Welcome, 77 artists, 40 different points of Attica welcomes you by singing Erotokritos an epic romance written at 1713 by Vitsentzos Kornaros
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Mitroglou leads Greece to WCup, holds Romania 1-1
Creditors conclude talks in Greece, back December
Just 10 stocks draw lion's share of trade in Greek bourse
Greece faces EU penalties over wastewater treatment
Romania 1 Greece 1 (agg 2-4): Greeks survive freak own goal to seal ...
Troika to leave Greece on Thursday, return in December
Freshmen strive to bring Greek life to FU
Greece Bounces Up From the Bottom
Turkey and Greece feud over Hagia Sophia
Onassis Foundation Supports Greek Government
Reinhart and Rogoff's latest paper warns on financial repression
Harvard duo argue that advanced countries will not be able to return to more sustainable levels of debt through austerity and growth
For Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff, 2013 has been a year to forget. The big news in the world of academic economics was that a celebrated and hugely influential paper by the Harvard duo on the link between government debt and growth was wrong. The paper, cited regularly by supporters of austerity programmes, said countries where the national debt was higher than 90% of national output (GDP) could expect to see a marked drop off in growth. On examination, the data used by Reinhart and Rogoff showed there was no such link, with the pair's (many) critics saying that the line of causality lies in the opposite direction: low growth leads to high levels of debt rather than high debt leading to low growth.
R and R continue to churn out papers in their chosen field, the latest of which has just been published by the London-based Centre for Economic Policy Research. The study – Financial and sovereign debt crises: some lessons learned and those forgotten – is no less incendiary than their now infamous "Growth in a time of debt".
Why? Because Reinhart and Rogoff say that if history is any guide countries will not be able to return to more sustainable levels of public debt through a combination of austerity and growth. They cite Europe, where the assumption is that normality can be restored by a combination of belt-tightening, forbearance and rising output, as an example of Panglossian thinking.
"The claim is that advanced countries do not need to apply the standard toolkit used by emerging markets, including debt restructurings, higher inflation, capital controls and significant financial repression. Advanced countries do not resort to such gimmicks, policy makers say."
Historically, this is poppycock according to Reinhart and Rogoff. Rich countries, when faced with high levels of debt in the past have been more than happy to default, inflate away their debts or indulge in financial repression (capping interest rates or putting pressure on savers to lend to the government).
The paper veers close to the contested territory of "Growth in a time of debt" when it says that debt overhangs of the sort affecting advanced countries are typically associated with a sustained period of sub-par growth, lasting two decades or more. That was certainly the case in the aftermath of the first world war, when austerity was much in vogue, but not after the second world war, which was followed by the longest uninterrupted period of growth the west has ever experienced.
It is true, however, that many advanced countries – including Britain and France – welched during the Great Depression on their debts to the United States amassed between 1914 and 1918. After the second world war, financial repression was the weapon of choice for heavily indebted countries. They capped interest payments by keeping interest rates low and used capital controls to prevent money from leaving the country. Given the tight curbs on capital, it is no coincidence that the "financial repression" period of 1945-79 had far fewer crises than earlier or subsequently.
Reinhart and Rogoff say that central government debt is "approaching a two century high" in advanced countries and – even leaving to one side off-balance liabilities such as the cost of paying for ageing populations – and is unlikely to be cured by growth alone. Governments, they say, may need to revert to approaches "that have long been associated with emerging markets and that advanced countries themselves once practised not so long ago."
The reality is that many governments are already doing just that. Financial repression is very much in vogue in the UK and the US, where quantitative easing has been used to drive down long-term interest rates and regulations on the banks have been toughened up. The Japanese government is actively seeking higher inflation while the European Central Bank cut interest rates earlier this month in an attempt to halt the slide towards deflation in the euro zone. An old-fashioned default remains the last taboo, although looking at the debt to GDP levels in Japan, Italy or Greece only the bravest would gamble that it will never happen.
EconomicsEurozone crisisFinancial crisisEuropeAusterityLarry Elliotttheguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More FeedsBack on the map for tourism: Greece experiences best October figures ever
Greece sheds incentives for reform
Check out Remezo, huge new Greek restaurant: SLIDESHOW
The Greek Gods® Brand Introduces Honey Peach To Its 24 oz. Yogurt Lineup
Romania vs. Greece: Best and Worst Performers from World Cup Playoff
Greece's qualification in numbers
Greece to take tough line on Eurobank share sale-source
Greece World Cup ticket "victory for Greek people"
Mitroglou shows Midas touch for Greece
Let There Be Chanukah Light—Starting at College Greek Houses
Greece: Taxpayer-Funded Mosque Planned in Athens
Co-op Group chairman resigns; deadlock in Greece
Chairman Len Wardle quits with immediate effect amid scandal over former Co-op bank chair, as Greek government officials say they're in an impasse with troika officials
Graeme WeardenVictorious Greek Team’s Warm Welcome Home
Third Greek Mayor Elected in Melbourne
OECD: Greek Recession Will Continue into 2014
New Pension Cuts to be Expected After March
DIMAR Rejects Bid To Re-Join Coalition
Kouvelis Open to Participate in a Left-Wing Government
Cruise Ship Runs Aground at Greek Port
Five Casinos are Threatened With Closure
12 year-old from Thessaloniki Cooperates with Google
Greece hails World Cup qualification
EU population increased to 505.7 million
The EU population was estimated at 505.7 million on 1 January 2013. Compared with the same period in 2012, the population was at 504.6 million.
According to Eurostat, the EU population grew by 1.1 million in 2012, an annual rate of +2.2 per 1 000 inhabitants, due to a natural increase of 0.2 million (+0.4‰) and net migration of 0.9 million (+1.7‰).
In 2012, 5.2 million babies were born in the EU28. The crude birth rate was 10.4 per 1000 inhabitants, stable compared with 2011. According to Eurostat, the highest birth rates were recorded in Ireland (15.7‰), the United Kingdom (12.8‰), France (12.6‰), Sweden (11.9‰) and Cyprus (11.8%), and the lowest in Germany (8.4‰), Portugal (8.5‰), Greece and Italy (both 9.0‰) and Hungary (9.1‰).
On the other hand, there were 5.0 million deaths registered in the EU in 2012. The crude death rate was 9.9 per 1 000 inhabitants, compared with 9.6‰ in 2011. The highest death rate was observed in Bulgaria (15.0‰), followed by Latvia (14.3‰), Lithuania (13.7‰), Hungary (13.0‰), Romania (12.7‰) and Croatia (12.1‰). The lowest death rate was recorded in Ireland (6.3‰). Cyprus (6.6‰), Luxembourg (7.3‰), Malta (8.1‰) and the Netherlands (8.4‰) followed.
Therefore, the highest natural growth of the population was registered in Ireland (+9.5‰), well ahead of Cyprus (+5.2‰), Luxembourg (+4.0‰), France and the United Kingdom (both +3.8‰). Twelve Member States had negative natural growth, with the largest falls in Bulgaria (-5.5‰), Latvia (-4.5‰), Hungary (-3.9‰), Lithuania (-3.5‰), Romania (-2.7‰) and Germany (-2.4‰).
Eurostat highlighted that in 2012 the increase of the EU population was mainly because of migration. According to the EU statistics office around 80 per cent of the increase in the EU28 population came from migration.
In conclusion, the population increased in seventeen Member States and decreased in eleven. The largest relative increases were observed in Luxembourg (+23.0‰), Malta (+9.1‰), Sweden (+7.7‰), the United Kingdom (+6.2‰), Belgium (+6.0‰) and Austria (+5.2‰), and the largest decreases in Lithuania (-10.6‰), Latvia(-10.3‰), Estonia (-6.8‰), Bulgaria (-5.8‰), Greece (-5.5‰) and Portugal (-5.2‰).