The two sensible choices

There are two sensible and realistic choices for solving the Euro crisis. The sensible and realistic choices are:

  • Surplus areas like Germany give deficit areas like Greece free money, indefinitely, or,
  • Weak economies like Greece and Spain leave the Eurozone.

These really are the sensible and realistic choices. You need one of these if you want roughly equal purchasing power across the Eurozone. Otherwise, money will flow from unproductive deficit areas to productive surplus areas, people in surplus countries will get steadily richer, people in deficit countries will get continually poorer, and eventually this will come to a head by revolt or other radical means.

Free money recycles this flow, exchange rates stop it. Economically the first is better because more flow of goods and services and money turns the economy forward and makes everyone consume more in aggregate. The latter choice aims for fairness, sacrificing total volume of trade and industry in the process.

Right now we’re still discussing the free money idea. Free money could be given as tax-and-transfer grants like most states do internally, as endless monetary expansion like the US, or by recurrent debt default and restructuring. The only advantage of the third option is it makes a policy look like an accident.

If free money won’t fly, leaving the Eurozone is the choice. Greece should have left the Eurozone… any time from 2001 till tonight would be good. Cynics would say stay until 2011 while the free money vision of Europe looked ascendant, but certainly Greece should have dropped after that. Greece should leave now.

Dropping out of the currency union has only advantages for the weaker economy. The disadvantages for the stronger economy are that it stops the flow of funds from the poor to the rich and removes demand for their exports. Germany selfishly wants the Euro. Greeks are stupidly attached to it because they equate the Euro with the EU and three decades of progress.

There are also a couple of totally fantastical choices that people might believe would fix the Eurozone, but they won’t work.

  • Economies like Germany and Greece become similarly productive any time soon.
  • Regions fix trade imbalances through fiscal discipline and austerity.

These are myths. It would be great if Greece was a bit more prosperous like Germany and that would take a venture investment ethos, congenial labour relations, an orientation to global markets, nourishing a boutique economy, branding, IP rights, stability and democracy. Well, at least Greece has democracy.

Different economies may become more alike, but they won’t become the same. The Mississippi delta is less productive than Silicon Valley and that’s why the meagre social policies of the US transfer funds indefinitely from rich Californians to poor Louisianan’s. Convergence doesn’t remove the need for transfers, it makes them smaller.

As for austerity, austerity is the null policy. Austerity means to just accept the dynamic of unproductive regions being steadily poorer and productive regions being steadily richer without asking for free money to mitigate it. And fiscal discipline means don’t try the free money by monetary expansion or default routes.

Until 2011 it looked like Europe was going to work like a superstate using free money transfers. This would have been better for all, including Germans. This idea now looks dead. Weak economies should ditch the Eurozone, now.

Ranking outcomes

Greece and the creditors are in last last-ditch negotiations where the creditors aim to keep Greece in the Eurozone and avert default. Greece aims to secure a bankruptcy deal that’s friendly to the poor and which makes growth possible. In subtext, the creditors want Greece to surrender unconditionally to the institutions to discourage similar movements elsewhere, while Greece aims for sovereignty to carry out a democratic mandate.

Recently it looks like a deal might be reached. Would that be a good outcome? I don’t think so. In my opinion the situation has deteriorated enough that walking away is better. Also we must not lose sight of better outcomes that are currently closed, opportunities that are squandered. To keep everything in context, here’s my ranking of possible outcomes from best to worst.

1. A better model for the Eurozone

The best possible outcome would be to change the architecture of the Eurozone to one that suits all economies. Currently the Euro is architected like the Deutschmark, a strong currency with very tight monetary policy similar to the gold standard and strict fiscal discipline. That has been a German political demand, but such an architecture doesn’t suit the UK (who opted out), Latin countries, and least of all weak undisciplined economies like Ireland and Greece. If the Euro were changed to be a weaker and more volatile currency like the dollar, and the ECB pursued loose monetary policy at times of trouble like the US Federal Reserve, weak economies would be better performing in general and would get out of crises easily. I’m not sure how a weak Euro would hurt Germany except psychologically.

2. A Europe with social transfers

The next best thing, if loose monetary policy and moderate inflation are out of the question, is a Europe with social transfers. A hard currency and strict fiscal discipline for governments, but a European safety net to bail out people (rather than governments) when times are bad. These would be things like EU-wide basic pensions, unemployment, and poverty line income support. Really basic stuff. Right now this is anathema in Europe, as relatively well off taxpayers in relatively prosperous economies resent paying social benefits to poorly off taxpayers in weak economies. But this is exactly the system in the United States. Individual US states and large cities routinely go bankrupt, but federal programs like food stamps and Medicaid support their poorest citizens. Is Europe really unwilling to offer the meagre social benefits that the US does?

3. Positive reform for Greece (a good deal)

After several years of deceit and mismanagement, Greek voters managed to fire the corrupt political dynasties that took turns in power and bring in outsiders (SYRIZA) intent on serious reform. Inexplicably, the creditors decided that they’d rather deal with the old guard that committed financial fraud at their expense and proceeded to undermine SYRIZA at every step. This is a squandered opportunity. For the first time in decades Greece has a morally sound government with a strong mandate and a credible agenda for reform. The same reform that Europe wants: Modern public administration, effective tax collection, making it easy to start a business. If the creditors would take Greece’s proposals seriously and engage in good faith, rapid progress would be made. Except success would look bad and Podemos in Spain would want the same.

4. Leaving the Euro and staying in the EU (no deal)

The best outcome currently open, in my view, is for Greece to walk away from negotiations and leave the Eurozone while staying in the EU. Dropping the Euro and introducing a national currency does two things: It lets the state create and circulate money in the domestic economy, and it makes imports expensive relative to domestic goods. For Greece that means the domestic economy will quickly return to health and poverty will be quickly alleviated. Food, housing, and services will be cheaper as they’re domestic. Technology imports and foreign services such as studying abroad will be expensive. The standard of living, which is mainly supported by domestic goods, will rise but Greece will feel a little backward for lack of imports. People will be able to consume more tomatoes and fewer iPhones. Greeks won’t like that because they love their iPhones, but right now tomatoes are more important.

Some common misconceptions about the impact of Greece leaving the Euro:

Greece’s debt is a separate matter from staying in the Euro. Greece owes more Euros than it can realistically pay, so in the end it’ll realistically pay less. If Greece stays in the Euro the creditors have more leverage to ruin Greece, making repayment harder. If it leaves, Greece has more prospects to recover and could decide to default with fewer consequences. Leaving the Euro is not the same thing as defaulting on debt.

In economic textbooks, leaving a currency union and devaluing is good for competitiveness. That works for an industrial economy whose output can scale a lot with small differences in producer prices. Greece produces olive oil and tourism. Tourism is price-sensitive, but it already faces strong market discipline and it’s not that scalable. If Greece drops the Euro it’ll become cheaper, it’ll sell a few more more holidays and foods, and overall it’ll make a bit less in Euros. The competitiveness argument is moot.

If Greece leaves the Euro the financial fallout will be small. The Anglo-Saxon investors already took their losses and generally acted businesslike in this drama. European governments bailed out their investors and are now holding the bulk of Greece’s debt. Because Greece’s economy imploded, this debt is worth less than face value. If Greece leaves European governments can realise this loss, they can continue to hide it, or they can reflate it with ECB money creation – the same choices they face now.

On the other hand if Greece leaves the political fallout will be large. Being in the EU or EEA but outside the Euro is increasingly looking like the better option. It’s where the UK, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland chose to be. If Greece makes the transition relatively painlessly other countries will sooner or later follow and the Euro will either unravel or lose many of its members and become a new Deutschmark for countries west of the Rhine. For Germany, this will be a large political failure.

5. Parallel currencies

Various technical proposals are being floated about Greece issuing some currency in addition to the Euro. The idea is you’d have Euros and Drachmas in your wallet and you could use either, but Drachmas would be easier to come by and worth less. These proposals aim to quit the Euro in substance while retaining it for morale, for appearances, or for the convenience of travellers. Most view them as temporary measures. Parallel currencies are a risky proposition. They work well at small scale. At large scale they’ve been tried by Latin American countries in crisis, with mixed and hard to disentangle results. Overall, depending on the technical details, parallel currencies work out about the same as leaving the Euro or significantly worse. They’re a great plaything for economists, though.

6. Continued austerity (a bad deal)

If Greece accepts the creditor’s demands it will be a bad outcome for all sides. The creditors insist on austerity and prioritising debt repayments over growth, as they have for the past five years. Continuing on this path will keep Greece impoverished and heavily indebted for the foreseeable future, and will bring further suffering and extremism. The creditors appear less concerned with fostering growth or ending the crisis, and more intent to prevent any country from going bankrupt in the Eurozone and then recovering. It’s Europe of debt servitude. The only good thing about this outcome is that it’s pacified. The empire wins, the rebels are crushed, and there’s an unhappy stability. Greece will still be broke and recurrent debt crisis will be the new normal.

7. Capital controls (like Cyprus)

One officially sponsored outcome that’s worse than austerity is what happened to Cyprus. people in Cyprus use a currency that’s called Euro and looks like the Euro, but a Euro in a Cypriot bank or in your pocket is worth less than a Euro in France or Germany because you can’t take it out of Cyprus. What happened to Cyprus is a remarkably cynical way to fracture a currency union and punish a state (for accepting the money of rich Russians) while claiming your shiny currency union is intact. After seeing the kindness of Europe, Cypriots probably wish they’d stayed a British possession.

8. Continued uncertainty

A marginally worse outcome is continuing the uncertainty that we’ve had since January. Since SYRIZA was elected, creditors have been refusing to roll over Greece’s debts and instead are asking Greece to pay them off as they come due. The ECB cut off one form of finance to Greek banks and is reviewing the other kind (ELA) on a regular basis, effectively inciting a bank run. It’s like the US Fed announcing that Michigan state banks could go belly-up any moment now. This strategy aims to damage Greece’s finances and banking system so that Greece will more easily pay its debts, presumably.

9. Leaving the EU

There’s much good in the EU besides an ill-conceived and damaging single currency system. For poor and troubled nations like Greece the EU brings stronger human rights, freedom to settle and work in any member state, and an open market which for ordinary people means freedom from profiteering of various sorts. The great achievement of the EU is that we can be in each other’s countries as citizens, not as barely tolerated guests. We put up with stupid bureaucratic rulings on bananas and cookies to retain this privilege. It is important not to throw the EU out with the Eurozone.

10. Political meltdown

The worst possible outcome for Greece is a disorderly collapse of SYRIZA and the rise of the nazi Golden Dawn party as “national savours”. Greece is closest to the abyss, but throughout Europe the social damage of the new order of austerity is fuelling far-right parties. In France, Le Pen is on the rise. In the UK, UKIP. It would be a sad legacy for Ms. Merkel, our de-facto European president to bring about the rise of fascism everywhere but in Germany.

As said, I think the best outcome currently within reach is number 4, leaving the Eurozone. Taking a bad deal, such as the creditors insist, is currently a worse outcome, and there are many worse ones. There are also better outcomes that would be possible. Currently, the three best outcomes for Europe are politically blocked by Germany.

Why can’t Greece just agree to the creditor’s terms?

Talks between Greece and its creditors collapsed over the weekend with both parties appearing intransigent. The sticking point is pensions. Greece spends 16% of GDP on pensions and the IMF wants Greece to cut this. Greece. refuses. Why does the Greek state have this large pension burden in the fist place?

The answer is Greek pensions are of the “defined benefits” tax and transfer variety. The state taxes the current working generation and transfers the money to pensioners. It’s a passthrough mechanism, not an investment fund. As the economy has collapsed, tax revenues from the active economy have dropped and the pension burden is harder to bear. It’s a very similar situation to Detroit.

That might conjure up a bloated state sector with stalinist factories building tanks or a comically uncompetitive airline. OK, Greece had these two. They’re gone. For the most part though the high pension burden IS NOT indicative of a state sector that needs purging. The majority of pensioners were either private employees such as bank tellers where the state is acting as their collective insurer, or they were relatively uncontroversial state employees such as teachers and bus drivers.

Why are Greek pensions organised this way? Why aren’t they stock market investments like in the Anglo-Saxon world. For a start, the Anglo-Saxon model is a lousy deal for all income groups except the very wealthy. If you assume continuity of a sovereign state, a tax-and-transfer scheme limits downside better than market investments. The Euro ended monetary sovereignty for Greece, so for pensioners that was a miscalculation.

Secondly Greek capitalism (the portion of the economy in publicly traded companies) is too small to support pensions. Greek pension funds would have had to invest internationally. That would have been quite a leap of faith, and the pension funds did not. Another miscalculation, but understandable, I think. You have to remember people who are now pensioners put their trust on the continuity of the Greek state decades ago.

Alright, so if Greece doesn’t have the money to pay the pensions why doesn’t it cut anyway? What other outcome could one hope for? Well, if Greece left the Euro it could once again print money to partly fund pension obligations. This generates inflation, as was common before the Euro, and inflation acts as an indirect tax. It also causes currency devaluation, which makes imports expensive relative to domestic goods. Guess what: Greek pensioners consume more food and services (domestic goods) than iPhones.

A much better outcome would be for Europe to shoulder some of the social burden of these pensions. Why should they? For the same reason the US has federal food stamps that people disproportionately consume in Detroit. The “unruly” Greek government would much more readily agree to fiscal conditionality in the Euro if it wasn’t solely responsible for the welfare of its citizens. Remember these are people who bet on national sovereignty decades ago, then it was taken away with the Euro and the Europe that transpired is now unwilling to honor their benefits.

European integration would have gone much more smoothly if harmonisation of social welfare across states had been part of the project sooner (or at all). This doesn’t mean giving Swedish benefits to Greek pensioners – you get what you pay for. But it is at least arguable that Europe as a whole should not cut a nation’s pensioners out of their own modest level of benefits.

Greece and its creditors: What has been happening

Since March The Institutions have been refusing to roll over Greece’s debt, claiming that Greece is failing to comply with a program. As long as a deal is not struck they demand that Greece pays off maturing loans as they come due. No country can do that. If Greece doesn’t run out of money in a week or two, it’ll run out later. Every time Greece submits a plan, the creditors reply “No, do as we said originally”.

I feel it’s a mistake to continue this false negotiation and make significant concessions or distressed asset sales, only to postpone a forced bankruptcy by a few days or weeks.

Instead, Greece must send to The Institutions a bankruptcy plan now rather than layer. Since the creditors are not cooperating, in a few days Greece will go bankrupt like so. If the institutions still don’t cooperate, Greece could maybe agree to go bankrupt another way. Tsipras must say this and mean it. In a negotiation you must be clear what you’ll do if the other side doesn’t cooperate. You must have accepted that outcome. To go into a negotiation otherwise is to surrender.

I think a reasonable bankruptcy plan is that which SRIZA set out in its electoral program, removing the concessions that were agreed later and are now seen to be pointless. It’s not clear if bankruptcy will push Greece out of the Euro or whether the Greek State can go bankrupt in the Eurozone like a corporation, leaving the banks in the care of the ECB (like Detroit). I think SYRIZA needs to figure out what the post-bankruptcy recovery plan is, and act accordingly.

Τι συμβαίνει με την Ελλάδα και τους Θεσμούς?

Απο το Μαρτιο, Οι Θεσμοί με το επιχείρημα οτι η Ελλάδα δεν έχει συμμορφωθεί σε πρόγραμμα αρνούνται να ανανεώσουν (roll over) τα δάνεια. Ζητούν λοιπόν όσο δεν επιτυγχάνεται συμφωνία η Ελλάδα να τα εξωφλεί. Καμμιά χώρα δεν είναι σε θέση να κάνει μια τέτοια εξώφληση. Για την Ελλάδα αν δεν εξαντληθούν τα χρήματα σε μια βδομάδα θα εξαντληθούν αργότερα. Σε κάθε πρότασή μας οι Θεσμοί απαντούν “Όχι, κάντε όπως σα; είπαμε απ την αρχή”.

Βρίσκω λάθος να συνεχίζεται αυτή η δήθεν διαπραγμάτευση και γίνουν μεγάλες παραχωρήσεις και ξεπουλήματα για να πάει μια διαδικασία βεβιασμένς πτώχευσης λίγο πιο μακρυά.

Αντίθετα θα πρέπει ο Τσίπρας, πρίν την καταληκτική ημερομηνία, να στείλει στους Θεσμούς ένα σχέδιο πτώχευσης. Αφού δεν συνεργάζεστε, το Ελληνικό κράτος σε λίγες μέρες θα πτωχέυσει έτσι. Αν εξακολουθείτε να μη συνεργάζεστε τότε ίσως μπορούμε να συμφωνήσουμε να πτωχεύσουμε αλλοιώς. Και αυτό πρέπει να το εννούμε. Οταν μπαίνει κανείς σε μια συμφωνία πρέπει να είναι συμφιλιωμένος με το τι θα κάνει αν η άλλη πλευρά δε συνεργάζεται. Αλλοιώς παραδίδεται.

Νομίζω οτι ένα ικανό σχέδιο πτώχευσης είναι αυτό που ο ΣΥΡΙΖΑ ήδη προτείνει στο λαό και στους θεσμούς, ίσως αφαιρώντας τα σημεία παραχώρησς προς τους θεσμούς αν αυτό είναι πια άσκοπο. Ασαφές είναι αν αυτό μας βγάζει εκτός Ευρώ ή το Ελληνικό κράτος χεωκοπεί μέσα στο Ευρώ, σα να ήταν εταιρεία, ενώ οι τράπεζες μένουν μέλλημα της ΕΚΤ. Ο σύρζα πρέπει να εκτιμήσει ποιό απ τα δύο σενάρια προτιμά ανάλογα με το πώς σχεδιάζουμε να κινηθούμε για να συνέλθουμε μετά.

Greece and Europe are in a confrontation over democracy

You wouldn’t think so given a week of awkward handshakes, public contradictions, sternly worded demands to fall into line, and galling bankers’ ultimatums to destroy an economy, but Greece and Europe agree on most things:

Europe: You must reform your economy.
Greece: We plan to reform and modernise our economy even more than has been already accomplished. However we want growth oriented changes, not ones that are just destructive.

Europe: You must reduce graft and waste.
Greece: Our finance minister travels economy. He fired the ministry “consultants” and re-hired the outsourced cleaning ladies. Down to earth is the new normal.

Europe: You must collect taxes properly.
Greece: We’re the first Greek government determined to do that, including going after the big fish. Intrnational help would be appreciated. But sending German in tax inspectors at this time would be unwise.

Europe: You must pay your debts.
Greece: We have the interest of all European taxpayers in mind so please hear our case. During the bubble years your banks lent recklessly to Greece while our government committed financial fraud. We’re sorry. Then your governments transferred private investment losses onto the shoulders of European taxpayers. At the same time the Troika imposed austerity that crushed our economy by 25% and raised debt to GDP from 115% to 170%. European governments mismanaged the crisis and lied to you that you were helping Greece.

Right now we need to end the most damaging aspects of austerity so that we can have growth, and then agree a debt service schedule that this small economy can sustain. Greece is already making a surplus and paying back money to Europe. You are not “financing Greece”, we’re paying you back. We want to make that repayment slower, 1.5% of GDP instead of 4.5%, so that it’s possible to have an economic recovery.

Your central banks won’t get back the full value of the debt at commercial rates. You’ll get less in total or less interest or over a much longer time. However these are by now paper losses in the books of central banks. We’re trying to bury a loss of around €150 billion at a time when the ECB is crating €1.1 trillion of new money on the books of the same banks. That means there’s no need for Europeans to lose money or pay higher taxes over this, and if your politicians make you take this loss it’s their choice.

Europe: You must privatise everything.
Greece: If that’s not letting go of a profitable asset at fire sale prices, sure. Right now the income stream from public enterprises is worth more than the sale price.

Europe: You must stay in the Euro.
Greece: We want to stay in the Euro but the ECB is kicking us out.

Why then all the bluster? Greece’s new government is a popular government. The good kind. We don’t want to see the other one. With the exception of Merkel, the people they face are mostly technocrats. I don’t understand German politics, but from outside it seems clear that capital rules politics and is spinning a morality tale for the people.

Where Greece and Europe don’t agree is where people (in Greece and elsewhere, even Germany) want one thing and narrow capital interests want another:

Europe: You must continue with Austerity.
Greece: We won’t continue with this policy that destroys wealth and evidently doesn’t work.

Europe: You must take this money from our taxpayers.
Greece: We have no right to take any more money from your taxpayers.

Europe: You must do as the previous governments.
Greece: Have you heard of democracy? We have a strong popular mandate for change.

Europe: We have agreements with Greece, not a government.
Greece: It’s like marriage. If you offer solidarity we’ll do the same, and by coercion no.

Europe: You must comply with the Troika inspectors.
Greece: We were elected to end this humiliation. We’re committed to reforms but we’re not a debt colony.

Europe: We have rules here.
Greece: We’re bankrupt, party as a result of bad rules. We’ll follow the rules we can, and if we can’t you may throw us out.

Europe: You’re one country versus 18.
Greece: Have you noticed that the Eurozone is increasingly a club people want to leave? How much democratic opposition to these failed policies will it take to change them?

And that’s really the the point of disagreement this past week, and probably next week or until Greece’s democratic flare is resolved. Greece is arguing for a democratic Europe that works for its people. The establishment is arguing for a largely undemocratic status quo that doesn’t work, or works only for large industrial capital.

It’s been a while since Greece had a government that actually represents the interests of the people. Maybe more than two thousand years. If the other governments in Europe were similar, or Europe could be jolted into reviving democracy, we would find many more parallels than differences and the crisis would be quickly over.

Asmussen leaves, Schaüble stays. Bad.

German coalition government announces cabinet ministers

Bad: Joerg Asmussen is leaving the ECB. He was an austerity hawk / debt dove. He’s likely to be replaced by a Bundesbank hawk on both fronts, who will then undermine Mario Draghi’s OMT bond-buying program. The OMT is the one policy currently holding the Eurozone in relative stability and removing it will likely let the crisis spiral out of control.

Bad: Wolfgang Schaeuble is staying as German Eurozone finance minister. He will then continue on his brave plan to burn down Europe’s economy outside of Germany, while funnelling to Germany massive financial profits through capital flight and manufactured risk arbitrage. German stocks, which dipped 5% in anticipation of the cabinet announcements, will jump back. Non-german European industry will fall.

The Eurozone crisis is about taxation vs. inflation

This formidable crisis that we’re having is, still, about taxation vs. inflation as a means of surplus recycling. A handful of countries including Germany have managed to make taxation work sufficiently well for surplus recycling (sort of, given high surpluses and still rising inequality). The Germans have foolishly written that into the constitution. All other countries, including the US and Japan, find taxation politically or practically insufficient as a means of surplus recycling and make up with a measure of monetary expansion. We’ll call that inflation although it’s not the same thing.

Monetary expansion taxes all assets denominated in a currency and is thus a form of recycling. In the US the market rises when easing is expected. Why? Because investors know that firms will have an opportunity to capture the surplus that is so recycled. Otherwise surplus will be more and more concentrated in retained profits, it won’t return to the market, and investments will have diminishing yield.

Southern Europe and the so-called lazy Greeks have been especially bad at taxation and especially reliant on inflation, devaluation, and the like. All countries pay their way if inflation is allowed. Fiscal obligations are covered in nominal terms and purchasing power for imports diminishes. The Eurozone was created, foolishly, with a German-inspired “there shall be no inflation” clause, and foolishly Greece applied and was admitted knowing that making taxation work in the timescale was unrealistic (and it’s a tall order for any country ever). The Eurozone then persisted, foolishly, in denial. The Greeks will endure anything but make taxation work, and the Germans will contemplate any measure but admit that taxation is insufficient and monetary expansion is a necessary pillar.

So please, let’s not moralise about lazy this and cruel that. Let’s see how we can back out of past decisions that were foolish, and that means talking about the role of both taxation and inflation (monetary expansion) in the Eurozone.

Inspired from Yanis Varoufakis’s blog here