La France après Hollande

I often say that democratic socialism is a necessary evil to disillusion naive young people about collectivism and to restrain the nepotism of right wing politicians. The problem is that socialist governments are often a costly affair.

Yet, this time, the election of socialist Mr Hollande in France may bring a positive outcome to offset such costs if he acts on his electoral promises and kills the proposed new European treaty introducing a suicidal fiscal compact for the Euro Area.

Within five years we will be able to judge that and the usual costs of socialism in terms of increased inequality, slower productivity growth, rising inflation, mounting unemployment, more corruption, bigger public spending and debts, etc.

For future reference we summarise here the situation inherited by Mr Hollande:

My bet is that in five years France will be worse off in about ten of these indicators. Still, good luck France and Mr Hollande!

Is the ECB Intent on Replacing Euro Hara-Kiri by Euthanasia?

Another useless EU Summit - thank you Mr. Cameron for killing the new “Merkozy” version of an absurd fiscal union for the entire EU. This time, the absurdity of setting a budget limit of 0.5% of GDP (when it has been unable to comply with the existing limit of 3%), was compounded by requiring its inscription as a rule in national legal systems at constitutional or equivalent level (see here why this is a mistake).

Let us now hope that a referendum in Ireland or any other country will kill the alternative proposal for a fiscal union among Euro Zone members through a new "fiscal compact". As we said here, a fiscal union between Germany and France may make sense but it would be a disaster for the entire Euro Zone.

The potential collapse of the Euro Zone will not be due to a fiscal problem in the Euro Area; which does not exist, despite the fact that three smaller members have excessive debt and Germany has an excessive current account surplus. The problem resides in the ECB’s refusal to act to stop the speculation against the Euro by invoking that its charter does not allow for the monetization of fiscal deficits.

Mr. Draghi is either naïve or wants us to believe in fairy tales. During his last press conference, he said that funding the IMF to finance exclusively the Euro Zone governments would be against the ECB charter. However, the ECB practice of accepting modern day versions of accommodation bills, in the form of bank drafts and bonds issued and subscribed by the same bank with a government guarantee and used to purchase the debt of the said government, is a more dangerous form of debt monetization since it lacks any kind of conditionality. Moreover, it puts those governments in the position of sitting ducks for speculative attacks.

As we said before bank-to-bank loans with strong conditionality are preferable. Obviously, we do not advocate that the ECB should negotiate or monitor such conditionality. Specialized institutions such as the IMF or the EFSF/ESM should do that.

Unfortunately, as we said repeatedly and the experience of Greece, Ireland and Portugal shows the IMF adjustment policies for monetary unions are seriously flawed.

Yet the ECB did not demand from the European Council that the ESM should take its place. Instead, the Council decided that all EU member states would lend to the IMF an extra 200 million Euros in the hope that non-EU countries might do the same.

In summary, by accepting the self-inflicted fiscal Darwinism of Germany that will lead to expelling peripheral countries from the Euro Zone, despite a half-baked mix of ECB and IMF support, will not restore confidence in the Euro. All it does is to replace the previous ECB hara-kiri intent with a slow euthanasia carried out by an IMF firing squad.

How the ECB Can Prevent the Suicide of the Euro Zone

First, three facts:
1) For a currency that is in risk of imploding, the Euro has done better than the Dollar:

2) At the end of 2010 the total foreign net debt (private and public) of Italy was $0.5 trillion (26% of GDP) while that of the US was $2.47 trillion (17% of GDP); the current account deficit of the two countries was identical (3.24% of GDP); and the total central government debt was 109% of GDP in Italy and 61.3% in the US.
3) Yet the markets are pricing their sovereign debt in a way quite unrelated to these fundamentals (yesterday the 10-year Yield for Italy reached 7.48% while in the US it was at 2.01%):

This is clearly a speculative attack against the Euro itself.

Yet, the ECB seems hand-tied to do anything to repel such attack. By hiding behind its statutory limitations in lending to sovereigns; waiting for successive failed schemes of Merkel-Sarkozy to deal with the sovereign debt problems of Greece, Ireland and Portugal; and sticking to self-defeating half-hearted bond buying in the market, the ECB risks letting the downfall of the Euro occur before its own eyes.

This does not need to be so. By itself, the ECB can kill this speculative attack. First, it needs to point out to the European Union governments that if they persist in a simultaneous suicidal pursuit of restrictive budgetary policies it will need to offset them by pursuing an aggressive expansionary monetary policy. Second, it needs to send a strong message to the markets that, if necessary, it is ready to act as lender of last resort for the Governments under attack.

Here is a suggestion of how it can be done. The ECB should replace its bond-buying in the secondary market (which is fueling the speculation) by a new bank lending facility that in practice would work as back to back loan to the governments. There are various ways to structure such facility within the current lending practices of the ECB; and, as long as the loans would not feed back into the market, they would work.

Shameful European Leaders

In today’s news: “AP - The chief of Europe's bailout fund visited Beijing on Friday to discuss possible terms for a bond sale aimed at raising money from China and other non-European investors”.

After months of protracted squabbling over how to solve the Greek problem, all that Sarkozy and Merkel could come up with was a convoluted scheme that involves begging support from one of the remaining communist dictatorships – China.

To realize how outrageous their incapacity was, one must recall that the haircut or debt forgiveness that Greece, Ireland and Portugal needed at the start of the crisis was about 140 billion Euros, that is, the equivalent to the European Union budget for one year.

To understand how shameful it is to rely on the support of a non-democratic country, it is important to remember that China does not have a fully convertible currency, ranks 7 and 6 respectively in terms of political rights and civil liberties in the Freedom House index (a classification worse that of Iran and Rwanda) and according to Amnesty International is by far the country with the worst record in terms of executions which remain a state secret (again worse than Iran).

This is a dark episode in the history of European integration, and a shaking foundation for the future of the Euro as a currency.

A Merkel & Sarkozy’s Europe? No, Thank You!

Yesterday’s press conference of the German and French leaders to announce their vision of Europe was so dull, leaderless and uninspiring that in itself it was enough to put off any followers of their proposals.

However, their plans for an Euro Zone closer integration are so misguided and meaningless that they need to be denounced as such. They include: a) closer economic integration; b) enforcing compliance with budgetary targets; c) greater fiscal harmonization; and d) better European governance. Let’s examine them one by one.

Full economic integration in Europe has been achieved a long time ago with the implementation of the common market and the single market. All that lacks is a more efficient judicial system to punish attempts by member-states to circumvent the rules when it benefits domestic special interest groups. To have their economic ministers meeting regularly adds nothing. Instead it might increase their propensity to mess with the competition rules whenever it suits them.

Enforcing compliance with budgetary targets by inscribing debt limits in their constitutions is a major mistake as we show in a recent post and the recent history of the US confirms. In short, once you reach the limit there is nothing you can do except to increase the ceiling while creating a lot of uncertainty about the nation’s creditworthiness. The experience in enforcing the Maastricht deficit and debt limits has also shown that France was among the first to bend the rules.

Greater fiscal harmonization on corporate taxation may suit the two countries but it would be a disaster for the rest of Europe. The OECD Tax Database for 2011 shows that France applies a combined corporate income tax rate of 34.4% with a number of special exemptions, while Germany applies a general tax rate of 30.2%. Dividends in France are taxed under a partial inclusion system without withholding, with an overall personal plus corporate income tax rate of 57.8%, while Germany uses a classical system with a withholding rate of 26.4% and a combined personal and corporate income tax rate of 48.6%. Harmonization would give Mr. Sarkozy an electoral boost by reducing tax rates and would allow Mrs. Merkel to get away with a tax rise, but the final result would still be a very high level of taxation. Should other countries follow suit, all the remaining Euro Zone countries would have to raise rates and lose their current tax advantage.

Finally, on European Governance, the two leaders propose an elected president for the Euro Zone area with a mandate of two and a half years and the appointment of an economics minister. This double-headed European Union would aggravate an already messy situation in Europe about who is in charge. What would happen to the head of the Euro Group? Who remembers the names of the current European Union President and Foreign Minister? But, most importantly, it would institutionalize a de facto two-speed Europe that would endanger progress towards an ever closer union.

Overall the meeting of the two leaders was another missed opportunity. The other European leaders should politely say: no thanks!