Published: April 29th 2010 - at 6:49 pm

Ignoring the huge elephant in the room


by Giles Wilkes    

Well, if our own deficit is the Elephant in the Room, what is a nearby E300bn economy heading to bankruptcy? Will future post-election commentators wonder what on earth the Guardian was doing running so many different columns on bigotgate while the next economic crisis burst upon our shores? (to be fair to the Guardian, they also have live blogging on Greece).

I hope it comes up in tonight’s debate. Because the Liberal Democrat position on deficit cutting is, macroeconomically, the most sensible. This letter to the FT today summarises the issues beautifully (from Prof Eatwell):

to what extent will deficit reduction result in the government “chasing its tail” as expenditure cuts result in falling tax revenues as a consequence of lower GDP and employment? Second, what is the true cost of the various measures, ie, the discounted value of the stream of GDP forgone? Third, how does this true cost compare to alternative fiscal strategies (reducing the deficit more slowly or more quickly)?

My spreadsheet attempted to illustrate his first point. Try chasing some tail by downloading it.

How serious is the Greek situation? Mohamed El-Erian of PIMCO points out how it threatens the private-sector:

The already material risks of disorderly bank deposit outflows and capital flights are increasing. The bottom line is simple yet consequential: the Greek debt crisis has morphed into something that is potentially more sinister for Europe and the global economy. What started out as a public finance issue is quickly turning into a banking problem too; and, what started out as a Greek issue has become a full-blown crisis for Europe

Is today’s news of a fall in credit demand from businesses and housebuyers signs that Europe is turning down, decisively? It is just a straw in the wind, but if you thought that a second phase of the financial crisis might be triggered by sovereign default hitting into banking balance sheets, would you be borrowing to invest or buy a house? The Economist’s Ryan Avent is more phegmatic, and seems to rely on “Germans coming to their senses’. Do you readers think this works?

A Greece restructuring is all but inevitable, but the cost associated with making Greek creditors whole is very small relative to the potential losses associated with continued chaos. … Right now the politics of a bigger German bail-out of southern Europe look deadly, but so did the politics of massive bail-outs of Wall Street financial institutions.

I think he ignores too easily how far we had to go down Crisis Lane to achieve those bailouts. Making Greek Creditors Whole? Are you sure? Moral hazard, justice, anyone? That would be toxic – not just for Germans.

But the most interesting analyses, for me, comes from Professor Nick Rowe, whose commentary here brings us back to what the Eurozone is really all about – money:

Only the European Central Bank has enough money to fix the Eurozone problem; because it can print it … (BUT) Who has the authority to say that the ECB may risk its seigniorage revenue on buying Greek or other countries’ sovereign junk, when that revenue belongs to all Eurozone governments? Nobody. The Eurozone is not a real country. There is no central fiscal authority behind the ECB. That decision would have to be reached by a political consensus of all Eurozone countries, and I don’t see that happening.

He then describes what may happen in terms that fans of Professor Scott Sumner will recognise – bank insolvency leading to a crisis of escalating money demand:

Eurozone commercial banks hold Eurozone government bonds as assets. With the drop in those bonds’ values, many commercial banks (inside and outside the Eurozone) will become insolvent. There will be (and already are) runs on those banks, as depositors seek to transfer their deposits to safer banks, if any can be found, or withdraw currency, if they can’t. The first year textbook says this fall in bank deposits will cause a fall in the money supply, and that this fall in the money supply will cause a recession.

But the central bank is prevented, politically, from doing what it needs to: expand the money supply by buying up those government bonds. His final prediction is intruiging – that sovereign states, having a shortage of Euros, will start printing their own currencies to pay their workers. New drachma anyone? (Paul Krugman, imagining similar endgames, is now under the table).

How does this play for the UK? Well, our links of contagion are probably less. As Stephanie points out, we are a safe haven compared to Greece. Check out the What’s In the Vaults Table: it’s French banks who might be in trouble here. For once, our bankers didn’t get stuck in. And our economy beats to different rhythms: check out the bullishness about private sector hiring from the CIPD today.

But every party is relying on ‘rebalancing’ – more exports, basically – and how can that happen if Europe is in a panic? I hope Clegg makes the point powerfully: unlike our Conservative opponents, we don’t believe that cutting back, in all circumstances and at all times, makes the economy stronger. And (this is a long-shot) – we need to be more vigorous with the money-medicine if we do teeter into a Double Dip. Like a wise man once said.


---------------------------
    Share on Tumblr  


About the author
Giles is an occasional contributor. He blogs at Freethinking Economist
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Economy ,Elections2010


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


How do I say this politely? Sorry, I can’t say it politely. Its not our fucking fault, we won’t put up with it. There, I feel better.

The politicians don’t really get it. People in the public sector will be punished for, well, working for the state, by having their pay and pensions cut, (that is, if their job is still there). People in the private sector will be punished by being asked to accept second rate public services, either the existing ones cut to the bone, or private suppliers who will lower quality. We will all be punished for something we didn’t do.

Reading up about the general strike in 1926 I discovered that the government moored warships off the major ports. Britain was, of course, a major naval power then and had enough warships to go round. With the Russian revolution and the war in Ireland not so longer before the British government were scared. It was a simple message: strike if you like, but don’t even think about insurrection.

So what will happen next? Well if, as this article suggests, we will have deep public sector cuts with high unemployment and poor quality DIY or privatised services, and chain gangs of benefits claimers forced to work for a pittance, then there will be civil unrest. The difference here,. of course, is that rioting is not seen as a pass time as it is France or Greece. And we will have good reason to be angry because its not our fucking fault,

Well whose fucking fault is it, then? Is it:

a) the people who voted for a succession of neoliberal governments on the basis that they’d make us rich forever, and then proceeded to use the cheap lending created by those governments’ policies to buy 4x4s, 50″ TVs and holidays in the Caymans on the never-never;
or:
b) erm, someone else entirely, nothing to do with me guv.

Probably b as far as most people are concerned. Although I do wonder about the sort of structural economics that seems to believe that if the state employs less people it will take less tax revenues. What needs proving for this to be the case is that not only will these people not find new jobs, but that their lack of spending power will impact enough other jobs for the losses in tax revenue (and cost in welfare support) to be greater than the amount of tax revenue spent on the job in the first place. The assumption in this article seems to be that it is more expensive to government to not have a job than to have one, which makes no immediate mathematical sense unless certain assumptions are hardwired in, which does not yet seem justified.

I’m not saying the argument is wrong, just that it tends to be assumed rather than stated. I’d quite like to see the logic for such arguments.

Note I don’t doubt the seriousness of the Greek situation, where the private sector is messed up as well (and our banks’ unwillingness to lend at the moment is not encouraging in this respect).

4. gastro george

It’s too easy to blame the voters. What choice did they have? Both New Labour and Tories would have followed the same policies. Politicians of all sides have been happy to surf the endless (or so they thought) tide of money created by globalisation and cheap credit – despite criticism from some economists that the bubble couldn’t last.

At least successive German and French governments have had the sense to direct policy to keeping their manufacturing sector, and even the Spanish retained decent controls on their banking sector.

“Business” in this country has always been more about finance than developing the business itself. When you look at, for example, the pubcos – in debt to the hilt, future income from the pubs securitised to generate more short term profits, business model predicated on the property bubble and an endless supply of fools prepared to be tenants paying for astronomical rents and contracts. This is the embodiment of the British approach to business – sod the business, extract whatever you can from it in the shortest possible term. In the long term, the business is destroyed.

5. Richard W

4. gastro george

‘ At least successive German and French governments have had the sense to direct policy to keeping their manufacturing sector, and even the Spanish retained decent controls on their banking sector.

“Business” in this country has always been more about finance than developing the business.’

Britain with a smaller population has a larger manufacturing sector than France. UK manufacturing is one-and-a-half times the size of financial services. The UK is the sixth largest manufacturer in the world.

The reason its share of the economy in recent years has declined is because manufacturing output did not grow as fast as the rest of the economy. Output only grew by 4.5% between 1997 and 2007 caused mainly by an overvalued currency. Therefore, its share of GDP declined from 22% 1997 to the current 12%, as services growth outpaced it so the ratio declines.

It is not just an output story because manufacturing has been shedding jobs for a long time.

1978- 7.1m
1997-4.5m
Currently-2.8m

Depending on your point of view whether this is seen as a good or bad thing. Firms who grow their output with less human capital are getting more efficient. Alternatively people who view firms as existing purely to provide employment would view the job losses negatively.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Ignoring the huge elephant in the room http://bit.ly/9rXPtr

  2. Tweets that mention Liberal Conspiracy » Ignoring the huge elephant in the room -- Topsy.com

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Liberal Conspiracy. Liberal Conspiracy said: Ignoring the huge elephant in the room http://bit.ly/9rXPtr [...]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
Liberal Conspiracy is the UK's most popular left-of-centre politics blog. Our aim is to re-vitalise the liberal-left through discussion and action. More about us here.

You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
LATEST COMMENT PIECES
» Criticism of Obama for its own sake: a reply to Mehdi Hasan
» Do older people really need more NHS healthcare?
» There are alternatives to the reckless ‘Plan A’
» On Beecroft: it is already quite easy to sack people
» Why Cameron’s claim of 600,000 jobs created is plainly wrong
» By using age to allocate NHS funding, Lansley rewards Tory voters
» The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem
» Adrian Beecroft highlights mindset of Tory right
» The US is now a model for the Eurozone to save itself
» The IMF plan to revive the economy doesn’t go far enough
» The Boris brand is weaker than his friends think
» Nine things you can do to halt Lansley’s destruction of our NHS






39 Comments



72 Comments



21 Comments



50 Comments



10 Comments



24 Comments



22 Comments



69 Comments



44 Comments



25 Comments



LATEST COMMENTS
» Ben2 posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed'

» PaulG posted on Criticism of Obama for its own sake: a reply to Mehdi Hasan

» Unite HTULC posted on By using age to allocate NHS funding, Lansley rewards Tory voters

» Barryfunite posted on By using age to allocate NHS funding, Lansley rewards Tory voters

» john b posted on Red Tory Blond: gay marriage "homophobic"

» john b posted on Do older people really need more NHS healthcare?

» john b posted on On Beecroft: it is already quite easy to sack people

» john b posted on Do older people really need more NHS healthcare?

» deepak abhishek posted on Criticism of Obama for its own sake: a reply to Mehdi Hasan

» Gizmo Doe posted on Criticism of Obama for its own sake: a reply to Mehdi Hasan

» So Much For Subtlety posted on Criticism of Obama for its own sake: a reply to Mehdi Hasan

» Jack C posted on Red Tory Blond: gay marriage "homophobic"

» bluepillnation posted on The Boris brand is weaker than his friends think

» P Ve M posted on Red Tory Blond: gay marriage "homophobic"

» Ben2 posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed'