Greece needs to leave the euro: Part I

I wrote this comment in reply to a great article published by Martin Wolf in the FT today (6/3/2015) which you can find here 

__________________________________

Good article, but in my humble opinion some misconceptions.  

First, Martin Wolf makes the point that the euro area is not an OCA.  As my research has clearly shown (see my Bank of Finland discussion paper on this issue published 2 years ago  http://www.suomenpankki.fi/en/julkaisut/tutkimukset/keskustelualoitteet/Pages/dp2013_33.aspx), Greece does not have, and never did have, business cycles (or any other cycles for that matter) that are synchronous with the rest of the euro area.  It is simply not a good fit with the rest of the euro area, without (according to the OCA theory) there being sizable offsets which consist of fiscal transfers and much higher labor mobility.  And this is the case both ex-ante, and ex-post.  So, given this empirically proven stylized fact:

Second, the Greek government is simply wasting it's time and energy negotiating something that will not result in any long term membership of the euro - it will just be "another shot of medicine to help the dying patient".  I understand that the fact that the Greek government is actually negotiating is a necessary political pre-requisite to leaving the euro, but let's not drag this sorry Greek tragedy on any further than needs be, as this just prolongs and likely exacerbates the suffering of the Greek people.  

Third, Martin Wolf says that this will have a profound effect on the euro area and reverse the integration dynamic.  Well, hmmm, Greece is a little country the size of the State of Rhode Island in the context of the US - so it's not as if Spain or Italy were leaving. The euro area is 16 years old - and so its longevity won't depend on one small member deciding to leave early on it's evolution.  Also, the UK leaving the EU would have a much bigger impact on the integration dynamic than Greece leaving the euro area. 

Lastly, Wolf clearly wants Greece to stay inside the euro when he says that "This must be seen as a long game".  I mean how long do you want this game to be?  Governments simply don't think long term as their time horizons are short term or medium term at best. So the Syriza government really has the choice of alienating it's supporters and signing up to something that it promised never to sign up to, or pulling Greece out of the euro, which will create some chaos to begin with unless they have a proper plan B in place.  

If I were the Greek finance minister right now (which thankfully I am not), I would be furiously planning and comparing different strategies for a euro exit, as inevitably, that's what is the most likely outcome here.  

_______________________________________

Now in part 2 of this blog, which will come out in the next couple of days, I will outline what I think the options are for Grexit.

One Answer to the Curious Case of Residual Seasonality in US Real GDP

Source: CNBC on my TV!

Recently, Steve Liesman from CNBC here in the US pointed out that something was wrong with the US real GDP statistics.  He noted, and here I attach a picture of my TV at home showing his findings, that since 1985, Q1 real GDP growth for the US has been weaker than for other quarters.  Of course this should not be the case given that statistical seasonal adjustments are supposed to take account of any seasonality in the data and automatically adjust for this.  So we clearly have a problem with the US real GDP data, but I believe that Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) who produce the data, are going to fix this going back a few years, for their revisions in July.

In a way, this is extremely problematic though, and it stems from the way in which the media in the US reports it's GDP figures.  In Europe and elsewhere in the world, the standard way to report economic growth is by calculating growth as % year over year change in real GDP, which automatically adjusts for any "residual seasonality" in the statistics.  But in the US, GDP figures are reported as "quarter on quarter growth expressed as an annualized rate" - which therefore does rely much more on an accurate adjustment for seasonality in the GDP figures.

Now you are probably thinking - "well who cares?"  Well unfortunately these figures are very important, not only in terms of setting the tone of the US stockmarket, but also in terms of policy measures, such as the adjustments of interest rates by the Fed!  Many of the market commentators saw the revised GDP figures last week with the "Second estimate" of Q1 GDP showing a contraction of 0.7% in (annualized growth in) real GDP as a blow to the recovery and tried to blame this on everything from the port strike on the West coast to the frigid weather in the first quarter. Even commentators said that the economy is too weak for the Fed to move in June to increase interest rates.

But I thought that for this week's blog I would take the real GDP growth figures and re-express them in terms of Year over Year growth. So that's exactly what I have done in the figure below.  This, I would argue is a much better way to judge our economic growth, and when you look at it this way, it is really not too shabby in my view.

Source: BEA.gov; Data calcs: Blog author

Now viewed in this light, a 0.7% contraction, turns into a 2.7% growth rate, which was an acceleration from Q4 of 2014.  Now if you look at the figure above, you'll see that although although consumer spending (C) is drifting in an upwards direction, it is 7.4% increase in private investment spending (I) that appears to have caused the uptick in the GDP % yoy growth data for Q1. Note also that since turning negative in 2010, government spending (G) has also moved into positive territory.

Now what of the international sector.  Well here, if you look at the data, the news isn't good whichever way you report it.  If you use the % YOY method that I use here, you will find that exports fell 22.7% YOY, and imports increased 6.5% YOY.  And in the investment category, if you take out the accumulation of inventories from the figures, investment only increased by 5.2%, which although still impressive, does suggest that business investment still needs to be boosted by consumer spending, which is still quite hesitant.

But from my own perspective, these figures bolster my view that although the Fed probably won't do a rate rise in June or July, they should.  The economy is growing as strongly as it has been at pretty much any time since 2010 when you measure economic growth in the best way possible, by using the %YOY method!  Also, while I know that the strength of the US dollar matters (more on that for another post), the main measure of robust growth in an economy is domestic spending or "absorption".  If the US Treasury and Fed have an exchange rate policy of benign neglect for the US dollar, then the movement of the US dollar should not dictate or effect the direction or timing of monetary policy.