The Migrant Crisis: Why Germany Can't Cope

 February 1, 2016

The biggest refugee crisis in Europe since WWII looks set to get worse in 2016. The country most responsible for the huge inflow of migrants from the Middle East is, as we all know, Germany.

What is less well-documented is the fact that its state apparatus simply cannot cope anymore. Chancellor Angela Merkel is quick to reassure her national and European audiences that her country can handle the challenges of integrating a million refugees, but events have proved her wrong time and again.

The New Year’s Eve disorders in Cologne are, according to German police, just the tip of the iceberg. The sheer numbers of refugees Germany has agreed to accept have led to administrative and security chaos in a country known until recently as one of the best-run and most orderly in the world.

To be sure, last year’s huge refugee influx is only partly to blame. At least as important a cause has been Germany’s adoption of tough austerity policies in recent years, which had seriously affected the budget and capabilities of the police and civil service, both on a local and federal level. After years of hugely misguided austerity, Germany nowadays has 10,000 less police than in the year 2000. Since 2014, repeated requests by the Interior Ministry for the hiring of an additional 3,000 personnel have been denied funding by Mr. Schaeuble’s ministry, the latter being bent on balancing the German budget at the expense of its citizens’ most basic security needs.

What’s worse, nobody can expect this situation to improve anytime soon. Although the creation of 3,000 new posts has recently been approved, the new police recruits will have to be trained first, becoming effective only in 2019. Meanwhile, the safety of ordinary German citizens will continue to be affected by the chaos engulfing the entire country and the lack of manpower and resources needed to deal effectively with the migrants’ influx.

Why the Berlin Consensus is Toxic for the EU

 August 31, 2015

Over the past fifteen years, quite a lot of criticism has been levelled by the “MIT gang”° against what has become known as the Washington consensus. Very little or no public discussion, however, has taken place about its close European offshoot, the Berlin consensus.

Sure, there are some differences between the neoliberal economic thinking underpinning the Washington consensus concept and the Berlin consensus. For better or for worse, the pitfalls in promoting mass privatizations, currency and capital markets liberalization around the globe are too well-known to all to insist upon here. What the Washington and the Berlin consensus have in common, on the other hand, is the “one-size-fits-all” approach to solving economic problems.

The policies shaping today’s Berlin consensus have appeared during the nineties in connection with the introduction of the common currency. The main tenets of the Berlin consensus are derived from the German economic doctrine of ordoliberalism and the project of Walther Funk, Hitler’s minister of the economy.

Alas, what works for Germany does not work for the rest of the eurozone. The Maastricht Treaty, the budgetary and public debt rules and limitations, as well as the accompanying austerity measures have been enshrined, following the sovereign debt and euro crises, into the constitutions of most eurozone member countries. The six-pack and the two-pack compacts have also become part of the financial legislation of the eurozone.

And here lies the problem. The rigidity or inflexibility of the rules and principles on which the Berlin consensus is based, whilst it might favour an export economy like Germany’s, is playing havoc with economies like France’s and Italy’s, to mention but a few. The German obsession with very low inflation, low wages and zero budget deficit targets has provoked the stagnation of most eurozone economies. In the normal order of things there are surplus countries and deficit countries, since it is not possible to transform the whole continent into a global exporting powerhouse. This is the main reason why imposing the Berlin consensus on all of the eurozone’s member states is proving not only wrong, but downright catastrophic.

Still, compliant governments from France to Greece have made huge efforts to cut government expenditure, freeze or diminish wages and transform their consumer-led economies into export champions. Some, like Portugal and Spain have temporarily succeeded in doing so, but only by repressing internal demand, cutting wages and tolerating high unemployment rates.

The German way, unfortunately, is that of adapting the economy to the needs of price stability, and not the currency to the needs of the economy. For German policymakers, the flexibility has to come from the workers, not from the rules governing the economy. The fact that the eurozone has ceased to work – following the imposition of the Berlin consensus – is by now clear for all to see.

As it always happens when the groupthink phenomenon manifests itself, however, EU leaders prefer to justify the unjustifiable and to delay needed changes in policy until it will be too late to save not only the common currency area, but the EU as a political union as well. (The Eurogroup is a textbook example of groupthink.)

Accordingly, it is time for knowledgeable insiders – such as Yanis Varoufakis, for example – to clearly and concisely explain to the European layman why the Berlin consensus is toxic for the eurozone and what can be done about it. Surely, one cannot expect such a demanding intellectual effort to be undertaken by the likes of Wolfgang Schaeuble, Jeroen Dijsselbloem or say… the German Council of Economists. And, who knows? A timely and well-written book on this subject might even become a best-seller here in Europe.

°Note: The “MIT gang” is a group of leading American and French economists, such as Paul Krugman, Ben Bernanke, Olivier Blanchard, Maurice Obstfeld, who have studied economics at MIT at about the same time and have continued to promote Keynesian macro-economic remedies, as opposed to supply-side economic remedies, in addressing economic downturns.

Dark clouds on the Eurozone Sky

 August 3, 2015

In Wolfgang Schaeuble’s Germano-centric EU, no institution is more important – apart from his Politburo-like Eurogroup and the Office of the Chancellor – than his Ministry’s Council of Economic Advisers. The most influential adviser among them is Professor Hans-Werner Sinn from Munich, a Christian missionary-manqué turned tele-economist.

Like any good German, Professor Sinn has but a few ideas, but fixed, which he peddles forcefully with evangelic zeal in the national and international media. That is, when he is not using them as ideological tonic poured regularly in his Finance Minister’s ear.

When he doesn’t appear on TV to explain to his nation why the euro-crisis is like a bottomless pit for German money, or impart advice to the lawyer-trained flock which dominates the Eurogroup, Professor Sinn presides the Ifo think tank in Munich where he benevolently enforces – according to his hapless colleagues – a virulent form of “intellectual despotism”.

One of the fixed ideas Professor Sinn has advocated in the media and to Wolfgang Schaeuble since 2012 is of course that of Grexit. He is apparently convinced that countries like Greece and Portugal would need an internal devaluation of their wages and pensions of between 30 and 40 percent in order to shore up their competitiveness, compared to a 10 to 20 percent devaluation in Spain and Italy. Such steep reductions would not possible without generating huge social strife within the European Union, therefore Greece or Portugal should temporarily exit the eurozone. Thus, instead of resorting to this internal devaluation (read drastic reductions of salaries and pensions), they would revert for a while to their national currencies, which could be devalued and used as shock-absorbers while at the same time reducing their debt load via haircuts.

This simplistic way of trying to “solve” a complex situation has been lapped up by Wolfgang Schaeuble, like he did with another incredibly stupid idea: the “schwarze null” option as the main goal of budgetary policy. (It seems that neither surpluses nor deficits are desirable in Schaeuble’s world.)

To make his ideas triumph, Hans-Werner Sinn has blown out of the water all other options, such as “dexit”, or two EU currency zones, which was put forward as early as 2011 by a much more thoughtful colleague of his from Munich, Professor Alfred Steinherr. How exactly has Sinn achieved that ? By presenting – in a 2013 Project Syndicate commentary – the dexit option as if it were just another zany brainchild belonging to George Soros, knowing full well that in European capitals the billionaire’s reputation alone would be enough to kill any further debate on dexit.

Since the 13th of July 2015 diktat from Brussels, Professor Sinn and the five “wisemen” from the German Council of Economic Experts have aggressively started a campaign aimed at arming the Eurozone with new rules and procedures that would make the eviction of financially-shaky EU members easier. As lawyer-trained politicians generally find it hard to grasp complex economic arguments, this proposal could become EU official policy tomorrow. This could only make matters worse, as the adoption of exit rules will not contribute substantially to addressing the euro’s and the eurozone’s plight.

 

Austerity and Inequality Undermine the EU

 December 17, 2014

The numerous geopolitical tensions in 2014 in Ukraine, Syria or Iraq could not obscure the fact that the most worrying problems in the world today are economic, and not geopolitical, in nature.

The total failure of austerity policies within the EU is by now the most pressing concern of governments from the North to the South of the continent. Hailed a few years back by European conservatives as a miracle cure to the sovereign debt crisis, austerity policies have not succeeded in reducing the public debt of Spain and Greece or their 25+ percent unemployment rates. Moreover, the much-touted “golden rule” enforced by Germany via Brussels has only made matters worse, bringing the EU-wide economy to a standstill. The spectres of stagnation and deflation are haunting the chancelleries of most EU countries, as is a Japanese-style extended period of economic malaise.

Another major concern for EU policymakers is the widening inequality in incomes, favouring the rich and severely punishing the European middle classes and the poor. According to the German Office of Statistics, even a seemingly successful country like Germany has 20.5 percent of its population in danger of falling into poverty, whilst the EU-wide average figure stands even higher at 24.5 percent. The bleak economic situation experienced by nearly all EU members has recently generated huge street protests and general strikes, from Belgium to Italy and from Greece to Spain. The reduction in the standards of living of the middle classes – whose existence is endangered by the past few years’ myopic austerity policies – combined with the spectre of rising poverty, have motivated students, union members and pensioners to come together in record numbers in an effort to block or even reverse such misguided policies.

In countries like Greece and Spain, radical political parties of the left such as Syriza and Podemos are in the process of undermining political support for traditional parties of the right or of the left, which stand discredited by years of enforcing economic policies that had not produced the expected results. In countries like France, the UK or Hungary, voters’ preferences are also deserting traditional parties in favour of nationalist political parties such as the Front National, UKIP or Fidesz. To add insult to injury, a deal between the EU’s social democrats and conservatives has resulted in the appointment as Commission President of Jean-Claude Juncker , ex-prime minister of Luxemburg, which is the EU’s capital of the tax-avoidance industry.

The failure of austerity policies and the growth of inequalities have not, however, made a lasting impression on German politicians or determined them to rethink their approach to solving economic stagnation and high unemployment in the EU. Quite on the contrary, the conservative leadership of Germany keeps insisting that the bitter medicine that failed to revive the EU’s economy has to be swallowed even more rigorously in the future. This is an approach that can only lead to more economic stagnation, more poverty and more social upheavals on the continent.

Development Eurobonds and Economic Growth

 March 31, 2012

The harsh austerity measures afflicting southern EU members like Greece, Spain, Portugal or Ireland are generating massive unemployment and negative economic growth, not to mention the type of social turmoil that can conceivably degenerate into civil war. As the European Union is far from a truly federal structure, fiscal transfers from economically viable member-states to distressed areas of the Union are currently out of the question. Still, policy measures aimed at reversing the negative trends in economic activity and employment should become the top priority both for Brussels and EU national governments, if the deterioration of economic conditions is to be prevented from spreading.

The amounts needed to kickstart economic growth in the south and to drastically reduce unemployment, to be sure, would have to be in the vicinity of 1 trillion euros. These would fund EU-wide mega-infrastructure projects in transportation, energy generation and the maintenance of adequate provision of education and healthcare services. Unfortunately, most EU governments are now locked in a battle to reduce their fiscal deficits, in a vain effort to appease restless international financial markets and speculators. One of the few solutions advanced by – among others – Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of Ecofin, is that of issuing eurobonds, although the idea was flatly rejected by Germany and France.

The European Commission lacks the financial muscle to undertake such projects. To overcome that, it should, however, be enabled to issue a batch of one-off eurobonds earmarked for financing development and economic growth projects in distressed regions of the EU. Issued over a period of five years and sold exclusively to EU nationals, by a banking system that owes a lot to states and depositors alike, these eurobonds with long maturity dates could be an adequate financial instrument needed to raise large amounts of money in these times of huge economic stress.

By putting the European Commission in charge of the proceeds, the projects to be undertaken will not only benefit the countries most in need, but the European Union as a whole. As matters now stand, the alternative is to use crypto- financial transfers from northern countries to the South, which would result in higher taxation levels affecting the rich as well as the struggling European middle classes. The eurobond solution could also prove instrumental in redeeming the badly tarnished image of EU authorities, who are currently being perceived as a mere conveyor belt of highly unpopular austerity policies dictated by the financial markets.

"It's Economic Growth, Stupid !"

 March 28, 2012

Over the last two weeks, economic discussion among EU leaders has revolved around two main topics: austerity and increasing to 1 trillion euros the money available to the ESP. Few of the current leaders, if any, are concentrating on finding solutions to the real economic challenge facing the Union, that of kickstarting economic growth on the continent. As Barry Eichengreen argues,

“Though no one can say for sure what Tobin would have thought of Europe’s crisis, his priority was always the pursuit of full employment. One suspects that he would have urged European policymakers to dispense with their silly fixation on a financial transactions tax and instead repair their broken banking systems and use all monetary and fiscal means at their disposal to jump-start economic growth”.

With the exception of a few EU members (Germany, Finland, Austria, Denmark), growth is stagnant, or negative (in Greece, Portugal and Ireland, for example) and the average rate of unemployment has crossed the psychological threshold of 10 percent. Whilst countries like China have spent close to 1 trillion USD in 2008-2009 in order to maintain employment and growth, the EU is envisaging to invest a measly 100 billion euros to the scale of the continent, if that. To compound economic woes, aggregate demand in deficit EU countries is about to suffer further shocks as a result of the unwise implementation of draconian austerity measures.

According to Jean-Claude Trichet, former ECB director, the average budget deficit within the EU is 70 percent of the aggregate GDP. That compares very favourably with Japan’s 212 percent or with the US’ 100 percent public debt ratios. Maastricht Treaty “fair weather” provisions notwithstanding, most EU member countries could add a few percentage points to their deficits in order to adequately finance growth and employment investment schemes coordinated by Brussels. To avoid pressure from international financial markets, national governments could – as the Japanese have always done – sell their treasury bonds to their own citizens, vital stakeholders in a solid economic recovery.

Whether our political leaders realise it or not, the only way out of the current crisis is by spending close to 1 trillion euros over the next few years on various development and infrastructure projects. The EU’s energy security, for example, does need the Nabucco project to go ahead in order to diminish our dependence on Russian oil and gas and pipelines. Although the European Commission is trying to allocate money for other much- needed infrastructure projects, the EU budget is at the mercy of member states’ contributions. That brings into question Brussel’s ability to adopt and implement the pan-European growth agenda we need.

And yet, a comprehensive pro-growth strategy is essential, if both the employment and current sovereign debt crises are to be overcome. To get to it, national leaders should, however, do away with their fixation on golden rules and austerity measures, and start investing massively in projects that will slash the current unemployment rate, taming it to the levels experienced by Germany, Austria or Finland. The urgency of such an investment and spending agenda is, unfortunately, recognised only by economists. Unable to deliver the right mix of economic policies, EU politicians have found it more expedient to give in to xenophobia, racism and nationalism, some of them for electoral reasons.

Whilst populist discourse might in normal times prove helpful in winning elections, in the current economic climate it could only aggravate matters and prolong the crisis. In fact, voters in major European countries are more concerned with their diminished purchasing power and job prospects than with illegal immigration and/or security issues. Any politician or their advisers who fail to grasp that should make an exit from the political game. (sources: Project Syndicate, Le Monde, Reuters, Deutsche Welle, Xinhua)

The EU's Austerity-induced Recession

 March 1, 2012

The eurozone’s unemployment rate has reached 10.7 percent in January, meaning 16.9 million people out of work, of which 5.5 million young people under 25. If we add to these figures the 2.7 million people unemployed in the UK as well as another few million jobless in the other EU member-states, we can understand why the European Union is now being viewed as the biggest recessionary threat to the world economy. Countries in the eurozone’s southern periphery, like Greece or Spain, are afflicted by 19.9 percent and 23.3 percent unemployment rates respectively. By contrast, Austria, Luxemburg and the Netherlands enjoy a jobless rate of 4 to 5.1 percent according to Eurostat. Even more alarming, the eurozone’s manufacturing sector has entered its seventh month of contraction, pointing to an EU-wide recession for 2012 and possibly beyond.

In denial about the economic consequences of their actions, the eurozone’s leaders will meet in Brussels this weekend for the signing of a new fiscal pact, whose stringent conditions are at the root of the current economic problems. Nobody that’s anybody in the economic profession still supports the view that the austerity measures – as implemented unwisely over the last two to three years – could improve the economy. Draconian austerity measures could only lead to negative growth, mass unemployment and a wave of unprecedented social unrest across Europe.

Aloof German politicians and bankers, however, are currently attacking the ECB for lowering interest rates and for providing fresh liquidities to the banks in order to spur economic activity, even as the German export engine itself is showing signs of sputtering.

Ideologically motivated national leaders from most other European countries are towing the austerity line and cutting expenses in health, education and essential social services to the bone, further depressing aggregate demand in their own countries.

Together, all these policies will in time provide the fuel for social revolutions, as stressed-out wage earners and the working poor can barely tolerate the harshness of the measures aimed at reducing private and public debt in eurozone countries. Meanwhile, labour union leaders have all but given up hope of making politicians gauge the gravity of the mega social crisis unfolding under our own eyes. One thing is certain, however. Brussels’ summitry is not expected to make a significant contribution to improving Europe’s growth prospects or to reducing unemployment anytime soon. (sources: The Guardian, Reuters, Deutsche Welle, Le Monde)

Uncertainty Plagues the Eurozone

 September 9, 2011

Major trouble, we learn from the Chinese, can be likened to a tunnel we have to go through until we reach the other side. It is hard to say whether the sovereign debt crisis that hit the eurozone two years ago is about to be dealt with more decisively this fall. To be sure, a few austerity packages and hundreds of billions of euros later, Greece’s public debt is as high as at the beginning of the crisis. Even more alarming, the size of Italy’s public debt has started to worry the international markets in August, and the United States has been close to defaulting on its 14,000 billion dollar debt, losing its coveted AAA credit rating.

There are a few glimmers of hope, if not as yet light at the end of the tunnel. The new IMF chief, Christine Lagarde has strongly urged western governments to soften austerity measures and to adopt pro-growth policies instead. On the other side of the Atlantic, Warren Buffett has publicly called on his fellow billionaires to accept a 50 % tax rate in order to help reduce America’s debt. In France, sixteen prominent billionaires have published a manifesto stating their agreement with the introduction of a temporarily higher tax rate for the rich – a call supported by many leading French industrialists. The Italian, Hungarian and even Romanian parliaments – believe it or not – are considering introducing a special tax payable by those with incomes of 25,000 euros or more (Hungary) or of 90,000 euros or more per annum (Italy). For now, however, the Italian government has quickly withdrawn its proposal, while the Romanian 1 percent “solidarity tax” (a rather ridiculously low rate, considering that for the past twenty years the country’s “business” elite has achieved this status by pillaging Romanian banks and enterprises and by systematically siphoning off funds from the national budget) still needs debating…

At the EU’s periphery, austerity is slowly but surely choking off growth, in both the UK and Greece. Undaunted, the British government wishes to buck the trend and reduce the 50 % top tax rate for the rich, in spite of popular discontent which has erupted beyond expectations in August. Greece has recorded a second year of negative growth, but again, any talk of imposing extra taxes on the rich is still taboo.

Economists and bankers worldwide are hotly debating the euro’s future. Scenarios on the table range from an imminent implosion (Roubini, Alan Greenspan), to a possible shrinking of the eurozone (Kenneth Rogoff, Florin Aftalion) which would leave some of the Mediterranean countries – unable to reduce their public debt – out. American historian Harold James strikes a more optimistic note, pointing out that over the past two years the exchange rate of the euro has held steady despite the turmoil around it. Ironically, the most affected currencies have been the Swiss franc, the Australian dollar and the Japanese yen.

The eurobond issue seems dead and buried after the German Constitutional Court decision handed down on September 7, and the fiscal policies’ convergence seems to be in. At this point in time it is far from clear, however, whether the light at the end of the eurozone tunnel is within reach. We will probably find out by the middle of next year. (sources: Reuters, Le Monde, Deutsche Welle, La Vanguardia, Courrier International, Project Syndicate, The Economist).

EU: A Question of Priorities

 December 21, 2010

After hearing daily about the problems experienced by the EU’s common currency, austerity measures and the like, one might be forgiven for being inclined to believe that the crisis and its ugly aftermath are the most important issues confronting us all. In fact, the most disquieting development, as suggested by a recent poll published by The Economist, is our lack of optimism in our collective future. Whilst a majority of Chinese, Brazilians or Indians, for example, are listed in the poll as optimistic about their future, only about a third of industrialised countries’ inhabitants express similar views.

One reason for this is, of course, the gap in economic performance. The Chinese, Brazilian or Indian economies are growing, on average, at a respectable rate of 8 percent per annum, as compared to a sluggish 2.5 percent for the US or 2 percent for the EU. Furthermore, within the Western group of nations, countries like Ireland and Greece are now experiencing their third year of negative growth, while Spain’s economic growth goes neither north, nor south. Ill-conceived or too drastic austerity measures are compounding the economic woes of many nations, with no end in sight for cutbacks in the provision of public services, however vital some of these are.

Optimism and the strong economic performance displayed by the 3 heavyweights of emerging countries should, however, come as no surprise. The same Economist statistics mention the fact that whilst US students’ performance is below the OECD average, the Chinese score consistently higher in maths, physics and most other subjects. Moreover, as the working population in the US, Japan and the EU is ageing, the BRIC countries with the exception of Russia have a youthful, dynamic and growing workforce. The number of college students in China has quadrupled lately and in order to avoid unemployment among them, the country’s leadership has been sending thousands of newly-qualified job-seekers to further their studies abroad at the state’s expense…

The EU could have avoided most of these problems as well, as the 12 recent entrants are known to have a young, well-qualified workforce. The education systems of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland or Romania, to mention but a few, consistently produced high achievers in maths, physics, chemistry, biology – areas where some of the EU’s education establishments are weak. Unfortunately, the main potential beneficiaries of their talents and skills – countries like Germany, Britain or France – have made it hard for applicants from Central and Southeast Europe to fill available positions, by protecting their job markets even as they are experiencing serious skill gaps.

To add insult to injury, the newly-adopted austerity packages are also targeted at the education systems of EU countries, big or small. Last summer, the UK’s conservatives have decided to treble university admission fees. At the other end of Europe, a Romanian conservative government has cut 40 percent of the health budget and froze the already inadequate sums allocated to education, while leaving untouched the budgets of the country’s seven secret services. This comes on top of the 25 percent cuts to doctors’ and teachers’ salaries voted this summer. Teacher-bashing on public television has become president Basescu’s sport of choice, as if the country’s economic problems are expected to vanish regardless of how much Romania spends on educating its workforce.

To be sure, any politician worth this name should have avoided proposing or voting for cutbacks in health and education. No civilised society, East or West, can hope to function, let alone prosper, in the absence of a decent health system or by depriving itself of the benefits normally associated with a quality education system. This is a point that both the IMF and EU officials should have emphasized when they mandated member countries to reduce public spending and adopt austerity packages. As matters now stand, however, teachers and doctors are lumped together with perennial tyre kickers and spongers who bloat the payrolls of many EU member countries. By looking the other way and getting their priorities wrong, the same officials are as guilty as the national politicians that were directly responsible for such cuts. (sources: The Economist, The Guardian, EVZ, Capital.ro)

Hungary Bucks Austerity Trend

 

November 30, 2010

In 1956 the Hungarians rose in revolt against the excesses of Soviet communism. During the 1980’s, the Hungarian society was already making the transition to what we now call the post-Soviet era and its communist politicians opened the country’s borders to East German refugees fleeing to the West . These days, Viktor Orban and his Fidesz Party have rallied the Hungarian public opinion against the excesses of a global economy gone astray, introducing additional taxes on global players operating in Hungary.

The so-called “crisis taxes” were introduced in order to narrow Hungary’s budget deficit. The novelty of these extra taxes, which will raise 520 billion Ft (or 2.67 billion dollars), lies in the fact that they are levied exclusively on banks, energy companies, the telecom and the retail sectors. Thus the telecom tax is expected to bring an extra 61 billion Ft, the energy sector to contribute with 70 billion Ft, whilst the retail sector to kick in 30 billion Ft. Introduced for a limited period of three years, the new taxes will help the Hungarian government avoid IMF / EU bailouts or the imposition of unpopular austerity measures, now very much in vogue in most European Union countries.

When communism fell, Hungary found itself without home-grown tycoons or, to use a Marxist cliché, a “capitalist class”. The void was filled by global companies, which during the 1990s acquired large chunks of the Hungarian economy via privatisations. After years of upsetting state authorities with their peculiar ways of syphoning off profits abroad and minimising their tax bill (by methods which I have described in my Asian crisis ebook), they are now called upon by the Orban government to give something back. Companies like Vodafone (telecommunications), Tesco (retail), Gaz de France or E-On (energy) and the banks will thus pay the bulk of the new “crisis taxes”. Needless to mention, Orban’s crisis policy enjoys huge public support.

To be sure, this is an unheard-of – even if fully justified – approach to raising the extra money needed to close the country’s deficit gap. Unlike the European conservative group of parties, of which Fidesz is a member, the Hungarians have decided that this time around it should be the rich global companies, and not the poor, that have to foot the bill for the damage caused by the financial and economic crisis. Why, even socialist governments in power in some EU countries – notably Greece or Spain – were strong-armed into adopting neoliberal austerity measures, which have sent their economies into the red, generated widespread unemployment and affected the incomes of millions.

During a recent state visit to Malta, Orban has declared that the measures undertaken by his government have brought back “national self-confidence” and that the 7 percent budget deficit inherited from his socialist predecessors will be cut to 3.8 percent next year. He has also told his Maltese host that an economic recovery happening only on paper, that does not reduce unemployment, is not worth having.

In many ways, Orban’s approach in dealing with the ill effects of the economic crisis is as revolutionary as the Imre Nagy – led uprising against the Soviets. Fortunately, Hungary is now a member of a different union, and Brussels is unlikely to send the tanks rolling into Budapest, although a speculative attack on the forint cannot be ruled out. Whilst neighbouring countries like Romania are unnecessarily subjecting their citizens to austerity measures which have been judged by experts as both unwise and much too savage, Orban and his team are cushioning the Hungarian nation against economic destitution. However salutary though, Orban’s novel way of solving his country’s budget woes is going to be lost on Bucharest politicians, who over the past three decades have developed the unhealthy habit of vampirizing their own conationals. (sources: The Economist, The Malta Independent, Magyar Hirlap, The Budapest Sun)

Austerity, QE2 and the Global Economy

 November 2, 2010

Last week’s top-level political meetings which took place in Brussels and Hanoi ended up with similar calls on the US to avoid stimulating the American economy by printing more dollars. Trying to stimulate growth by flooding the American banking system with liquidity is only of marginal importance to the US economy’s woes. Yet this is exactly the measure that the Federal Reserve is contemplating this week, one known euphemistically under the name of QE2 – which stands for the second quantitative easing. The measure involves the spending of minimum 500 billion US dollars by the Fed to buy assets like treasury bonds back from banks and thus infuse more liquidity in the banking sector, ultimately benefitting potential borrowers.

The “easy money” measure bears all the hallmarks of Friedman’s monetarist theories. According to him and his followers, a financial crisis is aggravated by a lack of adequate liquidity within the banking sector. Tackling the liquidity problem is deemed to reignite economic growth.

The Fed’s move will further lower the exchange rate of the US dollar and cause the appreciation of other currencies worldwide. Already, the Japanese yen is at a 15-year high against the dollar. In the past few months, the Thai baht has risen by 11 percent, the Philippine peso by 7 percent and the Brazilian real has acquired the unenviable reputation as the most over-valued currency on earth. Since this summer, the euro has also risen by 9 percent to 1.39 dollars, badly affecting exports and the feeble economic recovery of 2009-2010 as well.

The draconian austerity measures recently adopted within the EU, combined with a printing of money by the United States are thus further endangering an already anemic economic growth in the West. The situation is so serious that even a publication like The Economist has felt compelled to finally incriminate austerity and money-printing, as the wrong policies for leading the global economy back to a sustained growth pattern :

“there is a danger of overdoing the short-term budget austerity. Excessive budget-cutting poses a risk to the recovery, not least because it cannot easily be offset by looser monetary policy. Improvements to the structure of taxation and spending matter as much as the short-term deficits.”

Fiscal stimuli, not austerity, and changes to “the structure of taxation” (!) are therefore the policies needed to bring the global economy back to 2007 output and performance levels (which, by the way, The Economist does not expect to happen before 2015 !).

As worried central bankers from Frankfurt and Tokyo will also meet this week, it will be interesting to see what countermeasures, if any, they will decide upon in response to the Fed’s expected QE2 decision. Unfortunately, even central bankers disagree when it comes to measures like austerity, fiscal stimuli and changes to taxation levels, let alone Western politicians under pressure from their electorates to cut taxes further or to reduce the size of government payrolls. With an expected Republican win in the US midterm elections and with conservative politicians in power in the EU’s leading countries, the outlook is rather gloomy. The continuation of current policies will see the Western world condemned to a Japanese-type decade of economic stagnation or, at best, sluggish growth.

Meanwhile, the Chinese economy will ring up another decade of stellar growth rates, if current and past trends are any guide.