Collective Conscious A Notably Rare Exception

2Nov/110

‘Imagine if today’s Fed governors were appointed by China and Saudi Arabia.’

Posted by Benjamin Daniels

David Frum:

Imagine a world in which Europe had proceeded with economic unification, but did not create the euro.

In such a world, as in our world, goods and workers would move freely from Warsaw to Lisbon. Europe's internal investment barriers would have largely vanished.

What then?

In such a world, Germany as the most productive economy would have begun to rack up large trade surpluses. As those surpluses accumulated, the value of the Deutsche Mark would have appreciated against Europe's other currencies. The cost of doing business in Germany would rise relative to, say, the Czech Republic or Slovenia. Investors would shift their operations out of Germany. Jobs would be created outside Germany and destroyed inside Germany.

The poorer European countries would face a very different environment in our non-euro world.

Investors worried about currency risk would charge significantly higher interest rates to countries like Greece. More expensive credit would have constrained their ability to run budget deficits.

Now back to the real world.

By folding all of Europe's currencies into the euro, Germany prevented its neighbors from reducing their costs — thus enhancing German exports and preserving German jobs.

In the decade from 2000 to 2010, Germany's share of world trade rose by almost 9 percent (most of that being exports to other European countries).

The same currency that made German exports more competitive also made the exports of other European countries less competitive. Their shares of world trade declined over that same decade — in France's case, by a spectacular 23 percent.

But the less competitive countries did get something out of the euro: Lower interest rates. The currency arrangement that enabled Germany to sell more enabled Greece, Italy, Spain, and France to borrow more.

Germany got the jobs. Greece and the others got the debts.

American ears may prick up with recognition here, because the deal explicitly struck between Germany and the rest of Europe in the 2000s looks a lot like the arrangement tacitly accepted by the United States and China over the same period.

An artificially cheap Chinese currency stimulated Chinese exports and jobs. An artificially expensive American currency stimulated American borrowing and consumption.

Americans don't take it very patiently when the Chinese present themselves as the virtuous victim of American extravagance. Nor should Americans do so. It was Chinese currency manipulation that called forth the American credit bubble.

Southern Europe faces an even starker predicament. Not only did the euro inhibit their job creation and enable their borrowing — but it also adds greatly to the difficulties of repaying their debts. Unlike the U.S., which can at least repay in a currency it controls, southern Europe must repay in a currency it does not control — and that is not managed in southern Europe's interest.

Imagine if today's Federal Reserve governors were jointly appointed by the governments of China and Saudi Arabia, and you get some idea of why Greeks riot in the streets.

So my friend's joke needs to be amended.

What the German is being asked to pay for is not the drinks. He (and the other surplus countries adjoining Germany) are being asked to help pay for the cleanup after a party at which they had most of the fun.

Don't worry. The Greeks and the other indebted southern Europeans will suffer — and are suffering — plenty. But to ask the Greeks and the other southern Europeans to suffer exclusively is to forget how this crisis was created in the first place.

2Nov/110

‘Are the Greeks crazy?’

Posted by Benjamin Daniels

Kevin Drum:

Here's a cleaned-up version of a conversation I just had about Greece's sudden U-turn on the rescue deal negotiated just last week. Enjoy.

Are the Greeks crazy?

No, they're just at the end of their tether. Europe is asking them to adopt more austerity than they're willing to bear.

OK, but they're spending too much money. Surely they know they have to cut back?

Sure, but the deals on offer are pretty unattractive. Europe wants to forgive half of Greece's debt and put them on a brutal austerity plan. The problem is that this is unrealistic. Greece would be broke even if all its debt were forgiven, and if their economy tanks they'll be even broker.

But that's the prospect they're being offered: a little bit of debt forgiveness and a lot of austerity.

Well, them's the breaks.

But it puts Greece into a death spiral. They can't pay their debts, so they cut back, which hurts their economy, which makes them even broker, so they cut back some more, rinse and repeat. There's virtually no hope that they'll recover anytime in the near future. It's just endless pain. What they need is total debt forgiveness and lots of aid going forward.

That doesn't sound like a very attractive option for the rest of Europe.

No, it's not.

So maybe they should just let Greece default and wash their hands of them.

Here's the thing, though: Greek debt is largely held by German banks that made the loans. [See update below.] If Greece has been irresponsible, so were the German banks that happily loaned out the money. So if Greece defaults, the banks go kablooey. But they're too big to fail, which means the German government would be forced to bail them out. And guess where the bailout money comes from? Tax dollars.

This means that German taxpayers have a bleak choice. They can shovel lots of money to Greece to keep them from defaulting, or they can refuse, and then shovel lots of money into German banks to keep them from collapsing. Either way, German taxpayers are going to foot the bill. They just haven't quite accepted this in their gut yet, and it's hard to blame them. They're pretty badly screwed no matter what.

Hmmm. Given that choice, they might decide they'd rather give their money to German banks than to Greek civil servants. What happens then?

Greece defaults. And that almost certainly means that Greece exits the euro.

Why?

It's the growth thing again. If Greece defaults, nobody will loan them any money. That means huge cutbacks, which means the economy will tank, which means even more cutbacks, etc. The traditional way out of this spiral is a massive devaluation of your currency. But Greece doesn't have a currency. It has the euro.

So if they want their economy to grow again, they have to (a) default, (b) exit the euro and re-adopt the drachma, and (c) devalue the drachma. This will cause massive amounts of pain, but it will also make Greek exports super cheap, which will eventually revive their economy.

So why not just let that happen?

It's just too catastrophic to consider. German banks, of course, would collapse and have to be bailed out. Ditto for banks in other countries that have lots of exposure to Greek debt. But that's not the worst of it. If Greece exits the euro, it will become terrifyingly obvious that other weak countries might exit too. Portugal, Spain, and Italy are the obvious candidates. Investors, spooked at the thought of their money being stuck in a country that might exit the euro and devalue all its bank deposits, would start huge runs on banks in those countries. The ECB would have to intervene and provide liquidity without limit. It would be a disaster.

So exiting the euro can't be allowed?

Right.

But if there's no exit, there's no devaluation, and Greece is pretty much screwed forever.

Right.

So who wins?

It depends on who blinks. Exiting the euro would be no picnic for Greece. But they could decide it's better than endless indenture, and threaten exit in order to get a better deal from the Germans. Then the Germans have to decide whether to call their bluff.

Wow.

Exactly. Wow. Everyone knows that somebody's going to lose a huge pile of money over this. What's really happening right now is a very high-stakes negotiation to figure out just how the losses are going to be parceled out. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: It's actually a little unclear just which country has the biggest exposure to Greek debt. Maybe Germany, maybe France, maybe Switzerland. See herehere, and here. And the ECB owns a lot of Greek debt these days too. But the general principle doesn't change much. One way or another, Europe's big countries have to decide whether to bail out Greece or whether to let them default and then bail out their own banking systems.

2Nov/110

‘A people’s default is conceivable. A people’s austerity is not.’

Posted by Benjamin Daniels

Lenin's Tomb:

On Monday, the Greek Prime Minister announced that his government would hold a referendum on the latest Euro austerity package.  And look at the reaction to this ostensible democratic naivete.  Stock markets slide everywhere.  The BBC expresses its disbelief: "For whatever reasons, George Papandreou was standing up for democracy."  German and French politicians throw tantrums, demanding accountability.  Papandreou has been summoned to Cannes to explain himself and get chewed out.  PASOK MPs have defected, and the Blairites are calling for Papandreou to resign.  The cabinet has backed the PM, but a no confidence motion is being raised in parliament, and the government could easily collapse by the end of the week.  Yesterday, Greece's military top brass was sacked and replaced by the PASOK defence minister.  The ides of march forestalled?  I'll come back to that.

The decision to hold a referendum is a tremendous risk for the government.  As Costas Douzinas puts it: "Assuming it is not withdrawn amid all the political turmoil afflicting the ruling party, the vote is planned for January, and the issue will presumably be the latest bailout. But the real question will be: "Euro or drachma?""  As Papandreou has put it, the referendum would be on "our European course and participation in the euro".  PASOK are talking as if they can win a referendum.  Maybe they really believe this, because as yet most Greeks don't see the need to leave the Euro.  Polls show that 70% favour staying in.  But if the choice is between the Euro and a reasonable standard of living, it's very possible that people will choose their living standards.  And even if a referendum happens now, it won't be over the present deal, which isn't going to be on the table.  In the most polyannaish situation imaginable, Merkel et al would concede that things have reached a critical impasse, offer a much better deal, and allow Papandreou to put this to the electorate.  But that looks very unlikely at the moment.  Almost all the 'haircuts' applied to Greece's debts so far have been to the disadvantage of Greek banks, not French and German banks.  Substantial further reductions would harm politically dominant class interests which makes it highly unlikely to happen.

One can imagine the fears that pro-Euro politicians would work with: banks collapsing, international capital flight, currency instability, rapid inflation or deflation, house prices slumping, years of painful re-financing, and Greek isolation within Europe.  And that's not just scaremongering.  Default would pose a set of challenges that can by no means be wished away.  But it would allow Greece to stop the massive annual interest payments to bondholders, which Greece's productive base simply can't sustain, and prevent the need for further austerity.  A people's default is conceivable.  A people's austerity is not.  Yet, if the scare tactics were going to work, one would have expected the middle classes to cave already, and that has not happened.  The PASOK government has created a situation now where there's a realistic possibility of Greece simply pulling the plug on the Euro.

The consequences for the Euro as a viable currency would be dire.  Douzinas is probably right that the managers of the ECB and the EU never intended to push Greece to the point that it may end up withdrawing from the euro.  Yes, they're turning Greece into a basket case.  Yes, they are literally asset-stripping the entire economy, presumably because they don't expect it to be a viable export market any time soon.  Yes, it's a death spiral.  But, they apparently imagined, that's no reason for anyone to go off in a huff.  But French and German banks are probably unwilling to sacrifice a single cent of the debt interest they believe they have coming to them.  After all, there isn't much money to be found elsewhere.  As Michael Burke points out, the recovery in profit rates facilitated by the attack on labour over the last few years has been accompanied by a slump in corporate investment.  There's little for the banks to invest their money in but speculation and debt.  The EU leaders have said clearly that the main elements of the current deal are not up for renegotiation.

So, we're back to the ides of march.  The replacement of the top generals, despite bland official assurances that it's all regular, suggests that PASOK smelled a coup in the works.  There have also been hints that Papandreou may be unwise in going to Cannes, as a lot can happen while he's out of the country.  The opposition are feigning outrage, hinting that PASOK themselves are the agents of a coup, but that seems unlikely.  Now, the EU may not prefer a military coup, if it was possible to orchestrate the political collapse of the government through a no confidence vote, and facilitate a new right-wing New Democracy-led government.  But the structures of the European Union have always been profoundly anti-democratic, and the politics of austerity, pushed most aggressively by the EU, are pushing the institutions of capitalist democracy to their limit.

Consider what Greece is up against.  Guglielmo Carchedi, in a superior class analysis of the European Union, argues that the project of economic and monetary union is driven by European capitalist oligarchies, led by German oligarchies, with the aim of creating a new superpower.  This would, of course, be an imperialist power, re-asserting European influence after decolonisation.  It would allow Europe under united Franco-German leadership, to compete with the US by overcoming the limited scale of national markets and production.  As importantly, it is a reaction by capital against the post-war influence of communist and socialist parties in Europe, and an attempt to create a political framework that would systematically reduce the power of labour.  The project of European unification has, on these grounds, been successful.

But, a consequence of Carchedi's analysis is that, far from reflecting a community of interests, the EU is necessarily characterised both by class antagonisms (the working class has always made its presence felt, even while it has been excluded from the construction of the EU) and by national or inter-imperialist conflicts (Franco-German competition, and the predatory relationship between core and peripheral economies).  The antagonisms at the heart of the EU could blow the whole project apart.  The neutral (but intensely ideological) language of the mass media and the political classes treats the suppression and management of those antagonisms (in the interests of the dominant capitalist oligarchies) as a merely technical problem, albeit one complicated by various pressures.  This is why they don't understand when politicians invoke 'democracy'.  What has democracy got to do with it, they think, when Everyone Knows What Needs To Be Done?  We're all in it together, after all.  (This ideology was expressed concisely in a tweet I saw this morning, complaining that Greece was 'letting the team down': the hashtag said, '#globalvillage'.)  In this view, the exclusion and suppression of working class insurgencies is a duty of 'responsible' politicians serving the general interest.

Greece's PASOK government has tried its best to fulfil its brief as a responsible government.  But the severity of the crisis is overwhelming its ability to cope, and its referendum gamble has offended its masters in Europe.  There is a continent of surplus value at stake.  There is an imperialist super power at stake.  There is decades of institutional construction and refinement at stake.  There is a whole austerity formula at stake.  For that reason, I suspect there'd be corks popping in Cannes if the government fell by one means or another.

19Jul/110

Eurobonds

Posted by Benjamin Daniels

Apparently I'm just a year too early. On Eurobonds, Ryan Avent:

FOR a nice look at some of the euro-zone solutions being mooted see this piece in the current edition of The Economist. It includes a bit on the proposal for an issuance of eurobonds:

Reinforcing Europe’s banking system—the third task for its harassed policymakers—will be the job of national regulators following the results of the stress tests. But even if individual banks are recapitalised, the danger remains that a dodgy sovereign can drag down its banks. One answer to that could be some form of European fiscal backstop through the issue of “Eurobonds” underwritten by the currency area’s taxpayers. The EFSF falls short of this because its backing from the euro-area states is not “joint and several”; each country is responsible for its share of the guarantees that lie behind the EFSF’s issuance, but not for the whole amount.

The remedy of Eurobonds may be logical, providing the monetary union with the fiscal support it needs. But it looks a solution too far, politically. Northern creditor countries can now borrow cheaply and choose to limit their exposures to other euro-zone members. Persuading their electorates to sign up for unending fiscal subsidies would tax any leader.

Tyler Cowen comments and deploys a useful analogy:

I can imagine a German leader saying to her citizens: “We need to pay this one-time clean-up cost, hold your nose and support it.” (Actually maybe I can’t imagine that, but that’s another story.) I cannot imagine such a leader saying “From here on in, we’re in the same boat with them.” The latter seems to be like too much affiliation for anyone’s comfort, and on the back Greek end the associated long-term fiscal restrictions would rankle to say the least.

Imagine that you had an insolvent relation of uncertain future creditworthiness. You could either make a one-time transfer of $10,000, to help pay off a debt, or co-sign a mortgage. Wouldn’t the latter be psychologically harder to do, even if it involved a smaller expected subsidy in real terms?

Mr Cowen is right, but the critical thing to remember here is that the decision has already been taken. The point at which euro-zone leaders said, "From here on in, we’re in the same boat with them", was back when the euro zone was created. That boat has sailed.

What has happened now is that Europeans have been confronted with the impact of their previous decision to all hop in the same boat. If citizens of core economies are unhappy with the idea of indefinitely sharing a boat with the Greeks and Italians, then what they're opting for is not simply the choice to avoid issuance of a eurobond, it's an end to the euro zone.

Either the Europeans are willing to fight to keep their union or they aren't. If they aren't, they'll lose it; it's as simple as that.

Filed under: Europe, Eurozone No Comments
23Mar/110

China Prepares its Welfare State

Posted by Benjamin Daniels

Good news for the Chinese worker:

The 12th Five-Year Plan will do precisely that, focusing on three major pro-consumption initiatives. First, China will begin to wean itself from the manufacturing model that has underpinned export- and investment-led growth. While the manufacturing approach served China well for 30 years, its dependence on capital-intensive, labor-saving productivity enhancement makes it incapable of absorbing the country’s massive labor surplus.

Instead, under the new Plan, China will adopt a more labor-intensive services model. It will, one hopes, provide a detailed blueprint for the development of large-scale transactions-intensive industries such as wholesale and retail trade, domestic transport and supply-chain logistics, health care, and leisure and hospitality.

Such a transition would provide China with much greater job-creating potential. With the employment content of a unit of Chinese output more than 35% higher in services than in manufacturing and construction, China could actually hit its employment target with slower GDP growth. Moreover, services are far less resource-intensive than manufacturing – offering China the added benefits of a lighter, cleaner, and greener growth model.

The new Plan’s second pro-consumption initiative will seek to boost wages. The main focus will be the lagging wages of rural workers, whose per capita incomes are currently only 30% of those in urban areas – precisely the opposite of China’s aspirations for a more “harmonious society.” Among the reforms will be tax policies aimed at boosting rural purchasing power, measures to broaden rural land ownership, and technology-led programs to raise agricultural productivity.

But the greatest leverage will undoubtedly come from policies that foster ongoing and rapid migration from the countryside to the cities. Since 2000, annual rural-to-urban migration has been running consistently at 15-20 million people. For migration to continue at this pace, China will have to relax the long-entrenched strictures of its hukou, or household registration system, which limits labor-market flexibility by tethering workers and their benefits to their birthplace.

Boosting employment via services, and lifting wages through enhanced support for rural workers, will go a long way toward raising Chinese personal income, now running at just 42% of GDP – half that of the United States. But more than higher growth in income from labor will be needed to boost Chinese private consumption. Major efforts to shift from saving toward spending are also required.

That issue frames the third major component of the new Plan’s pro-consumption agenda – the need to build a social safety net in order to reduce fear-driven precautionary saving. Specifically, that means social security, private pensions, and medical and unemployment insurance – plans that exist on paper but are woefully underfunded.

For example, in 2009, China’s retirement-system assets – national social security, local government retirement benefit plans, and private sector pensions – totaled just RMB2.4 trillion ($364 billion). That boils down to only about $470 of lifetime retirement benefits for the average Chinese worker. Little wonder that families save out of fear of the future.  China’s new Plan must rectify this shortfall immediately.