Five hundred billion: "a nice number"
Why 440bn euros? Why, the official spokesman for the European Commission was asked, was that the number chosen for the gigantic safety buffer agreed at 2am by the continent's finance ministers.
The guarantee for loans is being added to a 60bn euro facility, borrowed against the European Commission's budget.
So his answer: "If you add 440 and 60, it sounds ... nice.
"And there was a strong willingness of ministers to do whatever it takes."
Add to this 500bn euro figure a further 250bn euro facility from the International Monetary Fund, and it offers another neat figure.
"That makes one trillion dollars," said another spokesman. "That's quite impressive."
Ahead of the curve
I'm in Brussels, courtesy of the European Journalism Centre, soaking up these positive vibes and huge numbers in a late night announcement that's sent stock markets soaring. The eurocrats sound rather pleased with themselves that, at last, Europe is no longer behind the curve, and has taken decisive action.
They're even more pleased that none of it is real money, yet. Apart from the money already approved to bail out Greece, the rest is in potential loans and guarantees if things go wrong, so there's no reason for the hassle and uncertainty of putting this through national parliaments unless it's required.
It should be admitted that when I wrote in the last posting of The Ledger that the market was poised for meltdown if Britain's party leaders couldn't get a deal together by last night, what I really meant was, of course, that the market-makers had their attention focused on the eurozone instead.
The London stock market had a grand day, and it was even grander in the eurozone. But the pound weakened against the dollar, and after Gordon Brown announced his resignation, along with a more complex set of coalition negotiations than we had expected, the bond market took fright at the continuing political uncertainty at Westminster.
Underlying the unfeasibly large amounts of money are questions starting with, well, obviously, whether it's enough, as it represents less than 10% of the eurozone's debt exposure.
Britain's reluctance
And how widely does the cover go? Commission officials have made it clear, here in Brussels, that Britain dug its heels in and stopped them sending a stronger political message to the markets about European solidarity.
Alistair Darling, in perhaps his final act as Chancellor, was giving his fellow finance ministers a taste of what they can expect if a Tory takes his place at the Council of Ministers.
Denmark, I'm told, supported the British line "a little bit", while Sweden and the Baltic countries were "more constructive".
The way things are seen in general here: "Britain's reluctance is well known, as is Sweden's hesitation and Denmark's reflection."
Brown's come-uppance
Gordon Brown won't be missed by finance ministers, whom he used to lecture, as Chancellor, for their failure to liberalise their economies as he had done. He got his come-uppance with the banking crisis, even though he also won their admiration for his handling of it. It seems now that they've got their come-uppance too.
Too few seemed to notice that monetary union required closer economic union, and that being uncompetitive in comparison with the German benchmark could no longer be handled by continual, gradual devaluation.
So what's being done to ensure the imbalances that led to this crisis can be tackled at root?
A combination of adding tougher conditions to European structural funds, and the hope that peer pressure from around the Council of Ministers' table will help.
Mediterranean indiscipline
The Commission spokesman hinted, in Spanish English, at blunt speaking behind the closed doors of their meeting on Sunday night: "It was the time of the truth. There was a very clear sense that this was a very serious moment in the history of our economic and monetary union."
That's not just the fault of the PIIGS - Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain. The indisciplined rot set into the eurozone in 2003, when Germany and France were allowed to bend the rules on breaking the deficit limit.
Expect to hear more about that on Wednesday, when Spain's prime minister tells the Madrid parliament just how much pain his fellow European leaders are requiring him to take - starting this financial year, ahead of his preferred schedule.
At the same time in Brussels, economic commissioner Olli Rehn will set out a "communication" on what the Commission intends to do about the so-called Stability and Growth Pact, to correct the indiscipline that's been afflicting eurozone members.
The emphasis has been on tackling budget deficits, with only two out of 27 countries - Sweden and Estonia - within the 3% of gross domestic product limit that should be the maximum in more normal times.
But that deficit focus is shifting. The total level of debt is going to get more attention - in which case Italy should worry.
Also look to the structural reforms needed in some countries, most conspicuously Greece.
German tourists
That's where the cuts really hit home, with painful political consequences; cutting pension and welfare entitlements, making it easier for employers to fire as well as hire, and directing government efforts towards growing sectors rather than propping up old, inefficient ones.
Expect also a push for a turnaround in countries where domestic consumption has been suppressed.
There's concern that a sharp contraction in the public sector from Greece to Spain to Ireland will shrink the whole economy, unless other parts of the eurozone are willing to boost imports from these countries.
Germany has won respect for saving lots, but Commissioner Rehn is making it clear that's got to change - its duty to Europe is to buy lots more stuff.
So there's pressure for Germans to relax constraints on shop opening hours, and lots more Germans should be heading for holidays in the indebted Mediterranean ... yes, taking their beach towels with them.
Comment number 1.
At 11th May 2010, redrobb wrote:Just what part of history do we humans never learn from! Allow the captains of industry greater, greater flexibility to hire and fire and move and exploit the populations from country to country, in ritules more akin to a plague of locusts. Why can't a drop in profits be acceptable to those at the helm, they still made a profit!! Greed begets greed, aka the free market. History will repeat itself, there will be a back lash, the pot lid cannot be held down indefinitly.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 11th May 2010, EuroSider wrote:There is no doubt that the Eurozone countries need to re-structure their public spending, but also the attitude towards the high-cost of their welfare states. Too much public money goes into 'politcally-orientated' projects, which leaves very little for the general population.
The Eurozone members are slowly beginning to realise that the exisiting Eurozone model does not work. That is not to say that there is a problem with the EU, per se, but that the concept of the single-currency is unsustainable.
Too many countries have allowed their politicians to spend beyond what the country can afford.
Now it is time for the countries to accept some of the harsh realities of life; namely that you cannot spend what you haven't got!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 11th May 2010, Nigel Lawton wrote:I am an economically unsophisticated person who lives by a couple of simple rules; save, don't spend more than you have/don't get into debt (mortgage excepted but don't abuse the mortgage), if something's too good to be true it probably isn't etc. These are common sense.
From one point of view I think that the current problems boil down to greed by the bankers and traders, who have efectively taken a lot of money out of the system by betting against their own bad investment products, and short selling on the failing banks that resulted which were then bailed out by taxpayers. From that point of view the injustice is clear - there are traders and bankers out there buying Mercedes and new houses using their bonuses and personal winnings from this taxpayer funded casino whilst many industrial employees with value-adding job roles have seen pay cuts of 10-20% through short time working and loss of bonuses. The taxpayer will not only have to pay for this but will also experience a reduction in public services.
From another point of view I can see that the City has artificially supported the British economy for many many years with its huge earnings from banking and sharedealing etc. Post credit crunch this is now substantially reduced resulting in the 'structural deficit'. I don't think many people understand what this means and the politicians have made it less than clear. Simply put I believe it means the country has just lost a big chunk of its GDP with the resulting loss of tax revenues. Public spending has to be cut and taxes raised to reach a new balance in future years, and we should have started last year to avoid the build-up of deficit that is happening now. Its the new balance point that has not been made clear, we will be poorer from now on.
However from a third point of view I can see this whole scenario as a stage in the re-balancing of world wealth which has been seriously out of kilter for hundreds of years. Much of the stored wealth in the rich developed economies originates from the slavery and exploitation of other peoples and countries. Many of these economic injustices are current, not historic, for example there are more slaves now than at the height of the legal slave trade. Current injustices that exist between countries in the EU seems small by comparison to these world-wide injustices.
Its almost amusing that the 'west' did not need to be pushed over, it has eaten away at its own foundations and is now collapsing in on itself. Where are we going to borrow money when there is none left in the west? What Greek style concessions will be asked of us as conditions on those loans?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)