Simon-Wren Lewis has a very good post today that notes that the financial crisis is viewed very different in the US than it has been in the EU since 2010.
In America we talk primarily about irresponsible lenders-but in the EU talk focuses on the irresponsible periphery countries that borrowed and spent themselves to crisis.
WL creates a nice mock headline for what it would sound like if we looked at things the same way in the US as in the EU:
"Pandemonium erupted in Congress yesterday as senators disagreed on how to deal with the subprime problem. Borrowers are still finding it difficult to repay, despite the government buying these mortgages from the banks seven years ago and imposing strict conditions on the borrowers. Some senators favour continuing the program of compulsory community service and self-improvement lessons, but now others in the senate are openly talking about revoking the US citizenship of these borrowers."
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-great-recession-and-eurozone-crisis.html
When people talk about Greece's irresponsible spending prior to 2008, where do they think this money comes from? An irresponsible spender requires an irresponsible lender to give them the funds. People forget how much of the money Greece borrowed came from irresponsible German lenders. Yet in the morality tale in the EU this is glossed over.
"If borrowers get into difficulty in a way that threatens the solvency of lending banks, there are at least two ways a government or monetary union can react. One is to allow the borrowers to default, and to provide financial support to the banks. Another is to buy the problematic loans from the banks (at a price that keeps the banks solvent), so that the borrowers now borrow from the government. Perhaps the government thinks it is able to make the loans viable by forcing conditions on the borrowers that were not available to the bank."
"The global financial crisis was largely dealt with the first way, while at the Eurozone level that crisis was dealt with the second way. Recall that between 2010 and 2012 the Troika lent money to Greece so it could pay off its private sector creditors (including many European banks). In 2012 there was partialprivate sector default, again financed by loans from the Troika to the Greek government. In this way the Troika in effect bought the problematic asset (Greek government debt) from private sector creditors that included its own banks in such a way as to protect the viability of these banks. The Troika then tried to make these assets viable in various ways, including austerity. Two crises with the same cause but very different outcomes."
I've argued the last week that there are some interesting similarities between Obama in 2009 and Tripas in January of this year in that both faced opponents that were much more intractable than they imagined.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/07/tripas-vs-eu-as-obama-vs-gop-congress.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiaryOfARepublicanHater+%28Diary+of+a+Republican+Hater%29
Of course, there are important differences as well-mainly, that the President had a majority in Congress and has since losing it come to accept the need to use executive action more liberally-until 2012 he had been reluctant to do this.
A US President is simply much more powerful and higher on the food chain than the Prime Minister of a periphery nation in the EU.
However, where the analogy really works is less between Obama and Tripas as between their opposition-the EU and the GOP Congress. I argue that the 2 are very similar animals-I mean the GOP would love the German finance minister.
In America we talk primarily about irresponsible lenders-but in the EU talk focuses on the irresponsible periphery countries that borrowed and spent themselves to crisis.
WL creates a nice mock headline for what it would sound like if we looked at things the same way in the US as in the EU:
"Pandemonium erupted in Congress yesterday as senators disagreed on how to deal with the subprime problem. Borrowers are still finding it difficult to repay, despite the government buying these mortgages from the banks seven years ago and imposing strict conditions on the borrowers. Some senators favour continuing the program of compulsory community service and self-improvement lessons, but now others in the senate are openly talking about revoking the US citizenship of these borrowers."
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-great-recession-and-eurozone-crisis.html
When people talk about Greece's irresponsible spending prior to 2008, where do they think this money comes from? An irresponsible spender requires an irresponsible lender to give them the funds. People forget how much of the money Greece borrowed came from irresponsible German lenders. Yet in the morality tale in the EU this is glossed over.
"If borrowers get into difficulty in a way that threatens the solvency of lending banks, there are at least two ways a government or monetary union can react. One is to allow the borrowers to default, and to provide financial support to the banks. Another is to buy the problematic loans from the banks (at a price that keeps the banks solvent), so that the borrowers now borrow from the government. Perhaps the government thinks it is able to make the loans viable by forcing conditions on the borrowers that were not available to the bank."
"The global financial crisis was largely dealt with the first way, while at the Eurozone level that crisis was dealt with the second way. Recall that between 2010 and 2012 the Troika lent money to Greece so it could pay off its private sector creditors (including many European banks). In 2012 there was partialprivate sector default, again financed by loans from the Troika to the Greek government. In this way the Troika in effect bought the problematic asset (Greek government debt) from private sector creditors that included its own banks in such a way as to protect the viability of these banks. The Troika then tried to make these assets viable in various ways, including austerity. Two crises with the same cause but very different outcomes."
I've argued the last week that there are some interesting similarities between Obama in 2009 and Tripas in January of this year in that both faced opponents that were much more intractable than they imagined.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/07/tripas-vs-eu-as-obama-vs-gop-congress.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiaryOfARepublicanHater+%28Diary+of+a+Republican+Hater%29
Of course, there are important differences as well-mainly, that the President had a majority in Congress and has since losing it come to accept the need to use executive action more liberally-until 2012 he had been reluctant to do this.
A US President is simply much more powerful and higher on the food chain than the Prime Minister of a periphery nation in the EU.
However, where the analogy really works is less between Obama and Tripas as between their opposition-the EU and the GOP Congress. I argue that the 2 are very similar animals-I mean the GOP would love the German finance minister.
No comments:
Post a Comment