The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Can we really expect an independent Bank of Spain/Greece/Ireland acting as the ECB has done, unless ideologically captured? Index of Frank's Diaries
The next question then becomes: can the European monetary authorities, in particular de ECB, help out national governments? We have been told that this is impossible because the ECB should only be concerned by system-wide aggregates. It cannot be made responsible for national economic conditions. The reason is that it has one objective which is the maintenance of price stability in the Eurozone as a whole, and because it has only one instrument to achieve this goal. This I believe is too cheap an answer. The ECB is not only responsible for price stability but also for financial stability. The financial crisis that erupted in 2010 had its origin in a limited number of countries. It is therefore important that the ECB focuses not only on system-wide aggregates but also on what happens in individual countries. Excessive bank credit creation in a number of member countries should also appear on the radar screen of the ECB in Frankfurt upon which the ECB should act.
This I believe is too cheap an answer. The ECB is not only responsible for price stability but also for financial stability. The financial crisis that erupted in 2010 had its origin in a limited number of countries. It is therefore important that the ECB focuses not only on system-wide aggregates but also on what happens in individual countries. Excessive bank credit creation in a number of member countries should also appear on the radar screen of the ECB in Frankfurt upon which the ECB should act.
Nowhere. That, and the claim that it has only one policy tool (the interest rate) are ideological drivel. Economics is politics by other means
When low ECB interest rates (require by slow German growth) created an asset price bubble in Ireland and Spain
Low interest rates do not create bubbles. Inadequate regulation creates bubbles (or, as in Spain's case, structural current accounts deficits under a fixed exchange rate).
The problem with the ECB was not that it kept rates low. It was that it did nothing (and has since studiously obstructed any attempt to do something meaningful) about the current accounts imbalances.
particularly when it was largely fuelled by German/French/UK banksnot subject to Irish regulation?
It wasn't. It was enabled by German/French/UK banks, but the primary mortgage originators were Irish, and subject to Irish regulations.
Now, they might have moved North of the border if the Irish regulator had had its eyes on the ball, in which case your complaint would have been valid. But that's an exercise in counterfactual history.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
Now, if you can make a credible case that the ECBuBa blackmailed Ireland to bail out the developers, and not just the banks, that's a different sort of story. But still not about low interest rates.
However, this is not the story you told in the previous post - where you contended that the Irish developers had borrowed directly from foreign banks. Since domestic banks were involved, an on-the-bounce financial regulator could have killed the bubble dead.
Yes, the ECBuBa could also have killed the bubble dead by adequately policing cross-border lending. But you do that case no favours by pretending that the Irish regulator was powerless to stop the gambling when Irish banks were involved in it.
In any case, I am unclear why the "Nurse in Ennis" should have been made liable for the losses of private banks domiciled in Ireland for losses sustained in Ireland and abroad. The primary responsibility for that has to lie with the Irish Government and regulator. However even now they are acting under extreme pressure from the ECB to repay bondholders in defunct banks in full despite the fact that those bonds weren't covered by any guarantee.
It seems clear to me that the ECB still hasn't learned what at least the Irish Government and bank regulator have learned in the meantime. Index of Frank's Diaries
You're ignoring the 2008 "blanket guarantee" of all bank liabilities? Economics is politics by other means
Still doesn't mean the bubble was caused by low interest rates or ECBuBa chicanery. The ECBuBa does not have the authority to play banking regulator, so let's focus on pillorying it for the chicanery it's actually responsible for. Being overstated has never done anything good for an argument.
I think you'd find it hard to find an Irish economist who doesn't believe that the exceptionally low ECB interest rates at a time of 8-10% "growth" in the Irish economy didn't contribute to the asset price bubble.
There is no mechanism for low interest rates to create bubbles.
There is no mechanism for high interest rates to kill bubbles, except by flatlining the productive economy so hard that pessimism causes people to reexamine prospectuses that now seem too good to be true (actually they should have seemed like that all the time, but nothing focuses your mind on little things like the soundness of a business model like the imminent threat of bankruptcy). I file that under the heading of "cures that are worse than the disease."
Killing bubbles is the financial regulator's job. Killing unsustainable growth rates is fiscal policy's job.
I think that there are compelling reasons to give the central bank the financial regulator's job. But that requires giving the CB the financial regulator's tools as well, and that's not the institutional setup we have right now. And it's especially not the sort of central banks we have right now. Major housecleaning would be necessary before they could fill those shoes.
I'm stunned by that statement. The Irish debt crisis is largely driven by Mortgage debt taken on my people who could afford the mortgage when both partners had jobs and when interest rates were low. There simply would not have been so much property development or a market for buying it in the absence of historically low interest rates. Are you forgetting that Ireland has one of the highest rates of home ownership (and mortgage debt) in the world? We are not talking business models here - simply affordability of mortgage repayments in the context of two income families and historically low ECB tracker rate mortgages that people thought would go in for ever - an an historic employment and wages boom which were well beyond the remit of any financial regulator to control. Index of Frank's Diaries
The Irish debt crisis is largely driven by Mortgage debt taken on my people who could afford the mortgage when both partners had jobs and when interest rates were low.
But this is not a problem with low interest rates. This is a problem with the financial regulator not making sure that banks don't lend to people who can only afford the loan because of interest rates that a blind deaf-mute could have told you that the ECB would eventually raise. Really. The ECB, and the BuBa before it, have been following a Taylor rule targeting German inflation since around 1980.
More fundamentally, variable-rate mortgages are an abomination unto God that should never have been decriminalised in the first place.
Even more fundamentally, an on-the-bounce financial regulator would have noticed - and killed - mortgages with a principal in excess of 5 times annual before-tax household income. With extreme prejudice, and no matter what the interest rate looks like.
It is, none the less, generally true that very low interest rates for a long time and with an expectation that they will be low for a long time is an invitation to carry trades and to bubbles.
Carry trades, yes, but any CB/financial regulator with two brain cells to rub together can kill those. Bubbles, no. You get bubbles when you have high rates, you get bubbles when you have low rates. Because you get bubbles.
It so happens that the genesis of the bubbles of the last thirty years have coincided with low interest rates. This is because inflating a bigger bubble is the only solution neoliberal economics permits for dealing with the fall-out from a bursting bubble. So you will have low rates and incipient bubbles coinciding due to the common origin as remedies for an economic downturn.
You can destroy bubbles by raising interest rates, yes. Nobody disputes that. But the way raising interest rates kills bubbles is by keeping you at the bottom of the business cycle, whereas the way prudent financial regulation and unrestricted countercyclical fiscal policy prevents bubbles by keeping you on the top of the business cycle.
I know which of those I'd like to use.
Perhaps human nature in a lightly regulated low interest rate environment with run amok finance doesn't "cause" bubbles either, but there will be a high correlation of the creation of bubbles with such conditions.
Human nature in low regulation environments is to run amok with bubbles. Interest rates are neither here nor there. Interest rates were not low during the Florida land bubble. Interest rates were not low during the South Sea bubble. Interest rates were not low during the Tulip bubble.
Bubbles are inherent to Human Behavior. People see other people doing something they want/like/need and start jumping up and down on the band wagon to get it. More people see people doing this and start doing the same thing.
Eventually the wagon breaks.
Reference: Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds, a book that everyone needs to read. She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
Yes, at the margins there were problems with 100% mortgages and people getting mortgages 5 times their combined incomes - and this should have been regulated. But overall mortgage demand wouldn't have been anything like it was had interest rates been higher.
If interest rates are as irrelevant as you claim, why is it virtually the only policy tool the ECB actually uses on an ongoing basis? Index of Frank's Diaries
Because neoclassical monetarism says that the only thing the central bank should or could worry about is inflation, that inflation is due to the growth of the money supply, and that the size of the money supply is controlled by setting the interest rate. Economics is politics by other means
Otherwise it's just a government failing to apply sufficient countercyclical fiscal policy when the catch-up period ends, and the private sector has to take some time to figure out what to do with all the people it previously employed to work in the catch-up.
The affordability of mortgages has been damaged more by people losing jobs and large parts of their income rather than the relatively minor interest rate increases to date.
If people are not being bankrupted by rising interest rates, then how would higher interest rates in the past have prevented them from going bankrupt today?
If interest rates are as irrelevant as you claim, why is it virtually the only policy tool the ECB actually uses on an ongoing basis?
Because the ECB believes that money supply drives inflation. (In the real world, it's the other way around.)
That component was essential in the arguments that I experienced. Hard-heads like myself said that 'what goes up, comes down'; the CW became 'with rates this low, it's free money'.
Seriously - I was there. paul spencer
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Monday that Americans' preference for long-term, fixed-rate mortgages means many are paying more than necessary for their homes and suggested consumers would benefit if lenders offered more alternatives. In a standing-room-only speech to the Credit Union National Association meeting here, Greenspan also said U.S. household finances appeared generally sound, despite rising debt levels and bankruptcy filings. Low interest rates and surging home prices have given consumers flexibility to manage debt, he said. "Overall, the household sector seems to be in good shape," Greenspan said.
In a standing-room-only speech to the Credit Union National Association meeting here, Greenspan also said U.S. household finances appeared generally sound, despite rising debt levels and bankruptcy filings. Low interest rates and surging home prices have given consumers flexibility to manage debt, he said.
"Overall, the household sector seems to be in good shape," Greenspan said.
But this is not a problem with low interest rates. This is a problem with the financial regulator not making sure that banks don't lend to people who can only afford the loan because of interest rates that a blind deaf-mute could have told you that the ECB would eventually raise.
This is not the issue. Low mortgage interest rate does not improve the ability to buy houses. And asset price inflation is not a "sub-prime" issue. Low interest rate just capitalises rental value into higher price (price = rent/interest). The absolute interest payment stays the same despite the interest rate in monopoly markets like housing. Just the amount of debt increases and along with that naturally higher amortisation costs. Then we have a economic disaster.
Housing market is a credit market, not "real economy." Credit is given to the one who promises banks the highest interest. The price rises until "investors" pay all rental value to the banks as interest. So again, lower interest just means higher prices.
But interest rates affect other things than the mortgage market. They also raise the risk-free rate of return, which means that they subsidise lazy money and reduce investment in real capital (if you can invest in a machine that gives 1 % or in a sovereign bond that gives 1 %, you're going to pick the bond. But the bond generates 0 % added value to society, while the machine generates 1 % added value to society - so that's a net loss).
But interest rates affect other things than the mortgage market.
Yes. The problem is not the ECB rate, it's the bank mortgage rate.
If you wish to join the Neuro... well, that depends on how the -Mark is dissolved in the first place. In the legally most straightforward scenario, it is dissolved by members issuing scrip. But you can only exit via scrip if you wish your scrip to depreciate (Gresham's law, Wörgl experiment), and Germany does not want that. So if Germany pulls out, it will be at the end point of some political negotiation which would likely include setting up the Neuro framework.
If it didn't, I'd suggest an Enhanced Cooperation group.
Thanks She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
http://yle.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/2011/09/poliisi_tutkii_harvinaista_petossarjaa_asuntokaupoissa_2869033 .html?origin=rss
According to the police the price is so low that there must be a crime. It should cost half a million, construction costs are so expensive (three times that of Germany). So ridiculous.
I don't understand why housing is so expensive, across the board, the Nordic countries. I understand winter is an issue ....
but ...
still. She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
I understand winter is an issue ....
It's not. The issue is the same as in Ireland and Spain.
The Serious People claim that the value of an apartment in a "middle of nowhere" town in Finland is 2400e/m2.
Of course it is nothing like this.
It's not like I haven't done that stuff before.
(sigh) She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
Have to dig into it to discover why people haven't snapped them up. Answers could range from Helsinki government unwillingness to change the zoning and/or issuing permits allowing conversion up to the people who have thought of it don't have and can't borrow the money to buy and convert them. She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
Is it? Compared to percentage of income or what?
At least in Sweden, there is (still) a large public owned housing sector which sets the standard for rents, which should keep them at fairly decent level.
Is it perhaps that construction workers are (still) unionised well-paid workers? Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
In the last 10 years, the price of tenant-owner apartments nationwide has risen by 153 percent [Me: eek!,] while small houses have grown in value by a comparatively modest 72 percent. [Me: "modest" 72%????] In 2000, buyers had to pay 8,314 kronor per square metre ($115 per square foot) for a flat in Sweden. But by the end of 2010, Swedish apartment prices had risen to 21,057 kronor per square metre ($293 per square foot).
In 2000, buyers had to pay 8,314 kronor per square metre ($115 per square foot) for a flat in Sweden. But by the end of 2010, Swedish apartment prices had risen to 21,057 kronor per square metre ($293 per square foot).
(cite)
Looking at the price rise and comparing to the average Swedish salary I conclude Sweden (and Finland) is experiencing a real estate bubble. She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
Note that average price is skewed towards units that are hold for a short time and also more costly units. From what I have seen the price rise has been moderate outside the mayor cities. Outside the mayor cities is also where the renting market with the controlled rents works best as there is no housing shortage and the town council acts as landlord of last resort.
To pick from the adds: Alvägen 4 - 5 room house in Vännäs kommun/Vännäs | Hemnet
695 000 kr
Vännäs is a nice little town outside Umeå.
Södra Vägen 8 - 5 room house in Stockholm | Hemnet
4 600 000 kr
Ok, it is also bigger, but there is also a lot of bubble going on.
European Tribune - Housing bubble in Sweden going pop?
After some debate an interesting line-up formed. On one hand the central bank and the real estate salesmen denied that a bubble could be predicted at all. The central bank because bubbles can be known in their limited world and the salesmen because everybody knows that prices go up-up-up. On the other side was Bostadskreditnämnden, the treasury and the largest banks.
Still has not popped. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
Actually, we need two types of slogans: 1) a slogan that speaks to Frank's national viewpoint without blaming the German people at-large, and 2) one for the Germans that blames the Austrians (economics school, that is). Maybe the German Greens and Pirates are handling that already. paul spencer
German elites have managed to make the Germans appear proud to have been ripped off by their banks and elites, because it somehow makes them more virtuous than the Greek.
Greece is a distraction. German wages are the real political issue. Wind power
Also, the banksters don't forcible injection of new equity. That sort of thing tends to precipitously increase the risk of having to look for a new job.
What we could (and should) do is have the states recapitalise banks by issuing bonds to them and taking an equity stake in payment rather than a demand deposit. The ECB should then rediscount those bonds, and Bob's your uncle.
It's slightly more convoluted, but it preserves the principle that only parliaments can make fiscal policy. Which is an important sort of principle to adhere to, in my view.
So let's pillory it for usurping the function of democratically elected parliaments, not for failing to usurp the function of national financial regulators. By attacking the ECB for something that wasn't actually its fault, you're framing the conversation in a way that's far too easy for its cheerleaders to derail.
There is a strong case for combining the two functions, and an even stronger for having a federal financial regulator, but neither is an absolute operational necessity in the way an employer of last resort is an absolute operational necessity.
neither ()functions of central bank and financial regulator is an absolute operational necessity in the way an employer of last resort is an absolute operational necessity.
Aren't they one and the same thing? They are both defined by the EU Treaties. If the ECB is wrongly constructed at present, the Euro is badly constructed at present. Economics is politics by other means
The political upsides can be gained at smaller economic cost if the will is there. If the political will isn't there, then what's the point?
For a small economy like Ireland to go back to its own currency would be an invitation to global capital to basically take over the country as no Government/Central bank would be in a position to control the speculators... Index of Frank's Diaries
Any attempt to solve the euro crisis has to keep that in mind. She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
To your specific points:
That all implies a level of confidence and competence and an appetite for risk which we have never had in this country at official level.
Confidence, yes. Competence, I hope. Risk? No, the whole point of this operation is to make sure you run no risk of getting into a fight with the markets that you can't win decisively. If Soros and his friends even have a sporting chance then You're Doing It Wrong.
The very problem with pledging to unilaterally defend a fixed exchange rate (which is effectively what you're doing when you're entering a fixed-rate regime with the D-Mark, since the BuBa is completely unwilling to live up to its end of the deal) is that you commit yourself to fights where the other guy has a fair chance of winning. Fights with speculators should be totally unfair in your favour. You print the money, and you decide how much of your money they get to borrow. If you can't win with that sort of home-field advantage, you really deserve to lose.
Most of the peripherals have no business, economically speaking, being in a currency union (or any other sort of fixed-rate regime) with Germany, Austria and the Netherlands. Ireland is different, because it has a structural internal current accounts surplus. But for various reasons of historical accident, Ireland is getting shafted. And there comes a point when one must weigh the cost of leaving the Eurozone against the cost of getting shafted for the benefit of Societé Generel and Joseph Ackerman's Christmas bonus.
My gut feeling is that Ireland is approaching the point where it might make sense to just say "fuck it" and issue scrip. But where you fall on that trade-off depends on how you value the future relative to the present, and that is fundamentally a political decision that I, as a foreigner, have no business making for Ireland.
And of course that's only the economics. It is possible to attach political value to the continued existence of the Euro, and be willing to pay an economic price for keeping this political value. Again, that's a political decision that I can't make for the Irish electorate. Though I do note in passing that aforementioned economic price is, under current institutional arrangements, borne disproportionally by the less well off.
by gmoke - Oct 4
by gmoke - Oct 1
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 24 3 comments
by Oui - Sep 19 19 comments
by Oui - Sep 13 37 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 11 5 comments
by Cat - Sep 13 9 comments
by Oui - Sep 3025 comments
by Oui - Sep 29
by Oui - Sep 285 comments
by Oui - Sep 2722 comments
by Oui - Sep 2620 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 243 comments
by Oui - Sep 1919 comments
by gmoke - Sep 173 comments
by Oui - Sep 153 comments
by Oui - Sep 15
by Oui - Sep 1411 comments
by Oui - Sep 1337 comments
by Cat - Sep 139 comments
by Oui - Sep 1210 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 115 comments
by Oui - Sep 929 comments
by Oui - Sep 713 comments
by Oui - Sep 61 comment