Posted on 08/09/2005 2:05:50 AM PDT by ScaniaBoy
FOR those who are too young to remember, Divorce, Italian Style was a 1962 movie in which Marcello Mastroianni plays a Sicilian nobleman married to an ugly, bullying and financially ruinous harridan, from whom he wants desperately to disengage. Unfortunately, he has no legal way to do this since the Italian legal system made no provisions for divorce. His only recourse, therefore, is to kill his wife.
This film is, of course, a perfect allegory for the Italian and European economies 40 years later. Italy today is under the thumb of an ugly, oppressive and financially ruinous harridan called the euro. The concept of divorce, separation or withdrawal does not exist under European Union law. What, then, is Italy to do? The story of Italy’s desperate economic and fiscal travails within the euro needs no repeating. Neither does the political attraction for Silvio Berlusconi of encouraging an anti-euro movement that would blame all Italy’s problems on the man who took Italy into the euro — his main political opponent in the forthcoming general elections, Romano Prodi. Until 1997, when the Socialist Government led by Prodi took Italy into the euro, Italy was the fastest-growing leading economy in Europe, consistently outperforming both Germany and France. Since 1998 it has lagged in every single year behind France and in all but two years behind Germany.
Starting with these economic and political premises, we arrive at a conclusion similar to the one reached by George Soros and the German Bundesbank in the summer of 1992: some time between now and the Italian general election next spring, the country’s continuing membership of the eurozone will become politically incompatible with the present monetary conditions.
Then one of two things will have to happen: either the European Central Bank (ECB) will have to ease monetary policy decisively to make economic conditions easier for Italy to live with — or Italy will have to withdraw from the eurozone.
The ECB’s official statements on monetary policy — that a cut in interest rates or a devaluation would have no effect on economic conditions — are just content-free propaganda: Soviet-style ideology designed to justify whatever happens to be the current policy of the ECB. This is clear not only from common sense but also from the econometric simulations based on past behaviour. The simulations illustrated, based on the Oxford Economic Forecasting model, show big improvements in GDP, unemployment and government finances from a monetary easing, combined with devaluation, and broadly similar results are churned out by the OECD and IMF models — and probably by the econometric models run by the ECB itself.
If, however, the ECB fails to ease soon after the summer, the Italians will be tempted to start rattling their chains and seriously threaten disengagement — which brings us to the question of why an Italian withdrawal should be taken seriously, even though monetary divorce in Europe is not allowed.
To understand this issue, we must focus on two unprecedented features of today’s monetary arrangements. The first is that the Italian Government has, in theory, given up for ever a fundamental right of any sovereign country — the right to determine what will constitute legal tender within its own borders. The second is that international investors have assumed this decision to be genuinely irreversible simply because the Maastricht treaty says it is.
The strange financial result of these two aberrations is that the spread between Italian and German government bond yields is only 0.2 percentage points and that many European banks — unprofitable German mortgage banks in particular — have invested hundreds of billions of euros on a leveraged basis to pick up the very modest, but apparently risk-free, profits from buying Italian bonds and going short of their German equivalents. As a consequence, a decision by the Italian Government to withdraw from the euro — or even a perception by investors that such a decision might conceivably be threatened by the Italian Government some time in the not-too-distant future — would trigger a financial crisis of monstrous proportions. not only (or even mainly) in Italy but throughout the eurozone.
But could Italy credibly threaten to recreate its own currency? So powerful is the dogma that withdrawal is impossible that only two legal scholars have ever seriously examined this issue. They are Hal Scott, of Harvard Law School, and Charles Proctor, a solicitor at Nabarro Nathanson and author of a new chapter on withdrawal from the eurozone in the sixth edition of Mann on the Legal Aspect of Money, a book described by central bankers as “the Bible” of international monetary law. Unfortunately for the ECB, in its role as the guardian of the European banking system, both these authorities agree on two points: first, that despite the prohibitions in EU treaties, the Italian Government would have the legal ability to recreate its own currency, although withdrawal would, of course, entail big financial and economic risks; secondly, that the Government would be entitled to rewrite Italian financial contracts, including its own bond obligation, into new lire — and that investors who claimed to be defrauded by such a “redenomination” could not expect support from British or American courts.
While detailed consideration of these arguments is probably premature, the practical implication is clear: If the possibility of an Italian withdrawal were ever taken seriously by the markets, foreign holders of Italy’s € 1.5 trillion public debt would face enormous losses, big enough to endanger the solvency of many non-Italian banks. In other words, the Italian Government is now in a position to kill the euro and wreck the European banking system merely by threatening to withdraw.
Italy will not become desperate enough to do this if the ECB cuts interest rates after the summer and the euro falls further. But if the ECB fails to deliver the expected monetary easing, or if Italy’s economic conditions deteriorate for any other reason, the Italian Government could demand a decisive easing of monetary policy, as it did in September 1992, and publicly threaten to withdraw from the euro if the ECB failed to comply.
Investors who want to be better prepared than they were before Black Wednesday for the looming confrontation between politics and central banking should contact Oxford University Press for a copy of Mann and the Legal Aspect of Money. Those who cannot face a 900-page legal textbook could at least rent a video of Divorce, Italian Style.
Friedman said he approves of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s plans to cut the tax burden along with reducing public spending, but added that to some extent Italy’s hands are tied.
“The problem, for you, is that Italy today cannot do what Thatcher did almost as soon as she arrived in power, eliminating exchange controls and making sterling float.
“Italy now unfortunately cannot do the same thing because of the euro,” Friedman said.
Looks like it's time for the ECB to ease monetary policy. The ECB is doing the same thing the US Fed did in 1991 after the Gulf War: keeping interest rates too high during weak economic conditions and driving Europe into recession. Berlusconi needs to talk to those central bankers and make them a tough Italian offer.
Yes, but when they ease their policy to accomodate Italy (and Germany) others like Ireland and Spain may have problems.
One size doesn't fit all!
Is Sweden part of the EU at this time? Please excuse my lack of knowledge in this area. At least I can find Sweden on the map even with the labels covered up.
I have a notion for you: The driving force behind the Euro is the idea of challenging the Dollar as the world's reserve currency. To this end all other considerations must be sacrificed. Sounds loopy? remember that precious few of the Eurocrats have any experience either in business or as politicians or technocrats in "managing" a large complicated economy which contains in it boundaries diverse interests, peoples and capacities.
Strangely, they believe that no matter what happened they need to keep the EUro policies "stable" too some how shore up the "reputation" if the Euro. Like so many other nostrums of the EUrocrats they have got things completely backward: They think that America's performance is due to the reserve status of the dollar - the oft repeated canard that the USA can in effect give itself interest free loans.
Of course, it never occurs to them that tit might just be the other way around: The dollar is the reserve currency of choice because America is strong, and not just economically.
A perfect illustration of the sort of top-down, overly abstract thinking that one would expect out of the ENarques that has so influenced the policies of the EU.
Not that Americans should be sanguine about all of this. Real reform is needed here to maintain our strength as a nation, but the management of the Euro seems to be steeped in foolishness.
The problem is that those "client state" line Spain and Ireland also inflated their welfare state with the artificialities created by the money pump from the EU. They thus cannot go forward as the are, and they cannot reform even if they had the will.
Which goes to show just how idiotic those refined geniuses that run the EU really are.
The Europeon Union.
I can hear the comments a year or two from now:
"Oh well, it sure seemed like a good idea at the time"!
Hi,
Yes, Sweden (very unfortunately, in my opinion) is a member of the European Union (EU). On the other hand we are not taking part in the common currency (the euro) but havve our own currency (krona). This was decided in a referendum September 2003, when the No had it by 56% vs 42% despite all our main political parties, the industrial organizations, and most of the lbaour unions worked for a yes to the euro.
Just goes to show that the "elites" do not always know what they are doing (/sarcasm) - see also posts by Casearian Daoist.
PS: Britain and Denmark are also members of the EU but not taking part in the currency cooperation - as are a number of the new (mainly east-European) members. But the fools are trying to enter - something that would kill their economies totally.
Simple way out of this.
Re-issue the lira.
Increse taxes on Euro transactions.
Everybody wins.
The thing that amuses me about these legal theorists is that they ignore the possibility of countries just saying "to hell with it" and ignoring Brussels. As long as they have the support of their people, what's Brussels going to do? Invade?
I agree. Remember Argentina - they've eventually made a deal with their creditors, who lost lots of money.
What amazes me is that the creditors don't start to take heed. It is not only Italy but Portugal, Greece and some other countries that could eventually default their debts. It could become quite messy.
tjena grabben. Hur mår ni?
Maybe they are out of work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.