Found on web

Martin Wolf’s column in today’s Financial Times is a sign of the times. The
first part of his column –  “Panic has become all too
rational<http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/74f3017e-ac15-11e1-a8a0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1wldQenCA>”
— deals with the present; the second with the past.

Part 1 — Today’s crisis

Suppose that in June 2007 you had been told that the UK 10-year bond would
be yielding 1.54 per cent, the US Treasury 10-year 1.47 per cent and the
German 10-year 1.17 per cent on June 1 2012. Suppose, too, you had been
told that official short rates varied from zero in the US and Japan to 1
per cent in the eurozone. What would you think? You would think the world
economy was in a depression. You would have been wrong if you had meant
something like the 1930s. But you would have been right about the forces at
work: the west is in a contained depression; worse, forces for another
downswing are building, above all in the eurozone. Meanwhile, policy makers
are making huge errors.

The most powerful indicator – and proximate cause – of economic weakness is
the shift in the private sector financial balance (the difference between
income and spending by households and businesses) towards surplus.
Retrenchment by indebted and frightened people has caused the weakness of
western economies. Even countries that are not directly affected, such as
Germany, are indirectly affected by the massive retrenchment in their
partners.

According to the International Monetary Fund, between 2007 and 2012 the
financial balance of the US private sector will shift towards surplus by
7.1 per cent of gross domestic product. The shift will be 6.0 per cent in
the UK, 5.2 per cent in Japan and just 2.9 per cent in the eurozone. But
the latter contains countries with persistent private surpluses, notably
Germany, ones with private sectors in rough balance (such as France and
Italy) and ones that had huge swings towards surplus: in Spain, the
forecast shift is 15.8 per cent of GDP. Meanwhile, emerging countries will
also have a surplus of $450bn this year, according to the IMF.

One would expect feeble demand in such a world. The willingness to
implement expansionary monetary policies and tolerate huge fiscal deficits
has contained depression and even induced weak recoveries. Yet the fact
that unprecedented monetary policies and huge fiscal deficits have not
induced strong recoveries shows how powerful the forces depressing
economies have been. This is the legacy of a huge financial crisis preceded
by large asset price bubbles and huge expansions in debt.

Finance plays a central role in crises, generating euphoria, over-spending
and excessive leverage on the way up and panic, retrenchment and
deleveraging on the way down. Doubts about the stability of finance depend
on the perceived solvency of debtors. Such doubts reached a peak in late
2008, when loans secured against housing were the focus of concern. What is
happening inside the eurozone is now the big worry, with the twist that
sovereigns, the actors upon whom investors depend for rescue during
systemic crises, are among the troubled debtors. Such doubts are generating
a flight to safety towards Germany and, outside the eurozone, towards
countries that retain monetary sovereignty, such as the US and even the UK.

Part 2. Yesterday’s crisis

It is often forgotten that the failure of Austria’s Kreditanstalt in 1931
led to a wave of bank failures across the continent. That turned out to be
the beginning of the end of the gold standard and caused a second downward
leg of the Great Depression itself. The fear must now be that a wave of
banking and sovereign failures might cause a similar meltdown inside the
eurozone, the closest thing the world now has to the old gold standard. The
failure of the eurozone would, in turn, generate further massive disruption
in the European and even global financial systems, possibly even knocking
over the walls now containing the depression.

How realistic is this fear? Quite realistic. One reason for this is that so
many fear it. In a panic, fear has its own power. To assuage it one needs a
lender of last resort willing and able to act on an unlimited scale. It is
unclear whether the eurozone has such a lender. The agreed funds that might
support countries in difficulty are limited in a number of ways. The
European Central Bank, though able to act on an unlimited scale in theory,
might be unable to do so in practice, if the runs it had to deal with were
large enough. What, people must wonder, is the limit on the credit that the
Bundesbank would be willing (or allowed) to offer other central banks in a
massive run? In a severe crisis, could even the ECB, let alone the
governments, act effectively?

Furthermore, people know that both banks and sovereigns are under severe
stress in important countries that seem to lack any prospect of an early
return to growth and so suffer the costs of high and rising unemployment.
No better indication of this can be imagined than Spain’s final cry for
help with its banks. Political systems are under stress: in Greece, a
fragile democracy has imploded. Meanwhile, the German government seems to
have reiterated opposition to more support.

How much pain can the countries under stress endure? Nobody knows. What
would happen if a country left the eurozone? Nobody knows. Might even
Germany consider exit? Nobody knows. What is the long-run strategy for exit
from the crises? Nobody knows. Given such uncertainty, panic is, alas,
rational. A fiat currency backed by heterogeneous sovereigns is
irremediably fragile.

Before now, I had never really understood how the 1930s could happen. Now I
do. All one needs are fragile economies, a rigid monetary regime, intense
debate over what must be done, widespread belief that suffering is good,
myopic politicians, an inability to co-operate and failure to stay ahead of
events. Perhaps the panic will vanish. But investors who are buying bonds
at current rates are indicating a deep aversion to the downside risks.
Policy makers must eliminate this panic, not stoke it.

In the eurozone, they are failing to do so. If those with good credit
refuse to support those under pressure, when the latter cannot save
themselves, the system will surely perish. Nobody knows what damage this
would do to the world economy. But who wants to find out?
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to