The Wisdom of Peter Doyle!


“Larry Summers takes the view that both sides need to offer each other “political
concessions” to reach a deal to avert the worst. Thus, he says the Greeks should
concede on these pension, VAT, and wage issues to give Mrs Merkel cover to offer
some commitment to debt reduction in return. And, he goes on, the IMF should not
fuss to much over the numbers in this deal; it is “all high European politics now”.
But if these pension, VAT, and labor reforms are, as evident, not potential-growth
enhancing but immiserating, they are not “tough for Greece to swallow” but rather
they are technically incoherent and so will not work. They “blindly” concern the
supply-side when demand is the issue, and they aggravate demand problems. And if
the corresponding debt reduction commitment is insufficiently clear or deep to
radically dislodge the primary surplus targets, this “high political” deal will certainly
be no means to avert disaster. It will only stoke the latent explosiveness of Greece.
So, instead, rather than compound the dire consequences arising from 2010 onwards
occasioned by serially faulty IMF numbers on Greece, it is time to insist that IMF
numbers do, finally, add up. And in that context, creditor proposals should be
rendered technically coherent by withdrawal of these three unsubstantiated reform
red lines and by immediate deep public debt write-offs to avert need for any further
increases in primary surpluses.
Too much of a political “victory” for Syriza? Perhaps, but the creditors have only
themselves to blame that after a long series of appalling decisions on their part, they
have allowed this to become the only way left to avert the worst for Greece and for
the Euro, and therefore for Europe and the World.”
Peter Doyle
Washington DC
June 21, 2015

Click to access grk-pensions-taxes-labor-re4m-copy.pdf

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.