Great note from Nomura's Richard Koo, looking at the so-called "competitiveness problem" of the Southern European nations.
Rather than some inherent problem found there, Koo says that what happened is that after the 2000 tech bubble collapsed (a bubble which Germany shared heavily in) the ECB used exceptionally loose monetary policy to stimulate the economy, so that Germany wouldn't have to revive its economy via fiscal policy.
This didn't do much domestically in Germany (which was suffering from a balance sheet recession) but did really rev up the bubbles in the periphery, causing the boom in imports from Germany, thus putting the periphery in debt, and boosting Germany's export sector, rescuing it from the post-tech-bubble funk.
Says Koo:
In short, the ECB’s ultra-low policy rate had little impact in Germany, which was suffering from a balance sheet recession, but it was too low for other countries in the eurozone, resulting in widely divergent rates of inflation.
As Germany became increasingly competitive relative to the strong economies of southern Europe, exports grew sharply and pulled the nation out of recession. Germany’s trade surplus quickly overtook those of Japan and China to become the world’s largest, with much of the growth fueled by exports to other European markets.
ECB, not southern Europe, responsible for competitiveness gap
In 2005, I told a senior ECB official that it was unfair to force other countries to rescue Germany by boosting their economies with loose monetary policy without requiring Germany to administer fiscal stimulus, when it was Germany that had become so deeply overextended in the bubble. The official responded that that is what a unified currency means: because Germany could not be granted an exception on fiscal stimulus, the only option was to lift the entire region with monetary policy.
Nailed it.
Rather than some inherent problem found there, Koo says that what happened is that after the 2000 tech bubble collapsed (a bubble which Germany shared heavily in) the ECB used exceptionally loose monetary policy to stimulate the economy, so that Germany wouldn't have to revive its economy via fiscal policy.
This didn't do much domestically in Germany (which was suffering from a balance sheet recession) but did really rev up the bubbles in the periphery, causing the boom in imports from Germany, thus putting the periphery in debt, and boosting Germany's export sector, rescuing it from the post-tech-bubble funk.
Says Koo:
The countries of southern Europe, which
had not participated in the IT bubble, enjoyed strong economies and
robust private- sector demand for funds at the time. The ECB’s 2% policy
rate therefore led to sharp growth in the money supply, which in turn
fueled economic expansions and housing bubbles.
Wages and prices increased... leaving those countries less competitive relative to Germany.
Wages and prices increased... leaving those countries less competitive relative to Germany.
In short, the ECB’s ultra-low policy rate had little impact in Germany, which was suffering from a balance sheet recession, but it was too low for other countries in the eurozone, resulting in widely divergent rates of inflation.
As Germany became increasingly competitive relative to the strong economies of southern Europe, exports grew sharply and pulled the nation out of recession. Germany’s trade surplus quickly overtook those of Japan and China to become the world’s largest, with much of the growth fueled by exports to other European markets.
ECB, not southern Europe, responsible for competitiveness gap
In 2005, I told a senior ECB official that it was unfair to force other countries to rescue Germany by boosting their economies with loose monetary policy without requiring Germany to administer fiscal stimulus, when it was Germany that had become so deeply overextended in the bubble. The official responded that that is what a unified currency means: because Germany could not be granted an exception on fiscal stimulus, the only option was to lift the entire region with monetary policy.
In other words, there would have been no
need for such dramatic easing by the ECB—and hence no reason for the
competitiveness gap with the rest of the eurozone to widen to current
levels—if Germany had used fiscal stimulus to address its balance sheet
recession.
The creators of the Maastricht Treaty
made no provision for balance sheet recessions when drawing up the
document, and today’s “competitiveness problem” is solely attributable
to the Treaty’s 3% cap on fiscal deficits, which placed unreasonable
demands on ECB monetary policy during this type of recessions. The
countries of southern Europe are not to blame.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου