Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- When You're Cutting Social Security, 'Wealthy' Begins at $25K
- In Blind Poll, Republicans Choose Progressive Budget Solutions Over Their Own Party's
- With Little More Than a Note, Obama Deploys US Troops To Niger
- The 'Land of 10,000 Lakes' Is Running Dry
- Stripped of 'Country of Origin' Label, US Agrees to Sell Tear Gas to Egypt
Popular content
Today's Top News
More Stimulus for US, Less Austerity
THE Great Recession of 2008 has morphed into the North Atlantic Recession: it is mainly Europe and the US, not the major emerging markets, that have become mired in slow growth and high unemployment. And it is Europe and America that are marching, alone and together, to the denouement of a grand debacle. A busted bubble led to a massive Keynesian stimulus that averted a much deeper recession, but that also fuelled substantial budget deficits. The response - massive spending cuts - ensures that unacceptably high levels of unemployment will continue, possibly for years.
The European Union has finally committed itself to helping its financially distressed members. It had no choice: with financial turmoil threatening to spread from small countries like Greece and Ireland to large ones like Italy and Spain, the euro's very survival was in growing jeopardy. Europe's leaders recognised that distressed countries' debts would become unmanageable unless their economies could grow, and that growth could not be achieved without help.
"The response - massive spending cuts - ensures that unacceptably high levels of unemployment will continue, possibly for years." (Illustration: Peter Riches)
But, even as Europe's leaders promised that help was on the way, they doubled down on the belief that non-crisis countries must cut spending. The resulting austerity will hinder Europe's growth, and thus that of its most distressed economies: after all, nothing would help Greece more than robust growth in its trading partners. And low growth will hurt tax revenues, undermining the proclaimed goal of fiscal consolidation.
Advertisement: Story continues below
The discussions before the crisis illustrated how little had been done to repair economic fundamentals. The European Central Bank's vehement opposition to what is essential to all capitalist economies - the restructuring of failed or insolvent entities' debt - is evidence of the continuing fragility of the Western banking system.
The ECB argued that taxpayers should pick up the entire tab for Greece's bad sovereign debt, for fear that any private-sector involvement would trigger a "credit event", which would force large payouts on credit-default swaps (CDSs), possibly fuelling further financial turmoil. But, if that is a real fear for the ECB - if it is not merely acting on behalf of private lenders - surely it should have demanded that the banks have more capital.
The ECB should have barred banks from the risky CDS market, where they are held hostage to ratings agencies' decisions about what constitutes a "credit event". Indeed, one positive achievement by European leaders at the recent Brussels summit was to begin the process of reining in both the ECB and the power of the American ratings agencies.
Indeed, the most curious aspect of the ECB's position was its threat not to accept restructured government bonds as collateral if the ratings agencies decided that the restructuring should be classified as a credit event. The whole point of restructuring was to discharge debt and make the remainder more manageable. If the bonds were acceptable as collateral before the restructuring, surely they were safer after the restructuring, and thus equally acceptable.
This episode serves as a reminder that central banks are political institutions, with a political agenda, and that independent central banks tend to be captured (at least "cognitively") by the banks that they are supposed to regulate. And matters are little better on the other side of the Atlantic. There, the extreme right threatened to shut down the US government, confirming what game theory suggests: when those who are irrationally committed to destruction if they don't get their way confront rational individuals, the former prevail.
As a result, President Barack Obama acquiesced in an unbalanced debt-reduction strategy, with no tax increases - not even for the millionaires who have done so well during the past two decades and not even by eliminating tax giveaways to oil companies, which undermine economic efficiency and contribute to environmental degradation.
Optimists argue that the short run macroeconomic effect of the deal to raise America's debt ceiling and prevent sovereign default will be limited - roughly $US25 billion ($A24 billion) in expenditure cuts in the coming year. But the payroll tax cut (which put more than $US100 billion into the pockets of ordinary Americans) was not renewed and surely business, anticipating the contractionary effects down the line, will be even more reluctant to lend.
The end of the stimulus itself is contractionary. And, with housing prices continuing to fall, GDP growth faltering, and unemployment remaining stubbornly high (one in six Americans who would like a full-time job still cannot get one), more stimulus, not austerity, is needed - for the sake of balancing the budget as well. The single most important driver of deficit growth is weak tax revenues, owing to poor economic performance; the single best remedy would be to put America back to work. The recent debt deal is a move in the wrong direction.
There has been much concern about financial contagion between Europe and America. After all, America's financial mismanagement played an important role in triggering Europe's problems and financial turmoil in Europe would not be good for the US - especially given the fragility of the US banking system and the continuing role it plays in non-transparent CDSs.
But the real problem stems from another form of contagion: bad ideas move easily across borders, and misguided economic notions on both sides of the Atlantic have been reinforcing each other. The same will be true of the stagnation that those policies bring.
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...



28 Comments so far
Show AllWho stands in the valley sees from the mountain.
When the mountain crumbles those at the top have the farthest to fall.
Yeah, but they'll fall on us.
Spot on observation!
This, from Joe Stiglitz, the libertarian's financial guru?
Joe, yer so full of shit yer eyes are brown...
Pretty comment, huh?
There's nothing to suggest libertarianism in any of his comments. In fact, he suggests more government spending....... go figure......
Which is really weird....
Normally Smokin' Joe is all fire and brimstone that Government spending is out of control, and that 'entitlements' like, oh, health care should be in private hands. I can come up with a half dozen libertarian sites easily who think this man shits Twinkies when it comes to economic policy.
For him to flip like this must mean he sees a shitload of hurt comin' down the rails at the US.
How about some past quotes to back up your statements. I think you are confused.
You should read more and post less. Joe Stiglitz is a Keynesian and a liberal one at that. He ain't no Propertarian, in any way shape or form. Never has been.
Christians of the world unite! Foregive us our debts as we foregive our debtors.
You don't bail out criminals. Give them all our money and then expect things to improve. That would be just stupid. Just like expecting Geithner, Summers, or Bernanke to fix the mess they helped create.
Mr. O promised he'd stop making the same mistakes but he's been doing trickle down Reaganomics and we all know that never worked out for anyone except the top 5%.
And if there is ANY thing illegal I "m gonna stop it.' Said with Eric Holder. What a load of shit.
Here's my favorite passage from Stiglitz's article:
“The ECB argued that taxpayers should pick up the entire tab for Greece's bad sovereign debt, for fear that any private-sector involvement would trigger a ‘credit event’, which would force large payouts on credit-default swaps (CDSs), possibly fueling further financial turmoil. . . . This episode serves as a reminder that central banks are political institutions, with a political agenda, and that independent central banks tend to be captured (at least ‘cognitively’) by the banks that they are supposed to regulate. And matters are little better on the other side of the Atlantic. There, the extreme right threatened to shut down the US government, confirming what game theory suggests: when those who are irrationally committed to destruction if they don't get their way confront rational individuals, the former prevail.”
Thank you Joseph Stiglitz for proving two things. First, economics has no autonomous status; it is a POLITICAL discipline. Bring back political economy! Secondly, thank you Joseph Stiglitz for (apparently unwittingly) proving the falsity of the economic assumption of self-interest. After all, if it is true, “when those who are irrationally committed to destruction if they don't get their way confront rational individuals, the former prevail,” then it is ALWAYS rational for every individual to be “irrationally committed to destruction if they don't get their way,” in which case on economic assumptions humanity should be, “in the condition which is called war . . . . and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Economics is an ideology posing as an academic discipline. It should be given up as the fraud it is.
Hey, are the blood sucking, appointed megalomaniac and friends of greed European Central Bank and the Fed on the "job" or what? Maybe I should be saying that the way people would say in London, Dublin, and Glasgow.
Hey, are the blood sucking, appointed megalomaniac and friends of greed European Central Bank and the Fed on the "job" or what? Maybe I should be saying that the way people would say in London, Dublin, and Glasgow.
All this talk about libertarians is something else. Look what's your take on your Tea Party, war monger, torturer, soft of Wall Street current president and his lovely job of taking care of the less well off? Gee. Are you maybe at a bit of loss for words, Mr or Ms anti libertarian?
Absolutely spot on. Unless we riot, Congress and the White House won't listen.
Here's my take:
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/tex-shelters’-speech-at-the-conservative-republicans-engaged-in-excessive-politics-c-r-e-e-p/
Peace,
Tex Shelters
Is it just me, or does the writing in this article have a bit to be desired?
Quoted: "The single most important driver of deficit growth is weak tax revenues, owing to poor economic performance; the single best remedy would be to put America back to work."
Actually, if true, the single quickest and best way to increase tax revenues would be to end the tax cuts. And then to create and expand tax incentives for the rich and corporations to actually invest in creating jobs. Putting regular working class Americans back to work will have only a marginal delayed effect. It rightly supposes that those working incomes would fuel more production, but it would do so only after those longtime unemployed workers got caught up on their credit cards and lines of credit - which would have the affect first of increasing profits in the financial industry.
The single most important driver of deficit growth is plain and simple, it is debt. So the single best remedy is actually more along the lines of the trillion dollar coinage solution, or Ron Paul's idea to simply order the fed to shred existing federal securities (since they only exist on paper anyway.)
In any event, it boggles the mind that these discussions never address the real source of the problem, which is the privatization of money in the first place.
"The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests." The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863.
Higher marginal tax rates are the only "incentive" needed to create jobs, by encouraging entrepreneurs to reinvest pre-tax dollars in their businesses rather then pulling them out as low-taxed profits.
That is way simple-minded - there are many ways to reinvest pre-tax dollars besides creating front line jobs, here. Heck, they could just increase salaries for executives, buy new (foreign manufactured) office furniture and equipment, invest in greater automation and outsourcing, and buy fledgling companies that need streamlined. And more...
The best strategy is to implement high (not just higher) marginal rates, and then permit offsets for specific activities related to job creation and local investment in order to assure the best type of reinvestment activities for real new job creation and a local commitment.
This reader owes much to Mr. Stiglitz, since it was his book "Globalization and its Discontents" that was a first exposure to the world of economics.
There are things on which we differ, though. Check out this passage:
"But the payroll tax cut (which put more than $US100 billion into the pockets of ordinary Americans) was not renewed and surely business, anticipating the contractionary effects down the line, will be even more reluctant to lend."
I for one am glad the payroll tax cut has ended. Maybe it put 100 billion into the pockets of ordinary Americans, but it took the same amount of money from their Social Security. This was a thinly-veiled, unjustified attack on Social Security, which remains endangered.
USAns beware; further attacks are coming.
You are so right! Obama is so proud of his payroll tax cut but blind to it's nefarious effect upon the integrity of Social Security.
This last paragraph is interesting:
But the real problem stems from another form of contagion: bad ideas move easily across borders, and misguided economic notions on both sides of the Atlantic have been reinforcing each other. The same will be true of the stagnation that those policies bring.
I would suggest that bad ideas are contagious in so-called Democracies that are media manipulated. Very quickly, the most stupid concepts are spread and repeated until they are taken up as gospel by the true believers among us (most notably the Tea Partiers). Ours is a modern-day tower of Babel in which the oft repeated fallacy quickly becomes accepted as irreversible fact.
The other debatable point in the article (and it's related to yours) is:
"There, the extreme right threatened to shut down the US government, confirming what game theory suggests: when those who are irrationally committed to destruction if they don't get their way confront rational individuals, the former prevail."
He's parroting the party line: the devil made him do it. Equally, if not more, probable is: it's what Mr Ferrari wants.
I agree with this analysis. On a related point, no matter how hypocritical the S&P is- they had rational grounds for the downgrade. I would suggest Americans take heed instead of merely licking their wounds.
When W had a mild recession in 2001, the unemployment went up from 4.5 to 5.5, Congress gave him a 1;5 Trillion dollar stimulus. I think half went to helicopter money and half to tax breaks for the Corps.
It didn't work but kept up the pretense until 9/11 hit and people forgot about it.
Obama had a deep recession where the unemplyment went from 5.5 to 10.5 and he had to struggle to get half of what W got.
It was helping, a little but now it is running out.
It is doing what the Rs want. They tried to get a Depression going in 2008 but Obama slowed it down. Now we have the "Debt Crisis" and the second crash.
If the Congress had sent a simple clean debt ceiling bill, all the BS of the last few weeks wouldn't have happened.
The Rs want a depression, the Rich might lose some money but a few billon here, a few billion there is OK as long as the New Deal and Great Society are killed.
"The Rs want a depression, the Rich might lose some money but a few billion here, a few billion there is OK as long as the New Deal and Great Society are killed...."..............along with a few billion poor, sick folks including lots and lots of young children whom they 'saved' from abortion.
Is this a great country, or what?
"...those who are irrationally committed to destruction if they don't get their way..."
Where I come from, such people are called psychopaths - terrorists - criminals... Tantrums from a child are one thing - tantrums from those of legal age is good reason to lock such people up and throw away the key. They're just too dangerous to have running loose - which is probably part of the reason the asylums were closed during Ray-Gun's reign-of-terror.
Thomas Edison:
“Under the old way any time we wish to add to the national wealth we are compelled to add to the national 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.
“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.
“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?”
The New York Times, December 6, 1921
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=3&res=9C04E0D7103EEE3ABC4E53DFB467838A639EDE
Thank you for this clear and succinct discussion about the nature of money!!!
If half the folks on this forum care half as much as they profess, to understand this, and to promote it's understanding to others, to clamor for this single change of our system, then, and only then, will we actually begin to make a difference.