25/6/15: Tipping my hat to Karl Whelan on Official Ireland's Moralising...

UCD Professor Karl Whelan just finished a concise and thorough demolition job on the Irish Government's moralistic and uncouth bragging about the 'successful adjustments' that, in their view, stand as a contrast to the Greek case. Here's his twitter line:

Nothing to add.

See Karl's timeline here: https://twitter.com/WhelanKarl

1/8/2013: Anatomy of the Personal Crises: QNHS Q3 2012

CSO has published Q3 2012 survey concerning the Effect on Households of the Economic Downturn: here.

Some core findings:

• 82% of households cut spending on at least one of the main categories of expenditure as a result of the economic downturn in the 12 months before July-September 2012. 
• Nearly a quarter of all households indicated that they had cut back on five or more categories of spending out of 9 categories listed.
• Over 1/3 of households who used a car had cut back on their expenditure on this means of transport.
• "Some 14% of owner occupied households with a mortgage were unable to make mortgage repayments on time at least once in the previous twelve months due to financial difficulties." This number is strangely well below the current rate of mortgages arrears by accounts. Does this suggest that households tend to overstate their financial health?
• "On the rental side 19% of all renting households failed to pay rent on time at least once."
• 43% of households "indicated that they had experienced difficulties in keeping up with their bills and debts."
• "Two fifths of individuals were concerned about their level of personal debt. Over half of these said that they were currently more concerned than they had been twelve months previously. Only 5% indicated that their level of concern had decreased."
• "households consisting of one adult aged 65 or over said they had the least difficulty" paying bills and funding debt (27%).
• "Of households where the reference person was at work 41% experienced difficulty [paying bills and funding debt] compared with 73% where the reference person was unemployed." Note that 41% is a frightening number, still.
• "Looking specifically at those households which had experienced difficulty in managing bills and debts, 47% of them said that it was due to loss of income, 73% said it was due to higher than expected or additional costs and 5% said the difficulty was due to other reasons."
• "Looking more deeply into the type of higher or additional costs mentioned by those households for whom it caused difficulty, 90% of those households mentioned higher or additional utility bills , 32% mentioned higher or additional school, college or university costs, 17% mentioned higher or additional medical or dental costs and 15% mentioned higher or additional loan or mortgage repayments" Now, run through these again. All of them are state-controlled and state-regulated services, ex mortgages and loans. That's the cost of Irish State policy of extracting rents out of already stretched households.

And a handy chart summarising demographics of debt crisis:

That's right: core crisis impact on debt side - 25-54 year olds, majority with kids and homes, just the crowd that the Government is targeting for cash extraction via higher prices and charges for services like health, health insurance, transport, energy, utilities, education... you name it.

And as you read data in Table 1.1.1. showing details of the households experiencing financial difficulty due to loss of income, classified by main reasons over 12 months prior to July-September 2012, keep in mind - almost all 'employment creation' in the labour market that the Government and 'green jerseys' keep talking about is taking place in the part-time jobs, which cannot cover the true cost of living in this country.

Finally, take a look at Table 1.2. This shows the extent of debt restructuring delivered by the 'reformed' banks. At 7% total - it is laughably low.

21/4/2014: Sunday Independent article

My article on Euro area austerity policies failure in Sunday Independent - it's not in levels of cuts, but in the lack of real change from the status quo.

5/12/2012: Pre-Budget 2013 tunes

Ireland's pre-Budget 2013 arithmetic:

• Budget 2013 Cuts & Tax hikes = €3.5 billion
• IL&P (bust state-owned 'bank') bonds repayments January 2013 = €2.45 billion
• Promo Note (IBRC - toxic loans dump) repayment March 2013 = €3.1 billion
• Interest on Government debt: 2011 = €3.9 billion, 2012 = €5.7 billion, 2013 = €8.1 billion, 2012-2013 increase of €2.4 billion
• Adding things up: -€3.5 billion adjustment + €5.55 billion 'banks' wastage + €2.4 billion increase in Ireland financing for "our partners' help" = net €4.45 billion will be sucked out of this economy by pure policy psychosis.
• 69% of the entire annual adjustment on fiscal side, even assuming it will be delivered in the end, will go to fund increases in Government debt servicing in 2013 compared to 2012. These funds will be largely remitted to Ireland's new 'best friends' - the Troika and Franklin Templeton funds.

Now, good luck listening to today's Budget 2013 announcements by our Minister for 'Friends' Finance.

4/10/2012: Investor's Daily: We've been telling you porkies

In the previous post I tried to make some sense out of the headline numbers from the Exchequer returns through Q3 2012. This time around, let's take a look at the overall Exchequer balance.

Headline number being bandied around is that overall exchequer deficit stood at €11,134 mln in January-September 2012, down €9,526 mln on same period in 2011 (an impressive drop of 46.1%). Alas, that is a pure hog wash. Here's why.

In 2011, Irish state assumed banks recapitalizations and insurance shortfalls funding spending of €10,653 mln, this time around, the Government allocated only €1,775 mln to same.

Adjusting for banks recaps, therefore, Exchequer deficit stood at €10,007 mln in January-September 2011 and it was €9,359 mln in the same period this year, implying deficit reduction of €647.5 mln y/y - a drop of 6.47%.

But wait, in both 2011 and 2012 the state collected extraordinary receipts from banks recapitalization and guarantee schemes - the receipts which, as the EU Commission warned us earlier this year are likely to vanish over time. These amounted to €1.64bn in 2011 and €2.06bn in 2012 (January-September figures).

Subtracting these from the balance we have: exchequer deficit ex-banks recaps and receipts in 2011 was €11,650mln and in 2012 it was €11,417mln. In other words, the State like-for-like sustainable deficit reductions in the 9 months through September 2012 compared to the same period in 2011 were… err… massive €233.7 million (2%).

Let's do a comparative here: Budget 2012 took out of the economy €3.8 billion (with €2.2 billion in expenditure measures and €1.6 billion in taxation measures). On the net, the end result so far has been €233.7 million reduction of like-for-like deficit on 2011. How on earth can the Troika believe this to be a 'best-in-class' performance?

Or alternatively, there's €9.36 billion worth of deficit left out there to cut before we have a balanced budget. At the current rate of net savings, folks, that'd take 40 years if we were to rely on actually permanent revenues sources or 14 years if we keep faking the banking system revenues as not being a backdoor tax. Either way… that idea of 'under 3% of GDP' deficit by 2015 is… oh… how do they say it in Paris? Jonque?

And just so I don't have to produce a separate post on this, the Net Cumulated Voted Spending breakdown is also worth a line or two. You see, the heroic efforts of the Irish Government to support our economy have so far produced a reduction of €474 million on capital investment budget side y/y. But, alas, similarly heroic efforts at avoiding real cuts to the current spending side also bore their fruit, with current voted expenditure up year on year by €369 million in 9 months through September 2012.

So the bottom line is - savage austerity, tears dropping from the cheeks of our Socialist err… Labour TDs and Ministers… has yielded Total Net Voted Spending reduction cumulated over January-September 2011 of a whooping €105 million… And that is year on year. extrapolating this to the rest of the year implies that in 2012 we can expect roughly to cut our Net Voted Expenditure by a terrifyingly insignificant pittance amount of €140 million.

Yep… Jonque!

4/9/2012: Six Key Facts About Irish Government Spending: August 2012

In the previous post I looked at the receipts side of the Exchequer returns for January-August 2012. Now, let's take a quick tour through the expenditure side.

In January-August 2012, the Government total Net Voted Expenditure stood at €29,593 million or €244 million (0.8%) above the same period of 2011. In other words, the Government is spending more in 2012 than it spent in 2011 on the expenditure side that it actually controls. In July 2012, the overrun was €138 million or 0.5%.

Fact 1: things are getting worse month on month, not better, on the spending side

Fact 2: things are getting worse year on year, not better, on the spending side

Current Net Voted Expenditure rose €444 million (+1.8%) y/y in January-July 2012 compared to same period of 2011. In August, this figure went up to €659 million (+2.4%).

Fact 3: the core driver for rising Government spending is Current Expenditure, and the increases in spending in this area are getting worse, not better, with time. 

On the total expenditure side, the Government is now exceeding its target for 2012 (these are revised targets published in May, so the overruns are compared for just 4 months running) by 1.1%, and on current expenditure side these overruns are at 1.6%. In July 2012 the same figures were +0.8% and +1.3% respectively.

Fact 4: even by revised targets the Government is already behind its set objectives, just 4 months into running and the set-back is accelerating month to month.

In July 2012, five departments exceeded their targets on current expenditure side, including (as expected) Health (+1.0%) and Social Protection (+4.4%). In August 2012, six departments were in breach of their targets on current spending, with Health performance deteriorating (+1.5%) while Social Protection performance showing shallower miss on target (+4.2%).

Fact 5: More departments are slipping into underperformance relative to target in August than in July.

In August, five departments posted increases y/y in Current Net Voted Expenditure, in July there were seven departments in the same position.

Fact 6: year on year cuts in spending in smaller departments are not sufficient to offset increases in spending in larger departments. 

Capital expenditure has fallen €415 million (down 20.9%) y/y and is now €120 million (7.1%) below the target. In an ironic twist, these 'savings' will be totally undone through the Government capital expenditure boost once privatization process gets underway. 

However, annual estimates assume 13.4% or €562 million reduction in capital spending. With 74% of thse already delivered on, it is hard to see how the Government can extract more savings from this side of the balancesheet to plug the widening gap on the current expenditure side.

To summarise, therefore, the Irish Government continues to increase, not decrease the overall Exchequer expenditure year on year and is now behind its own targets. 

Neither the receipts side of the fiscal equation, nor the expenditure side are holding.

21/7/2012: Sunday Times July 1, 2012 - Not a 'stimulus' again...

An unedited version of my Sunday Times article from July 1.

One of the points of contention in modern economics is the role of fiscal spending shocks on economic growth. Various empirical estimates suggest Irish fiscal multiplier at 0.3-0.4, implying that for every euro of additional Government spending we should get a €1.30-€1.40 in GDP uplift. However, these are based on models that do not take into the account our current conditions. Despite this fact, Irish policymakers continue talking about the need for Government to stimulate the economy, while various think tanks continue to argue that Ireland should abandon fiscal stabilization or more aggressively tax private incomes to deliver a boost to our spending.

International research on this matter is more advanced, although it too leaves much room for a debate.

June 2012 IMF working paper titled “What Determines Government Spending Multipliers?” by Giancarlo Corsetti, Andre Meier and Gernot Muller (June 2012) studied the effects of government spending on the economy under the variety of macroeconomic conditions.

What IMF researchers did find is that the initial conditions for stimulus do matter in determining its effectiveness – an issue generally ignored in the domestic debates about the topic.

Under a pegged exchange rate regime, similar to Ireland’s but still allowing for some exchange rate and interest rates adjustments, trade balance is likely to worsen in response to a fiscal stimulus, while output can be expected to rise. Domestic investment and consumption will decline in response to the positive stimulus shock. These factors are likely to be even more pronounced in the case of Ireland’s currency ‘peg’ that permits no adjustment in real exchange rate except via domestic inflation.

The role of weak public finances in determining the effectiveness of fiscal spending stimulus is also revealing. The study defines fiscally constrained conditions as the gross government debt exceeding 100 percent of GDP and/or government deficit in excess of 6 percent of GDP. Both of these are present in the case of Ireland. On average, the study shows that consumption response to fiscal stimulus is negative-to-zero following the stimulus, but becomes positive in the medium term. Impact on output and investment is negative. The core reasons for the adverse effects of fiscal expenditure on economic performance are losses from stimulus through increased imports of goods and services by the State, internal re-inflation of the economy through inputs prices, plus the expectation from the private sector consumers and producers of higher future taxes required to cover public spending increases.

In the case when financial crisis is present, increase in Government spending results in a positive and strong output expansion, rise in consumption and, with some delay, rise in investment. However, net exports still fall sharply and the stimulus leads to the inflationary loss of external competitiveness in the economy.

The problem with the above results is that the IMF study still does not consider what happens to a fiscal stimulus in a country like Ireland, combining a strict currency peg, exclusive reliance on trade surplus for growth generation and characterized by historically high levels of fiscal imbalances and financial system collapse. In other words, even the IMF research as imprecise as it is, is far from conclusive.

These are non-trivial problems in the case of Ireland. Official estimates for fiscal policy multiplier in this country range between 0.38 (European Commission) and 0.4 (Department of Finance).  These are based on relatively simplistic models and are, therefore, likely to be challenged by the reality of our current conditions. A more recent study from the Deutsche Bank cites Irish fiscal multiplier of 0.3 without specifying the methodology used in deriving it. Either way, no credible estimate known to me puts the fiscal multiplier above 0.4 for Ireland.

In short, Government stimulus is not exactly an effective means for raising output, even at the times when the economy can take such stimulus without demolishing the Exchequer balancesheet. And lacking precision in estimating the fiscal multiplier, the entire argument in favor of fiscal stimulus is an item of faith, not of scientific analysis.

In my opinion, Ireland does not need a Government expenditure boost. Instead we need a policy shift toward stimulating domestic and international investment, plus the public expenditure rebalancing away from current spending toward some additional capital investment.

Quarterly National Accounts clearly show that the problem with the Irish economy is not the fall off in private or public consumption, but a dramatic collapse in private investment. While private consumption expenditure in Ireland has declined 13.6% relative to the economy’s peak in 2007, net expenditure by Government is down 12.0% (including a decline in public investment). However, overall private investment in the economy is down 67%. 2011 full year capital investment was, unadjusted for inflation, at the level last seen in 1997, while consumption is down ‘only’ to 2005-2006 levels and Government spending is running at around 2006 levels. With nominal GDP falling €33.5 billion between 2007 and 2011, our investment declined €32.6 billion over the same period, personal consumption dropped €12.8 billion, while net Government expenditure on goods and services is down a mere €3.4 billion. Between 2007 and 2011, total voted current expenditure by the Government rose 12%, while total net voted capital expenditure fell 44%.

Adding a Government investment stimulus of €2 billion would have an impact of raising net capital expenditure by the Exchequer in 2012-2014 to the levels 22.4% below those in 2007 and will lift our GDP by under 1.8% according to the EU measure of fiscal multiplier. However, factoring in deterioration in the current account as estimated by the IMF, the net effect might be closer to zero. Based on IMF model re-parameterized to our current conditions, the net result can be as low as 0.1% increase in GDP.

Again, the problem here is the effect of capital spending on our imports. As a highly open economy, Ireland imports most of what it consumes. This includes Government and private capital investment goods – machinery, materials and know-how relating to construction, assembly, installation and operation of modern transport systems, energy and ICT, etc. Some of these imports will continue well beyond the period of actual investment. In other words, using fiscal stimulus to finance public capital investment risks providing some short-term supports for lower skilled Irish labour and few professionals with the lion’s share of expenditure going to the multinational companies supplying capital goods and services into Ireland from abroad.

The fiscal cost of such a stimulus, however, would be exceptionally high. Between 2008 and 2011, Irish Government has managed to cut €4.3 billion off the annual capital spending bill while increasing current spending by €662 million. This resulted in total voted spending reduction of only €3.6 billion. A stimulus of €2 billion on capital investment side will throw the state back to 2009 levels of expenditure, erasing two years worth of consolidation, unless it is financed out of cutting current spending and transferring funds to capital programmes. The extra capital spending will lead to further retrenchment in private consumption and investment, as households and businesses will anticipate relatively rapid uplift in tax burdens to recover the momentum to the fiscal consolidation. This, coupled with already committed €8.6 billion in further fiscal adjustments in the next three years, will further reduce growth effects of the stimulus and shorten its positive effects duration.

Overall, the right course of policies to pursue today requires restructuring of the debt burden carried by the real economy, starting with household debts and stimulating, simultaneously domestic and foreign investment into small and medium enterprises and start-ups. Instead of focusing on the less labor-intensive MNCs’ investments, we need to put in place tax and institutional incentives to increase inflow of equity capital, not new debt, to Irish businesses. Such incentives must target two areas of investment: investment into activities associated with new jobs creation by the SMEs, plus investment into strategic repositioning and restructuring of Irish SMEs to put them onto exporting path.

Lastly, if we really do want to have a stimulus debate, the discussion should not be focusing on creating a net increase in the public expenditure, but on the potential for reallocating some of the funds from the current expenditure side of the Exchequer balancesheet to capital investment.

  

Box-out:

The latest Index of Failed States published this week ranks Ireland the 8^th best state in the world. Our overall score in the league table was helped by extremely high performance in some specific indicators. Surprisingly, according to the Index authors, we are having a jolly good time throughout the crisis. Allegedly, Ireland’s problem in terms of emigration is relatively comparable to that found in New Zealand and Germany. Our economy, heavily dominated by MNCs exports in pharma, medical devices and ICT sectors ranks higher in terms of the balance of economic development than majority of the advanced economies that have more diversified and domestically anchored sources of growth. Our ‘balanced development’ model, having led us into the current crisis, is allegedly more sustainable, according to the Index, than that of Canada – a country that escaped the Great Recession. In terms of poverty and economic decline we are better off than France, Japan and New Zealand, which had a much less severe recession than Ireland over the last 5 years. In quality of public services, we are better than Belgium and the UK, and are ranked as highly as Canada. And our elites are less factionalized than those in the vast majority of the states of the Euro area. In short, according to the Foreign Policy, index publisher, Ireland is a veritable safe haven within a tumultuous euro zone, comparable to New Zealand, Luxembourg, Norway and Switzerland. We rank well ahead of Canada, Australia, the UK and the US, as well as all other states that currently receive tens of thousands of Irish emigrants.

4/5/2012: Sunday Times - 29/4/2012: Fiscal Compact

My Sunday Times article from April 29, 2012 (unedited version).

When first published, the Fiscal Compact (formally known as the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union) was billed as a ground-breaking exercise in European legislative activism. The main innovation of the treaty was not its content (which largely regurgitates already existent fiscal constraints established under the Maastricht Treaty), but its compact size and designed-to-be-digestible language.

Few months down the road, and the Fiscal Compact has become a subject to numerous conflicting claims and interpretations, thanks to both side of the referendum debate in Ireland. Mythology that surrounds the Fiscal Compact is impressively wide and growing. The fog of politicised sloganeering and scaremongering on the ‘Yes’ side is well matched by the clouds of emotive and quasi-economic nonsense from the ‘No’ camp.

The main alleged problem with the Compact is that its core rules – the 60% debt/GDP limit for Government borrowings, the 1/20 adjustment rule for dealing with excess public debt, the 3% deficit ceiling and the 0.5% structural deficit break – amount to prohibiting of the Keynesian economic policies in the future. This argument is commonly advanced by the Fiscal Compact opponents and implies that in the future crises, Ireland will not be able to use stimulative Government spending to support its economy.

In practice, however, Fiscal Compact restricts, but not eliminates the room for deficit financing. In the current economic conditions, under full compliance with the deficit rules, Irish Government would have been able to run a deficit of at least 2.97% of GDP – much lower than 8.6% targeted under Budget 2012, but close to 3.2% deficit forecast for 2012 for the euro area.

Far from ‘killing Keynesianism’, the Fiscal Compact induces in the longer run fiscal policies that are consistent with Keynesian economics. Any state that wants to secure a ‘fiscal stimulus’ cushion for future crises should accumulate surplus resources during the times of economic expansions, not rely on the goodwill of the bond markets to supply debt financing to the Governments when their economies begin to tank.

The treaty does limit significantly the state capacity to accumulate debt in the future. In the long run, debt to GDP ratio should converge to the ratio of average deficits to the long-term growth potential. Based on IMF projections, our structural deficit for 2014-2017 will average over 2.7% of GDP, which implies Fiscal Pact-consistent government deficits around 1.6-1.7% of GDP. Assuming long-term nominal growth of 4-4.5% per annum, our ‘sustainable’ level of debt should be around 36-40% of GDP. Although no one expects (or requires) Ireland to draw down our public debt to these levels any time soon, over decades, this is the level we will be heading toward if we are to comply with the Fiscal Compact rules.

On the ‘Yes’ side, the biggest myth concerning the Fiscal Compact is that adopting the treaty will ensure that no more fiscal crises the likes of which we have experienced since 2008 will befall this state.

In reality, the collapse of exchequer finances in Ireland has been driven by a number of factors, completely outside the matters covered by the Fiscal Compact.

Firstly, significant proportion of our 2008-2011 deficits arises from the state response to the banking sector implosion and closely correlated property sector collapse. The latter was also a primary driver for the decline in tax revenues. The former was a policy choice. Thirdly, our deficits were driven not just by the fiscal performance itself, but also by the unsustainable nature of our government spending and taxation policies. For example, during the boom, Irish Governments consistently acted to increase automatic payments relating to unemployment and social welfare financed on the back of tax revenues windfall from property transactions. Property revenues collapse coincident with increases in unemployment has led to an explosion of unfunded state liabilities.

None of these shocks could have been offset or compensated for by the Fiscal Compact-mandated measures. In fact, during the 2000-2007 period, Irish Governments’ fiscal stance, on the surface, was well ahead of the Fiscal Compact requirements. Ireland satisfied EU Fiscal Compact bound on structural deficits in all years between 2000 and 2007, with exception of two. Of course, in all but one year over the same period, we also failed to satisfy the very same bound if we were to use the IMF-estimated structural deficits in place of those estimated by the EU, but that simply attests to the difficulty of pinning down the exact value of the potential GDP, required to estimate structural deficits. We also satisfied EU-mandated debt break in every year between 2000 and 2008. In fact, between 2000 and 2007 our debt to GDP ratio was below 40% - the benchmark consistent with long-term compliance with the Fiscal Compact. More than fulfilling the requirement for a 3% maximum Government deficit, Irish Exchequer run an average annual net surplus of 1.97% of GDP, accumulating 2000-2007 period surpluses of €11.3 billion and the NPRF reserves which peaked in Q3 2007 at €21.3 billion.

In short, the Fiscal Compact is not a panacea to our current crisis, nor is it a prevention tool capable of automatically correcting future imbalances, especially given the difficulty of forecasting future sources of risk.

Instead, Ireland needs a combination of institutional reforms to enhance our domestic capacity to identify points of rising risks and to deploy policies that can address these risks in advance. A flexible and highly responsive early warning system, such as a truly independent Fiscal Advisory Council, coupled with reformed Civil Service, aiming at achieving real excellence and accountability within the key Departments and regulatory offices can help. Furthermore, abandonment of the consensus-focused systems of governance, eliminating the expenditure-centric Social Partnership and the Dail whip system, and reformed legislative and executive systems to increase the robustness of the checks and balances on local and central authorities, are needed to develop capacity to respond to emerging future crises. Legal reforms, to address the imbalances of power of the vested groups, such as bondholders or state monopolists, vis-à-vis the taxpayers, are required to prevent future bailouts of private and semi-state enterprises at the expense of the Exchequer. Local authorities reforms are required to ensure that the madness of over-development and land speculation do not build up to a systemic crisis. Taxation reforms are needed to stabilize future revenues and develop an economically sustainable tax system.

The Fiscal Compact is a wrong policy for all of the above because it risks creating a confidence trap, which can replace or displace other reforms. It represents a wrong set of objectives, as it diverts state attention from considering the nature of underlying imbalances. It also re-directs much of the fiscal responsibility away from Irish authorities, potentially amplifying the reality gap between the real economy and the decision-makers. By endlessly blaming Europe for tying Government’s hands, the Compact will continue building up voters’ perception disenfranchisement, fueling stronger local political orientation toward parochialism and narrow interests representation, while alienating voters from European institutions.

In short, the Compact is not an end to the politics as usual. This, perhaps, explains why no independent analyst or politician is prepared to vote in favour of the new Treaty except under the threat of the Blackmail Clause contained not in the Fiscal Compact itself, but in the forthcoming ESM Treaty and which requires accession to the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union as a pre-condition for gaining access to the ESM funds. Not exactly a moment of glory for either Europe or Ireland.

  

Box-out:

By now, we have become accustomed to the endless repetition of the boisterous claims that the continued declines in Government bond yields since mid-2011 signal the return of the markets confidence in Ireland. Alas, based on the last two months worth of data, things are not exactly going swimmingly for this school of thought. Based on weekly data, Irish benchmark 9-year bond yields spreads over Germany have contracted sharply in year on year terms, falling on average 1.30 percentage points since March 1, 2012 and 1.26 percentage points in April. The former is the second best performance in the euro zone after Italy, and the latter marks the third best performance after Italy and Portugal. Alas, weekly changes have been much less impressive. Since March 1, our yields have actually risen, in weekly terms, with an average rate of increase of 0.02 percentage points. For the month of April, the same metric stands at 0.05 percentage points. The same performance pressure on Ireland is building up in the Credit Default Swaps markets, with our 5 year benchmark CDS spreads declining just 0.24 percentage points compared to Portugal’s 5.2 percentage points drop since a month ago. Overall, European CDS and sovereign bonds markets are now signalling the exhaustion of the positive momentum from the December 2011 and February 2012 LTROs. Ireland’s bonds and CDS are no exception to this rule, suggesting that the ‘special relationship’ that we allegedly enjoy with the markets might be now over.

4/5/2012: Irish Examiner 26/4/2012: Is there an alternative to austerity?

This an unedited version of my article that appeared in the Irish Examiner, April 26, 2012.

However one interprets the core parameters of the fiscal discipline to be imposed under the Fiscal Compact, several facts concerning the new treaty and Ireland’s position with respect to it are indisputable. Firstly, the new treaty will restrict the scope for future exchequer deficits. Combined structural and general deficit targets to be imposed imply a maximum deficit of 2.9-3.0 percent in 2012 as opposed to the IMF-projected general government net borrowing of 8.5% of GDP. Secondly, it will impose a severe long-term debt ceiling, but that condition will not be satisfied by Ireland any time before 2030 or even later.

At the same time, the Troika programme for fiscal adjustment that Ireland is currently adhering to implies a de facto satisfaction of the Fiscal Compact deficit bound after 2015, and non-fulfilment of the structural deficit rule any time between now and 2017. In other words, no matter how we spin it, in the foreseeable future, we will remain a fiscally rouge state, client of the Troika and its successor – the ESM.

Let me run though some hard numbers – all based on IMF latest forecasts. Even under the rather optimistic scenario, Ireland’s real GDP is expected to grow by an average of 2.27% in the period from 2012 through 2017. This is the highest forecast average rate of growth for the entire euro area excluding the Accession states (the EA12 states). And yet, this growth will not be enough to lift us out of the Sovereign debt trap. Averaging just 10.3% of GDP, our total investment in the economy will be the lowest of all EA12 states, while our gross national savings are expected to average just 13.2% of GDP, the second lowest in the EA12.

In short, our real economy will be bled dry by the debt overhang – a combination of the protracted deleveraging and debt servicing costs. It is the combination of the government debt and the unsustainable levels of households’ and corporate indebtedness that is cutting deep into our growth potential, not the austerity-driven reduction in public spending.

There is absolutely no evidence to support the suggestion that increasing the national debt beyond the current levels or that increasing dramatically tax burden on the general population – the two measures that would allow us to slow down the rate of reductions in public expenditure planned under the Troika deal – can support any appreciable economic expansion. The reason for this is simple. According to the data, smaller advanced economies with the average Government expenditure burden in the economy of ca 31-35% of GDP have expected growth rates of 3.5% per annum. Countries that have Government spending accounting for 40% and more of GDP have projected rates of growth closer to 1.5% per annum. Ireland neatly falls between the two groups of states both in terms of the Government burden and the economic growth rate.

Despite the already deep austerity, Irish Exchequer will continue running excess spending throughout the adjustment period. Between 2012 and 2017, Irish government net borrowing is expected to average 4.7% of GDP per annum, the second highest in the EA12 group of countries. Put differently, calling on the Government to deploy some sort of fiscal spending stimulus today is equivalent to asking a heart attack patient to run a marathon in the Olympics. Between this year and 2017, our Government will spend some €47.4 billion more than it will collect in taxes, even if the current austerity course continues. Of these, €39 billion of expenditure will go to finance structural deficits, implying a direct cyclical stimulus of more than €8.4 billion.

The exports-driven economy of Ireland simply cannot sustain even the austerity-consistent levels of Government spending. IMF projects that between 2012 and 2017 cumulative current account surpluses in Ireland will be €40 billion. This forecast implies that 2017 current account surplus for Ireland will be €10 billion – a level that is 56 times larger than our current account surplus in 2011. If we are to take a more moderate assumption of current account surpluses running around 2012-2013 projected levels through 2017, our Government deficits are likely to be closer to €53 billion.

In short, there is really no alternative to the austerity, folks, no matter how much we wish for this not to be the case.

Instead, what we do have is the choice of austerity policies to pursue. We can either continue to tax away incomes of the middle and upper-middle classes, or we cut deeper into public expenditure. The former will mean accelerating loss of productivity due to skills and talent outflows from the country, reduced entrepreneurship and starving the younger companies of investment, rising pressure on wages in skills-intensive occupations, while destroying future capacity of the middle-aged families to support themselves through retirement. The latter is the choice to continue reducing our imports-intensive domestic consumption and cutting the spending power of the public sector employees, while enacting deep structural reforms to increase value-for-money outputs in the state sectors. Both choices are painful and short-term recessionary, but only the latter one leads to future growth. The former choice is only consistent with giving vitamins to a cancer-ridden patient – sooner or later, the placebo effect of the ‘stimulus’ will fade, and the cancer of debt overhang will take over once again, with even greater vengeance.