Next Gen News

It lacks the hypocrisy of its US cousin, but German deficit hawkery is equally misguided and dangerous

Suddenly creating jobs is out, inflicting pain is in. Condemning deficits and refusing to help a still struggling economy has become the new fashion everywhere â€" including the United States, where 52 senators voted against extending aid to the unemployed despite the highest rate of long-term joblessness since the 1930s.

Many economists, myself included, regard this turn to austerity as a huge mistake. It raises memories of 1937, when FDR's premature attempt to balance the budget helped plunge a recovering economy back into severe recession. And here in Germany a few scholars see parallels to the policies of Heinrich Brüning, the chancellor from 1930 to 1932, whose devotion to financial orthodoxy ended up sealing the doom of the Weimar Republic.

But despite these warnings, the deficit hawks are prevailing in most places â€" and nowhere more than in Germany, where the government has pledged €80bn in tax increases and spending cuts even though the economy continues to operate far below capacity.

Here 'roughly, like a typical conversation goes (this is based both on their own experience, and other American economists).

German hawk: "We must cut deficits immediately, because we have to deal with the fiscal burden of an ageing population."

Ugly American: "But that doesn't make sense. Even if you manage to save 80 billion euros â€" which you won't, because the budget cuts will hurt your economy and reduce revenues â€" the interest payments on that much debt would be less than a tenth of a per cent of your GDP. So the austerity you're pursuing will threaten economic recovery while doing next to nothing to improve your long-run budget position."

German hawk: "I won't try to argue the arithmetic. You have to take into account the market reaction."

Ugly American: "But how do you know how the market will react? And anyway, why should the market be moved by policies that have almost no impact on the long-run fiscal position?"

German hawk: "You just don't understand our situation."

The key point is that while the advocates of austerity pose as hardheaded realists, doing what has to be done, they can't and won't justify their stance with actual numbers â€" because the numbers do not, in fact, support their position. Nor can they claim that markets are demanding austerity. On the contrary, the German government remains able to borrow at rock-bottom interest rates.

So the real motivations for their obsession with austerity lie somewhere else. In America, many self-described deficit hawks are hypocrites, pure and simple: they are eager to slash benefits for those in need, but their concerns about red ink vanish when it comes to tax breaks for the wealthy. Thus Senator Ben Nelson, who sanctimoniously declared that we can't afford $77bn in aid to the unemployed, was instrumental in passing the first Bush tax cut, which cost a cool $1.3tn.

German deficit hawkery seems more sincere. But it still has nothing to do with fiscal realism. Instead, it's about moralising and posturing. Germans tend to think of running deficits as being morally wrong, while balancing budgets is considered virtuous, never mind the circumstances or economic logic. "The last few hours were a singular show of strength," declared Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, after a special cabinet meeting agreed on the austerity plan. And showing strength â€" or what is perceived as strength â€" is what it's all about.

There will, of course, be a price for this posturing. Only part of that price will fall on Germany: German austerity will worsen the crisis in the euro area, making it that much harder for Spain and other troubled economies to recover. Europe's troubles are also leading to a weak euro, which perversely helps German manufacturing, but also exports the consequences of German austerity to the rest of the world, including the United States.

But German politicians seem determined to prove their strength by imposing suffering â€" and politicians around the world are following their lead.

How bad will it be? Will it really be 1937 all over again? I don't know. What I do know is that economic policy around the world has taken a major wrong turn, and that the odds of a prolonged slump are rising by the day.

© New York Times 2010

Next Gen NEWS