When Gazprom, 50 percent of which is owned by the Russian state, sells gas to Europe, Gazprombank normally receives €. The energy suppliers pay in €, which their banks transfer to Gazprombank in the form of deposits in the Eurosystem (in Germany: Bundesbank).
Gazprombank can then be forced to exchange all € into rubles at the Russian Central Bank. Or only the state's 50% share can be exchanged for rubles. The creator of the ruble is the Russian central bank, which can create them indefinitely and free of charge.
Since the Russian central bank executes the payments of the Russian government, it does not need € or ruble revenues. When the government spends money, the banks' accounts with the central bank are increased. The whole thing runs digitally.
The advantage of this system is that the Russian government gets €, which it can spend on imports from the Eurozone or elsewhere, without the exchange rate changing much.
If Gazprom switches to payments in rubles, then Western European utilities will have to get rubles before they can buy gas. This creates additional demand for rubles. If € are exchanged for rubles, the ruble appreciates.
Much more important, however, is the effect that due to the increased demand for rubles, very many players will be willing to sell goods and services against rubles. Thus, the ruble replaces the € as a currency in international trade.
This allows Russia to pay for imported goods and services with rubles without the exchange rate collapsing. Economic stability increases, because a devaluation of the ruble generates inflation because imported goods become more expensive.
Ultimately, the Russian government is taking advantage of the fact that other countries are dependent on its exports. The central issue, therefore, is energy policy in Europe.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Verkauft Gazprom, an der der russische Staat 50% hält, Gas nach Europa, bekommt Gazprombank normalerweise €. Die Energieversorger bezahlen in €, welche ihre Banken in Form von Einlagen im Eurosystem (in DE: Bundesbank) an Gazprombank übertragen.
Gazprombank kann dann gezwungen werden, alle € bei der russischen Zentralbank in Rubel zu tauschen. Oder aber nur der 50%-Anteil des Staates wird in Rubel umgetauscht. Schöpfer des Rubels ist die russische Zentralbank, die diese unbegrenzt und kostenlos schöpfen kann.
Auch Christian Lindner erklärt heute wieder im Bundestag, der Staat wäre abhängig von Finanzmärkten. Dies ist jedoch nicht der Fall. Einzig und allein die Zentralbank stellt sicher, dass eine Regierung ihre Ausgaben tätigen kann. #MMT bundestag.de
Die Abhängigkeit von den Finanzmärkten ist schon deswegen abwegig, weil der Staat die Staatsanleihen am sogenannten Primärmarkt nur an ausgewählte Banken verkauft (Bietergruppe Bundesemissionen). bundesbank.de/resource/blob/…
Der weitere Handel der Staatsanleihen spült der Bundesregierung keine "Geld" auf das Verrechnungskonto bei der Bundesbank, da dort Banken und Finanzmarktakteure handeln, aber nicht der Staat.
@PIMCO writes: "In addition, so long as policymakers are committed to balancing their budgets in the long run, helicopter money and modern monetary theory (MMT) are not inflationary per se."
Some quick comments...
It is correct to note that MMT is not inflationary. It is a monetary theory and understanding it does not drive up the rate of inflation just as understanding the theory of gravity does not make the apple fall down.
It would not be correct to say that central banks or the Treasury is *applying* MMT. The US monetary system has not been changed. It's just that leading politicians are framing deficits and debts in a different way. c-span.org/video/?512625-…
"Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers said he didn’t expect the recent fall in bond yields although he maintained his view that the economy is overheating."
The US government has to "pre-finance" its spending. Political rules force it to issue and sell t-bonds before it spends. This usually does not matter much in terms of effect on yields because the US government sells t-bonds and receives deposits at the @federalreserve ...
... only to then spend those deposits, which means that the banks receive them back (as reserves). The overall level of reserves (=clearing balances) in the banking system stays the same when government has spent. It does not, however, when the US government sells many t-bonds...
There is only one way a modern government spends. The central bank credits the central bank account of the bank of the receiving party, which then creates bank deposits for the receiving parts.
Government spending is always a monetary phenomenon.
A government when it taxes or sell bonds is taking back reserves (central bank deposits) that it has spent or lent into existence in the past.
@NZZ bestätigt #MMT: "Zumindest in einem Punkt stimmt das Konzept: Ein Staat, der sich in seiner eigenen Währung verschulden kann, wird theoretisch nie zahlungsunfähig. Denn er kann seine Schulden [..] immer [..] begleichen." nzz.ch/nzz-live-veran…
Der Rest ist dann wieder falsch:
"Doch diese Rechnung geht nur nominal auf, nicht aber real, also bei Berücksichtigung der Kaufkraft. Denn bei einer Monetisierung der Staatsschuld würde das Geld immer weniger wert."