Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Through "Project Syndicate" (see above), I also discovered a piece by old friend Varoufakis:

Solidarity Is Not What Europe Needs - Yanis Varoufakis - Project Syndicate

The idea for such bonds is neither new nor complicated. What is new is that, during this pandemic, the call for Eurobonds was couched in terms of solidarity with the stricken southerners.

... The outcome isn't hard to explain. The nine heads of government gambled that their portrayal of the bonds as the financial embodiment of European solidarity would win the day. It was a bad bet.

... Alas, Hoekstra is right: Solidarity is a poor justification for Eurobonds or any other form of debt mutualization. When I encounter suffering individuals or communities, I may feel compelled to give money, offer shelter, or provide a large, long-dated, cheap loan when no bank will help. That's solidarity. But solidarity does not, and cannot, compel me to go into debt with them.

So far I can follow but in the end the pleas to rationality re. "Euro was made [artificially] cheaper and better for Northerners by soft-currency Southerners" is a bit weak.

Dutch and German savers need to recognize that their savings would be much, much lower had indebted Italians, Greeks, and Spaniards not shared the euro with them. After all, it is southern deficits that keep the euro's exchange rate low enough for Germany and the Netherlands to maintain their net exports. Eurobonds' merit thus has nothing to do with solidarity. By shifting debt from deficit countries to a strong Union and, in the process, shrinking total eurozone debt (thanks to the lower long-term interest rates implied by the EU's greater creditworthiness), Eurobonds would keep a country like Italy in the euro - thereby preventing Dutch and German savings from vanishing.

... The way to avoid northern vetoes is to appeal to what Smith would call their "self-love," while making it clear that self-harming northern policies also will be vetoed.

That one doesnt 'hold much currency' with the Northerners, either. There needs to be something easier and more convincing. Something like investment that will pay for itself. Or full monetization no problem, I don't know.

Schengen is toast!
by epochepoque on Fri Apr 24th, 2020 at 11:19:04 PM EST
There is no doubt that having a common currency like the Euro has been a net benefit for most members, most of the time. For a net exporting country like Germany it eliminates one barrier (currency fluctuations and exchange costs) to trade. For a small economy like Ireland it can also avoid the wild fluctuations in currency value experienced by our previous currency, the punt, which could be gamed by a medium sized hedge fund. Businesses crave predictability and eliminating exchange rate fluctuations and costs helps provide that.

On the downside, a 'one size fits all' currency exchange rate with outside currencies and ECB monetary policy can be wildly inappropriate for some countries some of the time. The low interest rates required to fund German re-unification also boosted an Irish property bubble which led, in significant part, to the Celtic Tiger crash.

Then again, there is no way a small economy like Ireland could now borrow at near 0% if we had our own currency. Currency traders (and hedge fund) knowledge of smaller economies is patchy at best and there will always be a risk premium attached to borrowing in a smaller currency.

Greece should, of course, never have been allowed to join the Euro at all. It's structural deficits (and false accounting) were bad enough even when it did have its own currency. The Euro brought in an era of cheap credit and orgy of borrowing that would never have been possible with the Drachma. It's introduction required the adoption of Germanic disciplines and controls on borrowing that simply wasn't part of the culture. Interestingly Greece has decided to stick with the Euro even after all the pain it endured. If you are a trading nation heavily dependent on tourism having a common currency with your customer base has a lot of attractions. Tourists can get their cash at any ATM with minimal if any transaction costs (although banks have been trying to re-introduce them).

Italy is the really hard case. It has suffered a structural relative economic decline ever since it joined the Euro. Whether this would have happened in any case due to Asian competition for much of its industry is hard for me, as an outsider, to judge. But there is no doubt that the value of the Euro - too low for Germany, too high for Italy - didn't help. Draghi's policies helped to reduce the cost of its huge debt pile but didn't solve the underlying problem.

I am unconvinced that continually devaluing your currency or regularly defaulting on debts a la Argentina is any more viable a strategy even if it has its short term attractions. "Once off" devaluations or debt defaults have a habit of recurring as they tend not to to resolve underlying issues. One way or the other, the problem of competitiveness has to be addressed, if you are going to allow relatively open trade on a global basis. In any case the problems caused by trying to exit the Euro could make Brexit look like a walk in the park.

Varoufakis is right to criticise the moralistic northern European habit of ascribing virtue to lenders and fecklessness to borrowers. Every lender needs a borrower and every net exporter needs a net importer. Having a common currency and interest rate regime reduces the tools policymakers have to correct those imbalances which would normally be "managed" via currency devaluations and or interest rate differentials both of which can be painful, but perhaps not as painful as prolonged deflation.

In practice, wage rate and public service level differentials are now doing much of the work of adjusting for differences in competitiveness. Again this has little to do do with virtuous work ethics or public sector efficiencies and a lot to do with how well positioned an economy is to take advantage of economies of scale, technological innovation, market dominance and high margin industries like financial services and pharmaceuticals. It doesn't help social cohesion either at regional or international level within the EU when this results in even greater inequalities and imbalances.

Debt mutualisation could improve cohesion and reduce the total cost of borrowing by creating economies of scale and reducing perceived lender risk but does little to address these underlying structural imbalances. The suspicion in net surplus countries will always be that any interest cost reduction for high deficit countries will be at their cost either through reduced income on their savings, or an increase on their cost of borrowing relative to what their own national bonds would have cost.

But it doesn't have to be an either or. The issue of a mutual EU wide "Corona bond" to fund specific pandemic related costs to a set maximum value in any one economy could be an important demonstration of solidarity while not replacing national bonds for everything else. It would also demonstrate that some EU members are not seeking to benefit from the misfortune of others by charging the high interest rates associated with some previous alleged "bail-out" funds. Italy wouldn't be able to refinance its 135% debt GDP ration using Corona bonds, but at least any additional borrowing necessitated by the pandemic would be at the lowest possible rate currently around 0%.

I do not pretend to fully understand the issues around "helicopter money" and the ECB simply printing huge amounts of cash and giving it to member states or its citizens at a time of crisis. Certainly the traditional fear of it generating inflation hardly seems to be  "le problème du jour". It could be a short term solution, and certainly be preferable to default, but we do not know where the limits of such a policy lie.

Ultimately, a stable monetary union requires a stable political Union and at least a degree of fiscal union which can replace the other stabilisers of differential currency and interest rates that a monetary union removes. If the current management of the pandemic teaches us anything, we are a long way off that in the EU at the moment. Health care is still primarily a national, and often a regional competency. Perhaps one way of progressing a fiscal union is to expand the role, budget and scope of the EU in public healthcare, pandemic preparedness and management, and pharmaceutical and medtech research and procurement. Viruses don't respect boundaries, and neither should out health care systems.


Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sun Apr 26th, 2020 at 10:39:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Monetary financing of deficits is a funny thing. It seems it's OK when anglo-saxons do it.

The US has based its prosperity in the modern era on it. The Bank of England has no qualms about directly buying the UK government's debt (and the government wouldn't dream of telling them not to : that would be political interference...)

If poorer countries do it, it's inflationary and ruinous.

Non-Anglo mature economies can't do it because... it's verboten.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Apr 29th, 2020 at 04:39:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Speaking of which, Thomas Piketty has been making the rounds, presenting his proposal for a "coalition of the willing" for issuing joint debt, something that has been opposed by the "frugals" in the latest EU Council meetings. This could start by joint issuing between, say, Portugal, Spain, France and Italy.

More details (in English) in Politico.eu:

Thomas Piketty: Willing EU countries should spearhead fiscal union

He also said that opposition from Germany and the Netherlands should not discourage France, Italy and Spain from issuing joint debt, known as eurobonds or corona bonds, as a way to tackle the fallout from the coronavirus crisis.

"It is perfectly possible for two countries, or three and four countries -- France, Italy, Spain -- to create corona bonds," Piketty said about European answers to the crisis, and thus "mutualize interest [rates]."
[...]
Asked whether such a multispeed approach would not risk a break-up of the eurozone, Piketty said Europe had more to fear from rocketing interest rates in countries such as Italy -- which threatened to delay the recovery and propel the EU into another debt crisis -- than from asymmetrical fiscal or political integration.

by Bernard (bernard) on Wed Apr 29th, 2020 at 05:24:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display: