Là, des positions très radicales, c’est de nature à antagoniser nos sociétés»

«You mustn’t create a generation of depressed people over this issue»

«You cannot mobilise with despair, almost hatred»

«She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see!»

* * * * * * *

La frase sarcastica di Mr Trump sembrerebbe essere stata scritta da un inglese invelenito più che da un americano.

Greta è troppo radicale, e, soprattutto, è diventata una scheggia impazzita fuori controllo. Sta allevando una generazione di depressi: induce disperazione ed incita all’odio. Già: incita all’odio.

L’epoca di Mrs Greta Thunberg è finita: farà ancora qualche apparizione pubblica, ma i media la snobberanno.

Macron e il fastidio verso Greta: «Manifestare? Meglio pulire le spiagge in Corsica»

«Il personaggio Greta sembra essere sfuggito di mano, le sue denunce e il discorso pronunciato all’Onu non sono piaciuti né a Macron né al suo entourage. «Sono posizioni molto radicali – ha detto Macron -. Non mi pare che il governo francese o quello tedesco oggi si oppongano al rispetto degli accordi di Parigi. Stiamo abbandonando lo sfruttamento del carbone, limitando l’uso degli idrocarburi, ci stiamo muovendo, e non sono certo quelle frasi siano la strada più efficace». La stessa Brune Poirson, che esortava Greta a non mollare, adesso, vice-ministra alla Transizione ecologica -, dice: «Ma quali sono le soluzioni che propone? Nessuno le conosce. Non si può ricorrere alla disperazione, a una specie di odio».»

*

Clima: Macron bacchetta Greta Thunberg

«Emmanuel Macron bacchetta Greta Thunberg, dopo che la militante ecologista di 16 anni ha sporto denuncia, insieme ad altri quindici giovani ecologisti, contro cinque Paesi, tra cui la Francia e la Germania, per inazione contro il clima. “Posizioni molto radicali”, le ha definite il presidente su radio Europe 1, che rischiano di “mettere creare antagonismo tra le nostre società”. Per Macron tutte le mobilitazioni dei giovani “sono utili. Ma ora bisogna fare in modo che si concentrino su coloro che sono più distanti, coloro che tentano di bloccare. Non ho la sensazione che il governo francese o il governo tedesco, oggi, stiano bloccando” la lotta per la salvaguardia del pianeta. E ancora: “Quando vedo che chiuderemo tutte le nostre attività legate al carbone, che fermiamo lo sfruttamento di idrocarburi, che ci stiamo muovendo, non sono sicuro che sia il modo più efficace”, ha concluso il presidente.»

*

Emmanuel Macron répond à Greta Thunberg : “Je n’ai pas le sentiment que la France bloque”

«Et la France est directement ciblée par Greta Thunberg. Aux côtés de 15 autres jeunes, elle a déposé une plainte inédite devant le Comité des Droits de l’Enfant de l’ONU, contre cinq pays, l’Argentine, le Brésil, la Turquie mais aussi l’Allemagne et donc la France.»

«Toutes les mobilisations de notre jeunesse ou des moins jeunes sont utiles. Mais il faut qu’elles se concentrent maintenant sur ceux qui sont le plus loin, ceux qui essaient de bloquer. Je n’ai pas le sentiment que le gouvernement français ou le gouvernement allemand, aujourd’hui, sont en train de bloquer …. Quand je vois qu’on va fermer l’ensemble de nos activités charbon, qu’on stoppe l’exploitation d’hydrocarbures, qu’on est en train de bouger, je ne suis pas sûr que ce soit la voie la plus efficace.”»

«Il y a des tas d’actions citoyennes qui sont utiles”, a-t-il déclaré, lâchant un dernier message en direction de Greta Thunberg : “Là, des positions très radicales, c’est de nature à antagoniser nos sociétés.”»

*

Greta Thunberg’s ‘radical’ climate change stance risks ‘depressing’ an entire generation of teenagers, French President Emmanuel Macron warns

«In an emotional speech, Greta said: “I shouldn’t be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean.

“Yet you all come to us for hope.

“How dare you. You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words.

“We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and yet all you can talk about is money. You are failing us.”»

«Such very radical positions are liable to antagonise our societies. French President Emmanuel Macron»

«There are lots of citizen’s actions that are useful. …. “Here, such very radical positions are liable to antagonise our societies»

«You mustn’t create a generation of depressed people over this issue.»

«ecological transition minister Brune Poirson warned: “You cannot mobilise with despair, almost hatred.”»

«”She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see!”. – Donald Trump»

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Unione Europea

Unione Europea. Si avvicina lo scontro finale. Visegrad.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-09-21.

Visegrad 001

Dalle ultime elezioni europee sia il ppe sia il pse sono usciti con una perdita complessiva di quasi cento seggi, e con essi hanno perso la maggioranza. Non sono riusciti ad imporre i propri candidati alla Presidenza della Commissione Europea e Mrs Ursula von der Leyen è uscita con una esigua maggioranza di voti, procuratale da Frau Merkel che aveva telefonato a polacchi ed ungheresi chiedendo loro di votare quella candidata.

Grande è stato lo smacco dei liberal socialisti, la bocca dei quali è stata raddolcita un pochino concedendo loro un posticino per Herr Timmermans.

Ma i liberal non sanno darsi pace, e stanno attaccando a testa bassa. Incuranti della situazione economica in progressivo disfacimento, puntano sui temi loro cari.

Non possono tollerare il fatto che il Consiglio europeo e la Commissione si siano riappropriati delle competenze decisionali di loro spettanza, né al fatto di essere stati ridotti dalle elezioni a minoranza.

È infine una lotta tra chi concepisce l’Unione Europea come uno stato centralizzato a guida liberal, e quanti lo concepiscono con un confederazione economica di stati sovrani ed indipendenti.

«We have been defending Europe, the European identity, the Christian culture, the European way of life for centuries, we should be supported, not attacked, …. protecting the European way of life» [Weltanschauung ungherese]

Compreso questo, tutta la questione su Polonia ed Ungheria risulta essere chiara.


EU divided on how to protect rule of law

«Poland and Hungary have argued that rule of law is purely a domestic matter and the EU should respect legal traditions, but Dutch foreign minister warned backsliding was a worry for all.

While several ministers highlighted the need for a well-functioning rule of law as the basis of the EU, ministers from Hungary and Poland emphasised the particular national characteristics of different legal traditions.

“The EU is not just a collective of states which want to enhance its economic well-being through mutual trade, but we are also a union of values, like democracy, fundamental rights, and rule of law,” Dutch foreign minister Stef Blok warned.»

* * * * * * *

«EU affairs ministers on Monday (16 September) held their first hearing on Hungary over concerns that the Budapest government curbed judicial and press freedoms, clamped down on civil society, and weakened the rule of law and checks on the government»

«Hungary’s justice minister Judit Varga dismissed the procedure as a “political witch-hunt”»

«Monday’s hearing was the first of its kind concerning Hungary under the Article 7 sanctions procedure»

«A year ago the European Parliament triggered the process, following mounting concerns over the country’s democratic backsliding»

«Varga told reporters the procedure was part of the “revenge campaign of the pro-migration elite” because Hungary has said no to migration»

«”We have been defending Europe, the European identity, the Christian culture, the European way of life for centuries, we should be supported, not attacked,” she told reporters, in a clear echo of the commission’s rebranding of its migration portfolio as “protecting the European way of life.”»

«Their questions focused partly on academic and media freedom. …. Prime minister Viktor Orban’s government and its allies took control of the public media and most of the country’s private news media, and drove out the Central European University, founded by US billionaire philanthropist George Soros, from Budapest.»

«It is unclear where the procedure will lead. Article 7 can end with the suspension of voting rights, but that requires unanimity among EU countries, and Poland – which is also under the same disciplinary process – had already said it would veto any such move»

* * *

«The controversial title for a future commission vice-president’s role, of “protecting the European way of life”, is creating deep divisions in the European parliament as MEPs prepare to debate the new executive of president-elect Ursula von der Leyen»

«Socialists, liberals and greens have raised questions about the definition of the European “way of life”. …. They are concerned that when linked to migration, as in the job description for Greek commission-designate Margaritis Schinas, it panders to the far-right»

«Manfred Weber, the group leader of the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP), von der Leyen’s party, on Tuesday (17 September) defended the job title. “We should not allow that right [wing] extremist, like Marine Le Pen, hijack the European way of life debate, it is our debate, it is a Christian democratic debate, a debate with socialists, liberals, it is a traditional debate of the political centre,” …. a lot of Europeans who felt “helpless in a world where we have so much uncertainty”, and that they were “looking for orientations and also for a positive identity”.»

«Socialist group leader Iratxe Garcia said her group is against the name, especially with the title being linked to migration»

«”If I listen to [Hungary’s PM] Viktor Orban, [the European way of life] is a marriage between a man and a woman, and they have many children, the woman stays home to take care of the children, they go to mass on Sunday,” he quipped. Orban is a suspended member of EPP»

«The former German defence minister had been criticised by MEPs for not debating them about the new commission in the plenary session»

* * * * * * *

In questa Unione Europea si stanno scontrando i tre centri di potere: il Consiglio Europeo, la Commissione e l’europarlamento. avendo questo ultimo perso il primo round.

I liberal socialisti vorrebbero imporre a tutti la condivisione della loro ideologia, che essi ritengono essere verità assoluta e fondamento dell’Unione Europea.

Ma le elezioni europee prima, le variazioni di composizione del Consiglio Europeo dopo, non aggradano con tale visione.

Così, invece di dibattere sull’incipiente regressione economica e su come cercare di contrastarla, gli europarlamentari liberal hanno optato per una battaglia su quelli che essi ritengono essere loro principi etici.

Ma al momento vi sarebbero molti dubbi che possano spuntarla.

* * * * * * *


EU Observer. 2019-09-18. Defending the ‘European way of life’ name splits MEPs

The controversial title for a future commission vice-president’s role, of “protecting the European way of life”, is creating deep divisions in the European parliament as MEPs prepare to debate the new executive of president-elect Ursula von der Leyen.

Socialists, liberals and greens have raised questions about the definition of the European “way of life”.

They are concerned that when linked to migration, as in the job description for Greek commission-designate Margaritis Schinas, it panders to the far-right.

On Monday, French far-right opposition leader Marine Le Pen hailed the title as an “ideological victory”.

Manfred Weber, the group leader of the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP), von der Leyen’s party, on Tuesday (17 September) defended the job title.

“We should not allow that right [wing] extremist, like Marine Le Pen, hijack the European way of life debate, it is our debate, it is a Christian democratic debate, a debate with socialists, liberals, it is a traditional debate of the political centre,” he said in Strasbourg.

Weber said the title is a good one, and EPP will defend it.

“Is there someone in the room who wants to live the Chinese way of life, the African way of life or the American way of life? I want to live the European way of life, with solidarity, with democracy, with protecting human rights, especially when it is about migrants, it is absolutely clear, […] tolerance,” he told reporters.

Weber, who ran for von der Leyen’s job before the European elections in May, had also used the term “defending the European way of life” in his campaign.

He said that he had met a lot of Europeans who felt “helpless in a world where we have so much uncertainty”, and that they were “looking for orientations and also for a positive identity”.

Weber said he cannot see the problem with the title.

“This means to rescue people in the Mediterranean, it is not to close harbours,” the Bavarian politician added on his definition of the European way of life.

Von der Leyen also defended her choice of words over the weekend, quoting the fundamental values of the EU, without mentioning migration.

‘Needs to change’

But the issue has emerged as a key obstacle for other parties to approve von der Leyen’s commission in October.

Socialist group leader Iratxe Garcia said her group is against the name, especially with the title being linked to migration.

“The European way of life shouldn’t threaten a migration policy, which is underpinned by the principles of solidarity, this is the point she ought to have made,” the Spanish MEP said.

She said that the title needs to change.

Green co-chair Philippe Lamberts suggested that the title reflected von der Leyen’s efforts to cater to the right.

“She decided to give promises to the right, even to the far-right, that is my interpretation of the various portfolios, including Schinas’ portfolio,” he told reporters in Strasbourg.

Lamberts said that in her July speech to the parliament, von der Leyen reached out to the Socialists and the Greens, but then her new commission and the promises made by it now lean towards the right.

“Migration is presented as a problem of security and our way of life. Migrants are seen as attackers and terrorists who do not sign up to our values,” Lamberts said of the title.

“If I listen to [Hungary’s PM] Viktor Orban, [the European way of life] is a marriage between a man and a woman, and they have many children, the woman stays home to take care of the children, they go to mass on Sunday,” he quipped. Orban is a suspended member of EPP.

“They tried to imprison kids as long as they are migrants, they put up barbed wire, is this the European way of life? I happen to be European and this is not my way of life,” the Belgian politician added.

Lamberts said sticking to the title doesn’t help the new commission chief’s credentials with the Greens.

Von der Leyen on Thursday will attend a meeting of the European Parliament group leaders and other top parliament officials, which will take place behind closed doors.

The former German defence minister had been criticised by MEPs for not debating them about the new commission in the plenary session.

* * *


EU Observer. 2019-09-17. Hungary claims EU ‘witch-hunt’ over rule of law hearing

EU affairs ministers on Monday (16 September) held their first hearing on Hungary over concerns that the Budapest government curbed judicial and press freedoms, clamped down on civil society, and weakened the rule of law and checks on the government.

Hungary’s justice minister Judit Varga dismissed the procedure as a “political witch-hunt”.

Finnish EU affairs state minister Tytti Tuppurainen retorted by saying that it is “of course, not a witch-hunt, it is not against anyone”, but a procedure based in the EU treaties. “This is not a trial,” she added, speaking to reporters Monday evening.

Monday’s hearing was the first of its kind concerning Hungary under the Article 7 sanctions procedure.

A year ago the European Parliament triggered the process, following mounting concerns over the country’s democratic backsliding.

Varga told reporters the procedure was part of the “revenge campaign of the pro-migration elite” because Hungary has said no to migration. She also questioned the parliamentary vote’s legality when adopting the report.

Varga said that “the pro-migration liberal elite continued to repeat the same baseless, untruthful, unfounded accusations that are echoed in the liberal, mostly western European media”.

“We have been defending Europe, the European identity, the Christian culture, the European way of life for centuries, we should be supported, not attacked,” she told reporters, in a clear echo of the commission’s rebranding of its migration portfolio as “protecting the European way of life.”

Q and A

At the hearing, French EU affairs state secretary Amélie de Montchalin spoke on behalf of Germany too when she told Varga that the general picture in the parliamentary report “about the respect for fundamental values in Hungary is worrying”.

She urged Hungary to address and resolve the concerns.

Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and Portugal took the floor and asked questions of the Hungarian team led by Varga.

Their questions focused partly on academic and media freedom.

Prime minister Viktor Orban’s government and its allies took control of the public media and most of the country’s private news media, and drove out the Central European University, founded by US billionaire philanthropist George Soros, from Budapest.

The government recently pushed through legislation stripping the 200-year-old Hungarian Academy of Sciences of its network of research bodies, further tightening government control over academia.

Denmark, France and Portugal asked the Hungarian ministers about recent developments in the country’s judiciary, where judges overseeing the head of the court administration, Tunde Hando, urged parliament to remove her for abusing her power when selecting judges.

Hando is the wife of a Fidesz MEP and was appointed in 2012 after Orban’s government overhauled the judiciary.

The parliament, dominated by Orban’s MPs with a two-thirds majority, refused to oust her in June. Hando called the supervisory body biased, and rejected the allegations.

Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans warned that a decision by the Orban government to postpone the introduction of so-called administrative courts is not a positive step – but only delays the deterioration of the independence of the judiciary in Hungary.

The new court system is designed to whitewash corruption cases, critics say.

Sweden and the Netherlands asked about corruption, while Luxembourg inquired if treatment of asylum-seekers is now in line with international standards in Hungary.

Varga argued to her colleagues that the European Parliament report does not contribute to EU unity. She accused the parliament of being politically-motivated and claimed that Hungary deserves respect, according to an official.

In a 158-page note prepared for the meeting, Hungary’s government argued both that the parliament’s conclusions are unjustified, and that some of the issues fall outside the legitimate scope of the procedure.

At the hearing, Varga hinted at migration saying Hungary should not be targeted because it has a different position on policies, the official added.

Unknown future

It is unclear where the procedure will lead. Article 7 can end with the suspension of voting rights, but that requires unanimity among EU countries, and Poland – which is also under the same disciplinary process – had already said it would veto any such move.

Varga argued that the case should be closed, and only with a strong majority backing should the Finnish presidency’s case proceed.

France proposed to have more hearings on specific issue until the concerns are resolved. Timmermans said international organisations should be invited to underpin the report’s concerns.

“It will be up to the next weeks and months to us to decide how we will move forward,” Finland’s Tuppurainen said after the hearing.

The European parliament was not invited to the meeting, their position was represented by the Finnish EU presidency.

The parliament’s civil liberties committee chair, Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar, and the new MEP dealing with the Hungary file, Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield, wrote a letter to parliament president David Sassoli to lobby member states to include the parliament in the following hearings.

After Varga wrote on Twitter on Monday that Hungary was being “put on pillory for rejecting mass immigration”, it earned a quick rebuttal from Dutch MEP Sophie in ‘t Veld.

She responded: “You are not put ‘on pillory’ for rejecting mass immigration, but for violating human rights, destroying the rule of law and non-compliance with EU law. Don’t play the martyr.”

Pubblicato in: Banche Centrali, Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal

Fed ed Ecb. Molti pensano che siano a fine corsa. Vecchie, ragionano da vecchie.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-09-20.

Debiti 000

«New Keynesian economic theory is wrong»


Su Fed ed Ecb stanno addensandosi nuvoloni bigi, carichi di tempeste.

ECB. Rivolta dei Governatori contro i provvedimenti disperati.

Germania. Tassi negativi strangolano il risparmio.

Germania. Piano anti-recessione da 500 mld, di debiti.

Ecb. ‘Rallentamento più duraturo del previsto’.

Commissione Europea. Si preannunciano scontri ferocissimi.

Draghi Faced Unprecedented ECB Revolt as Core Europe Resisted QE

* * * * * * *

«Former US Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence H. Summers and Anna Stansbury recently cast doubt on the future of central banking, suggesting that the prevailing monetary-policy framework is in dire need of a rethink»

«In the current era of low – and in some cases negative – interest rates, many are starting to worry that the European Central Bank and the US Federal Reserve are “running out of ammunition.”»

«When a central bank’s policy rate is already low, it cannot be lowered much more in the event of a crisis»

«Hence, one could argue that the Fed actually should be raising rates now, while unemployment is low, to create enough space for interest-rate cuts in the future, when unemployment may be high»

«Yet it makes no sense to raise interest rates if doing so could trigger a recession»

«When the Fed or the ECB raises rates, New Keynesian economic theory predicts that the hike will eventually lead to a decrease in inflation and that the path from point A to point B will inevitably be accompanied by higher unemployment»

«New Keynesian economic theory is wrong»

«there is no reason why the rate increase should cause higher unemployment»

«According to the theory, a lower interest rate is supposed to lead to more investment expenditure, thereby driving aggregate demand and reducing unemployment»

«This is not science; it is religion»

«The standard theoretical narrative is based entirely on the Phillips curve, which asserts a direct tradeoff between inflation and unemployment»

«If the theory is wrong, it must be replaced with something better»

«monetary policy will be impotent when Europe or the US enters another recession»

«I am not convinced that government spending is the right response»

* * * * * * *

Tre frasi dovrebbero essere meditate a fondo.

«This is not science; it is religion»

«If the theory is wrong, it must be replaced with something better»

«monetary policy will be impotent when Europe or the US enters another recession»

* * *

L’aspetto tragico è proprio questo: molti politici ed economisti si sono innamorati di alcune teorie economiche e le vivono come credo religioso: sono ben più dogmatici della caricatura del frate predicatore medievale. È il loro dogmatismo e la loro presunzione che li rendono tediosamente irritanti. Gabellano per verità assoluta il modesto frutto del loro pensiero.

In accordo con Gödel, questo credo è basato su alcune assunzioni indimostrate ed anche indimostrabili. Dogmi di fede.

– La immissione di liquidità nel sistema ne determina una crescita.

– Gli esseri umani sarebbero realtà economiche deterministiche.

* * *

Sono visioni drammaticamente semplicistiche.

I comportamenti degli esseri umani sono tutto tranne che deterministici: per esempio, la fiducia nel sistema prende quasi sempre piede proprio nel momento in cui ha raggiunto il suo fondo, ma la politica prospetta un avvenire prevedibile e certo. L’esplosione economica tedesca del 1948 ne sarebbe un chiarissimo esempio.

Nei fatti, tutto l’Occidente è gravato da una immane quota di debito pubblico.

Ben poche le vie per uscirne:

– pagare i debiti;

– inflazionare;

– andare al default.

La crisi del 2009 ha bene evidenziato come le banche centrali abbiano immesso enormi liquidità, che però alla fine sono state utilizzate non da parte dell’economia produttiva reale, bensì dagli stati per sovvenzionare i propri debiti sovrani. In altri termini, nel sistema non è entrato proprio nulla. Joe l’idraulico non ha visto il becco di un centesimo, almeno fino a tanto che Mr Trump non ha abbassato le tasse.

Ma questa gigantesca massa monetaria generata dal nulla necessita in una qualche maniera di essere bruciata.

Ci si pensi su bene.

Tassi negativi sui titoli di stato e sui depositi bancari altro non fanno che falcidiare le cifre così collocate: questo è il semplice effetto di una ‘inflazione artificiale’ che alla fine depaupera il Contribuente, messo nella impossibilità di risparmiare. Con i tassi negativi uno che risparmiasse per farsi un gruzzoletto a mo’ di pensione assisterebbe impotente alla semplice scomparsa di quanto accantonato.

Ci si pensi bene: sembrerebbe un gran brutto servizio.


New Europe. 2019-09-18.  Central banking’s bankrupt narrative

Former US Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence H. Summers and Anna Stansbury recently cast doubt on the future of central banking, suggesting that the prevailing monetary-policy framework is in dire need of a rethink. I agree, and have been calling for a reconsideration of “Old Keynesian economics” for more than a decade, starting with an article I published in 2006, two years before the Great Recession made it fashionable to question the way we think about macroeconomic theory. I am heartened that the narrative and body of research I have developed continues to gain public support.

In the current era of low – and in some cases negative – interest rates, many are starting to worry that the European Central Bank and the US Federal Reserve are “running out of ammunition.” When a central bank’s policy rate is already low, it cannot be lowered much more in the event of a crisis. Hence, one could argue that the Fed actually should be raising rates now, while unemployment is low, to create enough space for interest-rate cuts in the future, when unemployment may be high. Yet it makes no sense to raise interest rates if doing so could trigger a recession. The question, then, is whether there is a way to restock the powder keg without generating an explosion.

When the Fed or the ECB raises rates, New Keynesian economic theory predicts that the hike will eventually lead to a decrease in inflation and that the path from point A to point B will inevitably be accompanied by higher unemployment. But my own research suggests that New Keynesian economic theory is wrong. After all, if the Fed were to raise the short-term rate slowly and support equity markets with a guarantee to purchase a broad-based exchange-traded fund at a fixed price, there is no reason why the rate increase should cause higher unemployment.

According to the theory, a lower interest rate is supposed to lead to more investment expenditure, thereby driving aggregate demand and reducing unemployment. And lower unemployment is supposed to put upward pressure on wages, which eventually translates into higher prices (inflation) through a mark-up mechanism. That is the point when the central bank reverses its policy and starts to raise interest rates. Yet this entire story is contingent on the assumption that there exists a unique natural rate of unemployment – that is, the “non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment” (NAIRU) – at which the pace of price growth will neither rise nor fall.

Although New Keynesians acknowledge that the NAIRU may change over time, they cannot predict how it will behave. Rather, central bankers make internal calculations of the NAIRU, and these then feed into decisions about the policy rate. When the unemployment rate is below the current NAIRU estimate and inflation still fails to materialize, they simply conclude that the NAIRU must have fallen. This is not science; it is religion.

In my book Prosperity for All, I offer an alternative to this latter-day version of reading tea leaves. My theory recognizes that a non-accelerating inflation rate is consistent with any unemployment rate. This point was originally made by John Maynard Keynes himself, in The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, and has been emphasized by post-Keynesian economists for decades. I have shown in my research that the post-Keynesian view can be reconciled with conventional microeconomic theory using a “new” theory of labour-market search.

The standard theoretical narrative is based entirely on the Phillips curve, which asserts a direct tradeoff between inflation and unemployment. This is the narrative that determines what research is allowed into the top economic journals, and which discussions take place in policy meetings at central banks around the world. It is the narrative that informs how everyone from journalists and academics to the wider public interpret monetary-policy decisions. But it is a misleading narrative, one from which we must escape if we are to improve how we manage modern market economies.

To that end, it is not enough to criticize the Phillips curve. If the theory is wrong, it must be replaced with something better, and by something other than a return to 1950s Keynesianism, as today’s critics of the neoclassical macroeconomic theory seem to propose. According to Summers and Stansbury, government should “promote demand through fiscal policies and other means” (emphasis mine). While I agree that monetary policy will be impotent when Europe or the US enters another recession, I am not convinced that government spending is the right response. My own research provides empirical evidence that recessions are caused by crashes in asset markets. As such, it is better to stabilize asset prices than build bridges to nowhere.

Modern market-based societies have pulled more human beings out of abject poverty than any other known form of economic organization. But “capitalism” is not some monolithic structure that exists in contradiction to “socialism.” There is a continuum of alternative economic arrangements, with laissez-faire at one end and central planning at the other. Our goal should be to design institutions that take maximum advantage of the market as a mechanism for coordinating information, while also providing the tracks on which the market runs.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal

PD. Direzione PD e programma di Zingaretti.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-08-21.

Escher__Il_Cubo_

«La Direzione del Pd ha approvato un ordine del giorno che ripercorre la relazione di Nicola Zingaretti dando il mandato a aprire una trattativa per verificare la possibilità di “un governo di svolta per la legislatura”, in “discontinuità” col precedente. Il documento è stato approvato per acclamazione all’unanimità»

«Il governo giallo verde caduto ieri “è stato uno dei peggiori della storia della Repubblica, dopo 14 mesi è fallito”»

«”Il problema non è l’esercizio provvisorio, ma la manovra mostruosa che abbiamo davanti” e che ammonta ad almeno 23 miliardi. “Togliamoci dalla testa che trovare 23 miliardi sia facile»

«Un eventuale nuovo governo deve essere “di svolta, di legislatura” altrimenti “è meglio andare alle urne”»

«”Appartenenza leale all’Unione europea; pieno riconoscimento della democrazia rappresentativa, a partire dalla centralità del parlamento; sviluppo basto sulla sostenibilità ambientale; cambio nella gestione di flussi migratori, con pieno protagonismo dell’Europa; svolta delle ricette economiche e sociale, in chiave redistributiva, che apra una stagione di investimenti”»

* * * * * * *

Nella visione di Mr Zingaretti l’eventuale governo PD – M5S dovrebbe essere semplicemente l’opposto del precedente.

Si propone un Governo in piena sintonia con la componente liberal socialista, con tutte le sue conseguenze.

«Togliamoci dalla testa che trovare 23 miliardi sia facile»

Quello che potrebbe preannunciarsi, sarebbe quindi un Governo di austerità.

Queste le visioni di Mr Zingaretti e del Partito Democratico: il tempo dirà quanto sia possibile e sostenibile un eventuale accordo con il Movimento Cinque Stelle.


Ansa. 2019-08-21. Direzione del Pd, Zingaretti: ‘Pd unito, al Colle per verifica governo’

La Direzione del Pd ha approvato un ordine del giorno che ripercorre la relazione di Nicola Zingaretti dando il mandato a aprire una trattativa per verificare la possibilità di “un governo di svolta per la legislatura”, in “discontinuità” col precedente. Il documento è stato approvato per acclamazione all’unanimità.

Il governo giallo verde caduto ieri “è stato uno dei peggiori della storia della Repubblica, dopo 14 mesi è fallito”. “Per il Paese l’eredità di questo governo è drammatica”, ha detto Zingaretti nella relazione alla Direzione del Pd. 

“Il problema non è l’esercizio provvisorio, ma la manovra mostruosa che abbiamo davanti” e che ammonta ad almeno 23 miliardi. “Togliamoci dalla testa che trovare 23 miliardi sia facile – ha spiegato Zingaretti -, per questo la manovra è il primo punto del confronto”. 

“Non credo in un governo di transizione che porti al voto. Sarebbe rischioso per i Democratici e anche per il Paese. Ora tocca a noi muoverci e indicare una strada. Dentro il percorso di consultazione dobbiamo dare la disponibilità se c’è la possibilità di una nuova maggioranza parlamentare in grado di dare risposte serie ai problemi del Paese”.

Un eventuale nuovo governo deve essere “di svolta, di legislatura” altrimenti “è meglio andare alle urne”, ha detto Zingaretti. 

“Appartenenza leale all’Unione europea; pieno riconoscimento della democrazia rappresentativa, a partire dalla centralità del parlamento; sviluppo basto sulla sostenibilità ambientale; cambio nella gestione di flussi migratori,con pieno protagonismo dell’Europa; svolta delle ricette economiche e sociale, in chiave redistributiva, che apra una stagione di investimenti”: sono i cinque punti indicati da Zingaretti nella relazione alla Direzione del Pd per trattare sulla nascita di un nuovo governo.

“Sono molto contento e molto soddisfatto per il livello di unità e compattezza che abbiamo trovato nella direzione del partito che per la prima volta dopo moltissimi anni ha votato dandomi un mandato all’unanimità. Noi siamo pronti per riferire al presidente Mattarella la nostra piena disponibilità a verificare le condizioni di un governo di svolta utile al paese”, ha detto il segretario del Pd al termine della direzione del partito.

“Nessun accordicchio sottobanco ma alla luce del sole, la verifica per costruire un programma possibile, condiviso da un’ampia maggioranza parlamentare. Verificheremo alla luce del sole queste condizioni che, se non si realizzeranno, porteranno il Paese a elezioni anticipate”, ha detto il leader del Pd Nicola Zingaretti a fine direzione. E con l’aria soddisfatta, ha concluso: “Oggi si è fatto un importante passo in avanti, perché tutto il Pd unito si è ritrovato in questa posizione”.

“Non sarò al governo con il Movimento 5 Stelle. Posso votare la fiducia se ci sarà un’ipotesi di governo, posso dare una mano sui contenuti ma al governo con i Stelle anche no, grazie”. Parola di Maria Elena Boschi, deputata del Pd ed ex sottosegretario nel governo Renzi entrando al Nazareno per la direzione del partito. “Garantiamo un appoggio a un esecutivo se ha un programma chiaro, forte, che possiamo condividere per quello che ha detto anche il segretario Zingaretti – ha continuato – Ci vuole un impegno forte su contenuti. Certo, noi preferiamo un governo istituzionale. Se sarà di legislatura, vedremo”.