I’ve written many times about the foolishness of bailing out profligate governments (or, for that matter, mismanaged banks and inefficient car companies).
Bailouts reward bad past behavior, encourage bad future behavior, and make the debt bubble bigger – thus increasing the likelihood of deeper economic problems. At the risk of stating the obvious, there’s a reason for the second word in the “moral hazard” phrase.
But I’m not surprised that politicians continue to advocate more bailouts. The latest version is the “eurobond,” sometimes referred to as “fiscal liability sharing.”
It doesn’t matter what it’s called, though, since we’re talking about the foolish idea of having Germany (with a few other small nations chipping in) guaranteeing the debt of Europe’s collapsing welfare states. Here’s how the New York Times described the issue.
When European leaders meet on Wednesday to discuss the troubles of the euro zone, France’s president will press the issue of euro bonds, his finance minister said in Berlin on Monday. …Pierre Moscovici, France’s newly appointed finance minister, traveled to Berlin for talks with his counterpart, Wolfgang Schäuble. In a news conference after the closed-door meeting, both characterized the exchange as friendly and productive, but Mr. Moscovici acknowledged that the two men, and their governments, had real differences of opinion over pooling obligations to use the credit of the strongest European countries to prop up the weaker ones, an approach achieved through euro bonds.
The good news is that the German government is opposed to this idea.
Steffen Kampeter, was much more forthcoming in reiterating German opposition to any such proposal. Mr. Kampeter called the joint bonds “a prescription at the wrong time with the wrong side effects,” in an interview with German public radio. “The government has repeatedly made clear that collective state borrowing — that is, euro bonds — are no way to overcome the current crisis,” said Georg Streiter, a spokesman for Ms. Merkel on Monday. “It is still the case that the government rejects euro bonds.” …German policy makers say, euro bonds would be comparable to the United States’ agreeing to pay off Mexico’s debts, almost like a blank check for nations that are in trouble for overspending in the first place. “Euro bonds are not where the keys to heaven lie,” said Michael Hüther, director of the Cologne Institute for Economic Research, because it would “mix up risk” and act as a disincentive for less competitive economies to reform.
The bad news is that the Germans support other bad policies instead.
Ms. Merkel has signaled flexibility on some of Mr. Hollande’s ideas, including more financing for the European Investment Bank and redirecting unspent European Union funds to try to fight unemployment.
And even when Merkel opposes bad policies, she indicates she will change her mind if one bad policy is mixed with another bad policy!
…the German government is staunchly opposed to euro bonds until deeper integration and harmonization of budgetary and public spending policies have been achieved.
If Ms. Merkel genuinely believes that political and fiscal union will solve Europe’s problems, she’s probably ingesting illegal substances. Centralization of European government will have the same unfortunate pro-statist impact as centralization of American government in the 1930s and 1960s.
Integration and harmonization simply means voters in the rest of Europe will take German funds using the ballot box.
Not surprisingly, all of the international bureaucracies are on the wrong side of this issue. The NY Times story notes that the European Commission is using the fiscal crisis to push for more centralization.
The European Commission floated the idea of bonds issued jointly by euro zone governments in November, suggesting that such “stability bonds” could be created “in parallel” with moves toward closer fiscal union, rather than at the end of the process, as the German government prefers, to “alleviate tension” in sovereign debt markets. “From an economic point of view this makes sense,” a commission spokesman, Amadeu Altafaj, said Monday. “But at the end of the day this is a political decision that has to be taken by the member states of the euro area.” Mr. Altafaj added that “any form of common debt issuance requires a closer coordination of fiscal policies, moving toward a fiscal union, it is a prerequisite.”
And the Financial Times reports that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which is reflexively supportive of bigger government and more intervention, has endorsed eurobonds.
Mr Hollande…won backing from the OECD, which in its twice-yearly economic outlook specifically called for such bonds…“We need to get on the path towards the issuance of euro bonds sooner rather than later,” Pier Carlo Padoan, the OECD chief economist, told the Financial Times.
The fiscal pyromaniacs at the IMF also are pushing to make the debt bubble bigger according to the FT.
Christine Lagarde, the IMF chief, also called for more burden-sharing. Though she stopped short of explicitly backing euro bonds, she said “more needs to be done, particularly by way of fiscal liability sharing” – a thinly veiled reference to such debt instruments.
What makes this particularly frustrating is that American taxpayers provide the largest share of the subsidies that keep the IMF and OECD afloat. In other words, we’re paying for left-wing bureaucrats, who then turn around and push for bad policies that will result in bigger bailouts in the future.
Episodes like this make me understand why so many people believe in conspiracy theories. Folks watch something like this unfold and they can’t help but suspect that people in these governments and international bureaucracies want to deliberately destroy the global economy.
But as I’ve noted before, it’s not smart to believe conspiracies when corruption, incompetence, politics, ideology, greed, and self-interest provide better explanations for bad policy.
If the Europeans want to hit the self-destruct button, I’m happy to explain why it’s a bad idea, and I’m willing to educate them about better alternatives.
But I damn sure don’t want to subsidize their foolishness when they do the wrong thing.
P.S. It’s very appropriate to close this post with a link to this parody of Hitler complaining about debt crisis.
[…] the political elite in Europe do not want spending restraint and instead prefer very bad policies such as “debt […]
[…] The article doesn’t say what this alliance would accomplish, though presumably Tsipras hopes it will be a unified voice for more handouts. Maybe it can agitate for something really crazy such as eurobonds. […]
[…] of Europe’s welfare states were dealing with a fiscal crisis, I specifically explained why it would be a very bad idea to have “eurobonds,” which would mean – for all intents and purposes – that […]
[…] mee in de politiek. Laschet is een uitgesproken eurofiel van de klassieke lijn. Hij staat open voor Eurobonds en ondertekende een open brief van George Soros die opriep tot meer Europa toen de Euro in 2011 […]
[…] mee in de politiek. Laschet is een uitgesproken eurofiel van de klassieke lijn. Hij staat open voor Eurobonds en ondertekende een open brief van George Soros die opriep tot meer Europa toen de Euro in 2011 […]
[…] des États-providence en faillite. Cela ressemble beaucoup au système des euro-obligations, dont j’ai déjà fait remarquer qu’il revient à cosigner un prêt pour un alcoolique au chômage souffrant d’une dépendance […]
[…] to subsidize the debt of bankrupt welfare states. Very much akin to the eurobond scheme, which I pointed out would be like cosigning a loan for an unemployed alcoholic with a gambling […]
[…] don’t forget bailouts, cartelization, subsidies, waste, corruption, […]
[…] don’t forget bailouts, cartelization, subsidies, waste, corruption, and […]
[…] And all this talk about “common resources” and “public risk sharing” is simply the governmental version of co-signing a loan for the deadbeat family alcoholic. […]
[…] And all this talk about “common resources” and “public risk sharing” is simply the governmental version of co-signing a loan for the deadbeat family alcoholic. […]
[…] The article doesn’t say what this alliance would accomplish, though presumably Tsipras hopes it will be a unified voice for more handouts. Maybe it can agitate for something really crazy such as eurobonds. […]
[…] Heck, about the only really interesting thing about German policy is whether the country’s politicians will be dumb enough to underwrite the profligacy of some of their neighbors. […]
[…] I’d be hard pressed to identify a policy more misguided than continent-wide eurobonds, which I suggested would be akin to “co-signing a loan for your unemployed alcoholic cousin who has a gambling […]
[…] this new bailout is largely just a mechanism to prevent default on past bailouts. Sort of like making a new loan to your deadbeat brother-in-law to cover what he owes you on previous […]
[…] this new bailout is largely just a mechanism to prevent default on past bailouts. Sort of like making a new loan to your deadbeat brother-in-law to cover what he owes you on previous […]
[…] “eurobonds” so that taxpayers from other nations can subsidize the profligacy of welfare states such as Greece, Italy, and […]
[…] “eurobonds” so that taxpayers from other nations can subsidize the profligacy of welfare states such as Greece, Italy, and […]
[…] “eurobonds” so that taxpayers from other nations can subsidize the profligacy of welfare states such as Greece, Italy, and […]
[…] “eurobonds” so that taxpayers from other nations can subsidize the profligacy of welfare states such as Greece, Italy, and […]
[…] “eurobonds” so that taxpayers from other nations can subsidize the profligacy of welfare states such as Greece, Italy, and […]
[…] “eurobonds” so that taxpayers from other nations can subsidize the profligacy of welfare states such as Greece, Italy, and […]
[…] The notion of eurobonds is particularly noteworthy since it would involve putting German taxpayers at risk for the reckless fiscal policies in nations such as Greece, Italy, and Spain. That’s only a good idea if you think it’s smart to co-sign a loan for your unemployed and alcoholic cousin with a gambling addiction. […]
[…] is true, regardless of whether bailouts come from national governments, the European Commission, or international bureaucracies such as the […]
[…] Monti also is a big supporter of eurobonds, which make a lot of sense if you’re the type of person who likes co-signing loans for your unemployed alcoholic cousin with a gambling addiction. […]
[…] Monti also is a big supporter of eurobonds, which make a lot of sense if you’re the type of person who likes co-signing loans for your unemployed alcoholic cousin with a gambling addiction. […]
[…] wrote last month that eurobonds would be “the fiscal version of co-signing a loan for your unemployed […]
Reblogged this on Talon's Point.
I could not agree more with Mr. Mitchell.
European ultra-national unification only means that the wallets of the few remaining productive Europeans will be voted away at the ballot box – as a nearly extinct crop of exceptional Old World inhabitants is called upon to pay a now “even fairer share” of their efforts to distant unknowns a few streets away, a few blocks away, a few neighborhoods away, a few cities away, and now, also a few countries away. Until, as they say, everyone runs out of other people’s money and finally disintegrate in decline and despair.
BTW the same holds true for Americans whose wallets will be slowly initially — but as time goes by ever faster — voted away into worldwide averagedom by the UN, IMF, OECD and other ultra-national bureaucracies. And, yes, BTW that includes the wallets of the “occupy” folk, who, perhaps unbeknownst to them, are still in the top 20% of the world’s privileged and thus will inevitably meet the receiving end of their philosophy and be called upon to pay their “ever fairer share” to the world average. BTW, how did they get to the top 20%? Perhaps the capitalism, they so much deride?
The bottom line of history in this early 21st century remains the same. Three billion people are learning the virtues and prosperity generating competition of diversification and decentralization. As a result they are riding 6-10% annual growth trendlines and lifting world average annual growth to 4-5%. And how are the less than one billion 2% growth western voters in America, and Europe who is further ahead, respond to the competitiveness challenge? By “Unification and Centralization” for heaven’s sake, in Brussels and now also Washington. What is the western symbol for suicide?
I would though like to elaborate on Mr. Mitchell’s comment about the effect of American centralization in the 30’s and 60’s as if that was something Americans got over and eventually returned to growth. America in the 60’s and certainly 30’s still maintained so much of its initial endowment of freedom (the historical serendipity of an English minority philosophy seeding and prevailing in an almost brand new continent) that in spite of the collectivist mistakes of the 30’s and 60’s America maintained a wide margin of freedom and individualism compared to the rest of the world. But the world is very-very different today. After repeated permanent moves towards collectivism the initial American margin of freedom has now been all but exhausted and three billion emerging competitors are fast awakening, catching up, and moving themselves towards individualism and freedom, though their overall freedom levels remain modest. Still though, three billion competitors are moving towards individualism and freedom while the less than one billion westerners are responding by moving to collectivism.
The tipping point and end of American exceptionalism and empire is now near. You see that O election symbol? It’s the “event horizon”. Predictably, your Left is ever more resembling the European statist Left and your Right is ever more resembling your European statist Right – the movie is playing according to the well-oiled script. Naïve Americans are watching. The scary and irreversible parts are yet to come…
This insanity is going to go on until a “far-right” (i.e. fiscally responsible) party gains an absolute majority, or a large enough minority, in a Northern or possibly Eastern European member of the Eurozone.
The country where this happens will then leave the Eurozone, since it’s the only way to stop draining money to Southern Europe, and get high inflation in return.
That will start a chain reaction in which all the Northern and Eastern members of the Eurozone, quit the Eurozone. Germany will be the last out, since they don’t want to be seen as anti-Europeans.
I recently made this prediction in a comment elsewhere, and hinted at it even earlier. I repeat it here because I want to be able to say: I told you so.
I can think of some scenarios in which my prediction would be wrong, but since I use a pseudonym, that’s not a problem for me.
Reblogged this on News You May Have Missed and commented:
Eurobonds: The Fiscal Version of Co-Signing a Loan for Your Unemployed Alcoholic Cousin Who Has a Gambling Addiction
We need a new word that combines clever/stupid, because that’s how these politicians strike me. They are like idiot savant thieves always looking for a bigger pocket to pick.
That their policies are wrong and must be corrected can’t make to the table of ideas, “There must be more money, there must be more money…somewhere!”
That they are not entitled to it does not compute.