George Soros' European Crisis Solution

If one accepts George Soro’s solution to preventing a second Great Depression, the prognosis is indeed grim. His solution, while in itself conceptually problematic, appears in a pragmatic context to reside in never-never land. The bold steps he presents as necessary conditions to prevent a second Great Depression require the cooperation and coordination which would transcend the polarization and fractionalization of regional narrow self-interest at such a scale that defies observable reality. Moreover, while the conditions he proposes may or may not be necessary, he has not presented a convincing argument that they are sufficient conditions.

A nebulous foundation block of his strategy is to provide time for “Europe to develop a growth strategy, without which the debt problem cannot be solved”. The development of a growth strategy is central to every economic and business interest, as he well knows. The question which must be asked is what the potential drivers would be of any effective growth strategy, what are the competitive and comparative advantages that Europe could bring forth, and what the time frame for implementation would be? If this proposed growth strategy would be a palliative to the “debt problem”, one is assuming a sufficient rate of growth to offset the burden of debt service. Even assuming a growth strategy could be developed; getting a realistic idea of whether the growth rate would be sufficient to counter the demands of debt servicing takes us into the unquantifiable speculative realm. While George Soros is a demonstrably recognized master in the realm of speculation, a no small part has been his ability to be adaptable and flexible as changing conditions warrant. Unfortunately governmental and national policies rarely show the same nimbleness in response to changing realities.

http://blogs.ft.com/the-a-list/2011/09/29/how-to-stop-a-second-great-depression/#axzz1ZHNkRk4j

European Union Debt Crisis

The majority of the global economic discourse these days revolves around a central thesis; too much debt, and burdensome deficits. To some degree, the debt problem contributes to the deficit problem because of the requirements of servicing the debt. The actions of policy makers are decried as lacking in leadership as they stumble around seeking politically acceptable ways to resolve these issues, while at the same time being economically effective in really addressing the issues. The results have been skewed towards being politically acceptable via some form of “kicking the can down the road”. The economic realities suggest the end of the proverbial “road” may be near. The debt issue is more of a global issue than regional issue; or at least global with respect to the indebtedness of the western developed economies. Questions such as whether Greece remains part of the European Union seem a little flat when one considers that regardless of whether Greece is or is not part of the EU, the outcome of resolving this issue in any manner other than some sort of default is unlikely. Because of the integrated scale of connectedness, I doubt anyone, or any institution really fully knows what the unanticipated consequences and effects will be. Consequently, talk of “ring fencing” or containment of these issues smacks more of intellectual arrogance than a sober acceptance of the magnitude of the problem. I suspect that after all the “shucking and jiving” is done what we a headed for, and what seems inevitable, is a global restructuring of monetary regimes with some attempt at a functional global monetary unit, be it a basket of currencies, or for that matter a basket of commodities. Along the same line, it would seem that the only effectively managed way out of this global financial mess will be some sort concerted global effort to inflate away the real value of the debt burden.

Economic Policy Direction Shortcomings

The public policy edge of managing this global financial crisis has been focused on opening up the credit markets and re-establishing solvency in select financial institutions. As emergency interventions, they represent a monumental attempt to resuscitate a seriously damaged global economic system. The actual results, so far, have been only marginally convincing, if at all convincing, as to their successful outcome.

It is more than a little ironic that a primary reason this state of affairs arose is because of imprudent lending decisions. Financial institutions damaged their balance sheets, to the point of impairing their continuing business viability. Credit markets contracted and liquidity dried up. Credit is the lifeblood of our global economic system. Unfortunately, or fortunately as the case may be, prudent extensions of credit are based upon the credit worthiness of the borrower.

It should be fairly clear, by the increasing foreclosures and bankruptcies, that prospective borrowers do not, in general, represent good credit risks at the present time. It is also widely agreed that we are looking at a potentially severe and drawn out recession (depression?). We can reasonably expect that prospective borrowers will find themselves in even more distressed economic circumstances in the near future. As such, one must ask why a lending institution, after already getting its fingers burned through imprudent lending practices, would want to extend credit to prospective borrowers with deteriorating solvency prospects.

Additionally, the question should also arise as to why, a borrower already overextended, and facing a deteriorating economic picture, would wish to borrow more, other than as an act of desperation, or other irrationality. Perhaps it is a case of “if there is nothing left to lose, why not go for broke at the expense of an imprudent lender.”

It is not surprising then that despite massive capital injections, the credit markets are still sluggish. After shoring up their balance sheets, at public expense, lending institutions are possibly returning to their roots of being some of the more rational players (this is not a high bar to cross these days) in their economic and business decisions. The wiser deployment of capital would be to acquire distressed assets rather than extend credit to borrowers with poor prospects.

The dilemma facing policy-makers is still how to prevent, or at least mitigate, a global economic slowdown. What are the drivers of economic growth to be if growing debt financed consumption cannot be counted on? Several possibilities arise. As an example, China, and the Asia region, has the potential of stimulating their own internal domestic consumption. Inflation fears may have restrained efforts in this regard before. Now, however, prospects of an economic slowdown, and a more benign (at least for the time being) inflation outlook may open this up as an expeditious policy direction.

From the perspective of the West, and the United States in particular, there is a great deal that needs to be done to re-establish a strong and competitive economy. There are immense infrastructure needs and well as immense needs to fortify the intellectual capital base of the country through adequate funding of education and research. An assessment needs to occur in order to determine what the competitive and comparative advantage and long-term needs of the United States really are. This needs to be done in the context of the United States as a global citizen and its constructive relationship to other global economic players. Once this is determined focused attention and political will must be directed in this direction.