Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hoplites vs the Vampire Squid

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hoplites vs the Vampire Squid

    Greece and the troika (the International Monetary Fund, the EU, and the European Central Bank) are in a dangerous game of chicken. The Greeks have been threatened with a “Cyprus-Style prolonged bank holiday” if they “vote wrong.” But they have been bullied for too long and are saying “no more.”

    A return to the polls was triggered in December, when the Parliament rejected Prime Minister Antonis Samaras’ pro-austerity candidate for president. In a general election, now set for January 25th, the EU-skeptic, anti-austerity, leftist Syriza party is likely to prevail. Syriza captured a 3% lead in the polls following mass public discontent over the harsh austerity measures Athens was forced to accept in return for a €240 billion bailout.

    Austerity has plunged the economy into conditions worse than in the Great Depression. As Professor Bill Black observes, the question is not why the Greek people are rising up to reject the barbarous measures but what took them so long.

    Ireland was similarly forced into an EU bailout with painful austerity measures attached. A series of letters has recently come to light showing that the Irish government was effectively blackmailed into it, with the threat that the ECB would otherwise cut off liquidity funding to Ireland’s banks. The same sort of threat has been leveled at the Greeks, but this time they are not taking the bait.

    Squeezed by the Squid

    The veiled threat to the Greek Parliament was in a December memo from investment bank Goldman Sachs – the same bank that was earlier blamed for inducing the Greek crisis. Rolling Stone journalist Matt Taibbi wrote colorfully of it:

    The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who’s Who of Goldman Sachs graduates.

    Goldman has spawned an unusual number of EU and US officials with dictatorial power to promote and protect big-bank interests. They include US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who brokered the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 and passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000; Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who presided over the 2008 Wall Street bailout; Mario Draghi, current head of the European Central Bank; Mario Monti, who led a government of technocrats as Italian prime minister; and Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, chair of the Financial Stability Board that sets financial regulations for the G20 countries.

    Goldman’s role in the Greek crisis goes back to 2001. The vampire squid, smelling money in Greece’s debt problems, jabbed its blood funnel into Greek fiscal management, sucking out high fees to hide the extent of Greece’s debt in complicated derivatives. The squid then hedged its bets by shorting Greek debt. Bearish bets on Greek debt launched by heavyweight hedge funds in late 2009 put selling pressure on the euro, forcing Greece into the bailout and austerity measures that have since destroyed its economy.

    Before the December 2014 parliamentary vote that brought down the Greek government, Goldman repeated the power play that has long held the eurozone in thrall to an unelected banking elite. In a note titled “From GRecovery to GRelapse,” reprinted on Zerohedge, it warned that “the room for Greece to meaningfully backtrack from the reforms that have already been implemented is very limited.”

    Why? Because bank “liquidity” could be cut in the event of “a severe clash between Greece and international lenders.” The central bank could cut liquidity or not, at its whim; and without it, the banks would be insolvent.

    As the late Murray Rothbard pointed out, all banks are technically insolvent. They all lend money they don’t have. They rely on being able to borrow from other banks, the money market, or the central bank as needed to balance their books. The central bank, which has the power to print money, is the ultimate backstop in this sleight of hand and is therefore in the driver’s seat. If that source of liquidity dries up, the banks go down.

    The Goldman memo warned:

    The Biggest Risk is an Interruption of the Funding of Greek Banks by The ECB.

    Pressing as the government refinancing schedule may look on the surface, it is unlikely to become a real issue as long as the ECB stands behind the Greek banking system. . . .

    But herein lies the main risk for Greece. The economy needs the only lender of last resort to the banking system to maintain ample provision of liquidity. And this is not just because banks may require resources to help reduce future refinancing risks for the sovereign. But also because banks are already reliant on government issued or government guaranteed securities to maintain the current levels of liquidity constant. . . .

    In the event of a severe Greek government clash with international lenders, interruption of liquidity provision to Greek banks by the ECB could potentially even lead to a Cyprus-style prolonged “bank holiday”. And market fears for potential Euro-exit risks could rise at that point. [Emphasis added.]

    The condition of the Greek banks was not the issue. The gun being held to the banks’ heads was the threat that the central bank’s critical credit line could be cut unless financial “reforms” were complied with. Indeed, any country that resists going along with the program could find that its banks have been cut off from that critical liquidity.

    That is actually what happened in Cyprus in 2013. The banks declared insolvent had passed the latest round of ECB stress tests and were no less salvageable than many other banks – until the troika demanded an additional €600 billion to maintain the central bank’s credit line.

    That was the threat leveled at the Irish government before it agreed to a bailout with strings attached, and it was the threat aimed in December at Greece. Greek Finance Minister Gikas Hardouvelis stated in an interview:

    The key to . . . our economy’s future in 2015 and later is held by the European Central Bank. . . . This key can easily and abruptly be used to block funding to banks and therefore strangle the Greek economy in no time at all.

    Europe’s Lehman Moment?

    That was the threat, but as noted on Zerohedge, the ECB’s hands may be tied in this case:

    [S]hould Greece decide to default it would mean those several hundred billion Greek bonds currently held in official accounts would go from par to worthless overnight, leading to massive unaccounted for impairments on Europe’s pristine balance sheets, which also confirms that Greece once again has all the negotiating leverage.

    Despite that risk, on January 3rd Der Spiegel reported that the German government believes the Eurozone would now be able to cope with a Greek exit from the euro. The risk of “contagion” is now limited because major banks are protected by the new European Banking Union.

    The banks are protected but the depositors may not be. Under the new “bail-in” rules imposed by the Financial Stability Board, confirmed in the European Banking Union agreed to last spring, any EU government bailout must be preceded by the bail-in (confiscation) of creditor funds, including depositor funds. As in Cyprus, it could be the depositors, not the banks, picking up the tab.

    What about deposit insurance? That was supposed to be the third pillar of the Banking Union, but a eurozone-wide insurance scheme was never agreed to. That means depositors will be left to the resources of their bankrupt local government, which are liable to be sparse.

    What the bail-in protocol does guarantee are the derivatives bets of Goldman and other international megabanks. In a May 2013 article in Forbes titled “The Cyprus Bank ‘Bail-In’ Is Another Crony Bankster Scam,” Nathan Lewis laid the scheme bare:

    At first glance, the “bail-in” resembles the normal capitalist process of liabilities restructuring that should occur when a bank becomes insolvent. . . .

    The difference with the “bail-in” is that the order of creditor seniority is changed. In the end, it amounts to the cronies (other banks and government) and non-cronies. The cronies get 100% or more; the non-cronies, including non-interest-bearing depositors who should be super-senior, get a kick in the guts instead. . . .

    In principle, depositors are the most senior creditors in a bank. However, that was changed in the 2005 bankruptcy law, which made derivatives liabilities most senior. In other words, derivatives liabilities get paid before all other creditors — certainly before non-crony creditors like depositors. Considering the extreme levels of derivatives liabilities that many large banks have, and the opportunity to stuff any bank with derivatives liabilities in the last moment, other creditors could easily find there is nothing left for them at all.

    Even in the worst of the Great Depression bank bankruptcies, said Lewis, creditors eventually recovered nearly all of their money. He concluded:
    When super-senior depositors have huge losses of 50% or more, after a “bail-in” restructuring, you know that a crime was committed.

    Goodbye Euro?

    Greece can regain its sovereignty by defaulting on its debt, abandoning the ECB and the euro, and issuing its own national currency (the drachma) through its own central bank. But that would destabilize the eurozone and might end in its breakup.

    Will the troika take that risk? 2015 is shaping up to be an interesting year.

    Ellen Brown

  • #2
    Re: Hoplites vs the Vampire Squid

    "Greece can regain its sovereignty by defaulting on its debt, abandoning the ECB and the euro, and issuing its own national currency (the drachma) through its own central bank. But that would destabilize the eurozone and might end in its breakup". Well said...and I would add: nationalize the broken banking system

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Hoplites vs the Vampire Squid

      Originally posted by Southernguy View Post
      "Greece can regain its sovereignty by defaulting on its debt, abandoning the ECB and the euro, and issuing its own national currency (the drachma) through its own central bank. But that would destabilize the eurozone and might end in its breakup". Well said...and I would add: nationalize the broken banking system
      I am pretty well resigned to the fact that the ruling class controls banking. If banking is private then pretty much they quickly beat back any government oversight and then buy the government out. What's the point of the charade. Banking is a power , not a business and better that the power is public.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Hoplites vs the Vampire Squid

        Originally posted by gwynedd1 View Post
        I am pretty well resigned to the fact that the ruling class controls banking. If banking is private then pretty much they quickly beat back any government oversight and then buy the government out. What's the point of the charade. Banking is a power , not a business and better that the power is public.
        Public or public-enough?

        If public, then isn't there a counter-risk along the lines of China and it's politicized malinvestment?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Hoplites vs the Vampire Squid

          Originally posted by lakedaemonian View Post
          Public or public-enough?

          If public, then isn't there a counter-risk along the lines of China and it's politicized malinvestment?
          Lot of risks, certainly. The heart of the matter is about democratic control of government. Quite al issue.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Hoplites vs the Vampire Squid

            Originally posted by Southernguy View Post
            "Greece can regain its sovereignty by defaulting on its debt, abandoning the ECB and the euro, and issuing its own national currency (the drachma) through its own central bank. But that would destabilize the eurozone and might end in its breakup". Well said...and I would add: nationalize the broken banking system
            I concur that if Greece really does value sovereignty more than the potential efficiencies promised by reform, it is only logical that it should leave the Eurozone, which has a clear roadmap of continuing evolution toward federalism, and away from national sovereignty. That's the way the train is going, the question is who's on it. The economic tension will only grow if Greece wants to remain inside while simultaneously becoming more independent. It would simply be moving in the opposite direction as the whole.

            There is a chance that leaving might in the very long run actually work out to be better for Greece: at least a portion of the debt is rightly classifiable as odious, and it would be reasonable to either repudiate it directly, or indirectly through currency devaluation. There will be turmoil, to be sure, but after that, Greece will have the sovereignty to reform its institutions on its own terms. Those who are convinced that such reforms can be conducted purely internally, will then have the chance to prove that they are correct. I have my doubts, but am always willing to be proved wrong.

            I personally see the bond market of an independent currency as a much harsher forcing function than political pressure that Greece is experiencing today, but what matters is not what I think, but what Greeks think. And while I'm very interested in that question, I'll let those with more first-hand knowledge speculate on that point. Any thoughts, gnk?

            The real question is whether the Greek people think the (difficult to predict) pain inherent in leaving the zone is worse than the more clearly defined pain of prescribed reforms. Is the devil you know seen on the ground as better than the devil you don't?


            I disagree, however, on whether the resulting instability in the rest of the Eurozone is likely to end in its breakup. A Grexit actually looks relatively manageable to me at this point. The notion that the whole has to collapse because the weakest member leaves is simply not obvious, and the shock value of the possibility has abated considerably, if nothing else through the abundant passage of time under the threat. There is even an argument to be made that the remaining Eurozone will be stronger:

            Grexit would certainly reduce residual fears in the stronger (and more reticent) economies of Finland and the Netherlands and could therefore even speed European integration. (A parallel argument has been advanced before concerning Britain and the EU.) There are also residual factions in Europe who remain dismayed that it may have expanded too broadly, and think a smaller Europe would permit more effective decision-making. These traditional holdouts, too, would be relieved by a small step back in the scope of the European project.

            So depending on how well an independent Greece does in the short- and long-term, the event could very well be win-win. But I would argue that the considerable bulk of the risk for either staying or going lies within Greece, not outside it. It would be entirely fitting for a Grexit decision to be made at the Greek polls, but inappropriate for them to be voted out by others.

            I also agree with you, Southernguy, that nationalizing the banking system could well help, though that depends heavily on whether it is likely to be done transparently and in the public interest.

            If a "nationalization" just redistributes or expands existing corruption, that's clearly counterproductive. Here again, I'd have to defer to those with regional knowledge. It is not obvious to me from the outside which of many speculative scenarios is more probable. I wonder if Goldman Sachs would be happy to "advise" the nationalization process? I suspect they have the connections to get the job if they are. Are there any iTulip readers who at this point would consider that to be a reduction of corruption? So nationalization is not, in and of itself, an answer. The answer is to find ways to reduce the corruption, which may include nationalization, or not.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Hoplites vs the Vampire Squid

              the key effects of a grexit, should it occur, won't be in finland or the netherlands. it will be in italy, spain, portugal and france. if greece were to exit, and greek bank depositors have their assets eviscerated, what do you think happens the next business day in the countries i've listed?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Hoplites vs the Vampire Squid

                Originally posted by jk View Post
                the key effects of a grexit, should it occur, won't be in finland or the netherlands. it will be in italy, spain, portugal and france. if greece were to exit, and greek bank depositors have their assets eviscerated, what do you think happens the next business day in the countries i've listed?
                It is certainly true that those nations will have to make it more clear that they are embracing reforms than Greece did in order to continue to be able to sell their bonds. But that isn't exactly hard to do. Greece really is a dramatic outlier in resisting even the most basic of structural necessities. Seriously, not only don't they have a way to definitively prove who owns a given piece of land, they didn't want to implement one, even under extreme economic pressure to do so. That isn't just a question of giving up control to external parties, it's a matter of meeting a common-sense requirement for conducting one of the most basic and obvious economic transactions. There is simply no other nation in the EMU that even comes close to that level of resistance.

                So the similarities between Greece and the other southern nations are in the amount of debt outstanding. But the differences are in how steadfastly they have been refusing to fix what is obviously broken. If Greece is hit hard by leaving, every other southern nation will be redoubling their efforts to do what Greece did not want to. The other PIIGS have actually been pretty busy, by comparison. So I think the differences matter more than the similarities, and I think that sophisticated investors will ultimately see that, once the initial panic subsides.

                That's why I believe that after a lot of initial drama (a year or two) once investors sort out just how bad things are (and are not) in each nation, the European ship will steady itself, and keep right on moving. The next business day may indeed look horrible, but I don't think that it will be an incredibly long-lasting effect.


                For those bolder than I, who are looking for short-term opportunities, there will doubtless be enough turbulence that many fortunes can be won and lost in such a transition. But my stance would be to look to a dip-and-recovery, not a lasting crash of the EMU for, say, a decade or more. The effects in Greece could well last that long or longer. But I don't see Grexit as fatal, or even defining, for everyone else, or for the European project.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Hoplites vs the Vampire Squid

                  Originally posted by astonas View Post

                  ...There is a chance that leaving might in the very long run actually work out to be better for Greece: at least a portion of the debt is rightly classifiable as odious, and it would be reasonable to either repudiate it directly, or indirectly through currency devaluation....
                  It might indeed be better for Greece to "go full Iceland"

                  From Der Spiegel, about how it worked out for Iceland:

                  ...Iceland's rapid return to health hinged on a series of measures that Nobel laureate Paul Krugman later referred to as "doing an Iceland." Krugman, an admirer of Iceland's dramatic comeback, has recommended a similar policy cocktail for other nations in crisis. The rules are as follows: Allow your ailing banks to collapse; devalue your currency if you have one of your own; introduce capital controls; and try to avoid paying back foreign debts.That may sound like an extremely self-serving recipe -- and it was. Whereas billions of public money was pumped into the banking system in Ireland so that financial institutions could pay back their creditors, Icelanders voted against this route in two separate referenda. They couldn't see why they should pay for the greed of foreign investors who followed the Siren song of high interest rates to the island nation...


                  full article here http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-942387.html

                  For that matter, it might have been better for the U.S. and everyone else to have skipped the bailouts/TARP/TALF and instead have "done an Iceland".

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Hoplites vs the Vampire Squid

                    ...full article here http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-942387.html

                    For that matter, it might have been better for the U.S. and everyone else to have skipped the bailouts/TARP/TALF and instead have "done an Iceland".

                    +1
                    but that was why it was critically important that 'veto proof' margins of control happen - and why the lamerstream media went all-in to make sure it happened (and why hil was stabbed in the back by teddie k et al)

                    else the bailouts might'nt have

                    and why hil is now 'the golden grrrl' (her reward for 'taking one for the team' in 08)

                    Golden Hillary.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Hoplites vs the Vampire Squid

                      Originally posted by thriftyandboringinohio View Post
                      For that matter, it might have been better for the U.S. and everyone else to have skipped the bailouts/TARP/TALF and instead have "done an Iceland".
                      Though I would need a bit of time to consider the full ramifications of everyone skipping bailouts, I certainly agree with the broader thrust of your comment. TARP wound up being a case of: "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, this must be done." Doing something is better than doing nothing. That obvious Keynesian response of automatic intervention when faced with crisis has, from my perspective, proven to be the wrong one.


                      Of course, this is hindsight, so it has little value in itself. But I think there are lessons here about placing limits on the applicability of Keynesian intervention in general. No matter how well a given response worked in a particular crisis in the past, its applicability to the next crisis is worth some very serious questioning.

                      Some crises have been successfully addressed with Keynesian responses, some have been made worse. The same probably can be said for any given economic theory. So it is crucial to look at the detailed cause of a crisis to craft a reasonable response free of ideology.

                      I'll admit, however, that it is possible the very fact it is not ideological might limit the chance of it ever being suggested in the corridors of power.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Hoplites vs the Vampire Squid

                        Originally posted by gwynedd1 View Post
                        I am pretty well resigned to the fact that the ruling class controls banking. If banking is private then pretty much they quickly beat back any government oversight and then buy the government out. What's the point of the charade. Banking is a power , not a business and better that the power is public.
                        X
                        Last edited by gwynedd1; January 08, 2015, 03:35 PM. Reason: This post should be deleted

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Hoplites vs the Vampire Squid

                          Originally posted by lakedaemonian View Post
                          Public or public-enough?

                          If public, then isn't there a counter-risk along the lines of China and it's politicized malinvestment?


                          I think this is a case of two very different perspective. You still take the point of view that it can be managed. I no longer take that point of view. I believe what ever you make "private" will ultimately become part of what we know as government. Any power inherently has no direct competition, otherwise its not really power. The different powers are merely contextual and localized to varying degrees. Its really just a matter of how localized it is. If the legislative body, military , landed interests, and banking are made private, then all that has been accomplished is a change in the form of government which in that case is to remove any concept of a popular vote. Banking is a branch of government. And if the so called solution is to privatize it, what they really mean is to localize it with individual choice being as localized as it can get. However when looking at the four powers that I mention like land , finance. military and political, what power is there to localize all of them to create "competition"? A god from Olympus could subdue those powers to his will, which means that I should perhaps add religion as a fifth power., but one must dominate the others to make them so called free. Either banking subdues land, military and politics as in the US or the military subdues the other powers like say Turkey. Feudalism was the case of the dominance of the landed gentry. It would be like having our so called democratic republic privatize the military in whcih case we would merely find our politics feckless to the whim of an Egyptian style, "Arab spring", military government. Unless the political body subdues land , military and finance, it will itself be subdued. That's why we are all here wondering why we are ruled by bankers.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X