• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Why Europe Keeps Failing........ merged with "EU Seizes Cypriot Bank Accounts"

I agree with C Fred Bergsten's assessment of the problem, in fact I would go farther and blame the design of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (1976) (called the snake) which, in my opinion, institutionalized dishonesty in national accounts reporting and made it impossible for the Euro to have a realistic hope of success.

I'm less certain about the solutions.

I think (guess, actually) that the Euro needs to be smaller but stronger - maybe only half of its current members are qualified for membership - but I doubt that is politically possible. The alternative is, I suppose, to convince the Austrians, Dutch, Finns and Germans to consume whatever France, Greece, Italy and Spain produce, no matter what the cost. I'm not sure how one does that but I think it's better than a "wealth tax" which has not worked in the past.
 
I am fascinated by the way that modern politics continues to recapitulate ancient history....

The split in the Euro seems to fall broadly between the Marks/Merks and the Livres/Liras. 

Funny.  Does Merkel translate as Little Mark?
 
E.R. Campbell said:
I agree with C Fred Bergsten's assessment of the problem, in fact I would go farther and blame the design of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (1976) (called the snake) which, in my opinion, institutionalized dishonesty in national accounts reporting and made it impossible for the Euro to have a realistic hope of success.

I'm less certain about the solutions.

I think (guess, actually) that the Euro needs to be smaller but stronger - maybe only half of its current members are qualified for membership - but I doubt that is politically possible. The alternative is, I suppose, to convince the Austrians, Dutch, Finns and Germans to consume whatever France, Greece, Italy and Spain produce, no matter what the cost. I'm not sure how one does that but I think it's better than a "wealth tax" which has not worked in the past.

I guess my problem is what is the definition of failure?

The smaller the Eurozone gets....the more it looks like a DM.  The German economic engine cannot survive a rising Euro/DM when it cannot sell its BMWs and Mercedes in comparison to a dropping Yen. 

The PIIGs cannot continue austerity in the face of massive unemployment and social discord.  Where does the Euro fail?  GREXIT?  i doubt it.  Portugal?  probably not.... Spain and Italy?  very problematic.

The Northerners are not going to consume non-competetive Mediterranean-European and Euro financed products, no matter the cost, when quality and cheaper options exist.   

Bad situation, poorly thought out and poorly implemented....Welcome to the Eurozone 2013.  No simple solution in sight. 
 
>The PIIGs cannot continue austerity in the face of massive unemployment and social discord.

When did "inability to borrow indefinitely at low rates" become synonymous with "austerity"?  "Austerity" is when I make do with less than I can afford.  "Normal" is when I make do with what I can afford.  "Beyond my means" is when I make do with more than I can afford.
 
Problem is: nobody believes it is beyond their means because they don't run the books.

Everybody is convinced they are honest law-abiding citizens living by the same rules as their neighbours.  They also believe that they are being screwed over by ...... politicians, bankers, Germans, Brits, Greeks.....

They will continue to indulge this fantasy until they bring the entire edifice down around their ears and discover nobody has anything.  Then they will accept the need to rebuild.
 
Brad Sallows said:
>The PIIGs cannot continue austerity in the face of massive unemployment and social discord.

When did "inability to borrow indefinitely at low rates" become synonymous with "austerity"?  "Austerity" is when I make do with less than I can afford.  "Normal" is when I make do with what I can afford.  "Beyond my means" is when I make do with more than I can afford.
This is  about national finances in a multinational monetary organization. 

This isn't a discussion about personal finances and loans. 

So actually it is "austerity" which is all about cutting costs as the only option, because the PIIGS have no other option.... they can't print money like they would have 40 years ago with a national currency....and then suffered an import cost.  I bet they wish they could because by doing so would have increased their export competitiveness... 

QE makes your money worth less internationally, makes your exports cheaper, your imports more expensive, and drives internal national production and productivity.

Being tied to a Euro means you can't print more money to solve your competitive problems or debt problems. 
 
QE is just another way of saying "inflation" and destroying the lives of the poor and middle class. The rather spectacular non results (in terms of job creation and econoic growth) of 4 years of QE in the United States should be enough of an answer for anyone, but history can always provide other examples: the agonizing end of Weirmar Germany due to hyper inflation, the experience(s) of Argentina or the totally runaway inflation of Zaire should be fair warning to everyone.

Of course, you can look farther afield; Hapsberg Spain was done in by inflationary pressures caused (ironically) by the importation of vast amounts of silver in the 1500's.

So they can deny, deny, deny all they want. Unless and untill structural reforms are implimented it will be as Kirkhill says; the progressive project will crash and burn. History also tells us the end results of economic collapse are not pretty; people will flock to "the Man on the White Horse" who offers stability in exchange for their liberties.
 
Thucydides said:
History also tells us the end results of economic collapse are not pretty; people will flock to "the Man on the White Horse" who offers stability in exchange for their liberties.

Or the rabble rouser in the beer hall.
 
I know why the PIIGS are in a fiscal straitjacket, but it isn't "austerity".  "Austerity" implies they are enduring hardship.  I don't see it that way: they lived well (beyond their means) for a long stretch.  At some point in their past, they borrowed future enjoyment.  The present is that future; they simply are doing without some of the enjoyment they already logged.  It all balances out.
 
Thucydides said:
History also tells us the end results of economic collapse are not pretty; people will flock to "the Man on the White Horse" who offers stability in exchange for their liberties.

Retired AF Guy said:
Or the rabble rouser in the beer hall.

History would seem to prove it's the later rather than the former.
 
The "Man on the White Horse" is a Corsican rabble rouser, and the one in the beer hall had some self image ideas of his own:
 
Italian elections are not good news for the EU; look who is in position to get back in power (and the various other contenders can't get their acts together):

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/04/20/dark-clouds-gather-in-italy/

Dark Clouds Gather in Italy

Clouds over Europe’s future grew a little darker yesterday. Italy is still without a new head of state as an effort to have former Prime Minister Romano Prodi elected failed miserably after 100 left-wing delegates refused to vote for the center-left politician. His defeat has thrown the Italian left into chaos, and ensured that the elections will drag on into the weekend.

The failure of the Italian Democrats (a coalition that stretches from the mildly liberal to the hard left) to get the widely respected Prodi through parliament makes it extremely unlikely that a stable government will emerge from the divided parliament created by the last election.
Polls show that Berlusconi would be the favorite in a new round of voting. This is an old pattern in Italian politics. Since Berlusconi emerged as a national force, the Italian left has never been able to provide stable and effective governance, so voters return to Il Cavaliere over and over again. Italy’s problem in a nutshell is that nobody but Berlusconi can govern it, and he is unwilling and perhaps unable to govern it well.
But there is a deeper problem: It is simply impossible for Italy to function along the lines necessary for the euro to work, and the Italian political system is breaking apart under the strain. No political movement in Italy could carry out the reforms the euro demands and survive in a democratic system. Italians do not want to be Germans and do not know how to operate a German style economy.

Europeans are fond of telling Israelis that Israel must choose between being a Jewish state (by ending the occupation) or being a democracy; some are beginning to realize that Europe faces an even more wrenching choice. Europe can have monetary union or it can have democracy; it cannot have both. Prodi’s defeat makes that reality even more clear.

UPDATE: After we published this post, in a move widely seen as a victory for Berlusconi and a defeat for the left, the Parliament re-elected 87 year old Giorgio Napolitano for an unprecedented second term. Beppe Grillo of the 5-Star movement that upset Italian politics in the last election called the vote a “coup d’etat.” It looks as if the old political blocs, the left and the right coalitions, reunited behind Napolitano as a first step to a grand coalition that will probably be more favorable to Berlusconi’s interests than many expected. It appears that the left is terrified of new elections and is willing to make concessions to the Berlusconi bloc to postpone a new appeal to the voters. There is still no sign that Italy is going to have a government willing or able to comply with European demands.
 
Since Berlusconi emerged as a national force, the Italian left has never been able to provide stable and effective governance, so voters return to Il Cavaliere over and over again. Italy’s problem in a nutshell is that nobody but Berlusconi can govern it, and he is unwilling and perhaps unable to govern it well.

Here's a thought:

Maybe the Italians, and many Europeans, don't want to be governed.  Maybe they just want somebody who will leave them alone.  And if the price of being left alone is the guy in the empty throne occupies himself with the denizens of the local bordellos then that is probably cheaper and more predictable than hiring a flock of wannabe priests in grey flannel suits spouting Marx.
 
More bad news for the EU in this report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from Reuters:

http://blogs.reuters.com/thinking-global/2013/05/13/the-growing-franco-german-schism/
The growing Franco-German schism

By Frederick Kempe

MAY 13, 2013

Occasionally a public opinion survey surfaces that signals a seismic event. That is the case with a new report from the Pew Research Center that measures the widening tremors of a political earthquake now shaking Europe.

Although the report leads with evidence that  Europeans are increasingly losing faith in the European Union (which I wrote about here), the more troubling problem is the fast-growing divide between France and Germany. This schism is ripping apart the bonds that have held Europe together for 60 years – just when they are most urgently needed.

There is  a second, powerful underlying message: Germany has more economic weight and political will to determine Europe’s future than it has had since World War Two. Now, though, it lacks a partner that can replace France’s pivotal importance. Beyond that, Germans are increasingly out of step with most other Europeans in their economic optimism, their faith in their national political leadership and their continued support for European institutions.

Some 75 percent of Germans consider their economic situation good or very good, despite Germany’s recent economic slowdown. At the same time, more than two-thirds of those surveyed in seven other countries – Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Greece, Poland and the Czech Republic – are dissatisfied with their economies.

“The increasing alienation of Germany from the rest of Europe is quite striking,” said Bruce Stokes, director of global economic attitudes at the Pew Research Center. “The Germans seem to be living on a different continent than the French. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say they are living on a different planet.”

The relationship hasn’t just broken down at elite levels, beginning with the much-publicized personal and ideological differences between French President Francois Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The French and Germans are increasingly divided in their attitudes toward their leaders, their economic futures and the very value of the European project.

“That is unprecedented and profoundly challenging,” said Stokes. “It may mean that the Europeans have to find a new glue if they are to hold Europe together, and find a new motor to advance the European cause.”

Some argue that if September’s German elections produce a Social Democratic government or if Europe experiences sustained economic growth, the picture will be altered. Yet Europe’s economic prospects are for slow growth for several years. And no German electoral shift can change stark realities that mark a reordering of the European continent between a French-led south and German-led north.

By almost every economic measure, the gap between Germany and France is growing, underscoring their differences in global competitiveness.

France’s share of government spending as a percentage of the overall economy has ballooned to 56 percent, compared with 45 percent in Germany. French unemployment is 11 percent, more than double Germany’s 5.4 percent.

France’s trade deficit widened to $87.7 billion in 2012,  while Germany posted a trade surplus of $246 million. France’s deficit is near historic highs, as is Germany’s surplus.

What all this means is that France, the traditional “connector” between the European south and the north (think Germany), is heading south – literally and figuratively.

As Pew laid it out:

    France has always bridged Europe’s north and south. French language and culture has Latin roots, but France has historically been considered in the same economic and political league as Germany and Britain.
    And in their public attitudes the French were neither Northerners nor Southerners, but a hybrid of the two. Now, measured by a number of indicators, the French look less like Germans and a lot more like the
    Spanish, the Italians and the Greeks.

The Franco-German relationship has never been easy. After all, the driving purpose behind the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1950, compelling the two countries to pool their means of war, was to ensure they could never engage in such hostilities again.

The high-water mark in their relations was probably 1984, as then-West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and then-French President Francois Mitterrand clasped hands for several minutes, a moment captured in an iconic photograph taken during a rain-soaked commemoration at the World War I battlefield at Verdun, where the two sides suffered more than 700,000 casualties.

mitt-and-kohl.jpg

Helmut Kohl (R) stands hand in hand with former French President Francois Mitterrand (L) during their visit to the former Verdun battlefields, September 22, 1984.
REUTERS/File Photo


The two men signed a declaration there that read:

    France and German have learnt lessons from our history. Europe is our common fatherland. We are heirs of a grand European tradition. That is why, 40 years ago, we ended our fratricidal war
    and began to build our future together. We were reconciled, we came to an agreement, we became friends, European unification is our common goal.

Now the two sides are exchanging fusillades of press leaks.

Le Monde published a leaked French Socialist Party document that brands Merkel as “the chancellor of austerity” and says her actions were driven by “selfish intransigence” and a desire to protect German savings.

Handelsblatt, the German business paper, published a leaked document from the German Economics Ministry that derides declining French competitiveness, noting France has the second-lowest annual working hours in the EU.

The outcome of this new divide won’t be war. But it’s jhard to imagine Hollande clasping hands with Merkel.

It seems almost inevitable that the next European fireworks – and the next test of the durability of the French-German relationship – will come when financial markets turn their firepower on Paris.


As the author says, the whole point of the exercise, from the Coal and Steel pact to the ECB has been to tie Germany to France and, thereby, weaken the former and strengthen the latter. Now, Germany can see the Mitteleuropa about which Germans have dreamed for centuries - and it neither wants nor needs France (nor, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece) for that.

Mitteleuropa.PNG

Mitteleuropa
 
Some random thoughts:

Verdun is where the Franks of Aachen parted ways and became the Franks of Frankfurt and the Franks of Paris.  Much of European history since then, including the Battle of Verdun 1000 years later, has been written as the elites tried to repair that schism.

Their efforts ultimately estranged the elites from their followers as they died in large numbers.  The followers embraced the notion of the Brotherhood of Man - originally a precept of the Church and used to provide the Church with its authority over the kings, but celebrated by secularists in Burns's "A man's a man for a' that" and the "Internationale", the Socialist anthem.  Although the Church fell out of favour as being too heavily associated with the elites, the Brotherhood meme was picked up by the Socialists.

The elites of Europe, I believe, did a Ralph Klein.  They saw which way the parade was headed and ran to its head.  Unlike Ralph, they didn't even have to change its direction.  Both followers and elites wanted to recreate an ancient order (that probably never existed....).

Problem now:

The Brotherhood of Man concept looks decidedly threadbare - the followers are now divided amongst themselves.

The question for the elite is:

Were they ever in charge or were they just tolerated by the Brotherhood as fellow travelers?

I believe there is a lot of evidence, in European attitudes, to support the fellow travelers notion.  The Europeans cheerfully ignore laws and taxes that occupy the elites.  They only become exercised and take to the streets when the elites start infringing in their comfort zone. The rest of the time the "followers" are decidedly disinterested in the activities of the elite.

The problem for everyone else is that they have been talking to the elites thinking that they have been talking to Europeans - not realising, perhaps, that they have only been talking to a sub-set, and an unrepresentative one at that, a sub-set of Europeans.

The European project, especially in the last decade or so, is replete with examples where the elites have be saying one thing, through their laws and accords, while the "followers" have been saying something quite different, in polls, at the ballot box and in the streets - and by creating new organizations to compete with the co-opted and increasingly discredited Socialists.

In Europe, anybody that isn't a Socialist, and thus supportive of the current order, is by definition a Fascist - regardless of their actual beliefs.


My read of European history suggests to me that the Great Ages, those eras which everyone is encouraged to regard with favour, average 70 years of glory with a long lag time between, a logarithmic rise of variable length, and a sudden lapse phase (known in the microbiological world as the Death Phase).  The 70 years of glory coincides with the life span of one generation of leaders and followers.


After 70 years that generation no longer has the ability to influence events.

 
 
"France slips into triple dip recession," says the Globe and Mail and while Germany continues to grow, its growth rate, at 0.1%, is decidedly anemic.

The French dirigiste model, which is much admired and emulated in Quebec, is a large part of the problem. Europe, broadly, is in trouble but the most recent data seems to suggest, to me anyway, that the freest economies are also the most robust, or more government ⇒ lower productivity.


Edit: had trouble posting 2nd para
 
Kirkhill said:
Since Berlusconi emerged as a national force, the Italian left has never been able to provide stable and effective governance, so voters return to Il Cavaliere over and over again. Italy’s problem in a nutshell is that nobody but Berlusconi can govern it, and he is unwilling and perhaps unable to govern it well.
Here's a thought:

Maybe the Italians, and many Europeans, don't want to be governed.  Maybe they just want somebody who will leave them alone.  And if the price of being left alone is the guy in the empty throne occupies himself with the denizens of the local bordellos then that is probably cheaper and more predictable than hiring a flock of wannabe priests in grey flannel suits spouting Marx.
I can tell you from recent experience that my relatives (on both the hard left and hard right) in Italy just want government to do SOMETHING, and to cut politicians' pay (up to 50,000 Euros/month in some cases with extra allowances/travel) when people are looking for work that doesn't exist.

Also, some of it is a problem with the left, which had a chance to form a coalition against the right, but missed an opportunity to take an opportunity this latest round.

Finally, a party led by an Italian comedian took something like 25% of the popular vote in the latest elections, which suggests to me ANYTHING has to be better than the left or right to some.
 
I'm sure François Hollande is not THE reason Europe keeps failing but he is symptomatic of the root causes,™ as this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from The Telegraph shows:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/francois-hollande/10062935/Europe-can-survive-without-Britain-says-Francois-Hollande.html
Europe can survive without Britain, says François Hollande
François Hollande launched a three-pronged attack on Britain saying that Europe would survive without the UK, while claiming David Cameron risked splintering the EU and that his austerity policies were failing.

By Henry Samuel, Paris

16 May 2013

In a marathon press conference just shy of three hours, the embattled Socialist President promised to "go on the offensive" in year two of his five-year mandate with France sinking into recession and enduring record unemployment levels.

When asked about Mr Cameron's plan for a law guaranteeing a vote on Britain's EU membership, Mr Hollande told 400 journalists gathered at the Elysée Palace: "Europe existed before Britain joined it."

France, Germany and four other nations were long part of the European Economic Community before Britain joined fully in 1973.

"I hope Britain stays in the European Union but I don't want to decide for the British," he added.

Mr Cameron's promise to claw back powers from Europe and then put Britain's membership of the bloc to a vote by 2017 has failed to silence Eurosceptics within the Conservative Party and halt the rise of Ukip

"There are political forces favourable to Britain leaving," Mr Hollande said. "The UK Prime Minister himself wants to renegotiate his country's presence (in the EU). Let me be clear: I want to make the eurozone go forward as it is the heart (of the EU), because we have integration to pursue."

There were overtones of Charles de Gaulle in his warning that Britain would not slow down European construction. De Gaulle twice vetoed Britain's entry to the EEC, claiming its "deep-seated hostility" towards European construction would result in the break-up of the community.

"I can understand countries don't want to join the euro but they cannot impede the consolidation and strengthening of the eurozone," Mr Hollande said. "And if they want to go further and refuse powers, then the risk is of a splintered Europe. So we must fix red lines."

Last week, Lord Lawson, the former Conservative chancellor of the exchequer, warned that Mr Cameron's attempts to repatriate powers from Brussels would probably only secure "inconsequential" results and that Britain would be better off outside the EU.

In what will provide further ammunition for Eurosceptics, Mr Hollande promised to lead the bloc towards "political union" within two years – implying treaty change.

"Germany has several times said it is ready for political union, for a new phase in integration. Well France is ready to give body to this political union and gives itself two years to do so … It is a question of European urgency.

"If Europe does not advance it will fall or even be wiped out from the world map ... My duty is to bring Europe out of its lethargy."

The French president's final flourish was a jab against Mr Cameron's austerity policy, saying Britain's lack of economic progress was helping "raise awareness" for the need for growth measures.

"He is aware too that he's going through a recession," Mr Hollande said. "David Cameron has enacted austerity policies that are even worse than in certain countries of the eurozone and the level of British growth even, it if was better in recent quarters, has in these past few years been roughly the same as what the eurozone produced.

"It means those who say all you need to do is to leave the eurozone, to abandon the euro to have growth and prosperity, should go and look at countries in the European Union that are not in the eurozone."

Mr Hollande used the press conference, his first in six months, to defend his first year in office. He said his deficit reduction and growth measures would start bearing fruit while he also denied claims he was indecisive, saying "I make decisions all the time."

But when asked whether a reshuffle was on the cards, he said: "A reshuffle is possible … but not today."


Europe can, indeed, survive without Britain; and Britain, I think, can survive without Europe.

But Britain is not why Europe is failing ... the eurozone cheaters, a group of which France is a charter memeber, are to blame for that.
 
A bit more about France's problems and its attempts to put its fiscal house in order in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/18/us-france-tax-idUSBRE94H0AX20130518
Taxes on some wealthy French top 100 pct of income: paper

PARIS

Sat May 18, 2013

(Reuters) - More than 8,000 French households' tax bills topped 100 percent of their income last year, the business newspaper Les Echos reported on Saturday, citing Finance Ministry data.

The newspaper said that the exceptionally high level of taxation was due to a one-off levy last year on 2011 incomes for households with assets of more than 1.3 million euros ($1.67 million).

President Francois Hollande's Socialist government imposed the tax surcharge last year, shortly after taking office, to offset the impact of a rebate scheme created by its conservative predecessor to cap an individual's overall taxation at 50 percent of income.

The government has been forced to redraft a proposed bill to levy a temporary 75 percent tax on earnings over 1 million euros, which had been one of Hollande's campaign pledges.

The Constitutional Council has judged such a high rate of taxation to be unfair, leaving the government to rehash it to hit companies rather than individuals.

Since then, a top administrative court has determined that a marginal tax rate higher than 66.66 percent on a single household risked being considered as confiscatory by the council.

Les Echos reported that nearly 12,000 households paid taxes last year worth more than 75 percent of their 2011 revenues due to the exceptional levy. ($1 = 0.7798 euros)

(Reporting by Leigh Thomas, Editing by Mark Trevelyan)


France does have real fiscal problems: put most simply it is an unproductive society rendered even more so decades of social engineering and vote buying by left wing politicians. The dirigiste model does not work, it never worked, it will never work because it cannot work, but the French have loved it for centuries and, here in Canada, due to France's unhealthy influence on Quebec, we have a far too high level of dirigisme which threatens to do serious damage to us, too.

Will France learn? They should; the Swedes did. But I doubt it, not until its economy collapses, anyway - and I doubt Quebec will learn, either. The problem with France (and Quebec) is cultural, not intellectual.
 
This one should make Thucydides head explode :)

A very interesting anti-austerity article from Time Ideas by Mark Blyth
http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/18/why-austerity-is-a-dangerous-idea/

An even better article is in the current issue of Foreign Affairs by Blyth in which he analyzes the failure of austerity to solve the European problem, and argues that austerity compounds the problems.  A great and wide ranging history of austerity and worth the read.  I might have to pick up his new book.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139105/mark-blyth/the-austerity-delusion

The current debt and deficit panic is nothing new. It’s been a staple of American politics since the Republic’s inception. But this season it has taken a new turn. Congress, the fiscal arm of the government, is engaged in asymmetric siege warfare. On one side the Republicans want only cuts, on the other the Democrats want both cuts and tax increases. Both agree however that cuts are absolutely necessary; the only question is the timing and magnitude involved. Unfortunately, budget cuts are exactly the wrong thing to do at this moment. And before anyone throws up their hands and says “Keynesian claptrap,” there is nothing necessarily Keynesian in what I am about to say. Simple logic and arithmetic will suffice.

(MORE: America’s Forgotten Economic Challenge)

Austerity, the policy of cutting state spending to solve debt and growth problems, sells itself to us through a strange combination of morality and seduction. Its moral claim lies in the love of parsimony over prodigality that characterizes economic thought from Adam Smith onward. In this morality play, saving leads to investment, and investment leads to growth. Spending, in contrast, leads to consumption, and consumption leads to debt, especially when the government is involved. What we see in Greece therefore is simply the most egregious example of a secular trend toward overspending. We must cut to restore ourselves and not become Greece. So the story goes.

Austerity suggests that you can have your cake and eat it too, but only when you cut the cake first. Cuts are seen to be growth enhancing, not growth retarding. They restore that all-important “business confidence” necessary for the economy to function.

There is however a rather big problem with this line of thinking. The first is that for people to save, they need to have income from which to save. So if you are, for example, a state in the euro zone today, and every similar state saves at the same time by cutting spending, the result is the shrinkage of everyone’s economy since they are one another’s trading partners and sources of income. Perversely, their debt goes up, not down, relative to their (shrinking) GDP, which is what has happened to every European country that has undergone an austerity program since 2010. They now have more debt, not less.

(MORE: The Promise of More: Why We Should Raise the Minimum Wage)

Austerity, when everyone tries it at once, makes the debt bigger, not smaller. The E.U. is one of the two largest growth centers of the global economy. If the U.S., the other big one, decides to join in this “austerity binge” the result will be more, not less, U.S. debt and an even bigger growth crisis for the global economy.

So why then did so many countries in Europe do this? It’s about money all right, but not in the way you think. As we found out in the mortgage crisis in the U.S., you can’t have overborrowing without overlending, and core European banks (which are twice the size and three times as levered up as their “too big to fail” American counterparts) overlent to southern Europe on an epic scale, spending northern European savings in southern European bond markets and stuffing their balance sheets with those bonds in the process. Now that these bonds have gone bad, deprived of national currencies with which the governments responsible for these banks could bail them out (a side effect of the euro) European states are reduced to cutting, adding liquidity and praying while the situation goes from bad to worse. Cutting in such a world turbocharges the already bad shrinkage problem.

What about the theory that cuts will lead to greater confidence if only we lose our fear of the cuts and really go for it? The technical, and very non-Keynesian idea here is called the expansionary fiscal-consolidation hypothesis. It goes like this: when the government cuts spending in the middle of a recession, despite the economy falling about our ears with jobs and income evaporating around us, we will know that years ahead the state will be smaller and so we will pay less taxes relative to our lifetime income. Buoyed by this knowledge we will spend more today, despite the recession, thereby curing it. This is the mechanism that is supposed to make us all more confident and spend more. If you know anyone in the world who actually behaves like this, don’t lend them any money.

(MORE: Why the Argument for Austerity Took a Big Hit Recently)

Given then that cuts lead to more debt and less confidence, does it follow that we can have whatever level of debt and deficit we like with no consequences? Absolutely not. And this is where a Keynesian idea is appropriate: that the time for austerity is the boom, not the slump. Countries that have successfully reduced debt have done so when others are expanding and their own economy is booming, which makes perfect sense.

This is why austerity is a dangerous idea: it doesn’t work in the world that we actually inhabit. In the imaginary world of austerity, cuts always happen to someone else. Sadly, as Europe is proving all too well, in the world that we actually inhabit there is no “someone else” to pass the costs on to as we all try to shrink to grow.

Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/18/why-austerity-is-a-dangerous-idea/#ixzz2TkoYykdC
 
Back
Top