TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 10 °C Saturday 18 May, 2013

Column: The Irish default debate will be long – but we have to start it now

Economist Constantin Gurdgiev describes his work on a new book asking the question: What would happen if Ireland walked away from its debts?

Constantin Gurdgiev

DECADES FROM NOW, historians will take over from the economists arguing the merits and costs associated with the policy decisions that the Irish government has pursued since summer 2007, when the first waves of the global financial and economic crises hit the shores of the Emerald Isle.

From the economics point of view today, there are significant points of agreement on both the causes of the economic collapse and the likely consequences of it. No economic analyst in this country or beyond its borders would suggest that the costs of simultaneously bailing out the banking system, carrying out a rebalancing of public finances, sustaining private households and deleveraging banks – while dealing simultaneously with a global and domestic recession – will be easily bearable or short-lived.

The exact path that the country is going to take in achieving these tasks is, however, a matter of significant debate. This debate spans the economics profession, politicians, and society overall. It also covers a wide range of topics. Yet none are as contentious and as consequential as the issue of the national default.

What if Ireland Defaults is a volume of collected essays that is the first attempt to systematically collate different views on the situation we find ourselves in today and the likelihood of the need for some restructuring of the Government and non-State debts in the future. The essays, written by 22 authors, map various economic and political aspects of the default, and historical experiences with sovereign and local authority defaults in various countries, as well evidence on whether Irish default is an inevitable reality we should be preparing for, or an avoidable and undesirable construct of some ‘trigger-happy’ economic commentators.

‘Neither one of us thinks that Ireland’s recovery is going to be painless’

The book was designed to reflect both the intellectual diversity of views, and the emotional range of the analysis that characterises this debate in the real world.

To me as the editor and the author, our editorial approach to presenting the debate is exemplified by the juxtaposition of my own argument (presented in the chapter Debt Restructuring in Ireland: Orderly, Selective and Unavoidable) and an excellent contribution by Seamus Coffey of UCC (titled Ireland’s Public Debt – Tell Me a Story We Have Not Heard Yet).

Both of us largely agree on the path to the current situation taken by Ireland, as well as on hard numbers describing the predicament we face as the nation. We use differing methodologies in painting the portrait of the nation in severe debt overhang, but neither one of us thinks that Ireland’s recovery is going to be painless.

From the readers’ perspective, I hope, this should both enrich the understanding of the debate and provide a stronger factual base to deciphering the real differences in the way national and private finances and economic parameters can be presented and interpreted.

We distinguish between sovereign, national and private defaults – a matter that causes much of confusion in the general media, but that is vital to this debate. A sovereign default is, by and large, a default on state-issued debts, such as Government bonds. A national default is a default on those instruments that are issued by the state-owned and / or guaranteed by the Government. Private default is an event of restructuring private companies’ or banks’ debts or the debts of households.

‘This is not a silly parlour game’

In addition, we also de-alienate broadly defined default scenarios, ranging from an abrupt, unstructured, non-cooperative default to a structured, negotiated restructuring event that is coordinated with other interested parties, such as for example the European Union and its member states.

We agree that both an unstructured and a structured sovereign default are undesirable and avoidable in the case of Ireland. Where we differ significantly is in the exact outcome of the debt restructuring that should take place in the banking and household sector, if Ireland were to be in the driving seat of history enabling it to structure own debt resolution measures. We also differ on whether debt restructuring in the private sector, especially the sector linked closely to the Government, namely the banking, is inevitable.

This is not a silly parlour game of academics removed from reality. Economics and finance are not exact disciplines where an experiment carried out in a controlled lab environment can be replicated repeatedly to yield the same outcome time and time again. Social sciences are full of ambiguity, driven by uncertainty and ultimately have to deal with the infinitely varied and unpredictable world we shape individually, socially, culturally, and institutionally.

For this reason alone, there always will be debates about the big issues surrounding this historically unique crisis. Decades after the pain of this crisis is left behind our children’s lives, in years to come after Ireland recovers and gets back to growth and prosperity – and these times will come – the debate about the default will continue, no matter whether the default will take place and no matter what form it might take. In What if Ireland Defaults we stake the first claim to that debate, fully knowing that more will come in our authors’ footsteps.

Constantin Gurdgiev is one of the editors of What If Ireland Defaults, published by Orpen Press, along with Brian Lucey and Charles Larkin. He is a lecturer in finance at Trinity College Dublin.

Read next:

Comments (64 Comments)

  • Are we agreed then that the massive debt that hangs over this country cannot be repaid by such a small working population?

    Reply
  • I like Constantin, so much so I read the article in his accent.

    Reply
  • Why did we have to bail out Anglo. It was going to die anyway !

    Reply
    • Bailing out Anglo was the government choosing to help their ‘friends in high places’ they chose them over the people. The dog on the street knew that Anglo was beyond saving. If you were a bond holder and have ever paid for a dinner, holiday or home for a politition you were guaranteed to see your money run back to you after betting on the wrong horse. Hindsight eh?!

      Reply
  • The sad part is that we have able people like constantin in this country who are able to make the proper reasoned arguments but the government refuse to listen but instead stick to the failed discredited ERSI boys accepting what outsiders are saying we must do . It is so frustrating to have such powerhouse economic thinkers and still those in power stick their heads in the sand.

    Reply
  • The bank debt was always going to be too much for the Irish people to take on! The longer this Government continue to make cuts and juggle figures, the worse things will become! It’s time to take stock and prioritise! If this ultimately means burning bond holders, then so be it!

    Reply
    • Unfortunately it’s too late to burn the bond holders. They have all been paid in full, the EU/ECB own the debt now. The Govt won’t burn them because they will stop funding, and Enda & Eamonn would have to close everything to protect their 6 figure wages.

      Reply
    • Wouldn’t it be great if commenters stopped implying that politician’s wages, perks pensions etc were responsible for our national debt. I’m all for pay reduction in the public secot elite, but I’m sick of the two entirely separate issues being conflated. It’s populist nonsense.

      Reply
    • Don’t feed the troll !! Kill it……..

      Reply
    • ‘Populist nonsense’ I love that expression Jim!
      ‘Populist nonsense’ cons people out of their votes as well and equally suits as a handy tag for the lies and bullshit that was peddled at the last election.
      But that’s not all, a little bit of ‘populist nonsense’ like seeing the crowd who beggared this country go to jail and the ones who drive this unfairly distributed ‘austerity’ take a bit of their own medicine might make the pill a little easier for the rest of us to swallow too.

      Reply
  • Default.. The best two words in the English language!!
    Homer J. Simpson

    Reply
  • Is default not inevitable ?. Or some write down on the debt.

    Reply
  • It’s not the people’s debt!

    Reply
    • Corky! When the Last government issued the bank blanket guarantee, it unfortunately did become the people’s debt! ” the cheapest bank guarantee in history” or words to that effect, I think!!!

      Reply
    • Neil 14/04/12 #

      25% of our debts are from the banks. The rest is from government spending. Unfortunately the bond markets we would need to return to to borrow money to be free of the troika don’t see a difference in debts from banks and debts from paying for SW etc.
      If we didn’t need to borrow so much to cover basic spending like SW and PS pay then we’d be in a much more powerful position to renegotiate. As it is, everyone knows the economy would completely collapse if we had no access to borrowing tomorrow.

      Reply
    • Shhhh Neil, don’t be talking common sense…..

      Reply
    • john 14/04/12 #

      You have just summed it up nicely.

      Reply
    • Jesus Neil, will you stop commenting about SW and mentioning it every time there’s some topic about economics, change the f***ing record.

      Reply
    • ya see neil, you and others keep bangin on about where would we get money from.
      Strikes me as odd, that when spain and italy were on the brink of being forced from the bond
      markets, the ECB stepped in and bought several hundred billion worth of theirs.
      Why would they not do similiar for us?

      Partnership me balls

      I reckon this debate is going to seem a waste of time in the not too distant future.
      The euro zone is sooooo deep in the shit
      that its only a matter of time. Take Spain, AT PRESENT, mmmm,
      not lookin too healthy.

      Even our own situation, it is totally unsustainable,
      and you don’t need to be an economist to see it.

      The writing is on the wall. Something is going to give.
      The only question is which country will be the one to ‘crack’ first.

      All our ‘leaders’, domestic and international know it,
      but can’t for political ass saving reasons can’t come out and say it.

      Reply
    • I agree Dermot; SW after all, having doubled in the last 10 years, now represents only one third of the entire country’s annual expendure. Perhaps we should focus economic debate towards less frivolous concerns.

      Reply
    • Oh FFS Jim, thanks for your input and i’m sure Neil will thank you for coming to his rescue and supporting him and his constant inclusion of SW in every damn comment he makes.
      Maybe you too also believe that this bailout and ECB intrusion in our economy was for the sole preserve of SW recipients?
      A bit of parity is needed here and it’s something Neil is incapable of doing, every comment regarding the bailout or maybe you and him would prefer the laughably termed “rescue package” is littered with the same old spin that several ministers use – “without the ECB we wouldn’t be able to fund social welfare” completely ignorant of the fact that a lot of this forced bailout goes towards the self enrichment of our over paid, expenses riddled politicians.
      The bailout funds an awful lot of things but to insinuate constantly that SW is the main crux of our financial woes and the main beneficiary(?) of this bailout is arrogance and downright ignorance.

      Reply
    • Well said, dermot! Don’t know why Neil has such a chip on his shoulder about SW and PS pay! I think he’d like to see us all on the street…some of us aren’t far off it!

      Reply
    • I have to agree with dermot, neil you seem to have an axe to grind re sw, every comment you make you go on about it. joeseph mcgee as awlays well said. The writing is on the wal, I think spain are in the process of deciding how to go about pulling out of the euro.

      Reply
    • @Dermot
      “completely ignorant of the fact that a lot of this forced bailout goes towards the self enrichment of our over paid, expenses riddled politicians.”
      Is it your position that our politicians will be paid a lot of the €45bn over three years? Come on, that’s not really a fact at all, now is it?
      I don’t know the annual cost to the exchequer for our (admittedly grossly overpaid) political elite class, but I think it’s fair to say that it’s less than the €20bn annual social welfare bill. Neil is perfectly entitled to make this point.
      If you’re in the business of facts that is.
      If, on the otherhand, you prefer personal attacks that lend nothing to the debate, then continue…

      Reply
    • Way to deviate from my original comment which was calling out Neil for his constant baiting of SW recipients which has been the main foundation for all his comments, I neither denied his or your “facts” or even entered into a mathematical debate on where the bailout goes…I merely chastised him as I have done in the past for his continuous and baffling offensive he has against SW and the people in receipt of SW as if it’s the cause of all the BS that’s happening.
      People who find themselves out of work are entitled to SW, does the majority want to be in receipt of it? – NO, to many it’s soul destroying and offensive to be viewed as a leech on the economy and comments like Neils compound that by even suggesting that we have a bailout to pay SW.

      Reply
  • “The Irish default debate will be long” ….
    well,
    lets shorten it then,,
    do an Iceland on it…
    debate over!!!

    Reply
  • mike 14/04/12 #

    Banks make more money out of debt. So what is the surprise in the capitalist system putting countries into debt. Banks wanted deregulation and the politicians delivered it for them.

    Reply
  • Conor we did not have to bail out anglo but if that so called bank had been let go to the wall it would have taken the political establishment judges barristers the professional class with it all bankrupt ,do you think that they were going to let this happen ,cowen is despised by working class in this country but he is a hero to the wealthy .

    Reply
  • Common sense is not common. further details by searching in Google for ‘Windle stops swindle’

    Cheers

    The Common Informer

    Reply
  • Does the fact that Gurdgiev himself is likely to be in negative equity on his own mortgage not make him a vested interest when he calls for default on personal debt?

    In recent months, quite a few journalists and celebrity economists are calling for mortgage bailouts when they themselves are in negative equity.

    Readers beware of personal bias!

    Reply
  • Never have I seen a book so widely promoted. However having said that this is an excellent article in particular the highlighting of debt into 3 distinct elements, sovereign, national and private. Interesting that he is not advocating sovereign default but suggests that default can and probably should take place in the other two classes. It’s a fact that national default excluding the banking system is taking place everyday, witness the level of company liquidations and receiverships, private default because of the current law in place is nigh on impossible in Ireland so like everything else we export it, witness the numbers of Irish people availing of the UK bankruptcy regime. That may change once the new bankruptcy legislation is in place. The banks however as a result of the policy decision undertaken on that September night in 2008 are now part of the sovereign debt so as long as that policy is pursued and it seems that as this policy has been financed by the trioka it is they who are calling the shots in this regard not our government there will be no change unfortunately.

    Reply
  • Even if all debts are defaulted on we still have a massive national deficit that requires spending cuts and tax increases. And if we do default who will lend us the money to cover this deficit?

    Reply
    • mattoid 14/04/12 #

      The awkward question nobody wants to hear…

      Reply
    • Iceland have the answer…. Ask them!

      Reply
    • Neil 14/04/12 #

      Ryan, the Icelanders took massive wage cuts, the level of which would have advantages for Ireland. It would reduce our deficit (reduced PS pay and pensions ) and increase employment : Irish labour would be cheaper.
      But when you say do an Iceland, people need to be clear about the pay cuts.

      Reply
    • O'Reilly 14/04/12 #

      Icelands debt forgiveness has not yet translated into retail spending either…

      Reply
    • Neil, wages will be driven down either way.
      We can go the long stagnation route and wait for inflation to catch up with Celtic bubble pay levels over many years. Or, take the quick hard shock and a more rapid return to growth.

      Reply
    • Neil, when you harp on about reducing PS pay, do you realise that you are talking about real people with mortgages, children, elderly patents to look after? We have taken a very large pay cut already and some of us ate really struggling. My husband and I are 4 months in arrears on our mortgage and we have 2 small children. Do we deserve this? Because I’m a nurse in the public sector and he’s a Garda? Do we deserve to lie in bed at night worrying about where the money for groceries will come from?
      We are not some huge, anonymous entity, Neil. We are people. And we don’t deserve this.

      Reply
  • Well, at €18, I’ll have to give some thought as to whether I want to read the rehashed opinions of people who in general had little to say about the deeply flawed policies of Ireland & the even more deeply flawed srtucture & economics assumptions underlying the Euro system prior to the crisis. Flaws that created the crisis, have failed to provide recovery, indeed made matters worse after 4 years of failure. And people who still have little to say about these matters.

    Will there be any fundamental examination of these issues in this book? Somehow, I doubt it.

    One has to wonder why such already well remunerated authors as these (most in the public sector) could not make this book available free in electronic form?

    i’ve posted before about the macro economics principles of respected academic economists who DID warn what would happen before the crisis & have been proved correct in predicting the policy failures of the 4/5 years since.

    I provide details again here, together with a powerfully transformative interim solution we could adopt at zero cost to anyone, based on these ‘MMT’ macro economics principles which are not in any way ‘revolutionary’ but simply reflect the operation & potential of the (fiat) monetary systems as they curently exist.

    Read on….

    For a start, you will struggle to find a macro economist anywhere much in Europe not completely ‘captured’ by the failed paradigm of neo liberal (neo classical) economics that caused the crisis in the 1st place & making what has followed infinitely worse than it need be. (In fact, had the policies & thinking, offered below, been adopted 4 years, Ireland would be near fuly recovered & fully employed, bank losses taken on or not.)

    Sadly also you will not find any useful economists in the so-called ‘progressives’ of the trades unions.

    Start here:

    http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/

    and here:

    http://neweconomicperspectives.org/

    With apologies to regular readers here, I repeat the policy option (based on the MMT principles explained in those links), which could be adopted immediately with transformative effects & no ‘cost’ to anyone.

    The interim solution, as posted at the Journal previously:

    “Just as the Euro Central Bank (ECB) created from thin air (as the Euro currency issuer) €1,000 billion to give to banks in the last 3 months, it do the same to reverse unemployment & stimulate economic growth throughout the whole currency union. There is no ‘debt’ or ‘cost’ incurred to anyone – this is what a currency issuer authority can do if we the people demand it.

    Specifically, a minimum wage job, thus financed, can be offered to every unemployed person who wishes to take it up. (It must be purely voluntary, or it will lead to even worse exploitation.) The jobs offered must not compete with existing or normally waged employment in private or public sector. They must be flexible & not inherently designed to be permanent – workers will naturally migrate to ‘real’ jobs as the economy grows & recovers. Most ‘Job Guarantee’ jobs would be administered by the charity, voluntary & community sector, where extra labour is always needed for socially enhancing projects in the community. Projects not otherwise ever affordable or justifiable within normal public sector activities.

    Whilst there are real social & community benefits to had (& possible experience & training benefits to participants), the important thing is the economic stimulus effect of them spending wages into the economy. Plus, of course, the savings in reduced aggregate unemployment benefits of the member governments. Savings which can make both debt payments sustainable & allow some restoration of frontline services & public investment, further stimulating growth & recovery.

    There are no ‘financial’ or ‘economics’ reasons why this solution could not be adopted tomorrow. Only political will & vested interests of the elites are preventing such a policy.”

    Reply
  • An empty piece, with woolly language, but perfect free advertisement for “his” book.

    Reply
  • “The Irish default debate will be long”
    well, lets shorten it then,
    do an Iceland.!!
    Debate over

    Reply
  • The Euro Crisis: Bretton Woods crisis part2, only worse.
    http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_W12_Sinn.pdf

    Reply
  • and i did not post this 3 times either!!!!

    Reply
  • Why not post it on the web for people to download for free? Anyone know how much the peoples champion is charging?

    Reply
    • mcbab 14/04/12 #

      Good point O’Reily. Not much chance of that I suspect.

      Reply
    • mattoid 14/04/12 #

      Of course O’Reilly, everyone should be expected to work for free. The cheek of him trying to earn some money as recompense for all the hours of his life he has dedicated to economics!
      BTW, what do you do for a living?

      Reply
    • Surely the man derserves to be compensated for his labours? If the people of Ireland are too tight to pay €20 or whatever for a financial education then we deserve our fate.

      Reply
    • Mattoid, everyone is entitled to a living – no issue with that. But when you’re on your soapbox everyweek on purporting to represent those who are worst affected, then I say Represent, not profit. Varadkars accused the man of trying to sell books a couple of weeks ago and he was indignant. How dare the Minister insinuate…

      Reply
    • O’Reilly
      Yeah, I reckon Gorgy’s on a good auld number as well, what with TCD, TV3 and selling the odd book, newspaper article and so on. But the thing that strikes me in the context of Minister Vlad The Impaler’s remarks about talking heads like Gorgy selling books is that the Minister’s objectives are less transparent (who funds his party?) and his whims an’ fancies are less at our own discretion.

      Reply
    • mattoid 14/04/12 #

      @ John & O’Reilly
      It is puerile nonsense to attack Constantin because of who he is and not what he says.
      Educate yourselves, read what he has to say and think about it. If you then decide to disagree with him, fair enough, but coming out with all this garbage about how much he’ll make from his book etc. betrays a begrudging childishness in your posts that doesn’t paint either of you in a very good light.

      Reply
    • mattoid
      I don’t think you read or understood my post very well. I just pointed out Gorgy’s on a good auld number – the best of luck to him! I also pointed out that the views of Mr. Gurdgiev are discretionary (you can buy his book or not) whereas those of Minister Vlad the Impaler are not, he being in government and setting an agenda which affects us all while in addition being so quick to critisize Gorgy’s efforts as pointed out by O’Reilly above.
      Before you set upon suggesting that anyone might be indulging in begrudging, childish or uneducated behavior in these comments i suggest you set out to read and understand the trust of the opinion you relate to.

      Reply
  • Sick and tired of these articles by this Economist, whom I used to like and admire. Nobody listens to a word he says even if we all agree with him. Words are cheap, although his book may not be!

    Reply

Add New Comment