5/6/2013: More bad news for the future of IMF's EU bias?

A very significant article from WSJ by always-excellent @MatinaStevis : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324299104578527202781667088.html?mod=WSJEurope_hpp_LEFTTopStories

"The IMF said that it bent its own rules to make Greece's burgeoning debt seem sustainable and that, in retrospect, the country failed on three of the four IMF criteria to qualify for assistance."

This is the first time the Fund is admitting knowingly bending own rules and it is very significant in the context of the IMF internal structures (permanent staff v political appointees) and external power balance, with BRICS clearly not going to sit quiet in the future when the IMF is now de facto admitting that its European bias in leadership is potentially to be blamed for its bypassing own rules on lending.

I have mentioned the above point earlier last month on foot of another report on IMF internal struggles with Greek 'solution': http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/05/1252013-what-greek-osi-will-mean-for-imf.html

And IMF has already sung the surrender song on debt restructuring blunders: http://econintersect.com/b2evolution/blog1.php/2013/05/27/imf-rethinks

Next stop: Cyprus, where there is now evidence that Troika cooked the facts on banks in the context of 'dirty money', which, of course, helped to legitimise the wholesale, wonton destruction of the island economy: http://www.cyprus-mail.com/anti-money-laundering/troika-distorted-dirty-money-findings/20130524

Thereafter, expect fireworks to start when Ms Lagarde term comes up for renewal...


Update: as @Pawelmorski points out, this is not the first time that the IMF has admitted to making a policy error. Here's the paper on Argentina crisis lessons from 2003: http://www.imf.org/external/np/pdr/lessons/100803.htm and a paper on Asian crisis lessons: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/op/op178/index.htm . Of course, Argentina's case is an interesting one as the country took its own course away from the IMF-led programme prescriptions. For better or worse (and there is evidence to both sides of that argument, Argentina's recovery was faster and more decisive than that of Ireland so far - see chart here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/06/662013-domestic-economy-v-mncs-sunday.html ). At least, unlike the EU, IMF is big enough to admit its errors...

Update 2: IMF actual report on Greece is here: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2013/cr13156.pdf

28/5/2013: EU Looks Into Bending Rules... Again...

Spiegel [http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/vorschlag-der-eu-kommission-deutschland-kaempft-um-den-sparkurs-a-902198.html] reports that the EU Commission, as a part of a planned shift in the policy focus from austerity to structural reforms, will consider altering accounting rules per classification of fiscal deficits. The idea is that member states will be allowed to exempting certain types of government spending from the deficit calculations.

How this will work? Ok, insolvent state, like, say Greece, can borrow (somewhere) EUR X billion to use as a backing for its 50% share in matching EU Structural funds, thus raising EUR 2X billion for investment. The EU will then allow Greek Government to classify EUR X billion borrowings as aquarium fish and not deficit nor debt.

So
(1) EU thinks it is a grand idea to hide even more debt and deficit under the proverbial rug of 'accounting rules' bent to suit EU; and
(2) EU thinks that 'structural funds' deployment will be sufficient to 'stimulate' euro area economies out of structural balance sheet recession.

I suggest they (a) read up on why honesty and transparency matter in fiscal accounting and (b) read up on what happened in Japan where a stimulus ca 100 times larger than 'structural funds' one was applied to no avail.

Then again, the EU might also change the rules on reading, so the inconvenient reality does never interfere with the dreamy Enronising…

16/5/2013: Euro Area 'Austerity' in One Chart

Frankly, folks, there is nothing like making a factual argument across emotive subject lines... I have put up two posts on Euro area 'austerity' - here and here - and the readers want more numbers, usually in hope of finding a hole in my arguments.

Here is, perhaps a better, summary of the Euro area Austerity in its own numbers - in levels of nominal expenditure and revenues:

I hope this settles the issue:

1. Euro area austerity has meant revenues collected by the governments are up
2. Euro area austerity has meant that Government spending is up

Tell me if this is a 'savage cuts' story or a 'tax burden rising' story...

14/5/2013: Ending German Austerity... and then what?

Everyone is running around with the latest catch-phrase designed to phase out thought: Germany must end austerity. So, folks, what will happen should Germany really end austerity?

Whatever it might mean, suppose end of austerity implies Germany moves from the currently projected general government deficit of -0.31% of GDP to a deficit of -3.31% of GDP, thus increasing Government spending by EUR81 billion in 2013. What then?

1. Historically (since 1997 through forecast for 2018 by the IMF) EUR1 billion increase in German GDP is associated with EUR0.21 billion rise in German Current Account, although the relationship is not strong enough to call it statistically. In other words, Germans do not spend their surpluses on goods, like other economies do. They are more likely to increase their current account surpluses when income rises.
2. Also, historically, EUR1 billion in German GDP growth is associated with EUR0.67 billion rise in German investment. 
3. Furthermore, shrinking Government deficits in Germany are associated with widening of current account deficits (see chart below) and declining overall investment in the economy
4. EUR81 billion in the euro area overall context is nothing but pittance, even before it gets diluted by German own internal demand.

Note: Change in current account balance is negative when current account deficit is falling

Let's not draw many causal conclusions out of the above, but the clear thing is: Germans do not tend to spend their budget deficits on imports of goods and services at any rate worth mentioning.

Herein rests the problem for the policy idiots squad: if Germans spend EUR81 billion more on Government, short of mandating that Berlin ships cheques out to the Euro Periphery, what on earth will this end of austerity do to help Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Greece or Italy? Add German tourists' bodies on the beaches of Italy and Greece? Fly truckloads of German youths to Spain for booze-ups? Increase sales of Fado music 700-fold? Restart bungalows sales craze in Lahinch? Open German savings accounts in Cyprus? Will these end Euro area periphery crises?

Neither one of the countries in the Euro periphery makes much of what Germans want. Irish trade with Germany is robust, but it is dominated heavily by the non-Irish corporates who channel tax arbitrage via trade, leaving little on the ground in Ireland to call 'national income'. 

So what if Germany 'ends austerity'? German demand for goods and services will go up. But it will be demand for German-made and Core-made goods and services, plus stuff from Asia Pacific. It will also push German unemployment from 5.6% to 5.4% or maybe 5.3%, depending on how many more peripheral countries' emigrants Germany can absorb. 

These might be good things for Germany. But sure as hell, if German stimulus were to work like neo-Keynesianistas hope it will, pressure on ECB to keep rates low and banks liquidity ample will be reduced, while internal German rates imbalance will amplify. German bond yields might also rise, which will only add to the already hefty debt servicing pressures in euro periphery. Does anyone think it might be a good idea for ECB to hike rates then? No?

Truth is - there is no substitute for getting Euro periphery's economies in order. German stimulus or 'end of German austerity' can sound plausibly nice, but the real problem in the EU is not German sluggish demand (it is a part of German problem, to be frank, but not the major one when it comes to the Euro area as a whole). The real problem in the EU is lack of real, tangible, non-leveraged growth sources.

12/5/2013: Much austerity? Not really... & not of the kind we needed

A week ago I published a blogpost exploring IMF data on austerity in Europe, based on a sample of 20 EU countries with advanced levels of economic development (excluding Luxembourg). You can read that post here. The broad conclusions of that post were:

1. There is basically no austerity in Europe, traceable to either changes in deficits, changes in Government spending or changes in debt. If anything, the European fiscal policies can be characterised by a varying degree of fiscal expansionism during the current crisis, relative to the pre-crisis 2003-2007 period.
2. This, of course, does not account for transfers between one set of expenditures (e.g. public investment reductions) and other lines of spending (e.g. banking sector measures).
3. The only area of fiscal policy where austerity is evident is on taxation burden side, which rose in the majority of sampled economies.

The numbers got me worried and in this post I am looking solely on deficits side of Government spending. If there is savage austerity in EU27, so savage it is killing European economies, surely it would show up in General Government deficit numbers. As before all data reported is based on averages and comparatives computed by me from IMF's WEO data as reported in April 2013 edition of the database.

Let's take a closer look.

Only 2 countries out of 20 have recorded a reduction in average deficits during the crisis period (2008-2012) compared to the pre-crisis average (2003-2007). These were Germany, where annual average deficits declined by 0.95 percentage points (pretty significant) and Malta, where annual average deficits fell 0.79 percentage points (also pretty sizeable drop).

On average, EU20 sample annual deficits have increased by a massive 3.44 percentage points over the pre-crisis period. In  non-Euro area states, the average increase was 3.16 percentage points. But in 'savagely austerian' Euro area, the increases averaged 3.51 percentage points.

So far, the Euro area analysts' rhetoric opposing austerity has been focused on 2012 as the year of highest - to-date - cuts. Was this so? Not really:

Again, as above, there is scantly any evidence of deficit reductions, and plenty of evidence that deficits are getting worse and worse. Again, the comparative is not to the absurd levels of spending during peak spending years of the crisis, but to pre-crisis averages. After all, stimulus is not measured by an ever-escalating public spending, but by increase in spending during the recession compared to pre-recession.

The same conclusion can be reached if we look at 2007 deficit compared to 2012 deficit.

In other words, folks, Europe has had, so far, only 3 measurable forms of austerity, none comfortable to the arguments we keep hearing from European Left:

1. Tax increases (remember, we want to soak the rich even more, right?)
2. Revenue re-allocations to banks measures (remember, no one on Europe's official Left has come out with a proposition that banks should not be bailed out) and to social welfare (clearly, the Left would have liked to spend even more on this)
3. Germany

Note: we must recognise the simple fact that social welfare spending will rise in a recession for a good reason. The argument here is not that it should not (that's a different matter for different debate), but that when it does increase, the resulting increase is a form of Government consumption stimulus.

So let's make the following argument: Euro area did not experience 'austerity' in any pure form in the reductions in deficits. Instead, it experienced a 'stimulus' that was simply wasted on programmes and policies that had nothing to do with growth stimulus (e.g. banks supports). Here are two charts to illustrate:

What the charts above clearly show is that Euro area can be divided into three types of member states:

• Type 1: states where cumulated 5 year surpluses over pre-crisis period gave way to cumulated 5 year deficits. These are: Estonia, Finland, Spain and Ireland.
• Type 2: states where cumulated 5 year deficits over the pre-crisis period were replaced by more benign deficits over the crisis period period. These are Germany and Malta.
• Type 3: all other euro area states where cumulated 5 year deficits over pre-crisis period were replaced by even deeper cumulated deficits over the 5 years of the crisis.

The only two types of fiscal policy that Euro area is missing in its entirety is the type where pre-crisis deficits gave way to crisis period cumulated surpluses (no state in the sample delivers on this) and the type where pre-crisis surpluses gave way to shallower crisis-period surpluses (only one European state - Sweden - qualifies here).

Oh, and one last bit relating to the chart above: all of the peripheral countries, save Italy, had a massive increase in deficits on cumulated basis during the crisis compared to pre-crisis period. Apparently this is the savage austerity that has been haunting their economies.


Updated:
An interesting issue raised by one of the readers:

And my response:

2/5/2013: Austerity... savagely over-hyped?..

It was May 1 yesterday and in celebration of that great socialist holiday, "In Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy and France tens of thousands of people took to the streets to demand jobs and an end to years of belt-tightening".

Except, no one really asked them what did the mean by 'belt-tightening'. Some, correctly, meant by the term the concept of transfers from taxpayers (usually via higher taxes, rather than spending cuts) to the broken banks, but majority, undoubtedly, we decrying cuts in Government spending. You see, damned austerity is just that (or supposed to be just that): cuts in the levels of expenditure. These can mean reduction in absolute level of spending, or a reduction in spending as a proportion of GDP.

And, you see, not much of that is going on in Europe nowdays, despite all the fierce rhetoric about savage cuts.

Ok, let's do some exercises, using IMF data.

First, consider tax revenues:

In the chart above, I marked with darker columns countries where tax revenues as % of GDP have declined during the current crisis (more precisely, taking average tax revenues fior 2003-2007 pre-crisis boom days and comparing against 2012 outrun). Guess what?

• In % of GDP terms, savage austerity meant that Government revenues have declined by less than 1 percentage point in Cyprus (-0.89 ppt), Czech Republic (-0.64 ppt) and Portugal (-0.08 ppt), the revenues have fallen by between 1 and 2 percentage points in Ireland (-1.26 ppt) and the UK (-1.68 ppt) and have declined by more than 2 percentage points in Denmark (-2.50 ppt), Spain (-3.28 ppt) and Sweden (-3.15 ppt).
• All in, only 8 out of the 20 EU countries considered above (these are all advanced economies of the EU, excluding Luxembourg, where data is so dodgy, no meaningful analysis can be made) have managed to post any declines in Government revenues relative to GDP. All other countries have posted increases. Overall, sample average Government revenues as % of GDP stood at 43.04% in 2003-207 period and this has risen to 43.84% in 2012.
• Now, onto levels of revenues. The sample of countries shown above had combined annual Government revenues of EUR7,791.61 billion in 2003-2007 on average. In 2012 this number stood at a 17.96% premium or EUR9,190.96 billion.
• Of all 20 countries considered, only one - Ireland - had experienced level reduction in Government revenues, which dropped from an annual average of EUR57.896 billion in 2003-2007 period to EUR55.42 billion in 2012.
• As I said above, there is only one meaningful form of austerity in Europe today: austerity of higher tax burdens on people.

Now, let's check out expenditure side of Europe's 'savage austerity' story:

Again, chart above highlights in darker color countries where Government expenditure had declined in 2012 compared to 2003-2007 pre-crisis average in % of GDP terms. The picture hardly shows much of any 'savage cuts' anywhere in sight:

• Of the three countries that experienced reductions in Government spending as % of GDP compared to the pre-crisis period, Germany posted a decline of 1.26 percentage points (from 46.261% of GDP average for 2003-2007 period to 45.005% for 2012), Malta posted a reduction of just 0.349 ppt and Sweden posted a reduction of 1.37 ppt.
• No peripheral country - where protestes are the loudest - or France et al have posted a reduction. In France, Government spending rose 3.44 ppt on pre-crisis level as % of GDP, in Greece by 4.76 ppt, in Ireland by 7.74 ppt, in Italy by 2.773 ppt, in Portugal by 0.562 ppt, and in Spain by 8.0 ppt.
• Average Government spending in the sample in the pre-crisis period run at 44.36% of GDP and in 2012 this number was 48.05% of GDP. In other words: it went up, not down.
• In level terms, things are even uglier for the 'anti-austerians'. Total (for this sample of countries) Government annual spending averaged EUR8,002 billion in 2003-2004 period and this rose to EUR9,941 billion in 2012 a rise in Government spending of whooping 24.2%.
• In level terms, not a single country in the sample of 20 advanced EU economies posted a decline in Government spending from the pre-crisis period to 2012. All posted increases in overall spending ranging between 88% for Estonia, to 7.76% for Portugal. Of all peripheral countries, not one cut a single cent on 2003-20007 average spending levels, with Cyprus hiking spending by whooping 39.8% in 2012 compared to 2003-2007 averages, France delivering a massive increase of 24.9%, Greece raising it modestly by 8.73%, Ireland by a massive 22.01%, Italy by a relatively benign 14.67%, Portugal by the sample lowest rate of 7.76% and Spain by a jaw-dropping 38.67%.
• All in, there is no 'savage austerity' in spending levels or as % of GDP.

So what is going on, folks? May be we can find austerity in deficits? Afterall, Paul Krugman & Co are telling us that we need to run deficits in the economy during recessions and this is the leitmotif to all of the anti-austerian policies proposals?

Savage austerity thesis must find at least a significantly large number of countries where there is no deficit financing going on during the crisis compared to pre-crisis activity, or at least a very large number of countries where deficits have declined compared to pre-crisis activity. Is that the case?

Sorry to say it, folks, errr... No. That is not the case.

• Only three countries in the entire sample of 20 have posted decreases in Government deficits in level and as 5 of GDP terms.
• In level terms, deficits declined in Germany, Italy and Malta. They rose in all other countries. Overall level of deficits in 20 countries analysed rose from EUR40.07 billion in 2003-2007 (annual averages) to EUR127.79 billion in 2012. In other words, during 'savage austerity' deficits tripled, not shrunk.
• In terms of relative weight to GDP, deficits also declined only in three countries - the same three countries as above. 
• Savage austerity meant that deficits increased in all peripheral states save Italy and that across 20 economies, whereas average deficit stood at -1.315% of GDP in 2003-2007 period, that rose to -4.215% of GDP in 2012.

 

As I said above, there are really two reasons for protesting in Europe today against what can very loosely be termed 'austerity':

1. As taxpayers we should protest against higher taxes & charges levied against us by the States to pay for various banks rescue measures and for continued public spending inefficiencies and private sector subsidies (note: I am not saying that all public sector spending is inefficient, I am alleging that some of it remains inefficient today); and
2. As taxpayers and residents we should protest about misallocation of scarce resources (including some public spending) from necessities (e.g. social welfare and unemployment protection, health, education, etc) to rescuing insolvent banks and corporate cronies.

Aside from the above reasons, please spare yourselves the blind belief in various Social Partners-produced spin about 'savage cuts'. All they care for is to increase even more state spending on their pet projects.

25/4/2013: IMF's 'End of Austerity' Napkin Sketch Is Soggy Wet

IMF catches up with 'End Austerity' bandwagon and overtakes the EU 'policymakers' in providing a general blueprint. From today's comments by IMF First Deputy Managing Director David Lipton (emphasis is mine):

"...Europe needs to act on several fronts. Countries will need to have clear and specific commitments to medium-term fiscal consolidation, with the appropriate pace to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Careful consideration should also be given to the composition of fiscal measures. The European Central Bank (ECB) should maintain its very accommodative stance, he said, but noted that eliminating financial fragmentation – whereby households and companies in some countries face clogged credit channels and lending rates well above those in the core – will probably require the ECB to implement some “additional unconventional measures.”

So the Fiscal Compact of 'One Policy Target & Timeframe Fit All' is out of the window then? If timeframe (pace) were to be set on a case-by-case basis, there is hardly any real discipline left. Here's why. Suppose Italy takes slower path to deflating debt levels to the target of 60% than that mandated by the Fiscal Compact (FC) (5% adjustment per annum). France, then, can demand either a slower pace for its drawdown of debt or it can opt to demand slower reductions in deficits. Which means Spain will also have its list of requests ready, all in breach of the FC.

"As we see it, countries that can afford to support the economy need to do so—but in ways that encourage the private sector to invest and boost demand..."

Ok, but what does it mean? AAA countries borrowing to stimulate? Suppose they succeed. What happens to growth rates and income levels in Euro area? Right - divergence will be amplified and with it, mismatch of monetary and FX policies too. 

Per paying attention to the composition of fiscal measures: it is a fine objective. Except in the case of European leaders, this means, usually, hiking taxes even more instead of cutting spending. IMF knows that this is counterproductive, but whilst correctly arguing that policies should be reflective of heterogeneity between member states' economies, IMF is incorrectly ignoring the political reality of Europe, where more spending = good, lower taxes = bad.

More: "Another country responsibility is better structural policies. Countries should press on to tackle long-standing rigidities in order to raise medium-term growth prospects. Southern Europe, and even some of the core, needs to increase its competitiveness in the tradeable goods sector, especially through labor and product market reforms. So far, much of the reduction in current account deficits has come because demand is sluggish.  For a stronger, sustained improvement -- enough to boost exports that will create jobs for the unemployed -- countries need a broader and more durable improvement in competitiveness, based on structural reform. In Northern Europe, even where national competitiveness is not the issue, reforms could help generate a more vibrant services sector."

Again, usual tool kit deployed by the IMF: structural reforms are needed (no real innovation as to what these might be) and exports must be increased (who will be buying these exports in the world where every country is being told by the IMF to increase its exports?).

I wonder why would Mr Lipton label ECB current stance as being accommodative. ECB interest rate is above G7 average and ECB's 'panacea' of OMT is yet to make any real purchases. ECB has attempted to sterilise all past 'accommodative' interventions and is now pleased with winding up LTROs. In brief, setting aside war-time rhetoric from the ECB, Frankfurt is accommodating very little.

One has to agree with the need to eliminate financial fragmentation, but IMF is fully aware that European system will have to continue deleveraging. There is too much debt in the pipeline to de-clog it by simply pushing through more credit at lower cost.

"...the Single Supervisory Mechanism [is] “a key step” and ...the IMF supports a market-based bail-in approach as being considered in the European Union Directive on Bank Recovery and Resolution, which would require banks to hold a minimum amount of securities with features that permit them to be written-off or converted to equity if capital buffers fall too low..."

So getting Cyprused is  the future for Europe, then.

Mr Lipton is dead on right, saying that "In our preoccupation with sovereign debt, we tend to overlook the huge overhang of private debt in some countries that could be a deadweight on demand and bank balance sheets for a long time. We’ve already seen the hit that households have taken in the periphery economies because of the sharp correction in home prices (e.g. Ireland). This could only worsen without renewed growth (e.g. Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands)." And more: "On the corporate side, we know how much the level of debt has increased over the past decade, particularly in the periphery. We elaborated on this development in our recent Global Financial Stability Report.  ...Measured on a debt-to-equity basis, a portion of Italy's corporate sector is rising into stressed levels. In the event of a prolonged stagnation, corporate profits would slacken further, putting pressure on companies to deleverage and increasing the risk of debt distress. Corporates are not being helped by bank retrenchment back into home markets. This is most pronounced from the periphery; French and German banks reduced their exposures to these markets by some 30-40 percent between mid 2011 and the third quarter of last year."

Conclusion (relevant to 'being Cyprused' above): "None of this bodes well for banks in a stagnation scenario. They are already weak. But higher levels of corporate and household defaults and credit losses would threaten a second round of bank balance sheet deterioration."

Net result: IMF has no new ideas on what to do if 'austerity' path were to be altered. There's a good reason as to why they don't - borrowing cash to burn it on Government spending (traditional European way) is out of question, given the risk of raising costs of borrowing, slow growth and higher interest bills that await. And using monetary policy to full extent is infeasible because IMF has no hope for ECB in its current state.

'Austerity' might be overdone, but 'Not Austerity' is unlikely to be any different...

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.

25/2/2013: When 8 out of 10 economists agree?

Eurointelligence today published a neat summary of some of the prominent economists' opinions about the Euro area macroeconomic policies:


"Motivated by the recent controversy between Olli Rehn and economic analysists critical of austerity (including from the IMF), El Pais garners the opinions of 10 prominent economists on whether the European Commission is to blame for Europe's poor economic prospects. ... Some quotes:

• Paul de Grauwe says: "the EU authorities are responsible for the recession … the Eurozone's macroeconomic policy is a disaster"
• James Galbraith says: "the Commission's leadership seems to work in an alternate reality, indifferent to the consequences of its policies"
• Luis Garicano says: "Brussels is incomprehensibly dogmatic [and] neglects the probability of a serious accident"
• José Manuel González-Páramo says: "in a way we're all responsible for the recession … The Commission's proposals are advanced and forward-looking"
• Paul Krugman blogged "these people have done terrible damage and stll have the power to continue"
• Desmond Lachman says: "The Commission was very slow to draw the conclusion that the IMF did: excessive austerity with the Euro as straitjacket is counterproductive"
• Jonathan Portes says: "The optimistic conclusion is that [Rehn] is admitting the justifications for austerity are crumbling"
• Dani Rodrik says: "The Commission has been fooling itself with the illusion that the structural reforms it spouses can stimulate the economy in the middle of an activity plunge made worse by austerity measures"
• Guntram Wolff says: "Considering all the constraints the Commission is subject to, it's adopted generally adequate policies, trying to strike a balance between fiscal consolidation and supporting the economy"
• Charles Wyplosz says: "The Commission makes politically correct forecasts knowing full well they will have to appear surprised when they are not fulfilled."

Paul Krugman also labeled Olli Rehn “the face of denialism”. According to Kurgman, the recent declines in sovereign spreads was due to the LTRO and OMT, and "while unit labour costs have converged a little, they have only converged by a fraction of what needs to be done".

Kevin O’Rourke via the Irish economy blog: “You might have thought that the disastrous but wholly unsurprising eurozone GDP numbers indicate that the bloc is in a bad way, and will continue to be so until the current macroeconomic policy mix is jettisoned. Happily, Olli “Don’t mention the multiplier” Rehn has good news for us: The current situation can be summarised like this: we have disappointing hard data from the end of last year, some more encouraging soft data in the recent past and growing investor confidence in the future. Thank goodness for that.”

I find it very interesting that virtually not a single of the above quotes, save for Krugman's passing reference to labor costs, distinguishes between the necessary structural reforms and pure, brutish, line-across-the-sky cuts that have been adopted by the EU. And even Krugman's references is hardly sufficient - labor costs in and by themselves are not and should not be the target for structural reforms. Instead, market structure, institutional competitiveness, cartel-like structure of some protected sectors, legal systems, moral hazard and other aspects of the crisis should be.

Oh, and lets face it - the drive toward 'austerity' is not only the job of the EU Commission, but also of the EU Parliamentarians (link here), plus all the nation states that adopted the Fiscal Compact.

Olli is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the consensus policies that are continuing to transfer economic crisis burden from the elites to the real economy.

20/12/2012: Pensions, health costs & education fees for 2014-2015

Staying with the IMF report on Ireland, and with the theme of 2014-2015 adjustments, here's again what the IMF had to say on what we should expect from the Government:

"The authorities should outline the remaining consolidation measures for 2014–15 around the time of Budget 2013 (MEFP ¶8). The program envisages additional consolidation of 3 percent of GDP over 2014–15. Taking into account the measures already specified for these years (such as on capital spending), and carryover savings from earlier measures, new measures of about 1½ to 2 percent of GDP remain to be identified for 2014-15."

I wrote about the above here. But there's more:

"To maximize the credibility of fiscal consolidation, and to reduce household and business uncertainties, the authorities should set out directions for some of the deeper reforms that will deliver this effort. These could include, for instance, on the revenue side, reforming tax reliefs on private pension contributions; and on the expenditure side, greater use of generic drugs and primary and community healthcare, and an affordable loan scheme for tertiary education to enable rising demand to be met at reasonable cost."

Further, per box-out on Health costs overrun: "there is scope for increased cost recovery in respect of private patients‘ use of public hospitals"

Hence, per IMF, the Government should hit even harder privately provided pensions (on top of the wealth tax already imposed), thus undermining even more private pensions pools and increasing dependency on state pensions. For those of us with kids, IMF - concerned with already unsustainably high personal debt levels - has in store more debt. This time to pay for our kids education. And for those of us with health insurance, there is more to pay too.

The above combination of measures is idiocy of the highest order. Per IMF, Irish economy is suffering from private debt overhang which leads to more deleveraging, less consumption and less investment. And these lead to lower growth. I agree. But what IMF is proposing is going to:

• Increase private debts and reduce the speed of deleveraging, and
• Raise the demand for already stretched public services.

This is the Willie Sutton moment for Ireland: the state (with the IMF blessing) is simply plundering through any source of money left in the country is a hope of finding a quick fix for Government insolvency. Now, with low hanging fruit already bagged, this process is starting to directly impact our ability to sustain private debts. But no one gives a damn! As Sutton, allegedly claimed, it makes sense to rob banks, because that is where the money are. Alas, with banks out of money, the Government, prompted by the IMF 'advice' is going to continue robbing us.

So a message to our Pensions industry, which hoped that going along with expropriation of customers' funds via pensions levy would allow the industry to avoid changes to tax incentives on pensions (the blood of the sector demand). Prepare for tax reliefs savaging. Once you fail to stand up to the bullies and protect the interests of your customers, you deserve what you are going to get. Every bit of it.

19/12/2012: Fiscal Issues, flagged by the IMF

Keep on reading the IMF report, folks. Nice little bots on offer regarding the fiscal programme performance.

Platitudes abound, well-deserved, but...

"A combination of slower growth, higher unemployment, and the over-run in health spending, have dimmed prospects for any significant fiscal over performance in 2012. Indeed, given the weak economic conditions, only about half of the 6 percent of GDP consolidation effort over 2011-12 has translated into headline primary balance improvement. [Meaning that we've been running into a massive headwind, with pants caught on rose bushes behind us...] Nonetheless, the authorities‘ consistent achievement of the original program fiscal targets despite adverse macroeconomic conditions gives confidence in their institutional capacity and commitment to consolidation."

Question is, when will rose bushes thorns get our fiscal pants shredded? We don't know, but here's the road ahead:

Of course, we knew this before, but it is a nice reminder that Enda Kenny's claim that Budget 2013 is going to be the hardest of all budgets is simply bull - the above figures have to be delivered on top of Enda's 'hardest' Budget 2013. Per IMF, however:
"The program envisages additional consolidation of 3 percent of GDP over 2014–15. Taking into account the measures already specified for these years (such as on capital spending), and carryover savings from earlier measures, new measures of about 1½ to 2 percent of GDP remain to be identified for 2014-15.

"To maximize the credibility of fiscal consolidation, and to reduce household and business uncertainties, the authorities should set out directions for some of the deeper reforms that will deliver this effort. These could include, for instance, on the revenue side, reforming tax reliefs on private pension contributions; and on the expenditure side, greater use of generic drugs and primary and community healthcare, and an affordable loan scheme for tertiary education to enable rising demand to be met at reasonable cost."

In other words, the Government will have to find somewhere around €3-3.2bn more cuts/tax hikes in 2014-2015 on top of those already factored in for 2013.

Now, in spirit with IMF paper, let me reproduce for you a box-out from IMF report on public sector wages in Ireland:

Enjoy the above - you can enlarge the text by clicking on the images.

30/10/2012: Not all austerity is equal

August 2012 paper (link: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2153486 ) "The Output Effect of Fiscal Consolidations by Alberto F. Alesina , Carlo A. Favero and Francesco Giavazzi published by CEPR (Discussion Paper No. DP9105) looked at "whether fiscal corrections cause large output losses." Italics are mine:

The authors "find that it matters crucially how the fiscal correction occurs. Adjustments based upon spending cuts are much less costly in terms of output losses than tax-based ones. Spending-based adjustments have been associated with mild and short-lived recessions, in many cases with no recession at all. Tax-based adjustments have been associated with prolonged and deep recessions.

The difference cannot be explained by different monetary policies during the two types of adjustments. Studying the effects of multi-year fiscal plans rather than individual shifts in fiscal variables we make progress on question of anticipated versus unanticipated policy shifts: we find that the correlation between unanticipated and anticipated shifts in taxes and spending is heterogenous across countries, suggesting that the degree of persistence of fiscal corrections varies."

"Estimating the effects of fiscal plans, rather than individual fiscal shocks, we obtain much more precise estimates of tax and spending multipliers". And "the key result is that while expenditure-based adjustments are not recessionary, tax-based ones create deep and long lasting recessions." The reason for this that "the aggregate demand component which reflects more closely the difference in the response of output to ECB and [tax-based] adjustments is private investment. The confidence of investors proceeds with the economy and therefore recovers much sooner after a spending-based adjustment than after a tax-based one. ...These results are consistent with the descriptive statistics presented in Alesina and Ardagna (2012) who show that the fiscal stabilizations which have the mildest effect on output are those that are accompanied by a set of structural reforms which signal a "decisive" policy change. They [like the present study] do not find any difference in the monetary pol- icy stance between spending-based and tax-based adjustments, but mostly differences in the policy packages regarding supply side reforms and liberalizations."

20/7/2012: European Corporatism comes full circle

A very important analysis from Edmund Phelps in today's FT (link here) of the roots and core causes of the euro area crisis.

Some major points of interest:

"The difficulties of many European countries derive from their corporatism: state projects serving cronies and vast social protection programmes, both run by elites. These surged in the 1970s and 1980s. The prospect of a lifetime of such benefits – sweet contracts, soft loans, early pensions and the rest – created something new: social wealth."


On the money. And


"As increases in benefits outpaced increases in taxes, households saved some of the gains in disposable income. So households saw their private wealth rising alongside the social wealth."


Also on the money. Even more so because 1) taxes were already high so there was no room to increase them by much, and 2) lowering of taxes was used strategically to strengthen corporatist re-distribution of income & wealth from the more productive to the less productive activities (a combination of corporate and social welfare state).


"In both Italy and France, the ratio of household net private wealth to household disposable income soared, rising by one-fifth from 2000 to 2007. (The increase was one-sixth in Germany, negative in the US.)" 


Now, note: what does the European (and Irish) Left wanted and still wants? Higher income taxes. Which, of course, will mean wealth/income ratio would have been / will be even higher! This is exactly what I said during my recent appearance on TV3 Vincent Browne's show. 


The role of banks and debt in all of this charade? To cover the widening gap in wealth/income ratio and public deficits, "So it was a relief that the Basel I agreement, which went into effect in 1990, lowered to zero banks’ capital requirement on sovereign debt – no matter how risky." In other words, European sovereigns financed their corrupt corporatist regimes via leveraging private deposits to fund government bonds purchases by the banks - privatizing public waste first. 


So two lessons or questions from above are:

1. Does transfer of private banks debts to public purses in Europe constitute the return of previously privatized public debts? And if it does, the effect is that the state has twice colluded with the banks to defraud the people of Europe - first as savers and consumers, second as taxpayers.
2. Does the ongoing process of increasing government bonds holdings in domestic banks and investment and pensions funds actively promoted by the European and national authorities (see for example ECB LTROs and Irish NTMA latest plans) not constitute exactly the replay of the road to the crisis? 

7/6/2012: Sunday Times May 13, 2012

This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times article from May 13, 2012.

With Greek and French elections results out last week, the European leadership is rapidly shifting gears into neutral when it comes to austerity. Within two weeks surrounding the French elections, the Commission has issued a set of statements pushing forward its ‘growth budget’, and issued new proposals for enhancing European investment bank.

This, of course, is a classic rhetoric of damage limitation, contrasted by the reality of the currency union that is in the final stage of the crisis contagion. Having spread from economic to financial and subsequently to fiscal domains of the euro area, the cancer of Europe’s debt overhang has now metastasised to its political leadership. And the financial pressures are back on. Since the late March, credit default swaps spreads have widened for all but two core euro area states (excluding Greece), with an average rate of increase of 10.6%, implying that the markets-priced cumulative probability of the euro zone country default within the next 5 years is now, on average, close to 24%.

Next stop is a period of extended navel-gazing, with summits and ministerial dinners, contrasted by the European electorate moving further away from the centre of power gravity.

By autumn we will be either in a selective euro unwinding (Greece exiting) or in a desperate policies u-turn into mutualisation of the national and banking debts, supported by a return to high pre-2011 deficits and an acceleration of the debt spiral.

The former is going to be extremely disruptive in the short run. Portugal will be watching the Greeks closely, while Spain and Italy will be sliding into unrest. If properly managed, Greek and, later Portuguese exits will allow euro area to cut losses. With a stronger ESM balancesheet, euro area will buy more time to deal with the markets panic, but it will still require serious structural adjustments to shore up the failing currency union. Mutualisation of debt will remain inevitable, but deficits run up can be avoided in exchange for slower reduction in deficits.

The latter option of starting with mutualising debt, while allowing for new deficit financing of growth stimuli will be a road to either a collapse of the common currency within a decade or a Japan-style stagnation. The central problem is that the current political dynamics are forcing the euro area onto the path of growth stimulation amidst a severe debt overhang. The lack of real catalysts for economic recovery means that a temporary stimulus will have to be replaced by sustained debt accumulation. In other words, the political cure to the crisis a-la Hollande, not the austerity, will spell the end of the euro zone.

There are two sides to this proposition.

Firstly, the villain of the European austerity is a bogey. In 2011-2012, euro area fiscal deficits will average 3.7% of GDP per annum, identical to those recorded in 2010-2014 and deeper than in any five-year period from 1990 through 2009, including the period covering the recession of the early 1990s. The ‘savage austerity’, as planned, is expected to result in historically high five-year average deficits. At over 3.2% of GDP, 2012 forecast deficit for the common currency zone will be 6^th largest since 1990.

Instead of shrinking, euro area governments over-spending will remain relatively static under the current ‘austerity’ path. Per IMF, general government revenues will account for 45.6% of GDP in 2011-2012, well ahead of all five-year period averages since 1990 except for 1995-1999 when the comparable figure was 46% of GDP. The same comparative dynamics apply to the government expenditure as a share of GDP.

In other words, euro area voters are currently revolting against the austerity that, with exception of Greece and Ireland, is hardly visible anywhere.

Secondly, the talk about Europe’s growth stimulus is nothing more than a return to the policies that have led us into this crisis in the first place. In 1990-1994, euro area public debt to GDP ratio averaged 59%. By 2005-2009, the average has steadily risen to 71%. In 2010-2014, the forecast average will stand at 89%, identical to the ratio in 2011-2012. Euro area is now firmly stuck in the policy corner that required accumulation of debt in order to sustain economic activity. Since the mid-1990s, the EU has produced one growth policy platform after another that relied predominantly on subsidies and public investment.

By the mid-2000s, the EU has exhausted creative powers of conceiving new subsidies, just as the ECB was flooding the banking system with cheap liquidity. At the peak of the subsequent sovereign debt crisis, in March 2010, Brussels came up with Europe 2020 document – yet another ‘sustainable growth’ scheme through featuring more subsidies and public investment.

At the member states’ level, private debt-fuelled construction and banking bubbles were superimposed onto public infrastructure investments schemes and elaborate R&D and smart economy bureaucracies as the core drivers for jobs creation. State spending and re-distribution were the creative force driving economic improvements in a number of countries. Amidst all of this, euro area overall growth remained severely constrained. For the entire period between 1992 and 2007, euro area real economic growth averaged less than 2.1% per annum, while government deficits averaged over 2.5%. The only three years when public deficit financing was not the main driver of growth were the peaks of two bubbles: 2000, and 2006-2007.

In brief, Europe had not had a model for sustainable growth since 1992 and it is not about to discover one in the next few months either.

Which brings us to the core problem facing the European leadership – the problem of debt overhang.

As a research paper by Carmen M. Reinhart, Vincent R. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff published last week clearly shows, “major public debt overhang episodes in the advanced economies since the early 1800s [were] characterized by public debt to GDP levels exceeding 90% for at least five years.” The study found “that public debt overhang episodes are associated with growth over one percent lower than during other periods.” Across all 26 episodes studied, “the average duration …is about 23 years.”

Now, according to the IMF data, the euro area will reach the 90% debt to GDP bound in 2012 and will remain there through 2015. Statistically, the euro area will be running debt levels in excess of 90% through 2017. Between 2010 and 2017, IMF forecasts that seven core euro area states will be facing debt to GDP ratios at or above 90%. Of the four largest euro area economies, Germany is the only one that will remain outside the debt overhang bound. Increasing deficits into such a severe debt scenario would risk extending the crisis.

After two years of half-measures and half-austerity, the euro as a currency system is now less sustainable. The survival of the euro (even after Greek, Portuguese and, possibly other exits) will depend on structural reforms, including change in the ECB mandate, political federalisation and fiscal harmonisation beyond the current Fiscal Compact treaty.

The real problem Europe is facing in the wake of the last week’s elections in Greece and France is that traditional European elites are no longer capable of governing with the tools to which they became accustomed over decades of deficits and debt accumulation, while the European populations are no longer willing to be governed by the detached and conservative elites. Not quite a classical revolutionary situation, yet, but getting dangerously close to one.

CHARTS: 

Box-out:

This was supposed to be a boom year for car sales as the threat of getting an unlucky ‘13’ stuck on your shiny new purchase for some years was supposed to spell a resurgence in motor trade fortunes. Alas, the latest stats from the CSO suggest that this hoped-for prediction is unlikely to materialise. In the first four months of 2012, new registrations of all vehicles have fallen 8.5% year on year and 60% on 2007. New private cars registrations have suffered an even deeper annual fall, down 10.2% year on year although since the peak they are down ‘only’ 56%. The news of the motor trade suffering is hardly surprising. Unemployment stuck above 14%, fear of forthcoming tax increases in the Budget 2013, plus the dawning reality that sooner or later interest rates (and with them mortgages costs) will climb sky-high are among the reasons Irish consumers continue to stay away from purchasing large ticket items. Cyclical consumption considerations are also coming into play. Over the last 4 years, Irish households barely replaced their stocks of white goods. Given the life span of necessary household appliances, the households are likely to prioritize replacing ageing dishwasher or a fridge over buying a new vehicle. Families compression with children returning back to parental homes to live and grandparents taking over expensive crèche duties are also likely to depress demand for cars. Lastly, there is a pesky consideration of the on-going deleveraging. Irish households have paid down some €36 billion worth of personal debts and mortgages in recent years. Still, Irish households remain the second most indebted in the Euro area. New cars registrations fall off in 2012 shows that in the end, sanity prevails over vanity and superstition, at the detriment to the car sales industry. 

5/5/2012: Can austerity work as default probability evaluation aid?

Usual argument in favor of a fiscal contraction in response to an adverse fiscal shock goes along the lines of the Expansionary Fiscal Contraction - or structural - argument. There are many who agree/disagree with this proposition, but there's plenty of literature covering it.

A new argument in favour of 'austerity' response to a fiscal shock is presented in the recent paper from the Bank of Italy.

Optimal Fiscal Policy When Agents Fear Government Default, by Francesco Caprioli, Pietro Rizza and Pietro Tommasino (March 2012), link here, argues that under optimal fiscal policy, when a government is facing with investors who fear a sovereign default, and assuming investors learn over time so as to gradually correct from the initially over-pessimistic view of the default probability, "a frontloaded fiscal consolidation after an adverse fiscal shock is optimal". In other words, 'austerity' can work when it facilitates learning process to support investors' discovery of the 'true' lower probability of default.

In a summary, the findings are:

• When agents fear government default, a fiscal consolidation after an adverse fiscal shock becomes optimal. The intuition is that the interest rate on government debt is too high due to distorted expectations about government default; therefore the marginal cost of higher distortionary taxes today is more than compensated by the expected future marginal benefits of lower distortionary taxes tomorrow. 
• The incentive to reduce debt is stronger: a) the more pessimistic agents are about government solvency and b) for a given degree of pessimism, the higher the post-crisis debt level. 
• The state of agents initial beliefs has an effect on the long-run mean value of the tax rate and debt. In particular, the more pessimistic agents initial beliefs, the lower the long-run mean value of debt. The intuition is that the more pessimistic the agents are, the stronger the incentive to change their expectations.