Showing posts with label Spain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Spain. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

A Primer On The Euro Crisis

The Euro is the official currency of the "eurozone," adopted as the national currency by 17 of 27 of the member states of the European Union. It is the world's second largest reserve currency as well as the second most traded currency behind the dollar. All monetary policy for the Euro is set by the European Central Bank (ECB).

The Euro officially became an "accounting currency" subject to ECB control in 1992, with members of the Eurozone normalizing the value of their currency to a "Euro" standard. The euro as an actual physical currency didn't occur until 2002.

Nominally, the adoption of a single currency was sold on several theoretical benefits. It would eliminate the currency exchange fees from the cost of doing business between the European states. It would encourage competition by allowing quick comparison of prices. And by encouraging stability and efficiency, the hope was that the euro would stimulate economic growth, reduce the unemployment rates in the eurozone, and encourage international investment.

The reality has proven that the downsides were not sufficiently examined. Because all monetary power, including the power to set EU wide interest rates, resides with the ECB, this poses a huge problem for nations with weaker economies during times of economic downturn. One way in which weak nations have been able to survive such problems is to intentionally devalue their currency by speeding up the printing presses. While such a move brings inflation, it gives the nation a window in which to pay off its debts. The flip side of such a drastic action is that, if there is not enough discipline in the government to carefully limit the presses and pay off the debts, you end up with Zimbabwe.

It also poses a problem for nations that need to stimulate growth. Normally, a sovereign nation that wants to stimulate growth will lower its prime interest rate. But again, that is not something that the individual member states of the EU can do. They are stuck with whatever ECB decides for the eurozone as a whole - and the ECB is avoiding inflation like the plague. That leaves only tax policy to stimulate growth among the troubled eurozone members, but at this point, each is being pressured - and indeed, has agreed - to raise taxes in an effort to lower its sovereign debt.

Several people, such as Robert Samuelson, have painted the Eurozone crisis as simply a failure of the European welfare state model. Others, on the left, such as Paul Krugman, have claimed that the crisis has nothing to do with the welfare state model. Setting that argument aside for a separate post, it seems clear that the high cost of the welfare state has played a role. But there are also systemic issues, mentioned above, that are combining with a host of issues unique to individual countries such that at least five Eurozone member countries sit on the brink of fiscal ruin. Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland are all in danger of defaulting on their sovereign debt. The general rule of thumb is that, when a country cannot sell 10 yr. bonds with a rate of return below 7%, the likelihood of an eventual default becomes real. With the exception of Spain, all of the troubled EU nations have crossed the 7% level. Spain is flirting with it.

In the cases of Greece and Italy, deficit spending on a bloated public sector and overgenerous welfare state drove their national debt significantly above 100% of GDP (Greece - 142%; Italy 119%). Ultimately, this drove their cost of borrowing above the magic line - 7% on 10 year bonds.

Portugal is Greece without the international press. It has a debt to GDP ratio of 93%, much of it coming from deficit spending over the past decade on the welfare state. Their cost of borrowing reached a high this month of 13.47% on ten year bonds. That said, Portugal is in the midst of cutting public sector benefits and increasing taxes.

Italy, unlike Greece and Portugal, has a strong manufacturing base and a relatively frugal population. Nonetheless, Italy "suffers from an overall failure to implement reforms needed to boost productivity and growth," which, when combined with the size of their national debt, is proving toxic.

Ireland is also in dire straights. Ireland's welfare state was not overlarge, and indeed, Ireland was running a budget surplus through 2005. But today, Ireland has a debt to GDP ratio of 94.9% and is having to borrow over 40% of every Euro to finance its government spending. What drove Ireland into its hole was an ill advised easing of credit standards and a housing bubble that burst in 2007. The Irish government than stepped in and nationalized the bad debts being held by the banks, causing a massive increase in publicly held debt. Ireland's cost of borrowing is today 7.74% on ten year bonds.

As to Spain, it's national debt was a comparatively paltry 61% as of last year, though much of that has come with recent increase in deficit spending. Spain's true problems are massive privately held debt and a horrendous economic outlook. Unemployment at or near 20% combined with both a housing bubble that makes the U.S.'s look small by comparison and a country that, because it does not produce any domestic energy, is subject to extreme shock when the price of oil jumps as it did in 2008, have all combined to make Spain's economy look extremely weak. All that has driven Spain's cost of borrowing rising, recently to a high of 6.7%:

In many ways, the economic situation in Spain is now even worse than the economic situation in Greece. Spain's unemployment was already above 20 percent even before this recent crisis. There are now 4.6 million people without jobs in Spain. There are 1.6 million unsold properties in Spain, six times the level per capita in the United States. Total public/private debt in Spain has reached 270 percent of GDP.

The BBC has a very good article on Spain's deep economic troubles and how its problems do not fit the mold of profligate welfare state spending.

It is safe to say that, in each of these countries, the fact that they cannot manipulate their currency or make monetary policy has removed the traditional tools of the sovereign for saving their countries from economic disaster. To explain in greater detail, this from Edward Harrison:

Now that crisis is upon us, the currency trilemma of a currency union that is the Impossible Trinity of fixed exchange rates, independent monetary policy and free movement of capital has reared its head. Hands are tied; in a currency union, there is no devaluation to recoup competitiveness, no room for fiscal freedom, and no control over monetary policy. This leaves so-called internal devaluation and/or sovereign default as the remaining ways to escape crisis. The political will to go through this is impaired because internal devaluation (across the board wage and price cuts) leads to a long and arduous depression . . . And default leads to massive creditor losses – not just in Ireland but also in Germany. So the Eurozone is trying to figure out how to keep its union together while minimizing costs – with the ECB and IMF integrally involved.

On the flip side of the coin, there is no central authority overseeing individual nation's budgets or taxes, as if the EU were a true sovereign. So, essentially, the Eurozone presents the worst of all worlds.

In an effort to save the Euro, those five nations in trouble are being forced to adopt significant "austerity" measures. Those measures, across the board, mean a significant reduction in the size of government and their welfare programs. For example, in Greece, the public sector is set to be reduced in size by and all public sector wages are being cut by almost a third. Collective bargaining is limited. The pensions of public sector workers are being sliced by 20% to 40%.

Further, all nations in the EU, led by Germany (the rise of the Fifth Reich), are meeting to consider systemic changes to the eurozone in an effort to save the Euro. This from Reuters:

Germany - Europe's biggest economy - was intent on changing the European Union's treaty to enshrine stricter budget discipline and penalties for countries that failed to adhere to them, to ensure there could be no repeat of the current crisis. From the German perspective, only by reforming economies, cutting social benefits and working longer would the indebted members of the euro zone and the single currency project itself emerge from the turmoil. Printing money would buy only a temporary respite and would remove the incentive to reform.

As to whether the Euro can be saved, the general consensus seems to be that it cannot. That said, a detailed analysis from Goldman Sachs concludes that the Euro may be salvagable, but that all ways forward are problematic. Ultimately, the eurozone countries must either come together in a much tighter economic union with a structure much like the U.S., or Germany and other core nations are going to have to weaken their economies in favor of the "peripheral" nations. In any event, Goldman Sachs paints the consquences of the failure of the Euro as dire - with the seizing up of credit and equity markets as the first step.

But the Euro crisis is also having another, much more insidious impact. The European Union is anti-democratic, and that this monetary crisis has been the springboard for actions that are direct assaults by the EU on democracy in the European states. Indeed, both Italy and Greece have been subject to coups at the direction of the EU.

Read More...

Monday, February 28, 2011

The Wages Of Green

Britain is about 5 to 10 years further on than the U.S. in the insane push for green energy. Besides putting their economy on the path to destruction with outrageous prices for inefficient, highly subsidized energy, the push is, according to British economists, costing 3.7 jobs for every one job it creates. This from the BBC:

Government support for the renewable sector in Scotland is costing more jobs than it creates, a report has claimed.

A study by consultants Verso Economics found there was a negative impact from the policy to promote the industry.

It said 3.7 jobs were lost for every one created in the UK as a whole and that political leaders needed to engage in "honest debate" about the issue. . . .

The report, called Worth the Candle? The economic impact of renewable energy policy in Scotland and the UK, said the industry in Scotland benefited from an annual transfer of about £330m from taxpayers and consumers elsewhere in the UK.

It said politicians needed to recognise the economic and environmental costs of support for the sector and focus more on the scientific and technical issues that arose.

Richard Marsh, research director of Verso Economics and co-author of the report, said: "There's a big emphasis in Scotland on the economic opportunity of investing in renewable energy.

"Whatever the environmental merits, we have shown that the case for green jobs just doesn't stack up."

Co-author Tom Miers added: "The Scottish renewables sector is very reliant on subsidies from the rest of the UK.

"Without this UK-wide framework, it would be very difficult to sustain the main policy tools used to promote this industry. . . ."

The Executive Summary of the report is here. The BBC, which has made an industry of global warming alarmism, actually reports this story in order to attack it, as noted at Biased BBC. Be that as it may, this report comports with reports from both Spain and Germany, showing that this insane push into green energy negatively impacts both jobs and the economy. Germany has recognized this and has resumed building coal fired power plants. Spain, upon whom Obama modeled his push into green energy, touting its employment benefits, is an economic basket case teetering on national bankruptcy. Nonetheless, Obama is pushing us down this same path at break-neck speed, between massive subsidies for green energy and his extra-constitutional assault on our energy infrastructure and domestic production of coal and oil. If he wins reelection in 2012, our nation will likely never recover, at least during our lifetime.

Read More...

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

The Lady Of Spain

O'Reilly comments on First Lady Michelle Obama's ostentatious vacation in Spain while a very significant portion of America suffers through our worst economy since WWII. And O'Reilly even let's Charles Krauthammer get in a word or two. Let us eat spinach indeed.

Read More...

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Pelosi: We Need Green Socialism For Jobs, Jobs, Jobs


Nancy Pelosi, speaking in Copenhagen before taking an early flight home to beat a blizzard bearing down on Washington, spoke of the need to pass the utter abortion that is the Waxman Markey climate change legislation, stating "Our legislation will create millions of clean energy jobs for Americans, . . ." This is her common refrain as she attempts to support by repeition what cannot be supported by fact.

The idea that "green jobs" is the wave of the future is a proven canard. Where that idea has already been embraced, in Spain, and to a lesser extent, in Germany, it has been a significant economic drain. This today from Ronald Bailey in Reason Magazine, highlighting Germany's experience:

. . . Given the array of government energy mandates and billions in subsidies poured into cleantech, there is no doubt that those sectors will see increased jobs. The effect on overall employment is far less clear. Cleantech energy is currently more expensive than conventional sources of energy. Many argue that the price difference simply reflects the fact that conventional sources—chiefly fossil fuels—are cheaper because no one is being forced to pay for their externalities, e.g., damaging the climate and health. Once people have to pay for their externalities through, say, a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade scheme, then renewable energy sources become more competitive. Fair enough. But either way, the price of energy is going to go up. If people and businesses are paying more for energy that means that they have less left over to buy other products and services, a fact that would tend to reduce employment downstream.

Yet green energy proponents have produced reams of studies that show that carbon rationing leads to more jobs. For example, Bracken Hendricks, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, told The New York Times, “We found that you get four times the number of jobs from investing in efficiency and renewables than you get from investing in oil and natural gas.” This is largely because renewable technologies “are more local and they’re more labor-intensive.” . . .

Other countries have tried to use energy policy to produce jobs. Germany is often cited as an example of how government policy can drive the adoption of renewable energy and produce scads of green jobs. For example, in his opening statement at a May 2009 climate change hearing, Sen. Kerry praised Germany for putting “in place strong policy mechanisms to drive investment in solar power and other renewable energy sources. As a result, renewable energy usage has tripled to 16 percent, creating 1.7 million jobs. By 2020, Germany's clean energy sector will be the biggest contributor to the nation's economy.”

However, a study released in October finds that the German green job miracle is largely a mirage, and an expensive mirage at that. The report, published by the nonprofit German think tank Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (RWI), notes that as a result of the German government's energy policies, Germany leads the world in solar panel installation and is second only to the U.S. in wind power generation. Great, right? Actually terrible, says the report. Let me quote some of the report’s sobering conclusions at length:



While employment projections in the renewable sector convey seemingly impressive prospects for gross job growth, they typically obscure the broader implications for economic welfare by omitting any accounting of off-setting impacts. These impacts include, but are not limited to, job losses from crowding out of cheaper forms of conventional energy generation, indirect impacts on upstream industries, additional job losses from the drain on economic activity precipitated by higher electricity prices, private consumers’ overall loss of purchasing power due to higher electricity prices, and diverting funds from other, possibly more beneficial investment.

Proponents of renewable energies often regard the requirement for more workers to produce a given amount of energy as a benefit, failing to recognize that this lowers the output potential of the economy and is hence counterproductive to net job creation. Significant research shows that initial employment benefits from renewable policies soon turn negative as additional costs are incurred. Trade and other assumptions in those studies claiming positive employment turn out to be unsupportable.

In the end, Germany’s PV promotion has become a subsidization regime that, on a per-worker basis, has reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per worker subsidies as high as 175,000 € (US $ 240,000). …


Although Germany’s promotion of renewable energies is commonly portrayed in the media as setting a “shining example in providing a harvest for the world” (The Guardian 2007), we would instead regard the country’s experience as a cautionary tale of massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic and environmental benefits. . . .

Read the entire article. This comports with the experience of Spain where a study found that "[e]very “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job." In short, the canrd of "green jobs" is yet another massive market distortion proposed by the far left that will do grave damage to our country and to the rank and file of America. It is being sold by Pelosi as a pancea for job creation. The reality is that it is another push by the left to cripple capitalism and establish socialism on a grand scale in America.

Read More...

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Assessing Ayman



Ayman al Zawahiri is al Qaedas’s second in command. He gave an interview to al Sahab in December, 2007, and, most recently, answered written questions in a kind of jihadi talk radio show. Both provide a wealth of information and insight into the mind of a man who is in equal measure a religious fanatic and psychopath.
________________________________________________________

I've been going through Zawahiri's most recent communiques as time has allowed over the past week. They are worthwhile for spelling out the goals and intentions of al Qaeda, as well as for giving a window into the logic of a true Salafist:

1. Iraq remains al Qaeda’s central front:

As-Sahab: And what is the most important field in which this Mujahid vanguard is wrestling with the enemies of Islam?

Zawahiri: Iraq is the most important of these fields.

2. One of the points I have repeatedly made is that pulling out of Iraq would have dire long term consequences for our ability to conduct foreign policy and gather allies, particularly among nations threatened by radicals. Zawahiri thinks so too. He fully expects the U.S. to retreat from Iraq, repeatedly referring to Vietnam. He later explains that he forsees al Qaeda reasserting itself after America leaves Iraq and that the Anbar Awakening cannot keep al Qaeda out of Iraq without American support:

Zawahiri: And I also call on all Muslims to stop supporting the armed groups which have cooperated with the Americans against the Muslims and mujahideen. And I warn those individuals from among the armed factions who have been involved in cooperating with the occupation against the mujahideen that history is recording everything, and that they will lose both their religion and life, and that the Americans will soon be departing - Allah permitting - and won't keep defending them forever. And let them look at the fate of America's agents in Vietnam and the fate of the Shah of Iran, and intelligent is he who learns from other's mistakes.
. . . .
That is why those who conspire against the Jihad and Mujahideen in Lebanon with American weapons, Zionist collusion and Saudi money must know that they are digging their graves with their own hands, and that the Americans and Jews will not defend them, because they are looking for those who will defend them, and whoever doubts this should remember Vietnam and look at Iraq and Afghanistan."
. . . .
I expect the Jihadi influence to spread after the Americans’ exit from Iraq, and to move towards Jerusalem (with Allah’s permission). As for the militias mentioned, they have failed to eliminate the Jihad with the help of what is called the strongest power in the history of mankind, so will they succeed by themselves or with the help of Iran?

3. Zawahiri, whose al Qaeda organization that regularly slaughters women and children of whatever faith, has the same difficulty with veracity that our own politicians seem to have. When confronted with some very angry questions as to why al Qaeda was slaughtering Muslims in Algeria and in Iraqi marketplaces, Zawahiri claims that al Qaeda kills no "innocents" while, at the same time, accusing the U.S. of taking human shields.

1/1: The questioner Mudarris Jughrafiya [Geography Teacher] asks, "Excuse me, Mr. Zawahiri, but who is it who is killing with Your Excellency’s blessing the innocents in Baghdad, Morocco and Algeria? Do you consider the killing of women and children to be Jihad? I challenge you and your organization to do that in Tel Aviv. Why have you – to this day – not carried out any strike in Israel? Or is it easier to kill Muslims in the markets? Maybe it is necessary [for you] to take some geography lessons, because your maps only show the Muslims’ states."

My reply to Mudarris Jughrafiya is that we haven’t killed the innocents, not in Baghdad, nor in Morocco, nor in Algeria, nor anywhere else. And if there is any innocent who was killed in the Mujahideen’s operations, then it was either an unintentional error, or out of necessity as in cases of al-Tatarrus [taking of human shields by the enemy]. . . .

I would like to clarify to the brother questioner that we don’t kill innocents: in fact, we fight those who kill innocents. Those who kill innocents are the Americans, the Jews, the Russians and the French and their agents. Were we insane killers of innocents as the questioner claims, it would be possible for us to kill thousands of them in the crowded markets, but we are confronting the enemies of the Muslim Ummah . . .

The scale of untruth on this one is amazing, and it is obviously not lost on Muslims in the Middle East - a reason why al Qaeda's popularity is in a tail spin in the Middle East. As a side note, what appears to be going on here is actually pretty typical among Salafists like Zawahiri. They routinely engage in Koranic linguistic contortions to justify their actions. And in that vein, the word "innocent" has been so interpreted as to mean anything the Salafist’s want it to mean. A little later on, Zawahiri adds:

"It is not hidden from you that the enemy intentionally takes up positions in the midst of the Muslims, for them to be human shields for him. And here I emphasize to my brothers the Mujahideen to beware of expanding the issue of al-Tatarrus, and to make sure that their operations targeting the enemies are regulated by the regulations of the Shari’ah and as far as possible from the Muslims.

Evidently, U.S. soldiers handing out candy and the like to Iraqi children classifies the children as human shields during the seconds in which that occurs. Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah regularly make use of human shields. Zawahiri does not not address that practice, but I assume that it is justified both on some passage in the Koran that likewise has been interpreted beyond the bounds of any reasonable logic.

4. One of the Muslim traditions has been that if you are allowed to live in a foreign land, there is a covenant of security and that no Muslim should carry out attacks in the country in which they are guests. This was the deal with the devil that kept Britian, home to the world's most radical Islamists, free of major terrorism through 7/7. Whatever the tradition may have been, Zawahiri no longer honors it:

I don’t believe that the entry visa of the infidels is a security contract, . . .

Later, Zawahiri goes beyond that, noting that such a visa is no excuse for refraining from "obligatory jihad against them."

5. Zawahiri is wholly opposed to democratic rule, seeing a theocracy as the only legitimate form of government. He is sharply critical of Hamas for taking part in the democracy in Gaza as well for the Muslim Brotherhood for their choice of attempting to gain power through existing political systems:

[T]he methodologies of the jihad movements must be founded on the rule of the Sharia, not on the rule of the majority. . . .

First: HAMAS abandoned the right of the Shari’ah to rule because it – contrary to the slogan "the Quran is our constitution" – agreed to enter the elections, then come to power on the basis of the secular basic law which does not rule according to the Shari’ah. This is one of the disasters of the Muslim Brothers. . . .

6. Zawahiri’s views of Moqtada al Sadr:

Muqtada al-Sadr is one of Iran's lieutenants in Iraq. . . . And the skirmishes which take place between him and the Americans are American-Iranian disputes over expansion of influence.

7. Jihad is an individual obligation so long as any piece of land once ruled by Islamists during the course of history is occupied and/or ruled by non-Muslims. And it should be noted that this includes much of Spain. Zawahiri takes the UN to task and deems it a legitimate target because it considers Andalusia – conquered in 718 by Muslim invaders, reconquered by Christians in 1248 – a part of Spain.

. . . [J]ihad in Iraq and the rest of the Islamic lands is obligatory against the invaders and Crusaders and their agents so everyone who is hostile to Islam and Muslims and allies himself with the Crusader invaders against the Muslims whether Iraqi or non-Iraqi must be confronted and jihad waged against him. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), (who) fought his polytheistic people, was hostile to them and invoked Allah against them as did the Companions (with whom Allah is pleased) and when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) chose to ransom the prisoners of Badr, Allah sent down on him a verse of the Koran, in which he reproached him (peace and prayers of Allah be upon him), 'It is not for a Prophet to have captives until he inflicts great slaughter (or is empowered) in the land. You (O Muslims) desire the goods of this world while Allah desires for you the hereafter. And Allah is Mighty and Wise' (8:67) (Qu’ran verses; Al-Anfal 8:67).

. . . The United Nations is an enemy of Islam and Muslims: it is the one which codified and legitimized the setting up of the state of Israel and its taking over of the Muslims’ lands. It is the one which considers . . . Ceuta and Melilla inseparable parts of Crusader Spain.

8. And lastly, Zawahiri clearly spells out al Qaeda's intentions for jihad, quoting Osama bin Laden:

"I also reassure our people in Palestine in particular that we will expand our Jihad – Allah permitting – and will neither recognize the borders of Sykes-Picot nor the rulers whom colonialism put in place. We – by Allah – haven’t forgotten you after the events of the 11th, for can the man forget his family? But following those blessed raids which struck the head and heart of global unbelief and the biggest ally of the Zionist entity, America, we are today occupied with attacking and fighting it and its agents, especially in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Islamic Maghreb and Somalia. And if it and its agents are defeated in Iraq – Allah permitting – then it won’t be long before the armies of the Mujahideen set out, brigades followed by brigades, from Baghdad, al-Anbar, Mosul, Diyala and Salahuddin to bring back to us Hittin, Allah permitting.

"And we won’t recognize any state for the Jews, even if on one hand span of the land of Palestine, the way all the Arab rulers did when they adopted the governor of Riyadh’s initiative a few years ago. And it wasn’t enough for them to commit that major catastrophe until the people recently saw the shepherdess of surrender herd them in flocks to Annapolis, doing with them what the Americans did with their forefathers before, but not for them to be sold: no, for them to sell, and sell what? Sell Jerusalem, al-Aqsa Mosque and the blood of the martyrs, and there is neither power nor strength except with Allah. May Allah do to them as they deserve. . . .


Read More...