« | Home | »

Double Currency

Tags: |

The problem is plain. If new loans to Greece are arranged, even at lower rates of interest, its debt will rise. If its existing loans are rolled over or sold, the rating agencies may declare default and jittery banks and other investors will expect more interest on new lending. But the solution this week involves a degree of both, in the hope that the compromise will not be too unpalatable to too many. The alternatives – for Greece to default completely and leave the Eurozone or for the zone to announce that it will move to a common fiscal and spending policy – are next to unimaginable.

The first would lead to gloom at the prospects for the other countries in difficulty in Europe (Ireland, Portugal, Spain and perhaps Italy), and it’s not clear that anyone could effectively help them all out. The second would remove discretion over fiscal policy and spending from every country in the zone and place a burden on the richest, above all Germany, which does so well from selling to the rest; it would also make it even plainer than it is now where the power in the Union lies, and cause no little discontent in the weaker members. It would be wild to suggest that it might disrupt the peace that was the point of the project in the first place, but the result would be a kind of empire, for which the dominant powers would not want to pay and the more subservient would not find it easy to.

As everyone agrees, this week’s compromise will be temporary. It will work until it doesn’t, and then there’ll be another. And maybe this is how things will be for a decade or more. But suppose it doesn’t. Suppose that those elsewhere, in London now for instance, who say that the time has come to face up to a ‘two-tier Europe’ in ‘greater union’, prove to be right. What would that mean for people’s daily lives in the weaker economies? The answer, obviously, is ‘austerity’: more unemployment, lower incomes, smaller pensions, less public spending. There simply wouldn’t be as many euros at their disposal as there have been in the years of easy lending.

In Russia after the end of the Soviet Union many people resorted to barter. Outside desperate situations, like that of Kosovars in Kosovo before 1999, baby-sitting circles, and small and settled communities such as those of the retired in parts of the United States, this isn’t easy to arrange. How do you know what there is to exchange and with whom? And how do you guarantee the transactions? There is after all a good reason for money and markets and credit.

But there is no reason why the euro should be the only currency in the Eurozone. Existing debts, of course, are denominated in it, and so is external trade. People’s wages would have to be paid in the first currency. Their savings would have to be in it too, especially if they were to be invested abroad. And there would have to be some reasonably inflation-proof cash for imports. But a lot of food, clothes, housing, public transport, even health and education, are internal goods. For them, a second currency could work. It wouldn’t have to be coupon-based like wartime ration books. It could be a free medium that people could use as they wished for activities that had no bearing on the country’s external standing. And it could stimulate people into work they might not otherwise have.

It would be open to abuse, of course. Banks would have one exchange rate for the euro and the street another. And it might inflate. But it’s not impossible to imagine how it could work, and to the extent that it did, it might be a political good. Politicians humiliated by the austerity forced on them in the second tier of a two-tier Europe run from Brussels and Berlin (with help of a kind from Paris) could at least claim that people have some ‘ownership’ of their lives, and a national currency has a certain symbolic standing. The Swiss manage something like this, though they are of course Swiss, and otherwise different.

Comments on “Double Currency”

  1. stevemerlan says:

    There are more than twenty regional currencies and semi-barter frameworks currently operating in Europe. I’m somewhat acquainted with one, Regiogeld, which is used by many of my friends in Bavaria (there are several varieties of Regiogeld, depending on the region.) There is a Wikepedia entry for it, and for German readers there’s a website, http://www.regiogeld.de.

    (Here’s their statement of principles, sorry I can’t do a translation in the time I have now)

    •Es bindet die Kaufkraft an die Regionen, fördert die regionalen Unternehmen und stimuliert regionale Wirtschaftskreisläufe.
    •Es erweitert die unternehmerischen Handlungs- möglichkeiten um einen regionalen Markt und ist als Werkzeug zur Regionalentwicklung einsetzbar.
    •Es hilft, regionale Produkte abzusetzen, neue Umsätze zu ermöglichen und Arbeitsplätze zu schaffen.
    •Regionales Wirtschaften verkürzt die Transportwege und schont die Umwelt

    The site emphasizes the regional and ecological character of a means of payment that doesn’t extend over the whole euro region, but is connected the euro for transactions that do extend beyond a locality.

    • flaneurben says:

      Helped (a lot) by Google Translate:

      • [Regiogeld] binds buying power to the regions, promotes regional firms and stimulates regional economic activity
      • It enhances the entrepreneurial potential of a regional market and is a tool for regional development.
      • It helps to sell local products, to enable new revenues and create jobs.
      • Regional economies shorten transport routes and protect the environment

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement