The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Ireland's Last Stand began less shambolically than you might expect. The IMF, which believes that lenders should pay for their stupidity before it has to reach into its pocket, presented the Irish with a plan to haircut 30 billion of unguaranteed bonds by two-thirds on average. Lenihan was overjoyed, according to a source who was there, telling the IMF team: "You are Ireland's salvation." The deal was torpedoed from an unexpected direction. At a conference call with the G7 finance ministers, the haircut was vetoed by US treasury secretary Timothy Geithner who, as his payment of $13 billion from government-owned AIG to Goldman Sachs showed, believes that bankers take priority over taxpayers. The only one to speak up for the Irish was UK chancellor George Osborne, but Geithner, as always, got his way. An instructive, if painful, lesson in the extent of US soft power, and in who our friends really are.
The deal was torpedoed from an unexpected direction. At a conference call with the G7 finance ministers, the haircut was vetoed by US treasury secretary Timothy Geithner who, as his payment of $13 billion from government-owned AIG to Goldman Sachs showed, believes that bankers take priority over taxpayers. The only one to speak up for the Irish was UK chancellor George Osborne, but Geithner, as always, got his way. An instructive, if painful, lesson in the extent of US soft power, and in who our friends really are.
But Morgan's main fire is directed at the ECB (not the IMF) who would not countenance any restructuring (or even buying back of Irish debt at a discount on secondary markets). Morgan portrays the IMF (at staff level at least) as supporting his thesis that the ECB insistence on no restructuring, high interest rates, and total focus on price stability making an Irish default inevitable. Index of Frank's Diaries
And to reiterate: I don't think anybody here is claiming that this whole austerity fiasco is an American conspiracy or that the US played an important part. It is quite clear that the responsibility for these decisions lies on this side of the Atlantic.
We know that Geithner is under attack from Wall Street as they desperately try to fend off regulation.
We do? What is this planned regulation that would so severely damage Wall Street?
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/03/gop-bachus-elizabeth-warren
http://www.citizenvox.org/2011/05/05/elizabeth-warren-amendment/
Warren works for Geithner
The auto rescue and scalping of bondholders happened under Geithner
WS was forced to repay TARP and purchase back options at open market prices under Geithner.
Billions in TARP money went to small banks, including labor banks under Geithner
That's fact. The narrative that relies on speculation about what happened in conversations nobody overheard or in dark plots that have no evidentiary basis is just narrative.
That's fact.
I certainly do not recall Giethner leading the bail-out of GM and Chrysler. Seemed more like he was drug along kicking and screeming. Giethner did not appoint Warren and I have seen little evidence that he supports her efforts, though I would be pleased to be wrong.
The terms on which WS "repaid" TARP and bought back options were about the minimum that would not be seen as outright gifts and the revenue to make those payments came largely from WS arbitrage of the difference between the Fed cost of funds and what they could get in the market. I.E. the public gave them free money for them to lend at interest. Oh, and they understood how much and how long these funds, including QE I and QE 2 would last and were able to "invest" them in markets, such as the stock markets, which they effectively have manipulated. The whole TARP issue is only the tip of the iceberg of Fed and Treasury assistance to TBTFs, and this has been to the detriment of the "real economy", which has continued to wither.
Small banks didn't get TARP money, but mid sized regional banks, such as my bank, Bank of the Ozarks, did, at Treasury insistence, under Paulson. "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
That's pure fiction unless you know someone in the Administration who tells you otherwise.
"The terms on which WS "repaid" TARP and bought back options were about the minimum that would not be seen as outright gifts "
More fiction - if McCain had won they would have been allowed to cancel the warrants which they were demanding strongly.
"revenue to make those payments came largely from WS arbitrage of the difference between the Fed cost of funds and what they could get in the market. I.E. the public gave them free money for them to lend at interest. "
Wrong again. By the way, the discount window was not invented by the Obama administration.
"The whole TARP issue is only the tip of the iceberg of Fed and Treasury assistance to TBTFs, and this has been to the detriment of the "real economy", which has continued to wither."
Which is why we have just had the longest period of manufacturing growth in 20 years.
"Small banks didn't get TARP money, but mid sized regional banks, such as my bank, Bank of the Ozarks, did, at Treasury insistence, under Paulson. "
And that's not even false, it's Republican PR bullshit. The records are online - look it up.
Keep reading Yves Smith and keep believing RW propaganda and calling it "left".
Y E T "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
We have Morgan Kelly arguing he was a key actor, apparently based on an account from an IMF source with knowledge of the negotiations. Morgan Kelly is an economic historian, not an insider in either IMF or Irish Government circles, and so we have to make a judgement call on how reliable his source and his account is. Based on his track record, and based on only partial denials coming out of Washington, I would tend to believe him on this occasion, mainly because the ECB have no need of a US scapegoat: they are doing exactly what they think they should eb doing, and making no apologies for it.
You are free to differ, and seem to be arguing that Geithner is a much misunderstood and maligned guy, both by Morgan Kelly and by US progressives more generally. That is an argument I am not qualified to get into, but I suspect the position people will adopt depends on their view of the Obama administrator's dealing with wall street more generally.
This is a topic which deserves a diary of its own, and does not deserve to be buried in a 250+ comment stream where only 3 or 4 people are still involved. From an Irish point of view, if we are looking for support from the US administration, it is important that we understand the internal dynamics and politics at work within that administration.
So please Rootless2, give us a diary on what you consider to be Geithner's approach to dealing with the financial crisis as it has unfolded in the US and Europe, and how it might differ from the approach of the Germans and the ECB. Index of Frank's Diaries
Oh, and they understood how much and how long these funds, including QE I and QE 2 would last and were able to "invest" them in markets, such as the stock markets, which they effectively have manipulated.
QE1&2, as I understand it, involved US sovereign bonds. Insofar as this is the case, the only extraordinary thing about them is that they are considered extraordinary.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
red herrings to throw off the scent of regulator bloodhounds?
this whole global heist analysis is becoming like an agatha christie whodunit.
and the best de-veilers are right here!
layer by layer, the obfuscatory games are laid bare, and soon the whole world will know if the butler dunnit or not.
was it the colonel with the candelabra?
i still have dreams of paulson in the stocks outside the wall street skyscrapers, getting pelted with defunct 401Ks.
here's beppe grillo's remodded 'animal farm' take on it. Beppe Grillo's Blog
A gentleman called PIG, is about to go bust. He's got a great idea. In order to survive, he's selling his debts. He calls them State Bonds. Many people are buying them; they only want a low rate of interest and a tiny bit of interest when the capital is returned when the loan arrangement ends. Mr PIG has found the system for living above his means. He continues to get debts and to sell them. His family accounts however get worse and to protect themselves, those who buy his bonds, are asking for a higher rate of interest. Mr PIG is obliged to increase the interest rates. Over time, the situation becomes critical. The number of people buying the debt goes down as they are afraid of the risk. The debt is no longer triple A minusminus, but a triple B plusplus. The time will come when Mr PIG is no longer able to pay the interest. The neighbours of Mr PIG who have lent him most of the money, have nothing to gain by making him go bust. If he goes bust they will lose their money. Thus they offer him a loan with lots of conditions, something they call a "bail out". Mr PIG is obliged to accept so as not to go bust. When the money from the loan dries up, Mr PIG finds he's paying more interest than before. Those who have lent him money have only gained time and now they are doubly at risk, they can lose both the State bonds and the loan that is the bail out. Mr PIG, technically a bankrupt, is thus able to raise his voice as though it were he that had lent money to the others. He threatens to restructure the debt. In other words, those who bought his bonds at 100 will see the value halved to 50 and Mr PIG will be freed of half the debt with no one being able to stop him doing so. The creditors, who are ever more worried, don't know which way to turn. In fact, the State bonds, like those of any company quoted on the Stock Exchange, can lose their value. The creditors have one thing in common with Mr PIG, the currency. Once upon a time, Mr PIG used the Drachma, now the Euro. His behaviour is putting at risk the good name of the currency of the virtuous gentlemen that have no debts or few debts. The Euro cannot be compromised. The neighbours can throw out Mr bankrupt PIG from the Euro and see part of their credit go up in smoke for ever or continue to give him finance with one "bail out" after another. Germany and France have about 250 billion dollars in Greek State bonds and because of Mr PIG, the Euro is losing value in relation to the dollar and the yuan. Mr PIG leaves the Euro and his State bonds become waste paper. I would like to find the logic and the moral of the story, but I cannot.
i don't either, unless it's 'the cunning always cheat the weak'.
;( 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
From the point of view of the PIGS economies, it is actually preferable if a default is "kept in the family" until some time after the fact, so the money markets don't throw a hissy fit and crash their economies. And if German politicians want to bail out German banks and then lie to their public about it, then that's a matter between the German electorate and Mrs Merkel.
Indeed I can think of a lot of excellent reasons we might prefer her to try to keep it under wraps. Not the least of which reasons would be that such a coverup would make her politically radioactive when exposed (as it inevitably must be - you can't hide a bailout on that scale). Sadly, I think she'll prove to be too politically savvy or too ideologically committed to the fiction that Germany holds some sort of moral high ground to let such a default pass unmentioned.
So I would prefer a crash NOW to entropy death later.
Yes, but a country with a structural import dependence on fuel and food and a foreign primary deficit may view things in slightly different terms. Especially if they have neo-Nazis rampaging through the streets, looking to take advantage of any "national humiliation."
I don't see why a default has to be widely publicised
I don't see how anyone other than the elites can benefit from the current situation and I find it surreal that the elected governments of the chief victims, the PIGs, have been turned into the enablers for the continuation of the torture of their own populations. Guess I just don't have the stomach for serial abomination. "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
If the USA is to make a positive contribution, I see it coming through Obama/Clinton and a wide selection of Irishphile political and administration figures within the US with Geithner understandably more focused on the global players - both corporate and national - and with US based financial interests. Our main problem is with a resurgent nationalism in Germany and with a disintegration of the Eurozone thanks to an inadequate institutional and policy framework.
What's with your simplistic bad guy narrative? Index of Frank's Diaries
http://www.irishcentral.com/story/roots/the_american_in_ireland/tim-geithner-helped-sink-ireland-121 510004.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1059150
http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/geithner-scuppered-imf-plan-to-impose-haircut-on-irish-de bt/
just google "geithner ireland"
I suspect the Geithner reference is playing into some pre-existing anti-Geithner sentiment on the US left and also a pressure point for Irish Americans on the Obama administration. But from an Irish perspective the main bogeymen are the Irish Government, regulator, central bank, structural flaws in the design and implementation of the Euro, ECB and German nationalism.
The US administration, for once, is a marginal player, but one which I think could be a positive player since it is less austerity fixated and much less hidebound in its dealings with banks than Germany. Index of Frank's Diaries
I think the reemergence of German nationalism is very dangerous.
The deal was torpedoed from an unexpected direction. At a conference call with the G7 finance ministers, the haircut was vetoed by US treasury secretary Timothy Geithner who, as his payment of $13 billion from government-owned AIG to Goldman Sachs showed, believes that bankers take priority over taxpayers.
Treasury denial (as reported)
Last night, a senior US official said this report was "inaccurate". The official pointed out the ECB and the European Commission (EC) did not want to impose haircuts on bondholders who loaned money to Irish banks. "The ECB and EC were both dead opposed and they are decisive. The US is not a decision maker on European issues," the official said
The official pointed out the ECB and the European Commission (EC) did not want to impose haircuts on bondholders who loaned money to Irish banks.
"The ECB and EC were both dead opposed and they are decisive. The US is not a decision maker on European issues," the official said
The Yves Smith take:
Ahem. Notice the statement. It does not say that Geithner was against the restructuring, merely that his opposition made no difference. But this finesses what Kelly discussed, which is that Geithner effectively undercut the IMF
But this finesses what Kelly discussed, which is that Geithner effectively undercut the IMF
And that's just gibberish. Kelly alleges that US "torpedoed" the rescue plan, the US says the obvious - that it didn't torpedo anything because the ECB is calling the shots and the ECB is protecting the bondholders. The key claim of Kelly is "torpedoed" and that's exactly what Treasury addresses. So what we have is a Kelly claim of "torpedoed" that is (a) unsubstantiated (b) denied and (c) based on a clearly false theory that the US is calling the shots. When you add that to the other problems with Kelly's argument (he even gets the total of treasury payments to GS wrong by a factor of 2 1/2) Smith's silly "ahem" just reduces to "but the script has Tim as the bad guy".
There are plenty of reasons to object to US treasury policies from a left wing point of view, but neither Yves Smiths "timmy is evil" cartoon or Kelly's apparent water carrying for the ECB comes close.
The idea that Kelly carries any water whatsoever for the ECB is just plain ridiculous, given the only water he wants to give the ECB is ownership of the Irish banks in return for the 150 Billion the banks owe the ECB.
Some water carrying. Index of Frank's Diaries
But we only have one unsubstantiated and denied allegation that Geithner vetoed anything. And that allegation is surrounded by checkable inaccuracies.
Whether Kelly is telling the truth, making it up, or carrying someone else's excuse is impossible to tell. What's easy to tell is who benefits: the Germans, the UK and the Irish government all of whom have a convenient scapegoat.
Obama blocked IMF deal to haircut Irish debt. Boycott Obama's speech in O'Connell St - pass the word around
And this at a time when the US and Germany are actually in a known dispute
On a more fundamental level, however, Washington is concerned that, should Europe overreach in its rush to cut government spending, it could endanger the fragile economic recovery that has taken hold on the Continent and around the globe. In particular, the US would like to see countries like Germany and France continue efforts to stimulate their economies.
And the US policy has been, for a while to oppose Euro austerity
"In a letter to G20 leaders last week, US President Barack Obama warned against cutting national debts too quickly, arguing it would put economic recovery at risk" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10411167
So the claim is that in contrast to clear US policy, the US treasury department is forcing massive austerity on Ireland and backing up the bond hawks. I guess it is possible, but to me it seems more likely to be disinformation designed to focus popular discontent on an easy target.
Kelly certainly is. And the websites show that he is not the only one in Ireland.
because Ireland does have clout in terms of the Irish American vote and the presence of large US corporates here
I'd consider putting faith in the latter, since a lot of tech companies are over there (and tech companies tend to be more Democratic-leaning than companies in general, so they'll have more sway with Obama). Most of the Irish in America are in New England though, and as you know with the exception of New Hampshire, New England is about as likely to vote for the GOP as I am to win the next mayoral race in Caracas. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 2 4 comments
by gmoke - Sep 27
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 17
by Oui - Oct 8
by Oui - Oct 74 comments
by Oui - Oct 67 comments
by Oui - Oct 55 comments
by Oui - Oct 4
by Oui - Oct 41 comment
by Oui - Oct 31 comment
by Oui - Oct 24 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 24 comments
by Oui - Oct 214 comments
by Oui - Oct 121 comments
by Oui - Oct 124 comments
by Oui - Sep 30
by Oui - Sep 303 comments
by Oui - Sep 2819 comments
by Oui - Sep 28
by Oui - Sep 276 comments
by Oui - Sep 271 comment
by Oui - Sep 263 comments