Now they need to turn their attention to rebuilding their economy. The first step must be to begin creating a new (and hopefully temporary) monetary system that can be used to get money circulating, economic activity jump-started and employment created. There are precedents for doing this, as I explain in a later post. Where possible government should help by using government resources (which could take the form of IOUs) to invest in jobs for Greek people (especially young people) and for ensuring firms, especially small family firms are revitalized and profitable. While it will be important to stabilize the banking system, this will only happen when the economy is stabilized, and recovery begins. It will not take long then for the banking system to return to health.
So the priority must be: recovery. And given that Greece has just endured possibly the worst depression in recorded history, it will be the case that most private sector firms and banks will be in a very weak position. That is why the Greek government will have to intervene and spend money (in whatever form it takes) on investment.
Such fiscal activism is more important to recovery than debt relief. That is why, as Andrea Terzi argues, it is important for Greece’s new finance minister to demand from Eurozone technocrats (EZ leaders are politically impotent) the fiscal space that is a priority for recovery, not just debt relief. Relief from debt payments – if it is ever negotiated – is a long-term process of lightening the burden of future debt repayments. But Greece cannot wait for that future. It needs action to revive the economy now – today.
And the magic is this: if a new currency (say IOUs as used for example, by bankrupt California in 2009) were to circulate quickly; if jobs are created by this new ‘money’, then economic activity will take off, wages, income and profits will be generated. Some of that income can then be used to pay taxes (and the Greek government must up its tax collection game!) – because income finances spending, investment and taxes. (Its not rocket science.)
As a result, the government’s debt burden will automatically decline – without any help from creditors – as a share of the economic cake (GDP). That will happen because the economic cake and the income it generates will expand, and income from the expansion (bigger cake) can then be used to repay debts. Above all, that income can be used to save the livelihoods of millions of Greeks, to increase the profits of small firms and thus to breathe life into Greece’s comatose economy.
So the task of the Greek people now, is to ensure that the new Greek Finance Minister forcefully rejects the archaic, self-destructive and private bank-friendly monetarism of the Euro system – and creates fiscal space (government spending) that will restore jobs, income, profits and tax revenues to the people of Greece – in both the private and public sectors.
In the immortal words of John Maynard Keynes: if the Greek government “takes care of employment, the (Greek) budget will take care of itself.”
As mayhem breaks out on stock markets; as Eurozone banks freeze up; and as the global financial system approaches a frightening ‘danger zone,’ the champions of the globalised ‘free market’ and of the Euro are in search of a scapegoat.
Instead of accepting that it is the broken banking system; the de-regulated financial Eurozone, and the deflationary monetarist policies of the Maastricht Treaty that are the roots of the crisis, the Troika (the IMF/EU/ECB) want to identify a convenient whipping boy.
Instead of going after the real culprits — un-regulated bankers that lent recklessly, confident they would always be bailed out by taxpayers — the approach of the Troika is to scapegoat Greece. The implication is that the whole fabric of the Euro, and with it the global economy, is torn apart because one poor country, Greece, will not enforce ever-deeper austerity on her people.
Let’s get this straight. The Greek economy — and with it the Euro — is disintegratingbecause Greek politicians are implementing austerity, not because they are failing to.
As one of the poorest of the Eurozone economies, Greece was always the most vulnerable to the global financial crisis. The ‘Troika’ can build a credible case that Greece’s politicians should not have borrowed from the private bankers of Europe, and therefore Greeks share responsibility for the debt.
But Greece was only able to borrow because, with the help of Goldman Sachs, she was welcomed by Europe’s bankers and leaders into the pre-existing de-regulated, financial framework that is the Eurozone. A monetary union designed above all to promote, protect and subsidise the interests of money-lenders and speculators in the private bank-debt and sovereign debt markets.
Greece’s entry into the Eurozone was of course a mistake. But the idea that Greece has misbehaved to an extent that deems her responsible for destroying the European and global financial fabric is, frankly, absurd.
Continue reading… ›
We call on David Cameron to support the organisation of a European conference to agree debt cancellation for Greece and other countries that need it, informed by debt audits and funded by recovering money from the banks and financial speculators who were the real beneficiaries of bailouts.
We believe there must be an end to the enforcing of austerity policies that are causing injustice and poverty in Europe and across the world.
We urge the creation of UN rules to deal with government debt crises promptly, fairly and with respect for human rights, and to signal to the banks and financiers that we won’t keep bailing them out for reckless lending.
Frances O’Grady, General Secretary, TUC; Len McCluskey, General Secretary, Unite the Union; Paul Kenny, General Secretary, GMB; Manuel Cortes, General Secretary, TSSA;Sarah-Jayne Clifton, Director, Jubilee Debt Campaign; Paul Mackney, Chair, Greece Solidarity Campaign; Nick Dearden, Global Justice Now; Owen Epsley, War on Want;James Meadway, New Economics Foundation; Ann Pettifor, Prime Economics
And the following MPs: Diane Abbott, Dave Anderson, Richard Burgon, Jeremy Corbyn, Jonathan Edwards, Margaret Ferrier, Roger Godsiff, Harry Harpham, Carolyn Harris, George Kerevan, Ian Lavery, Clive Lewis, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Caroline Lucas, John McDonnell, Liz McInnes, Rachael Maskell, Michael Meacher, Grahame Morris, Kate Osamor, Liz Saville-Roberts, Cat Smith, Chris Stephens, Jo Stevens, Catherine West, Hywel Williams.
There’s a petition to cancel Greece’s debts here, too.
First Published in China’s People’s Daily on 29 May, 2015
Sovereign debt can be uniquely complex, from both a financial and political perspective. It is covered by private law, yet there is no international law equivalent to insolvency law for sovereign states. Unlike individual and corporate debtors, who can appeal to the law of bankruptcy to draw a line under their debt, the citizens of poor countries remain infinitely liable for debts incurred by their governments. This is the case even if their exchange rate has collapsed and the debt has a far higher value than when incurred.
There are welcome recent efforts by the G77 and China to put in place a fair international process for sovereign debt crisis resolution. By contrast, the IMF is pursuing a far more limited path of improving the technical wording of bonds, to enable collective action clauses that enforce organized write-down or restructuring of debt more easily. While making some improvements, this does not resolve the root problem.
Underlying most recent sovereign debt crises is the fact that, under today’s global financial architecture, there is no adequate management of exchange rates and of cross-border capital flows. These footloose, de-regulated and often short-term speculative flows encourage excessive borrowing, reckless lending and risk-taking. With increased regularity they cause financial crises.
Continue reading… ›
The need for the biggest British opposition party to restore a degree of economic credibility is urgent – both in its own interests, but also in the public interest. But it will be tough, with little help expected from a majority of the economics profession.
Continue reading… ›
Originally Published on 14 May by IAI News as part of the festival HowTheLightGetsIn.
On 31 May, I will be on a platform with Isabel Hilton, Michael Howard and Robert Shiller discussing the theme ‘The Infinite Boom’.
Can continuous economic growth ever be sustainable, or is it merely a delusion?
We tend to assume that our wages or salaries should, and will always rise in real terms. That living standards will follow the same trajectory. That house prices will never fall. That the price of Picasso paintings or ruby rings can be trusted always to “smash records”. And that the economy will “grow’ exponentially over time. Indeed “economic growth” is hard-wired in the way we think about, and measure the economy.
This is delusional stuff, if only in linguistic terms. “Growth” derives from nature. Plants are seeded, animals are born, they grow, mature and then die. And although humans mostly live in denial of the reality, our lives follow the same trajectory.
Death is as inevitable as taxes.
We know, in our heart of hearts, that there are limits. That markets and firms, grow, mature and then die – or implode. Think of the market for sub-prime mortgages, CDOs, credit default swaps or even that for chimney sweeps. Think of firms like Woolworths, HMV, PanAm, Arthur Andersen or Enron.
They are no more.
Continue reading… ›
While Labour and LibDem activists mourn, and political opportunists seize the moment, is the loss of the election such a bad thing? Might this be a good time to lose an election?
I think so. The reasons can be found in both domestic and global financial imbalances, in the advance of de-globalisation trends that are manifest in shrinking capital flows and growing nationalist movements; and in rising geopolitical tensions.
As I write, out in the big wide world there are upheavals in Eurozone and other sovereign bond markets. Whether this violent volatility will lead to a global bond market crash is an open question, but in just two weeks markets have already marked up almost €1tn of losses. Shares in booming stock markets have begun to slide, while currency movements are increasingly erratic.
The causes of bond market volatility are unclear. But what we do know is that both the United States and China are slowing down, and emerging markets are dogged by too much foreign-denominated debt. Chinese local governments and households too are heavily indebted (Chinese private debt is 6x larger than in 2007 at about 150% of GDP in 2014) and so the central bank of China is forced to ease monetary policy – by lowering bank rates. This seems to have sparked an uptick in global oil prices, which in turn has led to fears (irrational in my view) of rising inflation. Inflation, it is argued, will erode the value of highly priced, low yielding government bonds, and hence the big bond sell-off. (I happen to think disinflationary and deflationary trends are still dominant, driven by weakness in demand from both the Eurozone (‘austerity’), China and increasingly the United States. But hey, deflation is bad news too.)
Given that we were all expecting such bond market sell-offs and instability to occur when central bankers inevitably raise base rates; and given that central bankers are clear such rises are a year or so away – this bond market turbulence seems premature. But let us not forget: central bankers long ago gave away their powers to influence market interest rates. Today these are effectively controlled by a global ‘invisible hand’ that moves in mysterious ways.
Because everyday interest rates are influenced by bond market yields, we can expect today’s rise in yields to translate into higher interest rates on UK and US mortgages and other forms of lending.
This is not good news for British debtors. As a famous (February, 2015) McKinsey Reportnoted, the UK experienced the largest increase in total debt (i.e. private finance sector, corporate, household and government debt) as a share of GDP from 2000 – 2008 with its ratio to GDP reaching 469%. Even adjusting for London’s role as a global financial sector, the McKinsey team concluded that the UK has the second-highest ratio of debt to GDP in the world – second only to Japan.
This is not an economy that will be amenable to higher rates of interest.
Continue reading… ›
In the Scottish leaders’ TV debate last night, Jim Murphy (the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland) has challenged Scottish nationalists to explain where the money will come from under the ‘full fiscal autonomy’, since the full gains of the Mansion Tax would not be available to Scotland. In effect Murphy is arguing that “there is no money” – or that the proposed Mansion Tax is the only source of income for reversing austerity.
Derek Mackay, the chairman of the SNP, responded on the Today programme this morning(at 70 minutes), where he was confronted also by points from the fiscal hawks at the Institute for Fiscal Studies. In defence of the SNP case he partly resorted to alternative sources of money (including oil revenues) to cover spending. (In fairness to Mackay, he did try to make a growth argument, but the BBC wasn’t interested).
While there is clearly a bigger picture here, the assumption behind Murphy’s assault on the SNP mirrors that of the Chancellor’s attack on Ed Balls. It is typical of flawed austerity economics and austerity politics, and is a battle that nobody can win – least of all the Scottish or British people.
The point of rejecting austerity policies is surely to recognise that cutting public spending in times of economic weakness harms both private and public employment and earnings, and economic activity generally.
If sound public infrastructure spending is expanded, then well-paid, skilled employment will be expanded.
The ‘money comes from’ that same increase in employment and economic activity, as higher labour income leads to higher tax revenues and lower benefit, tax credit and housing benefit expenditures.
It’s not rocket science.
While there may be a brief lag between any spending and these gains to the public finances, the gap is easily made up from short-term borrowing. The latter might be from capital markets, high street banks, even the Bank of England – it does not matter (though of course ‘the cheaper the better’ might be the best guide). The borrowing can be repaid as appropriate when the gains to the public finances materialise. Current government borrowing rates are at historic lows. And as economic activity and government revenues pick up, the debt to GDP ratio – the main international indicator – improves.
All this is the point of fiscal autonomy. This is the point of a sovereign government with its own central bank.
That is why the UK should take the lead, and in so doing could help the Eurozone to escape from the depressing, deflationary downward spiral of austerity.
That can only be achieved by a newly-elected British government that has the intellectual capacity and confidence to move beyond the sterile, flawed “there is no money” argument.
“The state has no source of money, other than the money people earn themselves. If the state wishes to spend more it can only do so by borrowing your savings, or by taxing you more. And it’s no good thinking that someone else will pay. That someone else is you.”
“There is no such thing as public money. There is only taxpayers’ money.”
Mrs Thatcher, speech to Conservative Party Conference, October, 1983.
“We know that there is no such thing as public money – there is only taxpayers’ money”
David Cameron, on the campaign trail, 6 April, 2015.
Quantitative Easing: ‘new money that the Bank creates electronically’.
Bank of England website in ‘Quantitative Easing: how it works.’[ii]
“When a bank makes a loan to one of its customers it simply credits the customer’s account with a higher deposit balance. At that instant, new money is created.”
Bank of England Money in the Modern Economy: Quarterly Bulletin, Q1, January, 2014.
At the heart of the politically inept responses to the 2007-9 Great Recession is an ideologically-driven and mendacious conviction: that while society can afford to bail out a systemically broken banking system, Trident and the HS2 railway extension, it cannot afford to finance the NHS, higher education, skilled apprenticeships, an expansion of broadband and the arts.
Continue reading… ›
Sir, The European Central Bank forecasts unemployment in the eurozone to remain at 10 per cent even after €1.1tn of quantitative easing. This is hardly surprising: the evidence suggests that conventional QE is an unreliable tool for boosting GDP or employment.
Bank of England research shows that it benefits the well-off, who gain from increasing asset prices, much more than the poorest. In the eurozone, where interest rates are at rock bottom and bond yields have already turned negative, injecting even more liquidity into the markets will do little to help the real economy.
There is an alternative. Rather than being injected into the financial markets, the new money created by eurozone central banks could be used to finance government spending (such as investing in much needed infrastructure projects); alternatively each eurozone citizen could be given €175 per month, for 19 months, which they could use to pay down existing debts or spend as they please. By directly boosting spending and employment, either approach would be far more effective than the ECB’s plans for conventional QE.
The ECB will argue that this approach breaks the taboo of mixing monetary and fiscal policy. But traditional monetary policy no longer works. Failure to consider new approaches will unnecessarily prolong stagnation and high unemployment. It is time for the ECB and eurozone central banks to bypass the financial system and work with governments to inject newly created money directly into the real economy.
Victoria Chick, University College London
Frances Coppola, Associate Editor, Piera
Nigel Dodd, London School of Economics
Jean Gadrey, University of Lille
David Graeber, London School of Economics
Constantin Gurdgiev, Trinity College Dublin
Joseph Huber, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg
Steve Keen, Kingston University
Christian Marazzi, University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland
Bill Mitchell, University of Newcastle
Ann Pettifor, Prime Economics
Helge Peukert, University of Erfurt
Lord Skidelsky, Emeritus Professor, Warwick University
Guy Standing, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
Kees Van Der Pijl, University of Sussex
Johann Walter, Westfälische Hochschule, Gelsenkirchen Bocholt Recklinghausen, University of Applied Sciences
John Weeks, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
Richard Werner, University of Southampton
Simon Wren-Lewis,University of Oxford