Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
given that I tend to have sympathy for the German position today that too many took too much debt on and these people will have to go through lean years, I don't really see any contradiction in my position.

The problem was created by too much debt. The debate is whether trying to be virtuous today is more dangerous than trying to save the economy through yet more debt (ie is certain pain today better or worse than uncertain pain later, and how would that future pain be)

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Jun 10th, 2010 at 09:22:25 AM EST
liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate... it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people. (Wikipedia)
Yeah, virtue. Burn down the economy, fire purifies! Let's cut long-term unemployment benefits so people don't choose to take a long vacation like in the 1930's...

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 Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 10th, 2010 at 09:29:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What kind of pain would you favour? Social cuts, investment cuts, military cuts, VAT raises, income tax raises, business tax raises, property tax raises, other?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jun 10th, 2010 at 09:51:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For the record, I wouldn't be against balancing the budget in a weak recession with taxes; and having seen how inflation is also a way to reduce pensions and social benefits and how industries dependent on imported raw materials or machines suffer from exchange rate devaluations too, I am less confortable with the inflate-out-of-debt solution.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jun 10th, 2010 at 10:06:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But taxes also have a disincentive effect on economic behaviour. Taxing either wages or business profits in a slowdown nips recovery in the bud. Taxing capital appreciation realised in asset sales has fewer undesirable disincentives. Also taxing asset values (and the problem was in part an asset bubble). Immovable assets (that is, real state and straight land values) are the only ones that cannot flee in response to a tax, and also responsible for the greater part of the debt bubble in much of the OECD, so taxing them would also be a good thing.

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 Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 10th, 2010 at 10:13:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Taxing either wages or business profits in a slowdown nips recovery in the bud.

That assumes a uniform recession across all industries, and a uniform recycling of all personal income as consumption (or investment). In addition, in a country suffering from trade deficits, there could be import taxes; though those could be problematic for other reasons.

BTW, I forgot to write: beyond more debt, savings and taxes; debt restructuring and temporary capital controls might also work in a mild recession. (And in a heavy one, there is default.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Jun 10th, 2010 at 10:22:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem with import taxes, debt restructurings and capital controls is that the serious trade imbalances are intra-EU, debtors and creditors tend to be on opposite sides of national borders, and both tariffs and capital controls are against EU internal market rules.

Either we're in it all together, or we're not. Apparently we were in it all together only as long as the going didn't get too rough. Now tha name of the game is class war and nationalism.

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 Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 10th, 2010 at 11:34:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You forgot inflation, which not so recently wasn't "pain":

Jerome a Paris:

a little bit of inflation (say 3-7% per year) is good for the poor and bad for the rich; more is the opposite.
However, apparently Jerome now prefers the Bundesbank's "virtue" of less than 2% inflation regardless of the point in the business cycle or the amount of outstanding debt...

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 Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 10th, 2010 at 10:09:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I will just use a swear word to answer you. You are choosing each time to distort my positions and make them look like some kind of religious nuttery.

I'll just stop answering you.

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Jun 10th, 2010 at 10:20:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know that swearwords are worse than your usual 'meh' or 'bah'.

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 Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 10th, 2010 at 11:23:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I though 'Gah' was the official Parisian response.

'Bah' is the Colman maneuver, occasionally TBG-ified.

'Meh' doesn't seem to be part of ISO-standard ET.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Jun 10th, 2010 at 12:15:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem was created by too much debt. The debate is whether trying to be virtuous today is more dangerous than trying to save the economy through yet more debt (ie is certain pain today better or worse than uncertain pain later

However, not all debt is created equal. Debt taken out by the sovereign to finance infrastructure development during a serious business depression (you aren't really claiming that Germany couldn't use any more railways, are you?) is not the same beast as debt taken out to maintain consumption in the face of falling real income. During the next boom, this debt has to be removed, of course, either by higher tax income, an explicit default or a quiet default through devaluation and inflation.

and how would that future pain be)

The pain of trying to deleverage the public sector is without a shadow of doubt greater when you do it at the same time that the private sector is trying to deleverage. I didn't realise that this point was controversial at all, outside certain monetarist fantasies.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jun 10th, 2010 at 09:52:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
  1. I've long said that public debt to fund socially useful investment was good policy today (or would have been good policy if we hadn't spent so much public debt capacity on bailing out the banksters). I've long written about how this could happen through an energy/transport reconversion plan which would have lots of other positive externalities;

  2. at some point, you can only justify more debt if it is used for investing purposes, and not just to support consumption. Consumption has to be supported by reallocation of the pie in a way which is different from today. To answer DoDo's point above, there is a need for a real reshaping of the tax system. A lot of that could only happen with significant coordination between at least the EU and the US.


Wind power
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Jun 10th, 2010 at 10:25:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
When banks create credit they do so in one of two ways:

(a) Lending - creating interest bearing loans;

(b) Spending - to buy (say) government debt; to pay staff or other costs; and to pay dividends to shareholders.

In every case bank credit creation gives rise to a matching demand deposit, and the sum of these deposits is - with notes and coin (and now QE) - the 'fiat' money in existence. There is of course plenty of other (trade etc) credit in existence.

There is no reason at all - other than pure ideology - why Treasuries acting directly, or indirectly through Central Banks, cannot spend, as well as lend, money directly into the provision of productive assets in the public or private sectors.

This spending process would need to be managed by a service provider with a stake in the outcome, and would also need to be accountably supervised by a monetary authority.

Once productive assets are complete, then the QE/Public credit used to create them could be refinanced by existing or new long term (eg pension) investment, and the QE would be retired for recycling.

Investment in the individuals and enterprises necessary to create these assets would be taxed, and part of this tax would again retire and recycle the QE investment.

The 'Big Lie' is that public credit/QE is 'inflationary' when private credit is not. In fact both are potentially inflationary, particularly if applied to existing productive assets, but private credit is self evidently more inflationary than public credit to the extent that it includes excess management etc payments and dividends to shareholders.

Neither public nor private credit has any cost at the time of creation. Both come with a cost of service/platform provision and default costs.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Thu Jun 10th, 2010 at 02:51:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series