I am launching today an informal “help for exit club” of commentators
that come to the conclusion that a Grexit, however disorderly, is now
preferable both for the Greek people first, and for other members of the
European Union too, than a perpetual crisis, deepening depression and recurrent
granting of “aid” to Greece that directly contributes to deteriorate the
country’s Debt/GDP ratio.
In previous posts (“Grexit: A European Solidarity Solution”, April 15,
2015, submitted to but rejected by Politico;
and “A Plan of Hope for Greece”, June 29, 2015, rejected by Project Syndicate and Le Figaro) I suggested that it was high
time to provide incentives to the Greek government for quitting the Eurozone,
in order to regain competitiveness and return to growth. Such aid should
materialize first as a massive debt relief (at least 50% but preferably 70 or
80 % of the current amount, which is heading “north” from the current 180 % to
more than 210 % of GDP if the projected 86 billion euros of so-called “aid” are
effectively transferred from the pocket of EU’s taxpayers to the government in
Athens), but second and more importantly by a guarantee of continued access to
ECB lending at low interest rates for a
period of five or six years, time necessary for structural adjustment after
devaluation of the new Drachma.
The Eurozone could thus be saved from the Eichengreen fallacy according
to which euro membership is a one-way street, or rather “impasse”
(dead-end) I would say. Exit is possible, and indeed
necessary for several southern members, including France.
Members
A first member of the club is Paul
Krugman, who initially adopted the
Eichengreen fallacy, but later recognized his mistake (“How Reversible Is The
Euro?” New York Times, April 28, 2010).
“For a long time my view on the euro has been
that it may well have been a mistake, but that bygones were bygones — it could
not be undone. I was strongly influenced by the view expressed by Barry
Eichengreen in a classic 2007 article (although I had heard that argument —
maybe from Barry? — long before that piece was published): any move to leave
the euro would require time and preparation, and during the transition period
there would be devastating bank runs. So the idea of a euro breakup was a
non-starter.
But now I’m reconsidering, for a simple reason:
the Eichengreen argument is a reason not to plan on leaving the euro — but what
if the bank runs and financial crisis happen anyway? In that case the marginal
cost of leaving falls dramatically, and in fact the decision may effectively be
taken out of policymakers’ hands.
Actually, Argentina’s departure from the
convertibility law had some of that aspect. A deliberate decision to change the
law would have triggered a banking crisis; but by 2001 a banking crisis was
already in full swing, as were emergency restrictions on bank withdrawals. So
the infeasible became feasible.”
Even the Financial Times ( "Greece
should get debt relief in return for Grexit", Gideon Rachman, July 6, 2015), a core supporter of the euro system,
has been joining the bandwagon and has endorsed my suggestion that European
countries should give positive incentives for an exit to the Greek government,
through major debt relief and guarantee of continued access to
international finance, in order to ease the conditions of an inevitable
Grexit.
He is joined today by Justin Fox
(“Leaving Euro Is Better Than Eternal Greek Crisis”, Bloomberg, July 15, 2015)
who writes:
“ ..it seems like Greece’s exit could provide political cover for the
kind of mercy and aid from the rest of Europe that has been politically
impossible up to now. There were hints of this in German Finance Minister
Wolfgang Schaeuble’s proposal last week for a Greek “time out” from the
Eurozone. Surely it would be better for Europe’s economic policy makers to send
time figuring out how to manage an orderly Greek exit than continuing to
negotiate deal after sure-to-fail deal to keep Greece in the euro.
A Greece that’s back on the drachma won’t be some kind of economic paradise.
It will be small, struggling country without great prospects for growth. But
that’s still better than being a country caught in a perpetual crisis, isn’t
it?”.
To be followed.
No comments:
Post a Comment