“Let Greece have its Default - Right Side News” plus 1 more |
| Let Greece have its Default - Right Side News Posted: 01 May 2010 03:24 PM PDT
| Greece is rightfully making headlines these days, hovering on the edge of what would be a quite embarrassing default - an open admission that the country will not be able to pay back its staggering debt. While such an admission would cause turmoil, and probably a career change for several politicians, it remains the least harmful of available options.
The core problem is debt, massive amounts of debt. The debt-to-GDP ratio of Greece is well above 100 percent, estimated to hit 124 % in 2010 and 131 % in 2011. While Greek economical estimates are notoriously unreliable (more on that later), this is plenty bad enough. For no plan exists to actually pay back that mountain of borrowed money. There are plans to cut government spending, and these spell hardship for the Greeks, who are not among the most prosperous of Europeans in the first place. However, Greece has been systematically overspending since joining the eurozone, lured by easy access to loans backed by the European Central Bank (ECB). But debt remains debt, and no amount of money can, in the long run, cover up lack of production and productive work. Greece is a bad example of this. But first, let's look at some problems.
When Greece originally applying to join the European common currency, the euro, few took it seriously. A tradition of deficits, devaluations and extensive corruption seemed to rule out the idea of Greece joining the club of sound economies participating in a common, sound currency. To widespread surprise, Greece soon posted drastically improved figures for deficit, and projections that the situation would improve further, not least if permitted to join the common currency. And while the rules technically outlawed Greek due to a deficit of 3.38 % of GDP, creative accounting and some leniency on the part of the other euro participant permitted Greece to slip in.
"Noblesse oblige" - once you are member of a fine club, you need to show that it is justified, that you abide with written, spoken and unspoken rules. Writtten rules are enclosed in the Stability and Growth Pact, which stipulates that deficit must not exceed 3 % of GDP and total state debt must not exceed 60 % of GDP. Regardless of the violations that other countries committed, Greece should have kept those goals in sight and pursued them. Spoken rules include the expectation that the improvements in Greek economy that magically came about in the nick of time should continue. That was a clear expectation when Greece abandoned the drachma and implemented the euro. Unfortunately, these improvements were fictions, and the Greek economy returned to its usual slump, emboldened by the new-found opportunity to borrow money at artificially low interest rates. Unspoken rules include not least that states should not take on more debt than they can service, even though loans be available. The point of lowering interest rates is not to indulge in debt, but to make burdens easier to carry, that deficits can become less and eventually be eliminated. The moral hazard that cheap loans would fuel reckless deficit spending was not an initial premise, just a fact on the ground. In particular in Greece. See also: The Bailout of Greece and the End of the Euro.
This is well known by now. In particular in order to make Germans abandon their beloved and very functional Deutschmark, a firm promise had to be given that the euro would not be printed in excessive amounts, that member state deficits would be firmly under control, that no member country would misuse their privileges under the system, and that no bailout packages would follow from euro membership. Each and every item above has been violated. Now, there is no reason to believe that the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact will ever be firmly enforced. Once broken, each and every country can justify more exceptions, more violations, and refer to others committing similar breaches. The Pact, as it stands now, is holier than a Swiss cheese. Yet it was said initially, at the creation of the euro, that the criteria were paramount for ensuring the stability of the new currency. Were the politicians lying back then, or are they hiding something of the utmost importance now? Probably the latter.
As above, a special mechanism exists for expanding government debt for the countries of the eurozone. This is probably deliberate, for easy access to loans at attractive rates makes it easier for states to engage in deficit spending, and gives much more headroom than in a free market economy, where states would only be able to borrow money based on actual savings, and would have to pay the interest rate that the owner of the money demanded, no exceptions possible. The Keynesian philosophy on this is to dilute existing money with freshly created sums from the central banks. Through using the authority of the central banks, it is possible to create fresh money that is functionally equivalent to money resulting from hard work and saving, and this ensures that central banks never run out of money, no matter how much they lend. This mechanism was endorsed by Keynes to avoid the arduous situation of having to work and save first, invest later. Through always having sufficient money at hand, countries - and the European Union in particular - could put themselves in situations where investments could be made without the need to save money first, making systematic stimulus of the entire economy possible. There are some problems here. The investments thus made tend not to be profitable, the stimulated economy overexploits human and natural resources, and while the central banks will indeed never run out of money, the money tends to run out of value when too much is printed.
The preliminary bill for 'saving' Greece has been estimated at € 45 billion. While this is, by any human yardstick, a staggering amount of money, it is probably insufficient. Greek productivity is tumbling, the country is politically unstable, and the welfare system is being swamped with illegal Albanian immigrants. Greece will be able to consume an incredible amount of money over the coming years. A sum of € 45 billion will benefit current investors and permit them to get out of their Greek debt without too extensive damage. But with an annual deficit at around € 35 billion, that help is not going to last long, unless the austerity measures are hard enough to actually eliminate the deficit. Given the political situation in Greece, that can be ruled out. Rather, the other countries are now to help Greece with up to € 120 billion, according to IMF. This constitutes a bait-and-switch approach that citizens in Germany, France and other countries footing the bill should not be expected to accept. Transferring €45 billion from people earning money to people losing money would be plenty bad enough, and a direct road to instability and ruin. Doubling or tripling that amount would make matters proportionally worse.
The whole bailout has a direction that does not make sense in the the long run: It will move billions and billions from the hands of hard-working, productive people to those who do not understand creating value and curbing consumption. Briefly speaking, this will not create wealth, it will create poverty. We should reward productive behaviour by letting the hard workers keep the fruits of their diligence, not pilfer it from them. If were really were to make the European Union the most competitive zone of the world, as is the stated intention of the Commission, we would have to protect the profits of the entrepreneurs and create an environment much more conducive to enterprise and profit. This plan is nothing but a hollow statement of intent, and will likely fare worse than its predecessor, the Lisbon Strategy. Huge budgets make little difference here - the European Union would need to let free enterprise take on the task, or stop pretending that this is even remotely possible.
'Moral hazard' is the awkward situation where excessive risk-taking is encouraged through guarantees. If we guarantee that banks will never fail, they will by default engage in more risk than if bankrupts were a real possibility. Not so much due to 'greed' as to the simple fact that it is profitable to take relevant risks - that's in the nature of banking - and the better you manage the risk, the better you business does. If central banks and state guarantee - formally or informally - against severe losses, risk-taking is encouraged. This goes for state actors as well. If Greece is rewarded for their debt addiction with more cheap loans, other countries like Portugal, Spain and Italy will have less incentive to cut back deficits, and will find it harder to convince voters that spending money they do not have is a bad idea. This sets the stage for more and larger bailouts in a year or two, and one wonders where the money is to come from.
Now, there exists a limitless supply of money in the eurozone, namely the ECB. Through extremely low interest rates and lending with sovereign debt as collateral, the ECB lets the money supply grow a rather significant 10 percent annually, and has done so for years. In a situation where bailouts would grow from double-digit to triple-digit billions of euros, the only practical way to produce that amount of money is through simply printing it. That would snatch the value of the already existing euros from everyone holding euro-denominated assets, enrich the states and the financial sector, impoverish citizens, pensioners and not least the propducing part of the economy, whose only access to money is to earn them through production and trade. In that situation, inflation will bite. Double-digit inflation seems already to be in the wings. Some have talked of hyperinflation, but that will only take place if the central banks print that amount of money. If they don't, we can stick to normal, ruinous debasement of the euro.
Part of the Greek bailout package is to be supplied by the IMF, who is already busy pushing Germany to pay up (as reported by The Guardian). This is a wholly unacceptable behaviour, for IMF is no country, has no production, and has only the money granted to it by member state, either through contributions or through their own money-printing mechanism, Special Drawing Rights (SDR). They should not dictate behaviour of sovereign states not requesting help from them. The SDR is an artificial currency composed as a basket of other currencies. It is composed of 44 % US $, 34 % €, 11 % Japanese Yen and 11 % British £. Technically not a currency, it is a potential claim on other currencies, but is used directly in some contexts, such as international postal services. But while it technically is a non-currency, in practice it is yet another fiat currency. The creation of SDR's, such as the SDR 250 billion allocation in April 2009, constitutes money-printing and dilutes the value of every other currency. Thus, Japanese and Australians will contribute to bailing out Greece through the IMF, even though no resolutions or laws are to be passed in their parliaments.
In the old days, crappy and irresponsible countries such as France, Italy and Greece, would write down their currencies as needed. This would write down debt burdens, stifle imports, stimulate exports, and was generally seen as a somewhat fraudulent way to escape the consequences of overspending, as usual at the expense of the less well off in society. The alternative - an honest default on sovereign debt - was rarely seen. Now, the euro was to put an end to this, and it does. Devaluation is no longer an option for euro member states, for they are not in control of their currency, the ECB is. Devaluation, even when sorely needed, is technically impossible. Thus Greece and other countries are forced into a situation of severe economical stagnation in order to service the huge amounts of debts they have taken on trough cheap ECB lending. This moves practical control of the burdened countries to ECB and Brussels. This may be in line with the EU goal of a European superstate, but has never been an openly stated objective. Since Greece does not have the option of devaluation, the only other technical solution is an open default. This is a direct consequence of the European Monetary Union, one that was not stated at its creation, but follows logically from its function: If states can no longer dodge well-earned defaults through devaluations, taking the default becomes a more likely outcome.
While it has been true for decades that sovereign states rarely do an open default, it is still rarer that sovereign debt, once reaching problematic levels, is honestly repaid. Denmark managed to do so for its large debt burden, but that was in great part due to the North Sea oil. Most countries honour the debt in numbers only, but not in value, through eventually paying back in devalued currency units. Now, devaluation is not an option in the eurozone, and thus sovereign debt should be better than ever, given that it is backed by tax revenues of the issuing nation. Unfortunately such revenues can - and do - decline. What was not announced at the creation of the euro is that it brings back the real risk of defaults. That is a Good Thing, for without a real risk of defaults, risk-taking is endless, and reckless government spending will ultimately destroy the entire economy by outcompeting the productive branches with newly printed ECB money. The full stop for this development is the default, and a Greek default is now fully earned and deserved. Yet, politicians and central bank managers are struggling frantically to avoid this. If the real risk of sovereign debt was honestly calculated, investors would take on much less of it, in turn reducing state deficit spending significantly, and improving financial stability.
It is depressing that not a single of the above issues is being properly addressed by our politicians. They all seem to seek a compromise that will defer the crisis for a while, in preference over admitting that the euro is a bad construct, kicking out Greece or working seriously towards a withdrawal, which in particular Germany could do to significant effect. The most obvious, honest solution would be to give Greece an ultimatum: Either budget deficits are eliminated entirely within one year, the euro membership will be terminated. That would be real medicine, and restore real confidence in the Greek economy if executed. However, even thought the idea has been floated in places, this is unlikely to become official EU policy. Instead, a compromise is sought, as usual. Germany is playing tough, also due to pending elections, but will probably cave eventually, redoubling EU-sceptic sentiments in the country and widening the gap between citizens and politicians. This gap has been widening for quite some time, but there is bound to be a breaking point. Reaching it would be ugly. Solution: Let Greece have its default  Five Filters featured article: The Art of Looking Prime Ministerial - The 2010 UK General Election. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. |
| Shadows of A Larger War - OpEdNews.com Posted: 01 May 2010 01:29 PM PDT Add to My Group An escalation in war propaganda against Iran will eventually lead to a strike, and a new world war. :::::::: Setting The Stage: A Strike Against Iran is One More Crime Against HumanityHell's clouds are gathering once again. Israel and America's joint declarations of war against Iran is no longer a matter of if, but when. And when that moment finally arrives, a political volcano will be set off, one that will not just alter our travel patterns, but put our entire way of life into jeopardy. Freezing the clouds, and calling out the chants of fear by our leaders is one step to ending this nightmare. Another step is understanding how we got here. Western propaganda about the threat posed by Iran to Israel and global civilization has reached every hemisphere, and it has been relentless. False claims about Iran's defense capabilities are repeatedly made. And the deception never halts. The big lie about a nuclear Iraq in 2003 has become a sick joke about a nuclear Iran in 2010. Israeli and US leaders are hoping that the people of their irrespective countries will be all ears, that they will accept every detail of their fictional account of Iran's nuclear capabilities, that the people will support war as they did last time, and if they don't, that they will shut about their disagreements and keep them hidden, lest they want to face the cruel beasts of the police state. It is a very big gamble, but it seems our leaders will take their chances. All of the leading players who are calling for this criminal war are putting trust in the Stormtroopers to protect them, and a captured media to lie for them. But even if a few million of the sheepish population in the United States find their inner backbone and protest day and night, then there still remains hope that things could turn around, and the emerging world war could see an immediate end. It is a very big hope, but we must take our chances. Total War, Total Lies The lies and fabrications in the lead up to the Iraq War are well documented. Saddam wasn't a threat, but a nuisance, who happened to be sitting on valuable property. Attacking an innocent country wasn't just a bad mistake, as President Obama has said, but a war crime. And those who commit war crimes usually get hanged. Author and columnist William Pfaff highlighted some of the lies and consequences of the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq in his article, "Exaggeration of Iranian Threat Could Have Dire Consequences": The American invasion of Iraq in 2003 was motivated by the neoconservative illusion that the Iraqi people would welcome invasion and become a force for democracy, and friends to Israel. Instead, the death of Saddam Hussein and destruction of his government, the wrecking of Iraqi urban society and the country's infrastructure and industry, which will take years to reconstruct, ignited anarchic insurrection and sectarian conflict, delivering the country into the power and influence of a much larger and more important enemy of both the United States and Israel--Iran.A military strike against Iran will undoubtedly cause a much greater crisis within the region, and also disrupt the global oil market and global trade. There is absolutely no good reason for it. It is an act of genocide and suicide at the same time. But there is no logic to madness. The deranged leaders of Israel, and their fellow crazies in the US war establishment, will stop at nothing. Iran, which does not have the power to cripple the US with sanctions, or the ability to threaten the country's 50 states, has not acted aggressively. The aggressors time and again have been Israel and the United States. Israel in Lebanon and Gaza, and the US in Afghanistan and Iraq. As Pfaff writes:
Even if cooler heads prevail inside the Obama administration, the prospect for a war with Iran still remains because Israel is determined enough to strike Iran on its own terms. Prominment members of the Israeli leadership have already accept the fate of a wider war with Israel's closest neighbors, and a possible nuclear strike against Iran. Indeed, if events dictate, Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu will push the button. Victor Kotsev writes in the Asia Times: There are consistent indications that Israel, too, is gearing up for an impending regional war and perhaps is considering initiating action on its own. "For practical reasons, in the absence of genuine sanctions, Israel will not be able to wait until the end of next winter, which means it would have to act around the congressional elections in November," Brigadier General Ephraim Sneh, a former Israeli deputy defense minister, wrote this month in an op-ed for Israeli daily Ha'aretz.The Power Behind The Throne Only an extreme few will benefit from another war in the Middle East. But the average Christian has a very different impression. They believe that they will personally gain from an all out war in the holy land, because Jerusalem in flames represents in their mind the dawning of a Second Jesus, and a Second Jesus, even at the cost of millions dead, is all that matters to them. Not morality. Not virtue. Not innocence. Not the truth. But Christ. Jesus f*cking Christ. And the powerful Israel lobby are only too happy to oblige them. Justin Raimondo illustrates this toxic relationship in his article "The Making of American Foreign Policy": A huge ongoing propaganda campaign is constantly churning out pro-Israel materials directed at a wide variety of special interest groups: the lobby's most well-known success story is the Christian fundamentalist faction, which believes in the key role played by Israel as a harbinger of the second coming of Christ. The lobby has parlayed this into a powerful domestic constituency fanatically devoted to Israel's cause and not just the cause of the current Israeli government, but of the most extremist and expansionist elements in the Israeli polity.A.M: Wake-Up Time In his classic book on totalitarianism and brainwashing called "The Rape of the Mind," author Joost A.M. Meerloo wrote, "Totalitarianism must kill, slaughter, make war." The particular brand of corporate-totalitarianism that exists in America and the rest of the so-called democratic societies, has realized this basic fact, that it must make war and perpetually strike fear in the populace in order to offset internal rebellion and popular anger. Two false wars have already been manufactured based on the big lie that is 9/11 and cooked data about WMDs. And the ever-growing War on Terror requires new enemies, new battlefields, new weapons, and most importantly, new lies. But one thing totalitarianism requires most is obedience, and that seems to be in very short supply. People have begun to emerge from their long sleep in the first decade of this century, and they're not hitting the snooze button again. Of course, waking up is only one part of the equation, the other part is getting up, and only a few seem to be doing that. But that could change in the near future.
Truth Excavator is an independent blogger and a full-time university student, currently living in Toronto, Canada.
Login to Post a Comment: If you are having problems logging in, click here If you have not yet registered with OpEdNews, it's quick and easy:
Five Filters featured article: The Art of Looking Prime Ministerial - The 2010 UK General Election. Available tools: PDF Newspaper, Full Text RSS, Term Extraction. |
A mountain of debt
The ECB will, no questions asked, provide banks fresh loans with sovereign debt as collateral. The banks can borrow relatively freely based on this mechanism, and will obviously be purchasing sovereign debt for the purpose. This decreases interest rates for the states, which is obviously attractive. Thus, the ECB not only constitutes a 'Lender of last resort' for banks, but for states as well, and that at rates so favourable that the 'Last resort' element has faded into the background and borrowing through this mechanism has become routine. Anatole Kaletsky wrote a hilarious article on the subject, 
| You are subscribed to email updates from fictions - Bing News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar