At each stage of the euro crisis during the past two years, Chancellor Angela Merkel has seemed to do the absolute minimum needed to keep the single currency together – but no more. This minimalist approach to the euro crisis may have ultimately cost Germany more in terms of bailouts than it would have if it had acted sooner and more decisively. On the other hand, it has kept inflation down and the euro weak – both of which are good for German exports. In fact, a cynic might say the current situation – a weak but still existent euro – is ideal for the Germany's export-driven economy.
However, it is not so good for many other eurozone countries. That is illustrated by new figures this week showing the highest levels of employment in Germany since reunification, but higher-than-ever unemployment in Spain – a country that, unlike Greece, was not fiscally irresponsible and in fact has a lower debt-to-GDP ratio than Germany itself.
The economic theory behind this minimalist approach to the euro crisis, in so far as there is one, is ordoliberalism – a peculiarly German form of economic liberalism influenced by Adam Smith but also by 20th-century German history. Developed in the 1930s and 1940s by Walter Eucken and the Freiburg School, ordoliberalism is based on the idea that the role of the state is to create an economic and legal framework to enable the market to work efficiently – above all through the maintenance of price stability.
The ordoliberals (sometimes called neoliberals) had in mind both the failure of the Weimar Republic on the one hand and Nazism (to which Eucken was opposed) and communism on the other. Thus while they believed in greater state interference in the market than classical Anglo-Saxon liberals (in particular to prevent the emergence of monopolies and oligopolies), they believed in less interference than Keynesians. For example, ordoliberals staunchly oppose expansionary fiscal and monetary policy during an economic downturn.
Although ordoliberalism is little known elsewhere, it is hugely influential in Germany, particularly on the centre-right. It is seen as the basis for the post-war "social market economy" and the "economic miracle" it created in the Federal Republic in the 1950s. Merkel's economic advisers are deeply influenced by ordoliberal ideas – particularly on the role of the European Central Bank. To them, the role of a central bank is above all to maintain price stability – and thus promote growth only indirectly – rather than intervening to expand the money supply as the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England have done in the past few years.
Thus the former ECB chief economist Jürgen Stark – who called Eucken's book Principles of Economic Policy "a constant source of inspiration throughout my career" – resigned last September after it purchased Italian and Spanish government bonds. Bundesbank president Axel Weber quit last February for similar reasons. His successor, Jens Weidmann – formerly an adviser to Merkel – is equally opposed to the ECB's bond purchase programme.
However, ordoliberalism is predominantly a theory about how to make a national economy work efficiently rather than about how to organise the global economy or create a single currency zone. It therefore doesn't help much in the current context, in which imbalances between eurozone economies are a key problem. As a result, few mainstream German economists accept the idea that Germany's surpluses – themselves, in part, the result of the euro – are the flipside of other countries' deficits and therefore part of the problem. Instead, they see surpluses simply as the product of good economic management.
Thus ordoliberal ideas lead Germany to pursue economic policies that are in its own interests rather than those of the eurozone as a whole. Germany's "stability culture" may be influenced by the collective memory of hyperinflation but there is also another reason for it that is both more rational and selfish: even a moderate increase in inflation would reduce the competitiveness of Germany's exports around the world and reduce the value of its savings.
Germany's hawkishness on inflation means it has no solution for deficit economies except ever greater austerity – even where, as in the case of Spain, the crisis was not caused by excessive sovereign debt. In this context, German conservative economic thinking is almost indistinguishable in practice from that of the American or British right. In fact, Germans seem almost to espouse a kind of European version of "trickle down" economics: growth, they suggest, will eventually flow downwards from the top to the bottom of the eurozone.
It may be that the euro is a failed experiment, as Harvard economist Martin Feldstein has recently argued. But even if the European single currency survives, Germany's economic narcissism means the rest of the eurozone is likely to pay a high price for it over the next decade.
• Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree
Comments
6 January 2012 2:38PM
Meanwhile printing loads of joke money and putting off the problem for the next government is the right way forward..
6 January 2012 2:50PM
That's efficiency - why do more than necessary?
A basic free-market tenet (which the Eurozone stood for)
6 January 2012 2:53PM
Interesting new tactic.
Find someone with the name Hans. Get him to write a scathing article about the German economy. And now start to call it economic narcissism.
Something tells me that the Anglo Saxons are getting very worried about Germany's economic might, and the fact that they just may be able to steer the EZ to safe ground.
I mean how does it look when America and Britain have to keep printing money to keep up. Not very good.
6 January 2012 2:55PM
The "joke money" was previously created by the banks via irresponsible lending. The money printed in the UK merely replaces that as it is withdrawn.
6 January 2012 2:57PM
So the best way to avoid an economic crisis is to spend more money than you have, then print more money to make your debts worthless, and under no circumstances try to resolve your structural problems. Sounds reasonable
6 January 2012 3:05PM
..."economic narcissism" for
(a) not following the anglo-saxon way and
(b) doing their damndest to get out of paying for other countries whose governments literally did not give a shit at the time
Sorry. I'm still finding it hard to condemn Germany here for, well, anything.
6 January 2012 3:06PM
Yes, those silly, selfish Germans - they should just allow the ECB to bail out the French banks directly so that the French bankers can award themselves bonuses and bail out the French welfare state and its politicians. This way, the Eurocrats can also keep their jobs for a few more years before the inevitable compete collapse of the obsene cases of malinvestment (such as the Spanish and Irish property markets and the related banking networks) that their top-down monetary system has created. Save the Euro, not Europe!
6 January 2012 3:07PM
The government allowed irresponsible borrowing by allowing, for example, people to have 5 times mortgages. They did this because they are ideologically attached to the idea of the free market.
The banks are banks.. The government is in charge.
Who would you blame when a savage dog attacks a child.. the dog?
6 January 2012 3:08PM
I dont know why Greece, Spain, Ireland etc dont just pull out of the euro and stick two fingers up at their creditors - Germany being one of the foremost. Germany has had it it's own way for far too long.
6 January 2012 3:10PM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
6 January 2012 3:11PM
Meanwhile, back in the real world you have to pay back debts and spend less than your income.
Ordoliberalism seems to be working. What exactly is your gripe with Germany? That it should aspire to the shitty standards of socialist economics?
6 January 2012 3:12PM
And now look up private debt-to-GDP-ratio. Oh wonder.
6 January 2012 3:13PM
German efficiency at its finest. The other EU members should take notes and reform their economies accordingly.
6 January 2012 3:16PM
May be?
May be??
6 January 2012 3:17PM
Correct me if I'm wrong however, isn't the responsibility of any leader to put the economic security and prosperity of their own country and people before others?
6 January 2012 3:20PM
Yes and no. Germany is the anchor economy in the euro. It was Germany that was pressing for it with France in the first place. It cant just wash its hands of weaker member states just because things have now gone tits up (although, to be fair, that's what it is doing).
6 January 2012 3:22PM
Those pesky Germans are at it again. How dare them and who do they think they are anyway to work to hard save thier money maintain self discipline remain competitive on world markets and keep on doing it over and over. You Germans have to cut this sillyness out. Max out your credit cards get in debit up to your noses and live month to month and get in step with the rest of the world in printing all the money you need to live in the moment and only in the moment. Forget about the future. You all need to learn how to kick the "can" down the road as in "out of sight out of mind". We have gotten very good at it over here on the other side of the pond. JUST REMEMBER THOSE CHICKENS HAVE TO COME HOME TO ROOOST SOONER OR LATER.
6 January 2012 3:23PM
No matter the misery to Greeks and Spaniards, as long as the British and Americans look bad?
How many of the people who have answered so far have actually read the damn article? It's not a matter of 'my side is better than your side'; many people with no love of normal UK and US economic behaviour have genuine questions about how Spain, for example, can ever get out of its situation while Germany persists in its policies. 'Debt is bad', repeated by rote, is no answer at all.
6 January 2012 3:26PM
You know guys, i don't know enough Germans to know what the general vibe is amongst the people of Germany at the moment.
But if I were a hard-working German taxpayer, and read foreign articles about the selfish, evil Germans, I would be sehr angry.
6 January 2012 3:28PM
You misunderstand the problem.
The Euro is not really in any danger.. And the only real problem faced by the 'peripheral' european countries is that the debt they currently have is hard to service.. but that will diminish over time as their debts decrease.
Germany will support them through this period.
They will be fine... Honestly.
The big problem is that the UK and US on the other hand have not started the process of debt reduction, because they believe in inflating debt away or in some other sneaky way, defaulting on it.
If the Euro rebounds, the markets will take a very dim light of the UK and US economies..
Not openly of course.. but behind closed doors.. they'll trade against us.
And if you think Europe is 'close to collapse' you should take a good hard look at the US and UK.
The Europeans are effectively forcing us to correct a problem we should have corrected decades ago.. but the timing is bad for us.
6 January 2012 3:28PM
" It was Germany that was pressing for it" - that´s just made up. It was France who wanted the Euro badly, when Germany was reunited. No country was forced to join the euro, they all decided to join. Especially Greece
6 January 2012 3:29PM
Yes.. these articles are stupid in the extreme..
Why on earth are we not SUPPORTING germany!? we're supposed to be allies.
The fact that we're not proves that the problems the Euro is facing are being manipulated by us..
And the Europeans know that. This will not pan out well for Britain.
6 January 2012 3:33PM
"But if I were a hard-working German taxpayer, and read foreign articles about the selfish, evil Germans, I would be sehr angry."
Well, the comments make up for it.
6 January 2012 3:33PM
Labour Government policy was to have a house price boom (the Tories may well have done the same). That is why Gordon Brown removed house prices from the measure of inflation used to set interest rates. So, yes, it was the Government that allowed and encouraged excessive lending. That doesn't detract from quantitative easing being the right policy for the time being. Not least because the cost of Government borrowing would have ballooned by now without the demand for gilts it stimulates. In fact the country would likely be bust.
6 January 2012 3:40PM
The country is bust... we're a zombie.
Even if we can service our debts we can't borrow any more money.
And when we can borrow more money.. we will..
Meanwhile the EZ is taking steps to prevent them being in the same boat.
Unfortunately for Labour, their terms in office co-incided with the start of the PNAC and the Bush Era.
Before New Labour we as a nation were in a reasonable situation.
We were not massively in debt, either as people or as a nation, we had gold reserves and fairly good relationships with our allies and the rest of the world.
America on the other hand was deep in the red.
No money, an inflated currency, bad trade deficit...
New Labour ensured that Britain would be forced to comply with US demands in future by effectively putting the UK in the same position the US is in. What's good for them would then be good for us.
I don't know why they did this.. but do it they did.
Now QE is the ONLY way that we can service our debts.
But if the Euro doesn't inflate.. where does that leave the pound when the euro rebounds?
6 January 2012 3:43PM
Their debts are not diminshing. They are increasing. The best way to reduce the size of their debts is through growth. They are not growing, they are contracting. Other options are default, inflation or a combination of tax rises and spending cuts. The latter is demonstrably failing in Greece but may be possible in Italy where the situation is not nearly so bad.
As the article mentions it is impossible for all countries to export more than they import. The ideal is for balance for trade equilibrium. Germany cannot indefinitely export more to the rest of Europe than it imports. Not unless it is prepared to send money the other way.
6 January 2012 3:44PM
I don't think that Europe is close to collapse and I'm glad about that. I'm very much in favour of it and my automatic, unthinking position tends to be with the Germans and French rather than the British and Americans, but while I think everyone agrees that changes are needed, there's good reason to feel that these changes are too brutal and that those making them are too complacent about their effects on ordinary people's lives. Jens Weidmann's fatuous little comment about alcoholics summed up this attitude perfectly, I thought.
Spain wasn't irresponsible, at least not in comparison to other large economies, but finds itself trapped in this situation, with a eurozone economy that is nether one nor many, with people blithely telling it that it should be more like Germany.
6 January 2012 3:46PM
Yet another article that fails to understand that any countries leader is only there to benefit their own country. Merkel was elected by the German people to act for the good of Germany and its people. Nothing else.
Now there can be an argument that Germany would benefit more by some policies than others but you are not making that. You want Merkel to act in the way YOU think is right.
6 January 2012 3:48PM
But equally even the printing of money here in Britain isn't helping the vast majority of the public. Pumping money onto the banks balance sheets is doing nothing for the rest of us. Especially as these banks are making it harder and harder to get loans.
So not only is this country just printing more and more money. It isn't using it to help the public anyway. Meanwhile the financial sector debt in Britain spirals out of control. I have asked this before. What happens when the British banks collapse again. Who is going to bail them out??
6 January 2012 3:49PM
When Spain, Ireland and Greece were having an asset bubble a few years back, they needed the ECB to raise interest rates to curb these excesses. Alas, Germany didn't, as they were still the "sick man of Europe" and completing their reunification. It would appear that the EZ policy seems to favour those at the core, whilst neglecting peripheral countries.
6 January 2012 3:50PM
I think that it really is fair to say that Germany's refusal to allow the ECB to lend to governments is a major factor in the current crisis.
I have just calculated that Eurozone governments are currently paying 391 billion euros every year to the banks in interest charges on their debts. That's a colossal 4.25% of the entire Eurozone GDP. In the case of Greece, the interest payments are gobbling up nearly 26% of its GDP. But even Germany itself is paying 38.5 billion euros a year in interest to the banks - 1.56% of its GDP.
The banks just got a handout of 489 billion euros from the ECB at around 1% interest over 3 years. And what have they done with it? 453 billion (93%) has been parked with the ECB again. Complete lunacy.
If Eurozone governments could borrow from the ECB at the same rates offered to banks, eurozone interest costs would drop by 80% to just 78 billion. That would put 313 billion euros back into the economy. Even the Germans would save about 18 billion euros a year in interest payments!
I defy anyone in the banking industry to explain what they do to deserve the 391 billion euros that they suck out of the Eurozone economy every year, and why the current system where only they can get their hands on ECB money is in the general interest.
In the meantime, it is important to realize that the story that the ECB cannot lend to governments is a lie. Paragraph 2 of article 123 of the Lisbon treaty specifically permits ECB lending to "publicly-owned credit institutions". And when I asked the ECB whether they would object to such institutions lending such money to their governments so that they could pay off their debts to the markets, the response was a clear no : "Such publicly owned credit institutions "shall be given the same treatment by national central banks and the ECB as private credit institutions." It is up to the banks to decide how to use the money they have borrowed from the central bank system."
Clearly, those institutions should use the next money printing exercise that Mario Draghi has planned for the 29th February to borrow the money that their governments need to get the bond market loan sharks off their backs. There was no limit to the amount that Draghi was prepared to print for the banks, so I see no reason why the 17 eurozone governments should not use "publicly-owned credit insitutions" to borrow the 7,842 billion euros needed to cancel out all their debts with the financial markets.
The banks would get their money back (most of which they didn't actually have to lend), and governments would know that they could pay back the money to the ECB without fear from the markets.
6 January 2012 3:50PM
Interesting analysis. The other point I think worth making about German policy is that it is overtly mercantilist. While there are many positive aspects to this, not least the German refusal to allow strategic industries to fall into the hands of competitors, it means that 'success' implies a constant balance of trade surplus, rather than sustainable growth. As Keynes rightly pointed out, the internationally destabilizing impact of countries which insist on trade surpluses in defiance of the normal laws of economics is in many ways greater than countries which are fiscally irresponsible. The Euro made this tendency even more dangerous. It was the need for outflows of cash from Germany surpluses that provided the rocket fuel for bubbles throughout Europe, especially in Spain and Ireland (it also played a not inconsiderable role in US subprime as German banks were one of the main purchasers of subprime bonds, fueling the market long after it should have run out of steam).
The problem with German policy for Europe is that it is based on an economic impossibility. Every European country is supposed to be as productive as Germany, while suppressing domestic demand well below its natural free market level. This can only work if there is some vast market out there to buy the surplus. Clearly, there isn't one. It can therefore only lead to a pattern of depression with deficits increasing constantly as tax revenues fall (this is the bit that the proponents of austerity always forget to mention).
6 January 2012 3:51PM
Actually I think you will find Spain's property market was one of the most over inflated in Europe. Personally, I don't know if Spanish banks gave out 125% loans as they did in the UK and the US, but it does seem as if once their property bubble burst, it had a real knock on effect on their economy.
6 January 2012 3:56PM
Without QE the banks would be lending even less at higher interest rates. Also the Government would be paying a lot more for its debt with the consequence that public spending would be more tightly constrained.
6 January 2012 3:57PM
I just pointed out in my latest post that if the ECB lent money directly to the German Government at the same rate offered to the banks, they would save 18 billion a year in interest repayments (the German government owes over 2 trillion euros to the banks - more than any other country in Europe).
So yes, if Merkel gave up blocking the ECB lending to Governments, Germany would be better off too. Only the ex-European Director of Goldman Sachs (who conveniently got to be the head of the ECB) could see any reason for keeping the current system going.
6 January 2012 3:58PM
Would any normal European citizen even consider buying a second hand car from any of the other major European politicians except Angela Merkel?
If it was an old German car it might even work!
Cameron - he would just sell you a tyre for the price of a car and tell you its a derivative of a car
Papawhatsisname - he would take the money and deliver the car next week, no next week, no really next week.
Berlusconi- Eurgh back seat not been cleaned for a while
Putin - fuel line of the car seems to have been cut.
Sarkozy- negotiations over the car deal break down as he starts calling you an idiot who is insulting his dignity.
Von Rompuy - sells you the car no problem- then taxes you more per year for use of the car than the car is worth.
6 January 2012 4:00PM
What makes you think that the Spanish housing bubble was the fault of Spanish banks? In the wonderful market economy that we now live in, banks all over the place were probably cashing in.
6 January 2012 4:05PM
This is the swivel eyed approach.. Growth is not inevitable, no matter what they teach at the LSE.
Lets assume you are in debt personally.. and your life depends upon you not being in debt at a determined point in the future, would you, gamble your life on growth, or savings?
Paying off debt, and not taking out any more is the only sure way to get out of this fix.
It may be that growth can do this under 'normal' circumstances, but it is not certain.
Meanwhile if you have no debt, and growth happens.. you still benefit.
6 January 2012 4:05PM
Or you could just shift the debt from the markets, who currently take 4.25% out of the Eurozone GDP in interest charges on the debt, and switch it to the ECB, who only charges 1% interest. A saving of 313 billion for tax payers - but it would certainly make it harder for the financial sector to pay the normal levels of bonuses.
6 January 2012 4:10PM
Failed UK banks would be bailed out by QE money.
In other words, we're telling UK and US banks that they can do whatever they like.. because in the end.. the government will just print some money and give it to them.
In Europe on the other hand... If a bank fails.. it'll be allowed to fail.
What amazes me is that the economic right wing who are currently calling on europe to print money are the very same people who 5 years ago would have laughed at the very idea of a capitalist nation printing money.
6 January 2012 4:10PM
I can't beleive the naivety of most comments on here. The Germans have, inadvetently I'm sure, created a situation which is almost perfect for their own interests. Their economy is based on exports. Good for them. However the deadbeat economies drag down the value of the Euro and of course German exports. Inflation is lowered too.
Would they be doing so well with the Mark? No. The Mark would far higher in value than the Euro and so would the cost of German exports. The poorer countries are effectively subsidising Germany. Not the other way around.
Germany wins and the periphery can go hang. Spain, Greece et al are in a death hug. More and more austerity will lead to nothing but mass civil rebellion and the rise of extremist politicians. Again.
6 January 2012 4:21PM
Sure.. the Greeks would be far better out of it.. that's why they've decided to leave... Haven't they?
Same with the Spanish.. they're just itching for the exit door...
It's certainly led to extremist politics in the UK already.. Cameron's veto was pretty extreme and I've heard nothing but German bashing for the last 2 weeks... Your post included.
6 January 2012 4:24PM
So economic growth is inexorable and certain then?
The EZ doesn't have to have a trade surplus.. it just has to be in better shape than it's competitors.
It's only the slowest that get eaten by the wolf.
6 January 2012 4:25PM
Growth is not inevitable, I happen to think it is possible due to technological developments. We are likely to see more efficient methods to harness energy, for example. I also think we will be able to export to emerging nations. However, growth is of course not guaranteed.
I would agree with you that we should not have run up the debts in the first place. Where I disagree is that we should take the consequences on the chin in the form of the huge spending cuts necessary to balance the budget. This would mean a UK depression and I don't think our trading partners in the EU would be best pleased as our imports plunged with it.
6 January 2012 4:30PM
That isn't actually true. The idea is widely accepted by most German economists. Especially, as Wolfgang Münchau wrote the better version of this article in the FTD a few days ago. In this article he argues that the European problem is that we have not made the transition from small open economies to one large more self-reliant economy. The recipes that work for small economies (like Germany's ordoliberalism) don't work for large isolated econmies (like the US or the EU).
Merkel's approach is less bad for Germany than it is for Europe. The problem is that we don't have that joint European institution that could act on behalf of us all. The problem is the lack of European institutions.
6 January 2012 4:31PM
Spanish unemployment is already close to 25% and rising. If eurozone strategy does not alter quickly, the Mediterranean countries will need to default and leave the eurozone in order to drive down their currency even further. It simply isn't true that debt must always be repaid in full, bankruptcy, default and devaluation are available alternatives which will be forced on these countries shortly. There is already an agreed haircut form of default in place for Greece.
The practical alternative, which would facilitate a modicum of control and planning is for Germany to leave the eurozone and this should be presented to Germany as an ultimatum from the rest of the zone and its neighbours forthwith. Either Germany leaves, or the rest default, individually and even more messily, probably one at a time. This will vitiate ordoliberlism once and for all. Forced out of the eurozone, the new DMark is likely to rise rapidly pricing Germany out of export markets and shredding the relative value of German bank assets denominated in euros. This would be the best solution to an existing horrible impasse. All the alternatives will lead to the same endpoint, massive German revaluation, but more messily.
6 January 2012 4:32PM
No country can do anything of a sort because countries are geographical. Political elites, insulated from their native countries through wealth and privilege, decided to join the Euro.
6 January 2012 4:32PM
It is not the right wing who are calling for the printing of money, primarily it is the left wing. In this paper it is people like Will Hutton who espouse QE. The right wing are asking for massive spending cuts, look at the likes of Ron Paul.
6 January 2012 4:34PM
"Under a fiat currency system there is no need at all to issue debt.
A national government in a fiat monetary system has specific capacities relating to the conduct of the sovereign currency. It is the only body that can issue this currency. It is a monopoly issuer, which means that the government can never be revenue-constrained in a technical sense (voluntary constraints ignored). This means it can spend whenever it wants to and has no imperative to seeks funds to facilitate the spending.
This is in sharp contradistinction with a household (generalising to any non-government entity) which uses the currency of issue. Households have to fund every dollar they spend either by earning income, running down saving, and/or borrowing.
Clearly, a household cannot spend more than its revenue indefinitely because it would imply total asset liquidation then continuously increasing debt. A household cannot sustain permanently increasing debt. So the budget choices facing a household are limited and prevent permament deficits.
These household dynamics and constraints can never apply intrinsically to a sovereign government in a fiat monetary system.
A sovereign government does not need to save to spend – in fact, the concept of the currency issuer saving in the currency that it issues is nonsensical.
A sovereign government can sustain deficits indefinitely without destabilising itself or the economy and without establishing conditions which will ultimately undermine the aspiration to achieve public purpose.
A government operating in a fiat monetary system, may adopt, voluntary restraints that allow it to replicate the operations of a government during a gold standard. These constraints may include issuing public debt $-for-$ everytime they spend beyond taxation. They may include setting particular ceilings relating to deficit size; limiting the real growth in government spending over some finite time period; constructing policy to target a fixed or unchanging share of taxation in GDP; placing a ceiling on how much public debt can be outstanding; targetting some particular public debt to GDP ratio...." - http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=16816
Under the Euro and the conditions demanded by the Germans in the Maastricht treaty, the states of the Eurozone effectively operate with a foreign currency. As they cannot be sovereign issuers and are limited to lending on the private bond markets should their yearly budget deficient exceed 3 percent of GDP rather than resorting to the ECB they are necessarily growth constrained. The weaker peripheral states find their productive economies further eroded under these conditions while the stronger central states, notably German benefits. However ulimately, Germany's position is the equivalent to being last deckchair on the highest point of the Titanic as the systemic structural failures and weaknesses of the Eurozone, the result of faulty neoliberal economic theorising, divorced from reality, ultimately apply to Germany as well. No Eurzone state is safe while they aren't sovereign issuers of their own currency and are prevented from resorting to the ECB as lender of first resort.
6 January 2012 4:37PM
If I were American.. I'd vote for Ron Paul..
It would be a little bit like voting for the BNP because they are promising to have my bins emptied twice a
week.. but I would still vote for him. His libertarianism is closer to liberalism than most.
He is not representitive of the economic right wing though, that's why they call him the crazy uncle.
I've been posting on the euro crisis on the CIF for a month now and I've read everything the economic right has had to say.. It is they that are asking for the 'bazooka'. Their whole ideology is crumbling.