Live data from Hacker News

Open letter to German readers: What you were never told about Greece

syriza.net.gr

91–100 of 249 posts

Re: Open letter to German readers: What you were never told about Greece

#91

This one sentence sums up what I think is the fundamental problem: "An insolvency problem was thus dealt with as if it were a case of illiquidity." That is, the problem isn't some ephemeral panic where people are temporarily unwilling to lend. The problem is there are massive capital losses that have yet to be acknowledged. The problem is that Euro politicians believe that by continuing to bankroll Greece they will s…

I agree with everything you say up to “panics do not destroy capital; they merely reveal the extent to which it has been previously destroyed by its betrayal into hopelessly unproductive works” In todays fractional banking system where banks only hold a fraction of liquid assets to cover their liabilities, a run on a good bank could still put it under. (Lehman, Bear and others were both illiquid and insolvent, but ru…

Not quite. If a bank is solvent but illiquid, they can get a loan from the central bank. This is the central bank's "lender of last resort" function.

So no, a good bank cannot be put under by a bank run.

We will probably never be able to say to which extent the big banks at the time of the financial crisis were still good banks. The problem there was that banks had a massive amount of assets that were indirect (i.e. whose inherent value relied on other assets) and that were structured in such a complicated way that nobody could assess their inherent value.

Before the panic, the inability to measure the inherent value of those assets was ignored because they could be valued according to their market value. With the panic, the market simply stopped doing anything, and there was no market value anymore.

The FDIC is orthogonal - it is an insurance of deposits (up to a limited amount) even at bad banks.

Re: Open letter to German readers: What you were never told about Greece

#92
post #74
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Germany is one of the riches countries on this planet. A lot of that riches comes from the fact that EUR is a common currency both of economically successful countries like Germany and of economically weak countries like Greece. That makes the currency artificially undervalued, which boosts German exports and hurts Greek imports, making Germany more competitive and Greece less competitive (longer comment: https://n…

This is utterly ridiculous. West Germany was FAR better off economically when the D-Mark was strong.

You're assuming that the D-Mark would be as strong (or possibly even stronger) as it was back then today. Which is a bold assumption. As a matter of fact, nobody (apart from some utterly ridiculous right-wing politicians) even considerers this an option.

Re: Open letter to German readers: What you were never told about Greece

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, no. The fundamental problem is that Germany has been treating the rest of the EU as an expedient export market while refusing to allow equivalent imports, and at the same time aggressively insisting that countries in the EU should somehow magically not need debt... to continue buying from Germany. There's also the minor point that this is yet another excuse to indulge the usual neoliberal hatred of social spend…

> while refusing to allow equivalent imports That very much is in citation needed territory, please give at least one example of how Germany is refusing intra-European imports in any category. Free trade is one of the cornerstones of the EU, Germany imposing a tariff or blockading goods produced elsewhere in Europe would make some pretty fat headlines.

> > while refusing to allow equivalent imports

> That very much is in citation needed territory, please give at least one example of how Germany is refusing intra-European imports in any category.

(Not GP.) You are of course right that Germany has not created import tariffs or other direct and illegal options. OTOH the German government has implemented numerous actions that indirectly had wage-suppressing effects (which per definition lowers imports and raises exports) in the last decade - to a degree that even the IMF(!) felt the urge to demanded actions for more domestic demand on multiple occasions [1][2].

The one notable exception is the implementation of a minimum wage law in 2015.

[1] 2012: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/imf-urges-germany-spur-domest... [2] 2014: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-05-19/imf-urges-...

edit: here's a graph comparing income-adjusted wage development of the developed countries: http://nrt.revues.org/docannexe/image/1382/img-2.jpg

Re: Open letter to German readers: What you were never told about Greece

#94
post #67
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand about this type of logic is the refusal to acknowledge the damage being done by the forced depression. It's like a 19th century leech therapy, keep sucking out blood until they get better. If Greece's economy is allowed to recover everybody will be better off, the banks, the politics, the people living in Greece and even the German taxpayer.

> "forced depression" Nothing about Greece's current situation was forced on them. Sure, lots of politicking went on and the current situation was definitely engineered to benefit others, but Greece was effectively bankrupt and in default prior to the bailout. You just can't tolerate the level of corruption [1], tax avoidance, and union greed that Greece tolerated for so long. A normal sovereign default would have be…

[deleted]

Re: Open letter to German readers: What you were never told about Greece

#95
Europe had and has a fundamental problem in its dealing with sovereign bankruptcy, or insolvency as Alexis Tsipras puts it. The reality is that the government of a state cannot go out of business and make way for a new one. But, it's not uncommon for states to become insolvent. State collapse is not an option.

The way it is normally dealt with is inflation, which is kind of treated as default by economists but not really by financial markets and law. The print money which (A) can be used to continue operating and (B) reduces the value of the debt (sovereign and private) as the currency devalues. The 'C' is one that Greece really needs. It's also one of the hated (or loved) mystery components of "Keynsian" economics.

Inflation lowers salaries, and other pre-agreed contracts. It allows (for example) houses to sell at a lower (real) price without the "animal spirit" responses involved when someone sells a house 5 years later at a 15% nominal loss. There's debate in pedantic circles about whether this effect is indeed emotional or if it's related to mortgages being denominated nominally and other "rational" reasons.

Whatever the theoretically best way of understanding it (the two most vocal sides are Austrian vs Keynsian economists with actual politicians usually adopting a confusing mix of both vocabularies), it remains the case that the tried and tested (though certainly not free) solution is printing money.

The German solution is just to stay solvent. They manage to do it and they want other EU countries to do it too. This is a combination of strange optimism, stubbornness, fear of inflation and belief in Beaurocratic controls (which work better in German than in Greece).

This is the core of the issue. A State that runs its own budget (a fundamental EU principle) that does not control its own currency (a fundamental EU principle) cannot make it through insolvency.

One option that I quite like is letting states go into a sort of "bankruptcy." The banks would have to take the hit. This means the system must be robust against bank failure (which is easier to swing than state failure, but we're not there at this point. Too big to fail, Systemic risk, etc.) But, that doesn't prevent the problem overall. It prevents states from digging quite as deep as their interest rates rise sharply, but it doesn't completely block off the risk of failure.

I don't really have a solution. I don't like the Keynsian approach, but it is popular because it offers a solution to recession and state solvency at the same time.

We can see similar things happen in sub-state governments. US cities & States (provinces elsewhere) can go bankrupt. They are locked into spending on salaries, physical maintenance and such which require future revenues that were never realistic or haven't been achieved for some other reason (eg migration). They control a budget, they don't control a currency.

The EU needs to solve this in a way that doesn't make it happen again. bailing out Greece with an actual cash transfer would not achieve this. It would (A) make it easier for other EU states to get into the same trouble and (B) take the pressure off Greece to do what they need to do, become solvent.

Greece's governmental spending is unsustainable. Not of the currently declining tax revenues. Not on the pre-austerity revenues. Not even in a best case scenario. Inflation causing a (quite but extensive) reduction in government salaries, contracts, pensions, etc. is not an option in the EU context, but it may not have been enough anyway.

It's actually quite scary. I have no idea how they solve this. I have no idea how the EU gets "fixed."

I use Keynsian quite loosely. It's only tangentially and perhaps spiritually related to John Maynard Keynes the person.

Printing money doesn't always work either. Hyperinflation can destroy the State. Borrowing in foreign currency (as the poorest countries must do) takes away the option.

Re: Open letter to German readers: What you were never told about Greece

#96

This one sentence sums up what I think is the fundamental problem: "An insolvency problem was thus dealt with as if it were a case of illiquidity." That is, the problem isn't some ephemeral panic where people are temporarily unwilling to lend. The problem is there are massive capital losses that have yet to be acknowledged. The problem is that Euro politicians believe that by continuing to bankroll Greece they will s…

I agree with everything you say up to “panics do not destroy capital; they merely reveal the extent to which it has been previously destroyed by its betrayal into hopelessly unproductive works” In todays fractional banking system where banks only hold a fraction of liquid assets to cover their liabilities, a run on a good bank could still put it under. (Lehman, Bear and others were both illiquid and insolvent, but ru…

Yeah, but unless you have massive disinformation, you can't create a panic on a solvent bank in today's world. The examples you use were ones where capital had been destroyed.

Re: Open letter to German readers: What you were never told about Greece

#97
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> populist clowns Calling a dissenting party clowns is not helpful. It's also wrong, since they argue their points well and their economics are backed by such people as Paul Krugman. Now you might disagree with him, but would you call him a clown, too?

Paul Krugman is overrated, and you're drastically simplifying to say he's backing their economics. I'm mostly calling them clowns for the disservice they do their own cause by calling debt repayment economic waterboarding.

Yeah I found that to be a very poor part of an otherwise compelling argument. It eliminated their benefit of the doubt in my mind and made me think a lot harder about everything else they were saying. I still think the main points of the article make a lot of sense, and find the idea that they attempted to treat insolvency as if it were illiquidity particularly difficult to counter.

Re: Open letter to German readers: What you were never told about Greece

#98
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting the government to bail out your failing business? Sounds like a big win for the business. *Note. I don't know the details of the RBS issue in the UK. Just commenting on a simple interpretation.

If a business wins, is it then implied that the government must lose?

Depends on quite a lot of details. But just by itself? Of course not. Though I wouldn't say it's the pinnacle of a voluntary transaction on both sides.

I'd also say that other business lose, in an indirect way. As well as the individuals that are now lured into transacting with a business that has failed or is more likely to fail in the future due to past performance.

Re: Open letter to German readers: What you were never told about Greece

#99
post #8

Sure. I agree that (morally) the EU shouldn't have bailed out Greece. Greece cooked its books and Greek debt holders at the time of the bail out were suffering the consequences of lending to a fiscally irresponsible state. That being said, the world was uncertain as to how much economic damage had yet to be done, and by shoring up Greece it assuaged investor confidence across the western world. Personally I think tha…

Greece may have cooked the books but the rest of the EU is complicit in not doing their due-diligence in their haste to include Greece in their attempts to declare 'largest economy in the world'. It was a stupid pissing-match and the EU definitely carries a fair chunk of the blame here.

Absolutely. The project was doomed from the start, and the ECB and it's fondness for excessively tight monetary policy (given the situation) and utter refusal to consider the sort of debt-reduction-through-monetary-expansion any sane national government would consider even when faced with widespread deflation is a bigger deadweight on Euro area economic growth than Greece (which for all its staggering fiscal ineptitude, isn't particularly significant to Eurozone growth figures overall)

Re: Open letter to German readers: What you were never told about Greece

#100
post #74
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Germany is one of the riches countries on this planet. A lot of that riches comes from the fact that EUR is a common currency both of economically successful countries like Germany and of economically weak countries like Greece. That makes the currency artificially undervalued, which boosts German exports and hurts Greek imports, making Germany more competitive and Greece less competitive (longer comment: https://n…

This is utterly ridiculous. West Germany was FAR better off economically when the D-Mark was strong.

If you literally mean that Germany was richer in the time before the introduction of the Euro, then simple GDP statistics show otherwise - not surprisingly, as it was a long time ago. If you mean the Euro was bad for the German economy, I wonder why you think that? By removing exchange rate risk, the Euro has made it easier for German businesses to sell to other Eurozone countries.
Post reply on HN