A banking license would allow the ESM to refinance directly with the ECB and buying government bonds with new money. This could increase the risk premiums on government bonds to stabilize southern European states. However, the risks were significant. Of course, given the circumstances, it is treated as a completely normal. The experience /withal not only in Germany/ shows that the European Central Bank must not be used to finance public debt.
Political Economic rising government debt are easy to justify. History shows that the temptation for the States was always great to get rid of debt by printing. “There is no free lunch” – this quote is attributed to Milton Friedman and applies to the so-called Euro-saviour. For the bill to pay the depositors of the devaluation of their savings. Moreover, the euro zone gets permanently into a depression and 15 years after the establishment of the ECB seem to forget the good intentions of those days.
With the purchase of government bonds on the secondary market, the central bank has already take advantage of out its Now, if the ESM should be also equipped with a banking license, the door for the monetization of government debt is pushed final. Then could in fact be doing exactly what is forbidden.
The bonds purchased in turn, can be deposited with the ECB as collateral for fresh money to use it to buy more bonds. The consequences would be severe. Why should the European Member States undertake austerity measures? No savings, no money is available for investment, and without investment, there is no growth. A banking license for the ESM will exacerbate the crisis. Japan has shown how artificially interest rates and the monetization of government debt low by using zombie banks (otherwise would be the ESM) is a country in more than twenty years of permanent crisis in ever-increasing national debt (now at about 200 percent of GDP) with no prospect of improvements.
The federal government would do well here,especially in case it decided to counter. The prospect of a lasting stagflation will result in breaking Europe!
Irrefutably the debt crisis in some euro area countries reveals the real dilemma of the currency area. It is associated with high costs for the EU and a major threat to the stability of the euro. It is imperative that the weak states increase their competitiveness. The “pact for competitiveness” has some measures:
• The constitutional anchoring a debt ceiling
• The introduction of national crisis management regime for banks
• The adjustment of the pension system to demographic change
• Encouraging labour mobility in Europe
• The waiver of inflationary wage indexation
• The creation of a common tax base for corporation tax
The specific list of policy measures is likely to achieve its goal of improving competitiveness. The abolition of wage indexation systems counteracts a disastrous wage-price spiral and increases the likelihood of productivity orientation in wage policy. It comes to the mutual recognition of educational and professional qualifications, as and to be increase the mobility of labour within the EU.
The creation of a single corporate tax base can lead to a more transparent and more intense tax competition in Europe, because with a harmonized tax base is read directly on the tax rate, where favourable tax conditions for corporations exist. The obligation to establish a debt brake would be a big step towards sound public finances. The experience of countries like Switzerland that have been contemplating appropriate debt brakes are positive.
The reference points are set so economically right. However, any harmonization is fraught with the danger that the competition of ideas is limited to provide better solutions and harmonization is only used politically to eliminate annoying location competition. The reprehensible idea of pooling of economic policy (“European economic government”) but the pact does not feed.
Quite the contrary, the responsibility for maintaining the competitiveness referenced by the Covenant to the nation-states. Short, on the European agenda is to increase the competitiveness and not the start of a European economic planning. Of course, competition should not only go for ideas. Subsidies to the highest or the lowest taxes Competition is not yet there to give a possibility to any occupations such as accountants or tax consultants a livelihood.
A warm breeze blows through Germany economy. The economy is not as long but you have to keep in mind that in 2010 we have only once managed. The dramatic collapse of 2009 somewhat compensate. In this respect, we are just back to normal position. Wage increases should be based on the increase of productivity and the rate of inflation. It signals us for the current year distribution margin in the industry, which should be around 3%.
Only if you follow these guidelines, it will be able to create more jobs. It is hardly possible to reduce unemployment to long term. Staying below, we can break the mark of 3 million unemployed people down and have given the demographics and the current good economic situation in the next two years it is a good chance to reach the two million mark. The wind blows so now need the sails are set correctly.
Nationalizationisnot a business model
Over the next three months, Commerzbank wants to pay back 14 billion received during the financial crisis, state aid. In addition, as a small thank the taxpayer about a billion on top. We must not forget that the rescue of Commerzbank was connected to the taxpayer with substantial risks. What would have happened if the bank had not turned the corner? Whether the repayments now represent reasonable compensation for the ex-ante risk exposure is more than questionable. In addition, the federal government is involved remains to 25% at the institution. No one knows at what price it will be able to sell this stake.
The Commerzbank had to be bailed out with taxpayers’ money. The rescue of Hypo Real Estate and the Landesbanken devour billions. The crisis has shown that especially banks with state participation, the greatest risks are addressed and have posted the biggest losses. We estimate that about 80 percent of the cost crisis are caused to the taxpayer by banks, where the state has deeply involved even before the crisis.
The state is not the better banker. Even if the rescue in the case of Commerzbank at the end for the federal government should not bring profit. Government bailouts are not a profitable business model. For the next crisis, we must be prepared, therefore, better. The state needs to be better prepared, but the banks! On the other hand, do you really want to understand the “rescue receive State” as a fundamental principle of the banking industry in the future, so to speak, as a universal insurance? A bailout will ultimately not be a business model that returns but prevent chaos.