Europe is in the midst of a fiscal crisis caused by too much government spending, yet many of the continent’s politicians want the European Central Bank to purchase the dodgy debt of reckless welfare states such as Spain, Italy, Greece, and Portugal in order to prop up these big government policies.

So it’s especially noteworthy that economists at the European Central Bank have just produced a study showing that government spending is unambiguously harmful to economic performance. Here is a brief description of the key findings.

…we analyse a wide set of 108 countries composed of both developed and emerging and developing countries, using a long time span running from 1970-2008, and employing different proxies for government size… Our results show a significant negative effect of the size of government on growth. …Interestingly, government consumption is consistently detrimental to output growth irrespective of the country sample considered (OECD, emerging and developing countries).

There are two very interesting takeaways from this new research. First, the evidence shows that the problem is government spending, and that problem exists regardless of whether the budget is financed by taxes or borrowing. Unfortunately, too many supposedly conservative policy makers fail to grasp this key distinction and mistakenly focus on the symptom (deficits) rather than the underlying disease (big government).

The second key takeaway is that Europe’s corrupt political elite is engaging in a classic case of Mitchell’s Law, which is when one bad government policy is used to justify another bad government policy. In this case, they undermined prosperity by recklessly increasing the burden of government spending, and they’re now using the resulting fiscal crisis as an excuse to promote inflationary monetary policy by the European Central Bank.

The ECB study, by contrast, shows that the only good answer is to reduce the burden of the public sector. Moreover, the research also has a discussion of the growth-maximizing size of government.

… economic progress is limited when government is zero percent of the economy (absence of rule of law, property rights, etc.), but also when it is closer to 100 percent (the law of diminishing returns operates in addition to, e.g., increased taxation required to finance the government’s growing burden – which has adverse effects on human economic behaviour, namely on consumption decisions).

This may sound familiar, because it’s a description of the Rahn Curve, which is sort of the spending version of the Laffer Curve. This video explains.

(more…)

In a stunning worldwide move, the U.S. Federal Reserve in coordination with the European Central Bank, Bank of Canada, Bank of England, Bank of Japan, European Central Bank, Swiss National Bank and China’s Monetary Authority agreed to temporarily “dollarize” the euro. Facing a vicious bank liquidity crisis and a political nightmare; the German dominated European Central Bank (ECB) agreed to the virtual outsourcing of Europe’s monetary policy to the U.S. Federal Reserve. Although described as a precautionary arrangement for political cover; the “dollarization” of Europe has re-established the U.S. dollar as the world’s only reserve currency.

Twenty years ago, European nations sought to form their own reserve currency to limit the power of the United States in controlling their economic destiny. Following World War II, the U.S. took control of European monetary policy by pouring over $50 billion of cash into the war shattered economies. Over time, sovereign currencies were re-introduced; but the U.S. maintained dominance over each nation’s monetary policy through its reserve currency status.

In 1971, President Richard Nixon exercised this domination in a trade dispute with Europe and Japan by suspending the convertibility of the U.S. dollar into gold, setting wage and price controls, cutting taxes, and placing a 10% surcharge on all imports in an effort stimulate the U.S. economy by devaluing the exchange rate of the dollar. U.S. stock markets had their largest one day rally in history; while foreign stock markets crumbled. Four months later; the United States forced agreements for currency appreciation by Japan of 16.9%, Switzerland of 13.9%, Germany of 13.6%, France of 8.6%, and Britain of 8.6%. This effective devaluation of the dollar is credited as creating 700,000 American jobs and cementing President Nixon’s reelection in 1972.

Having suffered from such manipulation under America’s control over European financial affairs; in 1992 the nations of Europe began creating an economic integration that would lead to the introduction of the euro currency on January 1, 1999. Overnight, Europe became the largest trading block in the world and the euro with €890 billion in circulation became the world’s second reserve currency.

Prior to the introduction of the euro; the southern European nations of Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain (PIGS) regularly devalued their currencies to remain competitive with the highly industrialized and sophisticated northern European countries. The introduction of the euro permanently fixed exchange rates for all euro members; but gave the PIGS access to loans from northern banks at less than half their prior interest costs.

(more…)

The concept that seventeen independent rich and poor European countries could come together in a monetary union and perpetuate the “euro” currency has always been a fraud. The real story behind the formation of the euro was the “Grand Bargain”. The governments of the PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain) receive colossal bribes in the form of the ability to borrow unlimited amounts of money at the same low interest rates the Germans pay; for agreeing to buy enormous amounts of German goods. The PIGS generously performed their side of the bargain. It is the Germans that after running-up vast surpluses are now economically destroying the PIGS by terminating the bargain.

The European sovereign debt crisis did not start 18 months ago when Greek borrowing costs began rising from 3% to the current 75%. The crisis began in 2009 when German politicians passed a constitutional balanced-budget “Golden Rule” at the height of the global credit crisis. The Golden Rule prohibits German politicians from passing a budget with a deficit of more than 0.35% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This was a radical departure from the unenforceable “Stability and Growth Pact” of the seventeen nation euro that limits deficits to 3% of budgets.

For a monetary union to be sustainable, it must be operated on the basis of ‘symmetrical obligations’ among the members. Germany’s decision to cut-off spending of its trade surpluses to finance the PIGS trade deficits has created a deflationary spiral in Europe. Over the last two years there have been numerous incremental European bail-out programs aimed at stopping the Greek debt crisis from spreading to the other PIGS. Each successive program forced deeper “reform” cuts to PIGS spending. “No reforms, no bond purchases” has been the message of the German controlled European Central Bank (ECB) and the German controlled European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF).

Following periods of short term relief, each program failed.

(more…)

From the Associated Press:

World stock markets took a beating Monday over fears that the U.S. economy was heading back into a recession just as the European debt crisis was heating up and the eurozone’s economic indicators were slumping.

Any troubles in the world’s largest economy cast a long shadow over the markets, and a report Friday that the U.S. economy failed to add any new jobs in August caused European and Asian stock markets to sink sharply Monday.

But the news from Europe was also discouraging. Wall Street, which was closed Monday due to the Labor Day holiday, braced for losses Tuesday after the yields in so-called peripheral eurozone countries—Greece, Italy and Spain—rose sharply against those of Germany, whose bonds are widely considered a safe haven.

(more…)

The INET Bretton Woods summit, summoned by George Soros and those who alternatively hide behind, or gather around him, has now happened.

But before trying to analyze whatever we may discover of what occurred there, it is critical to discern how it fits an overall picture.  For context, one must also see what the IMF and World Bank “communitarian” elitists are up to.

We find that before the Bretton Woods affair, focusing upon “new solutions,” there was a similar IMF meeting, called “New Ideas for a New World.”  It was centered upon “Post-Crisis Policy Making” and occurred March 7-14.  That gave some of them a lot of time to communicate and plan in quiet (the traditional word for that is conspire) when they were not attending official sessions, or making videos.

Then, we see that Soros’ April 8-11 conference ended just as the IMF and World Bank took up their April 11-17 Spring Meetings, just a limo ride away.  “Blossom of Spring, won’t you bloom and grow?”  Let us see what is budding in this intensive series of conferences, by the first one’s own promotional vid.

Here is a collection of pitches for “New Ideas for a New World.”  Hey, they left out the last word, “Order.”  Could it be that some of them know their version of order requires fomenting massive disorder first, the crises not to be wasted?  They also left out the word “Brave,” before “New World.”  Maybe that is because some of them like Huxley, have qualms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nsst1U8jidA

This video puts their dexterous foot forward about that March 2011 conference, while their sinister footfalls go on.  So who are these dudes, getting together and yukking it up (well, three out of four globalist manipulators seem to approve) and just how spooky are they?  What are the messages of the Big Money priests, to the unwashed, PITI-ful masses of principal, interest, taxes, and insurance payers?

(more…)

What would you think if George Soros were organizing his fellow anti-American, globalist, neo-Marxist “thought leaders,” in pursuit of globally governed banking and finance, in a second Bretton Woods conference?

Would you consider that their goals include dragging American influence and incomes down, while confiscating much of our personal finances and giving them to other nations (and yes, the age-old financier network behind them) in the name of “communitarianism?”

Would you find their goal is to replace the bad influences of the IMF and the World Bank, with a much worse, more powerfully controlling, post-American global apparatus?

What would you think, if that meeting were being held this April 8th through 11th?

I got an email, last week; it was Tuesday the 22nd.  It was from George Soros.  To hear as straight from the dragon’s mouth as feasible, I had subscribed.  In this emailed article, he lamented the inequities of wealth among the nation-states of Europe, under the strains of their continuing insolvency crisis.  He warned of the dangers of national interest.  Rather, he proposed, not surprisingly, a further blowing of the global insolvency bubble, so the more indebted European nations may get along owing, while their lending nations get along being owed — all the while, blending and worsening the  financial and monetary crises and spreading this yeasty recipe further throughout the world, especially to America.

That was quite provocative.

(more…)

I’m not a big fan of central banks, and I definitely don’t like multilateral bureaucracies, so I almost feel guilty about publicizing two recent studies published by the European Central Bank. But when such an institution puts out research that unambiguously makes the case for smaller government, it’s time to sit up and take notice. And since these studies largely echo the findings of recent research by the International Monetary Fund, we may have reached a point where even the establishment finally understands that government is too big.

The first study looks at real-world examples of debt reduction in 15 European nations and investigates the fiscal policies that worked and didn’t work. Entitled, “Major Public Debt Reductions: Lessons From The Past, Lessons For The Future,” the report unambiguously concludes that spending restraint is the right way to reduce deficits and debt. Tax increases, by contrast, are not successful. The study doesn’t highlight this result, but the data clearly show that, “revenue increases do not seem to have induced debt reductions, whereas cuts in primary expenditure seem to have contributed significantly in the case of major debt reductions.” Here’s a key excerpt.

…this paper estimates several specifications of a logistic probability model to assess which factors determine the probability of a major debt reduction in the EU-15 during the period 1985-2009. Our results are three-fold. First, major debt reductions are mainly driven by decisive and lasting (rather than timid and short-lived) fiscal consolidation efforts focused on reducing government expenditure, in particular, cuts in social benefits and public wages. Revenue-based consolidations seem to have a tendency to be less successful. Second, robust real GDP growth also increases the likelihood of a major debt reduction because it helps countries to “grow their way out” of indebtedness. Here, the literature also points to a positive feedback effect with decisive expenditure-based fiscal consolidation because this type of consolidation appears to foster growth, in particular in times of severe fiscal imbalances.

The last part of this passage is especially worth highlighting. The authors found that reducing spending promotes faster economic growth. In other words, Obama did exactly the wrong thing with his so-called stimulus. The U.S. economy would have enjoyed much better performance if the burden of spending had been reduced rather than increased. One can only hope the statists at the Congressional Budget Office learn from this research.

(more…)

Today, in 1998, the European Central Bank is founded in Brussels. The crisis in Greece will test how long we observe this anniversary.