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.
(Forcing Germany out of the Euro vs out of the EU)
First, the collapse of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates pegged to the US Dollar, and by proxy gold, presented the threat of competitive devaluation for intra-European trade. The experience of the 1930s, in which countries attempted to decrease the cost of their products in foreign markets through currency devaluations, haunted the policymakers of that time. Thus you get an attempt to restore a system of fixed exchange for intra-European trade after the loss of a global system provided as a public good by the US government.
Where there is no trust, how can you have a monetary union, let alone a political union? There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
Eventually one of the principal participants would bow out, the other would set whatever discount it wanted relative to the rate at which the former stopped defending its discount. You would have discovered the exchange rate which neither central bank could feasibly attack (and since the central banks, collectively, have greater pricing power than any speculator, by inference also from speculative attack).
Which suggest that perhaps Germany stepping outside the Euro causes less risk of an outbreak of competitive devaluation than forcing the peripheral countries out one by one. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
In the European picture, the latter is a much healthier construction, because the pro-inflation states lack the political power - both individually and collectively - to collect on such surpluses. And if the diary's central thesis (that anti-inflation inanity is a luxury made possible by political and industrial power) is correct, then this result will generalise.
If we do not throw out the water soon, the baby will go with it.
Moreover, intra-EU trade is as often in components as in finished products. Supply chains cross national boundaries. Restablish border controls and tarriffs and you wreak havoc on the whole economy built upon the assumption of open borders. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
The integration of European coal and steel markets was to make war unthinkable between European states.
With hindsight, everything since the Single European Act was a bridge too far, politically. The Common Foreign and Security Policy and Cooperation in Criminal Justice never quite took off, the Euro is imploding under the weight of unrestrained internal trade imbalances, and Schengen is in the process of being rolled back.
Alternatively, the political layer could be retained and the economic union jettisoned. This would keep the useless Common Foreign and Security Policy, the Cooperation in Criminal Justice (including the European Arrest Warrant), the undermining of "the Community method" in favour of the "Intergovernmental Method"... But this is highly unlikely because the economic integration is deeper.
None of this will happen, the most likely scenario is the creation of a new layer of Kommissars (ECB President, EuroGroup Chairman, Council President, EFSF/ESM Chairman, Trichet's award-winning budget-dog-in-the-manger czar...) to the detriment of the "Community Method", a disempowerment of the European Parliament, more police cooperation to clamp down on popular discontent, a beefed-up Bolkestein directive to usher in an EU-wide labour race to the bottom, and the general penury that Merkel has promised us "for decades". I even foresee Merkel being Chancellor for 16 years (until at least 2020). There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman
So I guess I agree, the European Union is a dead man walking.
More interesting is the realisation that there's no reason to believe that Chinese and Indian economic growth will not start to bite into the low end of Core country manufacturing.
And without the captive market of the periphery, it's hard to see how they prosper. They'll be on the sharp end of trying to out-mercantile China, but with much reduced influence at the WTO.
I'm not normally a purveyor of doom, but I don't see how things get better without some realisation that what will be needed is a rebalancing of world trade and Europe can only be part of influencing that if they stand together...
Well, currently "industrial policy" inside the EU is largely against EU law. At least if the EU is dismantled, the periphery could try to rebuild their economies. Without that they are sunk.
I disagree. I think that you are thinking of industrial policy in terms of protectionism, or more innoccously, trade policy, which is most often thought of as a zero-sum game.
Another way of thinking of industrial policy is considering how to create the institutional conditions that allow firms to compete more effectively. The EU does this in spades, what else is the purpose of cohesion and structural funds? Moreover, the point of a broadened market is to allow an increased division of labor. Specialization matters.
Prior to the arrival of the NICs on the scene in the 1970s, the content of trade, where the volume was highest between developed countries, lay in intra-industry exchange. Rather than exchanging carrots for cars, trade was in things like catalytic converters for chasses. I would say the question is how to build a better chassis or catalytic converter rather than how to market than how to protect a domestic market for them. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
In Portugal, as a "cost saving" measure public transport is being dismantled. Trains, but also buses.
The collectivist thing of public transport... it not modern, it is not individual. Trains are seen as an "expensive" anachronism from the past. The future, you see, is cars, cars cars.
Despair
When you have a low industrial base, the only meaningful way to grow it is either from some advantage (e.g. low labour costs, convenient transport links, etc.) or by subsidy measures that help some portion of the supply chain of companies get off the ground to the point where you have a cluster.
That's the unmentioned part of your "institutional conditions" which I know you're very well aware of. The auto industry is a classic example, which you've talked about before.
But in my first post I was trying to make the point (about Europe standing together) why solidarity is good for the core as well as the periphery.
Sadly, I don't think anyone from the core countries would believe it.
And that's why Europe is a dead man walking.
Finally though, I'd make the plea that we don't forget that at some level this current crisis is artificial. There are structural problems and they are what we've been talking about (fiscal transfer, solidarity, etc.) but the crisis of the moment is pretty simply the failure of the ECB to act as the lender of last resort. As such the markets are attacking countries one by one, simply because they can...
Instead, what's being proposed is that structural funds be used to pay down debt to the core countries. That's the extent of solidarity in Europe. There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman
Very hard to resolve that one - especially given the neuroscience of recent years about facts, changing opinions etc.
Although of course, one might question if there's a bias there as well, isn't it to the advantage of conservatives to suggest that it's hard to get people to progress? Doesn't that elevate their attitude to "state of nature"?
We keep running circles around the elephant in the room, which is that the EU needs to fund accumulation of productive capital in the periphery in ways that imply net fiscal transfer from the core, or "surplus recycling", or "repatriation of surplus".
You can give a man a fishing pole, but unless you teach him how to fish..... ?
BTW, isn't what you are suggesting basically an enhanced version of structural and cohesion funds?
The problem that I see is that there is an underlying issue of ability to compete that is going to require either massive emigration from the periphery, or the development of a domestic ability to compete in those countries. The dilemma is not entirely unlike what happened as the US market was integrated in the 20th century. The South couldn't compete, so there was massive emigration to the North. Finally, the development of a strong federal government allowed the redistribution of wealth from the North to the South.
But that sort of redistribution required a strong federal government, which the EU does not currently have.........
Let's be honest, the development of that sort of capacity in Europe was basically mean the end of the sovereignty of the nation-state in Europe.
Do we really believe that the Czechs and other euroskeptics will allow that? And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
The only viable options are to dismantle the monetary union or create the federal institutions necessary to perform those tasks. If the latter is politically unpalatable, the former will happen - voluntarily or messily, but it will happen. Because there are quite good reasons for sovereigns to exist, and those reasons don't go away just because you legislate neoliberal fantasies that assume away all the reasons for sovereigns to exist.
Monetary union means the loss of sovereignty, because the state is no longer definitionally solvent and can thus not engage in a number of tasks conventionally considered a requirement for sovereignty (such as domestic macroeconomic planning).
deposit insurance for banks granting limited liability to businesses disaster relief access to health care access to education access to legal redress public safety
As long as it's not export "vendor finance" followed by government bailouts of the private providers of said finance.
The whole thing is a sick joke. There are three stories about the euro crisis: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth. -- Paul Krugman
There is, however the question that I would ask is why the decision to start dismantling things would end at the euro.
European integration is a project carried forward by momentum, e.g. Monnet's bicycle. Unless you keep moving forward, you fall off.
Moreover, forcing Germany out of the euro does nothing to solve the underlying divergence between the core and periphery.
It simply provides a mechanism to close the gap which is not without cost. Devaluation forces up the cost of imported goods. This is equally true of inputs, fuel and other natural resources, as well as finished products.
by gmoke - Nov 28
by gmoke - Nov 12 7 comments
by Oui - Dec 41 comment
by Oui - Dec 2
by Oui - Dec 118 comments
by Oui - Dec 16 comments
by gmoke - Nov 303 comments
by Oui - Nov 3012 comments
by Oui - Nov 2838 comments
by Oui - Nov 2712 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 24
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments
by Oui - Nov 1615 comments
by Oui - Nov 154 comments
by Oui - Nov 1319 comments
by Oui - Nov 1224 comments
by gmoke - Nov 127 comments
by Oui - Nov 1114 comments