Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

Let's see if I get this right...

by Jerome a Paris Wed May 19th, 2010 at 11:15:35 AM EST

1) "markets" suddenly start worrying about Greek public debt, after years of being oblivious to a well known phenomenon;
2) they start betting on a Greek default (by playing on secondary market debt and CDS); prices duly move and generate excitement and "panic," and, naturally, calls (by market players reacting to market players selling Greek debt and the euro) for Greece to tighten its budget;
3) the budget tightening is not deemed sufficient, so calls are made (by market players reacting to market players selling Greek debt and the euro) for other, stronger European countries to "save" Greece (meaning, really, allowing those that bet on Greece not defaulting while claiming that default is inevitable to make money on their bets);
4) to make sure this call is heeded, we get ominous warnings (by market players or clueless pundits) that the euro is doomed and will unravel (how and why that would happen is never ever explained); politicians, who should know better, panic. They first ignore the situation, then bluster, then pontificate and finally capitulate by actually promising to put money on the table; Germany, by dragging its feet, makes the whole thing look 10 times worse by slowing things down, creating appearances of division and offering a perfect scapegoat; the money virtually put on the table ends up being an ever larger pot;
5) markets cash in that promise, and restart the cycle by making it clear they don't actually believe it; the cycle restarts; they make their bets again and cash in again;
6) once actual money is put on the table, and after severe tightening by Greece (ie what markets supposedly called for), markets decide that this, in fact, is bad, as it will not save Greece and is making things worse for other European countries. Now they can rinse and repeat with several more countries, in a never ending cycle.

As a result, we give public money to holders of Greek bonds who should have known better; we end up in a situation worse than before, with the inevitable endgame being savage cuts to the European social safety nets. European is even more Doomed than before (if that were possible) and European leaders get blamed for it.

But they get blamed for not listening fast enough to the markets. Maybe someone should tell them to STOP LISTENING to the markets - the very markets that brought us the boom'n'bubble and the biggest recession in decades, and already made us pay to clean up their mess.

And nobody has explained to me so far how a Greek default would have any kind of practical consequence for the euro...


Display:
This is entirely political - as 'the markets' always are.

'The Markets' means Wall St, which is the tax, tithe and tribute collecting arm of the US empire.

When Wall St isn't happy or a colony starts to have delusions of independence or autonomy, that colony has to be reminded that independence isn't on the list of acceptable options.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 11:41:05 AM EST
Your description is basically how things go, but I would add the part about the markets being banks who lost tons of money, asked gov'ts for help, got that help, and then turned around and criticized gov'ts for having poor balance sheets.

I posted this article yesterday in an open thread:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703745904575248661121721980.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Mos t_Popular

The problem isn't liquidity, psychology or speculators. Germany and France simply cannot borrow or tax enough to cover Europe's debts and looming deficits. So, barring a fiscal and growth miracle, we will either see sovereign defaults (larger and more chaotic for having been postponed) or the ECB will have to print euros to buy worthless debt, leading to widespread inflation. Since inflation lowers the value of promises to state workers and pensioners, and also is easy to blame on others, it will be an especially tempting escape.

Notice who is missing: Greek bondholders are not being asked to miss a single interest payment, reschedule a cent of debt, suffer any write-down, take a forced rollover or conversion of short to long-term debt, or any of the other messy ways insolvent sovereigns deal with empty coffers. Those who bought credit default swaps lose once again.

This is the mentality citizens are up against. There seems to be an idea about market purity where an "investor" can take an entity ransom, tie it up in a straitjacket, browbeat it, and then cry foul when a rescuer shows up. Making it worse, it comes from a professor who is in charge of educating young minds.

by Upstate NY on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 11:48:52 AM EST
This is an inevitable consequence of having the entire political and economic leadership of the EU (and the member states) either economically clueless or infected by neoclassicaljunk economics, in all cases with a severe case of market worship. Also, some of that junk economics has been written into the rules and regulations of the EU, gradually creeping its way into the constituent treaties as a result of 15 years of relative financial stability.

Now that the economic-ideology foundation of the EU system has been discredited by events, politicians and central bankers would lack the institutional tools to level things up again, if they were actually able to grasp the fact that their entire conceptual framework for economics is bunk.

Oh, and you're right there's no rish whatsoever of a breakup of the Euro, let alone the EU. But there will be pain for ordinary Europeans and the European Social Model is at risk because "there is no alternative".

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 11:57:13 AM EST
Jerome:
Maybe someone should tell them to STOP LISTENING to the markets

Migeru:

I am on the record suggesting to replace governments with roomfulls of monkeys at Bloomberg terminals.


Europeans think a hundred miles is a long way. Americans think a hundred years is a long time.
by Bernard on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 04:29:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
European Tribune - Let's see if I get this right...
6) once actual money is put on the table, and after severe tightening by Greece (ie what markets supposedly called for), markets decide that this, in fact, is bad, as it will not save Greece and is making things worse for other European countries. Now they can rinse and repeat with several more countries, in a never ending cycle.
What is this "actual money on the table" you speak of?

European Stabilisation Mechanism: Promises, realities and principles | vox - Research-based policy analysis and commentary from leading economists

There is much to reflect on following the decisions taken over the last weekend. The most important ones are:
  • Policymakers have finally woken up to the scale of the problem;
  • They still do not realize that promises are not enough;
  • The instruments of fiscal discipline have been blown apart.

Barely a month ago European policymakers were talking of €30 billion as a huge show of "solidarity" towards crisis-stricken Greece. That got the financial markets to become even more worried about the euro. Then they came up with €110 billion for Greece. They had a strong conviction that the crisis had been ring-fenced and that there would be no contagion. That was a respectable amount for Greece, but not up to the task as far as contagion was concerned. Pledging €750 billion gets us closer to the kind of game that markets play. One can only admire the sharp learning curve of European policymakers, unless one wonders why they had to start from so far behind the curve. The fund is an empty shell

This feat would be more impressive if the money was indeed available. Unfortunately, so far at least, it is an empty shell. It is surprising that the financial markets bought into it but then they did initially buy into several previous plans only slowly realize that the facts were short of the promises.

What, the money is not available?

EUobserver / Eurozone ministers aim barbed words at Germany

The failure to agree on the operational details of the €750 billion support mechanism resulted in Mr Juncker calling another eurogroup meeting of the 16 finance ministers this Friday.

Speaking after the meeting, EU economy commissioner Olli Rehn said "the principles are clear" but that "the technical and legal details remained to be clarified."

Part of the discord appears to stem from a demand from Berlin that German parliamentary approval be granted before countries can tap the support package, with German finance minister Wolfgang Schauble citing national constitutional requirements.

Oh, shit.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 12:04:15 PM EST
I am desperately hoping Germany gets its head out its ass. If the Euro collapses - and if it collapses it will not be because of faulty economics but because of lack of political will (imho) - the resulting chaos and upheaval will be terrible; Quite possibly the most terrible thing we will all see in our lifetimes.

3rd European war with Germany in 100 hundred years? Quite possibly.  

Money is a sign of Poverty - Culture Saying

by RogueTrooper on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 12:16:19 PM EST
How in gods name would the euro collapse because Greek defaults? Someone please tell me this, because everyone seems to know this (or at least pretend they do), and as it makes no sense whatsoever to me, I feel like an absolute ass donkey.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 01:26:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It won't.

But it may collapse if Greece does not default.

- 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 Wed May 19th, 2010 at 01:29:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The collapse everyone is talking about is a political one, not a financial one.

Given that our politicians have shown in spades for the last 3 years that they're not up to the task of dealing with this crisis...

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 05:09:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I encourage all of you to follow the current financial reform bill in the USA. We have Senators who do not seem to understand the markets or economics. That's all well and good, but they don't have advisors either.

If you can't set policy, then you have completely abrogated responsibility to the markets. It's then left to a committee chair to calm the banks down by telling them, "Ignore my colleagues, I will not allow their hare-brained schemes to pass to a vote."

If this is how the SGP was constructed, then it's no wonder there is so much trouble in these economic systems. The politicians do not understand what they are doing, and they are unwilling to take advice from those who might offer a critique of the dominant system.

by Upstate NY on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 09:19:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
VoxEU: The Eurozone debt crisis: Facts and myths Charles Wyplosz (9 February 2010)
Myth 4: This is a euro crisis, which could result in a breakup of the monetary union. There is no mechanism for transforming the debt crisis into a Eurozone breakup. No country can be forced out and it is in no country's interest to leave (Eichengreen 2007). Had Greece not been part of the eurozone, it would have long undergone a major currency depreciation, like in Hungary in November 2008. The euro protects Greece.

Fact 4: A debt default by the Greek government, on its own, would be a non-event. Greece is a relatively small country (with 11 million people, its GDP amounts to less than 3% of Eurozone's GDP). Contagion to Portugal, which is even smaller, would also be a non-event. Moving on to Spain and Italy is another matter.



By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 05:12:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
that it is the beta version of what they're getting ready to try in the US in not too long, and (if they have the balls) china, once the real estate market bubble starts to deflate.
by wu ming on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 01:22:23 PM EST
As long as governments borrow on markets and markets set corresponding interest rates, is there any escape?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 02:35:03 PM EST
Default.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 02:56:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's the important missing element in all of the hyperventilation going on regarding the euro. Ever since French King Philip performed what is probably the first modern sovereign default when he arrested and executed his bankers, the leaders of Order of the Knights Templar, because they wanted him to pay back the loans for his failed wars against the English, states have consistently proven more powerful than moneylenders. (The research of Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart demonstrates this pretty thoroughly.) The reason is that markets cannot even exist without rules and norms - institutions - which are provided by political systems.  

Markets are creatures of the state, even when they provide ways of allocating resources without direct state interference. When a market, therefore, threatens the stability of a state, it's not really the market causing the problem.  Rather, it is forces within the state itself that cannot, or will not, solve a critical problem of how to allocate resources among society's members, and the market is merely the manifestation of one of several possible instruments for doing that.  On the question of the EU, until political authorities can adequately resolve the question of how to distribute resources among the inequitably endowed member states of the eurozone, problems like the current crisis will be periodically reoccurring features of EU life.  And that might even be okay.

by santiago on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 03:36:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem, in the case of the EU, is that we have a single currency and market and no means (at EU level) of Guillotining the Banksters when they bet against the state or the common good... nor a formal means, again at EU level, for dealing with the inequalities and lack of integration/coordination which has led to this crisis.  Indeed the anglo disease is predicated on the notion of markets unconstrained by state regulation or any notion of the common good.  

Thus Merkel's recent words and actions mark a major new point of departure.  No longer do we try to solve the problem of excessive debt with more debt, we reduce dependency on the debt markets and look to other mechanisms - taxes on banks and financial transactions and devaluation to counter the structural problems which have been highlighted by the most recent manifestation of the crisis.

Frank's Home Page and Diary Index

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 03:50:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But that's the problem.  The EU could have guillotined the bankers by just letting Greece default and providing aid to Greece until the bankers eventually come back the market for Greek debt again. (The research is pretty strong here: Lenders rate defaulting states at investment grade within 3 to 5 years.)

Even if you add up "contagion" effects in Portugal and Spain, the amount of exposure in private banks to public debt in those countries is nowhere near the exposure that private banks and investors had to mortgage-backed debt and insurance on that debt, so even domino of defaults in Europe would really hurt just the bankers, if, and this is the key, the EU could change its policy preventing states from bailing each other out. The focus should be on changing that absurd policy, a fairly easy thing to do given that virtually all EU states have already violated other provisions of the same part of the treaty regarding debt and deficits.  EU policy should not be focused on bailing out bankers like it is today. That is what is creating a bubble in sovereign debt today, not the deficit spending of states that need to feed real people.

by santiago on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 04:44:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I would argue that, given the lack of effective regulation of international finance, announcing a billion dollar stabilization fund for the euro-zone serves like a treasure ship would have for all the pirates in the 16th-18th centuries. Unless the fund is first used to inflict massive pain on the market players who are attempting to profit by destabilizing the sovereign debt markets in the euro-zone, the fund itself  will become the new prize for the banksters, many of them euro-zone based. The only other response to run-amok financial globalization I can see is to institute special rules for the euro-zone, treaties be damned. Don't let players you can not control play in your game.

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 Wed May 19th, 2010 at 09:46:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The big gunship here is the ECB's ability to create money to fund open market operations.

Of course, that would require the political will, on the part of the ECB board, to become the market-maker and squeeze the speculators.

Going for a squeeze is risky and could backfire, of course, and I don't think the ECB or any of its member banks have the infrastructure or staff to run a "proper" trading desk.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 04:37:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the national banks have reasonably sophisticated trading desks - they certainly had them on the forex market back then before the euro.

Wind power
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 09:25:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I suspect open market operations are carried out in a bull-in-a-china-shop fashion, not with the sophistication of, say, Goldman Sachs. But I might be wrong.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 09:29:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So what?

Gunship diplomacy isn't about being subtle. It's about having a big enough gunship, enough ammunition and the will to use it until the people you're persuading have been persuaded or have stopped moving.

- 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 Thu May 20th, 2010 at 10:25:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I still have this funny idea that for central banks to extract seignorage from bond markets by acting subtly as market makers wouldn't be a bad idea.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 10:37:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure, that would be nice. Killing off a bank or two in the process would not hurt either.

But it's not necessary. Putting a plug in the pump-and-dump operations is necessary.

So if the central banks don't have the staff to do it with subtlety, then do it without subtlety. Subtlety can wait until they've trained staff - intervention can't.

- 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 Thu May 20th, 2010 at 10:41:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
JakeS:
Putting a plug in the pump-and-dump operations is necessary.
The problem is that Trichet doesn't believe that Pump-and-Dump is what dun it. He thinks the market was not operating properly for lack of liquidity. Or so he says.

European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet: A 'Quantum Leap' in Governance of the Euro Zone Is Needed - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

SPIEGEL: What exactly happened between Thursday and Sunday of the week before last, when Europe's heads of state and government launched the largest financial rescue package in the history of Europe?

Trichet: On Thursday afternoon and throughout Friday, we had a continuous deterioration of the situation in the financial markets, both in Europe and, as a consequence, at the global level. On Friday, markets closed and number of important indicators -- spreads on sovereign bonds in Europe, CDS spreads and the situation in the interbank market -- were signalling the spreading of severe tensions. I made those points to the heads of state and government on Friday evening. That is what happened between Thursday morning and Friday evening. Being permanently alert is of the essence when you have important responsibilities.

...

SPIEGEL: So, what was in danger? Just the banks? The euro? The European Union?

Trichet: We are now experiencing severe tensions, which are coming after the events of 2007-2008. At that time, private institutions and markets were about to collapse completely. That triggered a very bold and comprehensive financial support by governments. And now we see the signature of some governments put into question. This is a problem for almost all industrialized countries. In the G-7, the major economies have a yearly deficit of around 10 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). In the euro area as a whole it averages 7 percent of GDP. In this situation with extremely elevated deficits across the globe, the markets have singled out a weak link: Greece. Also taking into account the fact that its statistics were incorrect at one time, market pressure was concentrated there and a drastic adjustment program was necessary.

...

SPIEGEL: The financial markets were not impressed by the first aid package for Greece.

Trichet: As I said, the situation was already starting to get worse on Thursday afternoon and throughout Friday of the week before last. A number of markets were no longer functioning correctly; it looked somewhat like the situation in mid-September 2008 after the Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy.

...

SPIEGEL: In the course of the crisis, the governing council of the European Central Bank decided, for the first time, to buy the government bonds of troubled EU countries -- thus breaking a taboo. The president of Germany's central bank, the Bundesbank, Axel Weber, his Dutch counterpart and the ECB's chief economist, Jürgen Stark, voted against this move. Seldom is there so much dissent within the highest decision-making body for the euro.

Trichet: As you know, I never comment on individual views. Our measures are explicitly authorized by the (EU) treaty. We are not embarking on quantitative easing. We are helping some market segments to function more normally. And, as I said, we will take back all the additional liquidity that we will supply in our Securities Markets Program.

No market manipulation, just market failure, possibly just a liquidity problem. Is he being clueless? Is he hiding his intentions from the pump-and-dumpers? Is he lying for the pump-and-dumpers?

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 11:38:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Pump-and-dump is just normal, healthy operation of the market. And the market always knows best. Everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, we just need to help the market with liquidity from time to time.

If you don't like this message, then you unbellyfeel capitalism.

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

by eurogreen on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 11:56:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Time to raise the long-term capital gains rate to the current top rate, and then install special pump-and-dump capital gains. A new short-term rate of 75%. Maybe shorter than 18 months though.
by Upstate NY on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 05:02:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Perhaps they could attract a senior player from the private sector and give that player a budget for a small department and a mandate to kill some predators and make some money. Let the department keep a healthly "bonus pool" from their killings. Let these bastards see what is really is like to "compete with the government"!

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 Thu May 20th, 2010 at 11:35:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It appears at least the Fed does.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 21st, 2010 at 04:34:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The reason is that markets cannot even exist without rules and norms - institutions - which are provided by political systems.

I wish that, say, more than one out of every five Americans understood this, for reasons that should be obvious - especially as we're (IMO) likely to have a non-system guy in office within the next decade.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 03:52:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Your estimate is very generous. I would say that the proportion of the US electorate that understand the importance of governments to markets is well less than one in one hundred. Even in the financial industry a large number have been taught that government just gets in the way of "market innovation". They might concede that there has been some little problems with this in the last couple of years, but believe more regulation will only make things worse.

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 Wed May 19th, 2010 at 09:51:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Markets are creations of states

Very true. And the very most basic form of capital is the social and economic order that is expressed through the state. Unfortunately, powerful market leaders, possibly having realized this, have taken care to capture control of the states. So governments are faced with the prospect of endless looting by the cleptocracy or summoning the courage to turn on the markets and their own masters. The people can play a part in this, but it is messy and poorly understood. That is why I expect total collapse as the most likely end game.

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 Wed May 19th, 2010 at 04:17:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, the European Central Bank could stabilize bond yields and limit spreads by acting as a market-maker in the secondary markets. If they had done this in February there would have been no Greek bond crisis as there wouldn't have been any extreme volatility in the Greek bond yields, leading to rather boring bond auctions when the time came to roll over successive batches of debt this spring.

But doing so would have given Axel Weber and Jürgen Stark apoplexy.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 05:07:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"But doing so would have given Axel Weber and Jürgen Stnark apoplexy"

Ve cannot haf Greek profligacy and corruption being underwritten by cherman efficiency?

Frank's Home Page and Diary Index

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 05:22:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But doing so would have given Axel Weber and Jürgen Stark apoplexy.

If that forced them to retire how is that a bad thing?

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 Wed May 19th, 2010 at 09:53:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Threat to euro has 'incalculable' consequences, Angela Merkel warns (includes video)

Angela Merkel, her political career threatened, told Parliament that the consequences would be "incalculable" if eurozone countries did not meet the challenges faced by their single currency.

Speaking to MPs after introducing the short-selling ban and a new tax on banks, the Chancellor said: "This challenge is existential and we have to rise to it. The euro is in danger. If we don't deal with this danger, then the consequences for us in Europe are incalculable.

Accepting all of the points above, it can perhaps be argued that the Euro policy response hasn't been quite as bad as portrayed here:

  1.  Let the Euro devalue.  See if we care.  It will only help our exports and help peripheral Euro economies out of recession by counter-acting some of the deflationary impact of fiscal retrenchment.

  2.  Sod the Brits and their free market economics.  We're going to tax the banks and ban shady hedge fund tactics.  Let them divest from European stocks if they want. The effect on share prices will be short term and real value investors will come in as the economic fundamentals reassert themselves.

  3. The FDP and their unfunded tax cuts can feck off.  We will raise taxes if we have to to balance the books and reduce our dependence on foreign debt markets.

  4. We will increase economic integration/political coordination as much as we have to to fend off the hedge funds aka financial predators and ensure that their bets against the Euro will turn out to be losing ones...  

  5. We will raise them every time they bet against us...

Am I being too optimistic?

Frank's Home Page and Diary Index
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 02:48:41 PM EST
Am I being too optimistic?

Great ideas, but yes you are. This would only work if the people in charge were honest patriots who cared more about the good of their nations than they care about neolib ideology, banks and their shareholders.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 02:59:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So why is Merkel so worried about the fate of the Euro?

Frank's Home Page and Diary Index
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 03:36:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Deutsch Mark fetishism transfered to the Euro?

Europeans think a hundred miles is a long way. Americans think a hundred years is a long time.
by Bernard on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 04:24:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am no more satisfied by this explanation than by Starvid's original "ideological capture" explanation.

My preferred approach - what is in the self interests of the German political elite?  Hardly the death of the Euro, a capture by Anglo American Banks and hedge funds, or a collapse of the Euroland economy.  Things are going fine for the Germany economy within Euroland and the single market.  What they want, above all, is stability, so they can continue to capture market share and make Billions.  

So safeguard the Euro, avoid defaults, bail out the German banks, deepen the single market and greater Euro=German fiscal control are on the menu.  An Anglo-American "investor" takeover definitely isn't.  No more than Maggie Thatcher, Merkel simply isn't having it.  Ve shall make ze rules...

Frank's Home Page and Diary Index

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 04:57:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Frank Schnittger:
My preferred approach - what is in the self interests of the German political elite?

To win the next election?

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 Thu May 20th, 2010 at 08:47:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That worked well, didn't it?

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 08:50:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Or to state it at more length, the elite in power will only stay in power by winning elections, the elite in opposition will come to power by winning elections. So next election is always in sight. On a personal level, they generally tend to want to further their careers in and after politics.

As long as certain narratives control the electorate, the party machines will deliver politicians who pander to those narratives. And as long as those who hire former politicians are enthralled by the same narratives, there is on the personal level nothing to counteract this.

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 Thu May 20th, 2010 at 10:23:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
She's concern-trolling. There is no threat to the Euro given everyone's political commitment to keeping it, and the fact that a breakup of the Euro would be immediately very painful for everyone.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 05:02:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yep, but she has to raise the spectre of systemic collapse to get German legislatures to see the self-interest in doing something about it...even if it appears, on the surface, to be about bailing out Greeks...

Frank's Home Page and Diary Index
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 05:25:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But then she goes out and undermines the whole effort by saying it won't work, and her minister makes the politically untenable demand that the final word in any EU-level financial aid should lie with the German Parliament.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 05:28:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Unfortunately for Merkel, she has no credibility whatsoever on fiscal rectitude (or she shouldn't, if people were actually paying attention).

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 05:29:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've always thought some of the utterances coming out of Germany sounded like deliberate sabotage.

If you listen to Juncker and the Belgians, it's clear that they believe it too.

The Germans maybe are like the opposite of the Greeks in this case. Both don't want to make the move they really want to make (in the case of Greece, default, and in the case of Germany, leaving the euro) because of keeping up appearances in the neighborhood.

by Upstate NY on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 09:30:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And the value of the euro is still very high compared to it's starting value; this seems often forgotten:

1 EURO in US dollars, average per year:

2000    0.92437   
2001    0.89610   
2002    0.94550   
2003    1.13165   
2004    1.24346   
2005    1.24502   
2006    1.25583   
2007    1.37035   
2008    1.47092   
2009    1.39423   
*2010    1.37494         

Today: about 1.23, so similar to the average for 2004, 2005 and 2006.

by Joost van der Lugt on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 07:01:06 PM EST
or a multi-year average of 1.20 - exactly where it is now....


Frank's Home Page and Diary Index
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Wed May 19th, 2010 at 07:27:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Statistical noise is news if:
  • like a ForEx trader, you have the attention span of a ferret on crack
  • like a market news reporter, you get paid by the number of news you report
  • like a politician, you're clueless
  • like an economist, you believe prices perfectly reflect all relevant information available (which is worse than clueless)


By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 04:34:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ferrets on crack, LOL.

that would be a cool name for a Mig's economy website.

meanwhile back at the ranch

BBC - Adam Curtis Blog: THE ECONOMISTS' NEW CLOTHES

On the 3rd of february, i took part of the tv show « The debate » on France24.

http://www.france24.com/en/20100203-france-24-debate-financial-crisis-economic-bankruptcy-states-gre ece

http://www.france24.com/en/20100203-france-24-debate-financial-crisis-economic-bankruptcy-states-gre ece-part2

If you speak English, please, listen to what i've said when we were talking about Greece cheating on economics stats. If not, please, read this resumé :

There is a new game on the Credit-Default Swaps (CSD). Now, it's not 1) Bear Stearns 2) Lehman Brothers 3) Merrill Lynch, it will be 1) Greece 2) Portugal 3) Spain.

Your Greek's kitty, hardly earned, will be taken over the storm and you will immediately need four others ones : Portugal, Ireland, Cyprus and Spain which is bigger than the first four.

Then, you will get few days to take your breath because the next victim is not in the euro zone since it will be United-Kingdom.

It's not about big incomes : it's about dominoes, and as « Lehman Brothers » was written in the sky the day Bear Stearns fell, « Portugal » will be written in the firmament the day Greece will go bankrupt.

So, what should we do ? Point the spotlights at the main cause. At this dreadful combination of the public debt ratings from rating corporation and the non-position of the CDS, this bets from people who are not getting any risks but are creating huge systemic risks with one aim : huge personal profits.

It's time, Ladies and Gentlemen, to forbid bets on price variations.

Don't tell me it's complicated : it is not, it's already written in the american accounting standard FASB 133.

Don't tell me it will affect liquid asset : this reproach, i used to answer that punters only create liquid asset for other punters so it doesn't matter, but today, i'll add this : « At this level of likely disintegration of the Euro zone : liquid asset, we don't care ! »


It's a fine line between homage, parody, and consumer opportunism. Jess Walter
by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 05:18:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
melo:
It's time, Ladies and Gentlemen, to forbid bets on price variations.
What, you're going to outlaw vanilla put/call options?

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 06:08:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
quelle scandale!

exactly what social benefit do they represent other than a dogtrack for crazed gamblers to punt at?

oops, i forgot, our great nations' banks must be allowed to compete, or our flags go to half mast.

It's a fine line between homage, parody, and consumer opportunism. Jess Walter

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 09:16:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I could see a good case for banning naked call options: If you sell a call option, you must have the paper on hand.

- 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 Thu May 20th, 2010 at 10:31:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why give ferrets such a bad name? They can have quite a good attention span when a food source is involved...

Frank's Home Page and Diary Index
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 09:28:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh I don't know: "The name "ferret" is derived from the Latin furittus, meaning "little thief".

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 09:58:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Truth Excavator blog digs out that Greg Palast (yeah, that one!) described the "free capitalization" process back in 2001, in his profile of the then fresh Nobelist Joseph Stiglitz.

There's an Assistance Strategy for every poorer nation, designed, says the World Bank, after careful in-country investigation. But according to insider Stiglitz, the Bank's staff 'investigation' consists of close inspection of a nation's 5-star hotels. It concludes with the Bank staff meeting some begging, busted finance minister who is handed a 'restructuring agreement' pre-drafted for his 'voluntary' signature (I have a selection of these).

Each nation's economy is individually analyzed, [then] the Bank hands every minister the same exact four-step program.

Step One is Privatization - which Stiglitz said could more accurately be called, 'Briberization.' Rather than object to the sell-offs of state industries, [national leaders] - using the World Bank's demands to silence local critics - happily flogged their electricity and water companies. "You could see their eyes widen" at the prospect of 10% commissions paid to Swiss bank accounts for simply shaving a few billion off the sale price of national assets.

And the US government knew it, charges Stiglitz, at least in the case of the biggest 'briberization' of all, the 1995 Russian sell-off [...]

After briberization, Step Two of the IMF/World Bank one-size-fits-all rescue-your-economy plan is 'Capital Market Liberalization.' In theory, capital market deregulation allows investment capital to flow in and out. Unfortunately, as in Indonesia and Brazil, the money simply flowed out and out. Stiglitz calls this the "Hot Money" cycle. Cash comes in for speculation in real estate and currency, then flees at the first whiff of trouble. A nation's reserves can drain in days, hours. And when that happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation's own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise interest rates to 30%, 50% and 80% [...]

At this point, the IMF drags the gasping nation to Step Three: Market-Based Pricing, a fancy term for raising prices on food, water and cooking gas. This leads, predictably, to Step-Three-and-a-Half: what Stiglitz calls, "The IMF riot."

The IMF riot is painfully predictable. When a nation is, "down and out, [the IMF] takes advantage and squeezes the last pound of blood out of them. They turn up the heat until, finally, the whole cauldron blows up," as when the IMF eliminated food and fuel subsidies for the poor in Indonesia in 1998. [...] You'd almost get the impression that the riot is written into the plan.

And it is. What Stiglitz did not know is that, while in the States, BBC and The Observer obtained several documents from inside the World Bank, stamped over with those pesky warnings, "confidential," "restricted," "not to be disclosed." Let's get back to one: the "Interim Country Assistance Strategy" for Ecuador, in it the Bank several times states - with cold accuracy - that they expected their plans to spark, "social unrest," to use their bureaucratic term for a nation in flames [...]

A pattern emerges. There are lots of losers in this system but one clear winner: the Western banks and US Treasury, making the big bucks off this crazy new international capital churn [...]

Now we arrive at Step Four of what the IMF and World Bank call their "poverty reduction strategy": Free Trade. This is free trade by the rules of the World Trade Organization and World Bank, Stiglitz the insider likens free trade WTO-style to the Opium Wars. "That too was about opening markets," he said. As in the 19th century, Europeans and Americans today are kicking down the barriers to sales in Asia, Latin American and Africa, while barricading our own markets against Third World agriculture [...]

Stiglitz greatest concern is that World Bank plans, devised in secrecy and driven by an absolutist ideology, are never open for discourse or dissent. Despite the West's push for elections throughout the developing world, the so-called Poverty Reduction Programs "undermine democracy."

And they don't work. Black Africa's productivity under the guiding hand of IMF structural "assistance" has gone to hell in a handbag. Did any nation avoid this fate? Yes, said Stiglitz, identifying Botswana. Their trick? "They told the IMF to go packing."

by das monde on Thu May 20th, 2010 at 05:30:49 AM EST


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

Top Diaries

Pentecost steam

by DoDo - May 20
7 comments

A Nomad's Life (A Farewell)

by Nomad - May 10
14 comments

Simple Solar Principles

by gmoke - May 17
1 comment

Rail News Blogging #24

by DoDo - May 12
10 comments

Ferguson hates on Keynes

by Migeru - May 6
100 comments