Excuses for the French downgrade won’t wash

Today’s downgrade of France’s AAA credit rating was well-trailed, so they’ve had plenty of time to work out their rebuttal in advance.  And they’ve come up with a couple of glib but specious responses: comparison with the US dollar, and the Pound Sterling.

Excuse #1:  “So what?”, say the French insouciantly.  “We’ve been downgraded.  The USA was downgraded last year.  Didn’t affect them.  Won’t affect us”.  The implication is that France is just like the US, that the French currency is much like the American currency, and that there’s a direct read-across from one to the other.  Put like that, the error is glaring.

The USA is a sovereign nation with its own currency and its own central bank, the Federal Reserve.  The dollar is the world’s reserve currency.  Other nations around the world are sitting on mountains of American T-Bills.  In a very real sense, these investors have nowhere else to go.  I don’t see them rushing to invest in the €uro as an alternative.  And if China (say) decided to dump the dollar, it would immediately drop in value and take China’s foreign exchange reserves with it.  Of course investors are looking elsewhere as far as they can — that’s why the Swiss Franc is over-valued, and why the UK (remarkably) is being seen as a safe haven.

But in the end there’s no substitute for the greenback.  That’s why the USA can live with the downgrade.  France will find it less easy (although it may well be that because the downgrade was widely anticipated, it is largely priced-in).

Excuse #2:  “France’s debt position is very similar to the UK’s debt position.  So if S&P want to down-grade France, they should logically down-grade the UK as well”.  This started out with French Finance Minister François Baroin, and has since been repeated by a number of his colleagues.  Today, a prominent German politician, Michael Fuchs, a Christian Democrat, made the same point.  (Isn’t European solidarity wonderful, by the way?  It seems to be a game of beggar-my-neighbour).

This point deserves our attention, because it shows either that European leaders simply fail to understand the problem with the €uro, or more likely, that they understand it, but are unable to face up to it.  They still pretend that the problem is down to bankers’ irresponsibility, or to the failure of member states to keep to the rules.  They pretend that the €uro can be saved by fiscal integration, or debt mutualisation, or austerity, or by tougher implementation of the rules, backed by statutory penalties.  They refuse to recognise that this is not a problem of implementation, but a fundamental problem with the original architecture of the single currency.  Economic divergence (most conspicuously between Germany and Greece) has created unsustainable problems of competitiveness that can never be solved within the €uro.  Only massive and permanent fiscal transfers between north and south could sustain the currency union — and that would be politically unacceptable.

The difference between the UK and France is simply that we have a currency and a central bank, and they don’t.  So in extremis, the Bank of England can create new money to repay our debts.  We all know the inflationary consequences, but printing money may be preferable to default and insolvency.  France, on the other hand, has only a part share in someone else’s currency, and a European Central Bank where it has no control, and (as long as Angel Merkel is in place, with her Germanic monetary rigour) precious little influence.  France is therefore much more likely to default — and hence the downgrade.

It’s important to understand why France’s lines of rebuttal are misplaced, but perhaps more important to recognise the abject failure of EU leaders to understand the problem.  And until they understand it, there is no solution.  When they do, the answer is to dismantle this disastrous and damaging monetary experiment.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Excuses for the French downgrade won’t wash

  1. Jonathan Ward says:

    Considering your views on democracy, do you not find it worrying the power that unelected bond traders and rating agencies such as S&P are wielding over entire nations at the moment? S&P, like the other two key credit agencies, do not have an unblemished record in their predictions and ratings.

    • No I don’t. I think that Brussels’ criticism of ratings agencies is just a desperate attempt to deflect blame and to create scapegoats. All that the ratings agencies do is to offer opinions about the credit status of companies and states. They do that on an open, transparent and commercial basis. If clients did not value those opinions, the agencies wouldn’t have a business. Brussels has suggested that it wants to control the agencies, but any attempt to do so would be a direct attack on freedom of speech. You and I are free to express our views on the creditworthiness of France: so is S&P.

      Brussels is engaged in a crude attempt to shoot the messenger, when they should perhaps be listening to the message.

  2. Sunny Jim says:

    S&P are not the only ratings agency though, and on Monday 16th January made an announcement. With this announcement, Moody’s cited the French economy’s overall strength but said bleak growth prospects in France and the region present “risks to the French government’s fiscal consolidation plans.”

    Moody’s had said in October it was putting France on review, as Sarkozy and other European leaders struggled to find solutions to Europe’s protracted debt crisis.

    Moody’s said Monday it “will update the market during the first quarter of 2012 as part of the initiative to revisit the overall architecture of our sovereign ratings in the EU.”

    The rating agency detailed the strengths of the French economy, but noted that the country’s debt levels have deteriorated because of the “global economic and financial crisis” and were now among the weakest of all AAA countries.

    “France, like other eurozone sovereigns, may face a number of challenges in the coming months. The need to provide additional support to other European sovereigns or to its own banking system cannot be excluded. In that case this could give rise to significant new (contingent) liabilities for the government’s balance sheet,” Moody’s warned.

    Moody’s notes the government has less room to maneuver than during the 2008 meltdown. “The domestic and external economic growth outlook presents significant risks to the French government’s fiscal consolidation plans.”

  3. Malcolm Edward says:

    And these sort of people running other countries in the EU are supposed to be our friends. Only if you are as logically challenged as Clegg/Huhne/Cable could you possibly believe that.
    An additional worry is that we have made a defence pact with France. Surely its time to undo that before our security is undermined.

  4. Mark Cooper says:


    Has any Eurosceptic MP or MEP carried out a COST/BENEFIT analysis in the UK’s membership
    of the EU. If not, Why not? It is also their responsibility to inform the electorate of the outcome.

    650 MP’s plus 800 Peers + MEP’s must have made the calculations , then why are we still a member of this failed project when we are paying dearly for our government’s folly.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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