Reply to George Soros' June 26 FT article

In his Financial Times article of June 26 (How to shift Germany out of its cant do mode, June 26), George Soros explained that avoiding a euro meltdown was just a matter for Spain and Italy to agree to structural reforms in return for which Germany would agree to a mutualisation of a “significant portion of their outstanding stock of debt”, such German agreement having been withheld so far mostly because of domestic politics.  This remains to be seen.

In Italy, Prime Minister Monti has been keen to push through reforms, yet has found great resistance from a variety of Italian vested interests.  In Spain, reining in the discretionary powers of provincial governments has proven difficult.  Although they were not mentioned by Mr. Soros, Greece has done very little to reform its bloated public sector while France has rejected the German economic model.

Structural reforms on the scale that is needed take years to be debated, approved and finally implemented.  And this is when populations are not dead set against them.  Therefore, a debt mutualisation today would have to rely on promises (couched in the form of laws which can be later amended) which will become reality, at best, over a much long time-frame.

There is a say that if you owe little, it is your problem, but if you owe a lot it becomes your creditor’s problem.  As a creditor, Germany is fast approaching this point of no return.  Given that hundreds of billions of debt are in the balance, it is very doubtful that the threat of fines or penalties would sway delinquent countries or compensate Germany for the financial burden it would assume.

A larger issue is whether such reforms would be successful in securing the place of the weaker countries alongside Germany in the eurozone over the long-term.  I would love to swim a relay with Lochte, Phelps and Adrian, but, however hard I train, our team wouldn’t make the Olympic cut.

Finally, it remains to be seen whether Europeans truly want a federal system, one where pensions will be determined in Brussels and be based on the German system, or where the size of national public sectors will be shrunk to converge with that of the best performing countries.

In my view, Germany will not accept an early mutualisation of European debts for the above reasons.  Nor will Austria, Finland and the Netherlands.  If push comes to shove, they may consider exiting the euro; yes, the strong deutsche mark would make German exports less competitive, but it would also make the repayment of euro-denominated debts a bargain.

Rather than forcing a decision that won’t be accepted and will resolve little, it might be better to focus on what can be preserved: a Europe of 27 countries where the weakest will be helped to the extent they help themselves.  One option suggested by the economist Richard Koo would be to ensure that a large portion of new sovereign debts be issued to domestic investors and remain in their hands; this may raise the financing cost but in return it would ensure greater financial stability.  It would also preserve greater strategic flexibility. 

Another would be to accelerate privatizations in Italy, Spain and Greece.  Vast resources could be freed in the process which would help reduce the size of sovereign debts.  Greece has over €300 billion in public assets which could be sold; it committed to sell €50 billion; so far it has sold a minute fraction of the latter number.  If a country declines to sell public assets, why should its euro partners guarantee its debts?  Why should the IMF and financial markets agree to a rescheduling, or even a restructuring? 

Other measures to foster growth and employment include reforming labor laws.  Yes this takes time, but then all reforms do.  There is no shortcut.  Some will argue that markets won’t wait.  Perhaps.  But historynshows that markets tend to look ahead, and it is likely that a credible reform program will elicit a favorable reaction in the form of greater investor interest and creditor cooperation.

In the end, some more countries may have to reschedule or restructure their sovereign debts.  But contrary to what is often written, this does not signify the death knell of economies; only the absence of coherent policies and the capricious application of laws do.  One only has to look at the example of Chile in the 1980s when it received no international financial aid yet engineered the longest lasting economic recovery in Latin America.  Indeed, even though debt-to-equity terms were more onerous than in neighboring countries, investor interest was much higher.  Or take Brazil under the leadership of F. H. Cardoso, first as minister of finance and then as president.

Debt mutualisation, as Mr. Soros advocates, sounds great and stirs the right emotional cords of generosity, European solidarity and immediate relief.  In my opinion though, it is unrealistic and insufficient.

Contrary to what European politicians would want us to believe, this is not the first time that countries, large and small, have had to face debt and spending difficulties.  The ways out are well known and they work.  But they are not quick or painless.