


Todos convergen graciosamente hacia un 130% de PIB.
Todos convergen graciosamente hacia un 130% de PIB.
Far from building a base for recovery, the eurozone has wasted the last five years of global expansion holding together a dysfunctional currency union, lurching from crisis to crisis. The result has a been double-dip recession and a worse macro-outcome for the same European states than in the comparable years from 1930 to 1935.
Mr Barroso may have to face the awful possibility that this golden phase right now – relatively golden given that GDP contracted by 0.4pc in 2013 – is as good as it gets, that the "boom" phase of the liquidity cycle is nearing maturity and may start to roll over in 2014 or early 2015.
What happens if the eurozone goes into the next global downturn with unemployment already at or near 12.1pc – and youth jobless already at 57.7pc in Spain, 54.8pc in Greece, and 41.6pc in Italy – and with core inflation running at or near a record low of 0.7pc?
Europe is one external shock away from a full-blown deflation trap, and one recession away from an underlying public and private debt crisis. Nothing has been resolved. Aggregate debt ratios are higher than they were before the austerity experiment. In the end there will still have to be a "Brady Plan" like the Latin American debt write-offs at the end of the 1980s, but on a far larger scale and with far more traumatic effects on the European body politic.
So celebrate today while the sun is still out, and dream on.
En el Economista observador, de José Carlos Díez, tenemos un excelente análisis del "Secular Stagnation", lanzado por Larry Summers. Es un análisis que nos permite hacer una previsión verosímil de la economía europea y española.
La previsiones oficiales de la imaginada "recuperación" es pan de hoy y hambre de mañana. ¿Por qué? Por la inacabable crisis financiera de la banca y de los otros sectores residentes, ORS, es decir, hogares y empresas. Digamoslo de una vez claramente, el problema No es el el déficit público, sino la imposibilidad de financiarlo con un banco central propio. Así el estado se ha quedado sin recursos ni palancas para remover los obstáculos del sector privado. Ahí la comparación entre EEUU y Europa es lacerante.
La deuda pública sigue aumentando. Eso se ha debido a que Europa ha abierto un poco la manga en su austerismo. A su vez, esta es la principal causa de la débil recuperación: que el gasto público ha aumentado ( en consumo, porque la inversión sigue cayendo). Por eso los consumidores han aumentado un poquito el consumo, pero que todavía está a años luz de los niveles previos a la crisis.
Mientras, las deudas más o menos ocultas de los hogares, empresas y bancos, siguen lastrando la economía, porque no se ha podido hacer una política medianamente coherente de desapalancamiento con el apoyo del BCE y los poderes europeos, que en realidad no existen, son inanes. Y van a seguir siéndolos.
Cuanto más se aplaza el problema, más se enquista. Por ello, las soluciones serán cada vez más drásticas. Como dicen Reinhart y Rogoff, habrá que decidir quitas de deuda, una inflación europea (española sólo no serviría de nada) y una represión de deuda. Lo mismo que decía Keynes en los años veinte en su Tract no Monetary Reform". Y modelo de salida del que la historia está llena de ejemplos.
Por ello, la previsión de los próximos años es sencilla, en un panorama dominado por los desequilibrios patrimoniales: Secular Stagnation... En el mejor de los casos. No se puede dejar de mirar a los datos financieros, pues mientras estos sean catastróficos, los datos de PIB y demás indicadores reales no significan nada. O bueno, sí, sí significa. Algo, si se miran bien:
Mientras la inversión (línea amarilla) no abandone la sima en la que está, no volverá la normalidad. Es claro UE lo único que tira de lo demás es el consejo público, que en cualquier momento nos quitan para de nuevo salvar al euro. Al tiempo.
Undoubtedly, the main factor behind the recovery is that the UK authorities have achieved an appropriate balance between fiscal and monetary policies. The much-criticised understanding in 2010-11 between Osborne and previous Bank of England chief Mervyn King, under which the Bank would maintain easy money in return for a relatively restrictive fiscal policy, has paid off.
The euro area, on the other hand, has faced the unrelenting challenge of highly restrictive policies in both the fiscal and monetary field, explaining why, in contrast to the UK, the OECD has revised downwards rather than upwards its projections for 2013 and 2014 euro area performance.
In fact, the UK has pursued the middle ground in terms of fiscal adjustment. Far from imposing draconian austerity, the coalition government has brought in fiscal consolidation that has been slightly less severe than in the OECD as a whole.
According to OECD figures, the net fiscal tightening between 2010 and 2013, measured by changes in the structural budget position over that period as a proportion of GDP, has been 2.9 percentage points for the UK against 3.3 points for the entire OECD and 5.1 points for the US, which has suffered large automatic budgetary cuts and has been rewarded with a much better than average economic recovery.
Budgetary consolidation in the euro area has been much more severe than in the UK, with structural tightening of a net 22 points in Ireland over 2010-13, against 13.7 in Greece, 6.5 in Portugal, 4.9 in Spain, 3.6 in France, 3.3 in Germany, and 2.8 in Italy. As a result, Britain’s general government deficit for 2013, at 6.9% of GDP (compared with 6.5% for the US), was higher than the distressed countries in the euro area – indicating that the UK is making optimal use of budgetary flexibility.
On top of this, the one-size-fits-all monetary policy of the European Central Bank combined with continuing financial fragmentation in the euro bloc has led to highly restrictive monetary policies in mainland Europe. Credit to non-financial companies has fallen in most euro member states over the past year. Broad money supply was up only 1.5% over the previous year according to latest ECB figures for November published last week.
Sociedad Importe
Fuente: axesor y Boletines Oficiales del Estado y Autonómicos
The challenge of secular stagnation, then, is not just to achieve reasonable growth but to do so in a financially sustainable way. There are, essentially, three approaches. The first would emphasize what is seen as the economy’s deep supply-side fundamentals: the skills of the workforce, companies’ capacity for innovation, structural tax reform and ensuring the sustainability of entitlement programs. This is appealing, if politically difficult, and would make a great contribution to the country’s long-term economic health. But this approach is unlikely to do much in the next five to 10 years. Apart from obvious lags like those in education, our economy is held back by lack of demand rather than lack of supply. Increasing capacity to produce will not translate into increased output unless there is more demand for goods and services. Training programs or reform of social insurance may, for instance, affect which workers get jobs, but such efforts would not affect how many get jobs. Indeed, measures that raise supply could have the perverse effect of magnifying deflationary pressures.
The second strategy, which has dominated U.S. policy in recent years, is lowering relevant interest rates and capital costs as much as possible and relying on regulatory policies to ensure financial stability. No doubt the economy is far healthier now than it would have been in the absence of these measures. But a growth strategy that relies on interest rates significantly below growth rates for long periods virtually ensures the emergence of substantial financial bubbles and dangerous buildups in leverage. The idea that regulation can allow the growth benefits of easy credit to come without cost is a chimera. The increases in asset values and increased ability to borrow that stimulate the economy are the proper concern of prudent regulation.
The third approach — and the one that holds the most promise — is a commitment to raising the level of demand at any given level of interest rates through policies that restore a situation where reasonable growth and reasonable interest rates can coincide. To start, this means ending the disastrous trends toward ever less government spending and employment each year and taking advantage of the current period of economic slack to renew and build out our infrastructure. If the federal government had invested more over the past five years, the U.S. debt burden relative to income would be lower: allowing slackening in the economy has hurt its long-run potential.
Raising demand also means spurring private spending. Much could be done in the energy sector to unleash private investment toward fossil fuels and renewables. Regulation that requires more rapid replacement of coal-fired power plants would increase investment and push growth as well as help the environment. And it is essential in a troubled global economy to make sure that a widening trade deficit does not excessively divert demand from the U.S. economy.
Secular stagnation is not inevitable. With the right policy choices, the United States can have both reasonable growth and financial stability. But without a clear diagnosis of our problem and a commitment to structural increases in demand, we will be condemned to oscillating between inadequate growth and unsustainable finance. We can do better.
El 2013, “el año de la estabilización”, según el Ejecutivo, sus palmeros a sueldo y los medios atados al pesebre, es de la “estabilización” más inaudita jamás conocida. Sólo las cifras de deuda, las más preocupantes sin duda, son desastrosas:
1.- Deuda de las AA.PP.: un billón de euros de deuda computable a del protocolo de déficit excesivo (PDE) y 1,35 billones de euros de deuda total o pasivos en circulación.
2.- Crecimiento de la deuda de las AA.PP.: 128.000 millones de la deuda computable, el triple que el año precedente, y 305.000 millones en el caso de la deuda total, también el triple del mismo periodo del año anterior.
Pero esa deuda y esos ingresos financieros no son usados para sacar al sector privado del hoyo, sino para mantener el inestable equilibrio político a base de repartir prebendas a comunidades que son la que más se endeudan. La inversión en infraestructuras está por los suelos, como vimos aquí, mientras que lo único que tira hacia arriba es el gasto el consumo de las AAPP.
Que es lo que sostiene prendido con alfileres la aparente recuperación: un poco más de gasto en consumo, financiado a base de préstamos de los bancos que no hacen al resto de la economía. ¿Quién e cree que en 2015 vamos a estar creciendo a un "sólido" 2%?![]() |
Deuda exterior por sectores. 2008-2013 |
No se puede ser más keynesiano. Por cierto, no se extrañen de UE Bernanke no coincide con el Greenspan del post anterior. Éste está más bien hablando d las secuelas largo plazo de la crisis. Bernanke esta hablando del cortísimo plazo.To this list of reasons for the slow recovery--the effects of the financial crisis, problems in the housing and mortgage markets, weaker-than-expected productivity growth, and events in Europe and elsewhere--I would add one more significant factor--namely, fiscal policy. Federal fiscal policy was expansionary in 2009 and 2010. Since that time, however, federal fiscal policy has turned quite restrictive; according to the Congressional Budget Office, tax increases and spending cuts likely lowered output growth in 2013 by as much as 1-1/2 percentage points. In addition, throughout much of the recovery, state and local government budgets have been highly contractionary, reflecting their adjustment to sharply declining tax revenues. To illustrate the extent of fiscal tightness, at the current point in the recovery from the 2001 recession, employment at all levels of government had increased by nearly 600,000 workers; in contrast, in the current recovery, government employment has declined by more than 700,000 jobs, a net difference of more than 1.3 million jobs. There have been corresponding cuts in government investment, in infrastructure for example, as well as increases in taxes and reductions in transfers.Although long-term fiscal sustainability is a critical objective, excessively tight near-term fiscal policies have likely been counterproductive. Most importantly, with fiscal and monetary policy working in opposite directions, the recovery is weaker than it otherwise would be. But the current policy mix is particularly problematic when interest rates are very low, as is the case today. Monetary policy has less room to maneuver when interest rates are close to zero, while expansionary fiscal policy is likely both more effective and less costly in terms of increased debt burden when interest rates are pinned at low levels. A more balanced policy mix might also avoid some of the costs of very low interest rates, such as potential risks to financial stability, without sacrificing jobs and growth.
A brief addendum to my last post. If 2014 is a year of relatively good growth, you know that many people will take that as somehow refuting Keynesianism — hey, didn’t you guys predict that the economy would never recover without fiscal stimulus?In the long run, we will have a spontaneous economic recovery, even if all current policy initiatives fail. On the other hand, in the long run …The fact that things eventually turn up is neither a refutation of Keynesian analysis, nor a reason to excuse the vast economic and human costs of bad policy to date — just as it’s not a vindication of austerity policies in the UK.
Private construction has been a major contributor to every recovery out of recession since 1949—except that of 2009. Both nonresidential and, especially, residential construction had important roles in the previous ten recoveries of postwar America. But construction as a share of GDP, after falling sharply in the wake of the economic collapse of 2008, has failed to fully recover since the recession officially ended in the second quarter of 2009. A deep-seated reluctance of business and households to invest in projects with a life expectancy, or durability, of more than twenty years (predominantly buildings) explains virtually all of the weakness in business activity and rise in the unemployment rate following the Lehman Brothers default in September 2008. An economically and politically driven pall of uncertainty has engulfed our markets.
The business community’s willingness to invest in fixed assets more generally is best captured by the proportion of liquid cash flow that nonfinancial corporate businesses choose to commit to difficult-to-liquidate equipment and structures. It is a useful measure of the degree of business confidence about the future. It doesn’t rely on what people say but on what they do. In 2009, that ratio had fallen to the lowest peacetime annual level since 1938. Similarly, the interest rate spread between the U.S. Treasury’s five-year and thirty-year obligations, currently the widest in history, reflects the degree of heightened uncertainty beyond five years and explains why long-lived assets especially have been so heavily discounted and scaled back in recent years.
Fortunately, business investment fears have subsided somewhat since 2009. But heightened economic and political uncertainty continues to plague our economy.
En todo caso, el gráfico es magnífico.