Mr. Draghi believes markets need help sometimes and Europe’s social model is done

Last week Mr. Draghi  the ECB governor gave two interviews. One to Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung  (FAZ)and the other to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). Both are very interesting and worth reading. I found a part in each interview that stood above the rest.

In the FAZ Mr. Draghi explains why and when a central bank should intervene. Of course as always the interventions is needed when markets do not work properly. This I do not get. If all the agents in the market are wrong what is the extra piece of information that the central bank has that gives it the authority to intervene? There is another facet to the story. It could be that the central bank intervention gets in the way of the “market” solving a problem, pushing out some bad apples, some bad investments. If that is the case then the central bank intervention will only postpone the inevitable.

And there is another effect for the short term as the central bank intervention does the market a big disfavor by pooling the “good” guys together with “bad” guys. Thus, investors will not be able to choose between the two and all the research in the world will not save them from a bad investment.
“How can you tell whether a market price is right or wrong?

One indication is extremely high volatility. Strong fluctuations can shake confidence so badly that nobody dares to lend out money any more. Interbank lending then becomes virtually impossible and the banks can no longer issue any bonds either, even when these – like covered bonds – are well secured. In such a situation one knows that something is wrong.

And then the central bank must intervene?

If the operation of monetary policy is no longer certain because of the distrust, if monetary policy is no longer reaching the economy which negatively affects credit, overall demand and ultimately price stability. Yes, then the central bank must act and work out a strategy for dealing with the disruptions. Of course it depends on the reason for the risk aversion. If it is because of a lack of liquidity, or even just the assumption that the counterparty might be short of funds, then the central bank could help. But if banks have a capital shortfall, then it is not the task of the central bank. ”

On the WSJ interview Mr. Draghi surprises on the positive side. Although the comment that I find important is not about monetary policy but about fiscal policy. Mr. Draghi’s view of future Europe is something I have been advocating for Romania for some time. Hopefully someone will listen now.

WSJ: Austerity means different things, what’s good and what’s bad austerity?

Draghi: In the European context tax rates are high and government expenditure is focused on current expenditure. A “good” consolidation is one where taxes are lower and the lower government expenditure is on infrastructures and other investments

WSJ: Which do you think are the most important structural reforms?

Draghi: In Europe first is the product and services markets reform. And the second is the labour market reform which takes different shapes in different countries. In some of them one has to make labour markets more flexible and also fairer than they are today. In these countries there is a dual labour market: highly flexible for the young part of the population where labour contracts are three-month, six-month contracts that may be renewed for years. The same labour market is highly inflexible for the protected part of the population where salaries follow seniority rather than productivity. In a sense labour markets at the present time are unfair in such a setting because they put all the weight of flexibility on the young part of the population.

WSJ: Do you think Europe will become less of the social model that has defined it?

Draghi: The European social model has already gone when we see the youth unemployment rates prevailing in some countries. These reforms are necessary to increase employment, especially youth employment, and therefore expenditure and consumption.

WSJ: Job for life…

Draghi: You know there was a time when (economist) Rudi Dornbusch used to say that the Europeans are so rich they can afford to pay everybody for not working. That’s gone.”


5 thoughts on “Mr. Draghi believes markets need help sometimes and Europe’s social model is done

  1. Well … duh … after strangling them with tight money … of course the markets need “help” (and I hope that by “help” he means an easing of monetary policy)

    I think we should also be aware that the ECB has taken upon itself political responsibilities – namely, to push countries like Italy or Spain to undertake unpopular reforms (like the labour markets reforms discussed here) – so they are deliberately causing uncertainty and keeping things on the brink … When the ECB will be satisfied with the reforms undertaken, the pressure on the Eurozone periphery will “magically” vanish.

    As for the “european social model” … it was just a very expensive way of getting things done … the sooner it goes away, the better.

    1. @Daniel
      I think he was talking in general. He believes that for some reason sometimes markets do not send the “correct” signal or price. Thus he believes that the central banks should intervene to “help” it. I am not in favor of interventionism for the reasons mentioned in the post.

      What you refer to is what should or should not monetary policy do. You are saying that an inflation targeting central bank like the ECB was wrong to respond by tightening its stance when inflation was above target and own forecasts showed it will remain above target for the entire policy horizon while the economy remained weak. Basically the central bank has mistaken the supply side inflation for demand side inflation. Common mistake if you rely on allusive concepts like output gap and potential GDP. These concepts will also lead you to ease too much when the economy is overheating. We are not there yet but this is not a one time game but rather an infinite one where small mistakes will add up to one big giant error at some point.

      What I find interesting is how well prepared are central bankers, even here, to advice on fiscal policy matters. Quite ironic isn’t it? Could this be some kind of policy envy?

  2. 1) Yes, I know a lot of “intellectual” take the efficient-market hypothesis as a personal affront. How could the hoi polloi know better than them ? 🙂

    2) Yes, that pretty much what I’m saying

    3) I don’t know if it’s “policy envy” – or maybe they just see themselves as better than a bunch of corrupt politician who only plan for the short-term …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s