Philip Stevens in the FT is providing good reading these days. I don't always agree with him, but his is an opinion I think worth noting. I liked this today, in a discussion on the French elections and the potential panic at a Hollande win:
The really “dangerous” notion in today's Europe is not the call for a debate about growth but the assumption that things can simply go on as they are. There has to be a bridge between recession and deficit reduction. Without it, the continent will indeed risk a revolution, even if not yet in France.
In other words - its Merkel and Sarkozy who really threaten Europe - as many of us have said for some time.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
If I were a believer, I’d now be praying hard that Sarkozy doesn’t manage to pull a rabbit out of a hat on Sunday.
The latest poll announced this morning has Hollande still ahead, but the gap closing (Hollande down from 54-55% to 52.5 vs 47.5 for Sarko). Brighter news is that Bayrou (the centre candidate eliminated in the first round, traditionally more right than left) has announced (as I rather suspecetd he would) that he personally will vote for Hollande. His voters seem pretty split, with 37% likely to go for Holland, 31% for Sarkozy and the rest voting ‘blanc’ . Marine Le Pen has said she will vote ‘blanc’.
For me, it’s fingers firmly crossed – not much longer to wait!
M. Hollande seems somewhat of an unknown quantity,plus having only held a minor ministerial post I gather-so,when push comes to shove,will the reality be “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” I wonder?
Je ne crois pas. François Hollande was not my candidate of choice in the socialist party’s primaries to select its candidate for the presidential elections, at which time I had grave doubts about his suitability for the job. However, I feel he has gained in stature considerably as the campaign has progressed. As to his annonced programme, it is certainly not the same as Sarkozy’s. Whether or not he can make a real difference if elected remains to be seen – at least I fervently hope he will be given the opportunity to be put to the test. As always, the proof of the pudding … There are times when one has to have hope and for me this is one of them. If he fails to win on Sunday, it will be a bitter blow.
I wonder how much the sort of thinking that Mervyn King has just displayed is going on in the right-wing in Europe: “Whether in this country, the United States or Europe, there was no unsustainable boom like that seen in the 1980s; this was a bust without a boom.”
So there are now three ways to view this crisis:
1. Keynesian (right)
2. Austrian (wrong)
3. Kingian: when there is no business cycle, and an economy suffers spontaneous combustion (don’t know where to begin)
When I eventually managed to listen to King’s speech I was able to hear his answer to a question about his responsibility for the house price bubble. Amazingly his answer was that he thought that the prices were sustainable. I’ve sent a letter to the FT about this.
I shall be watching television on Sunday with great interest. I certainly hope that nasty racist Sarkozy does not win.
Richard,
I genuinely don’t know where to go here. My view, as a plain man, is that the recession was caused by overspending, mostly by consumers in the West which was balanced by the manufacturers in the Orient saving & not spending.
For that reason, the idea that we can spend our way out of recession doesn’t seem, to me, a positive idea.
At the same time, I’ve read Philip Stephens & Martin Wolfe (my idol) in the FT & I understand that if we keep constricting Govt outgoings &, therefore, demand, all we can hope for is a continuing recession leading to an eventual depression.
It is easy to shout “Green New Deal” but do you really have a way out ? If so, how, when classical economics posits NO WAY OUT ?