The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
You have a trade balance, so why should a state have none? But I don't know how relevant that is. For currency moves obviously not. A state might get problems if its people are overdebted, but it is said about 20% of the US GDP go through Washington. So there should be enough solidarity within US states and enough mobility of people to move e.g. to a state with less unemployment, that a state trade balance doesn't matter too much. For the Eurozone that is actually the point where most Eurobreakup-doomsayers (probably most prominent Ambrose Evans-Pritchard from the Telegraph) start. Only about 1% of EU GDP go through Brussels, and the various languages spoken in the Eurozone are a serious impediment to cross-country mobility. That would make individual Eurozone country accounts important. But still I would argue that for most issues the trade balance of a currency zone is relevant. The EU account I think is mostly irrelevant. The main mechanism of balancing are through exchange rate moves. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Do individual US states have a balance of payments, too, and should they?
Most, if not all, US states are forbidden in their constitutions from running a deficit. They are forbidden by the U.S. Constitution from imposing import or export duties. Capital markets and most large banks are, at minimum, national in scope. They can charter banks that are confined to their states. States do not issue currency, though I do not know if they are specifically precluded from doing so. They can issue bonds. They can charter corporations that are inherently of national or international scope, depending on the desire of the corporation. I have never heard discussion of a state's "balance of payments." I do hear continually about budget deficits. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
The Eurozone's Growth and Stability Pact commits Member States to running no more than a 3% GDP budget deficit.
They are forbidden by the U.S. Constitution from imposing import or export duties.
European Union Member States cannot restrict the flow of goods, services, people or capital among themselves, and import or export duties with third-party states are probably harmonized via the EU which negotiates before the WTO on behalf of the Member States.
Capital markets and most large banks are, at minimum, national in scope. They can charter banks that are confined to their states.
The scope of retail banks in the EU is still only a member state (even when a bank owns a subsidiary in a neighbouring state, it operates as a different bank - examples I am familiar with include NatWest operating in Spain and Raiffeisen in the Czech Republic, but I don't know what the situation is between two Eurozone countries). Capital markets are still at most regional. Euronext integrated Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam, and there were talks of a merger between Deusche Börse and the London Stock Excange, but that's about it, other than that the markets cover single member states.
States do not issue currency, though I do not know if they are specifically precluded from doing so. They can issue bonds.
It is unclear to me how the issuing of currency works within the Eurozone, but each Eurozone member state can issue its own bonds. The Member States' central banks still exist and retain a certain set of competences, and only some of the powers have been transferred to the European Central Bank. There is a "European System of Central Banks" which gathers the ECB and all the Eurozone member states' central banks.
It seems to me the Eurozone is almost there if we aren't there already. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
I'm asking because there were reports of budget shortfalls in several US states. If they can't run deficits, in case of a surprising drop in tax revenue, they have to cut immensely in their spending? Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
IOW, where capital spending is funded by bonds, the interest payments and bond repayments to retire the bonds must be fully funded by revenues ... no rolling over debt, and no borrowing to meet current expenditure. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by DoDo - May 20 23 comments
by Nomad - May 10 14 comments
by JakeS - May 15 7 comments
by Metatone - May 14 85 comments
by ARGeezer - May 16 15 comments
by gmoke - May 17 2 comments
by DoDo - May 12 11 comments
by Migeru - May 6 100 comments
by DoDo - May 2023 comments
by gmoke - May 172 comments
by ARGeezer - May 1615 comments
by JakeS - May 157 comments
by Metatone - May 1485 comments
by DoDo - May 1211 comments
by Nomad - May 1014 comments
by Migeru - May 78 comments
by marco - May 782 comments
by Migeru - May 6100 comments
by Ted Welch - May 35 comments
by afew - May 340 comments
by ceebs - May 26 comments
by gmoke - Apr 301 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 3067 comments
by joelado - Apr 2954 comments
by Metatone - Apr 2854 comments
by ATinNM - Apr 275 comments
by ceebs - Apr 265 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 2686 comments