Europe and the Economic Crisis

Mark1031

Deity
Joined
Oct 27, 2001
Messages
5,237
Location
San Diego
Interesting article in the NY Times on European response to the economic crisis. This is something I have always wondered about in terms of the EU. You have monetary integration but do you have the structures in place to take concerted action in a crisis or in the end will it be every country for themselves? Even in the US, states compete for economic advantage and complain bitterly when a federal decision will hurt them to the benefit of another region. And we have had a single federal government for over 200 yrs. Is it possible for the EU to function in a crisis? AFAIK the European banks were even more leveraged than the US.

A Continent Adrift
By PAUL KRUGMAN

MADRID

I’m concerned about Europe. Actually, I’m concerned about the whole world — there are no safe havens from the global economic storm. But the situation in Europe worries me even more than the situation in America.

Just to be clear, I’m not about to rehash the standard American complaint that Europe’s taxes are too high and its benefits too generous. Big welfare states aren’t the cause of Europe’s current crisis. In fact, as I’ll explain shortly, they’re actually a mitigating factor.

The clear and present danger to Europe right now comes from a different direction — the continent’s failure to respond effectively to the financial crisis.

Europe has fallen short in terms of both fiscal and monetary policy: it’s facing at least as severe a slump as the United States, yet it’s doing far less to combat the downturn.

On the fiscal side, the comparison with the United States is striking. Many economists, myself included, have argued that the Obama administration’s stimulus plan is too small, given the depth of the crisis. But America’s actions dwarf anything the Europeans are doing.

The difference in monetary policy is equally striking. The European Central Bank has been far less proactive than the Federal Reserve; it has been slow to cut interest rates (it actually raised rates last July), and it has shied away from any strong measures to unfreeze credit markets.

The only thing working in Europe’s favor is the very thing for which it takes the most criticism — the size and generosity of its welfare states, which are cushioning the impact of the economic slump.

This is no small matter. Guaranteed health insurance and generous unemployment benefits ensure that, at least so far, there isn’t as much sheer human suffering in Europe as there is in America. And these programs will also help sustain spending in the slump.

But such “automatic stabilizers” are no substitute for positive action.

Why is Europe falling short? Poor leadership is part of the story. European banking officials, who completely missed the depth of the crisis, still seem weirdly complacent. And to hear anything in America comparable to the know-nothing diatribes of Germany’s finance minister you have to listen to, well, Republicans.

But there’s a deeper problem: Europe’s economic and monetary integration has run too far ahead of its political institutions. The economies of Europe’s many nations are almost as tightly linked as the economies of America’s many states — and most of Europe shares a common currency. But unlike America, Europe doesn’t have the kind of continentwide institutions needed to deal with a continentwide crisis.

This is a major reason for the lack of fiscal action: there’s no government in a position to take responsibility for the European economy as a whole. What Europe has, instead, are national governments, each of which is reluctant to run up large debts to finance a stimulus that will convey many if not most of its benefits to voters in other countries.

You might expect monetary policy to be more forceful. After all, while there isn’t a European government, there is a European Central Bank. But the E.C.B. isn’t like the Fed, which can afford to be adventurous because it’s backed by a unitary national government — a government that has already moved to share the risks of the Fed’s boldness, and will surely cover the Fed’s losses if its efforts to unfreeze financial markets go bad. The E.C.B., which must answer to 16 often-quarreling governments, can’t count on the same level of support.

Europe, in other words, is turning out to be structurally weak in a time of crisis.

The biggest question is what will happen to those European economies that boomed in the easy-money environment of a few years ago, Spain in particular.

For much of the past decade Spain was Europe’s Florida, its economy buoyed by a huge speculative housing boom. As in Florida, boom has now turned to bust. Now Spain needs to find new sources of income and employment to replace the lost jobs in construction.

In the past, Spain would have sought improved competitiveness by devaluing its currency. But now it’s on the euro — and the only way forward seems to be a grinding process of wage cuts. This process would have been difficult in the best of times; it will be almost inconceivably painful if, as seems all too likely, the European economy as a whole is depressed and tending toward deflation for years to come.

Does all this mean that Europe was wrong to let itself become so tightly integrated? Does it mean, in particular, that the creation of the euro was a mistake? Maybe.

But Europe can still prove the skeptics wrong, if its politicians start showing more leadership. Will they?

linj
 
Seems like mainstream media started to pick views which are similar to mine: as I wrote here a number of times, EU as it is now have very high probability to break up during this crisis. The only way for EU to stay afloat is to dump "poisonous" (for EU's economy) states.
 
Central banks have often been too cautious and conservative. The upside to an independent central bank is that in the long run there would be less inflation. But the downside is that if they get something wrong, there's not much that can be done to get them to move.
 
West-Europe (France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany and Denmark) are actually doing pretty well in the crisis if you ask me: their unemployement rate has hardly increased (still 5% in my region ^^ ), no fiscal company went bankrupt and the sectors most active in these regions haven't got too much problems, with the exception of the auto-mobile one.

Some countries in East-Europe are a disaster.

All the rest is in between. But I have to admit I don't know the details of every specific country.
 
Who says those stimulus bills and other proactive measures are actually helping? I'm not seeing it. In europe we only take action in the most severe cases.

Also, coming from the netherlands, we're doing pretty damn good in this crisis. Unemployment rates are hardly rising.

I'm not at all convinced by stimulus plans. I don't think they can save an economy, and I think the economy will only be run into the ground faster because of them.
 
I'm not at all convinced by stimulus plans. I don't think they can save an economy, and I think the economy will only be run into the ground faster because of them.

Oh, why?

In Finland, for example, the OECD, probably for the first time ever, advised the rather debt-free Finnish government to pump more fiscal lard into the economy.
 
Oh forgot to note that I can't recall hearing a bad word about the economy of Sweden or Norway so they should remain stable as well. So to fix my statement:

West-Europe (France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany and Denmark) are actually doing pretty well in the crisis if you ask me: their unemployement rate has hardly increased (still 5% in my region ^^ ), no fiscal company went bankrupt and the sectors most active in these regions haven't got too much problems, with the exception of the auto-mobile one.

I don't know anything about Finland or it's economy so I leave that out.
 
Seems like mainstream media started to pick views which are similar to mine: as I wrote here a number of times, EU as it is now have very high probability to break up during this crisis. The only way for EU to stay afloat is to dump "poisonous" (for EU's economy) states.

EU wont break up....why would they? It's a perfect political tool and even if your rambling about 'poisonous' states made any sense they could just deal with it via internal measures with systems already in place for such things.

I know Russia would benefit immensely from a splintered Europe, but it aint gonna happen bud.
 
Oh forgot to note that I can't recall hearing a bad word about the economy of Sweden or Norway so they should remain stable as well. So to fix my statement:

I don't know anything about Finland or it's economy so I leave that out.
The Nordic economies are not doing well, but they are doing appreciably less badly than some others, so they tend not to get mentioned.
 
With West Europe, I only meant the specified countries as Spain and Italy got quite a bit of problems and I just don't know a lot about the rest (no idea how the UK or Austria is doing).

I do have to admit saying "East Europe is a disaster" was a bit too fast and only based on an impression.

On the other hand, I want to specify that I based my statement on the claims of certain economists that countries that focus on innovation/niche markets will have less trouble with this downturn as countries that focus on mass production/low costprice. In other words, industry gets more problems then services and agriculture.
/goes search the source

Completely forgot about Iceland.

I edited my first post in this thread, hope it's better this way.
 
With West Europe, I only meant the specified countries as Spain and Italy got quite a bit of problems and I just don't know a lot about the rest (no idea how the UK or Austria is doing).

I do have to admit saying "East Europe is a disaster" was a bit too fast and only based on an impression.

On the other hand, I want to specify that I based my statement on the claims of certain economists that countries that focus on innovation/niche markets will have less trouble with this downturn as countries that focus on mass production/low costprice. In other words, industry gets more problems then services and agriculture.
/goes search the source

Completely forgot about Iceland.

:goodjob: I can agree with that! :)
 
I must have missed that part when CFC transitioned from 'Pretty Niche Fan Website' to 'Mainstream Media'. Funny that.
 
I must have missed that part when CFC transitioned from 'Pretty Niche Fan Website' to 'Mainstream Media'. Funny that.
Article in the first post was firstly published in the New York Times. Probably it can be considered as mainstream media.
 
Back
Top Bottom