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.
It is a trap. Italy would very much profit from having left the Euro, but actually leaving the Euro is bound to be vastly destructive and traumatic. And of course there are a lot of class interests involved.
However I see less justification for that view in relation to Italy. It needs to be trading with the rest of the Eurozone on a wide front of products and services and the lack of currency barriers assist that.
A 132% Dept/GDP is a problem no matter what the currency, and would only be exacerbated, in the short term by devaluation. Low EZ interest rates - not always appropriate - can also assist in keeping debt servicing costs down.
But I am a sceptic when it comes to financial/monetary engineering solutions to deep structural problems and inefficiencies - the presence of large bureaucracies which increase costs and fail to add much value, the rentier mentality of much of the service sector.
Just as the EU was a convenient bogeyman for the British national elite to avoid accountability for their own failings, I see a danger that the Euro will fulfil a similar role for Italian demagogues.
QE and low interest rates gave the Italian economy every opportunity to recover. The fact that it hasn't done so as well as other (less favoured) economies is not the fault of the Euro. And trying to leave the Euro could be even more damaging for all parties than Brexit. Index of Frank's Diaries
If, (as so many economists have averred from Krugman, Stiglitz and Varoufakis on, the Euro is flawed by design,) then does it matter much whose actions lead it to breaking point? It was a just a matter of time... No-one really wants to leave the Eurozone, but Italy will not be forced into austerity and Troika-ville as easily as the Greeks are. So it has to threaten to in order to make the rules more favorable to S.Europe. Game theory, innit. With Öttinger as the new Schaubler straight out of central casting in the villain role, it's not hard to see why many Italians are bristling at being insulted almost daily by the big cheeses in Brussels. There's a very good article in the latest Jacobin magazine about it, I can't link with this tablet, sorry. Maastricht and Dublin need renegotiating asap, or we will see more chaos down the road for the whole EU project, not just the EZ. 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
Varoufakis tried the game playing and lost. The response to the Great Recession was disastrous, but things have settled down since. Everyone else in the Eurozone is now doing quite well (off a low base), so why isn't Italy?
The best the Italians can hope for is to block Jens Weidmann from becoming President of the ECB and keeping someone like Draghi at the helm. Öttinger isn't really up to the job of being an adequate bogeyman.
The Italians are going to have to sort this one out themselves... Index of Frank's Diaries
Yes that's why many are ready here to ditch the common currency experiment before it does too much more harm!
It was on ET I read how Germany was bending the rules in their favour, back in the Greece crisis. How much of their debt was forgiven, how the 6% rule was breached, and the incredible story of how the 3% number was arbitrarily conjured out of some Frenchman's nether regions. Predatory capitalism has become the OS of European finance, protecting anal goldbugs' hard currency savings value stasis fantasies while the southern euro-states founder and falteringly re-climb out of the economic muck again, with the sword of Damocles swaying over their heads. The pearl-clutching in Brussels suggests something holy about the Euro, that the currency itself has lėse majesté, that it's the sheerest of heresies to even breathe a suggestion that it may not be irreversible (pace Draghi) or its terms renegotiable. The nervous hysteria is a sure tell there's a bluff going on. If the currency's success were a foregone conclusion after a decade and a half of practice using it, why are the results so unbalanced in favour of northern countries. If Italy's capacity for innovation, design and productivity was so high it rivaled Germany's, what virus suddenly infected the country to so swiftly degenerate it into a pack of corrupt, shiftless parasites with zero work ethic and a penchant for a life of ease? The Bild propaganda has done its dirty work just as the Sun's did for Brexit voters. Italy's industrial heyday was before the galloping globalisation that has enriched Asia just as colonialism enriched Europe. So many factories of businesses nurtured in Italy have moved a few kilometers to take advantage of cheaper labour the other side of the border, this is doing the country in much more than the Mafia or incompetent governments, (hardly an Italian exclusive). The EU decision to import cheap Tunisian frozen olive oil (as reward to encourage the country into democracy after the Arab Spring) was doubtless well-intentioned, but was it really so important that it was worth pauperising Italian olive farmers? Ditto lemons from Cile breaking citrus farms here etc etc? The idea of the EU was to protect Europe's member states from the pressures of globalisation, not the opposite. Italians are fed up with being treated as second-class Europeans by the Northern contingent who are the only ones really profiting from the Euro. The pain of leaving will be traumatic and immense, the country will eat bread and onions for a few years until freedom from the Euro-yoke is complete, but then its ability to re-flower its economy will be by its own merit, not because a generation of sleazy politicians wasted zillions on boondoggle vanity projects financed by cheaper interest rate loans than they were used to, indebting the country up to its eyeballs. The very topography of the country determines that small to medium businesses will always the the backbone of Italy's economy, the very sized businesses that suffer most in this climate of global corporate giantism. That's why Italians feel conned by the Euro, and betrayed by Prodi for signing up for it. Those against leaving it are so terrified of the immediate consequences they don't see beyond that short-term view. Besides, as Migeru and Jake used to say about Greece back in the day, what is the EU going to do, send gunships? Disselbloem, Tusk, Jungker et al are so ratty because they're bluffing, their Euro is a castle built on sand. Shh, tiptoe through the tulips, intone the right pieties, don't disturb the confidence fairy or the spread will come sort you right out and it'll be Troika-time! (Hold still and it won't hurt so much when we come after your 1000 billion of savings stashed away for that rainy day Italians justly fear.)
Italy is getting up off its knees.
Sorry Europe, your bluff ain't working any more.
Reform or get out of the way. 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
The pain of leaving will be traumatic and immense, the country will eat bread and onions for a few years until freedom from the Euro-yoke is complete, but then its ability to re-flower its economy will be by its own merit, not because a generation of sleazy politicians wasted zillions on boondoggle vanity projects financed by cheaper interest rate loans than they were used to, indebting the country up to its eyeballs.
This is exactly what the Brexiteers in the UK are saying, (although they are downplaying the bread and onions bit...).
I think you are right that globalisation has hurt Italy badly. Many of the industries, products and designs it pioneered are now produced in Asia and eastern Europe. The UK handled that by my switching to financial services, brand building, and some high tech industries. Germany had greater economies of scale and simply excelled at manufacturing and with robots making labour costs less important. Other than tourism, I'm not sure what the Italian strategy is, but I doubt ongoing devaluations will be a long term solution.
You are also right that the 3% and 60% rules were arbitrary and ignored when it suited Germany's or France's purposes. They should never have been enshrined in a Treaty. But the problem with them is that they limit the scope a government has implement counter-cyclical policies to deal with asymmetric shocks or sudden down-turns. Ongoing borrowing in the long term simply increases interests costs which creates a cycle of ever increasing debt and impoverishment. Unless your strategy is to default on debt every now and again, in which case virtually no one will lend to you.
AFAIK most of Italy's debt is held by the ECB as a result of QE and by Italians themselves, so any default would be devastating for Italian bond-holders, some of which may be wealthy but many of which are ultimately funding pensions. The ECB QE policy was primarily to get highly indebted countries like Italy, Greece and Ireland out of a hole by buying up government debt when private debt markets won't do so except at exorbitant rates to reflect what they say as default risk. This has helped the Eurozone economy generally to recover to the extent that large government deficits should no longer be needed and debt burdens as a % of GDP should be being reduced in any case.
So at the moment I don't see the Euro (or even its stupid rules) being a problem for Italy. Globalisation is, but you would have to leave the EU (not just the euro) if you wanted to introduce protectionist policies. And while you say the EU is facilitating globalisation, in fact third countries will tell you that the EU is a very protected market - particularly for agricultural produce. World prices for many goods are much lower than European ones, and European farmers get CAP payments to compensate.
If I were Italian, I would be waiting to see how Brexit works out before going down that road. Index of Frank's Diaries
The Italian government debt is the public debt owed by the government of Italy to all public and private lenders. As of January 2014, the Italian government debt stands at 2.1 trillion (131.1% of GDP).[1] However, Italy has the lowest share of public debt held by non-residents of all eurozone countries and the country's national wealth is four times larger than its public debt.[2]The Italian public debit is in 2017 owned by the private sector only for the 6% of the total amount. This percentage decreased a lot from 1988, where this share was 57% --,snip>-- In 2014, the Bank of Italy estimated that Italians held 180 billion in undeclared assets abroad, a figure that was three times as high as in 2004
--,snip>--
In 2014, the Bank of Italy estimated that Italians held 180 billion in undeclared assets abroad, a figure that was three times as high as in 2004
In other words, without QE and low interest rates, Italy would have been in a lot more trouble when even Italian investors won't invest in Italy. The fact that Italian politicians may have squandered the benefits of low interest rates is also hardly Germany's fault, for whom that assertion merely reinforces perceptions of Italian profligacy.
So I am suggesting to you that the Euro is the wrong bogeyman. Blame if you will, and leave it if you must. We will see how Brexit works out for the UK, and they don't even have the excuse of blaming the Euro... Index of Frank's Diaries
They blamed immigration, even though lots of immigrants are from outside the EU. So I don't see why they can't blame the Euro despite not being in the Euro....
Scotland has an acute shortage of qualified Gaelic teachers, so parents on the western island of Mull were stunned when the UK government refused to grant a visa for the sole candidate for a new position at one of its local schools. Blocking entry to Canadian Sìne Halfpenny has meant children at Bunessan primary school have been denied the chance to be taught in Gaelic -- seen as a vital way to maintain the ancient but endangered language -- for more than half a year.
Blocking entry to Canadian Sìne Halfpenny has meant children at Bunessan primary school have been denied the chance to be taught in Gaelic -- seen as a vital way to maintain the ancient but endangered language -- for more than half a year.
That said, it was still up to the Irish central back to regulate excessive private lending and it spectacularly failed to do so. Now Melo is blaming Italian debt on "a generation of sleazy politicians wasted zillions on boondoggle vanity projects financed by cheaper interest rate loans than they were used to, indebting the country up to its eyeballs." Fair enough, but not the primary responsibility of the ECB to control and he and most Italians would be the first to shout foul if German politicians had sought to intervene.
My issue is more with timing. There is a general and widening Eurozone recovery underway aided by very progressive (and controversial) policies by Draghi. Now is not the time for Keynesian reflation and increasing debt levels still further. Italy has a problem with inequality and Billions being stashed by the rich outside the country, but again, that is primarily a matter for the Italian Government to deal with.
If I were an Italian policy maker, I would certainly fight for reform of Masstrict rules, oppose Jens Weidmann, and seek to reform the ECB to include formal employment targets in its mandate, give it a formal responsibility as "lender of last resort", strengthen bank resolution rules, and insist on the creation of a Eurozone Finance Minister with a significant budget to tackle regional and social inequalities.
None of this require leaving, (or threaten to leave) the Euro which is already increasing debt servicing costs and reducing investor confidence further. Brexit and Trump are making economic and political stability more important than ever, and you already have the UK doing the legwork on what leaving the EU might be like.
Now just strikes me as a particularly stupid time to make leaving the Euro a core part of your programme. It is damaging to what recovery there is and isn't addressing core problems. Plus it's cold outside. If you can't compete within the EU, I don't fancy your chances of competing outside. Index of Frank's Diaries
Regarding your last point, the EU countries that isn't euro countries has managed better. Yes, the commission has said that you can't leave the euro without leaving the EU, but it remains to be tested.
The only reason Brexit hasn't imploded the UK economy so far is the fact that Sterling has devalued sufficiently to offset the loss of competitiveness and investor confidence. Even so the UK economic growth has slowed to the lowest of EU countries. I shudder to think what impact Italexit would have on the Italian economy without the ability to devalue radically and probably default on its debts.
There is no separate process for exiting the Euro. A50 is the only game in town. In a few years time we will know how that has worked out for the UK. I don't expect the outcome to be encouraging. Index of Frank's Diaries
As far as reform goes, the structure of the eurogroup meetings (as described by Varoufakis and he has been in the room) is Germany decides. And the structure of the ECB meetings are secret as far as I can tell, but ECB gets their political cover from the eurogroup. So there will be no reform that doesn't fit Germany and Germany will decide if and when there is a reform. Non-germans has no vote on that. And no amount of Italian pressure is likely to create that will in Germany. Nor will threats to leave (sorry melo).
There is no process for exiting the euro but neither is there any process for kicking a country out of the EU. Countries can be fined and lose voting rights when in violation of treaties, but that is rarely applied. The only reason the EU has such power over Italy is the ECB in combination with Italy's current account deficit. If Italy de facto leaves the euro (say capital controls and parallell currency) or even de jure, the ECB stick is already removed (but can and will hit hard on the way out) and the rest is up to politics and the courts. Unless the other EU states follows up ECBs financial blockade that we saw with Greece with physical blockades, of course. Then things would get really interesting.
However, I think this is academic as judging by their deal with Lega, I don't think M5* has the skills or the will to leave the euro.
The difference between the ECB and a national central bank is that the ECB has to be concerned with 19 distinct national debts and has to "police" the system to ensure one or more of the 19 don't game the system at everybody else's expense. If a national government with it's own currency allows borrowing to become unsustainable, the national central bank can adjust interest rates, the money supply or devalue to recover competitiveness. Either way the impact is primarily on that countries economy and citizenry unless it defaults on external debts.
In the case of a common currency, all the other member states are impacted, and possibly quite adversely. You can argue that there isn't enough economic convergence to justify a common currency, or that it cannot be stable absent countervailing fiscal capacities and policies to deal with structural and regional imbalances, or that there simply isn't enough flexibility to deal with asymmetric shocks or sudden downturns. All true.
But there doesn't seem to be a huge divergence in economic performance between EZ and other EU countries, so the advantages and disadvantages of the Euro may be currently reasonably balanced. If a trend were to emerge whereby non-EZ members did consistently better on a number of key metrics then I'm sure there would be a move to either exit or reform. I don't think the case is currently clear cut either way. Index of Frank's Diaries
It's true, Clowncil intention to help IT gov extinguish debt marinading since 121 CE was always weak. But it shouldn't be so difficult to accept that USD-denominated risk undermines these fantasies of "own currency" solvency. Interest-bearing debenture is the "enemy" in the first instance.
China Can Hold Trump's Trade War Hostage speculates that liquidity depends on parity among traders. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
Hedge fund Elliott Management Corp [d/b/a NML] Chief Executive Paul Singer said on Thursday ... Elliott often acquires stakes in companies as an activist shareholder, criticizing their financial performance and asking them to commit to changes.
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 17
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 10 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1 6 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 3 32 comments
by Oui - Sep 6 3 comments
by gmoke - Aug 25 1 comment
by Oui - Sep 18
by Oui - Sep 1713 comments
by Oui - Sep 154 comments
by Oui - Sep 151 comment
by Oui - Sep 1315 comments
by Oui - Sep 13
by Oui - Sep 124 comments
by Oui - Sep 1010 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 103 comments
by Oui - Sep 10
by Oui - Sep 92 comments
by Oui - Sep 84 comments
by Oui - Sep 715 comments
by Oui - Sep 72 comments
by Oui - Sep 63 comments
by Oui - Sep 54 comments
by gmoke - Sep 5