Skip to main content

Grexit: it is not the debt, it is the future.

A follow up to my previous post now that we know that the Syriza party has won the election. What comes next will not be easy. And it is not because the policies proposed by Syriza are that radical or unreasonable and certainly they are not worse that what has been done in Greece since the crisis started. The real issue is that this is a wake up call for the Euro area (and possibly the European Union). A wake up call that without a consensus on what is the purpose and processes of a monetary union, this will be a failed project. The reality is that so far EMU has been built in an asymmetric way: the ECB was designed as a strong anti-inflation central bank with the Bundesbank in mind and that served a purpose (for everyone including Greece). The strict criteria to enter into EMU (low inflation, low budget deficits) were a great excuse for politicians in some countries to do policies that otherwise they could not have done internally. There was no doubt who was in charge and what was the ideology that prevail when it came to define policies. And that model worked well in times of economic growth when everyone, including Greece, enjoyed the benefits of stability and growth.

But the crisis made everyone realized that the model was not perfect, that there was no consensus around economic policy and, more fundamentally, that for monetary policy to function properly we needed some amount of risk sharing, something that no one had been willing to discuss before.

And the elections in Greece yesterday have made it even more clear that the consensus is gone. That the model that worked well until 2008 is being challenged by several countries. And without a minimum level of consensus, EMU cannot work. The problem is not that anti-austerity policies might stop in some countries. This is likely to benefit everyone in the short run including Germany. The problem is not that we might need to restructure Greek debt again, that is feasible from an economic and political point of view. The real issue is how to move forward, what will be the way in which the European Commission will deal with future budgetary plans of Euro members, how will the ECB treat sovereign debt in the future, how will markets perceive the risk of future default.

From the perspective of Germany (and other countries that share the same view and economic situation), any agreement with Greece that signals to the market that this would be the solution for any future crisis, would be a disaster. Germany needs a strong commitment from Greece and others that this would be the last time that this happens. But that is unlikely to happen. There could be promises but I cannot imagine how to make those promises credible.

So either Germany gives up and runs the risk of having similar negotiations later in the year with Ireland, Portugal, Cyprus, Spain and Italy. And it accepts the fact that we will be starting a new cycle of accumulation of government debt until the next crisis. Or it throws the towel. And I see this happening in two ways, either it refuses to be flexible in the negotiations with Greece and the ECB holds its promises that liquidity will stop unless there is an agreement, which will push Greece out of the Euro. Or Germany decides to leave the Euro and leaves the other countries to manage what is left. Both of these scenarios are likely to cause a crisis. The first one could potentially be more contained assuming the other Euro countries support Germany. The second one would be a major economic disaster for Europe and the world.

No, Syriza's policies are not that radical, crazy or absurd but the negotiation that starts today is between parties that are either scared by what has happened so far or are not willing to be members of a club that cannot commit to not doing this again. I still do not see how they will agree on a model to move forward.

Antonio Fatás

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What Happens When You Drink Enough Water

Tridona Bestsellers If you’re reading this: Drink a glass of water. You likely need it, as 75 percent of Americans are described as “chronically dehydrated.” While achieving a state of hydration might seem enviable and impossible, fret not because it’s doable. And the health benefits are not only encouraging, but they are also downright inspiring in the immediate short term, but especially in the long run. “Long-term hydration is the single best thing we can do to prevent chronic illness,” says Dr. Dana Cohen, an integrative medicine specialist in New York and coauthor of Quench: Beat Fatigue, Drop Weight, and Heal Your Body Through the New Science of Optimum Hydration . Though the eight-cup rule is popular, there is no one-size-fits-all number. Instead, it’s more of an individual approach. The new general rule of thumb is half your weight in ounces, according to Dr. Cohen. For example, if you weigh 120 pounds, you need to drink 60 ounces of water a day.

The permanent scars of fiscal consolidation

The effect that fiscal consolidation has on GDP growth has probably generated more controversy than any other economic debate since the start of the 2008 crisis. How large are fiscal multipliers? Can fiscal contractions be expansionary? Last year, Olivier Blanchard and Daniel Leigh at the IMF produced a paper that claimed that the IMF and other international organizations had underestimated the size of fiscal policy multipliers . The paper argued that the assumed multiplier of about 0.5 was too low and that the right number was about 1.5 (the way you think about this number is the $ impact on GDP of a $1 fiscal policy contraction). While that number is already large, it is possible that the true costs of fiscal consolidations are much larger. In a recent research project (draft coming soon) I have been looking at the effects that fiscal consolidations have on potential GDP. Why is this an interesting topic? Because it happens to be that during the last 5 years we have been seriously re...

The permanent scars of economic pessimism

Gavyn Davies at the Financial Times reflects on the growing pessimism of Central Banks regarding the growth potential of advanced economies. In the US, the Euro area or the UK, central banks are reducing their estimates of the output gap. They now think about some of the recent output losses as permanent as opposed to cyclical. It output is not far from what we consider to be potential, there is less need for central banks to act and it is more likely that we will see an earlier normalization of monetary policy towards a neutral stance. Why did they change their mind? Is this evidence consistent with the standard economic models that we use to think about cyclical developments? Measuring potential output or the slack in the economy has always been challenging. One can rely on models that capture the factors that drive potential output (such as the capital stock or productivity or demographics) or one can look at more specific indicators of idle capacity, such as capacity utilization or...