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.
European Tribune - A Two Monetary Union Solution to Problems in the EMU
I believe that the monetary policy of any monetary union of which Germany is a part will have to be similar to the present situation - unless and until it massively fails.
I don't think Germany is the problem, just the main symptom. Yes, Germany runs an unsustainable strategy for current account surpluses and fixed exchange rate. But absent cooperation from ECB and political leaders all across Europe they would have been forced to recycle their surpluses or see their claims written of.
The main problem is instead that all of the elite politcal class and the ECB are acting in collusion (based on belief or interest) to apply Shock Doctrine to the European economies, starting from the periphery.
Now say that Syriza wins the next Greek election and manages to pull together a majority in parliament to roll back austerity and replace it with prosperity. Then either the ECB backs down or it forces Greece to leave the euro. If it backs down Greece has no reason to propose a Seuro. But perhaps more importantly if Greece is forced out it has no reason to enter into a new monetary union with other rejects.
Say that several countries are forced out after electing governments that would support living wages, renewable energy and full employment. None of those needs a monetary union. With a Seuro, two arguments in favor of the euro would be gone, a Seuro grants neither European unity nor sooths insecure emotions by being a symbol of being accepted into Europe proper. There would be a simple reason against, the failures of EMU showing the risks and no arguments in favor. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
living wages, renewable energy and full employment. None of those needs a monetary union.
ding ding... nutshelled to perfection. 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
I don't think Germany is the problem, just the main symptom. Yes, Germany runs an unsustainable strategy for current account surpluses and fixed exchange rate. But absent cooperation from ECB and political leaders all across Europe they would have been forced to recycle their surpluses or see their claims written of. The main problem is instead that all of the elite politcal class and the ECB are acting in collusion (based on belief or interest) to apply Shock Doctrine to the European economies, starting from the periphery.
The 'cooperation from the ECB' was baked into the cake when the EMU was established as a part of the price for Germany entering. And the interests being advanced were obviously those of the elites considering that the first step was removal of controls on capital flows. This should have only followed implementation of effective prudential regulation and establishment of Euro Zone wide bank resolution policies financed by a Euro Zone wide source of funding.
A significant incentive to German elites for joining was that debtors in other countries could no longer devalue their debts. The consequences of these factors were much cleared to interested party elites than to most citizens. 'Most citizens' were convinced that the EMU would IMPROVE their condition, which was one of enjoying the benefits of social welfare policies, not DEGRADE their condition by stripping away those benefits to the enrichment of the elites.
Had those citizens believed that such changes as have come about since would indeed happen I cannot believe they would have favored joining. I would argue that there was no true 'meeting of the minds' on the part of citizens of future EMU nations. The citizens were duped.
Say that several countries are forced out after electing governments that would support living wages, renewable energy and full employment. None of those needs a monetary union. With a Seuro, two arguments in favor of the euro would be gone, a Seuro grants neither European unity nor sooths insecure emotions by being a symbol of being accepted into Europe proper. There would be a simple reason against, the failures of EMU showing the risks and no arguments in favor.
Also a Seuro union, especially were it to include Italy, would give greater weight and power to insure reasonable treatment by the EMU due to its new found ability to renegotiate or default on debt held by EMU entities. They could, for instance, declare that the gratuitous damage done by Troika policies be deducted from the debt owed. And the ability of an SCB to employ creation of endogenous money for self liquidating investments could quickly turn around the economies of peripheral countries, providing a clear example of practical alternatives to austerity while shooting TINA in the head.
But the biggest benefit that the creation of a Seuro Union would have would be to break the control that conservative interests currently have over policy. As for soothing 'insecure emotions by being a symbol of being accepted into Europe proper' I would say that this is best accomplished by said citizens learning to stand up for their own self interest rather than being addicted to meaningless lies and delusions. Being 'accepted into Europe proper' may be the post modern version of Marx's 'opiate of the people'. "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Governments that could support living wages, renewable energy and full employment might concievably be elected, but if these countries are not of significant economic and political weight they are much less likely to be able to sustain these policies in the face of predictable sabotage by those remaining in the EMU. That is one major benefit of a Seuro union.
But they don't need a Seuro union to cooperate. If a couple of peripheral countries got their act together they could easily gum up the works in the EU.
Thinking about it, if they are in practise removed from the euro zone - but through ECBs grabbed power rather then any legal procedure - then I think they would retain their seats at the ECB Governing Council. And they would in any case have their seats in the Council of the European Union, which appoints - by a qualified majority - the executive board of the ECB. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
Say that several countries are forced out after electing governments that would support living wages, renewable energy and full employment. None of those needs a monetary union.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
But much of it would benefit from a properly constructed monetary union.
It would only be worth doing were the Seuro Central Bank (to) be prepared to be a lender of last resort for banks in the union and if sufficient monetary union was accepted by the members to allow for the creation of a Seuro Treasury and development bonds with liability shared by all member states. Full fiscal union would not be required, but it must be accepted that basic monetary policy must be directed according to the needs of all of the members, not just the largest. The effects of an interest rate that is too low for the needs of some members could be (partly) compensated by increased prudential regulation, for instance. Proceeds from such bonds or money created by the SCB should primarily be used for projects that would both clearly be self liquidating and that would provide employment within the Seuro zone and it would have to be agreed that trade surpluses within the zone would have to be recycled through investment in deficit countries so as to produce balanced trade within the bloc.
Proceeds from such bonds or money created by the SCB should primarily be used for projects that would both clearly be self liquidating and that would provide employment within the Seuro zone and it would have to be agreed that trade surpluses within the zone would have to be recycled through investment in deficit countries so as to produce balanced trade within the bloc.
Countries in the Seuro could agree to mutual policies that allow for the level of social solidarity that existed prior to the crisis, as they could maintain the value of their currency via the exchange rate mechanism. If all countries within the union agree to certain standards of wages and benefits and agree, if necessary, to protect their economies by both capital controls and tariffs they could, to a considerable degree, opt out of global wage arbitrage. Citizens, I believe, would gladly trade higher prices for some consumer goods for a higher degree of social cohesion and stability. Living wages, renewable energy and full employment instead of 'Always low prices'.
And the interests being advanced were obviously those of the elites considering that the first step was removal of controls on capital flows. This should have only followed implementation of effective prudential regulation and establishment of Euro Zone wide bank resolution policies financed by a Euro Zone wide source of funding.
None of these things exist currently in the Euro zone and the attitudes of Germany and the other elites for which Germany fronts seem to be: : Let it bleed!" "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
I have seen the need for European Investment Bank investments and bank liquidification etc as a result of the current mess with a ECB without a proper sovereign. A hack to fix the EMU without breaking it up.
If it is a larger matter of needing European regulators because EU rules has defanged national regulators, then those problems are not solved by instituting South European regulators. Unless the idea is that the South European countries should leave not only the EMU but also the EU and form their own union, the SEU. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
Practically speaking, if a bloc of Spain, Italy and Greece decide to do it anyway, that's a totally different animal from doing it individually.
A hack to fix the EMU without breaking it up.
Ok, but would a full blown Seuro with a common central bank serve any economic purposes that are not served by fixing the exchange rates and backing that up with a willingness from all central banks to make fondue of speculators?
Because the point of a supernational central bank with a mandate to recycle CA surpluses is to make sure that national central banks stick to a policy of defending against appreciation. Even in the face of the temptation to revalue and ride a bubble of fake prosperity.
Their core problem is the relegation of their national governments to subsovereign status while retaining responsibility for stabilizing fiscal policy. Going back to a sovereign national currency directly fixes that problem. So why does establishing a SEuro fix it better? I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
So why does establishing a SEuro fix it better?
The Latin Monetary Union lasted for more than 50 years despite having a bi-metalic standard for the first 13 years and having the problem of some countries issuing bank notes based on union standard coins. World War I effectively ended the union but there were reasons it endured so long as it did. Having standards of weight and purity of coins amongst numerous countries was seen as facilitating trade, at a minimum.
The USA at its founding was a collection of sovereign states somewhat comparable in size and economic diversity to the states of the Latin Monetary Union but it became a de facto monetary union with the adoption of the US Constitution and had two national banks over different periods until 1836. I suppose we could have continued with just the National Bank system established during the Civil War, augmented by private clearinghouses, but the creation of the Federal Reserve System on the eve of WWI greatly aided the US in financing that war. Despite the actions of the Fed from 1928 until the appointment of Marriner Eccles, I shudder to think of managing such recovery as we had during the Great Depression under the old National Bank system, let alone trying to finance WWII without the Fed.
Under current policies in the EMU I don't see the peripheral countries enjoying ANY net benefits from the union and it seems that more and more members will fall into the status of Ireland, Greece and Portugal. But I don't see any of them as having sufficient weight to thrive alone, though I may be wrong. Hence my proposal. I just wish I could see even as good a potential solution to the problems the USA faces. "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
As I have noted I think my proposed plan could work, IF PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED, but proper implementation is rather improbable, especially as such a large portion of the population has no idea of what is required for a system to work in their favor and most seem inclined to trust the thieves currently looting them while thinking 'they would never do something like that.'
As the song said:
Here I stand, ticket in my hand, waiting on the train to the promised land. Waiting for EVERYMAN.
A better system is possible, but perhaps not with the people we have. Yet. "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
For the SEuro, it wouldn't even have that much direct representation.
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22 3 comments
by Cat - Jan 25 31 comments
by Oui - Jan 9 21 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 13 28 comments
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 15 90 comments
by gmoke - Jan 7 13 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Jan 2731 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 263 comments
by Cat - Jan 2531 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 223 comments
by Oui - Jan 2110 comments
by Oui - Jan 21
by Oui - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 1839 comments
by Oui - Jan 1590 comments
by Oui - Jan 144 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1328 comments
by Oui - Jan 1219 comments
by Oui - Jan 1120 comments
by Oui - Jan 1031 comments
by Oui - Jan 921 comments
by NBBooks - Jan 810 comments
by Oui - Jan 717 comments
by gmoke - Jan 713 comments