Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Ireland: the battle against "markets"

by Rebecca Wilder

Ireland: the battle against “markets”
crossposted with Newsneconomics

Is it the sheer size of its contingent liabilities that is driving Irish spreads? Finance Minister Brian Lenihan thinks so via the Irish Independent:

“There is no doubt in my mind that while the announcement on the banking sector in September was not disbelieved by the markets, it wasn’t fully believed either because there is a wait and see policy of seeing whether it is an accurate account of exposures in the banking system,” the minister said.

Or is it German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s recent rhetoric? According to the Irish Times, since her most recent statement on private haircuts, “All stakeholders must participate in the gains and losses of any particular situation”, officials are readying the EFSF for possible tapping by the Irish government:

The Irish Times has established, however, that informal contacts are under way between Brussels, Berlin and other capitals to assess their readiness to activate the €750 billion rescue fund in the event of an application from Dublin.

The EU quashes this rumor.

Or is it that “markets” just don’t buy the Irish fiscal austerity reduces the Irish budget deficit story? According to the Irish Independent, this is the opinion of Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz (mine, too, by the way):

“The austerity measures are weakening the economy, their approach to bank
resolution is disappointing,” Stiglitz, a Columbia University economics professor, said in an interview in Hong Kong today. “The prospect of success is very, very bleak” for the government’s plan to resolve the problem, he said.

What’s driving spreads? (They’ve come off a bit today, but they’re still just under 600 basis points over German bunds (as of 6am this morning).) Furthermore, the EU came out with a statement that reiterates the exclusion of outstanding debt on any new restructuring mechanisms:

..does not apply to any outstanding debt and any programme under current instruments. Any new mechanism would only come into effect after mid-2013 with no impact whatsoever on the current arrangements.

The answer is, it’s probably a mix of the three above. Markets are starting to price in an insolvent government balance sheet, which will ultimately lead to default – some call Ireland’s sovereign balance sheet insolvent but still liquid .

I side with Stiglitz, that ultimately its deficit reduction plan will reveal the axiom that is the three-sector financial balance: if you don’t have a surge of external income, then the private sector and the public sector cannot simultaneously increase saving.

Exhibit A. The year of austerity – and even harsher and more front loaded austerity is on the way – has proven to squash growth prospects for the Irish economy compared to the average, which is the Euro area.

The chart illustratest the index of quarterly GDP, as reported by Eurostat. The Euro area data is current through Q3 2010 (only on a “flash” basis), while the Irish GDP figures are available through Q2 2010. These numbers are not annualized; but as of Q2the Irish economy is running 11% below its Q1 2008 level of GDP, while in Q3 the Euro area as a whole is producing just 2.7% short of its Q1 2008 level.

But the Irish government is sticking to its plan. Recently the Central Bank of Ireland published its quarterly report, where it simultaneously downgraded the growth forecast AND announced that further action will be taken to bring the government deficit to 3% of GDP by 2014. Since then, the government announced deficit cuts that exceeded those originally planned by a factor of two. Seems fishy to me.

Rebecca Wilder

Tags: , , Comments (2) | |

Eurozone rebalancing depends on German inflation

The Federal Statistics Office reported that German consumer prices increased 0.2% on a seasonally-adjusted basis in October, translating into a 1.3% annual gain on a harmonized basis. German prices are very sticky, since the domestic economy doesn’t see the boom and bust cyclical behavior like that in other developed economies. However, inflation may headed north, especially if the trend in industrial prices (PPI), a +3.8% annual clip, is any leading indicator. (Click on chart to enlarge.)

Will German policymakers see the inflation for what it is? It’s a shift in relative prices to drive real German appreciation in order to rebalance current accounts across the region amid a fixed currency regime.

The Eurozone region is now characterized by current account imbalances, imbalances that are now being addressed through fiscal austerity measures. According to the IMF October 2010 World Economic Outlook, Germany will run the second largest current account surplus in the Eurozone as a percentage of GDP this year (second to Luxembourg), 6.1%, while Greece and Portugal will run the largest deficits, -10.8% and -10%, respectively. Among the bigger economies, Spain’s 2010 current account deficit sticks out at -5.2% of GDP. In fact, just 6 of the 16 Eurozone economies are expected to run current account surpluses in 2010.

If these fiscal austerity measures are to succeed in Europe, the hardest hit economies – Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Greece – must generate income externally via export growth. In order to gain export growth, competitiveness must be drawn upon in one of three ways (or a combination): (1) the nominal exchange rate depreciates in the debtor countries (CA deficit countries); (2) final goods prices fall in the debtor countries relative to the creditor countries; or (3) unit labor costs fall in the debtor countries relative to the creditor countries. Any combination of the three will shift the real exchange rate in favor of the debtor countries and drive export growth.

Since (1), depreciation of the nominal exchange rate, is clearly not an option in the single-currency Eurozone, it’s up to (2) and (3). I’ve talked about wage-cutting; and most of the fiscal austerity packages include some degree of public sector wage cuts, so I won’t address that here. And point (2) has been addressed mostly via fiscal austerity dragging price pressures domestically, and leading to increased competitiveness. But point (2) can be seen from another light…

…it’s all about relative prices, and inflation in Germany realtive to the debtor countries can establish competitiveness in debtor countries.

German inflation is important for two reasons.

First, it’s all about relative prices (point 2 above), so competitiveness in Spain, for example, could similarly be generated if German inflation rises relative to that in Spain, holding Spanish inflation constant – even more so if Spain’s inflation rate is falling . In fact, a rather stark increase in German inflation is likely needed to generate a rebalancing effect when nominal depreciation is out of the question (as is the case for the Eurozone).

On to the second reason why German inflation is important: the ECB average inflation target.

The table to the left illustrates the compounded annual rate of inflation (CAGR) for each of the current member Eurozone economies since 2000. Germany has, on average, seen prices rise at a 1.7% annual rate, while Spain has seen prices rise at a 2.9% annual rate.

Amid fiscal austerity, German inflation is needed is to keep the ECB’s target average inflation rate– the average inflation rate is the weighted HICP across all of the Eurozone economies – around 2% while the much of the Eurozone experiences disinflation (or deflation).

Spanning 2000-2009, the Spanish economy contributed roughly 0.4% to the Euro area’s average 2.1% annual inflation (based on the HICP country weight, which is 12.6% – see the Eurostat publication for links to the data). Greece contributed roughly 0.1%, on average, to overall inflation. Going forward, there will be a lot of inflation slack to be picked up as these economies contract further.

It’s gotta be Germany!

But will German policymakers and its massive export sector tolerate higher average annual inflation? Let’s say at roughly 3%, and for some time? I’m skeptical – so the outlook for the Eurozone, in my view, has just worsened.

Rebecca Wilder

By the way, I just told my German husband, Herr Wilder, about this article. You know what his response was? “Oh…Germans don’t like inflation.” Enough said.

Tags: , , Comments (12) | |

Eurozone unemployment rate up in September

Yesterday Eurostat released the September unemployment rate figures for the European Union and the Eurozone. From the release:

The euro area1 (EA16) seasonally-adjusted2 unemployment rate3 was 10.1% in September 2010, compared with [downward revised] 10.0% in August4. It was 9.8% in September 2009. The EU27 unemployment rate was 9.6% in September 2010, unchanged compared with August4. It was 9.3% in September 2009.

The Eurozone unemployment rate has been above the EU (27) unemployment rate by an average 0.45% since the outset of 2007.

Across the Eurozone 16 countries, just 5 have seen their unemployment rates fall since October 2009 (I use the teilm020 table at Eurostat, which limits the time series to this time frame). Note that the unemployment rate in Italy rose over the month (8.1% to 8.3%), so unemployment rate is now unchanged since last year.

In the third quarter (the 3-month average ending in September 2010), the unemployment rate fell across 57% of the sample listed below (a highlight of the EU (27) countries plus Japan and the US) compared to the previous quarter. This is good, but the improvement is sluggish.

Rebecca Wilder

Tags: , Comments (5) | |

A Conversation with George Soros

With thanks to Felix Salmon for arranging the invitation.

There’s an episode of House where he has to get rid of one of the people for his new team.  By the end of the episode, the sharpest person in the group has said everything that we would have expected to hear from House—and is therefore summarily dismissed, since hearing one’s own opinions being spoken by someone else is less useful than being challenged.

I had a similar feeling with George Soros’s conversation last Wednesday morning with Chrystia Freeland, sponsored by Reuters and held in the NASDAQ building that, er, graces Times Square. So what follows isn’t everything Soros said so much as what he said that either (1) you wouldn’t already know from reading this blog or Paul Krugman or (2) added details or touched on an interesting issue.

UPDATE: Krugman finds another similarity between himself and Mr. Soros.

The Recent Crisis and Its Causes

Soros declares that there was twenty-five to thirty (25-30) years of a “Super Bubble,” which has now burst.  It seems from the discussion that Soros believes the SuperBubble was worldwide.  Recovery is being hindered by some policies—Germany’s talk about austerity was especially mentioned—by Soros sees strong hope in the Trade Shift that has accompanied the crisis. He noted that the “global economy is a lot better than the US economy,” and that he expects to see it continue growing even if the U.S. (or Europe, due to the German leadership, or even both) fall into a :double-dip.” (In this he is arguably more of an optimist than many.)

China I

Key to this shift has been the growth of bilateral relationships.  He noted obliquely that these developed in part because many governments—most especially the Chinese, who have been “the great beneficiary of globalization”—do not want to change their capital controls, but sees them as facilitating the new paradigm. He expects that the next move will be that Hong Kong (with the HKD remaining independent of the RMB) will become as London did in the 1960s and 1970s, the intermediary of choice for the growing market (now China, then Europe).

There is a strong need to increase Chinese domestic demand, which he rightly expects is being partially facilitated by the recent wage increases. While there is a need to shift from the previous US-Chinese symbiotic relationship (essentially, bonds for exports), Mr. Soros is “not sure there will be” further advancement in that relationship without greater domestic Chinese consumption. He declared that the Chinese economy has become “the motor” of the world economy, but also noted that it is a smaller motor, so the world economy is not moving so fast.


In that context, he was asked by a gentleman from Fidelity Capital if it is time to move from the USD to a “basket” as the World Reserve Currency. (As regular readers know, this is an issue near and dear to my heart.) Stating the obvious, Soros noted that having “a more neutral currency” (which may not be an exact quote) would be helpful in correcting the imbalances, which are largely due to the dollar being the International Reserve Currency. He agreed that a basket Reserve Currency would improve the market. (I—and I suspect David Beckworth—might agree that it would provide for easier remedies, but I’m not convinced it would provide for a better market, since arbitrage opportunities and issues of asymmetric information would be more likely to skew outcomes.)

China II

Soros is very sympathetic to the Chinese people themselves.  He notes that they work hard but that their labor is harnessed to an undervalued currency to the benefit of the State. He described the Chinese mercantile system as being “State Capitalism,” which he calls a “very powerful” model, while also noting that it is not so good as the previous “International Capitalism.” Since he noted that “International Capitalism”; is synonymous with “the Washington Consensus,” this leaves him having damned China with very faint praise.  (Though, in fairness, he is even more negative about Russia, which he described to Jim Holt as an example of unsuccessful State Capitalism, whose success or failure is primarily driven by the price of oil. He also sees a real possibility of China developing into an Open Society—another point on which he is rather an optimist.)

Where he is not positive about China is its Real Estate market, which is skewed in part due to the political structure. The Chinese version of mercantilism allows government officials to own three (3) properties, which has been a very good way for those workers to get rich through selling and “trading up.”  The primary solution to this bubble, he believes, would be initiating a property tax, which would produce a carrying cost on properties and therefore mitigate the speculative aspects of the bubble. (Soros essentially notes that, as with the United States, labor is overtaxed and capital undertaxed in China.  Since China has excess productive labor, the benefits flow to the state.  Implicitly, the U.S.’s excess produced the differential model discussed above, which worked well for both parties for some fifteen (15) years.)

But all is not  bread and roses in Soros’s view of China.  An Indian journalist sitting next to me asked the obvious question: Has being a democratic country “hamstrung” India as compared to China? Soros came back to his key theme of the need for growth in Chinese domestic demand, noting that the Indian economy is more stable precisely because there is now domestic growth—growth that will be facilitated in China only as that State evolves both politically and economically. He noted that the Chinese people, to date, have been willing to accept limits on their individual freedom for its benefit in growth, but he does not see other countries being willing to accept such limits on their own freedom to support China’s growth.  If I ever had any doubt that Soros is a more devoted Popperian than I, it was eliminated in that moment.

Other Powers, and Some That Might Be

Soros spoke positively of Turkey (Dani Rodrik may have a counterpoint), negatively of Germany (from a policy perspective; when asked by a reporter from Crain’s what we will look back on and see as stupid, he replied that “fiscal rectitude, from a timing point of view, is wrong.”), and generally positively of the Euro, declaring in response to a question about Ireland and Greece that “If anybody would leave [the Eurozone] it would be Germany.”

His key point about the Euro is one that is often found in the literature of financial crises, including the previous Great Depression: there is a European Central Bank, but there is not a central Treasury. But this appears to be de facto being remedied by the Solvency Crisis, with “back-up funds” being developed and used.  Soros noted a key distinction that is often missed in discussions: there was not a crisis of the EUR, but rather a European banking crisis, which was exacerbated by policy disagreements between France and Germany. (Germany won, though his view of whether this victory will be relatively Pyrrhic is left as an exercise.)

Again, he looks to the Chinese as an indicator, who started putting their money—you know, that 4 Trillion RMB stimulus and the revenues that have followed it—into the EUR as soon as it reached around 1.20.  The Chinese bought the EUR, the Chinese bought Spanish bonds, the Chinese stabilized the market.  The Chinese did something no one else can do for them—bought another currency on the open market.

And this is the key to understanding Soros’s attitude toward Japan. You think this is easy, realism? The Japanese are correct to worry about their currency, Soros notes, because, while the RMB is the strongest currency in the world, you cannot own it because of capital controls that the Chinese government maintains because they do not want to have both rising wages and an appreciating currency in their export-based economy. Accordingly, per Soros, any appreciation of the RMB “has to be done in an orderly manner.” In the meantime, the Japanese did the only thing they could.

U.S. Politics

Mr. Soros was by no means a fan of the Obama Administration. Echoing Glenn Greenwald, he notes that the Obama Administration should have corrected the excesses, the abuse of power, of the Bush Administration. Despite this (and what follows), Soros believes Obama “may well be elected to a second term.”

As a matter of handling the banks through the crisis, Mr. Soros noted that the Administration should have injected Equity into the banks, but notes that he believes the Obama team found this politically unacceptable. The result is that the government effectively nationalized the banks’s liabilities and “allowed” them to “earn their way out of that hole,” through practices such as increasing consumer credit card rates.

(My memory of the events is somewhat different, since part of what the Fed received for its TARP funds were warrants on those banks—warrants that have subsequently been sold and counted as if the revenue against the original loans to make them appear more “profitable” in the eyes of several bloggers and financial journalists [including, for instance, Robert]. But certainly there was no AIG-like structure imposed, no U.S. equivalent of Northern Rock, no matter how much saner than would have been.) 

To no one’s great surprise, Mr. Soros does not believe that Mr. Obama is “anti-business.”

The biggest fault he found with the Administration’s approach to the crisis is that they depended on the “confidence multiplier” to make recession shallower and shorter than it otherwise would have been. The problem with a confidence multiplier is, of course, that when the results do not match the expectations, the “multiplier” becomes a disappointment, and therefore a drag on expectations going forward. Mr. Soros described this as what happened.

If this scenario is true, then the decision not to ask initially for a $1.2T stimulus, with a chance to end up with a better mix and higher absolute amount of actual stimulus funding, will go down as the tombstone for the Administration, not “just” a spanner in the possible continuation of the Administration’s economic team (h/t Mark Thoma on Twitter).  But, hey, the recession has been over for more than a year, so things are getting better, with the upcoming elections more resembling the signpost of 1982 than 1932.  At least in some timestream.


This one was pulled all over the place, so it should come as no surprise.  Gold is, per Mr. Soros, the only active “bull market” right now.  He is also not optimistic about the ending of that market. Gold is “the ultimate bubble”—may be going higher, but is certainly not safe and is not going to be forever.

Mr. Soros admits a similar attitude toward oil, but at least there the commodity has intrinsic value. As Vincent Fernando, CFA, notes, owning something other than gold at least gives you the possibility of “productive assets.”


I’ve left out a few things, including the roundelay that resulted when one journalist attempted to discuss Mr. Soros’s firm’s holdings in a company he said he didn’t the firm owns. But in general the feeling one gets when presented by Mr. Soros the person is that he is an optimist, perhaps incurably so. Things are rough, and they will probably continue to be rough for a while, but in the longer term, things are getting better for all.

I’m guessing he won’t be speaking at The March to Keep Fear Alive.  But Mr. Colbert—let alone his predecessor at the Washington Monument—would do well to book him as a guest.

Tags: , , , , , Comments (39) | |

Nope, it’s not enough for the weakest of the "Zone"

Spanning the period April 14, 2010 to June 7, 2010, the euro lost 12.5% in value against the $US (this is not a trade-weighted measure of the currency value, but it’ll do). As the currency tumbled, Q2 nominal export income grew quickly over the quarter for the top 5 economies in the Eurozone:

  • Germany, 6%
  • France, 4.6%
  • Italy, 8.3%
  • Spain, 0.8% (definitely the exception to the rule)
  • Netherlands, 7.2%

The export income is welcome in Italy’s economy, one of the PIIGS countries (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain). But what about Greece, or the rest of the PIIGS countries that desperately need the external income?

Well, Greece actually did quite well in Q2: nominal export income was up 5.8% over the quarter compared to a 0.1% decline in Q1. Perfect – that’s the point, right? Nominal depreciation begets external economic support via exports?

It’s not enough. The problem is, that the external support generated by a euro depreciation is too evenly distributed across the “Zone”. The result: those economies with both external and domestic demand posted record growth rates (i.e., Germany), while those with an overwhelming contraction in domestic demand posted further GDP declines amid reasonable external demand growth.

The chart below illustrates the pattern in GDP quarterly growth for Eurostat’s reporting countries, ranked by Q2 2010 growth rates in order of smallest (Greece, -1.5%) to largest (Germany, +2.2%).

It should be noted here that the Eurostat data is a “Flash” report of Eurozone GDP only. The breakdown by spending category will not be reported until the second GDP release, which is scheduled for September 2, 2010. Therefore, the nominal export numbers, which are seasonally and working day adjusted through June 2010 (the volume indexes are only available through May 2010), proxy the strength of external demand.

The interesting thing is that export growth is likely strong enough to keep the third largest (as of Q2 2010) Eurozone economy, Italy, afloat for now. However, oncoming austerity measures (I searched for a list of announced European austerity measures, but only came up with this – do you know a credible source/link?) will drive the positive feedback loop: rising deficits – raise taxes/cut spending – cut domestic demand – taxable income falls – deficits rise.

Rebecca Wilder

Note: I included export data only, although the trade balance, which is exports minus imports, data tells a very similar story: widespread improvement in the trade balance.

Tags: , Comments (3) | |

Bank Tax: France, Germany and UK, but where’s the USA?

by Linda Beale
cross posted with Ataxingmatter

Bank Tax: France, Germany and UK, but where’s the USA?

On June 23, the big three Euro countries–France, Germany, and Britain–agreed to tax banks directly, “to ensure that banks make a fair contribution to reflect the risks they pose to the financial system and wider economy, and to encourage banks to adjust their balance sheets to reduce this risk.” See Saltmarsh, France, Germany and UK Support Bank Tax, NY Times, Jun 22, 2010; Eddy, Germany, France, UK commit to bank tax,, Jun 22, 2010; Cf Berlin approves bank levy plan to fund future bailouts, Deutsche Welle, Mar. 31, 2010.

The tax in the UK (which is also increasing its capital gains tax) will be imposed on banks with liabilities in excess of $20 billion pounds and should raise about $3 billion a year. Saltmarsh op cit. It will be based on the aggregate amount of riskier liabilities (i.e., liabilities other than Tier 1 capital and insured deposits). Berlin’s Finance Ministry noted that “All three levies will aim to ensure that banks make a fair contribution to reflect the risks they pose to the financial system and wider economy, and to encourage banks to adjust their balance sheets to reduce this risk.” IdahoStatesman op cit.

Although the US has ostensibly supported such a tax, we have been notoriously reluctant to impose any real constraints on banks. The financial reform legislation wending its way through Congress has been watered down, so that both consumer protection and protection of the national fisc have given way to the desire of banks to continue to grow in size so that they can compete globally. Geithner has indicated that big banks are essential so they can lend to big multinational corporations and so that US banks can “be competitive” with foreign banks.

This competitiveness stuff is nonsense. What good is it to have a competitive monster that we have to stand behind and whose costs of funds depend in part on an implicit guarantee that the government will backstop its losses? Why can’t a bevy of smaller banks serve big multinationals banking needs? Sure, it means that funds may be more costly to the banks and that big multinationals may not have as big an advantage compared to smaller firms. Both of those are GOOD results–we need to think about ways to downsize banks. I’d prefer Merkel & Levin’s proposal for limiting size by setting liability and asset caps but surely we should not continue to refuse to enact good reforms for the sole purpose of letting banks continue to be too big to fail! A bank tax based on risky liabilities is an excellent way to recoup some funds from banks that benefit from the cost of funds advantage of an implicit government guarantee and at the same time incentivize banks to hold less of such risky liabilities.

Tags: , Comments (3) | |

China’s not the answer for the Eurozone

by Rebecca

“Go long whatever Chinese consumers buy and go short Chinese capital spending (construction) plays. Consistently, go long tech/short material stocks.”

That is the first sentence of a BCA Research report’s executive summary on China equity strategy (link not available). Rather than a global equity strategy, I’d like to put this into an economic growth context via trade…and with Europe.

Go long Eurozone economies selling to China? Is China the panacea for Eurozone growth? Short answer is no, but we’ll attend to that later. Even if the euro wasn’t selling off against the majors, China’s domestic demand is robust and export income is flowing into the Eurozone – but to where?

The chart below illustrates the dynamics of annual export growth to China for the top 6 countries of the Eurozone measured by GDP in 2009: Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, and Belgium. Presumably, the bulk of China’s export demand would flow to these countries.

Since the Eurozone’s annual export growth to China bottomed out in May 2009, many of the Eurozone economies (some not shown in chart) have registered, on average, double-digit monthly export growth to China: Belgium 49% Y/Y, Germany 25%, Spain 16%, Greece 19%, Ireland 22%, Netherlands 39%, and Portugal 49%. Only Finland saw its monthly average export income drop over the same period, -10% Y/Y.

(A note of clarification: the statistics in the chart are monthly Y/Y growth rates, while the statistics in the paragraph above represent the average monthly Y/Y growth rate spanning the period May 2009 to March 2010. All of this data can be downloaded from Eurostat, EU27 Trade since 1995 by CN8).

But 75% of the Eurozone’s exports to China flow from just three countries: Germany, 54%, France, 11%, and Italy 10% (average Jan 2009 – Feb 2010 and see table below). This makes sense, given that Germany, France, and Italy are the three largest countries in the Eurozone.

However, compared to the size of their economies, Belgium and Germany are the true beneficiaries of China’s external demand, not Spain, France, nor Italy. And this trade data is truncated before the record decline of the euro.

The table above relates each country’s share of total Eurozone exports to China to its share of Eurozone GDP. I’d say that Belgium is doing quite well compared to its larger neighbors, +2.5% spread on a 3.8% share base. But Germany’s out of this world, 26.9% spread on a 26.8% share base. Spain, France, and Italy are faring poorly, as their spreads are wide and negative.

China appears to be the panacea for just a handful of countries, most notably Germany and Belgium. But alas, it’s no panacea for the Eurozone, not even for Germany. Unfortunately, the Eurozone’s fragile developed colleagues, the US and UK, are.

The shares illustrated in the chart are calculated for year 2009.

Markets anxiously await China’s every move; but according to the April 2010 IMF World Economic Outlook, China ran the largest current account surplus across the IMF member countries – $284 bn in 2008 – the 20th largest as a share of GDP. That kind of saving is NOT going to get the global economy back on its feet in full very quickly. China is not the answer for Europe.

The Eurozone, in particular, is paying close attention to non-Eurozone (16 countries adopted the euro as their currency) growth alternatives. I leave you with an excerpt from a nice FT article on Europe’s true woes – fiscal austerity measures – featuring the research of Wynne Godley and Rob Parenteau:

Many years ago, he [Wynne Godley] also criticised the institutional arrangements of the European Monetary Union. Writing in The Observer in August 1997, he noted that members of the eurozone were not only giving up their currencies but also their fiscal freedom. Within the union, a government could no longer draw cheques on its own central bank but must borrow in the open market. “This may prove excessively expensive or even impossible,” he warned.

He went on to caution that without a common European budget, there was a danger that “the budgetary restraint to which governments are individually committed will impart a disinflationary bias that locks Europe as a whole into a depression that it is powerless to lift”.

China is not the answer: not for Europe; not for the US; and not for the UK.

Tags: , Comments (3) | |