Greece and global debt
THE ECONOMY ONE HOUR BEFORE THE 911 ATTACKS
We have the Greeks to thank for an elementary tutorial in what ails the world economy. Greece’s central problem is that it has too much debt and too little economic growth (none actually) to service the debt. The country is caught in an economic cul de sac. It can’t seem to generate growth without spending more or taxing less, which makes the debt worse, while its creditors demand that it control its debt by spending less and taxing more, which undermines growth.
If there were an easy exit from this dilemma, Greece would have taken it. But it’s important to note that Greece’s predicament, though extreme, is shared by many major countries, including the United States, Japan, France and other European nations. In reducing or stabilizing their high debt levels they encounter the same stubborn contradiction: The effort to curb debt through higher taxes or lower spending initially weakens economic growth, and weaker growth — aside from its social consequences — increases the debt.
When only a few countries are over-indebted (meaning they cannot borrow from private markets at reasonable interest rates), this isn’t necessarily true. Countries can dampen domestic consumption and rely on export-led growth to take up the slack and limit unemployment. Nor is debt automatically bad. It has obvious productive uses: to fight severe recessions; to pay for wars and other emergencies; to finance public “investments” (roads, schools, research).
Unfortunately, this standard view of government debt — we’re not talking about household and business debt — does not fully apply now. The reason is that numerous countries face similar problems. That’s the distinctive feature of the current situation. Consider:
First, high debt levels are widespread. No one knows what debt level is “right.” It varies by country, and what’s “right” today could be “wrong” tomorrow if investors’ attitudes change about a country’s bonds. Regardless, today’s debt levels are historically high. In 2014, gross debt as a share of GDP was 132 percent for Italy, 246 percent for Japan, 95 percent for France, and 105 percent for the United States, reports the International Monetary Fund(IMF). (Note: For technical reasons, different organizations produce slightly different ratios.)
Second, economic growth has slowed in many countries. This is important because faster growth — producing more tax revenues — helps countries service their debts. Slower growth does the opposite. From 1997 to 2006, U.S. economic growth averaged 3.3 percent annually, says the IMF; from 2010 to 2014, the average was 2.2 percent. For the euro zone (the countries using the euro), the figures are 2.3 percent and 0.6 percent. Even China has slowed, though Japan hasn’t.
Finally, most advanced societies have aging populations. Already, the 65-and-over population is 15 percent of the total in the United States, 22 percent in Germany and 27 percent in Japan, says the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. As more people qualify for benefits, there is built-in pressure for higher government spending, deficits and debt.
What we have is a global debt trap. The combination of high debt and low economic growth is inherently unstable. There’s little room to maneuver. If all the countries with high debts simultaneously tried to reduce them through sizable spending cuts and tax increases, the collective effect would be a calamity because worldwide consumer purchasing power would plunge.
On the other hand, slower economic growth makes it harder for countries to service their debts, which are still mounting. From 2007 to 2014, worldwide government debt rose $25 trillion or roughly three-quarters, according to the McKinsey Global Institute. It’s not clear how much longer these increases can continue, but even a mild effort to stanch them might founder on opposition from retirees and near-retirees.
For the moment, what makes the debt burden bearable are low interest rates, engineered by markets and central banks (the Federal Reserve, European Central Bank and Bank of Japan). If, for any reason, rates rose sharply — or investor sentiment soured — the existing equilibrium could collapse. Governments could face steeper interest costs. Investors might retreat, fearing losses on their portfolios of government bonds. More governments might find it hard to borrow on private markets. Economic prospects would weaken.
All this exists apart from Greece, but, as with Greece, there are no good choices. There are only bad and worse ones. The defining characteristic of the global economy is that many nations are simultaneously grappling with similar problems. There is no compensating pocket of economic strength to help weaker economies recover. High debts are so worrisome that some experts suggest inflating away their value or simply writing them down. “Does Europe Need Debt Relief?” asks the insider magazine the International Economy.
These proposals raise huge practical and philosophical questions; that they’re being discussed at all is an accurate measure of anxiety.
The premise is wrong (not unusual for Samuelson.) The answer for Greece is higher taxes.
ReplyDeleteThe largest industry in Greece, except for, possibly, tourism, is Shipping. The Greeks don't tax the Shipping Industry (in any way, shape, or form, the last I heard.)
How enthusiastic should a Greek be in regard to paying taxes when they see the Onassis, and Niarchos kids lying around on the Euro-Yachts, untaxed.
DeleteThe Euro Pluto-Elites don't want to talk about this.
I just saw this on Morning Joe, of all places:
DeleteThe German percentage of "Uncollected Taxes" is 2.3%.
In Greece it's 89.5%.
If they collect the "income taxes, owed" they're out of trouble.
Like I said, the "Capitalists" don't want to talk about this.
The Greeks submitted a plan to the ECB that was rejected on the grounds that it relied to much on "collecting taxes," and not enough on crushing the working man.
Deletetoo much
Delete,
DeleteJust yesterday I read that during this latest crisis taxes on small business in Greece have been increased by 95%.
I've heard the same as you about the Greeks not paying their taxes. At this stage, I'm not sure (but I doubt) raising taxes will do it.
.
Senior Iranian military official said Sunday that despite the emerging nuclear deal between Iran and the US-led P5+1 group of world powers, America will remain Tehran's enemy.
ReplyDeleteIranian Ground Force Commander Brigadier General Ahmad Reza Pourdastan said that even if a nuclear deal comes to fruition in Vienna, where Iranian and western negotiators are currently trying to reach an agreement by a Tuesday deadline, Tehran and Washington will not become friends.
"The US might arrive at some agreements with us within the framework of the Group 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France plus Germany), but we should never hold a positive view over the enemy," Iran's Fars News Agency quoted Pourdastan as saying.
"Our enmity with them is over the principles and is rooted because we are after the truth and nations' freedom, but they seek exploiting nations and putting them in chains," he explained further.
Jared Bernstein weighs in on the big No, hopes that it leads to a change in Europe’s approach, but acknowledges the political difficulties:
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, it’s not that simple. There are structural political factors in play, endemic to the fact that the currency union is not a political union, nor a fiscal union, nor a banking union. As one German economist put it to me, “How do you think the people of Manhattan would like bailing out Texas?” Fair point, and a non-trivial challenge, for sure.
Ahem. As it happens, the people of Manhattan did bail out Texas, big time. I wrote about it here. The savings and loan crisis, which was very costly to taxpayers, was mainly a Texas affair:
The cleanup from that crisis cost taxpayers about $125 billion (pdf), back when that was real money. As best I can tell, around 60 percent of the losses were in Texas (pdf). So that’s around $75 billion in aid — not loans, outright transfer.
Texas GDP was about $300 billion in 1987. So this was equivalent to giving — not lending, not even taking an equity stake — Spain 25 percent of its GDP to bail out its banks.
But of course Manhattan was never asked to bail out Texas; we had a national system of deposit insurance, and the big Lone Star bailout was automatic.
Texas Baillout
So really the "people" of manhattan didn't bail out Texas.
DeleteThe taxpayers of America, including those from Texas paid the bill....
spin spin spin...
Wolfgang Munchau has a perceptive analysis of the utter disaster of the Yes campaign in Greece, in which he says
ReplyDeleteWhat I found most galling was the argument that Grexit would bring about an economic catastrophe, as though the catastrophe had not already happened. If you have been unemployed for five years, with no prospect of a job, it makes no difference whether the money you do not get is denominated in euros, or in drachma.
Wish I’d written that. But now what?
It’s becoming hard to see any path that doesn’t lead to Grexit; it is also, although this is still something few want to accept, becoming increasingly obvious that Grexit is Greece’s best hope. Otherwise, where is recovery ever supposed to come from? Even with massive debt relief, Greece will be forced to run huge structural primary surpluses — that is, pursue tax and spending policies that would produce huge surpluses if the economy were anywhere near full employment — and in so doing keep its economy depressed for the foreseeable future.
Or to put it a bit differently, what would be a straightforward policy problem if Greece had its own currency becomes an almost insoluble mess because it doesn’t. At some point the argument that the costs of a transition are too high wears thin.
Now, I get interesting mail when I say things like this — much of it along the lines of “I can’t believe that a far-left-wing type like you got a Nobel”. Because a lot of people seem to believe that real economists believe in sound money, preferably gold, and that only socialists believe that there can ever be any advantages to currency depreciation.
Socialists, that is, like Milton Friedman. But of course modern conservatives get their monetary economics from Ayn Rand, not the Chicago School.
Anyway, this isn’t anywhere close to over.
Krugman
The program, known as the Colorado Family Planning Initiative, provides intrauterine devices (IUDs) or implants at little to no cost for low-income women at family planning clinics in Colorado. It contributed to a 40-percent drop in Colorado's teen birth rate and 42-percent drop in the state's teen abortion rate between 2009 and 2013, according to state data reported by the New York Times's Sabrina Tavernise.
ReplyDeleteRelated The mystery of the falling teen birth rate
Young women served by the family planning clinics also accounted for about three-fourths of the overall decline in Colorado's teen birth rate. And the infant caseload for Colorado WIC, a nutrition program for low-income women and their babies, fell by 23 percent from 2008 to 2013.
"This initiative has saved Colorado millions of dollars," Gov. John Hickenlooper said in a July 2014 statement. "But more importantly, it has helped thousands of young Colorado women continue their education, pursue their professional goals and postpone pregnancy until they are ready to start a family."
But the program has long drawn criticisms from social conservatives, who argue that it could encourage promiscuity. Since teens don't need to be accompanied by an adult to obtain contraceptives at the facilities, critics also say the initiative undermines parental rights. And some opponents reject the states' numbers altogether. Earlier this spring, Colorado's Republican-controlled Senate blocked public funding for the program.
DeleteColorado's drop in teen births is . . . . . .
article
Think of the money it's saving from the Planned Parenthood Abortion mills....
Delete:)
The kids are going to be sexually active...
No parent ever stopped a horny teenager...
But now? think of the cash NOT going into the Democrat party via Planned Parenthood for abortions... IUD's are far cheaper...
Europe dodged a bullet on Sunday. Confounding many predictions, Greek voters strongly supported their government’s rejection of creditor demands. And even the most ardent supporters of European union should be breathing a sigh of relief.
ReplyDeleteOf course, that’s not the way the creditors would have you see it. Their story, echoed by many in the business press, is that the failure of their attempt to bully Greece into acquiescence was a triumph of irrationality and irresponsibility over sound technocratic advice.
But the campaign of bullying — the attempt to terrify Greeks by cutting off bank financing and threatening general chaos, all with the almost open goal of pushing the current leftist government out of office — was a shameful moment in a Europe that claims to believe in democratic principles. It would have set a terrible precedent if that campaign had succeeded, even if the creditors were making sense.
What’s more, they weren’t. The truth is that Europe’s self-styled technocrats are like medieval doctors who insisted on bleeding their patients — and when their treatment made the patients sicker, demanded even more bleeding. A “yes” vote in Greece would have condemned the country to years more of suffering under policies that haven’t worked and in fact, given the arithmetic, can’t work: austerity probably shrinks the economy faster than it reduces debt, so that all the suffering serves no purpose. The landslide victory of the “no” side offers at least a chance for an escape from this trap.
DeleteBut how can such an escape be managed? Is there any way for Greece to remain in the euro? And is this desirable in any case?
The most immediate question involves Greek banks. In advance of the referendum, the European Central Bank cut off their access to additional funds, helping to precipitate panic and force the government to impose a bank holiday and capital controls. The central bank now faces an awkward choice: if it resumes normal financing it will as much as admit that the previous freeze was political, but if it doesn’t it will effectively force Greece into introducing a new currency.
DeleteSpecifically, if the money doesn’t start flowing from Frankfurt (the headquarters of the central bank), Greece will have no choice but to start paying wages and pensions with i.o.u.s, which will de facto be a parallel currency — and which might soon turn into the new drachma.
Suppose, on the other hand, that the central bank does resume normal lending, and the banking crisis eases. That still leaves the question of how to restore economic growth.
In the failed negotiations that led up to Sunday’s referendum, the central sticking point was Greece’s demand for permanent debt relief, to remove the cloud hanging over its economy. The troika — the institutions representing creditor interests — refused, even though we now know that one member of the troika, the International Monetary Fund, had concluded independently that Greece’s debt cannot be paid. But will they reconsider now that the attempt to drive the governing leftist coalition from office has failed?
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
I have no idea — and in any case there is now a strong argument that Greek exit from the euro is the best of bad options.
Imagine, for a moment, that Greece had never adopted the euro, that it had merely fixed the value of the drachma in terms of euros. What would basic economic analysis say it should do now? The answer, overwhelmingly, would be that it should devalue — let the drachma’s value drop, both to encourage exports and to break out of the cycle of deflation.
Of course, Greece no longer has its own currency, and many analysts used to claim that adopting the euro was an irreversible move — after all, any hint of euro exit would set off devastating bank runs and a financial crisis. But at this point that financial crisis has already happened, so that the biggest costs of euro exit have been paid. Why, then, not go for the benefits?
Would Greek exit from the euro work as well as Iceland’s highly successful devaluation in 2008-09, or Argentina’s abandonment of its one-peso-one-dollar policy in 2001-02? Maybe not — but consider the alternatives. Unless Greece receives really major debt relief, and possibly even then, leaving the euro offers the only plausible escape route from its endless economic nightmare.
And let’s be clear: if Greece ends up leaving the euro, it won’t mean that the Greeks are bad Europeans. Greece’s debt problem reflected irresponsible lending as well as irresponsible borrowing, and in any case the Greeks have paid for their government’s sins many times over. If they can’t make a go of Europe’s common currency, it’s because that common currency offers no respite for countries in trouble. The important thing now is to do whatever it takes to end the bleeding.
Bleeding
Delete.
ReplyDeleteWhile spending to promote growth sounds great in the abstract, it becomes a little more difficult when you have no money and no one will lend you any.
Greek two-year yield is currently 49%.
.
My it is nice not having to sift through all the boobie droppings. I don't envy you the clean up work Deuce.
ReplyDeleteMy 2 cents on the Greek situation:
While it is popular to be "anti-austerity" a la Krugman the EU and Greece are in quite the bind. Greece lied about their public finances to get into the EU. It is generally accepted that tax evasion is a national past time in Greece. While the numbers quoted above are staggeringly high I don't know how they could come up with them because the Greeks are good ad evading taxes so how can you count how much they've evaded? Anyway, they don't pay their taxes AND the dream job in Greece is to get a job with a big ole pension.
How do you deal with a country in a union (sort of like a State in the US) that evades taxes and holds dear the cradle to grave pension? The last bailout offer that the referendum was based on basically would give them enough money to carry the debt for 4 months and it required they deal with the pension problem. They've been working hard trying to get the Greeks to pay their taxes but that hasn't yielded much to date.
It strikes me as pretty absurd for the rest of the EU to go 'anti-austerity" at this stage and spend more to stimulate growth in Greece when they aren't paying their taxes and living off of public pensions. Greece rejected the bailout/reform package so now they've got to deal with the mess themselves. Maybe the EU will not cast them to the wolves (i.e. at least keep up the ELA - Emergency Loans to the banks to keep them afloat) and maybe they are keen to get the money they loaned the Greeks back but I suspect they are at the stage where the ball is now in the Greek court to do as they like without the EU largesse.
I think the Greeks will have to print up their own currency, offer the existing creditors re-payment in Drachmas (i.e. big ole haircut) or simply say f-off, and the pensioners and those with EU denominated bank accounts will get their money in Drachmas, which won't be worth much, because they'll have to print up a whole bunch to survive. Ironically the pensions that the current government was so keen to protect will be getting their pension in Drachmas. Maybe that is way the Finance minister saw fit to resign after 'winning' the NO vote yesterday.
Even though, in a broad brush stroke way, the Germans loaned the Greeks money to buy German stuff I don't think the Germans are keen to go anti-austerity at this point in the game.
Yes, it is wonderful to wake up in a good mood, and not immediately be hit with a barrage of ignorance, ala bobbo.
ReplyDeleteI will not allow him back under any circumstances.
ReplyDeleteNot even when he says he's sorry, and promises to change his ways. :)
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm pulling for you, buddy. It's great not to have the horrid nonsense around.
Delete