The bright side of the Irish crisis

These days, it is easy to remember why economics used to be known as the "dismal science". The EU finance ministers are meeting today, to put the fine print for the Irish rescue package together. One European bailout is following another; growth is mostly poor, and even where it isn't, output is not returning back to trend; and unemployment is stubbornly high. News that the last big private Irish bank was being nationalized last week seems like a small wrinkle. And yet, one can think of this detail as possibly a first ray of sunlight.

Whenever the future of the Euro is discussed, the practical difficulties of leaving are pointed out. In particular, as soon as there is a good chance that a country might leave, its banks will face a massive run on deposits; converting assets and liabilities into the new national currency will be tricky, as any mismatch will zap bank capital. But how do these problems look in a country whose banks have blown up already? Where the capital injections for the banks are so gigantic that they more or less double the national debt? And where banks mostly live on liquidity support from the rest of Europe? That place is Ireland, and somewhere, someone is hopefully thinking what I am thinking -- this is the time to get out.

The euro was a gigantic mistake in the first place, a vainglorious triumph of politics over sound economics. When the financial crisis broke out, the Queen famously asked during a visit to the LSE - why didn't anybody notice in advance? On this one, for once, many economists were actually acutely aware just how bad an idea the euro was. Barry Eichengreen wrote many articles and a book warning about foisting a new gold standard on advanced economies with massive nominal rigidities. Nobody listened.

Ireland will have to suffer massively in years to come as it is for the folly of its bankers and the stupidity of its housing bubble. It will have to live with IMF-EU imposed austerity. Why not try to get something in exchange for all that pain? A new Irish pound, introduced overnight, would quickly devalue and restore Irish competitiveness. An independent central bank could set appropriate interest rates while anchoring inflationary expectations. The banks would still have to struggle with potential asset-liability mismatches, but the problem cannot be large compared with the capital injections necessary already. And depositors have been taking their money out already. Once the new currency is in circulation, they can put it back in, as there is no uncertainty about the Irish future of the euro left.

What would this do to the rest of Europe? An Irish exit from the nightmare that the euro has become would surely see Greece, Spain, and Portugal leave, too. Depositors there would run on their banks to get euros out while they still can. Banks in some of these countries are healthier than in Ireland; an Irish exit would impose some real costs on the Club Med. And yet, much of the "health" of Spanish banks is illusory anyway, as it depends on fantasy valuations of all the brick and mortar on their balance sheets (something that the Bank of Spain is increasingly concerned and unforgiving about). A quick exit may still be better than a decade of slow, grinding deflation combined with Zombie banks and Zombie household balance sheets being kept on artificial life support before the inevitable rise in interest rates at some point pulls the plug.

When Britain left the gold standard in 1931, the governor of the Bank of England famously declared (having been aboard a ship and out of contact when the decision was made): "I didn't know we could do that." Leaving the euro may seem similarly unimaginable to many, but it may be just as feasible. In the 1930s, cutting the link quickly led to a recovery of demand, by reducing deflationary pressures. Far from the shattering blow to confidence feared by many, exiting the gold standard was actually great for business. Leaving the euro may be every bit as good.

The gold bug bites hard...

There I was, innocently trying to explain why my students should learn about the gold standard... and trotted out the "usual suspects" in terms of explanations. It's a bit like EMU, folks! It tells us about what social and political factors matter for running a monetary system! etc. And only two weeks after that problem set on the gold standard, out comes Bob Zoellick, head of the World Bank, arguing for a new gold standard. I have to say, I almost swallowed my gum when I read the headline. It's not Ron Paul, but Zoellick, who made a pretty decent trade negotiator under George W. Bush. We know that a) gold is very good if you want to kill inflationary expectations b) works disastrously if your problem is deflation c) is the worst thing you can do if your labor markets are rigid. Now, let's see what we know about the current crisis. Inflation is NOT the problem -- if anything, Bernanke and friends worry themselves sick over the fact that inflation is too low, and monetary policy doesn't have enough oooomph as a result. Labor markets are pretty rigid everywhere in the developed world. Even after a few decades of "structural reforms", we still have long-term labor contracts, unemployment insurance, etc. (and a good thing, too). The 19C labor market where workers traded their time for cash the way we trade tomatoes is long gone, and nobody except some freaks on the luny fringes of economics wants them back. So why would anyone want a new gold standard? Apparently, Zoellick feels that it would anchor inflationary expectations, etc., but he doesn't have much to say about why this should be a problem when financial markets predict less than 2% on average over the next 10 years. For my money, Keynes' verdict on gold stands - it's a "barbarous relic".

All Greek to me...

So there is a solution to what some people have called a "Greek Tragedy" after all. In true Euro-fashion, it's a bit of a fudge -- IMF involvement in the way the Germans wanted, but some Euro-bailout, too, with a role for the ECB and EU Commission. Loans are to be at market rates, or so one reads. I wonder what to make of all this. The origins of the Greek problem are clearly not a sudden speculative attack or disequlibrium in bond markets. If you lie, steal, and cheat long enough, you get caught. Try to lie about your FICA score (for Americans) or Schufa history (for Germans) for about 10 years, and NOT see a change in your interest rates after lenders catch up with what you have been doing. So a big package via the IMF that says "boooh" to some nasty speculators is not going to do the same trick that worked so well when Brazil was in trouble in the early 2000s.

Fiscal austerity will now be reinforced by the IMF. In an earlier post, I raised some questions if that is going to work -- it's a bit like root-canal work without anaesthesia. Everybody else is trying to spend more, in a bid to ward off depression. If budget cuts are too big, you get more recession. Today brought the news that Ireland's GDP fell even more in Q4 than in Q3, which puts it on a very different trajectory from everybody else. This tells you that very severe budget cuts can backfire, as Chancellor Brüning of the late Weimar Republic could also tell you. Given the size of the adjustment needed in Greece, I doubt that public finances can be cut back to health.

So, just before we all despair, four German economists writing in the FT come up with a real solution (indirectly). They remind us that the German constitutional court put a lot of emphasis on the no-bailout clause in the Stability Pact; its last ruling said that, if violated, Germany would have to leave the Euro. Should aid to Greece really go ahead, I expect someone to sue the German government. Sure, German lawyers and judges sometimes find ways of bending the law if it suits those in power (just try watching Roland Freisler in action, or reading "Der Führer schützt das Recht", a treatise by the brilliant Carl Schmitt on why Hitler's massacre of the Nazi Party's left wing was perfectly legal). Today's bunch will of course do nothing so outrageous (and I am not trying to say that declaring "too bad" and ignoring earlier EMU rulings would be comparable to Schmitts and Freisler's transgressions. I am just trying to point out that creative lawyers and judges can justify anything -- they did award Freisler's widow a bigger pension after she sued, because he would have had a brilliant career in West Germany had he not been killed by a bomb in 1945). So there is a non-zero chance, given its earlier rulings, that the Constitutional Court would actually oblige the government to either stop support to Greece, or get out of the Euro. If you take a deep breath for a minute, and dispassionately think about the consequences, this may be actually good solution for everyone (except, perhaps, the ECB bankers who would presumably have to move away from Frankfurt). The new Deutschmark would probably revalue by a lot. The soft-currency countries who now dominate EMU would get their beloved pesetas, francs, and escudos back, but with a common design on the pieces of paper. Policy could be as loose as Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, France, and Cyprus like; Germany could engage in its preferred policy of reducing unit labor costs, and running big current account surpluses. Every time they get too big, the Euro would devalue against the DM, the way the lira et al. used to. Everyone is happier. Probably, countries like Holland and Austria would shadow the new DM, as they did before EMU. Now, to be realistic ... if history teaches you something, it's that countries will stick to a silly monetary standard for way too long, especially if it's seen as the ultimately proof of adulthood in terms of currency. Just think of how long it took countries to abandon the gold standard in the 1930s... and as a beautiful paper by Sachs and Eichengreen showed many moons ago, you can explain most of the variation of when countries exited the Great Depression by when they abandoned gold.