The
Guardian
LARRY
ELLIOTT, THE GUARDIAN
MAY 17,
2015, 10:03 AM
Yanis
Varoufakis rues the day when Greece
joined the euro.
The Greek
finance minister says his country would be better off if it was still using the
drachma. Deep down, he says, all 18 countries using the single currency wish
that the idea had been strangled at birth but understand that once you are in
you don't get out without a catastrophe.
All of that
is true, and explains why Greece
is involved in a game of chicken with all the other players in this drama: the
International Monetary Fund, the European commission, the European Central Bank
and the German government.
Varoufakis
wants more financial help but not if it means sending the Greek economy into a
"death spiral". Greece 's
creditors will not stump up any more cash until Athens sticks to bailout conditions that
Varoufakis says would do just that.
Things will
come to a head this summer because it is clear Greece cannot make all the debt
repayments that are coming up. It has to find €10bn (£7.3bn) in redemptions to
the IMF, the ECB and other bondholders before the end of August and the money
is not there.
Greece's
willingness to go ahead with the privatisation of its largest port, Piraeus,
will be seen as evidence by the hardliners in Brussels and Berlin that they
have been right to take a tough approach in negotiations with the Syriza-led
government.
But before
he admits he has lost the game of chicken, Alexis Tsipras, the Greek prime
minister, should think hard about Varoufakis's analysis. Was it a mistake for Greece to join
the euro? Clearly, the answer is yes.
Would Greece be
better off with the drachma? Given that the economy has shrunk by 25% in the
past five years and is still shrinking, again the answer is yes.
Can you
leave the euro and return to the drachma without a catastrophe? Undoubtedly
there would be massive costs from doing so, including credit controls to
prevent currency flight, and a profound shock to business and consumer
confidence. There are also the practical difficulties involved in substituting
one currency for another.
In a way,
though, this is not the question the Greek government should be asking itself.
So the real
question is not whether leaving the euro would be a catastrophe, because it
would. The real question is whether it would be more of a catastrophe than
staying in.
There are
both political and economic dimensions to this question.
Politically,
Tsipras has a real dilemma: the Greek people voted for less austerity, Greece 's
creditors want no let-up in austerity. He can please one or the other but not
both. Bowing the knee to Angela Merkel would allow Greece to get access to the
short-term finance that will allow it to pay its debts, but it will be
political suicide for Syriza.
Sooner or
later, Tsipras has to decide what he wants to do: continue with a populist
approach that is incompatible with euro membership or return reluctantly to the
policies that have been pursued by the centre-left and centre-right governments
since the crisis erupted.
Wolfgang
Schäuble, Germany 's finance
minister, has suggested that one solution would be for Greece to hold
a referendum on whether it wants to go or stay. The message coming out of Berlin is that Germany doesn't care much either
way.
If Greece wants to
knuckle down to structural reform, that's fine. If Greece wants to return to the
drachma, that's also fine.
Schäuble
strongly suspects that faced with the choice, Greece would vote to remain a
member of the single currency. But plebiscites are funny things, and the
question asked would matter.
The answer
to the question "do you want Greece
to continue using the euro?", would be different to "do you want Greece to
continue using the euro if it means cuts in wages and pensions?".
When it
comes to the economics, the question is whether Greece would get the pain over more
quickly by having control over its own affairs. Roger Bootle and Jessica Hinds
at Capital Economics think that might be the case, and say Iceland 's
experience after the country's severe banking crisis in 2008 is worth looking
at.
No
question, Iceland
had a very tough time. There were massive capital outflows from its
over-extended banking sector, and its currency, the krona, depreciated by 40%.
The economy contracted sharply, the IMF was called in and capital controls were
introduced.
But, as
Bootle and Hinds note, Iceland
has bounced back. It has grown in every year since 2011 and national output is
just about back to pre-crisis levels. The inflation caused by the depreciation
of the krona has been tame and growth prospects are rosy.
The fall in
the krona was important, since it made exports cheaper and provided a boost to
tourism, where the number of visitors has risen by 60% to 800,000 a year
between 2008 and 2014.
"The
fall in the krona boosted net trade by enough to kick-start Iceland 's
economic recovery without the need for the aggressive wage and price
adjustments that have occurred in the eurozone periphery. Iceland was
also able to tighten fiscal policy less aggressively than the periphery. Iceland 's fall in GDP of about 12% was around
half as short as that seen in Greece
since 2008."
Bootle and
Hinds say that Greece ,
too, would see tourism benefit from a cheaper currency, while the vast amount
of unused capacity in the economy would limit the extent of the increase in
inflation caused by the devaluation that would follow euro exit.
Capital
controls would harm the economy, as they have in Iceland ,
but might be needed even if Greece
stays inside the single currency. The weaker currency that would result from
leaving the euro is not a get out of jail free card, far from it. But after
five years of hard labour, staying in looks like a life sentence without
remission.
This
article originally appeared on guardian.co.uk
Read more:
http://www.businessinsider.com/greece-must-choose-between-2-catastrophes-2015-5#ixzz3aTetDE6J
No comments:
Post a Comment