• 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"

"Libertarian" is not "no government/no regulation", although that is commonly how it is misrepresented by those unable to muster more compelling arguments.

Nearly all of the important and useful regulations - laws - are just common sense.

Regulations and laws worth pruning are the ones rarely - if ever - enforced, and the ones which add to the burden of compliance without much benefit.  Some low-odds, low-impact things that can go wrong simply need to be allowed to go wrong if we don't want to strangle ourselves in a sea of chickensh!t.
 
You did offer "no regulation" as an alternative.  To my mind that would be equivalent to anarchy.  Not a preferred state for me.

I agree that "Libertarian" would be more of a  "low regulation" environment and one that I personally favour.  However there are many folks out there that feel a whole lot more comfortable when all of their questions have clear answers.

Given that: regulations on wagon wheels and stretching racks are probably surplus to requirements and can be pruned with little negative impact.
 
Brad Sallows said:
How do you square the furthest reaches of the "right" - anarchism, minarchism, and the stricter degrees of libertarianism - with busybodies who seek to impose anything on anyone?
Really? I have to admit that I never associated anarchists with the Right. I bet most of them don't either.
 
And an even greater debt overhang which threatens the EUZone. We sometimes hear how bad the situation is in Canada, with people maxed out with debt at 100% or more of their income+ assets. Europe is possibly in a far worse position, with little or no capital resources to reinvest in industry or agriculture, either public or private:

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21588382-euro-zone-blighted-private-debt-even-more-government-debt-debtors

Debtors’ prison

The euro zone is blighted by private debt even more than by government debt
Oct 26th 2013 |From the print edition

THE European Central Bank (ECB) announced this week how it will undertake a root-and-branch examination of banking assets before it takes charge of supervision in the euro area late next year (see article). One aim of the exercise is to identify the bad debts that are fouling up euro-zone banks and preventing the flow of new credit. This is important because parts of the single-currency area are crippled not just by public borrowing but by private debt, most of which is sitting on banking books.

Throughout the euro crisis, tough austerity programmes have been aimed at tackling sovereign debt. That German-inspired focus is badly misplaced. High private debt is more detrimental to growth than high public debt, according to recent research by the IMF. Indeed the IMF study finds that excessive sovereign debt reduces growth only when household and corporate sectors are heavily indebted too.

The malign effect of high private debt becomes apparent in the busts that follow credit-driven booms. Households that have borrowed too much in relation to their income trim their spending, the main component of GDP. Overleveraged firms avoid investing and concentrate on shrinking their balance-sheets by paying off loans. As bad debts erode their capital, banks become more reluctant to lend. These adverse trends reinforce each other, increasing the overall drag on growth.

Figuring out the point at which debt becomes excessive is not an exact science. The European Commission, which now has the job of monitoring any emerging macroeconomic imbalances, uses a figure of 160% of GDP for private debt—what households and non-financial companies owe in the form of loans and debt securities such as corporate bonds. That looks conservative: it happens to be the prevailing level in both America and the euro area as a whole.

A more realistic trigger for concern might be 200% of GDP. On this basis, eight countries of the 17 that share a common currency look vulnerable (see chart).

Of the eight, Belgium and Luxembourg are less worrying than they might appear because their corporate debt is swollen by the presence of multinationals and includes a big chunk of inter-company lending. But that does not apply to the Netherlands, where private debt is over 220% of GDP mainly because households owe so much. In tiny Malta it is nearly 220%. Private debt is also high in four countries that have had to be bailed out: in Cyprus and Ireland it is over 300% of GDP; in Portugal it is 255%; and in Spain 215%.

In all but one of the eight countries a majority of the private debt is corporate. This preponderance of company borrowing is most extreme in Luxembourg, but also notable in Ireland whose debt is also affected by the presence of multinational firms; even so, Ireland’s household debt alone is over 100% of GDP. The Netherlands is the only country where the majority of debt is personal: its household debt is 128% of GDP (though Cyprus’s is even higher, at 136% of GDP).

Although Italy has the second-highest sovereign debt in the euro area, it does not feature among the countries with excessive private debt. Its firms owe somewhat less than the euro-zone average and Italian household debt is especially low. But monitoring the ratio of debt to GDP is not the only measure of vulnerability. For non-financial companies, an important indicator of fragility is a high ratio of debt to equity; and on this measure Italian firms, especially the small and medium-sized ones, are particularly stressed.

Other balance-sheet indicators also suggest that Italian business is in a bad way. For example, 30% of corporate debt is owed by firms whose pre-tax earnings are less than the interest payments they have to make. That share of frail companies is even higher in Spain and Portugal (40% and nearly 50% respectively). But Italy’s plight is in stark contrast to the situation in France and Germany, where little more than 10% of corporate debt is owed by such weak performers. Italian firms have been hurt by the erosion of their competitiveness within the euro zone.

Little progress has been made to lighten the private-debt burden since the crisis began. Though it eased in Spain from 227% of GDP in 2009 to 215% in 2012, it rose over the same period in Cyprus, Ireland and Portugal. In Britain, by contrast, private debt fell from 207% of GDP in 2009 to 190% in 2012 thanks to improvements by both households and firms.

Getting debt down has proved intractable because the economic climate has been so unforgiving. Debt burdens (ie, debt as a share of GDP) automatically become lighter as money incomes rise. But that has not been the case in economies hit by a double-dip recession and hurt by prices that are close to deflationary levels. There is an inherent contradiction between the need for debtor countries in the euro zone to regain competitiveness through lower prices and at the same time to ease excessive debt with a dose of inflation.

Even in a better economic climate, though, southern Europe would be bad at writing down debt. Corporate insolvencies have increased sharply but from low levels. Social attitudes frown on debtors, who are usually pursued through the courts in a long and costly process.

Insolvency laws have recently been reformed in several countries. The Portuguese government, for example, has made it easier for debt to be restructured outside the courts. But the reforms often fail to work. The Spanish law is intended to promote restructuring of viable firms but in practice most insolvencies end in liquidation after lengthy court proceedings. The cultural stigma of a bankruptcy remains: potential entrepreneurs in countries like Italy and Spain worry more about failure than they do in Britain and America.

Dutch discouraged

High household debt helps explain why the Netherlands, along with Italy and Spain, remained in recession in the second quarter of 2013 even as the euro area in general embarked on recovery. Dutch GDP this year will be 2% lower than in 2011 and more than 3% below its previous peak, in 2008. Though this loss of output is dwarfed by that suffered in southern Europe, it illustrates the malign effect of high debt when house prices fall—recent declines have been close to those in Spain. That has pushed a quarter of Dutch homeowners into “negative equity”: their houses are worth less than their mortgages.

Elsewhere in the euro area high corporate debt has been doing most damage. Firms that have overborrowed are reluctant to embark on new ventures, and banks are in any case reluctant to lend because their balance-sheets are peppered with bad debts. This unhappy state of affairs prevails throughout southern Europe though its precise causes vary. In Spain the bad debts have arisen mainly from the property bubble and have been tackled over the past year by recognising the losses and transferring the written-down loans to Sareb, an asset-management company. In Portugal they stem from the attrition of more than a decade of stagnation.

The ECB’s banking probe will cause some of this debt to be written down as banks are forced to recognise some of their bad loans. But the clean-up could be limited because of the fear among the European countries with solid finances that bad banking debts will be dumped into a common rescue fund. If the quality of these assets is not properly addressed this time, it will cast a long shadow over the euro zone’s chances of making a sustained economic recovery.
 
Colin P said:
I wonder if we see what is supposed to be a normal, sustainable economy as a recession?

Are you raising the question of how we "should" be living, vice how we actually live? (I mean the big, figurative "We".)  This is usually a nice explosive topic.
 
Either this thread or Deconstructing Progressive Thought - This one is interlinked.

Gerhard Schroeder's party (as is Tom Mulcair's  and Ed Milliband's ) is a member of Socialist "International" an international organization that is as opposed to nationalism as any organization can be.  They are antithetical to individualism as well as nationalism - liberal and conservative values.

It is little wonder that Gerhard has a hate on for Cameron and the UK.

Britain is the major problem for the EU, says Gerhard Schröder
Gerhard Schröder says Britain is a problem and is standing in way of crucial EU reform
Gerhard Schröder blamed Britain for the financial crisis that engulfed the eurozone and for blocking the EU measures needed to put things right

By Bruno Waterfield, Brussels 10:50AM GMT 08 Nov 2013

Britain is the major problem facing the future of the European Union and the measures it needs to take in order to survive as a bloc, a former German Chancellor has warned.

Gerhard Schröder, Germany’s Social Democrat Chancellor before being beaten by Angela Merkel in 2005, blamed Britain for the financial crisis that engulfed the eurozone and for blocking the EU measures needed to put things right.

“The problem has a name, and that's Britain. As long as the British block these moves, nothing will happen,” he said.

“We can assume that Britain is no longer willing to join the euro area. Countries that are not in the euro area cannot prevent greater integration. It’s tough but you cannot say ‘I will not be there but I want a say’.”

The former chancellor’s views are important because the Social Democrats are currently holding talks with Chancellor Merkel to form a new governing coalition for Germany, a development that could damage relations with Britain.

Mrs Merkel is sympathetic to David Cameron’s calls for the EU to be reformed but the Social Democrats, that she will soon be sharing government with, are deeply hostile to the Prime Minister and British Euroscepticism.

“The EU's political structure cannot remain static,” said Mr Schroeder, at an economic forum in Bregenz, in western Austria.
“We need to press ahead with Europe's political unity, towards a kind of European federation.”

In a reference to Britainメs blocking of an EU "fiskalpakt" treaty in 2011, over fears of increased Brussels regulations binding the City of London, Mr Schroeder called on other European countries to push Britain aside.

“The failure to implement steps that were decided four years ago by the G-20 in Pittsburgh to restrain the financial sector, has much to do with the City of London,” he said.

“Those who are willing to have more integration should not be bound by those who are not.”

Interesting list of Socialist "governments".  Curious that most of the Western ones are Coalition members - few in government on their own.  And they are only 51 of the world's 200 or so countries.  Most of the non-western ones are far from democratic.

Does that indicate that the Socialist project is struggling?  If so it would certainly add heat to the likes of Schroeder.
 
This is not about "failing," per se, but it is a useful little graphic that reminds us that we have to be careful about what we mean when we say "Europe:"

BZNhU60CUAAxkmI.png:large
 
Who knew that a Spirograph with a box of coloured pens and some crayons could be so handy?
 
Brad Sallows said:
Who knew that a Spirograph with a box of coloured pens and some crayons could be so handy?

Why do I suspect that only a minority of us won't have to Google that to figure out what you're talking about?
 
Why is it when I look at that image that my mind ponders nuke fallout patterns....(I know, not the same shape, but...)

NS
 
Looking at that diagram I see the graphic representation of any large group.  Small group dynamics defeat the intent of the large group to coordinate actions.  Too many people with too many disparate views can always find some supporters that will stymie the will of the many.  And when you are looking at sovereign states, who are not bound to accept the voting principle of "the will of the majority" (however a majority might be defined) but instead are free to accept or reject the outcome of the vote and walk away from the table, then it is impossible for a large group to function.  Much like the old Polish parliament where every lord was sovereign and every vote had to be unanimous.

I wonder what the UN diagram looks like where that diagram is a subset and where APEC, WTO, the Commonwealth, Francophonie etc are competing influences.

On the other hand,  I put my faith in these organizations because I know that they will never be able to co-ordinate an outcome to establish the dreaded New World Order.  The New Order will look like the Old Order..... Chaotic.  :nod:
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail is a one word summation of the discussion about "Why Europe keeps failing ..."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/why-hollandes-france-is-the-sick-man-of-europe/article15566894/#dashboard/follows/
gam-masthead.png

Why Hollande’s France is the sick man of Europe

KONRAD YAKABUSKI
The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Nov. 25 2013

France is in a funk. François Hollande is the most unpopular president in the history of French polling. The country’s economy is now considered “the sick man of Europe” and French voters still see the cure as worse than the disease. Any attempt to adjust, even minimally, France’s statist economic model and cradle-to-grave social safety net is met with paralyzing howls of protest.

The country is effectively ruled not from the Elysée (the presidential palace) or the National Assembly, but by opposition politicians on the far left and far right. Barely 18 months into his five-year term, Mr. Hollande is a canard boiteux (lame duck) whose party may get rid of him before voters get a chance to.

No wonder Mr. Hollande, a Socialist who lucked into the presidency in 2012 after voters had tired of Nicolas Sarkozy’s hissy fits, prefers foreign to domestic affairs. He has distinguished himself and his country by taking courageous stands against the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons (well before U.S. counterpart Barack Obama), urging allies not to be duped into relaxing sanctions against Iran and intervening militarily against Islamic terrorists in Mali.

Unfortunately, such actions won’t win Mr. Hollande many votes at home. Nor will it fix France’s broken economy. Just as Spain, Ireland and other bailed-out euro-zone countries are stabilizing, Europe’s second-largest economy risks derailing the continent’s recovery. France’s private sector contracted again in the third quarter and warnings about the country’s economic decline have grown louder by the day.

France’s credit rating just got downgraded again by Standard & Poor’s. And while markets shrugged off the news, the rating agency’s stiff rebuke of Mr. Hollande’s economic policies has sparked an even more bitter debate than usual (by French standards) about the country’s future.

That debate intensified last week after the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development released a scathing report blasting France’s stubborn refusal to get with the program: “Over several years, many European countries have accelerated the adoption and implementation of essential reforms. This adjustment has not happened in France.”

Government spending now accounts for an astounding 56 per cent of France’s gross domestic product, compared to a bit more than 40 per cent in Canada. So far, Mr. Hollande has sought to meet European Commission-mandated deficit targets by raising taxes – to the tune of €30-billion ($43-billion) in 2012 alone. Not only does he keep missing the deficit targets, he keeps putting off critical spending reforms.

The result is a further deterioration of France’s competitiveness and a tax revolt the likes of which the country has never seen. It started after Mr. Hollande imposed a 75-per-cent levy on income above €1-million. The country’s top court declared the tax unconstitutional, so Mr. Hollande simply shifted the burden to employers.

No matter, the wealthy are voting with their feet. In July, France’s former ambassador to Iraq and Tunisia was arrested trying to smuggle €350,000 in cash out of the country. He is just one of a new breed of so-called “cash commuters” seeking to escape Mr. Hollande’s confiscatory tax policies by any means possible.

Such evasion is rightly condemned by politicians on the left. But many, including Mr. Hollande’s ex-wife, 2007 presidential candidate Ségolène Royale, have repudiated the President by siding with the farmers who forced Mr. Hollande to scrap implementation of a carbon tax on transport trucks. Protests spread across the country this month as merchants and restaurant owners joined the farmers to fight an increase in the value-added tax. The latter is meant to offset cuts in payroll taxes (now nearing a punishing 50 per cent) – cuts that almost everyone agrees are needed to get French firms hiring again. The country’s unemployment rate stands above 11 per cent, and four out of every five jobs added in 2012 were temporary contracts.

Mr. Hollande’s economic policy is full of contradictions. (He appointed an anti-globalization crusader as his minister of industrial renewal.) And he is dogged by open dissension among members of cabinet jockeying to replace him on the Socialist ticket in 2017. The best hope lies in Interior Minister Manuel Valls, even though he is considered a populist heretic by the Socialist elite.

Mr. Sarkozy, meanwhile, is considering a comeback – which suddenly doesn’t sound so crazy.[/quote]


The one word?

France-8294.jpg


It was, I think British soldier-diplomat General Hastings "Pug" Ismay, NATO's first (and reluctant) secretary general who described it (NATO) as being designed to "keep the Russian out, the Yanks in, the French up and the Germans down." That might be described as the aim of the whole Europe project. But it's going to fail because the Germans should not be kept down and the French cannot be kept up indefinitely.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
This is not about "failing," per se, but it is a useful little graphic that reminds us that we have to be careful about what we mean when we say "Europe:"

BZNhU60CUAAxkmI.png:large



The Vatican appears to have found the right balance....
 
Good2Golf said:
The Vatican appears to have found the right balance....


I thought you were going to suggest that Belarus and Kazhakstan had found the right place on the chart ~ outside of everything.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
I thought you were going to suggest that Belarus and Kazhakstan had found the right place on the chart ~ outside of everything.

No, they just get to sit and watch. 

It would seem that the Vatican has a red-card of sorts...the duty-Cardinal can wave it when the EZ/EU/SA/EUCU/ECU/EEA/CoE/CEFTA/EFTA does something that displeases the Pope...
 
While not exactly about Europe failing, this might be an indication that the European people are starting to  change their behaviours in ways the Eurocrats have neither anticipated, nor will likely approve of. Why Europeans (and millions of people world wide) are converting to Pentacostalism is an interesting question to contemplate:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/berger/2013/12/18/pentecostalism-invades-lambeth-palace/

Pentecostalism Invades Lambeth Palace

Is charismatic Christianity coming to Europe? Up until now, it didn’t seem likely. But events in the UK perhaps suggest otherwise.

On December 7, 2013, The Tablet published a story by Christopher Lamb, “On the Road to London”.  It is a remarkable story, describing in some detail how four members of the Community of Chemin Neuf will take up residence in Lambeth Palace, after also taking control of Christ the King in Cockfosters, a prominent Roman Catholic parish in north London. Lambeth Palace has been the official London residence of the Archbishop of Canterbury since the 13th century. Chemin Neuf (“New Way”) was founded forty years ago in Lyon, France, at a charismatic Catholic prayer group, by Laurent Fabre, a Jesuit priest. One might say that this is a classical man-bites-dog story: It is difficult to imagine two more different Christian traditions than Pentecostalism (also known as charismatic Christianity) and the Church of England. The former is emotionally unrestrained and passionately evangelistic, the latter sedate, mellow and suspicious of any form of “enthusiasm”. Pentecostalism has established itself in England for some time, mainly carried there by immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean, though there have been some inroads into the indigenous white population. The penetration of charismatic exuberance into the very heart of Anglicanism might be a metaphor for a potentially significant development.

Chemin Neuf has been officially recognized by the Catholic Church as “a public association of the faithful” and its institute training men for the priesthood has been directly legitimated by the Vatican. Though clearly Catholic, its character has been ecumenical from the beginning. Members of the Community, which now operates in over twenty countries, are Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, even Eastern Orthodox. It is not a monastic order, but its members (now around 300 in number) live together in residential communities—celibate priests and nuns, married couples, single lay individuals. If some of their member priests are in charge of a Catholic parish, they will of course administer it in accordance with usual rules. But the internal worship in the residences is more colorful. There is daily mass and offices throughout the day, use of the spiritual exercises of Ignatius of Loyola (the founder of the Jesuit order), but also the typical charismatic/Pentecostal forms of worship—spontaneous singing and loud prayers, arms raised high, and glossolalia (“speaking in tongues”). The outreach into the wider community is through direct evangelism (public preaching), but also retreats for families, couples, divorcees and people in need of healing (though not, to my knowledge, including miraculous healing). Very interesting is the use of the so-called Alpha Course, typically a ten-week course about the essentials of the Christian faith, including an important section, with a charismatic bent, about the Holy Spirit. That one has Anglican origins, having been started in 1977 by the Reverend Charles Marnham at Holy Trinity Brompton in London, which continues to be its headquarters. Alpha tries to be broadly ecumenical (it avoids the sharper differences between denominations), and it is now used by local churches (including Catholic ones) from across the Christian spectrum. Alpha is deemed to be very successful in getting the attention of people with no religious affiliation.

Justin Welby, the recently installed Archbishop of Canterbury, came across Chemin Neuf from the time before he became a priest, while he worked in France for the oil company Elf Aquitaine. He was impressed by the ecumenism of the Community and kept in contact with it ever since. When the group moves into Lambeth Palace, it will consist of Father Michael Le Piouff, the new priest of Christ the King parish, an Anglican married couple, and an individual training for the Lutheran ministry. In the United Kingdom as a whole, about half of Community members are Catholic, the other half members of other Christian denominations.

I did not know about Chemin Neuf until I read the story in The Tablet. But I remembered a vaguely similar group, the Taize Community, which I encountered many years ago. This one too was originally French-speaking and, though its beginnings were Protestant rather than Catholic, its mission was emphatically ecumenical. Unlike Chemin Neuf, Taize is indeed a monastic order and, as far as I know, not visibly charismatic. It was founded in 1940 by Roger Schutz, a Swiss Reformed pastor, whose church was located very close to the border between German-occupied France and Switzerland. During World War II Schutz and his associates smuggled hundreds of Jews and other refugees from Nazism across the border to safety. After the war a regular order was founded by the little group, attracting both Protestant and Catholic members. It now works in about thirty countries, including the United States. Although there is a monastery-like center in France, the Taize brothers (there is an affiliated order of sisters) live in rented apartments, preferably in poor areas of cities, supporting themselves by ordinary jobs. They conduct daily worship services, using the haunting music of Joseph Gelineau (a kind of modernized plainsong). They do not directly evangelize. Instead they practice what they call “Christian presence” (presence chretienne)—the term is actually of Catholic origin and characterized the practice of monks living in northern Africa. They made no efforts to convert their Muslim neighbors, practiced their monastic offices, and made their Christian witness by simply being there. Some of them became martyrs at the hand of Muslims fighting the French colonial government. In recent years Taize has become the destination of pilgrimages by large numbers of young people, who describe this as a very moving religious experience. Taize is a village in Burgundy, close to two of the most important monastic centers of medieval Europe, Cluny and Citeaux. It is an incredibly beautiful landscape. I visited there briefly as a young man, stopping while driving from Paris to the south of France. In Marseille I had a long conversation with two Taize brothers, who lived in a slum mostly inhabited by Algerian immigrants, where they devotedly practiced “Christian presence”. From there I drove on to visit a wealthy colleague, who owned a luxurious seaside villa near Monte Carlo. The contrast was breathtaking.

Back to Lambeth Palace and its invasion by spirit-filled charismatics: I have written about Pentecostalism on this blog before. Since I do not presume that readers of this post will have read all the ones that I wrote before, let me just reiterate: Pentecostalism is probably the fastest growing religious movement in history. From humble American beginnings early in the twentieth century the movement truly exploded after World War II, now numbering at least 600 million adherents worldwide. Pentecostals are a significant presence in the United States, but most of the growth has been in the Global South—in Africa, Latin America and parts of Asia. Originally a movement within Evangelical Protestantism, Pentecostalism has spilled over into virtually all Christian denominations. This has been aptly called “Pentecostalization”. Don’t be confused by different categories of Pentecostals/charismatics worked out by scholars. The core phenomenon is the same everywhere:faith centered on the so-called “gifts of the Spirit”—a cathartic conversion experience, miraculous healing, ecstatic worship (featuring “speaking in tongues”), bonding together in strong communities. [A tip to readers not familiar with this world: If you ask for evidence of the charismatic spillover into denominations not using the term “Pentecostal”, look for churches that describe themselves as being “in renewal”. That’s where it’s happening! I may as well give you a bonus tip (ask for one and get two): If you see a church self-identified as “welcoming”, this means that people of all sexual orientations are invited.] The phenomenon must be seen in the context of a huge demographic shift: There now are more Christians in the Global South than in the “home territories” of Europe and North America. And most of this “New Christendom” (a term coined by the historian Philip Jenkins) tends toward charismatic forms of the faith. With some exceptions, Europe has been mostly untouched by the “renewalist” tsunami. One of the most important questions in the study of contemporary religion is this: Will Europe too experience significant “Pentecostalization”? As of this moment, the empirical evidence suggests a negative answer. But one cannot be sure. It is at least conceivable that the little drama in Lambeth Palace is more than a straw in the wind.
 
More a case of the Global economy, but since siezing bank accounts is probably going to be one of the strategies and has already been test driven in Europe, this is probably the best place for it:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/01/imf-says-oh-by-the-way-theres-a-debt-crisis.php

IMF SAYS: BY THE WAY, THERE’S A DEBT CRISIS

Two summers ago, we ran the Power Line Prize contest to try to focus attention on the exploding national debt. The contest was successful, in that it incentivized the production of many high-quality videos, songs, pictures, and other media that highlighted the debt crisis, which were viewed millions of times. But like all other efforts to call attention to the debt crisis, it had limited effect, if any. Periodically the debt is in the news, and then it seems to be forgotten.

Which doesn’t mean, of course, that the problem has gone away. On the contrary: a new report by the International Monetary Fund concludes that the debt crisis is worse than ever, not just in the U.S. but throughout the developed world:

Much of the Western world will require defaults, a savings tax and higher inflation to clear the way for recovery as debt levels reach a 200-year high, according to a new report by the International Monetary Fund.

The IMF working paper said debt burdens in developed nations have become extreme by any historical measure and will require a wave of haircuts, either negotiated 1930s-style write-offs or the standard mix of measures used by the IMF in its “toolkit” for emerging market blow-ups.

Debt headlines in the last few years have focused mainly on countries on the periphery of Europe, like Greece and Spain. But it simply isn’t true that richer countries, like the U.S. and Northern Europe, are in better fiscal condition:

The paper said policy elites in the West are still clinging to the illusion that rich countries are different from poorer regions and can therefore chip away at their debts with a blend of austerity cuts, growth, and tinkering (“forbearance”).

This chart shows how bad the situation has become for the world’s 22 most developed economies:

Chart1_2779973c

What happens when sovereign debt reaches levels that can’t be repaid? Bondholders get stiffed, and savers are collateral damage:

Financial repression can take many forms, including capital controls, interest rate caps or the force-feeding of government debt to captive pension funds and insurance companies. Some of these methods are already in use but not yet on the scale seen in the late 1940s and early 1950s as countries resorted to every trick to tackle their war debts.

The policy is essentially a confiscation of savings, partly achieved by pushing up inflation while rigging the system to stop markets taking evasive action. The UK and the US ran negative real interest rates of -2pc to -4pc for several years after the Second World War. Real rates in Italy and Australia were -5pc.

Outright repudiation of sovereign debt is unnecessary. All a country like the U.S. needs to do is inflate its currency and repay debt with cheap dollars. Some say that the Fed’s program of “quantitative easing” has already started the U.S. down that path. Inflation destroys the value of savings, of course, so if you have been saving assiduously for more than 30 years, as I have, it is an unwelcome prospect to say the least. But one way or another, when governments run out of money, they steal from those who have not been as improvident as the politicians.
 
France is setting up more conditions for failure. Perhaps of interest to Kirkhill is the comparison between today's conditions and the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, which drove the Huguenots out of France and into the arms of the Protestant nations, giving them a huge shot of skilled manpower:

http://www.newsweek.com/fall-france-225368

The Fall of France
By Janine di Giovanni / January 03 2014 11:08 AM

Sky-high taxes and overprotective labor laws are driving out the country's best and brightest. 

It’s a stretch, but what is happening today in France is being compared to the revocation of 1685. In that year, Louis XIV, the Sun King who built the Palace of Versailles, revoked the Edict of Nantes, which had protected French Protestants – the Huguenots. Trying to unite his kingdom by a common religion, the king closed churches and persecuted the Huguenots. As a result, nearly 700,000 of them fled France, seeking asylum in England, Sweden, Switzerland, South Africa and other countries.

The Huguenots, nearly a million strong before 1685, were thought of as the worker bees of France. They left without money, but took with them their many and various skills. They left France with a noticeable brain drain.

Since the arrival of Socialist President François Hollande in 2012, income tax and social security contributions in France have skyrocketed. The top tax rate is 75 percent, and a great many pay in excess of 70 percent.

As a result, there has been a frantic bolt for the border by the very people who create economic growth – business leaders, innovators, creative thinkers, and top executives. They are all leaving France to develop their talents elsewhere.

And it’s a tragedy for such a historically rich country. As they say, the problem with the French is they have no word for entrepreneur. Where is the Richard Branson of France? Where is the Bill Gates?

“Do you see that man in the corner? I’m going to kill him. He’s ruined my life!”

This angry outburst came from a lawyer friend who is leaving France to move to Britain to escape the 70 percent tax he pays. He says he is working like a dog for nothing – to hand out money to the profligate state. The man he was pointing to, in a swanky Japanese restaurant in the Sixth Arrondissement, is Pierre Moscovici, the much-loathed minister of finance. Moscovici was looking very happy with himself. Does he realize Rome is burning?

Granted, there is much to be grateful for in France. An economy that boasts successful infrastructure such as its high-speed rail service, the TGV, and Airbus, as well as international businesses like the luxury goods conglomerate LMVH, all of which define French excellence. It has the best agricultural industry in Europe. Its tourism industry is one of the best in the world.

But the past two years have seen a steady, noticeable decline in France. There is a grayness that the heavy hand of socialism casts. It is increasingly difficult to start a small business when you cannot fire useless employees and hire fresh new talent. Like the Huguenots, young graduates see no future and plan their escape to London.

The official unemployment figure is more than 3 million; unofficially it’s more like 5 million. The cost of everyday living is astronomical. Paris now beats London as one of the world’s most expensive cities. A half liter of milk in Paris, for instance, costs nearly $4 – the price of a gallon in an American store.

Part of this is the fault of the suffocating nanny state. Ten years ago this week, I left my home in London for a new life in Paris. Having married a Frenchman and expecting our child, I was happily trading in my flat in Notting Hill for one on the Luxembourg Gardens.

At that time, prices were such that I could trade a gritty but charming single-girl London flat for a broken-down family apartment in the center of Paris. Then prices began to steadily climb. With the end of the reign of Gaullist (conservative) Nicolas Sarkozy (the French hated his flashy bling-bling approach) the French ushered in the rotund, staid Hollande.

Almost immediately, taxes began to rise.

I did not mind, initially, paying higher taxes than in Britain in exchange for excellent health care, and for masterful state-subsidized schools like the one my son attends (L’Ecole Alsacienne – founded by some of the few remaining Huguenots at the end of the 19th century).

As a new mother, I was surprised at the many state benefits to be had if you filled out all the forms: Diapers were free; nannies were tax-deductible; free nurseries existed in every neighborhood. State social workers arrived at my door to help me “organize my nursery.” My son’s school lunch consists of three courses, plus a cheese plate.

But some of it is pure waste. The French state also paid for all new mothers, including me, to see a physical therapist twice a week to get our stomachs toned again. Essentially it was seen as a baby-making opportunity (your husband is not going to touch you if you still have your baby fat – how very French!) after World War I, when so many young men were killed in the trenches.

When I began to look around, I saw people taking wild advantage of the system. I had friends who belonged to trade unions, which allowed them to take entire summers off and collect 55 percent unemployment pay. From the time he was an able-bodied 30-year-old, a cameraman friend worked five months a year and spent the remaining seven months collecting state subsidies from the comfort of his house in the south of France.

Another banker friend spent her three-month paid maternity leave sailing around Guadeloupe – as it is part of France, she continued to receive all the benefits.

Yet another banker friend got fired, then took off nearly three years to find a new job, because the state was paying her so long as she had no job. “Why not? I deserve it,” she said when I questioned her. “I paid my benefits into the system.” Hers is an attitude widely shared.

When you retire, you are well cared for. There are 36 special retirement regimes – which means, for example, a female hospital worker or a train driver can retire earlier than those in the private sector because of their “harsh working conditions,” even though they can never be fired.

But all this handing out of money left the state bankrupt.

Also, France, being a nation of navel-gazers à la Jean-Paul Sartre, refuses to look outward, toward the global village. Who cares about the BRICS – the emerging markets of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa – when we have Paris? It is a tunnel-vision philosophy that will kill France.

At the World Economic Forum each year at Davos, France is always noticeably underrepresented. Last year, one junior minister, Fleur Pellerin, came because, apparently, she is the only fluent English speaker in the government. “The French don’t like to speak English,” one of her aides admitted wearily. “So they don’t like to come to Davos.”

The most brilliant minds of France are escaping to London, Brussels, and New York rather than stultify at home. Walk down a street in South Kensington – the new Sixth Arrondissement of London – and try not to hear French spoken. The French lycee there has a long waiting list for French children whose families have emigrated.

I grimly listen to my French friends on this topic.

From a senior United Nations official who is now based in Africa: “The best thinkers in France have left the country. What is now left is mediocrity.”

From a chief legal counsel at a major French company: “France is dying a slow death. Socialism is killing it. It’s like a rich old family being unable to give up the servants. Think Downton Abbey.”

From a French publisher: “In the past 10 years, the global village has become a reality. The world economy has become so important that a nation-state can no longer play the role that it did 10 years ago. The French have not woken up to that.”

To wake up, France has to rid itself of the old guard, and reinvent itself.

François Hollande made his first trip to China only when he became head of state in 2012 – and he’s 58 years old. The government is so inward looking and the state fonctionnaires who run it are so divorced from reality that it has become a country in denial.

This is partly the fault of the education system, Les Grandes Ecoles – the essential training ground for elite civil servants. Graduates like Hollande; his ex-wife, Segolene Royal, who was the Socialist presidential candidate in 2007; former president Jacques Chirac; and almost all former prime ministers since 1958 still think of France as a superpower. The sad truth is, France is closer to Spain or Italy these days than to the U.K. or Germany.

There are some business visionaries, like Christophe de Margerie, the CEO of multinational oil and gas company Total, who speaks the Queen’s English and spends much of his time working on deals outside of France. But de Margerie is rare.

I love my adopted country. And I don’t want to leave. I want my son to finish his French education, and I don’t want him to run away to work on Wall Street or in the City of London (Britain’s financial district) but to stay and try to build a better France.

To do that, however, politicians like Hollande have to let the people breathe. Creativity and prosperity can only come about when citizens can build, create, and thrive.
 
Back
Top