~by: Damon Yeo~

For a best part of the last two years, the newly-coined “sovereign debt crisis” had been dogging financial headlines globally. And in almost every article that mentioned the three words in parentheses above, you will find the country “Greece” mentioned.

The mechanics and reasons behind this debt crisis is complex, intertwined with post-World War II history, background of the formation of the European Union and politics of the member states.

To sum it up the most layman way possible, let’s do some role-assignment. Imagine the European Union (EU) is a large family, made up of very different family members (sovereign states) with very different relationships. This is a very powerful family – rich in wealth and influential in affairs.

Greece is the rogue child of the family. Since joining the family (back in 2000, with the creation of the Euro), this rouge child had been spending money like there is no tomorrow. Besides not working hard enough (not collecting enough taxes), he borrows heavily from other family members and other lenders (EU members and externally) to finance his unsustainable lifestyle.

The day of reckoning came when no one of a sound mind wanted to lend Greece anymore money.  A large installment is due and if Greece do not keep up with the payments, the creditors will come knocking. Left with seemingly no other route to go, Greece turned to more senior and richer members of the family (Germany and France) to literally beg for money.

Come to the present, the co-patriarchs of the family are now deliberating whether to continue to lend Greece more money (bailout) or kick him out of the family altogether and risk the breaking up of the entire family.

The concept of a bailout is fundamentally flawed, for it is simply to lend more money to a bankrupt country so that it can borrow more money. There will be no end to this lending and the net impact is simply to put the debt burden on future generation instead of the current.

Bailout is Unfair

Quite simply put it, a bailout (or any bailout, for that matter) is unfair.

The undeniable, cold, hard fact is that Greece had been spending way beyond its means (including hundreds of millions for staging the Olympics in 2004) for a long time. The previous Greek governments had used the money for public spending to gain votes and stayed in power. The Greek people had reaped the benefits, either from better infrastructure or higher wages.

The banks and institutions which had lent money to Greece in the first place had also earned via the interest they had charged. They have also raked up millions performing work with respect to the Greek debt.

Yet, when a bailout is necessitated, the taxpayers are the ones being penalised – not all taxpayers, but taxpayers particularly from Germany and France, the two nations driving this bailout.

Taxpayers in these two countries, both individuals and companies, have received no direct benefits from the Greeks’ decade-long spending spree, yet are asked (well, forced by their governments) to fork out money to save Greece.

From whatever angle you look at this, it is simply unfair.

Bailout is a Moral Hazard

A sub-plot from Oliver Stone’s 2010 film, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, clearly illustrates the issue of moral hazard.

In the film, Shia LaBeouf’s character Jacob’s mum (Susan Sarandon) was a realtor who went into the risky business of speculating in properties by leveraging. Jacob had previously helped her mum out financially when things went sour for her, so at the back of her mind, she assumed that her son will always help her out if something drastic were to happen. Thus, she is much more willing to enter into riskier transactions.

Jacob’s assumed willingness to “save” his mum had caused her to take even riskier positions and ultimately lose a lot more money than if she did not have something to fall back on in the first place.

In real life, this had manifested itself as recent as early September.

With the cost of borrowing soaring for Italy, the Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and his government came up with an emergency austerity budget. With this, the European Central Bank (ECB) stepped in to directly purchase Italian bonds (at a lower than market rate) and alleviate the mini-crisis for the time being.

However, almost immediately after ECB stepped in, Berlusconi made changes to his budget, including scrapping a proposed tax on the wealthy. To put it very crudely, the sly Berlusconi had conned ECB into helping Italy and backtracked on his promises as soon as help was received.

With the safety blanket of bailouts, there is no stopping other European nations to take on additional risks and further increasing their own borrowings.

Bailout is the tip of the iceberg

Greece was the first European nation to have sought a bailout in this crisis. However, they are not the only. Both Ireland and Portugal have also requested for bailouts.

Currently, the entire spotlight is on Greece, simply because how this crisis is managed is likely to form precedence on how the rest of the bailouts are managed.

Germany and France are leading to charge to rescue Greece not because they feel the insatiable desire to be the heroes of EU, but simply because German and French banks hold the largest proportion of Greek debt exposure. Estimates vary, but Germany and France is likely to hold more than half of the entire value of the Greek bonds out in the market. Should Greece simply default and refuse to pay, the German and French economies will bleed billions of Euros instantly and suffer the brunt of this meltdown.

The UK are no doubt watching the Greek situation very closely. British banks are the most exposed to Irish sovereign debt and will no doubt lead the charge to save the Irish economy when the time comes.

Like ice-bergs, the problems and figures discussed in the current debt crisis probably form a mere 10% of the entire problem. A bailout fund may be able to save a Greek economy. Maybe two. However, if the situation worsens overnight and giant economies like Italy and Spain get sucked into the same predicament, there is nothing the rest of the EU countries can do.


Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Public Transport Council to begin its 2016 fare review exercise

,Public Transport Council (PTC) has announced in a media statement on 13…

配合阻断措施逐步松绑 建屋局提供预约服务;法庭恢复审理大部分案件

我国阻断措施将逐步松绑,除了家人能够在6月2日开始拜访祖父母或父母外,不少客户服务将逐渐开放,法庭也将恢复审理大部分的案件。 据卫生部长颜金勇昨日在跨政府部门抗疫工作小组新闻发布会上指出,将会逐渐松绑阻断措施,包括6月份的可探访家长、允许堂食和小型聚会等。 因此,预计会在6月份恢复和重新营业的包括了零售、保健美容及居家服务、车行及公寓示范的客户服务。民众也可在小贩中心和餐饮商店堂食,惟必须遵守当局的指令,即餐桌之间要相隔至少一米,且桌上人数不得超过五人。 不可超过五人的也包括了亲友探访和社交活动聚会,每个参与者都必须戴上口罩。而一些乐龄活动和相关的社会服务,包括乐龄护理中心也会恢复运作,只是安全措施仍然必须实施到位。 学校方面则有可能会在6月尾重新开放,但是高等学府则改为逐步增加返校学生人数。 此外,若病情控制得当,宗教仪式和活动、文化场所和娱乐场所都有可能在7月份恢复及重新开放。文化场所就包括了美术馆、图书馆和博物馆,而娱乐场所则有电影院、剧院、室内和户外景点、夜店等。 会议、展览、商展和演唱会等大型活动及场所也预计会在7月开放。 建屋发展局今日(5月29日)在发出文告,起总部和分行将于下周二(6月2日)开始提供预约服务,包括预定组屋、完成转售组屋交易、领取新单位和租赁组屋钥匙、办理产权移交手续和签署租约等。 当局的转售组屋检查和关键维修服务也将在下周起,依据预约恢复。当局重申,为了保障员工和顾客的安全,谢绝接待临时上门的客户。 另一方面,本地法庭将从6月8日开始恢复运作,审理大部分案件,继续采用远程视讯的方式审理案件。 在致司法界人员和法庭用户的声明中,大法官梅达顺感谢他们能够配合远程视频的审讯方式,在阻断措施期间给予充分合作。不少人员向他反馈,指远程视讯审讯既方便又省时省力,因此将继续沿用,并促请使用类似方式的答辩人向法庭申请援助。 梅达顺也指出,最高法院、国家法院和家事司法法庭在6月份,将会继续审理案件,以加速案件处理。

77-year-old uncle died of head injury sustained from fall caused by malfunctioned lift

A 77-year-old man died in the early morning of 16 May after…

Hongkong media reports the arrival of Lee Hsien Yang and his wife at Hongkong international airport

Hongkong media, HK01 has reported that Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his…