Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
 Here  a more nuanced few of the ECB actions:

Ordinarily, in a bank run the correct action for the central bank is to increase liquidity to accommodate the desire of the private sector to convert bank deposits into physical cash and/or move their money somewhere safer. But this is when the reason for the bank run is concerns about bank solvency. In the Greek case, the bank run was due to concerns about sovereign solvency, and in particular about the growing possibility of redenomination of deposits into a new, devalued currency. Since the reason for the bank run was political, therefore, I find it hard to criticise the ECB. It was in a cleft stick. If it increased liquidity, it was arguably supporting the Greek government. If it reduced it, it was supporting the Eurozone creditors. It therefore did neither. Maintaining ELA at its existing level was a politically neutral decision.

The real mistake was made by the Greek government. It was always obvious that the talks would be difficult, and the Greek government's "strength in weakness" approach meant that it had to allow itself to be pushed dangerously close to Grexit. Bank runs were inevitable. So allowing Greek banks to become totally reliant on a central bank controlled by its Eurozone creditors - and itself a creditor - was a fatal flaw in the Greek government's strategy. It should have imposed capital controls long before. Had it done so, monetary conditions in Greece would still have been very tight but the banks could have remained open.

My major point remains: Without democratic control of the ECB a different Europe is implausible.

by rz on Thu Jul 16th, 2015 at 09:20:59 AM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series