Democracy & Governance Archives

Greece has a Private Debt Crisis and We Can Blame the Troika

The Greek public debt debacle and the bailout received by the government from the European Central Bank (ECB), the European Commission (EC), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – referred to collectively as the “troika” – has been making headlines for years. However, very little attention has been paid to the debt crisis in the Greek private sector. An alarmingly high portion of private sector borrowers is behind on their debt payments, and the Greek banking system currently has one of the highest ratios of delinquent loans in the European Union.

This collapse of debt prepayments is a direct result the policies imposed by the Troika and threatens the future of Greek economic growth. After the Greek government required financial assistance from international creditors, it was forced to introduce draconic austerity measures to repay its debt. Cutbacks to state services, collapses in incomes, and an increasingly unstable economic environment contracted spending, therefore, eliminating future cash flows that private entities expected to use to repay their debt. The result has been a spiral of collapsing demand and shrinking growth.

Greece’s accession to the Eurozone was followed by a largely ignored, rapid, and unsustainable build-up in private sector debt. Once the Greek government was forced to impose severe austerity measures and the economy collapsed, the private debt crisis followed. Now, the large ratio of delinquent loans held by Greek banks is adding to the factors hampering economic growth. For Greece to recover, its private debt problems need to urgently be addressed with an approach that offers relief to both borrowers and lenders.

This article was originally published by the Private Debt Project. Read the entire article here.

The full article highlights how the mismanagement of the Greek sovereign debt problems triggered the current private debt crisis. We show the rapid growth in private debt, document the macroeconomic context that pushed to Greece into a depression, and explain how these factors created a private debt crisis. Then, we discuss some of the existing proposals for addressing a large number of loan delinquencies and their limitations, and finally, propose other approaches to tackle this pressing problem.

Denouncing the Flaws of the EU is not Extremist, it’s Necessary

The main takeaway from the French presidential election is that criticism of the European Union (EU), including the eurozone, is not well received regardless of its validity. While Europe might currently be breathing a sigh of relief, the strategy of silencing and ridiculing those who express dissatisfaction with EU policies is dangerous for its future.

Presidential campaigns in France

During the campaign for the first round of the French presidential election, two candidates touted the possibility of leaving the euro: Jean-Luc Mélenchon, representing the leftist France Insoumise party, and Marine Le Pen from the extreme right-wing Front National. Most outlets considered their attacks on the euro to be a political liability with the mainstream electorate. The media slotted both candidates as “anti-European” extremists that should be feared. However, a closer look at the platforms of these two reveals that their critiques of the EU and their desired outcomes bear very few similarities.

Marine Le Pen promised a “France-first” approach and pledged to pull France out of the eurozone and close the country’s borders. Her platform plays on racism and xenophobia, and blames France’s woes on immigrants. It is important to note that she did propose strengthening the welfare state and extending benefits, but only for French people and not foreigners.

Mélenchon’s take on the EU was very different. His platform’s “Plan A” was to push for EU-wide reforms that aimed at bringing growth and strengthening mutual support amongst member states. He criticized the EU for becoming a place ruled by banks and finance, and his goal was to leverage France’s influence within the bloc to end austerity policies in all member states. If these negotiations with other EU members failed, then there was a “Plan B” that called for France to leave the euro and the EU in order to pursue a stimulus plan, which is not permitted under the deficit limits imposed by current EU regulation.

A large part of the media coverage received by Mélenchon centered on personal attacks, rather than on providing an accurate overview of his policies. He was accused of being a communist, both an admirer of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, and a Russia sympathizer. With a significant social media following and energizing campaign, Mélenchon was able to surge in the polls late in the race. However, he did not manage to garner sufficient support to qualify for the second round of the election.

Plagued by scandals and voters’ discontent with the current administration, the candidates backed by the two traditionally mainstream parties in France, the Republicans and Socialists, did not make it past the first round. The run-off election will take place on May 7th between Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron.

Dubbed the establishment’s anti-establishment candidate, Macron describes himself as a staunchly pro-EU, pro-immigration, and pro-globalization centrist. Macron is backed by the party he created in 2016, “En Marche!,” and is successfully managing to brand himself as an outsider candidate. However, it should not be forgotten that as an economy minister in Francois Hollande’s government, who did not seek re-election due to extremely low approval rates, Macron was the architect of labor market reforms that weakened protections for workers and favored businesses. A close look at his program reveals his policies are strikingly similar to those of Hollande, just with different branding and rhetoric.

Macron’s platform consists of neoliberal platitudes that espouse values such as tolerance and acceptance of immigrants, while advocating for austerity and dismantling of social protections under the guise of increasing efficiency and “modernizing” the French economy. Macron pledged to reduce France’s deficit below 3 percent, as mandated by the EU, while also cutting taxes. To achieve both goals, Macron would undoubtedly have to slash government spending, which would most likely have a negative impact on the economy overall.

Macron’s uncritical embrace of the EU has gained him the praise and endorsement of other European leaders. Global financial markets that are reassured by his pro-EU stance are also celebrating the prospect of his victory. While his commitment to structural reforms and budget cuts is likely to please Germany and the European Commission, the question is if he can also satisfy the people of France.

Polls suggest that Macron will now win the run-off against Le Pen. However, concerns are mounting that if his government fails to deliver, the far right will be strengthened by the following election. Given how similar Macron and Hollande’s programs are (despite the different packaging) they are unlikely to deliver a different result.

The failed economic policies of the EU

The French economy struggles with high unemployment rates, particularly for young people, and is facing a decade of economic stagnation. Under increased pressure from the EU for France to abide by its deficit rules and reduce spending, previous governments have implemented harsh pension and labor reforms. These measures have failed to jumpstart the economy, and it seems intuitive that France should pursue different policies that could actually provide the much needed stimulus to its economy.

It’s not just France that is stagnating. Since the 2008 crisis, the entire Eurozone has seen a slow and uneven recovery. Particularly, the worst hit countries such as Greece, Italy, and Spain, are still dealing with the consequences of shrinking incomes and high unemployment. Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz showed how the structure and design of the euro were a key factors in holding back the recovery of the EU.

The structure of the euro was established by the Maastricht Treaty which laid down the groundwork for how the EU and the euro area ought to be set-up institutionally. The treaty arbitrarily established yearly deficit limits for countries at 3 percent of GDP. After the crisis, the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union expanded the influence of the European Commission, an unelected body, to impose policies on member states. EU institutions have used the deficit limit as justification to dictate a neoliberal agenda, characterized by imposing austerity measures and pro-business structural reforms on member states, with very little consideration on the worsening of unemployment, poverty, and other social indicators.

Considering the shortcomings of neoliberal policies imposed by the EU, perhaps Melélnchon’s “Plan A,” to push for EU-wide reform is not that “extremist” after all. Rather than crucifying him, he should have been given the chance to advocate for reform. The current direction taken by the EU is one that through austerity measures is slowly dismantling the European Social Model, which has traditionally been characterized by a strong safety net.

What the future holds

As long as the EU imposes and encourages a platform that hurts people, far right politicians like Marine Le Pen will continue to tap into those anxieties and gain popularity. The success of the Brexit campaign should serve as impetus for the EU to reevaluate its policies.

Politicians like Macron, who chose to ignore the flaws of the eurozone and advocate for more of the same unsuccessful policies may win popularity now, but set themselves up for failure in the long run. Macron’s unconditional praise of the EU’s virtues is somewhat similar to Hillary Clinton, who under a backdrop of suffering and social crisis, responded to Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again,” by stating “America is already great!” This strategy failed and Clinton lost, with areas where jobs were under the most severe threats swinging towards Trump.

For the European project to succeed and continue bringing peace and unity to Europe, economic policy reform is necessary and austerity needs to end. Ignoring the economic struggles of the bloc and refusing to recognize the role of EU policy in exacerbating them will continue to fuel the rise of extremist right wing politicians. Calling those who advocate for socially inclusive reforms “extremists” is a strategy bound to backfire.

Taxes and Turmoil in Lebanese Politics

A series of protests have begun to rock Lebanon as of mid-March 2017. Protesters are taking to the streets to denounce the Lebanese government’s plan to introduce or increase 22 new taxes on citizens, most notably increasing the VAT tax from 10-11%, as well as various other taxes on food, drink, public notary services, and other categories that stand to impact daily purchases in the country. These measures will further reduce spending power of average Lebanese citizens during a time period when poverty has already risen by 66%(!) in the past 6 years, when around 30% of the population lives below the poverty line, when 9% of the Lebanese population lives on less than $1 per day, and when Syrian refugees continue to pour into Lebanon by the millions, further exacerbating Lebanese economic woes. Furthermore, Lebanon is the 3rd most unequal country on this planet in terms of wealth inequality, and this inequality implies that these new tax measures will primarily impact those who are already struggling to survive, let alone maintain a decent standard of living. In fact, these newly proposed taxes will be what economists call a “regressive tax,” since they will consume a bigger portion of the poor’s income compared to the rich.

The biggest complaint, rightfully so, of the protesters is that Lebanese politicians, with their entrenched system of confessionalism and nepotism, have stolen from public funds to aggrandize their own wealth, and have left the average Lebanese citizen struggling to survive off of the crumbs tossed to them. This rampant corruption, culture of excess, and paralysis of state oversight has contributed to a debt-to-GDP ratio of 140%, one of the highest in the world. Despite such mounting debt, the Lebanese government has little show for it in terms of providing services to the public.

For example, the Lebanese government cuts off electricity for several hours a day throughout the country— sometimes as much as 40-50% of the day, and claims that there are simply no public funds available to provide electricity for a full 24 hours. This is where the new tax proposal comes in; the government maintains that their hands are simply tied, and that these painful measures are needed to make a dent in paying off the public debt. However, when we examine the issue of public debt from the perspective of Modern Money Theory (MMT), we find that this idea is based on ignorance of how taxes and spending work at the public level.

MMT asserts that any sovereign government is capable of printing its own money into existence to pay for anything that it wishes to, from public healthcare to defense to infrastructure, or any other government-funded project. Because the government can create money out of nothing by simply printing it, or electronically transferring it to bank accounts, this by definition removes the necessity to collect taxes as a form of revenue to pay for things. The Lebanese government, for example, could have enough money to pay for electricity 24 hours a day if it simply created money to pay for it by electronically transferring the sum to the bank accounts to pay electricity companies. All of this can be done without ensuring that there is an equal amount of taxes flowing into the government, because the government does not use these taxes to pay for things. It pays for things by creating money out of nothing.

With this understanding, we can then reverse the causal relationship between taxes and public spending: taxes do not fund public spending. Rather, public spending creates the money by which citizens can conduct economic activity, including paying taxes. This is not an example of the classic “chicken vs. egg” conundrum. In this case, we can definitely say which side came first, for logical reasons. Citizens would simply not be able to pay taxes unless they had the money to pay for them in the first place, which in turn must be created by the government and released into the economy through public spending.

This implies that the government’s debt and deficit, as a matter of principle, does not matter to the public sector in the same way that a debt would matter to a household or firm. Government can always print more money in order to pay for things, including interest on debts. If a household tried to create its own play money and offer it to the credit card company at the end of the month, it would be rightfully ridiculed. However, because the government’s currency is universally recognized as bestowing the holder with value, it is accepted anywhere, and for “all debts, public and private.” In effect, it is the sovereignty of the state, and the credibility of their power to meet contractual financial obligations, that gives the money its value.

So, what then is the purpose of taxes, if they are not used to fund government spending? Primarily, taxes are a way of the government asserting sovereignty over its citizens. By denominating the taxes levied on citizens in the currency that they print, the government ensures that there will always be a widespread demand for its currency that people need to obtain to pay taxes. This ability to create money out of nothing and to generate widespread demand for it is a powerful component of state sovereignty, and, as other articles attest, the modern state as we know it would not even exist today without this power.

Taxes also serve another important economic function: they limit how much money a person can spend (purchasing power). When the government is worried about inflation (rising prices throughout society) brought about by rapid economic growth, for example, increasing taxes would be one way of decreasing spending in the entire economy, thus counteracting the threat of inflation. However, what does this mean for a country like Lebanon with a sizable percentage of its population living under the poverty line, and where the problem is too little spending and economic growth, not too much?

If Lebanese citizens have to pay increasingly higher taxes on daily necessities, their purchasing power will shrink. As their purchasing power and consumption declines, businesses will suffer. Investment and employment rates would likely decline, and poverty would increase. This increase in poverty would translate into citizens having even less money to contribute to taxes, since they would be consuming less and would have a smaller income. In such a situation, instead of these new tax measures decreasing the government debt, it is conceivable that they would actually do the exact opposite by increasing it, due to a decline in consumption and income, which are two of the biggest sources of taxes for the Lebanese government.

To conclude, it is time to admit the problems facing Lebanon are much more complex and fundamental than any new tax proposals would ever fix. Taxes do not create revenue for government spending, and in fact, new taxes in the country would even threaten to propel the already unacceptably high poverty line in the country even higher, as incomes and purchasing power are eroded. There is no reason to believe that the government debt even needs to be paid off in the first place, since government can never run out of money to pay for things, including debt servicing payments. Rather, the most fundamental problem in Lebanon is a political system characterized by diversionary religious sectarianism, and a culture of corruption and disdain for the masses that have allowed the Lebanese politicians to usurp public funds for personal gain, all while keeping a stranglehold on the people’s aspirations for freedom and dignity for decades.

Written by Stephanie Attar
Stephanie is part of the third group of students studying at the Levy Institute. Prior to coming to the Levy, she completed a masters degree in political science, with a concentration in political philosophy. Her research always incorporates Marxian dialectical materialism in order to analyze the interconnected nature between the state and the economy. She is also interested in the Arab world, global inequalities engendered by capitalism-imperialism, and radical solutions to advance the interests of humanity.