To eurozone: leadership sucks, you don't need it. Right.

by Jerome a Paris
Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 11:09:27 AM EST

Becoming the world’s principal reserve currency might not be worth the bragging rights.

Thus concludes a surreal column in the Financial Times this morning, which purports to explain that eurozone countries should really not wish to have the euro become the dominant currency, because it's really, really bad...

I'll have a few extracts below the fold, but I'd like to note that the mere publication of such a column is relevant information: the move towards the euro as a dominant currency is no longer something inconceivable, it's no longer an idea to be mocked as preposterous or silly - no, it now needs to be fought actively, to make it less momentous that it would be, less attractive to the potential beneficiaries, and thus less significant.

Which means of course that this momentous, attractive and significant event could be on the verge of happening.


There is no doubt that the threat to the dollar’s status is bigger than at any time since the end of the second world war. The most likely outcome is that a rapid narrowing of the US current-account deficit and renewed fiscal discipline will combine to restore confid­ence in the dollar and that it will retain its status as the world’s leading reserve currency. Confidence in long-term US economic prospects remains strong and America’s huge and liquid financial markets make the dollar a highly attractive reserve currency.

First, of course, the attempt to downplay the underlying facts, by acknowledging the threat, but making it appear much smaller than it is, and providing a "story" as to how the current situation might be changed. It sounds more like an incantation than anything else. America's "huge and liquid financial markets" are at the heart of today's problems, and are not going to help, quite the contrary. As to reducing current account deficits, it seems that precisely the only thing that will reduce them is taking away the credit card, ie the ability of the US to finance itself painlessly in its own currency...

As I have repeated many times, the current dollar-endangering policies are at the heart of Republican economic philosophy: favor asset inflation over wage increases, financial shenanigans over actual value generating economic activity, pork over usueful spending, and debt over tax to pay for it. All of these focus on capturing a bigger share of the pie, even at the cost of shrinking it, over increasing its size...

The author than goes on to describe the advantages for Europe of the euro replacing the dollar as the main reserve and trading currency: lower interest rates as more people want to borrow euros, more stable trade as European companies get paid in their own currency, and seignorage as foreigners holding euros in effect provide cheap loans to Europe. And, of course, should Europe go that route, the ability to run current account deficits financed by the outside...

But there are downsides. As issuer of the main international reserve currency, the eurozone would have to contend with significant external risks, in particular the global economy’s structural imbalances, which are largely responsible for the dollar’s weakness. The huge US current-account deficit is the flipside of the mercantilist economic policies of east Asian governments. Internationalis­ation of the euro could also make it harder to control the stock of euros in circulation – hence growth in the money supply – and, potentially, ­inflation.

Again, the savings' glut theory, which purports that US deficits were caused by Asians not consuming enough, and not by American consumers spending too much and putting it on the credit card (and, again, encouraged to do so, on a macro-economic basis, to hide that their wages are stagnating). And, more interestingly, the projection that Europe would rush to do the same. Again we see this idea that because you can get away with illegal or boorish or vile behavior, you should do it. This seems to be a fundamental part of the Republican mindset these days: there is no need for morality to drive your behavior - the only rule is to not get caught (and the corresponding philosophy of government is therefore to weaken the rules that could limit your behavior, and to limit the capacity of public authorities to enforce those rules that are still on the books). It is depressing, but unsurprising, to see the business world following that rulebook so faithfully - and to assume that this is the default behavior of everyone else too.

So, Europeans are expected to be as reckless with their currency as the US was. Hmmm... I would not bet on that, personally.

An increase in the demand for euros would either cause the currency to appreciate, making exports less competitive, or require that the eurozone run a big external deficit in order to satisfy the external demand for euros. For this to happen, the ECB would need to run a looser monetary policy.

The author seems to forget that once the euro becomes the dominant currency, it becomes someone else's problem. Exports will be expressed in euros - their competitivity will no longer change. It's others that will have to deal with the volatility - sometimes being more competitive, sometimes less. Not Europe's problem anymore. And a big deficit might happen without any loosening of monetary policy: if foreigners want euros, they'll pay what it takes to get them: their problem, not ours, again.

But the author has is all backwards. The euro is desirable because it is strong and backed by a favorable trade balance. If demand for it increases, it will strengthen, which has a dampening effect on inflation, thus reducing the need for tighter monetary policy. That will support economic activity inside the eurozone and support business there, irrespective of what happens to exports. The eurozone is a big economy, and thus foreing trade, like in the US, has a relatively low weight. The domestic benefits of a strong currency and lower rates will outweigh by far any weakening in exports.

and that does not even take into account the fact that a big chunk of Europe's exports are not really price sensitive: it's high-end, quality stuff and people will pay the requisite price in euros to get it, whether Louis Vuitton handbags, BMW salons or specialised beer-bottling machinery...

The potential for conflict within the eurozone is obvious. A stronger euro would be anathema to many eurozone countries, not least France and Italy, already very worried about euro strength. But a looser monetary policy would be anathema to countries such as Germany and the Netherlands that worry about the inflation implications of cheaper money. Indeed, it is far from obvious how the eurozone could run a sizeable current-account deficit without exacerbating tensions between members of the single currency area with large current-account surpluses, such as Germany and the Netherlands, and those with large or rising external deficits – most notably Spain, but also France and Italy. It would be possible for Germany and the Netherlands to continue to run big surpluses at the same time as the eurozone as a whole ran a bigger deficit, but only if other eurozone countries ran even bigger deficits. This is politically implausible.

Ah, let's use imaginary problems to widen the similarly imaginary tensions between eurozone members. That Europe could run a sizable deficit does not mean that it would (because European consumers do not need to be propped up by debt like Amercian ones do), and the fact that eurozone countries will find a political arrangement simply does not enter the mind of the "EU=free-trade-zone-and-nothing-else" anglo economists.

I still remember the predictions that the euro breaching 1.40$ would be the end of the currency as eurozone economies would collapse at such rates, and jump towards go-it-alone national policies. and yet, what do we see today? Some loud grumbling by the industries that are most hurt (they do exist), but a surprising consensus by political figures around the continent, to worry about the topic (a bit), talk about it ( more) and generally let markets deal with it. That simply reflects the fact that the euro strength reflects that of the European economy, and its companies, and is not its cause, or a completely endogenous factor - so it's bearable and, to a large extent, desirable, as it reflects the icnreased wealth generation capacity of Europeans compared to the rest of the world - as paid freely by the rest of the world (isn't that what markets are about? European goods are seen as worth more, thus they are).

So, again, thanks for the concern trolling. Europe will surely manage its currency a lot better than america did over the past 30 years - indeed, it's precisely because it was managed prudently in the past that it is becoming a reference currency today and might become the main trading currency soon; And there is no reason to think that Europeans will treat their currency with the same casual carelessness as the Republican administrations of the past 25 years (the Clinton years were notable for being an actual period of "strong dollar" policy).

So, I personally look forward to the euro as reference currency.

Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:


In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 11:10:19 AM EST
There is, of course, an alternative that the FT and their like  dare not speak: other Eurozone countries could - get this - help out Italy with its problems.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 11:16:17 AM EST
Surely you can't be serious??

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 11:19:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Work with me here: imagine that you had a currency zone, right, and, like, one part of it was doing well from current circumstances and one part not so well. It might, just might, be possible that the winner could compensate the loser. Imagine the possibilities!
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 11:29:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I see a much better option: if you dump Italy, then most of the eurozone will be above the average! Wouldn't that be great?!

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 11:34:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Now that's thinking outside the box.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 11:48:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
America's huge and liquid financial markets
As I see it, these liquid markets increased in volatility until they became gaseous. Now, nothing but hot air! Maybe a solid market would not be so detrimental after all?
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 11:24:14 AM EST
Note to self: never let a physicist near economic concepts. It's freaky.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 11:33:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What's really freaky is seeing that economists believe they are using anything like the physicists' scientific method.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 11:54:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Geeee.. I think it is impossible to agree more...

It really gets me teh creeps to listen to the supposed all-known economists.

thanks that jerome comes to the rescue...

Amazing.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 04:17:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I ran across an . . . interesting author a while back, who was a bit fond of metaphors.  He was of the opinion that Boyle's pressure law could be used to adequetly explain the money supply and inflation.  He also had a lot of nasty things to say about the Federal Reserve, and its founding in supposedly myseterious circumstances, and the Bretton Woods system.

Knowing next to nothing about formal economics or physics, I found the paper amusing, but in the "I know this has to be bullshit, even if I don't know why" vein.

by Zwackus on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 06:55:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
with appropriate title: New: concern trolling the euro

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 11:32:54 AM EST
And here I just returned to the US and its economic meltdown after 3 years of mostly student poverty in France ... at least my loans are in dollars.

Jerome, I really wish you guys gave foreign grad students 1-year work visas after graduation, like the US does (or did?). Europe looks better and better, but in the States I found a job without even interviewing in person. Quelle dommage!

by yally04 on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 11:50:43 AM EST
Demand payment in euros.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 12:36:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
might become the main trading currency soon

We'd need the Brits to come on board for that, IMHO.

/or another Republican to win the US presidency

"If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles." Sun Tzu

by Turambar (sersguenda at hotmail com) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 12:06:18 PM EST
No, we definitely do not need the Brits.
by Quentin on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 12:33:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Under two important scenarios - the remaining EU members, including the UK, join EMU by 2020 or else the recent depreciation trend of the dollar persists into the future - the euro may surpass the dollar as leading international reserve currency by 2022.

National Bureau of economic research

2022 is not exactly "soon". But then, you can't rely on economists' predictions, so we're back to guessing anyway.

"If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles." Sun Tzu

by Turambar (sersguenda at hotmail com) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 01:51:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Are they suggesting a linear change from dollar to euro?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 01:52:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Most of their scenarios predict a gradual change, but the one with the UK joining EMU around 2020 leads to a fast, significant change. Look for the graphs at the end of the paper.

"If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles." Sun Tzu
by Turambar (sersguenda at hotmail com) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 02:10:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Surely the transition from one reserve currency to the other would be highly unlikely to be smooth since it seems very likely to snowball as the herd changes from one to the other. Is there some form of inertia here ? Long-term bonds or something?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 03:18:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The "gradual change" I mentioned was not meant as a total transition from dollar to euro, the dollar stays on top in these scenarios, the herd goes along and the euro never gets above a certain treshold. So, I wasnt really answering your question, I realize.

In the transition scenario, its not smooth at all.

"If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles." Sun Tzu

by Turambar (sersguenda at hotmail com) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 03:40:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, ok. They're very brave to be making predictions about such things until 2022!
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 03:41:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, the dollar has depreciated 60% against the euro since 2000/1. So at that rate it will be worth something like -20% or whatever by 2022, which is impossible. Britain will join the euro when it needs the euro to bolster the wealth of Britain, just like it joined the EU in the 1970s because it was completely on the ropes. The crap never stops. Tonight on the BBC World Service's Europe Today program the presentator talked about something going on in Britain and then asked a reporter how things were going in Europe, the Continent, you know, somewhere over there. And this on a program about Europe!
by Quentin on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 03:07:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, but I think we need you. amongst people who travel abroad on a regular basis, it's hard to find anybody who thinks the UK being apart from the euro is anything other than petty vanity on the part of politicians.

Yea, okay that's my prejudice too, but from left to right political viewpoints they all seem to think it's stupid and backward

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 02:17:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Some people in Britain are not asleep at the wheel, as the government is. Curiously, they're writing for the FT and the Economist...

FT Maverecon blog: Isn't it time for Britain to join the EU?

Denmark is likely to hold a referendum on its relationship with the European Union.  The referendum proposed by Anders Fogh Rasmussen, its newly re-elected prime minister, is not a referendum on the EU Reform Treaty (aka Constitution-lite), although it is possible that Denmark will also hold a separate referendum on the EU Reform Treaty. Instead, the Referendum proposed by Rasmussen concerns the four opt-outs Denmark negotiated as part of the Maastricht Treaty.  The four opt-outs concern Denmark's participation in  (1) the common currency (full EMU membership); (2) EU defence policy; (3) EU cooperation on justice and home affairs and (4) EU citizenship.

The reasons for Denmark's change of heart are obvious.  As regards Eurozone membership, the Danish currency is umbilically linked to the euro via a fixed exchange rate.  Danish interest rates follow those set in Frankfurt for the Eurozone with a lag of a few hours.  Might as well save the transaction costs of converting Danish kroner into euros, get a voice in setting monetary policy for the Eurozone (and for Denmark) and have access to a serious lender of last resort, rather than one which can only issue kroner.

Non-participation in EU defence policy means that Denmark has to stand on the sidelines with military actions it approves of, and even feels strongly about, such as the EU presence in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and probably soon also in Kosovo.  Since 2002, the EU has engaged in sixteen operations outside the EU, using civilian and military instruments in several countries in three continents (Europe, Africa and Asia).


Charlemagne: Britain's costly disdain
IN SOVIET times, one escape for freedom-loving types was "internal emigration". This involved a retreat to a country dacha or secluded library, there to write or grow vegetables and be isolated from the world beyond. It was a rational strategy for those who could not influence the regime, but it had a flaw: they were still behind the Iron Curtain. Now, in a perverse echo, something similar is happening with Britain and its relationship with the European Union. The British are not about to walk out. But they are in danger of mentally turning their backs on the EU.

Plenty of other EU countries harbour Eurosceptics of their own. French leftists want more protectionism; most Austrians hate the thought of admitting Turkey; lots of east Europeans feel the club's environmental rules are overblown. But the British case is different: sections of the government, media and public seem to want to forget that the EU exists. This is an irrational strategy, with two big flaws. Eurosceptic daydreaming aside, the EU is not a dictatorship; and Britain remains a paid-up member.


The Charlemagne column makes a couple of points that are quite excellent but seem to go lost on everyone. Well, maybe not here, but nearly everywhere else.

EU decision making is still often high-level diplomacy. Germany and France have a lock on most of the power because they realise this and act accordingly. For the same reason, the Dutch are punching far above their weight and the Italians have never had much power.

I mean, we do complex 150 page studies to evaluate our negotiating strategies, using fancy game-theoretical models and all. It's not just some game. Every country that is serious about European policy spends a lot of attention on it and has a lot of extremely competent civil servants working on it. Plus of course it tries to get as many civil servants as high in the European civil service as possible.

The UK, however, prefers to sleep things over and consequently it does not get to shape policy but only has blocking power and is frequently isolated. And Brown 'gets' this much less than Blair did. Blair might actually have gotten the UK somewhere in Europe had he not blown it by going to war with Iraq.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 04:08:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
bemoans that the UK's successful strategy to "infiltrate" the EU bureaucracy is no longer being pursued, because (from another article I cannot find right now), there is a permanent need to "regularly bring in Brussels fresh doses of the liberal ideas best promoted by Britain" (or something close to that)

It's just expressing the worry that French and German visions of Europe will win out, not the laisser-faire one.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 05:06:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course. But you can separate the analysis from the recommendations. I'd guess you would more or less take this line:
The death of the European fast stream is "insane, insane", groans one top Eurocrat. A diplomat from another country calls its disappearance "great for the rest of us".
The fact that the UK is asleep at the wheel when it comes to the EU is great if you think that the UK will largely have a negative influence on European policy (e.g. follow the editorial line of the Economist). I sort of take the inverse view that a more engaged UK would also be a more sensible, less obstinate UK.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 06:10:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Britain belongs into Europe, even if its political and financial elite would rather be a lowly vassal to a former colony. I rather had you re-fighting the Hundred Years War in a reduced-power EU Council than across a Western wall of Fortress Europe.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 02:54:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If recent history shows anything, it is that Europe matters when the UK and the continentals manage to agree on a common position, and is hopelessly absent when the UK is on another side (usually that of the US) from the continentals.

As I've said many times, France and Germany actually agree on very little spontaneously, it's a permanent fight, but both have made the strategic decision that a compromise MUST be found with the other, and such compromises are quite often acceptable to most other EU countries because France and Germany usually represent the usual poles. That dynamic actually brakes down on topics where France and Germany are closer. That's where a similar dynamic with the UK would work wonders.

How to make the UK take the strategic decision that it MUST force itself to find compromises with France and/or Germany (and France/Germany making the same commitment) for the greater good of Europe?

The concept of "greater good of Europe" has to exist beyond the channel, I guess would be a first requirement... but I still have hope.

A strengthening euro might concentrate minds, who knows. Or a grand financial crash. Something to take off Brown's mind his haughty conviction of the absolute superiority of the current British model and his vision of Europe as a chore, like sickly parents visiting can be.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 03:50:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I hope we will run our currency better, but I am not as optimistic as you are. Just look at who passes for French president at the moment...

I would say that the balance of probability is that we will do better, and the fact that the ECB is not meant to create housing bubble to help ruling Governments win the next election is certainly reassuring, but acute rotten policies is not an unknown disease in our lands, far from it. And it may only take one moment of folly to make it really hard to come back. Because the price is usually paid later, after the next election. And may befall on those trying to clean up the mess.

Anyway, we shall find out. There is no way the dollar can maintain such a position forever.

"The womb that spawned that thing is fertile yet"

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 12:17:08 PM EST
Power corrupts. See also the evolution of Canada vs. the evolution of the US.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 01:22:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Something that struck me about that column and others like it is that factors like economic and industrial policy don't enter into the analysis at all. This is odd because the large trade surpluses of  Germany and Japan seem to me largely the result of their industrial policies. The idea that policy could affect the economy in any way but getting in its way seems completely absent from the minds of FT journalists.

Curious.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 01:00:35 PM EST
Policies that

favor asset inflation over wage increases, financial shenanigans over actual value generating economic activity, pork over useful spending, and debt over tax to pay for it.
by NHlib on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 01:40:26 PM EST
At the moment Britain is doing fine because it's GNP growth (c.2.5%) at least matches that of the Eurozone, and London is competing successfully with New York and Frankfort as one of the major financial capitals of the world.  Indeed Britain is incredibly dependent on the financial services sector to maintain the overall success of its economy.

It follows that should that success be threatened by the fact that the Euro is, however, tentatively, supplanting or supplementing the Dollar as the world's reference currency, you will see a very rapid change of heart on the Euro in Britain.  In fact you won't see the financial services sector for dust as it rushes to embrace the Euro and lambastes the Government for it's tardiness in adopting it.

It seems illogical that a relatively small economy like Britain's should be able to support a leading world financial services center indefinitely especially with all the currency exchange costs and risks involved. Indeed the current financial services melt-down may presage precisely such a shift in the relative importance of Sterling.

But Sterling chauvinism is very deeply embedded in British political culture.  Expect to see the shift to Euros made far too late to protect the formerly preeminent position of London amongst the leading financial centers of the World.

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Tue Nov 27th, 2007 at 09:05:31 PM EST
Welcome to ET, Frank. Keep them coming!

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 04:02:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Becoming the world's principal reserve currency might not be worth the bragging rights.

Say the people who like to brag about the dollar being the reserve currency.

I am certainly not interesting in bragging about the Euro being the reserve currency, but certainly a strong currency is a good thing - just ask the Germans. And Euro is, after all, the Deutsche Mark 2.0

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 01:56:55 AM EST
your dollar holdings are not worthless.  Yet.  When dollars reach dry shit, we´ll call them renewable.

Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. --Charu Saxena.
by metavision on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 02:03:43 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]