Aleš Praprotnik

William K. Black je nedavno v New Economic Perspectives objavil članek z naslovom Kaj bi bilo, če bi javnost razumela, kako deluje denar?, v katerem razglablja, zakaj ekonomisti v javnosti ponavljajo in vzdržujejo določene mite, kljub temu da vedo, da ne držijo. Npr. mit o izravnanem proračunu. Tako navaja citat Paula Samuelsona, v katerem je ta leta 1995 v intervjuju priznal, da je verjetje, da mora biti proračun vedno izravnan, enako vraževerju. Kljub temu Samuelson skoraj v isti sapi priznava, da je ta mit potreben kot branik pred nebrzdano državno porabo:

“I think there is an element of truth in the view that the superstition that the budget must be balanced at all times [is necessary]. Once it is debunked [that] takes away one of the bulwarks that every society must have against expenditure out of control. There must be discipline in the allocation of resources or you will have anarchistic chaos and inefficiency. And one of the functions of old fashioned religion was to scare people by sometimes what might be regarded as myths into behaving in a way that the long-run civilized life requires. We have taken away a belief in the intrinsic necessity of balancing the budget if not in every year, [then] in every short period of time. If Prime Minister Gladstone came back to life he would say “uh, oh what you have done” and James Buchanan argues in those terms. I have to say that I see merit in that view.”

Seveda ekonomisti s svojim vplivom te mite prenesejo tudi na odločevalce v politiki, ki javnosti zatrujejo, da ‘moramo živeti v okviru svojih zmožnosti’. Seveda tudi v državah z lastnimi valutami. Pri vsem tem je zanimivo to, kako se (vsaj bolj razvite) države v času vojn zelo hitro spomnijo, da lahko denar ustvarjajo same in ga tudi porabljajo, kljub negodovanju v teoretične številke zazrtih ekonomistov. Kaj bi bilo, če bi Winston Churchill sredi bitke za Britanijo javnosti izjavil, da se država ne more več braniti, ker je že preveč v deficitu? »Fantje, žal mi je, toda izračuni kažejo, da smo prestopili znosno mejo deficita. Prosil bi, da odložite orožje, dokler ne uravnotežimo proračuna.« Churchill v govoru v parlamentu 4. junija 1940 niti z eno besedo ni omenil finančnih zmožnosti države glede obrambe:

»The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength. Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

Je pa Churchill v svojem govoru razglabljal glede omejitev v smislu virov, ki jih bo država potrebovala za obrambo. Kot pravi Black, države v vojnem stanju v nekaj urah ugotovijo, da problem ni v tem, da bo zmanjkalo denarja, temveč, da bo zmanjkalo nabojev. Otipljivih resursov. Če bi torej Churchilla ustavil namišljen problem deficita, bi se danes vsaj na Otoku pogovarjali v nemščini. In verjetno bi beseda zopet tekla o zategnitvi pasu in o varčevanju.