JOURNAL ARTICLE
Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE
Style
Format
Mario Draghi und Helmut Schmidt – Retter, die gegen die Verfassung verstießen. Oder: Das Bundesverfassungsgericht entscheidet über die richtige Finanztheorie
Credit and Capital Markets – Kredit und Kapital, Vol. 47 (2014), Iss. 2 : pp. 213–240
2 Citations (CrossRef)
Additional Information
Article Details
Author Details
Prof. Dr. Adalbert Winkler, Professor für Internationale und Entwicklungsfinanzierung an der Frankfurt School of Finance & Management.
Cited By
-
Monetary Policy Implementation in East Asia
The Asset Purchase Programmes of the ESCB in the Courts
Siekmann, Helmut
2020
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50298-0_7 [Citations: 2] -
Central Banking and Financial Stability in East Asia
The Legality of Outright Monetary Transactions of the European System of Central Banks
Siekmann, Helmut
2015
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17380-1_6 [Citations: 6]
Abstract
Mario Draghi and Helmut Schmidt – Rescuers Accused to Have Violated the Constitution Or: The Federal German Constitutional Court Decides Which Theory of Finance is Correct
The Federal German Constitutional Court has made it clear that it considers the OMT program to be in violation of the ECB"s mandate. This paper argues that the Court"s decision reflects an endorsement of the efficient-market hypothesis. If financial markets are efficient, interference of any kind in these markets cannot be regarded as monetary policy and hence violates the ECB"s mandate. In 1962, Helmut Schmidt, who was then Minister of the Interior of the city-state of Hamburg, violated the German constitution by making use of the Federal Armed Forces [Bundeswehr] within the country"s borders in a non-military context, specifically to rescue fellow citizens during the great North Sea flood of that year. However, despite acting unconstitutionally he was seen as being in compliance with his mandate. This contrasts with Mario Draghi who – without having yet bought a single sovereign bond – has been accused of violating the German constitution because the Court ignored alternative theories of finance which have been put forward in the debate among economists about the proper conduct of monetary policy in a financial crisis.