Mar 30 2011

Europe’s finances may hurt the global economy more than Japan’s tragedies

While the world has been transfixed with Japan, Europe has been struggling to avoid another financial crisis. On any Richter scale of economic threats, this may ultimately matter more than Japan’s grim tragedy. One reason is size. Europe represents about 20 percent of the world economy; Japan’s share is about 6 percent. Another is that Japan may recover faster than is now imagined; that happened after the 1995 Kobe earthquake. It’s hard to discuss the “world economic crisis” in the past tense as long as Europe’s debt problem festers — and it does.

Tweet

Just last week, European leaders were putting the finishing touches on a plan to enlarge a bailout fund from an effective size of roughly 250 billion euros (about $350 billion) to 440 billion euros ($615 billion) and eventually to 500 billion euros ($700 billion). By lending to stricken debtor nations, the fund would aim to prevent them from defaulting on their government bonds, which could have ruinous repercussions. Banks could suffer huge losses in their bond portfolios; investors could panic and dump all European bonds; Europe and the world could relapse into recession.

Unfortunately, the odds of success are no better than 50-50.

Europe must do something. Greece and Ireland are already in receivership. Private investors won’t buy their bonds at reasonable rates. There are worries about Portugal and Spain; Moody’s recently downgraded both, though Spain’s rating is still high. The trouble is that the sponsors of the bailout fund are themselves big debtors. In 2010, Italy’s debt burden (the ratio of its government debt to its economy, or gross domestic product) was 131 percent, reports the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; that exceeded Spain’s debt ratio of 72 percent. Debt ratios were high even for France (92 percent) and Germany (80 percent).

As these numbers suggest, there’s no automatic threshold beyond which private investors refuse to buy a country’s debt. Germany and France are considered sound investments, deserving low interest rates, because their economies are judged to be strong. But investor perceptions and confidence can dissolve in a flash. If private markets lost faith in, say, Italy or Belgium, even the enlarged bailout fund probably wouldn’t be big enough to rescue them. The whole scheme is debtors lending to debtors. It could collapse if investors conclude it’s unworkable, dump bonds and demand higher interest rates.

What would happen then is anyone’s guess. Would defaults occur? Would a banking crisis follow? Would some countries abandon the euro? (This sounds simple; in practice, it would be hugely complex. A country would have to convert all its money into a new national currency. It would be legally impossible to switch some debts from euros. The country would probably have to impose capital controls — restrictions on money entering or leaving the country.) Would the European Central Bank — the continent’s Fed — buy vast amounts of government bonds? Would the International Monetary Fund organize a bailout, financed heavily by China, to rescue Europe?

Europe has arrived at this dismal juncture driven by three forces: (a) large welfare states that were too often financed with debt; (b) the financial crisis that led to recession and has pushed some countries (Ireland, Spain) to aid their banks; (c) the perverse side effects of the single currency, the euro.

The euro’s role is especially ironic. Adopted in 1999 — and now used by 17 nations — the euro was intended to promote prosperity and political unity. Countries could enjoy similarly low interest rates and the convenience of common money. It seemed to work for a while. But low interest rates in Greece, Spain and Ireland encouraged unsustainable booms or housing bubbles that, when burst, aggravated their recessions and budget deficits. Now unity has turned to discord. Countries that back the debt bailout — particularly Germany — resent the possible costs; countries being bailed out resent the harsh austerity that’s imposed as a condition of aid.

There is a fragile debtor-creditor consensus that could crumble, posing yet another danger to economic recovery. Already, unemployment rates in Greece and Ireland hover around 13 percent. How much budget stringency (spending cuts, tax increases) will countries accept before social unrest or national pride cause politicians to say “enough”? Even European countries not facing an immediate debt problem need to reduce budget deficits to retain market confidence. All confront a common dilemma. Too much austerity too quickly could create a recession, widening deficits. Too little austerity too slowly could unnerve investors, raising interest rates and deficits.

It’s understandable that the human suffering, physical destruction and nuclear hazards in Japan compel our attention. But we ought to remember that a greater menace to global stability and prosperity lies halfway around the world.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.


Dec 3 2010

House G.O.P. Eliminating Global Warming Committee

Members of the House of Representatives will not be pondering global warming on  Speaker John A. Boehner’s watch.

Republicans plan to eliminate the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, which was created by the current speaker, Nancy Pelosi, in 2007 to examine climate change and press for possible caps on carbon dioxide emissions.

Climate change matters are overseen by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as well as the Natural Resources Committee; the select committee did not pass legislation but did hold hearings, which will cease in the new Congress.

“We have pledged to save taxpayers’ money by reducing waste and duplication in Congress,” Michael Steel, a spokesman for Mr. Boehner, who will become speaker in January, said in a statement. “The Select Committee on Global Warming was created by Democrats simply to provide political cover to pass their job-killing national energy tax. It is unnecessary, and taxpayers will not have to fund it in the 112th Congress.”

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.


Nov 28 2010

Bible Protects Against Global Warming? Energy Chair Hopeful Tells Us So

The House’s new Republican leadership will begin doling out coveted committee chairs after the Thanksgiving break, and it’s unclear whether Rep. John Shimkus is helping his chances to lead the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee by arguing that climate change is a myth because God told Noah he would never again destroy the Earth by [...]


Nov 16 2010

Hong Kong Seeks Bigger Role in Global Finance

Mike Clarke/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images Hong Kong is challenging the dominance of New York and London Hong Kong is making a bold bid to challenge London and New York as global financial centers this week. And judging by its gains in recent years, it might be in the running soon. Depicting Hong Kong as [...]


Nov 11 2010

Deutsche Bank Chief Says Capital Rules Must Be Global and Fair

Doug Kanter/Bloomberg News SEOUL, South Korea — Josef Ackermann, chief executive of Deutsche Bank and head of the Institute of International Finance, said on Thursday that the financial regulatory overhaul under way in much of the world, through the Dodd-Frank overhaul in the United States and the Basel III bank capital requirements, had to be [...]


Oct 28 2010

Global Warming: Taking a Look at the Partisan Divide Over the Evidence

The New York Times had a story the other day saying “skepticism and outright denial of global warming are among the articles of faith of the Tea Party movement,” and a new Pew research Center poll certainly underlines the partisan and ideological divide when it comes to the issue. The Pew poll, conducted Oct. 13-18, [...]