Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
Unless they are privately shorting the Euro, its hard to see how Merkel and her chums benefit from a Greek exit. The German banking system is still heavily exposed although it has managed to offload much of its Greek exposure onto the ECB. (The Germans can be very European when it is in their interest!).

The bigger, and potentially unmanageable problem is the prospect of Spain/Italy becoming destabilised by a Greek exit. Germany, as the biggest beneficiary of the Euro has the most to lose from it's breakdown. Greece prospering after a Euro exit would be their nightmare scenario as it would provide all other member states in trouble or in disagreement with German Hegemony with a roadmap for exit.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Wed Jun 6th, 2012 at 09:55:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You continue to think there's a rational explanation to all this, and a strategy on Germany's part.

This is a pure morality play and if there's any strategy it's in the realm of base power and influence, not a cost and benefit analysis (if such a thing were possible or preferable - see this diary and comments)

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 6th, 2012 at 10:03:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Or perhaps not...

FT Alphaville » When strategy is mistaken for stupidity, the curious case of eurozone politicians

At the heart of the crisis is a non-cooperative game taking place between policymakers

(...)

None of these parties want to see a catastrophe scenario for Europe unfold because nobody profits from it. But beyond that there are a range of possible outcomes in which the crisis is resolved in different ways, with the surplus (the gain from avoiding the catastrophe) shared in different ways.

These parties are involved in repeated discussions (games) and we have to look for equilibrium strategies...

The writer postulates that, instead of being the idiots or blinkered ideologues they appear to be, certain players are engaged in reputation-building :
FT Alphaville » (continued)

In particular, it could be beneficial for those representing either side in the game to take actions which look counter-productive in the short run in an attempt to convince the other players in the game that their preferences are more extreme than is actually the case, which in turn may lead the other players to rationally choose a strategy and therefore an equilibrium which favours the player who sought to build a reputation. Were these stratagems being played out in the current crisis it would not be a surprise for market participants to believe that policymakers somehow `didn't get it' or were `behind the curve'.

i.e. brinksmanship leading to a compromise.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Jun 6th, 2012 at 10:14:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem I have with brinksmanship is the collateral damage. The amount of accruing collateral damage means this is not a game of chicken, this is already a war. Of maybe it is like one of those tribal displays of folk anthropology in which chieftains burn valuable items to one-up one another. In this case it's livelihoods being burned.

Here's Hugo Dixon in praise of brinksmanship:

Cutting off Greece's life support could be the trigger for reintroducing the drachma as the people found the cash machines ran dry. But it could also finally force the people to decide whether they were prepared to back reform - provided the euro zone simultaneously rolled out a proper plan to help the country.


If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 6th, 2012 at 10:19:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Brinksmanship works very well, until it doesn't (See German foreign policy 1933-39.).  Unlike Hitler, though, the current players are very much market participants.  Figure out how any strategy benefits the top economic tier, and you figure out what the real game is.
by rifek on Sun Jun 10th, 2012 at 05:42:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Perhaps it's because I'm more of a sociologist than a politician, but I tend to look for explanations at an organisational/process level rather than in terms of personalities and moral failings. If I am right there will be a gradual, slow, complex and confused resolution to some of the most grievous of our current problems - in spite of - not because of the leaders we current have.  

There are too many institutional self interests tied up with preserving some semblance of the current status quo, and sufficient institutional players whose interests require a resolution of the worst of our current problems. It won't be pretty, no one will be playing nice. But I see the EU developing positively despite it all - to the ultimate benefit of a large majority of its citizens.

Call me an irrational optimist. Or perhaps an optimist seeking rationality where there is little or none. But I would be profoundly sad at seeing any EU member forced out, or any significant group being marginalised by the power plays currently in motion. Governments lose power when the lose the support of their people, but tend to be replaced by Governments not all that different. I don't think any German Government could survive having been seen to do serious damage to the EU. Call me an optimist.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Wed Jun 6th, 2012 at 10:27:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Perhaps it's because I'm more of a sociologist than a politician, but I tend to look for explanations at an organisational/process level rather than in terms of personalities and moral failings. If I am right there will be a gradual, slow, complex and confused resolution to some of the most grievous of our current problems - in spite of - not because of the leaders we current have.

Yeah, well, Max Planck said that A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Similarly, the current generation of leaders will eventually step down from power and later die off. The Long Depression of the late 19th century did come to an end after 23 years. I find no consolation in the knowledge that, sociologically, at some point in the future things will be different from the way they are now if only because all the people currently alive will have passed on.

Keynes also said economists set themselves too easy a task if all they say is that once the storm is passed the sea will be calm again. So I won't call you an optimist, I'll call you an economist :P

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 6th, 2012 at 10:40:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thomas Kuhn say Scientific revolutions and paradigmatic change happening rather more rapidly, and despite of, rather than with the help of current thought leaders. But there was no requirement for them to die off first. Sometimes you lose as much with the passing of a generation as you gain. The folk memory of the depression is obviously not strong enough any more to remind people that it wasn't market economics that resolved the Great Depression.

I've been called many things, but no one has ever gone so low as to call me an economist...:-)

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Wed Jun 6th, 2012 at 10:49:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem is not the leaders, it's the mental poisoning of the social milieu from which they are drawn.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 6th, 2012 at 10:50:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Kuhn, however, has limited applicability to organization theory and political theory, because the scientific enterprise has both sociological characteristics (respect for facts, a willingness to admit - indeed place at the forefront - outstanding unsolved problems with the paradigm, and several others which are less amenable to brief summary) and objective conditions (the laws of nature are not negotiable) which differ from politics. In politics, repeated failure on the merits is not a cause for censure, problems are glossed over rather than investigated, and reality that does not conform to paradigm can be forced into the paradigm... up to a point.

Unfortunately, at that point the guillotines tend to come out.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Jun 9th, 2012 at 09:20:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
JakeS:
reality that does not conform to paradigm can be forced into the paradigm... up to a point.

Daily Kos: "Human are like rats and cockroaches": the coming feudalism

you can't map an infinite plane onto a Euclidean solid.  

a grimly fascinating diary and comments over at lucifer's orangerie.

i feel we're caught in a hostage flick, and the takers are about to shoot greece, with the excuse that the food's running out, and we didn't grovel before our masters low enough, or send the ransom of our first-born with sufficient alacrity.

more virgins, stat!

the world gazes in zombie sorrow, paralysed by an ignorance too deep to fathom, and cheap microwaved popcorn.

i'm hoping when they toss greece's body in the trash, there will be a spasm of worldwide revulsion at the epically heartless and inane pretzel logic that puts banker profits above the real 'wealth of nations'.

"It's very hard to see what is kept invisible" Roseanne Barr

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Jun 10th, 2012 at 12:29:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Welcome to the lifeboat scenario.
by rifek on Mon Jun 11th, 2012 at 12:01:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru:
You continue to think there's a rational explanation to all this

jim jones' followers all felt drinking his koolaide was a rational thing to do.

that's the power of ideation over reason. garbage in, garbage out.

"It's very hard to see what is kept invisible" Roseanne Barr

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sat Jun 9th, 2012 at 11:46:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Germany, as the biggest beneficiary of the Euro has the most to lose from it's breakdown. Greece prospering after a Euro exit would be their nightmare scenario as it would provide all other member states in trouble or in disagreement with German Hegemony with a roadmap for exit.

A country - Greece, Portugal or Ireland - leaving or being forced out of the Euro and responding with not just its own new currency but with an offer to form a new currency union run along sustainable lines with any countries who want to join could provide just such a roadmap. Even repeatedly proposing such a policy in a country such as Ireland could have an effect. If such a proposal were pushed compellingly and gained sufficient support that TPTB were forced to respond that, of itself, would be an advance of the discussion.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Jun 10th, 2012 at 10:06:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A country - Greece, Portugal or Ireland - leaving or being forced out of the Euro and responding with not just its own new currency but with an offer to form a new currency union run along sustainable lines with any countries who want to join could provide just such a roadmap.

Come on, Greece is not Ireland is not Portugal is not Spain is not Italy is not France have cooties. Who's going to want to join an alternative currency union to the DM?

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 10th, 2012 at 12:35:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It may be a hard sell, but once two countries join, if the rules are well established, it could trigger an avalanche of defections. After all, a working currency union does have advantages over one that manifestly does not and cannot work. Perhaps Greece could seek a currency union with Iceland.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2012 at 04:29:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What you propose runs totally counter to the theory that a common currency zone requires a large degree of convergence and integration to operate effectively - to be an optimal currency zone. What is the point of having a common currency between countries that don't even trade much with each other?

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Mon Jun 11th, 2012 at 05:14:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In principle, coordinating your central banks can give you a bigger war chest for short squeezing hostile hedge fundies who try to screw you over.

In practice, if you possess the requisite political will to cut hostile hedge fundies off at the knees then you have plenty of other tools with which to do so.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2012 at 06:23:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I still don't see how you get rid of the rating agencies, though. If they decide austerity is good--which they can do because the whole system is based on subjective opinions--and then rate you down for not pursuing austerity, what do you do?

Maybe you need tame rating agencies who rate, by rule, your currency at the highest possible level. Which we used to have in the U.S. until recently...

by asdf on Mon Jun 11th, 2012 at 06:35:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The government borrow directly from the central bank and cut out the middleman.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
by A swedish kind of death on Mon Jun 11th, 2012 at 06:38:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't see why any central banker worth his salary gives a pot of lukewarm piss what the ratings agencies say.

The central banker controls the printing press, the financial regulator controls the rules for extending credit, and the treasury controls the aggregate level of demand. If your macroeconomic policy depends on the approbation of the ratings agencies to attain its objectives, then you're doing it wrong.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2012 at 06:39:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
See here.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2012 at 06:59:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But how will the markets do their magic if we don't worship at the altar of the rating agencies? If your objective is to further the interests of the financial elite over and against the interests of the vast majority, then you encode rule by markets over rule by the people.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Mon Jun 11th, 2012 at 07:05:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That is what we have. I am proposing an expanding group of countries who want do do otherwise.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2012 at 07:32:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series