Edmund Conway – Greek Crisis: Athens to Ashes
THE TELEGRAPH: The Greek horror story should scare us all, says Edmund Conway. Its problems are not unique.

Anger bubbles over in Athens Photo: The Telegraph
It has all the ingredients for a perfect Hollywood sequel. The cliffhanger plot kicks off right where its predecessor ended; the cast is stellar, some characters from the original reprising their roles. But this time the stakes are even higher, the mood even tenser.

Greece is on the brink of bankruptcy. Based on almost any yardstick, markets are now betting that the government will default on its debt. At a staggering 18 per cent, the going rate to borrow for a mere two years is similar to the penal rates credit card companies charge their dodgiest customers. The government, International Monetary Fund and European Union have promised, vaguely, to hand over the necessary cash to help tide the country over, but to no avail.

It would be all the more shocking had it not happened before. But Greece's problems today are merely Lehman Brothers redux. This is Global Meltdown 2. Granted, this time it is a country, rather than a mere bank, that faces collapse; this time, the victim may really be too big to fail. But the pattern is eerily familiar: the money starts to run out; investors realise with horror that there is a real chance of failure; the politicians promise that they will stand behind the institution; in a last-gasp attempt to halt the disaster, they ban short-selling; eventually the law of gravity proves irresistible, investors stage an effective run on the banks and the end is nigh.

Faced with such a scenario, there are two options: confront the crisis, knowing you simply may not have the firepower to deal with it, or go running, screaming, for the hills. The head of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Angel Gurria, has chosen the latter path, declaring that the contagion is spreading "like Ebola... when you realise you have it you have to cut your leg off in order to survive".

Before we lapse into amateur dramatics, however, let's establish the facts: the market for Greek government debt has effectively frozen, much as the money markets did worldwide in 2007 – the initial trigger point for the crisis. Its banking system, stacked high with those same government bonds, is effectively insolvent. The country had been due to return to investors on May 19 to raise money; if a bail-out cannot be agreed by then, Greece will have no option but to default. But even that deadline is increasingly academic: the country has fallen victim to a run, and as anyone who watched Northern Rock's demise knows, what follows is not usually pretty. How did it come to this? >>> Edmund Conway | Thursday, April 29, 2010

We Are Entering a New Age of Protectionism
THE TELEGRAPH: The 21st-century form of protectionism is no less deadly than its 1930s predecessor - just less visible, says Edmund Conway.

When Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and their colleagues in the G20 conclude this week's summit in Pittsburgh, at least one item in the final communiqué is a dead cert. As they did in London six months ago, and Washington six months before that – and, indeed, at every major summit in living memory – the leaders will state clearly and firmly that they deplore any attempts by countries to lurch into protectionism, promising to do everything in their power to ensure countries do not erect economic barriers and imploring their trade negotiators to get the Doha Round of trade negotiations back on track.

It is ironic, then, that the one area in which governments have truly failed since the financial crisis began is in resisting the tendency towards economic nationalism. According to Global Trade Alert, an authoritative annual study from the Centre for Economic Policy Research in the US, governments around the world have – despite all their promises – implemented around 70 protectionist measures each quarter this year.

Some are "traditional" measures, familiar from the Depression and elsewhere – subsidies for domestic producers or tariffs on imports, President Obama's move to slap a 35 per cent charge on Chinese tyres being a prime example. Such measures are provoking fury, and with good reason: the protectionist spiral into which the world plunged in the 1930s almost certainly contributed to the war at the end of the decade.

However, such visible signs of protectionism tell a fraction of the story. For the shocking truth is this: over the past year, the costs and obstacles faced by exporters have, according to a study by economists David Jacks, Christopher Meissner and Dennis Novy, increased by almost the same scale as in the early 1930s when the US and others were imposing a range of protectionist laws, including the infamous Smoot-Hawley Act.

Partly this is one of the perverse consequences of the financial crisis, which crippled the system of trade credit that underpinned the international flow of goods, making it impossible for some companies to ship products from one part of the world to another. But, far more worryingly, it is also a product of explicitly protectionist measures imposed by countries such as the UK in an effort to save their domestic banking systems from collapse. Most egregiously, these included so-called financial mercantilism, whereby governments, having rescued a bank, insisted that it had to lend far more to domestic customers than business or individuals overseas businesses.

This new protectionism is a different beast from that of the early 20th century, but the result is the same. According to the Bank for International Settlements, the amount of money flowing across national borders has collapsed in a way never before witnessed. Put simply, financial globalisation, which helped power economic growth in recent years, has gone into reverse over the past year. All the more worrying is that it has done so without people noticing. >>> Edmund Conway | Wednesday, September 23, 2009