What the Greek crisis means for you

The debt crisis in Greece is sadly becoming a human tragedy. Not only have people perished in protests against government austerity measures, but the entire population is likely looking ahead to a protracted period of reduced economic opportunity and welfare. That should be enough to make all of us care about what’s going on in Greece.

But on top of that, there are more selfish reasons to be concerned. Greece might seem a small country, far away, with little international influence. But the crisis in Greece is sending out ripple effects through the entire global economy that will impact everyone. And for the most part, not in positive ways.

First, the Greek debt crisis very likely means a slower recovery from the Great Recession. The rebound is picking up better than many economists had expected, especially in the U.S., but it’s still pretty weak, with unemployment at astronomically high levels in much of the developed world. The fallout from Greece will just be another drag on the recovery, one that could further dampen job creation.

The reason is that Europe is a major source of customers for the world’s stuff. For example, the EU is a bigger trading partner for China than the U.S. Due to the Greek crisis, the other indebted nations of the Eurozone will also come under pressure to rein in their fiscal spending, which is bad for demand, especially amid this anemic recovery. Consumers in those countries will also probably put off major purchases, due to an expectation of tax hikes and an uncertain economic environment. That means reduced exports from the rest of the world to Europe, and fewer jobs created as a result.

Secondly, the Greek crisis is altering the way money is flowing around the world. With investors jittery because of the debt crisis, there’s going to be a “flight to quality,” in which they shift funds from investments considered riskier. That has both positive and negative effects, depending on where you live. The U.S. will probably see a flow of money into dollar assets, which are traditionally perceived as “safer,” due in part to the fact that they are extremely liquid. That will make it easier for the U.S. to finance its own deficits. But it will also strengthen the dollar, which makes U.S. goods less competitive in world markets. That hurts exports, and thus possibly America’s own recovery. If you live in an emerging market, there’s a good chance you’ll see the flip side of the shift to dollars. Capital could flow out of your country, which might lead to declines in local stock prices.

Third, Greece could be a window into the future of other heavily indebted advanced economies. The Greek crisis has heightened investor concern about rising levels of government debt throughout the industrialized world. There is no way countries like the U.S. and Japan can continue to stack up fiscal deficits and sovereign debt indefinitely. Eventually, they’ll have to scale back, and implement austerity policies along the lines of what Greece is enduring. That doesn’t mean the U.S. will fall into a debt crisis, with mass violence on the streets. But the inevitable budget cuts will have implications for economic growth, government services and tax levels.

Yes, more happy happy news from Curious Capitalist!

Related Topics: Economy & Policy
  • Latest on Business

    Associated Press

    Small Dairies Go Under as Milk Prices Sink Again

    PLAINFIELD, Vt. — The MacLaren brothers are third-generation dairy farmers, but they will likely be the last in their family.

    After working all their lives on the hillside farm in Vermont that their grandfather bought in 1939, rising to milk cows at 3 a.m., even in blizzards and sub-zero temperatures, they decided to call it quits, auctioning off their roughly 200 cows and equipment ranging from stalls and hoof trimmers to tractors and steel pails.

    Why Greece Isn't Leaving the Eurozone YetSlate

    Getty Images

    The Term “Pink Collar” Is Silly And Outdated — Let’s Retire It

    You can’t throw a stone around the internet today (if that’s even possible?) without running into the New York Times’ new study on so-called “pink-collar jobs.” The report found that over the last decade more and more men have flocked to traditionally female-dominated career fields like nursing and teaching. Fascinatingly, the study disproves the commonly held belief that this transition is the result of the recession, proving that men’s migration into the pink isn’t out of some alleged desperation. Men want those jobs.

  • http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    “The U.S. will probably see a flow of money into dollar assets, which are traditionally perceived as “safer,” due in part to the fact that they are extremely liquid. That will make it easier for the U.S. to finance its own deficits. [...] There is no way countries like the U.S. and Japan can continue to stack up fiscal deficits and sovereign debt indefinitely.”

    Wrong on both counts, Michael, and for the same reason. Unlike Greece and the other EU nations, the U.S. never will have any difficulty financing its own deficits, because (unlike Greece and the other EU nations), the U.S. has the unlimited ability to create money.

    That also is why the U.S. can “continue to stack up fiscal deficits and sovereign debt indefinitely.”

    You really should try to understand the differences between the U.S. and the EU. (See: GREECE ) You also should try to learn about the realities of U.S. federal money creation. (See: MONEY )

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  • Michael Schuman

    You should try to understand how financial markets work a little bit better. Obviously the U.S. has far greater capacity to finance itself than Greece. But in the end, it doesn’t matter what country and what currency we’re talking about. If a government keeps selling more and more debt, investors will eventually get nervous about holding it. That doesn’t necessarily mean a country can’t finance itself. But it does mean it’ll probably do so at a higher interest rate. And that’s not good for growth. At some point, unless this process is brought under control, investors won’t believe they’ll get paid back. Confidence will weaken. Sure, a nation like the U.S. can “create” money, but that has its own consequences — inflation, a devalued currency — and that doesn’t make the debt any more attractive to hold. Nor is it good for economic stability. I hope you’re right that the U.S. will be able to finance deficits indefinitely. But I’d rather get the deficits and debt under control than take the risk.

  • bacotawordpress

    As a more polite restatement of Mr. Mitchell’s point, I’d like to point out that Paul Krugman seems to be blaming this mess almost entirely on the Greek adoption of the Euro and implying that the Greece could manage it’s problems if it only had the power to devalue it’s currency (by printing more money).

    It’s not like devaluation is “free” because it is just another way of partially renouncing debt. But the dollar has been so strong for so long it seems like we have a lot of room to maneuver.

  • danallen2

    Implicit in Krugman’s argument, however, is that much better than Greece devaluating currency is the ECB to become a real central bank that can devalue the Euro and thereby spread whatever the perceived benefits are to ALL countries in the zone.

    Effectively, if that were to happen, goals of seeing the euro as a reserve currency would suffer precisely because monetary policy in Europe would loosen and revert back to some earlier period in Europe, such as the 1990s. Many citizens would prefer this but I imagine the bankers wouldn’t.

  • duduong

    Dr. Schuman, let me ask a related question here.

    Why do EU want to waste 110 billion euros on the Greek rescue? Even if Greece actually completes the austerity program, which is a scenario no sane person would believe, its debt will still reach 150% of GDP in 2013. At 5% interest rate, the cost of servicing the debt is 7.5% of GDP. Does anyone honestly think Greece can emerge from such a deep hole without defaulting?

    The rescue package does not solve any of Greece’s fundamental problems. It only buys time. But since Greece’s financial state is only going to get worse, what good do extra 3 years do?

    The EU does not have infinite resources. The rescues of all the PIIGS can easily cost 1-3 trillion euros. Why not conserve the money for countries which are not fundamentally and deeply bankrupt, such as Spain or Irland, where an extra year or two will actually do some good? The Greek rescue package basically amounts to an expensive bluff on the financial market. Is it any wonder why bond traders simply ignore it?

    I am totally disappointed at the quality of financial reporting on the Greek saga. Supposedly reputable news organizations put out reports blaming the German hesitation for the worsening crisis. But it was obvious from the start that $40b originally talked about was just a down payment. Even the $140b thrown around now is certainly going to be an underestimate. How stupid do news reporters think we traders are? Of course, the more money EU wastes on Greece, the worse we think the whole crisis is going to become.

  • ajdnyc82

    “The U.S. will probably see a flow of money into dollar assets, which are traditionally perceived as “safer,” due in part to the fact that they are extremely liquid. That will make it easier for the U.S. to finance its own deficits. But it will also strengthen the dollar, which makes U.S. goods less competitive in world markets. That hurts exports, and thus possibly America’s own recovery.”

    This is something that I keep seeing repeated as conventional wisdom, particularly by people like Paul Krugman: We must sink the dollar to increase exports.

    So how is it that Germany and Japan are running large trade surpluses with the U.S. despite the fact that the euro and yen are both stronger than the dollar? In fact, our trade deficits with both countries have increased every year since the Plaza Accord. Not only that, but our trade deficit with China increased after it allowed the renminbi to appreciate.

    While a depreciation of the dollar might help a few companies’ quarterly earnings, it seems unlikely that it will lead to some great renaissance of American manufacturing. Maybe a better idea would be to make policies that give companies incentives to manufacture value-added goods domestically, the kinds that for which people will be willing to shell out a few extra dollars.

    Sinking the dollar will do nothing but negate people’s savings by making everything more expensive.

  • bacotawordpress

    All things being equal, you don’t think that higher prices on Chinese goods would help US manufacturers? You don’t think higher pay for Indian IT centers and call centers would slow the transfer of jobs there? Come on.

  • bacotawordpress

    No, he repeatedly makes the argument that the economies of Europe are not integrated well enough to have a single currency. Especially the weaker economies like Greece will need higher interest rates when the stronger economies need lower rates, etc. and may need exchange rate fluctuations relative to those economies.

    In fact, at http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com he is predicting that Greece will ultimately withdraw from the Euro.

  • http://www.124monkeys.com Sean DeCoursey forgot his password

    Mr. Shuman,

    Are you just not a believer in monetary policy? Everything we keep seeing worldwide keeps pointing to a need for more currency, and a bit more inflation. I mean, most countries (including the US) are looking at potential deflation or have been in a long period of extremely low inflation rates.

    The historic average on inflation is 4%, but over the last ten years or so we’ve been sitting at 2% or less. Sumner been making a great case for increasing the money supply over at his blog “the money illusion”.

    But aside form occasional spouts from Krugman on the topic of monetary policy, there don’t seem to be a lot of advocates for it compared to the huge number of inflationary canaries warning us about the ever present danger of inflation, which, when the CPI has been hovering around 0 or even flirting with negativity for the last two years just seems… dumb.

    The concerns about debt ratios would be largely alleviated by a combination of inflation, fiscal discipline, and growth, which would reduce the relative size of each countries’ debt in relation to its GDP in terms of real dollars. I’m not suggesting that we should try inflating our way out of debt, but a nice, historical 4% average seems like it would do a lot more good than the 0-2% we’ve been sitting at for the last decade.

  • http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    Sadly, Mr. Schuman believes in the myths of traditional economics, which became obsolete with the end of the gold standard in 1971. You’ll notice he makes many intuitive statements, without providing an ounce of evidence for any of them. Examples:

    Myth: “If a government keeps selling more and more debt, investors will eventually get nervous about holding it. That doesn’t necessarily mean a country can’t finance itself. But it does mean it’ll probably do so at a higher interest rate.”
    Fact: Our debt has increased more than 1500% in just the past 30 years. There has been no relationship between deficits and interest rates, which are at an all-time low. The Fed has total control over interest rates; we all are waiting for the Fed, not the market, to raise rates.

    Myth: “And that’s [high interest rates] not good for growth”
    Fact: There is no relationship between interest rates and GDP growth. See: INTEREST RATES AND GROWTH, Item # 10.

    Myth “Sure, a nation like the U.S. can “create” money, but that has its own consequences — inflation, a devalued currency” [...]
    Fact: There is no relationship between deficits and inflation. See: INTEREST RATES & INFLATION, Item #8

    These myths are discussed at FIVE MYTHS and at DEFICITS & INTEREST RATES.

    If you’re interested in seeing a long list of common myths, based on obsolete economics, go to MANY MYTHS.

    Why so many common myths? Because economics changed dramatically in 1971, and most economists were educated before then (or were taught by people educated before then), and they simply stopped learning.

    Today, columnists, editors and politicians believe they understand economics intuitively. They don’t. That is why we average one recession every five years.

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  • ajdnyc82

    All things being equal, no, for the simple reason that most of the things we import from China are no longer made in the United States. And the main reason for that is because most of the so-called “Chinese goods” we import are actually Western, Japanese and Korean brands that are simply assembled in China. That’s why all these moves to make the Chinese revalue the RMB and/or let the dollar fall in an effort to save U.S. manufacturing are futile. If manufacturing in China becomes too expensive, all the companies will do is close their factories there and move them to somewhere cheaper, like Vietnam or India.

    Dollar weakness (as if it’s not weak enough already) may be good for a few companies quarterly earnings, but in the long run, its benefit to the overall economy will be negligible.

    The best way to revive manufacturing in the United States is to create an industrial policy that encourages companies to make value-added goods, the way Germany did.

blog comments powered by Disqus