by MrBill » Wed 23 May 2007, 05:10:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ferrelgiraffe', 'M')r. Bill, thank you for that concise compilation, It brought up several important questions I have never seen answered before. namely.
Could you briefly state what advantage the government wouldwin in making the amero? one hemisphere money system?
Also how is the Euro hurting specific countries if they are very liberal with welfare and how does it hurt those countries who are in deficit trade (Like US?)
I would think each country printing their own money and setting their own interest rates would form a rock solid impenetrable barrier against world shock.
but what do I know.
(Maybe they don't wnat an impenetrable barrier against world economic shock.)
Despite Dr. Mundell's (Father of the Euro) Nobel Prize a currency union is no different than a bathtub. If you add cold water to hot water you end up with warm water. Plain & simple.
The introduction of the euro or EMU, as opposed to the previous system that fell apart the ERM, was to remove the process by which countries could devalue their way out of trouble thereby beggaring their neighbor.
The deutschmark sphere of hard currencies* - the hot water - was mixed with the club med zone of soft currencies - the cold water - to create the euro - warm water.
It was a political decision, but it had commercial logic. First of all the devaluation of the club med currencies - the ERM crisis in 1992 - was at the expense of the deutschmark appreciating in value. As far as I am concerned looking at deficits in the present eurozone this process would have gone on indefinitely.
This imposes costs on countries that have a hard currency as it makes their exports less competitive, which hurts growth and jobs.
So the euro or EMU was in some respects simply a recognition of this fact. However, implementation of the euro was also paid for disproportionately by those countries with strong currencies that traded in a tight band around the DEM.
Inflation as well as interest rates were dramatically higher outside the DEM zone. So, after the monetary union (EMU) those club med countries got a huge monetary boost as interest rates in the EMU converged with DEM area interest rates. In some cases, we are talking about rates 10% lower than they were before the union. A huge shot in the arm for these countries and one of the reasons we have seen so much construction and speculation in real-estate in places like Spain.
But it was a one off and now its effects are waning as inflation picks up in the EMU and the ECB is forced to raise rates.
Due to the devalution during the ERM crisis Germany found that its labor productivity costs were significantly higher than either Italy or France. If memory serves me correct call it 110 versus 80-90 on a scale of 100.
This should have given Italy and France a lot of breathing space to reform their economies, but given they lacked, let us call it, the Protestant Work Ethic, they didn't. Now 8-years on (EMU rates were locked in 1999, the euro was introduced in notes & coins in 2001) we have quite a different competitive picture. Germany has improved its productivity so now it is 90 on a base 100 scale, while Italy and France's scores have risen to 130 and 110 respectively. In otherwords, Germany has learned to live with a strong euro, while Italy and France squandered the opportunity.
Nevermind that Italy and Greece lied to get into the EMU. That is another story for another day.
So just as the positive effects of lower interest rates and that monetary shot in the arm are starting to wear-off in places like Spain for example they are finding themselves under pressure due to high labor per unit of output costs and other economic inefficiencies that Germany has since solved. And places like Italy are struggling from cheap Chinese imports from a strong euro, while Germany (and Switzerland by the way) are busy exporting capital goods like machines to Asia.
Now, politics being politics in the EU, the French and others of course cannot and will not accept responsibility for their lack of action and squandered opportunity, so they try to devise revenue sharing formulas that penalize large economies that get their financial houses in order.
Germany having lived through the pain of low, slow growth is just starting to see its economy recover and unemployment come down. While France is pushing for a super fund paid for by the EU to help workers hurt by globalization. Germany is naturally the largest contributor by far to the EU budget.
They also complain bitterly about lower taxes and lower operating costs in the newcomers to the EU - the mainly CEE entrants, but throw Ireland in there if you want?
Having benefited from convergence of interest rates at the lower end of the curve, they would now like convergence of taxes at the high end of the range, so that their systems look more competitive.
But of course low tax areas like Cyprus are vigorously resisting this as for them it is a competitive advantage. In France, if a gross salary is 100.000 euros then the worker takes home about 45.000 net. 55% tax. However, the company that employs the worker also pays 60.000 euros to the government in salary taxes, so the real gross salary is actually 160.000. That means the government is taking 72% tax not 55%. Of course, they complain about Cyprus who only levy between 25-30% tax on their citizens.
That is why foreign companies coming to the EU prefer to open offices in places like Malta, Ireland and Cyprus rather that France.
So what does this have to do with the Amero? Well, good question. I almost forgot myself.
Canada has its fiscal house in order. Balanced budgets finally. Paying down the debt. Plus robust growth from high energy and commodity prices. Of course, central Canada is suffering a little from The Dutch Disease from a strong Loonie, but they should be re-directly more of their exports to western Canada, and I guess some are, but that takes time.
I cannot see any benefit for Canada (hot water) to join an Amero currency union with the USA and Mexico (cold and colder water)?
We already have free trade via NAFTA, so any benefits would have to be from tying our CAD to the USD, and given the USA's massive current account and budget deficits as well as unfunded future liabilities, I can see no gain in it for CDA? And what if anything does Mexico have to offer? Their oil & gas exports are on a back slope already, and their migration is north to the USA, not jobs heading south as Ross Perot expected. At most a cluster of industries right smack dab on the US-Mexican border, and a big fence in between.
But of course the USA can always invade CDA for our natural resources. It would be ironic that the EMU that represents ever closer union to prevent European wars were to lead to an Amero because CDA was invaded. Sigh.
*hard currencies - DEM, NLG, ATS, BEF, LUF
soft currencies - FRF, ESP, PTE, ITL, GRD
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.