EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Protest Movements Teach Economics to Bankers
WASHINGTON - The European Central Bank (ECB) is run by people who are not very good at economics. They continue to adhere to a fundamentally wrongheaded view of the economy and the central bank's role within it.
Anti-austerity protesters faced down Greek police in Athens this summer. Similar confrontations happened across Europe as workers and student resisted draconian cuts to social services to please bond holders and the central bank. While the governments may be willing to inflict upon their population whatever pain the ECB requests, the popular movements are making this an increasingly difficult process. The governments of these countries are being forced to recognise that they must consider public opinion and not just accept the dictates of the ECB. Unfortunately, there is no internal pressure for change because, like the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, acceptance of the ideology is the price for admission into the clique of economists who can influence the ECB.
The central tenet of ECB dogma is that the central bank should target a low inflation rate - two percent - and pretty much ignore everything else in the economy.
In the past decade, this meant ignoring the massive housing bubbles that were driving the economies of Ireland and Spain. The bank was happy all through the period in which the bubbles were growing to ever-more-dangerous levels because it was hitting its inflation targets.
More recently, the ECB has been raising interest rates even as most of the eurozone economies remain mired in high unemployment. These interest rate hikes slow growth and job creation. Higher interest rates also exacerbate the fiscal problems facing heavily indebted countries, since they make it more expensive for them to service their debt.
In the firing line
In other lines of work, the disastrous consequences of the ECB's recent and current policies would get people fired. However, no one is really in a position to fire the ECB bank president and top staff, so they could in principle continue their failed policy approach indefinitely.
But there is hope. Because the people running the ECB are not very good at economics, they keep running into difficulty with their plans to "rescue" Greece, Spain, and the other eurozone countries facing fiscal crises. As a result, they have to continually run back to these countries and work out new loan packages. Each package involves new and more onerous conditions for the debtor countries.
What the ECB has failed to recognise is that its own policies are making it more difficult for these countries to make their loan payments. This is due both to the fact that the policies are contractionary for the eurozone as a whole, and also because the conditions imposed on debtor countries slow growth. With weaker growth, tax collections fall and more money is paid out in unemployment insurance and other transfers to the unemployed. The result is higher deficits.
This is where the popular movements like 15-M in Spain come in. While the governments may be willing to inflict upon their population whatever pain the ECB requests, the popular movements are making this an increasingly difficult process. The governments of these countries are being forced to recognise that they must consider public opinion and not just accept the dictates of the ECB.
The default position
In fact, since the ECB would never want to see one of the eurozone countries default, the popular movements could find themselves in a situation where they are effectively negotiating with the ECB, since they can set bounds on the conditions that their governments can accept. This will allow them to teach the ECB crew some basic economics.
First on the list of lessons is to tell the ECB that the days of worshipping two percent inflation targets is over. That may have been cute policy before the downturn, but everyone knows now that it was boneheaded. Central banks have to take greater responsibility for maintaining stability and high levels of employment.
Furthermore, a low rate of inflation - like two percent - provides insufficient room for the adjustments that must be made in the sort of crisis the world economy now faces. The popular movements can assign the ECB staff this excellent paper on the topic by Olivier Blanchard, the IMF's chief economist.
The second item, which would be especially relevant to Spain, would be a requirement that governments take strong measures to get vacant homes back on the market. According to government data, Spain's building boom left the country with more than 1m vacant units. This is pure waste - what economists call "deadweight loss".
The government can give the builders or banks that own these properties a strong incentive to sell or rent them by imposing a large tax (eg five percent of value) on units that are vacant for long periods of time. If the tax isn't paid, then it could seize the property and then make it available directly. It could even use sound free-market principles, like allowing people to take possession of property and then become the owners if they live in and maintain it for a long enough period of time. This would follow the example of the Homestead Act in the United States.
Finally, governments can take the lead from the United States in another area and adopt bankruptcy laws that make it easier to shed debt. As it stands, many people who bought homes at bubble-inflated prices stand to spend the rest of their working lives paying off their debts. In addition to being cruel to people who made a mistake, it also creates enormous disincentive to work or to work in the underground economy.
If a person has to commit 15 percent of their income to paying off debt, it has the same effect on incentives as a 15 percentage point increase in the income tax. Economists understand that taxes can have a disincentive effect. They should be able to understand that debt repayments can also have a large disincentive effect.
This would be the start of a good economics lesson for the ECB. It will mean better policy, and maybe it can even help turn the people running the ECB into competent economists.
Dean Baker is an American macroeconomist and co-founder if the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

7 Comments so far
Show All"Finally, governments can take the lead from the United States in another area and adopt bankruptcy laws that make it easier to shed debt."
Where was Dean Baker in (?Dec.2006) when Congress made it more difficult for the average person and NOT corporations to shed debt before the $hit hit the fan in the U.S.?
I do remember a running debate I had about that new law on some other forum.
I suggested that the reason for the urgency of that law, was that the shit was going to hit the fan and the lenders wanted to be sure they could keep sucking the blood out of those with debts.
This was dismissed as anti-american hysteria.
I believe to this day, those in power saw this coming. None of this just happened out of the blue.
I suspect that a few did. The investment behaviour of Goldman Sachs is not only telling, but nothing short of a fraud racket. I wonder if Goldman Sachs spent any money lobbying for this bill back in 2006 (or it's subsidiaries) and what percentage of that money was thiers.
The US economy spends $3 trillion / year in interest payments, mostly going to the large banks. I would assume Europe has a similar interest payment burden. Keeping that money flowing, and growing it further is the only real concern for the banking cartel. They have to keep creating more and more debt, to create the money which the economy can then pay back to them.
Thomas Edison on Government Created Debt-Free Money
In December 1921, the American industrialist Henry Ford and the inventor Thomas Edison visited the Muscle Shoals nitrate and water power projects near Florence, Alabama. They used the opportunity to articulate at length upon alternative money theories, which were published in 2 reports which appeared in The New York Times on December 4, 1921 and December 6, 1921.
Objecting to the fact that the Government planned, as usual, to raise the money by issuing bonds which would be bought by the banking and non-banking sector — which would then have to be paid back with money raised from taxes, and with interest added — they proposed instead that the Government simply create the currency it required and spend it into society through this public project.
Thomas Edison made it plain in the following excerpt from The New York Times, December 6, 1921 issue (“Ford Sees Wealth In Muscle Shoals”).
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=3&res=9C04E0D7103EEE3ABC4E53DFB467838A639EDE
Here, the reporter is quoting Edison:
“That is to say, under the old way any time we wish to add to the national wealth we are compelled to add to the national debt.
“Now, that is what Henry Ford wants to prevent. He thinks it is stupid, and so do I, that for the loan of $30,000,000 of their own money the people of the United States should be compelled to pay $66,000,000 — that is what it amounts to, with interest. People who will not turn a shovelful of dirt nor contribute a pound of material will collect more money from the United States than will the people who supply the material and do the work. That is the terrible thing about interest. In all our great bond issues the interest is always greater than the principal. All of the great public works cost more than twice the actual cost, on that account. Under the present system of doing business we simply add 120 to 150 per cent, to the stated cost.
“But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 per cent, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who directly contribute to Muscle Shoals in some useful way.
” … if the Government issues currency, it provides itself with enough money to increase the national wealth at Muscles Shoals without disturbing the business of the rest of the country. And in doing this it increases its income without adding a penny to its debt.
“It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30,000,000 in bonds and not $30,000,000 in currency. Both are promises to pay; but one promise fattens the usurer, and the other helps the people. If the currency issued by the Government were no good, then the bonds issued would be no good either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to increase the national wealth, must go into debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious values of gold.
“Look at it another way. If the Government issues bonds, the brokers will sell them. The bonds will be negotiable; they will be considered as gilt edged paper. Why? Because the government is behind them, but who is behind the Government? The people. Therefore it is the people who constitute the basis of Government credit. Why then cannot the people have the benefit of their own gilt-edged credit by receiving non-interest bearing currency on Muscle Shoals, instead of the bankers receiving the benefit of the people’s credit in interest-bearing bonds?”
I meant to include where I found those Edison quotes:
http://prosperityuk.com/2000/09/thomas-edison-on-government-created-debt-free-money/
To understand the realities and illusions of debt and money, visit WebOfDebt.com
This is what happens when MBAs run things. Dubya was an MBA.