Francois Hollande simply can not get a break, on the same day, that he once again criticised the tax arbitrage strategies, employed by the big multinationals. Yahoo moved their French operations to Ireland. Hollande has been one of the most critical of these strategies, as it costs France in particular a lot of tax revenue. Their 34% rate of corporation tax, would draw billions more, if only they could nail down the likes of Yahoo, Google, Apple etc. Thus, he is off to America to discuss the problem with Barack Obama, his thinly veiled barbs at low tax countries like Ireland, left for the media to digest.
However, the reason for Yahoo's move, on the face of it at least, is not purely due to tax efficiency. It was revealed that French secret service had access to all data held by Yahoo, in France. This is a highly contentious issue for the likes of Yahoo, and they have been very quick to condemn these intrusions. Ireland, a small neutral country with very few 'natural enemies' has little reason to snoop, thus making it an attractive location to store data.
Let's not delude ourselves here, the tax rates in Ireland are comparatively low, and that makes it a highly attractive country to invest in. If however, France was to drop it's rate to match ours, would the likes of Yahoo return to our Gallic neighbours?
I don't believe they would be in any rush, and these are the reasons.
France is a socialist leaning country, with a big government footprint and a generous welfare state. In order to pay for this, the government needs to charge high rates of tax, and is particularly keen on squeezing high earners. With a top rate of income tax - mooted but yet to be implemented - of 75%, it is not the kind of place, where rich people are too keen on domiciling.
Even taking tax out of the equation, Ireland still has the advantage. French labour laws are incredibly restrictive, making it very hard to fire people during down turns. This in turn, means companies are loath to employ people on permanent contracts, instead they often employ them on a yearly rolling contract. Hardly a model for stability.
Added to this is the power of the unions, they have the ability to bring the country to a stand still with a well organised strike. Air traffic controllers, railway unions, all have immense power. Thus when Hollande tries to push through painful reforms, the unions threaten to bring the country to a halt and the reforms tend to be watered down or abandoned altogether.
Worse yet are the infamous "boss-nappings", which were frequent during the financial crisis. The most recent example occurred, when the CEO and Head of HR at Goodyear France, were held hostage at their Amiens plant, in retaliation for the closing down the factory. None of these kidnappings has lead to a jail sentence, or any kind of judicial follow up. When the head of Titan International - a rival tyre manufacturer - was asked if he would consider buying the Goodyear plant, he laughed and questioned why anyone would invest in France.
Even if one avoids being kidnapped they might not dodge the state burglars. When ArcelorMittal decided to close part of their factory, the French government threatened to nationalise it to keep it open.
How could any CEO invest in such an uncertain environment, especially given the alternatives? The truth is they are not, last year Foreign Direct Investment in France fell 77%. To put this in context last year was the IDA's - the body responsible for FDI in Ireland - most successful year in Ireland.
Hollande may have reason to be angry, but before he starts criticising the neighbours he should tidy up his own back yard. Businesses need stability and in a globalised world, the French way of doing things won't cut the Dijon mustard.
Tuesday, 18 February 2014
Wednesday, 5 February 2014
The Grey Vote - Pump Parish Pothole Politics
How often do we hear that Ireland is dominated by 'Pump Parish Politics'? It seems to be a constant affliction in our country. In fact, I would go so far as to add the word pothole to the phrase, we consistently choose the politician who will fix the pothole outside our front door, rather than the one who is best placed to drive forward the country and by extension their local constituency as a whole.
Young people who tend to migrate towards cities, and tend to be more modern in their views may wonder why this is the case. Why are politicians always outside mass shaking hands, why do they promise us the sun, moon and stars, when they call to our doors? If someone is going to put a pylon on my land because it happens to be on a predefined route, can any one politician really stop this? More importantly, does the fact that I vote for someone else even matter in the grand scheme of things?
The answer to this really depends, it depends on your age, sex, where you live and so on. This all comes down to demographics.
Old people vote en masse. They are singularly the most important cohort of any election, whats more they will vote for the person who delivers the most for them, as is their right. As people live longer this is cohort is only going to become stronger, and the stronger they become the more influence they will have.
Think about this for a moment, if you are 75, you may expect to live for another 5-10 years. You've worked hard all of your life and have saved, you own your house and have a generous pension. You also live in a rural area, where the vast majority of people are over 50. Now suppose the government decides that they want to lower the rate of your pension increase, at the same time they want to build a very expensive motorway, linking 2 parts of the country, which will benefit you as you live close to the route. In your mind you might think that the reduction in your pension is paying for this motorway, and you might be right. The motorway will be completed in 8 years, the pension cut will be immediate. There is a general election in 3 months, and a pothole outside your driveway.
A sitting TD comes by your house and knocks on the door. You quiz he/she on the pension rate reduction, why is it happening? Why should you loose out? The politician explains that they plan to vote against this issue, they think that someone who has worked all their life, should have a comfortable retirement. You mention the motorway, they again say that they are against that. Pollution, noise, traffic, all bad. Finally you point at the pothole, you get a smile. 'Ah yeah we'll have that looked at ' they say. Guess who's getting your vote in a few months!
Now imagine this happening all across the country, in cities the conversation will be different, as the priorities will be different. The pension 'cut' will still be a big factor. Politicians will promise to fix it. More votes will be decided, a general election won. The motorway plan scrapped, kudos handed out at the next mass. You get the idea.
But wait you say, this isn't how a democracy works. What about all the young, hard working people, the people who have no pension, are drowned in debt, and who need that motor way to reduce their commute?
These people will of course vote, but in far lower numbers. This cohort feels a lot less connected to the government, to them their vote is just another drop in the ocean. They know the power of the grey vote or else do not realise the power of their own vote.
The grey vote could also be extended to include the NIMBY class, the Not In My Back Yard crew. They are happy for the motor way to be built... so long as it doesn't affect them in any way. If the route suddenly changes and its running right through one of their front gardens however, they might start getting upset.
In Ireland the pylon debate has been put on the back burner until after the local elections, due to this very problem. This vitally important piece of energy infrastructure, is being delayed because of the government playing politics. By delaying the decision they don't have to face angry voters in the run up to an election and potentially lose votes. I'm not saying that people should have no say in the matter, however a decision must be made. Should a pylon be built on your land, adequate compensation should be provided. Holding the entire state to account however can not be permitted. The country and its people as a whole, must come first.
To prove the power of the grey vote I will cite 2 examples. One in Ireland and one in Britain (it's not just an Irish issue).
In 2009 during the height of the global crisis the Fianna Fail coalition government had to make some drastic cuts and tax rises, to stem the state's massive overspending. This was a highly unpopular budget and caused outrage amongst many. A pensioners march was declared and a protest was formed. The result of this was to roll back some of the cuts that had hit the elderly.
The UK pension system is triple locked, this means that the pension will increase by either the rate of inflation (has been up to 5% in the past 3 years), the average rate of earnings increases or 2.5%. The highest value of these 3 will be used. That means that in 2011, pensioners got a 5% increase in their pension while average earnings increased at less than 1%. Furthermore, this has been approved for continuation into the next parliament. At a time when every department's funding (health and education aside) is being slashed, this is an incredibly generous offering.
I could cite further examples, but I think you've got the picture. The question is what can be done about it?
We could decide to bring in compulsory voting, as they do in Australia. This would have the benefit of making all cohorts equally important. Politicians would have to create a mandate, that was good for everyone in society. The motor way would most likely be built under this scenario, the pylons erected etc. Nobody could complain about the decisions being made being undemocratic, as everyone had their fair say. Politicians would be held to account by the population as a whole.
There is one problem however, Ireland fought long and hard for a democracy, we even shed blood in doing so. A democracy means everyone has the right to vote, however it similarly means everyone has the right not to vote. It is up to each and every person eligible, to make that decision. Forcing people to vote because you do not like the status quo, is not an answer. It may also lead to extreme parties picking up more seats, as they promise populist ideas that sound good on paper, but would be bad for our economy and reputation.
The best way to change the current system, is to engage with all voters. Restore faith in politics, show younger people that it's not just an old boys club. The government has made some moves towards this - the latest move is to stop the appointment of judges based on political grounds. This is to be welcomed but more needs to be done. While John Tierney may prove to be an excellent CEO of Irish Water, the process of appointing him was too opaque, and his track record has some notable blemishes (the Poolbeg incinerator). These kinds of moves do not engender the public to politicians.
Another issue I have with the political system, is that the term of government is too short. Is 5 years really enough time to make a radical change, which may in the short term be painful but in the long term beneficial? I have thought about this at length, and there is no easy solution. I have considered a situation where governments create a manifesto for a 10-15 year plan. The manifesto should then be implemented by the government, over the 10-15 years the benefits would have time to become apparent. The government would be allowed to stay in office for this period, but only once a certain % of this manifesto had been met by year 5. Lets say the figure was 80%. An external organisation such as the IMF could oversee this, and after 5 years say whether the government had met its targets. If it had not done so the government could be dissolved, and if it had done it could continue. A serious event like the financial crisis could lead a government to manually dissolve, as the manifesto would no longer be fit for purpose. The balance of power would rest with a governments TD's, who would have the power to switch allegiance should a government go 'crazy with power'. It's not an ideal solution but I feel it's a better way of making real reform and making decisions for the long run, and not constantly seeing oneself through the 5 years, until the next election. An obvious drawback is that opposition TD's would have very little power, aside from adding their weight to a debate. The system would be open to abuse, but thats currently the case anyway.
Overall politics needs to change, as globalisation spreads, and the developing nations rise there will be nowhere to hide. Those countries that have made the tough decisions will prosper, those who have not will flounder. The status quo will be nice and comfortable, until it's not. By then it will be too late to change. The hard choice is often the best one, that's why it's hard.
If you are to take anything away from this post, let it be that you have the right to vote and you should exercise this right!
Some proposals, that will never happen under the current setup, or are severely contested.
Full abortion rights - The grey vote tends to be less liberal and more religious, they will never allow for abortion as the Catholic church does not allow for it.
The right for LGBT to marry/adopt - We live in a modern society no longer dominated by the Catholic Church.
The use of nuclear power - Cheap power is going to be a key competitive issue for all countries as globalisation grows. Nuclear can be cheap and is clean to generate, disposal is a different story.
Radical pension reform and large increase of pension age - Why would the grey vote change this when it works in their favour.
The legalisation of cannabis - Why not, it would raise taxes, could be regulated and would reduce proceeds to crime and the amount of people in jail. Other countries have started to look at this already.
The legalisation of prostitution - Again this would have benefits as per the cannabis argument and would reduce sex trafficking and exploitation.
Young people who tend to migrate towards cities, and tend to be more modern in their views may wonder why this is the case. Why are politicians always outside mass shaking hands, why do they promise us the sun, moon and stars, when they call to our doors? If someone is going to put a pylon on my land because it happens to be on a predefined route, can any one politician really stop this? More importantly, does the fact that I vote for someone else even matter in the grand scheme of things?
The answer to this really depends, it depends on your age, sex, where you live and so on. This all comes down to demographics.
Old people vote en masse. They are singularly the most important cohort of any election, whats more they will vote for the person who delivers the most for them, as is their right. As people live longer this is cohort is only going to become stronger, and the stronger they become the more influence they will have.
Think about this for a moment, if you are 75, you may expect to live for another 5-10 years. You've worked hard all of your life and have saved, you own your house and have a generous pension. You also live in a rural area, where the vast majority of people are over 50. Now suppose the government decides that they want to lower the rate of your pension increase, at the same time they want to build a very expensive motorway, linking 2 parts of the country, which will benefit you as you live close to the route. In your mind you might think that the reduction in your pension is paying for this motorway, and you might be right. The motorway will be completed in 8 years, the pension cut will be immediate. There is a general election in 3 months, and a pothole outside your driveway.
A sitting TD comes by your house and knocks on the door. You quiz he/she on the pension rate reduction, why is it happening? Why should you loose out? The politician explains that they plan to vote against this issue, they think that someone who has worked all their life, should have a comfortable retirement. You mention the motorway, they again say that they are against that. Pollution, noise, traffic, all bad. Finally you point at the pothole, you get a smile. 'Ah yeah we'll have that looked at ' they say. Guess who's getting your vote in a few months!
Now imagine this happening all across the country, in cities the conversation will be different, as the priorities will be different. The pension 'cut' will still be a big factor. Politicians will promise to fix it. More votes will be decided, a general election won. The motorway plan scrapped, kudos handed out at the next mass. You get the idea.
But wait you say, this isn't how a democracy works. What about all the young, hard working people, the people who have no pension, are drowned in debt, and who need that motor way to reduce their commute?
These people will of course vote, but in far lower numbers. This cohort feels a lot less connected to the government, to them their vote is just another drop in the ocean. They know the power of the grey vote or else do not realise the power of their own vote.
The grey vote could also be extended to include the NIMBY class, the Not In My Back Yard crew. They are happy for the motor way to be built... so long as it doesn't affect them in any way. If the route suddenly changes and its running right through one of their front gardens however, they might start getting upset.
In Ireland the pylon debate has been put on the back burner until after the local elections, due to this very problem. This vitally important piece of energy infrastructure, is being delayed because of the government playing politics. By delaying the decision they don't have to face angry voters in the run up to an election and potentially lose votes. I'm not saying that people should have no say in the matter, however a decision must be made. Should a pylon be built on your land, adequate compensation should be provided. Holding the entire state to account however can not be permitted. The country and its people as a whole, must come first.
To prove the power of the grey vote I will cite 2 examples. One in Ireland and one in Britain (it's not just an Irish issue).
In 2009 during the height of the global crisis the Fianna Fail coalition government had to make some drastic cuts and tax rises, to stem the state's massive overspending. This was a highly unpopular budget and caused outrage amongst many. A pensioners march was declared and a protest was formed. The result of this was to roll back some of the cuts that had hit the elderly.
The UK pension system is triple locked, this means that the pension will increase by either the rate of inflation (has been up to 5% in the past 3 years), the average rate of earnings increases or 2.5%. The highest value of these 3 will be used. That means that in 2011, pensioners got a 5% increase in their pension while average earnings increased at less than 1%. Furthermore, this has been approved for continuation into the next parliament. At a time when every department's funding (health and education aside) is being slashed, this is an incredibly generous offering.
I could cite further examples, but I think you've got the picture. The question is what can be done about it?
We could decide to bring in compulsory voting, as they do in Australia. This would have the benefit of making all cohorts equally important. Politicians would have to create a mandate, that was good for everyone in society. The motor way would most likely be built under this scenario, the pylons erected etc. Nobody could complain about the decisions being made being undemocratic, as everyone had their fair say. Politicians would be held to account by the population as a whole.
There is one problem however, Ireland fought long and hard for a democracy, we even shed blood in doing so. A democracy means everyone has the right to vote, however it similarly means everyone has the right not to vote. It is up to each and every person eligible, to make that decision. Forcing people to vote because you do not like the status quo, is not an answer. It may also lead to extreme parties picking up more seats, as they promise populist ideas that sound good on paper, but would be bad for our economy and reputation.
The best way to change the current system, is to engage with all voters. Restore faith in politics, show younger people that it's not just an old boys club. The government has made some moves towards this - the latest move is to stop the appointment of judges based on political grounds. This is to be welcomed but more needs to be done. While John Tierney may prove to be an excellent CEO of Irish Water, the process of appointing him was too opaque, and his track record has some notable blemishes (the Poolbeg incinerator). These kinds of moves do not engender the public to politicians.
Another issue I have with the political system, is that the term of government is too short. Is 5 years really enough time to make a radical change, which may in the short term be painful but in the long term beneficial? I have thought about this at length, and there is no easy solution. I have considered a situation where governments create a manifesto for a 10-15 year plan. The manifesto should then be implemented by the government, over the 10-15 years the benefits would have time to become apparent. The government would be allowed to stay in office for this period, but only once a certain % of this manifesto had been met by year 5. Lets say the figure was 80%. An external organisation such as the IMF could oversee this, and after 5 years say whether the government had met its targets. If it had not done so the government could be dissolved, and if it had done it could continue. A serious event like the financial crisis could lead a government to manually dissolve, as the manifesto would no longer be fit for purpose. The balance of power would rest with a governments TD's, who would have the power to switch allegiance should a government go 'crazy with power'. It's not an ideal solution but I feel it's a better way of making real reform and making decisions for the long run, and not constantly seeing oneself through the 5 years, until the next election. An obvious drawback is that opposition TD's would have very little power, aside from adding their weight to a debate. The system would be open to abuse, but thats currently the case anyway.
Overall politics needs to change, as globalisation spreads, and the developing nations rise there will be nowhere to hide. Those countries that have made the tough decisions will prosper, those who have not will flounder. The status quo will be nice and comfortable, until it's not. By then it will be too late to change. The hard choice is often the best one, that's why it's hard.
If you are to take anything away from this post, let it be that you have the right to vote and you should exercise this right!
Some proposals, that will never happen under the current setup, or are severely contested.
Full abortion rights - The grey vote tends to be less liberal and more religious, they will never allow for abortion as the Catholic church does not allow for it.
The right for LGBT to marry/adopt - We live in a modern society no longer dominated by the Catholic Church.
The use of nuclear power - Cheap power is going to be a key competitive issue for all countries as globalisation grows. Nuclear can be cheap and is clean to generate, disposal is a different story.
Radical pension reform and large increase of pension age - Why would the grey vote change this when it works in their favour.
The legalisation of cannabis - Why not, it would raise taxes, could be regulated and would reduce proceeds to crime and the amount of people in jail. Other countries have started to look at this already.
The legalisation of prostitution - Again this would have benefits as per the cannabis argument and would reduce sex trafficking and exploitation.
Tuesday, 10 December 2013
Do we want to live in a Nanny State or a Grown Up one?
6 years on from the crisis and the crash of the housing market, things are starting to look up*. People however are still pissed off, and to be fair they probably have a right to be. There are the obvious bug bears, the bank; which won't give you a mortgage, is increasing your monthly charges and paying their chief executive, many multiples of your miserly salary. Your younger sibling/son/daughter can't find work, because they don't have the relevant experience, forcing them to consider emigration and your health insurance has just increased, due to some tax mumbo jumbo that you don't really understand. What you do understand is that your salary is decreasing, thanks to higher taxes and your residual income is also shrinking, as all of the above squeezes every last drop of whats remaining of your salary after tax (and don't forget the mortgage). And yes, I forgot to mention that energy prices are going to go up.... well we'll just have to wait until next year for that new car I guess. You know the one, that would use half the amount of fuel as your current banger. Some people think that this is all due to a failure of capitalism (just take a look at the socialist leaning Sinn Fein in the polls) and they couldn't be further from the truth. Real capitalism, would have been far far worse..............initially anyway.
In fact what we have is a quasi capitalist/socialist state which does far too much meddling in the affairs of people. The government takes 50% of your wages because they think that they can spend the money better than you can, they make you pay for €160 for RTE, even though you might not watch it from one Toy Show to the next. They slap taxes on 'bad' things like tobacco and alcohol, because obviously the rest of the adult population can not see for themselves, that these products are bad for ones health. They charge you 80 euro for a passport that cost 14 euro to make. Then they shovel all this money out the door and into the hands of bond holders, who really should have known better.
Why do they do this?
The answer is because we want them to, at some level of our psyche (and it's not just an Irish problem) we want the government to be there to hold our hand. We want someone else to blame when things go wrong. Ah sure it's the governments fault, ah sure the banks are at it again. We refuse to accept that the government and the bankers make up only the tiny fraction of the population. The last time I checked the Celtic Tiger was being enjoyed by many more than just the bankers, builders and the government. Don't get me wrong they were having a hell of a time, but they weren't the only ones. As much as the bankers loved handing out the 110% mortgages, there had to be someone there to borrow, as much as the builders loved building houses, there had to be a insatiable demand in the market for them to bother. As always it takes 2 to tango and as always its easier to find someone else to blame. Don't get me wrong I am not absolving Fianna Fail of the blame, but they are not the only ones to blame either.
What is capitalism?
A capitalist state, in its most extreme (extreme does not necessarily mean bad) form, is one where the government does as little as possible and lets private firms provide for the needs of the country. Most of the businesses we interact with on a daily basis are private, capitalist firms. The shop where you buy your groceries, has to offer you the best value to price ratio, or it will go out of business. The pub you go to with your friends, can maybe charge an extra euro for a pint, compared to the pub next door but only if they are showing live sports, have a band or is just generally a nicer venue. The key thing is that you decide and you pick the option that suits you. Those companies that do not make enough money to survive, go bust and another business that better suits the needs of the public replaces it. This is called creative destruction and is key to a healthy and competitive environment. Competition is the key, without this there is no incentive for a business to offer higher value/price. If there was only one grocery store, they could charge what they liked and treat you however they liked, you would have no choice but to keep going there. In a market economy supply and demand are the only factors that set the price, this goes for everything from land to labour, from bread to beer and from cars to air fares. In a capitalist economy taxes are low, because the government does not do very much, therefore they don't need as much money to spend, therefore you give them less. In fact the only thing the government really needs to do is set out a sound legal framework, protect property rights, provide national defence and regulate planning permission (not an exhaustive list but you get the idea). The rest will be done by the market. Crucially this also means that the government does not regulate too much. If I want to open a bank and run it out of the back of my car, then so be it, if people are happy to deposit their money with me at the rate of interest I am quoting, then good for them. If my bank collapses after a week and I've lost 100k worth of deposits, by giving said deposits out on loan to the wrong guy, then c'est la vie. The world moves on, people learn and the next time they will be more careful . In a capitalist world there is no minimum wage, people would be paid based on the amount they produced. If they produced a lot they would be paid a lot, this spurs creativity and motivates people. There would be no social welfare either so the option of sitting around being a benefit bum isn't an option. This would not mean that an umeployed person could not get a job, what it would mean is that you could supply your work at a lower wage in tough times making your labour more attractive to employers. Better yet you could set up your own company and employ others at a rate that both you and they felt was fair.
The opposite to capitalism is socialism, this is where the state controls everything. There is one grocery store, one book store, one pub, one nursery and tough luck if you don't like it. These businesses never go bust because they make a genuine profit (which is easy to do with no competition), or they get subsidised by the state (your taxes). While this may seem like an idilic situation - where everyone is equal and all share equally in the rise and fall of the economy. The fact is that it does not work, just ask the Russians. There is no motivation to work harder than the laziest worker. You will be paid the same, shop in the same supermarket, drink the same beer. Why should you break you ass if he/she does not?
Somewhere in the middle although slightly to the right (capitalist side) of these 2 extremes lies most of the Western World. As I mentioned, most of the day to day dealings are with private businesses. Banks (wait scratch that), supermarkets, book shops, phone shops etc. However some key enterprises are still controlled by the government. Needless to say efficiency and quality are not at the top of the list in these places. The sight of people on hospital trollies is hardly a hall mark of quality. You wouldn't see that in the Blackrock Clinic because, if it were the case they'd go bust. Do you remember the last time that you had to queue for a driving licence, ye gods it's horrific! I waited 8 months for my driving test in the government run days, its now private and the waiting time is weeks.
Lets look again at the scenario, had real capitalism been allowed during the financial crisis. Anglo would have gone bust and would have dragged AIB, EBS, Permanent TSB and the rest down with it. Bank Of Ireland may have survived, but it would have been very touch and go. Any deposits (which are loans made by you and I to the bank) over 20,000 would have been wiped out and the 'assets' or the loans, that the banks made to people (mortgages, credit cards etc) would have been flogged to the highest bidder in a fire sale, as the bank was liquidated. People would potentially have been able to buy their own mortgages back at a fraction of the par value (its impossible to say how much, but 30% of the total is not an unreasonable estimate)**. There may even have been no market for the loans. In this case people could buy them back, practically for free. The banks bond holders would have been wiped out in one quick swipe, left to pick the remains of what, if anything was left. Shareholders and junior bondholders would have been wiped out. Many businesses would have been wiped out, creative destruction would be well and truly come to the fore. Those that survived would be the leanest and meanest around, and fair play to them. Who would stand to lose the most in absolute terms from this? Those with the most to lose, those who had put the most money into these creaking institutions without verifying the risk.
It's very hard to say whether or not the Irish government would have had to default under the scenario, the Irish banks were and still are big holders of its debt. This national debt too would be sold in a fire sale, and as most of the European Banking system would have similarly collapsed (triggered by Ireland) there may have been no buyers for the governments bonds. I don't have the facts and figures to be able to draw a conclusion on this, but I think its fair to assume total bankruptcy of the Irish state and by extension most of the Eurozone, and the UK and maybe the US. Ooops.
All of this would have created chaos, the country would have reverted to the punt and would have been unable to pay for petrol or gas (although the price of this would plummet), we would have no new drugs to fight illness and disease.
What would we have?
Well we'd still have a sovereign state with the ability to feed itself 20 times over, an abundance of natural resources, fossil fuels (not the cleanest in the world but who cares) and a highly educated population. Assuming the rest of Europe was in a similar position i.e. bust, the benefits of emigration would be lessened. Some might even see it as a golden opportunity to start afresh. Can you imagine the competitive advantage we would have. Little or no debt vis a vis other nations, our wages would fall dramatically as the demand for workers fell, while the supply rocketed (high unemployment). We could manufacture products at a fraction of the pre crash cost, sell our dairy and livestock cheaper than anyone. After a period of time the country would get back on its feet. Whether it would take 6 years to do so or not is the over arching question. We would never get back to the days of the Celtic Tiger, but in relative terms, with no debt we could be just as well off although with less iphones and other such frivolous luxuries.
Would this pain have been necessary?
Probably not, the most important factor here is to let people think for themselves. This leads back to the question of the Grown Up vs Nanny State. In the lead up to the crash people were lulled into a false sense of security. They felt that regulators would watch over everything removing risk from the system. This lead them to deposit money at the bank, with the highest rate of interest instead of depositing it at the bank that was fundamentally the soundest. People did not look at the price/value or in this case the risk/reward ratio. But these people were lead into this trap by the professionals. The so called capital markets. This is where the rot started and this is where the pain should have been felt. For these professional investors were also lulled into a false sense of security. They didn't discriminate between Anglo and Bank Of Ireland. They felt that one was as safe as the other which quite clearly was not the case.
Why did they think this?
They thought this because the regulators were meant to be keeping an eye on the risks, they thought this because they felt that they were smarter than the rest, and that they could get high return, without the high risk associated, they thought they could have their cake and eat it too. How was the little old lady with her pension pot to know, that putting all her money in Anglo shares was a bad thing? If the pros were doing it and raking it in why shouldn't she? Herein lies the fundamental problem. The pros may have done this even in a world without a regulator. It's highly unlikely though, if a firm genuinely thought that there was a chance that it's money would not be redeemed. It would have taken a much closer look at Anglo. It would have seen that they had bet the farm on the Irish property market. A sensible investor may have invested in Anglo bonds anyway, but they would have charged much more interest to compensate for the risk. Then they would have done the same for AIB and charged BOI less as it was less risky.
So in the real grown up world, AIB and Anglo would have been at a competitive disadvantage to BOI. They would have to pay more and thus charge more for the loans that they made. Would a property developer borrow billions from Anglo if they had to pay 8% interest instead of 4%? I think not.
In the nanny world though there was no risk, everything was the same. Anglo paid 4% as did AIB. BOI possibly paid more because it wasn't making enough money (taking enough risk).
In my next post I will look at what should have been done and what the outcome may have been.
In fact what we have is a quasi capitalist/socialist state which does far too much meddling in the affairs of people. The government takes 50% of your wages because they think that they can spend the money better than you can, they make you pay for €160 for RTE, even though you might not watch it from one Toy Show to the next. They slap taxes on 'bad' things like tobacco and alcohol, because obviously the rest of the adult population can not see for themselves, that these products are bad for ones health. They charge you 80 euro for a passport that cost 14 euro to make. Then they shovel all this money out the door and into the hands of bond holders, who really should have known better.
Why do they do this?
The answer is because we want them to, at some level of our psyche (and it's not just an Irish problem) we want the government to be there to hold our hand. We want someone else to blame when things go wrong. Ah sure it's the governments fault, ah sure the banks are at it again. We refuse to accept that the government and the bankers make up only the tiny fraction of the population. The last time I checked the Celtic Tiger was being enjoyed by many more than just the bankers, builders and the government. Don't get me wrong they were having a hell of a time, but they weren't the only ones. As much as the bankers loved handing out the 110% mortgages, there had to be someone there to borrow, as much as the builders loved building houses, there had to be a insatiable demand in the market for them to bother. As always it takes 2 to tango and as always its easier to find someone else to blame. Don't get me wrong I am not absolving Fianna Fail of the blame, but they are not the only ones to blame either.
What is capitalism?
A capitalist state, in its most extreme (extreme does not necessarily mean bad) form, is one where the government does as little as possible and lets private firms provide for the needs of the country. Most of the businesses we interact with on a daily basis are private, capitalist firms. The shop where you buy your groceries, has to offer you the best value to price ratio, or it will go out of business. The pub you go to with your friends, can maybe charge an extra euro for a pint, compared to the pub next door but only if they are showing live sports, have a band or is just generally a nicer venue. The key thing is that you decide and you pick the option that suits you. Those companies that do not make enough money to survive, go bust and another business that better suits the needs of the public replaces it. This is called creative destruction and is key to a healthy and competitive environment. Competition is the key, without this there is no incentive for a business to offer higher value/price. If there was only one grocery store, they could charge what they liked and treat you however they liked, you would have no choice but to keep going there. In a market economy supply and demand are the only factors that set the price, this goes for everything from land to labour, from bread to beer and from cars to air fares. In a capitalist economy taxes are low, because the government does not do very much, therefore they don't need as much money to spend, therefore you give them less. In fact the only thing the government really needs to do is set out a sound legal framework, protect property rights, provide national defence and regulate planning permission (not an exhaustive list but you get the idea). The rest will be done by the market. Crucially this also means that the government does not regulate too much. If I want to open a bank and run it out of the back of my car, then so be it, if people are happy to deposit their money with me at the rate of interest I am quoting, then good for them. If my bank collapses after a week and I've lost 100k worth of deposits, by giving said deposits out on loan to the wrong guy, then c'est la vie. The world moves on, people learn and the next time they will be more careful . In a capitalist world there is no minimum wage, people would be paid based on the amount they produced. If they produced a lot they would be paid a lot, this spurs creativity and motivates people. There would be no social welfare either so the option of sitting around being a benefit bum isn't an option. This would not mean that an umeployed person could not get a job, what it would mean is that you could supply your work at a lower wage in tough times making your labour more attractive to employers. Better yet you could set up your own company and employ others at a rate that both you and they felt was fair.
The opposite to capitalism is socialism, this is where the state controls everything. There is one grocery store, one book store, one pub, one nursery and tough luck if you don't like it. These businesses never go bust because they make a genuine profit (which is easy to do with no competition), or they get subsidised by the state (your taxes). While this may seem like an idilic situation - where everyone is equal and all share equally in the rise and fall of the economy. The fact is that it does not work, just ask the Russians. There is no motivation to work harder than the laziest worker. You will be paid the same, shop in the same supermarket, drink the same beer. Why should you break you ass if he/she does not?
Somewhere in the middle although slightly to the right (capitalist side) of these 2 extremes lies most of the Western World. As I mentioned, most of the day to day dealings are with private businesses. Banks (wait scratch that), supermarkets, book shops, phone shops etc. However some key enterprises are still controlled by the government. Needless to say efficiency and quality are not at the top of the list in these places. The sight of people on hospital trollies is hardly a hall mark of quality. You wouldn't see that in the Blackrock Clinic because, if it were the case they'd go bust. Do you remember the last time that you had to queue for a driving licence, ye gods it's horrific! I waited 8 months for my driving test in the government run days, its now private and the waiting time is weeks.
Lets look again at the scenario, had real capitalism been allowed during the financial crisis. Anglo would have gone bust and would have dragged AIB, EBS, Permanent TSB and the rest down with it. Bank Of Ireland may have survived, but it would have been very touch and go. Any deposits (which are loans made by you and I to the bank) over 20,000 would have been wiped out and the 'assets' or the loans, that the banks made to people (mortgages, credit cards etc) would have been flogged to the highest bidder in a fire sale, as the bank was liquidated. People would potentially have been able to buy their own mortgages back at a fraction of the par value (its impossible to say how much, but 30% of the total is not an unreasonable estimate)**. There may even have been no market for the loans. In this case people could buy them back, practically for free. The banks bond holders would have been wiped out in one quick swipe, left to pick the remains of what, if anything was left. Shareholders and junior bondholders would have been wiped out. Many businesses would have been wiped out, creative destruction would be well and truly come to the fore. Those that survived would be the leanest and meanest around, and fair play to them. Who would stand to lose the most in absolute terms from this? Those with the most to lose, those who had put the most money into these creaking institutions without verifying the risk.
It's very hard to say whether or not the Irish government would have had to default under the scenario, the Irish banks were and still are big holders of its debt. This national debt too would be sold in a fire sale, and as most of the European Banking system would have similarly collapsed (triggered by Ireland) there may have been no buyers for the governments bonds. I don't have the facts and figures to be able to draw a conclusion on this, but I think its fair to assume total bankruptcy of the Irish state and by extension most of the Eurozone, and the UK and maybe the US. Ooops.
All of this would have created chaos, the country would have reverted to the punt and would have been unable to pay for petrol or gas (although the price of this would plummet), we would have no new drugs to fight illness and disease.
What would we have?
Well we'd still have a sovereign state with the ability to feed itself 20 times over, an abundance of natural resources, fossil fuels (not the cleanest in the world but who cares) and a highly educated population. Assuming the rest of Europe was in a similar position i.e. bust, the benefits of emigration would be lessened. Some might even see it as a golden opportunity to start afresh. Can you imagine the competitive advantage we would have. Little or no debt vis a vis other nations, our wages would fall dramatically as the demand for workers fell, while the supply rocketed (high unemployment). We could manufacture products at a fraction of the pre crash cost, sell our dairy and livestock cheaper than anyone. After a period of time the country would get back on its feet. Whether it would take 6 years to do so or not is the over arching question. We would never get back to the days of the Celtic Tiger, but in relative terms, with no debt we could be just as well off although with less iphones and other such frivolous luxuries.
Would this pain have been necessary?
Probably not, the most important factor here is to let people think for themselves. This leads back to the question of the Grown Up vs Nanny State. In the lead up to the crash people were lulled into a false sense of security. They felt that regulators would watch over everything removing risk from the system. This lead them to deposit money at the bank, with the highest rate of interest instead of depositing it at the bank that was fundamentally the soundest. People did not look at the price/value or in this case the risk/reward ratio. But these people were lead into this trap by the professionals. The so called capital markets. This is where the rot started and this is where the pain should have been felt. For these professional investors were also lulled into a false sense of security. They didn't discriminate between Anglo and Bank Of Ireland. They felt that one was as safe as the other which quite clearly was not the case.
Why did they think this?
They thought this because the regulators were meant to be keeping an eye on the risks, they thought this because they felt that they were smarter than the rest, and that they could get high return, without the high risk associated, they thought they could have their cake and eat it too. How was the little old lady with her pension pot to know, that putting all her money in Anglo shares was a bad thing? If the pros were doing it and raking it in why shouldn't she? Herein lies the fundamental problem. The pros may have done this even in a world without a regulator. It's highly unlikely though, if a firm genuinely thought that there was a chance that it's money would not be redeemed. It would have taken a much closer look at Anglo. It would have seen that they had bet the farm on the Irish property market. A sensible investor may have invested in Anglo bonds anyway, but they would have charged much more interest to compensate for the risk. Then they would have done the same for AIB and charged BOI less as it was less risky.
So in the real grown up world, AIB and Anglo would have been at a competitive disadvantage to BOI. They would have to pay more and thus charge more for the loans that they made. Would a property developer borrow billions from Anglo if they had to pay 8% interest instead of 4%? I think not.
In the nanny world though there was no risk, everything was the same. Anglo paid 4% as did AIB. BOI possibly paid more because it wasn't making enough money (taking enough risk).
In my next post I will look at what should have been done and what the outcome may have been.
*I say this very cautiously
**Most people however would not have had the wherewithal to buy back their loans though. So what would probably have happened is that a foreign buyer would have bought the loans even cheaper again and asked the owner to pay back the mortgage over a long period.
**Most people however would not have had the wherewithal to buy back their loans though. So what would probably have happened is that a foreign buyer would have bought the loans even cheaper again and asked the owner to pay back the mortgage over a long period.
Monday, 11 November 2013
What's that rising in the (Y)east part III
This is the final section of my biggest blog to date, I hope you have enjoyed the blog thus far and if you are new to this site then you can find part I here and part II here.
We left part II asking what Ireland and it's fellow EU members could do to rest power back from the ever dominant Germans, and their Champion of Austerity, Chancellor Angela Merkel.
The Eurozone crisis has uncovered deep rifts between the various member states, something that the creation of the European project was meant to prevent. At the onset of the crisis, the French and the Germans were considered to be in the strongest negotiating position, however since then the French have been dragged into the mess - were recently downgraded again by S&P - and no longer have the perceived power that they once had. This means Germany stands alone as the power broker in Europe. The other nations are looking after their own vested interests, and are not clubbing together to act as a voice of opposition to Germany's austere policies.
I can't say that I completely disagree with German policy. When the crisis hit, many countries realised that they had been living far beyond their means, mainly because they were able to borrow at very low interest rates thanks to the Euro. Whereas before, banks in Italy would have had to buy pesos to invest in Spanish banks/debt, they now shared a common currency and money flowed freely to where the returns were highest - the booming economies of Ireland and Spain etc. Germany actually began the Euro project in a protracted slump, and as a result of this the ECB set the interest rate at contemporarily low rates. In order to get back to growth in the early noughties, the Germans reformed their economy, they liberalised labour markets - more on this later, broke the unions iron grip and encouraged prudent spending and high savings. These German savings flowed into the rest of the Eurozone, as German banks looked to make a higher return, than was available in Germany. For countries like Ireland and Spain this was equivalent to pouring oil, on a raging bonfire of already cheap money. Money that we now know was largely invested in construction.
When the bubble burst and the collateral damage was being surveyed, it seemed that sensible Germany had escaped most of the pain, while the peripherals were left counting the cost of an almighty party. Suddenly the main source of a countries revenue - construction - had dried up, yet the government spending, that had also risen in the boom years, was as big as ever. Worse yet, the spending was an integral part of the economy and slashing it would lead to even further falls in GDP.
Banks were crippled and had to be bailed out - according to the ECB and by extension Germany - as, lets not forget, a lot of the money that those banks had been lending was actually German cash. Brian Lenihan recounted how the erstwhile president of the ECB, Jean-Claude Trichet, called him up the night that Anglo was saved, and told him that Ireland could not allow the banks to fail, as it could result in the collapse of the European banking system.
So in effect Ireland bailed out Germany.
Apart from the very obvious flaw with this plan - that we %@&&*%$ bailed out Germany - there were some bones of contention.
During the boom, banks made outrageous amounts of profit, and paid their clueless CEOs fantastic sums of money, however when the bust came everyone shared the pain, and the banks became state owned - socialism by any other name. Did the very stupid people running these banks give back some of the money, nope not a single penny, they were put out to pasture and paid more taxpayer money. One could argue that they should all have been jailed, but thats another matter.
All of this inevitably lent to the bailout 2 years later - how ironic - with the Germans leading from the front, in terms of the structure of said bailout, and the terms and conditions that would apply.
In the 2 years between the re-capitalisation of the banks and the Irish bailout, the Germans developed memory loss and forgot, why we were where we were in the first place. They did however remember, that when their economy was in trouble that austerity won out in the end. This therefore was to be the plan for every other struggling European country.
As I mentioned, I don't fault Germany entirely for this course of action. Ireland was spending far too much vis a vis the tax it was taking in. Drastic cuts had to be made to steady the ship. Other reforms were also needed. Ireland's labour laws were already very flexible - employees can be fired and by extension hired quite cheaply, but other areas did need drastic reform. Areas such as protected professions e.g. lawyers needed to be liberalised and more competition fostered in general. The banks also needed to be cleaned up, and people in negative equity needed to be dealt with. As it turns out very little was done about this in the end.
The troika - as our new paymasters were known - were not satisfied with that however, and they insisted that tax levels were increased across the board. This is an area where I do find fault with German policy. During the bailout the Irish budget was being released to the German parliament, before most Irish politicians got to see it. Germany was a big factor behind the ridiculous rise to 23% of the top rate of VAT, and the 53% top rate of income tax that are still in force today. This has done Ireland no favours and has depressed demand, and led people to emigrate to countries with lower rates of tax. It has oft been said that you can not tax your way out of a recession, this is not strictly true in my opinion, but the amount you can raise from tax without causing further pain is limited. The concept of 23% VAT is a joke considering we have a land border with Northern Ireland - where a weak pound and lower rate of VAT come into play.
Ireland was not alone in facing these demands, Greece has been forced to cut even more savagely. Portugal, Spain, Cyprus and Italy too have had to make growth destroying cuts.
The German's had the advantage of pursuing austerity during a time when their trade partners were booming, and there is no doubt that the pain they went through has paid off in the long run. Prescribing austerity to every other country during a global downturn, has proven to be somewhat effective, it can not and will not end the Euro crisis however.
In part II I looked at other ways that Europe could lessen it's debt pile, and described how a good dose of inflation was required; to devalue the debt; and speed up the recovery. Germany as the most powerful country in Europe has the final say - although technically the ECB controls this - and will not change its ways on a whim. Someone needs to stand up to the Germans, and I feel that Ireland needs to be a part of this.
Ireland is in a strong negotiating position - believe it or not. It has swallowed it's austerity pill, taken the bailout and is now on the verge of an exit, and return to the bond markets. Our small island can be a beacon of hope for other nations, proving that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. This should be our negotiating stance.. the Germans need to be told in no uncertain terms, that they need to loosen their iron grip on the ECB and allow more inflation - quantitive easing, direct buying of government bonds etc. This will allow the likes of Spain and Greece to become competitive once more, and should help to devalue the Euro, giving them an export boost and a well needed shot in the arm. Germany may well complain that the competitiveness issue is not their fault and that reform is the key. There is no more room for reform though, as voters get more and more fed up of austerity.
You might well think at this point - well the ECB have just cut the rate to 0.25%, so surely Germany does not have that much control. You would be right in this regard. The rate of interest is set solely by the ECB, however with this rate already very low the incremental affect of each new cut is minimal. What the ECB really need to do is tear up the rule book and start printing money to really stoke inflation. This is where the German's hold the power, money printing is not allowed under EU law, and as long as Germany opposes this there will be no change here.
Let me explain why inflation will help. In Italy if you want to fire a worker you need to pay them 2 years salary, this means that Italian businesses, will try and hire as few new people as possible and are also unable to cut the people who are now earning too much money, for the work that they do. If inflation were to come in and rise at 2-3%, then the real cost of wages in Italy would conversely, fall by 2-3% per year, until such a point where they were once again in line with productivity. As productivity and wages become aligned, more workers could be hired easing pressure on the government and allowing them to then reform the labour market - they would make firing people a lot easier and cheaper - without having to deal with an already angry - and highly unemployed - electorate. People often talk about how Ireland regained its competitiveness, and we can say that this is thanks to the liberal labour laws in Ireland. People who cost too much were fired and either replaced with cheaper labour or not replaced at all. Archaic as this may sound, it is very important for businesses to be able to cut costs when times are tough.
Germany too has liberal labour laws, but controls its inflation and wage increases very carefully. This has meant that they have been able to continue to export successfully, even within the crisis hit Eurozone, where others have failed. German wages are comparatively very competitive vis a vis Spain and Italy and therefore they can export goods at a lower cost. They also have a very high end manufacturing sector where costs are a less important factor than skills or efficiency.
What needs to be done?
The peripheral nations should band together with the likes of France, and take the fight to Germany. They can reasonably argue that they have done all that they can to fix their economies and now need a boost in competitiveness. To achieve this they need a devalued Euro, inflation and for Germany to boost its domestic consumption i.e. buy more imports and sell less exports. Without these changes there will be no meaningful growth - not in the long term anyway. Growth is key as it reduces unemployment, reduces state spending and brings deficits back under control. Growth will also make the electorate more placid, and allow the less popular reforms to be pushed through, with less opposition from the people.
Should Germany stand defiant, then the peripherals should use the only negotiating chip they have left and threaten to leave the Euro. This if nothing else will make Germany stand up and take note. As we have already discussed a Euro with only the wealthier nations in it, would sky rocket in value. The countries that left however would enjoy greatly devalued currencies and would be able to export at incredibly competitive rates. A holiday in Spain would cost a fraction of today's price and Irish agricultural goods would be able to undercut any other big agri exporting nation. This decision would not be without its costs however, and therefore it would need to be used as a bargaining chip, rather than a giant game of chicken.
One thing is for sure, Germany thinks that this crisis will solve itself and they are wrong. The peripheral's have done as much as can be reasonably expected - while keeping voters onside - and it is now Germany's turn to acknowledge this and give some leeway. The fact that Germany is still in coalition talks makes it unlikely that there will be any announcement in the immediate future, but once the government is formed Merkel needs to reassess her view on Europe.
Conclusion
This blog has covered a lot of different areas, I looked at the last 5/6 years and tried to look at what needs to be done in the future also. A lot of this was done at 10,000 feet and I am aware that I skipped over some of the bigger topics i.e. inflation, costs of defaulting, labour laws and so on. I will try and come back to these individual topics in more detail in future blogs. There is no doubt that I have taken some liberties with my explanations in order to try and limit the length of the articles. Please do feel free to let me know your thoughts on this blog (all three parts). Thanks for sticking with me so far, and I hope you continue to enjoy going forward.
Cheers,
Andrew
We left part II asking what Ireland and it's fellow EU members could do to rest power back from the ever dominant Germans, and their Champion of Austerity, Chancellor Angela Merkel.
The Eurozone crisis has uncovered deep rifts between the various member states, something that the creation of the European project was meant to prevent. At the onset of the crisis, the French and the Germans were considered to be in the strongest negotiating position, however since then the French have been dragged into the mess - were recently downgraded again by S&P - and no longer have the perceived power that they once had. This means Germany stands alone as the power broker in Europe. The other nations are looking after their own vested interests, and are not clubbing together to act as a voice of opposition to Germany's austere policies.
I can't say that I completely disagree with German policy. When the crisis hit, many countries realised that they had been living far beyond their means, mainly because they were able to borrow at very low interest rates thanks to the Euro. Whereas before, banks in Italy would have had to buy pesos to invest in Spanish banks/debt, they now shared a common currency and money flowed freely to where the returns were highest - the booming economies of Ireland and Spain etc. Germany actually began the Euro project in a protracted slump, and as a result of this the ECB set the interest rate at contemporarily low rates. In order to get back to growth in the early noughties, the Germans reformed their economy, they liberalised labour markets - more on this later, broke the unions iron grip and encouraged prudent spending and high savings. These German savings flowed into the rest of the Eurozone, as German banks looked to make a higher return, than was available in Germany. For countries like Ireland and Spain this was equivalent to pouring oil, on a raging bonfire of already cheap money. Money that we now know was largely invested in construction.
When the bubble burst and the collateral damage was being surveyed, it seemed that sensible Germany had escaped most of the pain, while the peripherals were left counting the cost of an almighty party. Suddenly the main source of a countries revenue - construction - had dried up, yet the government spending, that had also risen in the boom years, was as big as ever. Worse yet, the spending was an integral part of the economy and slashing it would lead to even further falls in GDP.
Banks were crippled and had to be bailed out - according to the ECB and by extension Germany - as, lets not forget, a lot of the money that those banks had been lending was actually German cash. Brian Lenihan recounted how the erstwhile president of the ECB, Jean-Claude Trichet, called him up the night that Anglo was saved, and told him that Ireland could not allow the banks to fail, as it could result in the collapse of the European banking system.
So in effect Ireland bailed out Germany.
Apart from the very obvious flaw with this plan - that we %@&&*%$ bailed out Germany - there were some bones of contention.
During the boom, banks made outrageous amounts of profit, and paid their clueless CEOs fantastic sums of money, however when the bust came everyone shared the pain, and the banks became state owned - socialism by any other name. Did the very stupid people running these banks give back some of the money, nope not a single penny, they were put out to pasture and paid more taxpayer money. One could argue that they should all have been jailed, but thats another matter.
All of this inevitably lent to the bailout 2 years later - how ironic - with the Germans leading from the front, in terms of the structure of said bailout, and the terms and conditions that would apply.
In the 2 years between the re-capitalisation of the banks and the Irish bailout, the Germans developed memory loss and forgot, why we were where we were in the first place. They did however remember, that when their economy was in trouble that austerity won out in the end. This therefore was to be the plan for every other struggling European country.
As I mentioned, I don't fault Germany entirely for this course of action. Ireland was spending far too much vis a vis the tax it was taking in. Drastic cuts had to be made to steady the ship. Other reforms were also needed. Ireland's labour laws were already very flexible - employees can be fired and by extension hired quite cheaply, but other areas did need drastic reform. Areas such as protected professions e.g. lawyers needed to be liberalised and more competition fostered in general. The banks also needed to be cleaned up, and people in negative equity needed to be dealt with. As it turns out very little was done about this in the end.
The troika - as our new paymasters were known - were not satisfied with that however, and they insisted that tax levels were increased across the board. This is an area where I do find fault with German policy. During the bailout the Irish budget was being released to the German parliament, before most Irish politicians got to see it. Germany was a big factor behind the ridiculous rise to 23% of the top rate of VAT, and the 53% top rate of income tax that are still in force today. This has done Ireland no favours and has depressed demand, and led people to emigrate to countries with lower rates of tax. It has oft been said that you can not tax your way out of a recession, this is not strictly true in my opinion, but the amount you can raise from tax without causing further pain is limited. The concept of 23% VAT is a joke considering we have a land border with Northern Ireland - where a weak pound and lower rate of VAT come into play.
Ireland was not alone in facing these demands, Greece has been forced to cut even more savagely. Portugal, Spain, Cyprus and Italy too have had to make growth destroying cuts.
The German's had the advantage of pursuing austerity during a time when their trade partners were booming, and there is no doubt that the pain they went through has paid off in the long run. Prescribing austerity to every other country during a global downturn, has proven to be somewhat effective, it can not and will not end the Euro crisis however.
In part II I looked at other ways that Europe could lessen it's debt pile, and described how a good dose of inflation was required; to devalue the debt; and speed up the recovery. Germany as the most powerful country in Europe has the final say - although technically the ECB controls this - and will not change its ways on a whim. Someone needs to stand up to the Germans, and I feel that Ireland needs to be a part of this.
Ireland is in a strong negotiating position - believe it or not. It has swallowed it's austerity pill, taken the bailout and is now on the verge of an exit, and return to the bond markets. Our small island can be a beacon of hope for other nations, proving that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. This should be our negotiating stance.. the Germans need to be told in no uncertain terms, that they need to loosen their iron grip on the ECB and allow more inflation - quantitive easing, direct buying of government bonds etc. This will allow the likes of Spain and Greece to become competitive once more, and should help to devalue the Euro, giving them an export boost and a well needed shot in the arm. Germany may well complain that the competitiveness issue is not their fault and that reform is the key. There is no more room for reform though, as voters get more and more fed up of austerity.
You might well think at this point - well the ECB have just cut the rate to 0.25%, so surely Germany does not have that much control. You would be right in this regard. The rate of interest is set solely by the ECB, however with this rate already very low the incremental affect of each new cut is minimal. What the ECB really need to do is tear up the rule book and start printing money to really stoke inflation. This is where the German's hold the power, money printing is not allowed under EU law, and as long as Germany opposes this there will be no change here.
Let me explain why inflation will help. In Italy if you want to fire a worker you need to pay them 2 years salary, this means that Italian businesses, will try and hire as few new people as possible and are also unable to cut the people who are now earning too much money, for the work that they do. If inflation were to come in and rise at 2-3%, then the real cost of wages in Italy would conversely, fall by 2-3% per year, until such a point where they were once again in line with productivity. As productivity and wages become aligned, more workers could be hired easing pressure on the government and allowing them to then reform the labour market - they would make firing people a lot easier and cheaper - without having to deal with an already angry - and highly unemployed - electorate. People often talk about how Ireland regained its competitiveness, and we can say that this is thanks to the liberal labour laws in Ireland. People who cost too much were fired and either replaced with cheaper labour or not replaced at all. Archaic as this may sound, it is very important for businesses to be able to cut costs when times are tough.
Germany too has liberal labour laws, but controls its inflation and wage increases very carefully. This has meant that they have been able to continue to export successfully, even within the crisis hit Eurozone, where others have failed. German wages are comparatively very competitive vis a vis Spain and Italy and therefore they can export goods at a lower cost. They also have a very high end manufacturing sector where costs are a less important factor than skills or efficiency.
What needs to be done?
The peripheral nations should band together with the likes of France, and take the fight to Germany. They can reasonably argue that they have done all that they can to fix their economies and now need a boost in competitiveness. To achieve this they need a devalued Euro, inflation and for Germany to boost its domestic consumption i.e. buy more imports and sell less exports. Without these changes there will be no meaningful growth - not in the long term anyway. Growth is key as it reduces unemployment, reduces state spending and brings deficits back under control. Growth will also make the electorate more placid, and allow the less popular reforms to be pushed through, with less opposition from the people.
Should Germany stand defiant, then the peripherals should use the only negotiating chip they have left and threaten to leave the Euro. This if nothing else will make Germany stand up and take note. As we have already discussed a Euro with only the wealthier nations in it, would sky rocket in value. The countries that left however would enjoy greatly devalued currencies and would be able to export at incredibly competitive rates. A holiday in Spain would cost a fraction of today's price and Irish agricultural goods would be able to undercut any other big agri exporting nation. This decision would not be without its costs however, and therefore it would need to be used as a bargaining chip, rather than a giant game of chicken.
One thing is for sure, Germany thinks that this crisis will solve itself and they are wrong. The peripheral's have done as much as can be reasonably expected - while keeping voters onside - and it is now Germany's turn to acknowledge this and give some leeway. The fact that Germany is still in coalition talks makes it unlikely that there will be any announcement in the immediate future, but once the government is formed Merkel needs to reassess her view on Europe.
Conclusion
This blog has covered a lot of different areas, I looked at the last 5/6 years and tried to look at what needs to be done in the future also. A lot of this was done at 10,000 feet and I am aware that I skipped over some of the bigger topics i.e. inflation, costs of defaulting, labour laws and so on. I will try and come back to these individual topics in more detail in future blogs. There is no doubt that I have taken some liberties with my explanations in order to try and limit the length of the articles. Please do feel free to let me know your thoughts on this blog (all three parts). Thanks for sticking with me so far, and I hope you continue to enjoy going forward.
Cheers,
Andrew
Tuesday, 5 November 2013
What's that rising in the (Y)east? part II
This is part II of this post, if you have not read part I you can find it here
So we left yesterday’s blog asking
1. What if the status quo takes a turn for the worse?
2. Who will pay for any shortfall in capital?
So we left yesterday’s blog asking
1. What if the status quo takes a turn for the worse?
2. Who will pay for any shortfall in capital?
The first question is something that the Irish government doesn’t
want to think about. However we can say with 'some certainty' that the Irish property
market has 'probably' hit the bottom - or at least, we can cross or fingers and pray that it has. In Dublin the prices are rising again, and nationally we are very close to rock bottom. The drop from the peak has
been 50%, but remember, not all houses were bought at the peak, so the value of
the houses with mortgages remaining on them – and taken out pre-crash - are in negative
equity to the tune of between 0-50%. We can say with some certainty that
writing off 50% of the value of Irish loans is a conservative measure – aka is close
to a worst case scenario. Hence, the capital against the Irish loans should be
sufficient. Yet, what about the British loans? Remember, everyone is assuming that they will not suffer any significant losses.
At the moment the British loans are performing largely as
expected, their rates of default are within normal levels and therefore no
extra emergency capital is required for them. In London - where I believe
the majority of these loans were made – the value of property has risen above pre-crisis
levels, meaning there is a good chunk of equity in place as a cushion. This means
that if a borrower in London gets in trouble the bank can foreclose and sell
the property, without taking a loss on the transaction. This is definitely a positive.
Much of the UK loan book has been put on the block, or
will be put on the block in the coming years. As the loans are performing, the
banks should recoup the full or close to the full value of the loan, and will be able to walk away without
any major loss. Over time then, the Irish banks can shrink their
loan books to circa 150 billion, a more sustainable amount.
The problem is that London is in the midst of a rapidly
inflating housing market. To some – and Mark Carney the Governor of the Bank of
England is not one of these – this is a property bubble pure and simple.
David McWilliams - who predicted the Irish crash – had a piece in the Irish Independent
recently, where he made the case for this. Credit has risen 6% in the past year
alone in the UK, and central London house prices have risen by 11.5% this year, and are forecasted to rise another 8% next year.
This property bubble is unusual in that some people are convinced that it is a bubble and others - mainly the people who are actually buying the houses, as well as most regulators - are convinced that it’s not, or have not factored this into their thinking. Those who are asked about the housing market, say that they feel buying now is a good investment, as they believe prices will only rise in the future. Further to this, the issue of affordabillity has been debated to a large extent in the media, yet seems to have made no impact on the pysche of the people who are buying the properties. No one ever knows when a bubble will burst so this could have some legs in it yet. It may even be that there is no bubble here, yet history would seem to suggest otherwise.
This property bubble is unusual in that some people are convinced that it is a bubble and others - mainly the people who are actually buying the houses, as well as most regulators - are convinced that it’s not, or have not factored this into their thinking. Those who are asked about the housing market, say that they feel buying now is a good investment, as they believe prices will only rise in the future. Further to this, the issue of affordabillity has been debated to a large extent in the media, yet seems to have made no impact on the pysche of the people who are buying the properties. No one ever knows when a bubble will burst so this could have some legs in it yet. It may even be that there is no bubble here, yet history would seem to suggest otherwise.
Let's assume that there is a bubble and at some point it will burst. If at this point, the Irish banks are still sitting on 50
billion of UK loans, we will know all about it very very quickly. The chalice will turn out to be a poison one
and guess who will foot the bill?
Well doesn’t that lead me nicely into question 2….Who will
pick up the tab for any further capital needed by our banks?
There are essentially 4 and a bit options here
1. The bank raises the extra capital needed on the capital markets - highly unlikely.
2. If one bank is especially exposed to Britain it could be merged with a 'stronger bank' - also highly unlikely as no Irish bank is in a strong enough position to save another.
3. The government steps in again - More likely although there would be massive resistance from the public, the government would probably fall and we would just end up needing another bailout.
4. The European Stability Mechanism (ESM) directly re capitalises the bank(s) and takes a stake in said bank(s), or it puts the burden on the government in what essentially would be another bailout.
As options 1 and 2 are unlikely I will ignore these and look at 3 and 4.
Option 3 - Enda the White Knight
If we are using the same method as we used for the Irish loans, the capital shortfall for the UK would be somewhere in the region of 25 billion. Our national debt currently stands at 200 billion and rising vs a GDP of circa 160 billion. Factoring in another 25 billion - a whopping 15% of GDP - seems like an event that the markets would not take kindly too. Most commentators would tell you that Ireland is on the edge at the current levels of debt, and an extra 25 billion would almost certainly push us over.
Option 4 - Germany, eh I mean Europe to the rescue
If everyone in Europe can agree - highly unlikely given what has gone before - that Ireland can shoulder no more debt, then the Europe wide ESM would have to kick in. This would be deeply unpopular in countries like Germany and Finland where voters are against any sort of debt mutualisation or write down. They may not have any choice however, Ireland has been the poster boy of Europe and of all the countries that have been bailed out, Ireland looks the most likely to succeed. If Ireland were to falter then the likes of Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Cyprus may decide that the pain is no longer worth it, and could in theory decide to leave the Eurozone.
This if nothing else should spur Germany into action. While German voters may not like the thought of sharing the peripheral countries' debt, the other option of a wide scale default would damage Germany to a far greater extent.
If the Eurozone were to break up, there would be another global recession. The value of the Deutsche Mark (DM) - we must assume that the Euro would cease to exist - would shoot through the roof, as investors looked for a safe haven. German exports would grind to a halt due to the recessions in its trading partners, and the prohibitive cost of its goods caused by the very strong DM. Exports, by the way are the driver of the German economy.
The weaker nations however should in theory thrive - after some initial pain - as they would be able to export very competitively, with their new greatly devalued currencies. This is of course theory and other nations like Argentina, who have defaulted before are still feeling the pain, although this is possibly due to political decisions rather than purely economic factors.
Competitiveness is what the peripherals need more than anything else, they lost their competitiveness during the boom years and the only way back for them is to be able to devalue. Devaluation in a monetary union is a painful process - as we have seen - and there is only so much an electorate will take before they start to look to extremist parties. See the rise of Golden Dawn and Syriza in Greece.
There is another option - call it 4 b - which is still unpopular amongst the Germans, but may be the only answer, and the most palatable to all concerned.
This option is inflation. Inflation can - I stress the word can - be a very useful tool as it makes debt smaller in a real sense. If I owe someone 100 euro and inflation runs at 50% then after one year the amount I owe is only worth 66 euro in today's money. Inflation is a more palatable way to reduce your debt burden, although in theory it is a sort of soft default. Currently Eurozone inflation is running at 0.7% which is considerably lower than the 2% that the ECB is mandated to achieve. Most of the trouble countries are used to high inflation, but the Germans detest it, as it caused them huge issues after WWI during the Weimar Republic. The Germans will have to give ground somewhere though, and this looks like the most likely compromise. An added boon would be that inflation would almost certainly run higher in Germany than the rest of Europe, making Germany less competitive and allowing the peripherals to export more to Germany, rather than the Germans exporting to the peripherals as is the current state of affairs.
I should add that Chris Johns in today's Irish Times argued that while inflation is needed, it will not be allowed to happen. He feels that the peripherals will be forced to continue their painful process of devalutaion. I strongly disagree with this point, while Ireland is starting to look somewhat better, the level of unemployment and especially youth unemployment in Greece and Spain at +25% (general) and +50% (youth) will cause tensions to boil over at some point in the not too distant future. Angela Merkel's CDU party has been voted in for another 5 year term and should have a strong mandate to resolve the Euro crisis once and for all. Germany can push so far but they are running out of room and need to look at new ways of adressing the crisis.
Inflation is not without it's issues and like everything there are pros and cons, I will discuss this in a future blog, in greater detail.
You have probably noticed that the Germans have the final say in most of European policy decisions. In part III I will look at what the rest of Europe and especially Ireland, should do to stand up to Germany, and make the Euro work for everyone and not just the Germans.
There are essentially 4 and a bit options here
1. The bank raises the extra capital needed on the capital markets - highly unlikely.
2. If one bank is especially exposed to Britain it could be merged with a 'stronger bank' - also highly unlikely as no Irish bank is in a strong enough position to save another.
3. The government steps in again - More likely although there would be massive resistance from the public, the government would probably fall and we would just end up needing another bailout.
4. The European Stability Mechanism (ESM) directly re capitalises the bank(s) and takes a stake in said bank(s), or it puts the burden on the government in what essentially would be another bailout.
As options 1 and 2 are unlikely I will ignore these and look at 3 and 4.
Option 3 - Enda the White Knight
If we are using the same method as we used for the Irish loans, the capital shortfall for the UK would be somewhere in the region of 25 billion. Our national debt currently stands at 200 billion and rising vs a GDP of circa 160 billion. Factoring in another 25 billion - a whopping 15% of GDP - seems like an event that the markets would not take kindly too. Most commentators would tell you that Ireland is on the edge at the current levels of debt, and an extra 25 billion would almost certainly push us over.
Option 4 - Germany, eh I mean Europe to the rescue
If everyone in Europe can agree - highly unlikely given what has gone before - that Ireland can shoulder no more debt, then the Europe wide ESM would have to kick in. This would be deeply unpopular in countries like Germany and Finland where voters are against any sort of debt mutualisation or write down. They may not have any choice however, Ireland has been the poster boy of Europe and of all the countries that have been bailed out, Ireland looks the most likely to succeed. If Ireland were to falter then the likes of Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Cyprus may decide that the pain is no longer worth it, and could in theory decide to leave the Eurozone.
This if nothing else should spur Germany into action. While German voters may not like the thought of sharing the peripheral countries' debt, the other option of a wide scale default would damage Germany to a far greater extent.
If the Eurozone were to break up, there would be another global recession. The value of the Deutsche Mark (DM) - we must assume that the Euro would cease to exist - would shoot through the roof, as investors looked for a safe haven. German exports would grind to a halt due to the recessions in its trading partners, and the prohibitive cost of its goods caused by the very strong DM. Exports, by the way are the driver of the German economy.
The weaker nations however should in theory thrive - after some initial pain - as they would be able to export very competitively, with their new greatly devalued currencies. This is of course theory and other nations like Argentina, who have defaulted before are still feeling the pain, although this is possibly due to political decisions rather than purely economic factors.
Competitiveness is what the peripherals need more than anything else, they lost their competitiveness during the boom years and the only way back for them is to be able to devalue. Devaluation in a monetary union is a painful process - as we have seen - and there is only so much an electorate will take before they start to look to extremist parties. See the rise of Golden Dawn and Syriza in Greece.
There is another option - call it 4 b - which is still unpopular amongst the Germans, but may be the only answer, and the most palatable to all concerned.
This option is inflation. Inflation can - I stress the word can - be a very useful tool as it makes debt smaller in a real sense. If I owe someone 100 euro and inflation runs at 50% then after one year the amount I owe is only worth 66 euro in today's money. Inflation is a more palatable way to reduce your debt burden, although in theory it is a sort of soft default. Currently Eurozone inflation is running at 0.7% which is considerably lower than the 2% that the ECB is mandated to achieve. Most of the trouble countries are used to high inflation, but the Germans detest it, as it caused them huge issues after WWI during the Weimar Republic. The Germans will have to give ground somewhere though, and this looks like the most likely compromise. An added boon would be that inflation would almost certainly run higher in Germany than the rest of Europe, making Germany less competitive and allowing the peripherals to export more to Germany, rather than the Germans exporting to the peripherals as is the current state of affairs.
I should add that Chris Johns in today's Irish Times argued that while inflation is needed, it will not be allowed to happen. He feels that the peripherals will be forced to continue their painful process of devalutaion. I strongly disagree with this point, while Ireland is starting to look somewhat better, the level of unemployment and especially youth unemployment in Greece and Spain at +25% (general) and +50% (youth) will cause tensions to boil over at some point in the not too distant future. Angela Merkel's CDU party has been voted in for another 5 year term and should have a strong mandate to resolve the Euro crisis once and for all. Germany can push so far but they are running out of room and need to look at new ways of adressing the crisis.
Inflation is not without it's issues and like everything there are pros and cons, I will discuss this in a future blog, in greater detail.
You have probably noticed that the Germans have the final say in most of European policy decisions. In part III I will look at what the rest of Europe and especially Ireland, should do to stand up to Germany, and make the Euro work for everyone and not just the Germans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)