During Macri’s first year, economic recovery was slow. Unemployment and inflation remained high and growth did not come as expected. Kirchner’s Careful Pricing price-control program, which benefited small and medium-sized enterprises, was kept with a revision of its included products. The government began several public-works projects to stimulate the economy and help the construction sector. Political intervention in the INDEC figures ended, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) declared in November 2016 that Argentine statistics were again in accordance with international standards. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimated that Argentina would emerge from recession in 2017 or 2018, and lowered its country risk classification from seven points to six.
The economy worsened in 2018: inflation remained high, due in part to a trade deficit. The production of soy, the country’s main export, had been reduced by a drought which was among the worst natural disasters in the world that year. The US Federal Reserve increased its interest rates, which raised the price of the US dollar against other currencies. The Central Bank of Argentina increased the interest rate to 60 percent, but could not hold off inflation.
Macri announced on 8 May that Argentina would seek a loan from the IMF.
Macri replaced him with Luis Caputo, and merged the ministries of treasury and finances into a single ministry led by Nicolás Dujovne. The US–Turkey diplomatic conflict caused a new increase on the US dollar. As a result of the crisis, the tariffs on soy exports were restored. Caputo resigned, and Guido Sandleris replaced him as president of the Central Bank. The IMF expanded the loan with an extra 7 billion, on the condition that the Central Bank would only adjust the price of the peso against the US dollar under certain conditions. The 2019 budget reduced some expenditures and increased some taxes, in order to completely avoid a deficit.
another opinion: every state needs a public bank (to invest into key areas)
opportunity in crisis: for investors to buy key companies cheap?
opportunities… for whom?
those that already have a lot.
opportunities for populists and demagogues – who is shouting louder – people believe has a solution.
Hitler did a lot of “good things” especially for the farmers – at the beginning of his regime.
But we all now the bottom line was catastrophic.
Super rich people funded Hitler because they feared of their wealth being confiscated and given to “lazy idiots” by socialists and communists.
So would not be the solution – ongoing talks – similar to a “grand debate” – (a little better than Macron’s idea) – with key actors – from super wealthy – super poor – academics and politics – to come up with a solution – before things explode again and again.
Germany Shows Signs of Recession – Is the Global Economy Next?
the infrastructure is already screwed massively.
The gov wanted to get private investors to privatize the railway and the motorways.
But this kind of failed partly. Because investors want to buy only perfect roads not roads that need massive investments before generating revenue.
Also: Ex Finance Minister Scheuble (after failing to fix the cum-ex billions of tax fraud) imposed a policy of “Schwarze Null” – not increasing the governmental debt – halting investments.
This is what Greece did and we all know what happend.
Again: If private companies and families save money – that is okay – but the gov should not stop spending in crisis (when nobody is spending/investing) – because this risks halt of all of the economy and mass uneployment (as happened in Greece, Portugal was wise to go a different way)
Heiner Flassbeck argues that the China-US trade war is not having as much of an impact on the global economy as many assume.
China’s currency is not undervalued, despite its recent devaluation.
Rather, the undervalued Euro gives Germany a real competitive advantage in world trade.
It’s actually Europe’s economic weakness that is dragging down Germany, not China (src)
GREG WILPERT: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Baltimore.
Indications are increasing that the US-China trade war might be leading the global economy towards a recession. One indicator of this is that Germany, which is often considered to be the economic motor of Europe, experienced an important decline in industrial production during the second quarter of 2019. It dropped by 1.5% in June, and is expected to drop another 1.5% in July because of declining orders from China. This is not yet a recession, but a technical recession, which is what happens when you have two consecutive quarters of economic contraction. The trade war between the US and China is making Chinese imports cheaper for Germany and making German exports more expensive, thus reducing the demand for German industrial products. Also, there is the fear of a no-deal Brexit now that Boris Johnson was appointed Prime Minister of the UK, and there are very low interest rates that may be creating a new financial bubble.
Joining me now to discuss the German economy in the context of the US-China trade war is Heiner Flassbeck. He’s the Director of Flassbeck-Economics, a consultancy for global macro questions. Also, he’s the former Chief of Macroeconomics and Development of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Thanks for joining us again, Heiner.
HEINER FLASSBECK: Thanks for inviting me.
GREG WILPERT: Germany is known as the economic engine of Europe as I mentioned, or at the very least its industrial engine. How real do you think is the danger of recession in Germany, and would such a recession drag down the whole European Union with it?
HEINER FLASSBECK: Well, first of all, that with Germany being the engine of Europe, I have my doubts because as I’ve said many times on this program, Germany has been exploiting the other countries by exporting its way out of the crisis and exporting its way into a good recovery compared to the bad recoveries that the other European countries had. So far what we see is indeed we have a German economy that is extremely exposed to the world economy, and in particular China, you mentioned it. This is showing now in a reduction of demand from the rest of the world.
But, but, the big but is that also from Europe, demand from Europe at this moment of time is shrinking more than demand from the rest of the world. So what we have is [foreign language 00:02:32], European [foreign language 00:02:33], a weakness of Europe for a really long time because Europe is struggling with this super competitive Germany and is pushing down wages. We have with this low wage increases in the last 10 years, more or less, we have very weak domestic demand. That is why any reduction from export, any shock from the export side, is immediately driving or getting the European economy off track.
GREG WILPERT: When you mentioned the more general European context of the German economy, it sounds like you’re discounting perhaps the role that the US-China trade war and the devaluation of the Chinese yuan are playing in the economic problems that Germany is currently facing. Is that correct, or what role exactly do you see the trade war playing for Germany and more generally for the global economy?
HEINER FLASSBECK: Well, everybody says the trade war is the main thing. I have my doubts it is the main thing. It’s surely adding to the uncertainty around the world, including the Chinese small depreciation that happened a couple of days ago when the US called it a “currency manipulator,” which is a big word for a little thing. But overall the Chinese position, the competitive position, hasn’t changed very much. If you look at the real effective exchange rate, and that is the only reliable measure for competitiveness. That is, the competitiveness compared to all the trading partners of the country, including the exchange rate and including the inflation differentials or unit labor cost differentials. Then you see that China is still at a very high level.
Europe on the other hand, has a very low level, and US also is on a quite high level. So the point is still, that I’ve been making also many times, that Europe is still a little undervalued. Europe is definitely more undervalued than China, and so far the focus of Mr. Trump on China and the fist-fight, his in-fight with China, is very irrational. It should focus more on Europe. Europe is the bigger thing worldwide. Although the bilateral relations – in the bilateral relation, China is more important than Europe. But for the world as a whole, and this is what really counts and not the bilateral relationships, what really counts is the global picture. There, Europe is in a dangerous situation. Then you see in addition to all this, to our dependence on exports, the German dependence on exports, we see all over Europe, except for the monetary policy – it’s quite stupid, it’s quite stupid policy reactions in particular on the fiscal side.
GREG WILPERT: Well, I want to get to that point in a moment, but first I’d like to ask you about something you just said, which is, you said that Europe is being undervalued, and that Trump ought to be focusing on Europe. I mean I want you to explain, “What do you mean by that?”
HEINER FLASSBECK: Well, Germany still has an extremely high current account surplus. The valuation, again, the real effective exchange rate of the Euro is rather low compared to many years before. So far, if there is a competitive advantage in this world that a big region has against other regions, then it’s Europe against the United States. So far the Trump complaints about the German surplus, he said, “The Germans are bad, very bad,” it’s not fully unsound. It has its justification, and indeed what we should see in Europe is a much stronger focus all over Europe on domestic demand.
Europe is as closed an economy as the United States. The overall export share is very low, below 20%. Only Germany has an export share of 50%, which is really unreasonable for such a big country. An export share at 50% is absurd. So Germany has the wrong structure, and mainly Germany has to change. But the point is, Germany is not doing trade policies. The trade policies are done in Brussels, and so Trump does not really know whom to address with his accusations. But as I said, Europe could solve its own problems and does not have to look permanently to the world market.
GREG WILPERT: Well, that’s exactly the next issue I want to turn to. Now, you recently published a series of articles on your website, Flassbeck-Economics, with the title, “The Great Paradox: Liberalism Destroys the Market Economy.” Now we don’t have enough time to delve into all of your argument in detail here-
HEINER FLASSBECK: Unfortunately.
GREG WILPERT: … but I’d like to get the general gist of it and look at how it relates to the economic situation today. That is, your articles look at how liberalism, or what would some would call “neoliberalism”, contributes to the continuous slowing economic growth ever since the 1970s. Now, how does economic liberalism relate to Germany’s and Europe’s economic problems?
HEINER FLASSBECK: Well, to make a long story rather short, the point is rather trivial. The point is that under the neoliberal hegemony in the last 30 years, it began in the 70s. More than 30 years, it’s close to 50 years now, the market economy turned into something quite strange. Namely, a system where the company sector does not play the role that it should play in a market economy, which is to be the main investor and to be the main debtor. This combination to be investor and debtor is long gone. In most of our economies, including the United States, it’s gone for 15 years or 20 years even, so that we are faced with the situation that people save.
People still continue to save. Private households are saving money, but also the company sector is saving money. So in this situation, it is impossible that a market economy can function because the only way out then is you need someone who takes on debt. You need someone who invests these savings or the money that is needed to compensate for the demand restriction, demand fall that comes from the savings, so who’s going to do that? The only guy around for the whole world is obviously the government. The only guy around for big regions like the United States and Europe is the government. Only the Germans have found a nice solution with their export surpluses, so they ask other countries to be the debtor so that they are out of the trouble.
But that is obviously not a solution for the world and it’s not a solution for Europe. So Europe has to accept that fiscal policy must play a much stronger role, as it does in the United States. United States claims to be the best market economy in the world, but who is the demander so to say, the investor of last resort? It’s the government. Look at your figures. The figures are dramatic. In European terms they’re dramatic. They’re not dramatic in objective economic terms, but in European terms they are dramatic. More than 4% current deficit. More than 1,000 billion in the next fiscal year. Close to 800 billion last fiscal year. So in Europe everybody would say, “This economy is going to collapse. The government is bankrupt and we need other countries to finance the government.”
So far, the Europeans have to learn the lesson that neoliberalism has taken out the dynamics of investment, of private investment in the market economy, and there’s only one institution that can replace private investment and private dynamics. That is the government. That is the transformation of the whole economy that has taken place in the last 50 years. The only region in the world that is not accepting it are the Europeans. And this is the big failure and this is a big problem.
GREG WILPERT: Well, I think that’s a very interesting and very important point. Although I would also perhaps point out that it’s important to keep in mind that the US deficit is to a large extent also based on a fairly low taxation rate, and extremely high spending rate on military expenditures. Half of the budget going towards the military, which is obviously not necessarily the solution, but which some people have called “Military Keynesianism.” Wouldn’t you agree ?
HEINER FLASSBECK: That is right. It’s not a solution in the long term, but in the short term the market doesn’t care where the demand comes from. Does it come from the government military sector, or the government private sector, the government investment sector? Nobody cares. That is the simple point. To solve the problems of the moment, you need the demand. And where the demand is coming from is not the first question. It’s only the second or third question. In Europe there is no demand at all, and that is the biggest problem that you can have. I do not defend Trump’s tax reduction. That was stupid. In a situation where when the company sector is a net saver, to reduce the taxes for the company sector is really absurd. But the United States showed that it’s nevertheless possible, despite all these errors, despite these foolish policies, it is possible to have an ongoing recovery, and the unemployment rate is low. There is no doubt about it.
GREG WILPERT: Well, we’re going to leave it there for now, but I hope we will have you back on very soon.
HEINER FLASSBECK: Sure.
GREG WILPERT: I was speaking to Heiner Flassbeck, Director of Flassbeck-Economics. Thanks again, Heiner, for having joined us today.
HEINER FLASSBECK: Bye-bye. Thanks for having me.
GREG WILPERT: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.
New Jobs in the military? (US role model? again? hope not)
“The Chinese have proven the effectiveness of their public banking system in supporting their industries and their workers”
“Japan proposed its model for the former communist countries, and many began looking to it and to South Korea as viable alternatives to the U.S. free-market system. State-guided capitalism provided for the general welfare without destroying capitalist incentive.
“The Tiger economies were a major embarrassment to the IMF free-market model.
Their very success in blending private enterprise with a strong state economic role was a threat to the IMF free-market agenda.
So long as the Tigers appeared to succeed with a model based on a strong state role, the former communist states and others could argue against taking the extreme IMF course.
In east Asia during the 1980s, economic growth rates of 7-8 per cent per year, rising social security, universal education and a high worker productivity were all backed by state guidance and planning, albeit in a market economy – an Asian form of benevolent paternalism.”
“US decision to impose added tariffs on more than $300 billion of China trade, and the US Treasury declaring China a “currency manipulator”, global financial markets have reacted with sharp selling.” (source)
Of course – China is not a democracy.
Chinese people – but also Europeans – do not enjoy the (sometimes insane) freedoms (of buying shotguns at supermarkets) that US people have (if they would have the money… but private banks can not fund limitless US consumerism).
But yes – less freedom in China – more state control and surveillance, but that is an “official” fact.
An “unofficial” fact is: that western democracies simply do not care about their own laws and engage in mass surveillance unlawfully.
Western politicians make decisions not only against the will of the public – but also to the damage of the public – the average Joe and Jill – in order to exploit exploit and enrich a small elite that can afford lobbyists (the already rich and big companies).
Both “systems” try to manipulate their citizens with propaganda and state created terrorist attacks.
Both systems fail to keep speculation bubbles (housing bubbles) under control.
Housing is essential for people to survive and if they have to spend more than 30% on rent – it is not only unfair and exploitation, it is creating housing bubbles – one that the world has seen burst in 2008/2009 subprime crisis.
Nobody wants to see this happening again but too little is done by politics to prevent it.
In London 40.000 flats and houses remain empty, they are simply for parking the money of the super rich.
In Germany real estate speculations have caused people to leave their home towns and “wander around” because they can not afford the housing anymore in Munich.
Wages are rising in China – not so much in the Western Worlds.
Bank of North Dakota:
But to have a public bank (at least one) is a good idea.
There would be no Solar Panels in Germany without a public bank.
So, why does “The West” not want to learn and stay a stubborn kid forever?
always ask: Cui bono? = Who profits?
Who profits from:
“free market” in all it’s meaning
complete dependence on private Banks for private loans
abolishment of all (trade) barriers (United States of Europe)
companies competing to the death, going bankrupt (to buy them cheap)?
One answer: The super rich – that own the large companies, the monopolists.