Grexit or Gerxit?

[avatar]

Greece is saddled with debts on a scale that, when compared with its GDP, no nation has ever repaid. There seem to be only two possible outcomes: default and become the new Albania (a country locked in isolation and spiralling into decline for the next 50+ years) or devalue.

 

When the Euro Zone was formed, the economies of the joining countries should have fitted within certain economic parameters; the failure to enforce stringent “convergence criteria” has come to haunt the Euro area, worsened by the economic calamities of 2007 / 08. Today, while the Greek economy is a basket case, it is perhaps most closely aligned with the economies of Italy, Spain, Portugal the Balkan members of the EU and maybe even France. The countries that are most clearly out of step with the economies of Greece and its neighbours are those of Germany, Holland, the smaller countries such as Luxembourg. Germany has been able to use the Euro’s weakness to export goods to the weaker European nations at cheap prices, but without much foresight into how they would recover the IOUs.

 

The European Coal and Steel Community agreement of 1952 is the cornerstone of the EU and the Euro Zone. It was ostensibly an agreement to prevent any further wars between France and West Germany. It achieved its primary objective, but it was far from flawless. The community had little effect economically; coal and steel production was influenced more by global trends. The crisis in Greece may yet prove that the European Union is inherently flawed from an economic standpoint; it remains to be seen whether its political advantages can help rescue the Euro Zone or prove so strong that it wrecks the whole European Project. Could the radical option of a German exit from the EU be the most sensible alternative solution? The theory is certainly not as stupid as the inevitable copy-cat portmanteau.

 

Grexit gerxit

 

“Gerxit” might not only address Greece’s problems but also help many other countries begin to address their trade imbalances. As a soaring Deutsche Mark would make imports from Germany more expensive, other countries would be able to export at competitive prices. The cheap currency would make importing goods from the PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain) an attractive proposition, and prevent the need to cut high labour costs by reducing the minimum wage – particularly an issue in Italy. The PIIGS would grow at the same pace until it would be economically viable for Germany to re-join a balanced single currency. Germany, in the interim, would benefit from a strong and stable economy.

 

If Gerxit is the answer, it would require a huge expenditure of political will and a readiness, on the part of the Germans, to take the pain of a contracting economy. Merkel is not going to give up on the Eurozone just yet. And, aside from the political stumbling blocks, Gerxit has its fair share of economic barriers as well. In 2012 a Bertelsmann Foundation study found that leaving the European Union would cost Germany around 0.5 basis points of GDP percentage growth over a period of 13 years, or €1.2 trillion. An estimated 200,000 people would have to be made redundant. There would be trade slowdown as a result of currency conversion and exchange rate fluctuations.

 

But pondering the effects of Gerxit remains an academic exercise. For following considerable and far from unanimous debate, the Bundestag have decided to allow negotiations on a €86 billion Greek bailout deal, kicking the can down the road and probably the wrong road at that. At best, Judgement Day has been adjourned; Europe’s political and economic future again hangs in the balance and the UK remains disengaged. Even though the UK is outside the Eurozone, complete disengagement from next door’s crisis seems incredibly foolish. As the UK has little exposure to Greece it would be in a good position to broker a deal to resolve the crisis. Leadership, rather than intimidation and self-serving diplomacy, is called for.

 

I was recently reminded of a joke that alludes to the Germans’ handling of Greece’s fate as similar to the doctor who gave a patient six months to live. When the patient failed to pay up the doctor gave him six more months. Merkel has recognised that “death”, in this case, is the “chaos” of Grexit, a move that has next to no winners and millions of losers. Perhaps a more relevant cry would be “Physician heal thy self”.

Are SMEs better off in or out of the European Union?

[avatar]

Three days after being appointed the new Conservative Business Secretary, Sajid Javid is already weathering a storm of media attention. Commentators have been pushing him hard in an attempt to tease out his plans for the next five years, and a key talking point to emerge from this scrutiny surrounds the tentative response he gave when questioned on Britain’s future within the EU. Mr Javid justified his evasiveness by saying he could give no firm answer on the issue of the UK’s membership until “we know the outcome of the renegotiation process.”

So the Business Secretary is holding his cards close to his chest on Europe for now. But even if the renegotiation process were to fail, would leaving the EU be a good deal for Britain and for business? The four million votes garnered by UKIP and their pint-swilling leader would seem to suggest many think so. They cite, amongst other things, the ability the UK would gain to regulate immigration from the European Union, make trade deals of its own volition, and disentangle the EU’s mass of bureaucratic processes as reasons to break with the organization.

CAM EU

These arguments are are specious. EU immigration has been shown to make a net economic contribution to the UK, any ability to broker our own trade deals would be offset by the loss of huge EU-led trade deals such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and striking deals with EU members from outside may well require regulation to be put back in place.

Furthermore, it is clear that powers abroad do not wish to see a “Brexit”. A guest column in The Telegraph written by a Norwegian minister warned of the angst caused by “not being at the table when policies… critical to our own security are determined.” And worrying noises have also emerged from the US and Japan, both of whom have stated that many of their companies based themselves in the UK primarily to be able to gain access to Europe.

UK-EU_Fotor

Despite this noise from abroad, though, there has been an increase in the number of small businesses considering leaving the EU. In 2014 the Quoted Companies alliance found 4% favoured withdrawing; a poll this month by Zurich has found that that number has risen to a third. With almost 90% of SMEs that sell to foreign markets trading with EU members, this rise would seem inexplicable – exports would not vanish in case of an exit, but tariffs and duties might well be levied. Indeed, a recent report from the LSE has modelled the effects of a Brexit and found negative economic welfare results in both optimistic and pessimistic scenarios. “Reduced integration with EU countries is likely to cost the UK economy far more than is gained from lower contributions to the EU budget,” they concluded.

With David Cameron now likely to bring the referendum forward to 2016, we must hope that clearer heads will prevail.

Quantitative Easing – Too Blunt an Instrument?

[avatar]

Maybe I’m not the only person who grew up in the 70s who finds a great irony in governments now trying to stimulate inflation. Just as they had little idea how to control inflation I doubt that Quantitative Easing (QE) is the best way to stimulate it. A more targeted approach is required, an approach that will do more than increase asset prices, an approach that might get industry and economies growing and growing faster.

Yesterday the European Central Bank (ECB) announced a larger than expected two year program of QE in the expectation that this will avoid continued deflation in the Eurozone. While QE is likely to be successful in this limited aim, it is possible that despite QE the UK will suffer a period of deflation, the lessons from the UK and the US suggest it will do little else.

QE in the UK and the USA, and arguably already in the Eurozone, has increased asset prices. Maybe it has even created an asset price bubble, if it has then as night follows day, bust will follow bubble. What QE has failed to do in any meaningful way is to:

  1. get capital into businesses, particularly smaller and medium sized businesses – the engines of all economies,
  2. increase the buying power of consumers, there is some evidence that wages are growing again now, but generally wages have not increased these last several years,
  3. increase productivity, which by some measures has fallen, this may be linked to 1 above, and is the largest single problem facing the UK economy today.

There are many restrictions on government, national and / or EU, passing money direct to companies and direct to their citizens. However as part of the program to avoid deflation greater emphasis should be given to this. If commercial banks won’t lend to any but government and the largest corporations, and the evidence of the last few years is that they won’t or have forgotten how to, then government sponsored development banks, programs for state aid and AltFi businesses should be given more of this money to do so and stimulate industry. Giving more money to consumers is relatively easy, reduce personal taxes. In consumer lead economies its nonsense to take money away from those who drive effective demand.

Of course there’ll be cries that this approach is unfair; the Germans may well be better at state aid than the Greeks for example. And taxes are for national government not EU, so there will be a disparate approach. There’s also a question of how to make sure there’s value for money from the investments made. Then again there’s little value from QE, beyond possibly a small amount of inflation.