Keynes never existed. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money was never written. Economic history ended on the day former US president Franklin Roosevelt replaced former US president Herbert Hoover.
That is the gist of the deal that keeps Greece in the euro, an agreement that deepens the country’s recession, makes its debt position less sustainable and virtually guarantees that its problems come bubbling back to the surface before too long.
One line in the seven-page euro summit statement sums up the thinking behind this act of folly, the one that talks about “quasi-automatic spending cuts in case of deviations from ambitious primary surplus targets.”
Translated into everyday English, what this means is that leaving to one side the interest payments on its debt, Greece will have to raise more in revenues than the government spends each year. If the performance of the economy is not strong enough to meet these targets, the “quasi-automatic” spending cuts kick in. If Greece is in a hole, the rest of the eurozone is to hand it a spade and tell it to keep digging.
Most modern governments operate what are known as “automatic stabilizers,” under which they run bigger deficits in bad times because it is accepted that raising taxes or cutting spending during a recession reduces demand and so makes the recession worse.
British Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne has seen it as his job to repair the hole in the UK’s budget deficit caused by worldwide economic downturn of 20008, but allowed the automatic stabilizers to work when the economy was struggling in the last parliament. The chancellor’s new fiscal rules requiring the UK Treasury to run a budget surplus is suspended if the economy’s annual growth rate dips below 1 percent.
At the insistence of Berlin, this sort of flexibility is not going to be open to Greece. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and German Minister of Finance Wolfgang Schaeuble have got everything they were seeking before Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras called the referendum — and more.
Athens has been forced to accept the “streamlining” of its value added tax (VAT) system to raise more tax revenue. That means more goods and services included in the 23 percent main rate of VAT. It has also dropped its resistance to immediate changes to the pension system, which might mean higher health charges and an end to the solidarity supplement, a top-up payment to the poorest pensioners. The seemingly innocuous pledge to “reduce further the costs of the Greek administration” means sacking civil servants employed since Tsipras was elected in January.
The per-referendum terms have been made tougher, both through the “quasi-automatic” spending cuts and through the enforced sell-off of Greece’s assets. Over the next three years, the expectation is that Greece can raise 50 billion euros (US$54.49 billion) through privatizations, of which 25 billion euros are to be used for the recapitalization of its banks. The other 25 billion euros is to be split evenly between repaying debt and for investment in the Greek economy.
Greece, to borrow former British prime minister Harold Macmillan’s phrase, might be forced to sell off the family silver — along with the airports, the ports and the banks — to pay for its bailout and to recapitalize its own banks. That is the plan.
There is not the remotest prospect of Greece raising 50 billion euros through privatizations in the next three years. The target was first announced in 2011, since then the value of the Greek stock market has fallen by 40 percent, making its assets far less valuable. In the past four years, privatization proceeds have raised about 3 billion euros.
Greece remains in the euro but it should be obvious by now that there are only two ways of resolving the crisis. The first is to write off a large chunk of its debts. The other is to let it grow at a pace that allows it to service its debts. This deal offers neither. Its one minor concession is that there are likely to be talks about giving Greece longer to pay its debts provided it takes steps that are certain to lengthen and deepen the recession.
This is not a solution. It is a chink of light filtering through the bars of the debtors’ prison.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS