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.
The dream has ended.
I was looking for a place for a comment based on a post by Yves Smith while you were posting this diary and while dojero was posting the Geither and Strauss-Kahn diary. I ended up posting the comment in today's Salon before I discovered these two new diaries, both of which are on the same topic. I cross-posted the comment on Geither and Strauss-Kahn and, at the risk of being totally ridiculous, will cross-post it here, as it adds to the excellent collection of sources you have assembeled:
Doing anything effective to increase employment, especially high wage employment, would be counter to the interests of the banks. This is something Geithner will not allow, even in Ireland, as this post by Yves Smith demonstrates: Geithner Blocked IMF Deal to Haircut Irish Debt (Yves first quotes Keynes on the intent and effect of the Treaty of Versailles on the German economy, particularly, the requirement that Germany export over a third of its annual coal production!) Now what, pray tell, does this have to do with Ireland, and Geithner? Geithner is as doctrinaire and short-sighted a defender of bankers' privileges as the Allied Powers were of their rights to make Germany pay for the costly and bloody Great War. We had noted that the Irish could have stared down the EU and held out for a bailout of its banks only, and were mystified at the quick capitulation. Consider this section of a very instructive op-ed by Ireland's highly respected economist Morgan Kelly in the Irish Times (hat tip reader disgruntled observer): On November 16th, European finance ministers urged [finance minister Brian] Lenihan to accept a bailout to stop the panic spreading to Spain and Portugal, but he refused, arguing that the Irish government was funded until the following summer. Although attacked by the Irish media for this seemingly delusional behaviour, Lenihan, for once, was doing precisely the right thing. Behind Lenihan's refusal lay the thinly veiled threat that, unless given suitably generous terms, Ireland could hold happily its breath for long enough that Spain and Portugal, who needed to borrow every month, would drown.... 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. An appropriate response by the Irish Government would be to give US debts a 95% haircut as a tribute to Timmy.
Geithner Blocked IMF Deal to Haircut Irish Debt (Yves first quotes Keynes on the intent and effect of the Treaty of Versailles on the German economy, particularly, the requirement that Germany export over a third of its annual coal production!) Now what, pray tell, does this have to do with Ireland, and Geithner? Geithner is as doctrinaire and short-sighted a defender of bankers' privileges as the Allied Powers were of their rights to make Germany pay for the costly and bloody Great War. We had noted that the Irish could have stared down the EU and held out for a bailout of its banks only, and were mystified at the quick capitulation. Consider this section of a very instructive op-ed by Ireland's highly respected economist Morgan Kelly in the Irish Times (hat tip reader disgruntled observer): On November 16th, European finance ministers urged [finance minister Brian] Lenihan to accept a bailout to stop the panic spreading to Spain and Portugal, but he refused, arguing that the Irish government was funded until the following summer. Although attacked by the Irish media for this seemingly delusional behaviour, Lenihan, for once, was doing precisely the right thing. Behind Lenihan's refusal lay the thinly veiled threat that, unless given suitably generous terms, Ireland could hold happily its breath for long enough that Spain and Portugal, who needed to borrow every month, would drown.... 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.
(Yves first quotes Keynes on the intent and effect of the Treaty of Versailles on the German economy, particularly, the requirement that Germany export over a third of its annual coal production!)
Now what, pray tell, does this have to do with Ireland, and Geithner? Geithner is as doctrinaire and short-sighted a defender of bankers' privileges as the Allied Powers were of their rights to make Germany pay for the costly and bloody Great War.
We had noted that the Irish could have stared down the EU and held out for a bailout of its banks only, and were mystified at the quick capitulation. Consider this section of a very instructive op-ed by Ireland's highly respected economist Morgan Kelly in the Irish Times (hat tip reader disgruntled observer):
On November 16th, European finance ministers urged [finance minister Brian] Lenihan to accept a bailout to stop the panic spreading to Spain and Portugal, but he refused, arguing that the Irish government was funded until the following summer. Although attacked by the Irish media for this seemingly delusional behaviour, Lenihan, for once, was doing precisely the right thing. Behind Lenihan's refusal lay the thinly veiled threat that, unless given suitably generous terms, Ireland could hold happily its breath for long enough that Spain and Portugal, who needed to borrow every month, would drown.... 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.
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.
"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Interestingly the Irish American vote is a swing constituency and could be very useful to Obama in securing his own re-election and that of a dem congress. Visiting the oul sod won't do him a bit of harm and throwing a few billion Ireland's way by way of low interest loans won't cost him real money in terms of his budgetary and debt problems... Index of Frank's Diaries
what a great guy he is
Giethner not vetoing the haircut would have cost the US Government nothing -- it just would have angered the banksters who own the government. But loaning the Irish $50 billion would be no problem were it not for the debt cap. But the histrionics over raising the debt ceiling are likely to drag on towards August until or unless the Dems again cave on sanity, and even if they do, the self styled "fiscal conservatives" are likely to howl at "foreign aid"! Perhaps he can get Ben and Timmy to figure a way to slip a loan to Ireland that is similar to the AIG bailout. That is probably your best bet. "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
Since bank bondholders of GM and Chrysler were decapitated on Geithner's watch, haircut does not go far enough, that's a theory that needs some work.
GM and Chrysler are a story about busting or defending the last serious US unions, and all policies regarding the automaker bailouts have to be viewed in that context. Ireland has no such complication - it's a straightforward case of getting raped by the banksters. This difference should be taken into account by any attempt to explain or predict policy response.
And Ireland is not comparable to the automakers. A better point of comparison would be the foreclosure racket in Florida - something there has been no serious federal effort to stop, despite the fact that it's probably the most blatant violation of basic due process protection that has happened to Florida's citizens since they stopped lynching black people.
The fact that we're even having this conversation is exactly why I didn't want the IMF involved. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
And it's odd to claim that one member of IMF
Not really, when it is the member that
a) has the single largest share of the votes b) runs an world-dominating empire
Not that this proves anything about what happened, just showing that if the US says jump and the IMF board of governors asks how high, then nobody should be surprised. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
Read Barofky's report on the AIG bailout. The FRB had to make an emergency decision, with no help from Treasury, to deal with a situation where French banks insisted that they would invoke bankruptcy law on any haircut at all. Furthermore, there was good reason to suppose that default would create a massive crisis all over eastern europe whose bankers had been suckered into buying crap by SG. What should have happened was that treasury should have warned France that it was not going to save SG, but Bush was President reading My Pet Goat again and Paulson, who seems to always disappear from these accounts was both Sec. Treasury and former GS CEO. It would have been a real scandal if the president of NYFRB took it upon himself to decide to plunge Europe into the crisis that they seem to have only delayed until now.
The ridiculous conspiracy theory that places all blame on a career civil servant is not much better than the similarly Republican inspired theory that community loan standards were to blame.
It's also interesting to note that the numbers are wrong (most of that 13B was previously posted collateral from AIG, Maiden Lane payments were $5.6B), oddly chosen since SG got significantly more and it's funny to have GS picked out in the context of another bailout of European/UK banks, and, of course, the uncomfortable fact that Maiden Lane III net balance is going to cover outstanding balance, validating the widely sneered at claim that FRB was responding to a liquidity crisis not an insolvency crisis.
http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/maidenlane.html
How could anyone give any of that article any credence at all?
Of course Geithner could veto an IMF policy proposal. I'm not saying he did, that remains to be proved, but it's within his power. And saying so isn't character assassination.
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.
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.
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.
It would have been a real scandal if the president of NYFRB took it upon himself to decide to plunge Europe into the crisis that they seem to have only delayed until now.
While I don't dispute the rest of your analysis, I feel the need to reiterate that keeping insolvent private banks alive is not helping. Insolvent private banks should be separated from their clearing functions posthaste, and then have the carcass put through ordinary bankruptcy proceedings.
Now, it may well be that it would have been irresponsible to pull the plug on a large number of insolvent European banks in the context of a European federal financial regulator and market maker that is studiously refusing to actually perform either of these jobs. In which case the blame is shared by the witless gold bugs at the ECB.
Keeping insolvent private banks alive is actively contributing to the crisis as well as actively ensuring the crisis persists. The choices are:
Given the quality of decision-making coming out of the Bundesbank et al, I am not convinced that the European policymakers would have been able to salvage a major banking blowup that happened on someone else's time table. Hell, they may not even be able to handle a blowup that happens on their own time table, but at least then they'd have a sporting chance.
I grant there is a emotional side of equal (?) weight going counter to the pure economic analysis. She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
IIRC they bought themselves some tiny bank somewhere so as to qualify as "bank holding companies"... Economics is politics by other means
Yves-Smith, by the way, is a totally unreliable source.
Yves-Smith has a serious grievance against Geithner -she'd believe any story - even one that nobody has told.
I'm much more inclined to believe this rather than rumors.
How to lie with statistical graphs... Economics is politics by other means
Another way of looking at those numbers is by population, roughly:
Greece: 11 mil (28 bil) Portugal: 11 mil (28 bil) Ireland 4 mil (114 bil) Spain: 46 mil (146 bil) Germany: 81 mil (79 bil) You can't be me, I'm taken
I agree that the size/area of the circles does not conform to the figures contained within, and thus has only a semiotic or perceived value.
If you really want to object though, the main point of the graphic is that the four yellow countries are rolling downhill, with the 'stable' slope as Germany. OR, alternatively, the greater 'weight' of Ireland and Spain are tilting the horizontal axis. However the first explanation seems more likely, as the numbers within the circles are slightly rotated to indicate rotation/rolling.
If this graphic comes from a newspaper, it is very likely to have been created by a sullen youth of indeterminate gender in Converse boots and a possible piercing, on the basis of a hurried email instruction by a sub-ed.
Scientists, as you well know, are barred from all publishers. You can't be me, I'm taken
It says "Der Spiegel" on the right, in white on a yellow background (though I doubt they were actually trying to hide this). I suspect that the areas do actually conform to the figures, but they sure don't look at first as though they do.
Maybe there's a third interpretation, a sort of domino effect/snowballing down the German deficit slope.
Whichever way you interpret it, the visual presentation has precious little to do with the data. Economics is politics by other means
plus 100B to UK banks just for Ireland and we start to get an outline of cui bono.
Under a default scenario the creditor countries still have to pick up the losses of their banks, so this is just a different way of achieving the same effect, just delayed so well-connected people have time to liquidate their positions... Economics is politics by other means
Remember, the original sin here is depressing German wages in the name of competitiveness. Telling the German people that they have to bail out the German banks because they lent the money that should have been paid to them to cowboy banks is unlikely to do anyone's political career any good. I'm guessing German workers would have been much happier if it was them rather than Irish bankers who were buying the Mercedes.
Yves-Smith has a serious grievance against Geithner
I find proposed explanations of this crisis that are based on character defects and alleged criminality to be a lot less plausible than ones that are based on who makes money and whose interests are at stake.
A substantial part of those who regularly comment on her site ARE libertarian and some are goldbugs, but she has, at times distanced herself from them. Don't conflate the views of those who comment with her views. My sense is that she would be an Eisenhower Republican, were there such a wing of the current Republican Party.
As for conspiracy theorists, see her recent spoof: Blacklisted Economics Professor Found Dead: NC Publishes His Last Letter "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
On November 16th, European finance ministers urged [finance minister Brian] Lenihan to accept a bailout to stop the panic spreading to Spain and Portugal, but he refused, arguing that the Irish government was funded until the following summer. Although attacked by the Irish media for this seemingly delusional behaviour, Lenihan, for once, was doing precisely the right thing. Behind Lenihan's refusal lay the thinly veiled threat that, unless given suitably generous terms, Ireland could hold happily its breath for long enough that Spain and Portugal, who needed to borrow every month, would drown....
Here is a story we have so far refrained from reporting, but since it continues to make headlines here is what happened: In an interview with BBC Radio 4 former finance minister Brian Lenihan had accused the ECB of bouncing Ireland into a bailout, some days before Easter. Lenihan accused members of the ECB executive of "betrayal" and also criticises some ECB governing board members for the "damaging" manner in which they briefed some media about Ireland, according to the Irish Examiner. In a comment for the Irish Independent Gary O'Callaghan now supports Lenihan in his claim, saying that the ECB board's public frustration triggered the bank run in Ireland. Perceived as electoral rhetoric, the ECB's reaction was calm, the Irish Times reports. Yesterday, Jean-Claude Trichets dismissed again these claims saying that the facts prove that the ECB is siding with Ireland in the difficult circumstances.
"The only one to speak up for the Irish was UK chancellor George Osborne, but Geithner, as always, got his way. "
Unlikely on both counts.
The only positions we get are the US and UK. No one else had an opinion?
Three of the 7 (Germany, UK, France) are home to major creditor banks of the Eurozone, Italy is the in the PIIGS but not in the PIGS, and Canada and Japan presumably wanted nothing to do with the Euro policy mess. The US happens to be the single country which can veto the IMF and has no skin in the Irish rescue game, so its position can be sold to the outside world as disinterested.
Germany, the UK and France politely ask Geithner during the G7 conference call to veto the IMF position on Ireland, and he obliges.
Is that an implausible scenario?
All the same, Frank is right that he chose not to excerpt this part of the story in his diary and Geithner has been brought in by an American quoting Yves Smith... Economics is politics by other means
At a G7 finance minister meeting Geithner vetoed that plan
by Frank Schnittger - May 23 2 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 27 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 5 22 comments
by Oui - May 13 65 comments
by Carrie - Apr 30 7 comments
by Oui - May 30
by Frank Schnittger - May 273 comments
by Oui - May 2712 comments
by Oui - May 24
by Frank Schnittger - May 232 comments
by Oui - May 1365 comments
by Oui - May 910 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 522 comments
by Oui - May 449 comments
by Oui - May 312 comments
by Oui - May 29 comments
by gmoke - May 1
by Oui - Apr 30269 comments
by Carrie - Apr 307 comments
by Oui - Apr 2644 comments
by Oui - Apr 886 comments
by Oui - Mar 19143 comments