Wolfgang Münchau states the obvious

Well, it seems obvious to me at any rate: here. If the EFSF/ESM still doesn’t have enough money to deal with Italy and Spain, then we are still in multiple equilibrium territory: if the markets don’t panic, they will be right, and if they do panic, they will also be right.

Don’t get me wrong: this was a good summit that made some important intellectual breakthroughs. But there are only so many things that one summit can do, and we have had so many bad summits that it isn’t clear to me that the system can now deliver the many needed reforms in time.

IMF Eurozone Concluding Mission Statement

You can find it here. They usefully distinguish between short run and long run responses to the crisis, and correctly stress the need to maintain aggregate demand in the short run.

As for the long run reforms: if the euro survives, there will have to be “a broad-based dialogue about what a fuller fiscal union would imply for the sovereignty of member states and the accountability of the center,” and we may as well start thinking about these issues in Ireland now.

On the efficacy of internal devaluations: questions I would ask Zsolt Darvas in a seminar

I notice that Philip’s last post has attracted very few comments, which is a shame, since the paper he linked to is a very important contribution to the debate, both here and in Europe, and deserves to be read widely. It is especially useful for people overseas seeking to draw lessons from the Irish experience, since it highlights the extent to which the Irish “good news story” is in fact a story about pharmaceuticals. Hence I hope Philip will forgive me if I make these comments “on the front page”, as it were.

Among the key findings are:

1. Wages declined only very slightly after the onset of the crisis here, and have since recovered. More generally, the European evidence is that wages are sticky downward.

2. The decline in unit labour costs in Ireland has been very modest once you take compositional effects into account (Figure 3, middle panel): they have been rising since 2010 and are now less than five percent lower than at the start of 2008. Indeed, for the economy as a whole they are back where they started (the previous statement was based on excluding agriculture, construction, real estate and the public service).

3. Despite 2, there has been a 14 percent depreciation of the Irish real exchange rate even taking compositional effects into account (once again, the index excludes agriculture, construction, real estate and the public service; including these the real depreciation is about half as big — Figure 3, right hand panel).

4. The Irish real exchange rate has been appreciating since 2010.

5. Peripheral adjustment has involved massive employment losses.

Here are some questions I have:

1. What happens when you calculate a composition-adjusted real exchange rate index for Ireland vis à vis other eurozone members only?

2. What happens if you include agriculture in the index? This is an important traded sector in the Irish context.

3. What happens if you do both 1 and 2?

4. One of the most striking graphs in the paper is Figure 2 on p. 6, which shows that while while manufacturing value added has risen by 30 percent since the start of 2008 (thanks to what happened in the pharmaceutical sector), gross production has only risen by 5 percent. Can we make further progress in understanding this discrepancy (there are some helpful suggestions in the paper), and what might this tell us about the movement in Irish unit labour costs and real exchange rates since the crisis began?

Update: Zsolt has kindly responded to my questions here.

Bad political feedback loops

Niamh Hardiman has a post here which echoes one of the most important points George Soros made in his Trento speech: current EU policies are amplifying anti-EU sentiment, which in turn makes it more difficult politically to move towards the tighter Eurozone integration that is economically required to save the Euro project; which in turn exacerbates the economic situation, and so on.

I have two brief comments.

The first is that this sort of negative feedback loop suggests the need for a “big bang” approach to policy reform in Europe: not some temporary liquidity fix that will give the system a little more rope to hang itself with, but a fundamental shift in the policy stance, which could change both the economic and the political dynamics.

The second is that we have got to stop referring to parties which are willing to go along with the current policy mix as “pro-European”, as if a party like Syriza is anti-European or anti-EU (it is clearly not). When Mrs Thatcher set about dismantling the social contract that had defined Britain for thirty years, this did not make her anti-British, and nor was Arthur Scargill anti-British when he tried to oppose her. People disagree, often fundamentally, about policies: that is what democracy is all about, and the moment that “Europe” is defined with any one set of policies, rather than with a framework for deciding policies collectively, it is (or ought to be) finished as a political project.

I conclude that what the EU needs right now is a loyal opposition, willing to provoke an almightily row in order to promote change. Step forward Mr Fabius?

Scary Eurozone pictures, industrial production version

The third picture in this post is really quite something.