An Inconvenient Political-Economic Truth

Politico-Europe had a piece last week that talked about Germany’s putative responsibility to help the southern European EU nations during the current Wuhan Virus situation.  Buried in the piece was this bit of eurozone political-economic history:

The euro was sold to Southern Europe, which had been less successful than the north for decades, as a path to lasting prosperity. By eliminating exchange rate risk and lowering interest rates, Southern Europe would become more competitive.
But after the initial economic boost that followed the euro’s introduction, the picture for the region darkened. Though countries that had historically high inflation benefited from lower interest rates, the cheaper financing had the unintended consequence of removing the pressure on governments to enact economic reforms.

The bottom line, though, the inconvenient bottom line is that the politicians manning those governments chose not to enact the needed economic reforms. The reduced pressure to do so is not relevant to the simple fact that the reforms were and are needed, and those politicians, of their own volition, chose otherwise.

Yet this is, somehow, Germany’s fault.

Do Germany—and France, and the other wealthier nations of the EU—have any obligation toward these profligates? From a humanitarian perspective, of course, can any aid be delivered directly to the people and their businesses, bypassing their governments entirely.  But even here, with strings attached: it is these same people, after all, who keep electing those fiscally irresponsible politicians.

From a political perspective, no, the wealthier nations have no responsibility.

Rates

The Wall Street Journal had a piece Sunday that talked about the plans of nations around Earth are forming “to reopen parts of daily life.” I’m more interested in the…slant…made plain in the WSJ‘s subheadline:

Nearly 54,000 people have died from Covid-19 in the US, as calls for more federal aid to states continue to grow

The focus is made even more obvious in the body of the article; these are a couple of examples:

Nearly 2,000 people died from Covid-19 in the US on Saturday, bringing the death toll to almost 54,000….

And

In Israel, where nearly 200 people have died from Covid-19, many stores and beauty salons were authorized to reopen….

How many people have recovered from the Wuhan Virus in the US? How many people have recovered from the Wuhan Virus in Israel? Such clarifying data are carefully omitted. Maybe that’s because those data might contradict the narrative.

Even the graphic near the end of the article focuses on deaths while carefully ignoring the recovereds.

Nor is there mention of the quite low mortality rates and how those rates are declining further as more is learned about components of the numerators of those rates, components like the numbers who were infected but asymptomatic or who were infected but sufficiently mildly so that they didn’t see a doctor or saw one, but were sent home with only mild, ordinary treatments.

“State Governments are Broke”

That’s New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s (D) claim as he pitched President Donald Trump for a Federal bailout of his State.

“You know the state governments are broke, to use a very blunt term. You know the state governments are now responsible for the reopening and the governors are going to do the reopening, and they have no funds to do it,” New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said….

No, no one “knows” that State governments are broke. They most assuredly are not. Not as long as they have taxing power, which they do.

Not as long as they have absolute control over their own spending, which they do.

Cuomo knows this full well. He’s just ducking away from having to make those hard decisions and ducking away from the fight with New York’s legislature as those politicians duck just as thoroughly from the same decisions.

All the politicians populating those governments need do is have the political will and the integrity to act on those authorities.

Sunset Clauses

Here’s another example of their utility. To help out the furloughed and fired during the current Wuhan Virus situation, the Federal government enhanced existing unemployment insurance payouts with an extra $600 per week. The plus-up doesn’t expire until the end of July, more than three months hence.

Many businesses, especially the small and mom-and-pops that are at the heart of our employment environment, are starting to re-open as they figure out ways to operate at least partially or as State-level restrictions start to ease.

However.

Employees say they’ll take the unemployment check for as long as they can make more money by not working. One internal Trump Administration analysis estimates that this work disincentive applies to millions of Americans.

That’s not laziness, as the Wall Street Journal‘s editorial correctly emphasizes. That’s workers making economically sound, rational decisions. Especially at the lower end of the economic scale, taking a functional pay cut to go back to work is…suboptimal.

Such a plussing up of unemployment payouts could have been made marginally acceptable—this particular jobless spike came about due to Government fiat rather than business decisions or economic cycles—had the addenda been accompanied with a hard milestone rather than an arbitrary date. A milestone like, oh say, an employer being ready to hire back and offering to do so, or a more blanket State-level easing of restrictions that would allow ranges of businesses to start re-expanding their operations or re-opening altogether—and so hiring or re-hiring.

It’s possible this oversight can be fixed in the next round of Wuhan Virus situation responses, but I’m not holding my breath.