In this post I quoted Krugman, Eichengreen and Roubini in order to have a Euro-zone’s Big Picture.
Krugman said that the troubles came from the adoption of the euro before Spain and Greece were ready:
Now what? A breakup of the euro is very nearly unthinkable... As Berkeley's Barry Eichengreen puts it, an attempt to reintroduce a national currency would trigger "the mother of all financial crises". So the only way out is forward: to make the euro work, Europe needs to move much further toward political union, so that European nations start to function more like American states.
But that's not going to happen anytime soon. What we’ll probably see over the next few years is a painful process of muddling through: bailouts accompanied by demands for savage austerity, all against a background of very high unemployment, perpetuated by the grinding deflation I already mentioned.
It’s an ugly picture. But it’s important to understand the nature of Europe's fatal flaw. Yes, some governments were irresponsible; but the fundamental problem was hubris, the arrogant belief that Europe could make a single currency work despite strong reasons to believe that it wasn’t ready.
Eichengreen emphasized the failure to create a "proper emergency financing mechanism"
[…] reating the euro was not a mistake, but it could still be a mistake in the making. The Greek crisis shows that Europe is still only halfway toward creating a viable monetary union. If it stays put, the next crisis will make this one look like a walk in the park.
Completing its monetary union requires Europe to create a proper emergency financing mechanism. Currently, other member states can provide assistance to Greece only by bending the rules, which prevent them from lending except in response to natural disasters or circumstances beyond a country's control. This heightens uncertainty. When Europe’s leaders do help, it makes the public and markets think that they are being dishonest. If it is the Lisbon Treaty that creates these problems, then the Lisbon Treaty should be changed.
Roubini requested a "partial bailout by the EU and the ECB […] in order to avoid the risk of contagion to the rest of the euro zone"
A shadow or actual International Monetary Fund program would vastly enhance the credibility of a policy of fiscal retrenchment and structural reforms. Under the former, the European Commission would impose fiscal and structural conditionality on Greece, while the EU and/or ECB would provide financing, which would be absolutely necessary, because announcing even the best conceived reform program would not be sufficient to restore lost policy credibility. Markets will remain skeptical, especially if implementation leads to street demonstrations, riots, strikes, and parliamentary foot-dragging. Until credibility is re-established, the risk of a speculative attack on public debt – reflected in the current rise in credit default swap spreads – would linger, given the ongoing budget deficit and the need to roll over maturing debt.
Since the European Union has no history of imposing conditionality, and ECB financing could be perceived as a form of bailout, a formal IMF program would be the better approach. The most successful programs undertaken in the presence of a risk of a fiscal and/or external debt financing crisis were those – as in Mexico, Turkey, and Brazil – where a large amount of liquidity/financing support by the IMF beefed up an increasingly credible commitment to adjustment and reform.
Sovereign spreads are already pricing the risk of a domino effect from Greece to Spain, Portugal, and other euro-zone members. The EU and the ECB are worried about the moral hazard of any "bailout". But that is precisely why a credible IMF program that ties financial support to the progressive achievement of fiscal and structural reform goals is the right way to teach Greece and the other PIIGS how to fly.
Krugman said that the troubles came from the adoption of the euro before Spain and Greece were ready:
Now what? A breakup of the euro is very nearly unthinkable... As Berkeley's Barry Eichengreen puts it, an attempt to reintroduce a national currency would trigger "the mother of all financial crises". So the only way out is forward: to make the euro work, Europe needs to move much further toward political union, so that European nations start to function more like American states.
But that's not going to happen anytime soon. What we’ll probably see over the next few years is a painful process of muddling through: bailouts accompanied by demands for savage austerity, all against a background of very high unemployment, perpetuated by the grinding deflation I already mentioned.
It’s an ugly picture. But it’s important to understand the nature of Europe's fatal flaw. Yes, some governments were irresponsible; but the fundamental problem was hubris, the arrogant belief that Europe could make a single currency work despite strong reasons to believe that it wasn’t ready.
Eichengreen emphasized the failure to create a "proper emergency financing mechanism"
[…] reating the euro was not a mistake, but it could still be a mistake in the making. The Greek crisis shows that Europe is still only halfway toward creating a viable monetary union. If it stays put, the next crisis will make this one look like a walk in the park.
Completing its monetary union requires Europe to create a proper emergency financing mechanism. Currently, other member states can provide assistance to Greece only by bending the rules, which prevent them from lending except in response to natural disasters or circumstances beyond a country's control. This heightens uncertainty. When Europe’s leaders do help, it makes the public and markets think that they are being dishonest. If it is the Lisbon Treaty that creates these problems, then the Lisbon Treaty should be changed.
Roubini requested a "partial bailout by the EU and the ECB […] in order to avoid the risk of contagion to the rest of the euro zone"
A shadow or actual International Monetary Fund program would vastly enhance the credibility of a policy of fiscal retrenchment and structural reforms. Under the former, the European Commission would impose fiscal and structural conditionality on Greece, while the EU and/or ECB would provide financing, which would be absolutely necessary, because announcing even the best conceived reform program would not be sufficient to restore lost policy credibility. Markets will remain skeptical, especially if implementation leads to street demonstrations, riots, strikes, and parliamentary foot-dragging. Until credibility is re-established, the risk of a speculative attack on public debt – reflected in the current rise in credit default swap spreads – would linger, given the ongoing budget deficit and the need to roll over maturing debt.
Since the European Union has no history of imposing conditionality, and ECB financing could be perceived as a form of bailout, a formal IMF program would be the better approach. The most successful programs undertaken in the presence of a risk of a fiscal and/or external debt financing crisis were those – as in Mexico, Turkey, and Brazil – where a large amount of liquidity/financing support by the IMF beefed up an increasingly credible commitment to adjustment and reform.
Sovereign spreads are already pricing the risk of a domino effect from Greece to Spain, Portugal, and other euro-zone members. The EU and the ECB are worried about the moral hazard of any "bailout". But that is precisely why a credible IMF program that ties financial support to the progressive achievement of fiscal and structural reform goals is the right way to teach Greece and the other PIIGS how to fly.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario