Merkozy Posts A Win!

Greek prime minister George Papandreou cancelled the referendum.  Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy called Papandreou back to the “shed” Wednesday for a tongue-lashing…and worse…to set him straight on the marching orders he had been given. 

And, the Greek prime minister backed down.

It seems as if Merkel and Sarkozy believe that there are only two choices in the current debate.  The first is that the European Union stay together and maintain the single currency zone.

The alternative is that the EU split up with some countries maintaining the single currency zone.

To Merkel and Sarkozy there really is no choice…the EU stays together and supports the euro.

If the EU stays together and supports the euro…then the bailouts will continue. 

It seems to me that there are two most likely outcomes to following this path.  Of course, there are more but they are all derivatives of these two in my mind.

First, financial markets will continue to reject the solution and there will be further “summits” down the road with more bailouts and more distress.  The ultimate result of following this path will be when the EU finally decides that the fiscal policies of all countries in the union will have to be coordinated and there will be fiscal and political union as well as monetary union.

Some have seen this conclusion as the missing component of the efforts to achieve the monetary union right from the start.  Others, like myself, have seen this possibility as the ultimate end to the financial crisis as we now know it.  And, a political union may have been the goal of some EU “leaders” throughout the turmoil. 

If there is going to be a real “coming together” of the nations in the EU, the “strong” will be the drivers (Germany and France and who else?) but in order to achieve the final union the solvency of the laggards (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and who else?) will have to be resolved.  That is, there will have to be some kind of central “Treasury” that will aggregate all debts and pay off those nations still in the union that are insolvent.

One can look at the American after its Revolutionary War where Alexander Hamilton opted for a strong central “Treasury” and the assumption of all of the debts of the states that were then a part of the United States.

The problem with this solution?

The problem lies with the people of the nations within the EU.  Some of these people’s may not want to come under the regime of the “strong” nations that will be the driving force in a strong, centralized fiscal EU. 

There have been riots and protests in Greece…and in Spain…and in Portugal…and in Italy…indicating resistance to the fiscal austerity being imposed on them by especially Germany and France.

And, the resistance is even getting more personal.  For example, a Greek newspaper has a cartoon with a German general manipulating two puppets…the two puppet being the Greek prime minister and another Greek official.  The underlying theme: “The Germans didn’t succeed in occupying Greece through arms because the Greek people resisted.  They try now to occupy Greece through the economy.”

Pretty heavy stuff. 

The Merkel/Sarkozy path to fiscal/political union may be a desirable goal but the question that still needs to be asked is whether or not this goal is consistent with what the people in these countries want.  European officials have often been accused of being an “elite” that wishes to impose its will upon the people of Europe.  Whether or not the “elites” can pull off this union without too great of a popular upheaval is a question that no one can answer at this moment.

The other alternative is that the financial markets may not allow the “leaders” of Europe to get too much farther  along this path. 

Just today, 10-year Greek bonds were trading to yield almost 34 percent, almost 3,200 basis points above the yield on 10-Year German bonds.  The bonds of the Italian government have been trading at the largest spreads above the German bonds in the euro era.  And the same with the bonds of Portugal. 

If these governments have to pay these kinds of yields on their debt there is no way that they will be able to get their fiscal budgets under control.  If these governments cannot issue bonds or can only issue them to the European Central Bank then the fundamental reality of their insolvency will become more and more of a problem. 

Add to this a European recession, where tax revenues take a further nose-dive, and you only exacerbate the problem.

I should add that “Super Mario” Draghi, the new head of the ECB oversaw a reduction in the central bank’s main policy interest rate in his third day in the new job.  The reason for this reduction is to combat weaknesses being experienced in European economies.

Over-shadowing all of this is the fear of the European officials of financial “contagion”.  The spectre of Lehman Brothers hovers over Europe. The fear is that if these “officials” let Greece go “insolvent” in a “disorderly default” kicking off the use of Credit Default Swaps, that there will be a “spill over” effect moving from the sovereign debt of Italy…and of Spain…and of Portugal.  Then, the concern spreads to the commercial banks in Europe…remember the stress tests conducted on these banks did not include a write down of the sovereign debt on their balance sheets.

The problem Europe is facing is a solvency problem.  This is what European officials have been trying to deny for the last four years.  And, many are still in denial!

Solvency problems do not just go away!  Denying they exist only causes the problems to get worse!

European Choices Continue to Narrow

On May 24, my post stated that debt ultimately leaves you with no good options. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/271651-debt-ultimately-leaves-you-with-no-good-options)

Martin Wolf in the Financial Times reduces the choices now available to the European Union to two: “The eurozone confronts a choice between two intolerable options: either default and partial dissolution or open-ended official support.  The existence of this choice proves that an enduring union will at the very least need deeper financial integration and greater fiscal support than was originally envisaged.” (See “Intolerable choices for the eurozone,” http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1a61825a-8bb7-11e0-a725-00144feab49a.html#axzz1O1hWLIwZ.)

The “original” design of the union, Wolf contends, is for all purposes, dead.  That could only be achieved by removing some of the countries now in the union.

To achieve the second of the two choices he mentions above is going to require a contortionist.  First, Wolf argues, European banks cannot remain national.  Whoa!  Second, he argues that the current system of European System of Central Banks (ESCB) must be eclipsed by a “sufficiently large public fund” that manage “cross-border” financial crisis.  Double Whoa!  And, third, the finance of the “weak countries” must be taken out of the market for years, “even a decade.”  Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!  What would result would be something Wolf calls a “support union.”

This certainly is “deeper financial integration and greater fiscal support than was originally envisaged” by the creators of the European Union. 

The question is, “could this ‘support union’ ever be achieved short of all countries in the eurozone coming under a common government. 

But, even so, I do not see that this “solution” reflects any change in the underlying economic philosophy of the current leaders of Europe concerning the propagation of the credit inflation that the leaders of Europe have perpetrated for the last fifty years or so.  With no basic change in philosophy, I cannot see how this second choice achieves anything except the postponement of the “day of reckoning” in which the range of options available to the European Union drops to one. 

Does this mean that the European Union will eventually be providing investors with a “sure-fire”, riskless investment similar to the one given George Soros by the British government in 1992?

It seems to me to be a real possibility.

John Plender, who also writes for the Financial Times, argues that the European Union can “Muddle along for now; but a Greek default is inevitable.” (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/21922f88-8ba4-11e0-a725-00144feab49a.html#axzz1O1hWLIwZ)

Plender writes that the burden of the policies imposed upon the Greek government by the IMF will only produce “great demands on the population” which is already enduring a deep recession.  Greek workers will have to ‘endure wage deflation” so as to restore the competitiveness of the Greek economy and the privatization program being discussed will put the transfer of Greek assets in the hands of an external agent. 

However, the other option, debt restructuring, is not currently acceptable to Plender, either.

He sees it as the only real choice for the time being: “If a package is agreed in June, which seems probable, the challenge will be to bring Greece to a primary budget surplus...” and “at that point, it would be sensible for Greece to bow out of the monetary union and take advantage of currency devaluation.” 

He goes on, “For that to work, though, European banks would need in the interim to have bolstered their capital.  And the execution risks are phenomenal.  This is policymaking on a wing and a prayer.”

The leaders of the United States need to absorb this lesson.  No matter that the United States is richer and deeper in resources than Europe.  No matter that the United States is bigger.  No matter that the United States has the reserve currency of the world.  The debt burden catches up with you.  As, as the debt burden is catching up with you…your options become fewer in number and they become less and less desirable.

The United States is not exempt from this outcome…unless it changes course before all the options go away. 

In all financial crises, the initial response of the central bank and the government must be to provide sufficient liquidity to keep the banks open and to avoid cumulative downturns in companies and the economy.  Bailouts and quantitative easing may be appropriate…for the short run.

But, there is a difference I have written about many times, between a “liquidity” crisis and a “solvency” crisis.  A liquidity crisis is a short-run phenomenon, which gets an economy over the short-run shock of a financial event. 

The longer-run problem is the solvency problem.  And, solvency is tied up with debt…debt loads that must be worked off.  And, working off debt loads takes time…lots of time.  And, working off debt loads cannot really be achieved by flooding the financial markets with more credit and more liquidity.  This is a “postponing” strategy.

To solve the “debt” problem and to prevent it occurring again in the future, leaders must change their basic economic philosophy about the creation of debt.  Credit inflation always leads to debt problems, and further credit inflation aimed at solving debt problems only leads to diminishing options and eventual collapse.  Insolvency cannot be solved by more debt. 

It should be obvious that more debt is not the solution to a problem if the options one has decline in number and the desirability of the options also declines.  To continue to pile on more and more debt is like the person in the hole, digging the hole deeper and deeper in an effort to get out of the hole. 

Europe is finding this out.  It, apparently, must be the case that the United States will have to learn this lesson as well.

If anything is going to give the emerging countries of the world the chance to close the gap on the developed countries it is a continuance of the credit inflation policies of Europe and America.  The ironic thing is that the shoe used to be on the other foot…the developed countries had control over their credit inflation whereas the emerging nations were reliant on excessive amounts of credit inflation.  This relative performance was given as an important reason why the developing countries could not hope to catch up with the developed world. 

China is catching up with the west faster than most analysts believed it would.  So with India…and Brazil….  If the European Union…and the United States…continue to push the edge of debt creation and continue to shrink their options, the tipping point  to this emerging world might occur sooner than most of us imagine.