por admin » Mié Mar 28, 2012 8:58 pm
Las locuras cortafuegos de Europa
Angela Merkel dijo el Lunes que el gobierno Aleman apoyaria la expansion de los recursos del fondo de rescate de la zona euro a 700 billones de euros de 500 billones. La Comision Europea quiere que el fondo sea de 940 billones de euros. (ESM), y la propuesta de Merkes es un retroceso de su posicion inicial de rehusar el aumento del fondo.
La OECD esta de acuerdo con la Comision en esto, dijeron el Martes que Europa necesita un fondo de rescate lo suficientemente grande como para animar a los gobiernos del Europa a implementar reformas pro crecimiento sin el temor de terminar en la ruina.
Es que nosotros ya no fuimos testigos del default Griego este mes junto con todos los demas?
Como todos sabemos, el mundo no se acabo (como se habia anticipado) cuando Atenas fue forzada a restructurar su deuda a pesar de los beneficios de los previos rescates. Entonces, por que Europa ahora necesita duplicar la misma medicina del rescate que fue tan cara y fracaso en su intento de salvar a Grecia?
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Updated March 28, 2012, 7:48 p.m. ET
Europe's Firewall Follies
Squabbling over the size of the ESM looks like deck-chair management
Angela Merkel said Monday that the German government will support expanding the resources of the euro zone's bailout fund to €700 billion from €500 billion. The European Commission wants €940 billion for the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), and the Chancellor's proposal is already a retreat from her long-held refusal to top up the stability mechanism at all. The OECD is with the Commission on this one, saying Tuesday that Europe needs "the mother of all firewalls" to encourage euro-zone governments to implement pro-growth reforms without fear of financial ruin.
Did we witness the same Greek default this month as everyone else?
As best we can tell, the world did not end (as widely predicted) when Athens was forced to restructure its debt despite the benefit of previous bailouts. So why does Europe now need to double down on the same bailout medicine that so expensively failed to save Greece?
Under the Merkel compromise, the ESM would subsume the lending resources that have already been committed under the current €440-billion rescue fund, the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF). That gives the combined fund a total loan volume of €700 billion. But only €500 billion of that is new lending capacity, once existing EFSF commitments to Ireland, Portugal and Greece are subtracted.
Brussels, meanwhile, proposes combining the full capacities of the EFSF and the ESM for a permanent lending volume of €940 billion and new loan capacity of €740 billion. A Commission document leaked last week argues that an insufficient commitment from European Union governments will deter other G-20 countries from making their own pledges toward Europe's salvation. Finance ministers will decide on the firewall's fate when they meet in Copenhagen on Friday.
But even if the ESM had the €940 billion that the Commission wants, the fund still won't likely be big enough to save Spain and Italy if they end up asking for rescue. The financing needs of Madrid and Rome alone are likely to top €1.2 trillion over the next two years. Squabbling over the difference between €500 billion and €740 billion looks a lot like deck-chair management.
As for the OECD's claim that a higher firewall will give Southern Europe breathing room to implement reform, the moral hazard of providing a bailout-backstop is as evident as ever. Underlying Europe's rescue model is the still-prevalent misbelief that countries like Portugal are merely suffering the effects of a credit dislocation. Given some time in financial quarantine, they'll somehow be able to return to private credit markets, happy and solvent. They won't, not without the serious structural reform that serial bailouts have mostly failed to spur.
Mrs. Merkel's resistance to the Commission's wildest ambitions for the ESM is to be commended. Even for Europe's more solvent creditors, there is a limit to how much they can pitch in before the fund's credibility is threatened. The EFSF's downgrade by Standard & Poor's made this clear in January, and the wobbly economic news out of Germany, France and the Netherlands makes the lesson painfully relevant still.
Whatever the decision in Europe, eyes are already turning to Washington. The International Monetary Fund meets next month to decide whether to double its contribution to Europe's bailout resources to some $1 trillion. IMF chief Christine Lagarde has said that won't happen unless Europe makes its own significant moves to bolster confidence.
From the perspective of the Commission and the IMF, there's a sort of coordination game here: Europe needs to put all its chips on the table so that other creditors will be reassured that their contributions won't be drawn upon—so great is the calm that the firewall engenders—and hence will be inclined to give more. There are major risks associated with going all-in, however. Taxpayers in Britain, Germany and America will have to decide whether they want to take the leap.