paulhunterjones

The Republic of Iceland is a small island located in the mid-Atlantic. Iceland is about the same size as the State of Virginia. The population of Iceland has hovered around 320,000 for the last decade. The island supports small industries of fishing, agriculture, and tourism. Iceland lacks natural resources and thus does not support any heavy industries. Still, the country offers its citizens free universal health care and excellent
educational opportunities through public schools and universities. The country
imports more than it exports. A prosperous and vibrant financial services industry fueled the country’s pre-September 2008 development. During the last decade world authorities
constantly ranked Iceland as one of the most desirous places to live. Iceland’s per capita income ranks among the world’s best. One has to wonder how a small island nation with limited resources produced an astonishingly high standard of living.

In September 2008 the global financial crisis arrived on the shores of Iceland like a tsunami. Since that day Icelandic society has not been the same, though it is on the rebound. The eruption of the Eyjafjallajokfull disrupted commercial air traffic and cost the airlines millions of dollars. In Iceland the volcano spread ash over the country’s most fertile agriculture lands. The contamination of these areas has setback the island’s economic recovery. Regardless of minor setbacks I believe that, ultimately, the citizens of Iceland must make lifestyle altering political and financial decisions to fix its economy. Iceland should shoulder the burden of its own mistakes. Icelanders should rebuild their nation’s economy while also repaying its debts.

Geir Hilmar Haarde served as Iceland’s Prime Minister from June 2006 to February 2009. During his tenure as PM, Mr. Haarde also served as head of his political party, the Independents. Mr. Haarde’s political party represented the centre-right of the political
spectrum. The Independents were opposed to membership in the European Union and
opposed economic interventional. I would categorize the Independents as
proponents of lazier faire. Mr. Haarde’s political party maintained its political base in Reykjavik, the nation’s capita and most populous region. Mr. Haarde’s party drew its support from the upper levels of Icelandic society. Prior to assuming the position of P.M. Mr. Haarde held other high level governmental positions. He received his undergraduate and post-graduate education from American universities. The general opinion is that Geir Haarde served as P.M. without any political difficulties until mid-September 2009. No one can argue that Mr. Haarde was not qualified to hold the position of PM. I believe that Icelandic society prospered under his leadership.

Many experts argue that U.S. government’s failure to intervene in the collapse of Lehman Brother’s Holdings was the catalyst for the global financial crisis. Speaking at a conference in New York City U.S. Treasury Secretary Geithner said that Europe would not let their financial institutions be at risk in the eyes of the public. In support of this belief he alluded to German Chancellor Merkel’s often stated assurance that Europe would not have another Lehman Brothers. With the collapsed of Lehman Brothers all short-term lending between banks dried up.

Pages: 1 2 3 4

This past week German Chancellor Angela Merkel received some good news in her battle to save the EZ. The German Federal Constitutional Court , a highly respected institution in Germany, ruled in favor of the chancellor’s power and right to take part in bailouts of debt ridden EZ members. An interest group who opposed the bailout of Greece filed the case that was decided. The Court’s ruling did not give the Chancellor a complete victory. The Court held that the Chancellor had to seek the Bundestag’s (legislature’s) approval for any future bailouts. Still, Chancellor Merkel hailed the decision as an endorsement of her policy to use German resources to save the Euro. I disagree with the Chancellor’s interpretation of the Court’s decision. The German head of state must understand that the Court issued a legal ruling and not a political statement supporting the bailouts. The decision does not address the merits of the Chancellor’s decisions, policies or actions relative to the bailouts. Unfortunately, the Chancellor’s political fortunes are tied to the success or failure of the already issued bailouts. I doubt that there will be any more large bailouts in the future.

The week’s bad news for Chancellor Merkel was that Greece had not yet taken any affirmative steps to carry out the agreed upon austerity measures. Greece’s failure to follow EZ indicts hastens the demise of the financial organization.

In a earlier posting I argued against a financial bailout of Greece’s economy. In a later post I warned that continued financial help to Greece would lead to the collapse of the EZ. I did not understand the logic behind promising to lend more money to Greece before it took any real steps to implement the required austerity measures. In the past Greece had failed to carry out agreed upon austerity measures. Why would the EZ leaders think that this time Greece would (or could) start to organize its finances? I posed the simply question; what would the EZ do if Greece failed to carry out (again) the austerity measures? I think that Chancellor Merkel has to now face her worst nightmare and consider the possibility of this eventuality.

This week EZ leaders expressed their dismay with the lack of progress Greece had made in implementing the austerity measures. Evangelos Venizelos, Greece’s finance minister, defended his government’s efforts to comply with the EZ’s budgetary package. He asserted that Greece’s relationship with the troika, experts and monitors from the EU, IMF and ECB, were on an even keel. Yet, it is widely known that the troika suspended its latest monitoring mission to Greece. It is believe that the leaders of these groups are frustrated by Greece’s foot dragging and excuses. Now Greece seeks to delay the implementation of many of the agreed upon reforms. Experts are now predicting that Greece will miss its deficit target unless it immediately slashes spending.

Peter Spiegal, Brussels Bureau Chief of the Financial Times, recounts his conversations about Greece with attendees at this year’s Ambrosetti conference. The workshops and forums were held in Northern Italy from September 2 2001 and concluding on September 4, 2011. Mr. Spiegal expressed surprise that many attendees were willing to discuss the possibility that Greece might not continue as a member in the EZ. He stated in the interview that many of the attendees now believe that it might be necessary to force Greece out. The Brussels Chief said that six months ago many people would not have considered this a possibility. You can see the video of Mr. Spiegal’s interview on his conversations with attendees at the Ambrosetti conference.

In another related development the chief of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagard, urged policy makers of the Group of 7 to take bold and joint action to curb the global economy crisis. She set the stage for the finance ministers’ meeting in France. Ms. Lagard correctly described the world as “collectively suffering from a crisis of confidence in the face of a deteriorating economic outlook.” The IMF chief specifically alluded to the EZ countries that had already received EU and IMF rescues. Ms. Lagarde said publically what most leaders and experts are privately saying; Ireland, Portugal and Greece shoulder the burden of meeting their deficit targets. Her subtle though firm message was that these countries would not receive any further financial help.

Against the back drop that Greece was not implementing the austerity measures, the G-7 finance ministers and central bank governors met in Marseilles France. Their two-day meeting did not produce a joint strategy for jump starting their stalled economies. Actually the meeting failed to produce any tangible or meaningful results. Just like the EZ the G-7 consists of nations that have divergent sovereign interests that prevent unity of purpose and action. The G-7 meeting concluded on a note of resignation and unfulfilled promises.

Pages: 1 2