3 ms·

Bailout for Italy. The discussion around this started last month (iirc) because Italy's yields started rising. Whether the ECB should buy PIIGs debt was a big

Bailout for Italy. The discussion around this started last month (iirc) because Italy's yields started rising. Whether the ECB should buy PIIGs debt was a big issue during the Eurocrisis. Iirc, the ECB had to create additional mechanisms, some of those were challenged by courts in member nations, and authority ended up resting outside the ECB (which some nations didn't like because it is basically unaccountable). I believe this scheme, although it will almost certainly be challenged again, attempts to move authority for these decisions within the ECB. Nothing has been fixed (because it can't be fixed with the EU as it is).

tialaramex 4y ago
> the ECB (which some nations didn't like because it is basically unaccountable). Of course that's actually a desirable feature of such institutions. Give them a mission, staff them with technocrats dedicated to the mission, defuse political interference and they'll deliver. The US Supreme Court decided you can't do that (well, in practice, that Democrats can't do that, it will be fine when Republicans do it) but outside the US this is an attractive idea. However Politicians don't learn, they will always see political advantage from meddling with the independent entity, and then be astonished when such meddling backfires badly. Take NICE in the UK. The purpose of NICE is to decide how to spend necessarily limited resources to deliver healthcare. How many profoundly deaf 5 year olds being able to hear is worth one grandparent who lives an extra twelve months? If this new drug is $180 to treat one patient while the generic we're using is $5, what sort of benefits does that new drug need to have to justify the price tag? These are the "death panels" Americans were told to be scared of years ago. But politicians don't care about the general idea of NICE, they care specifically that photogenic Sarah, whose husband happens to work for a news publisher, is dying of a rare illness, and NICE says the $5M drug to cure Sarah's illness isn't "cost effective". Politicians want a photo of them hugging Sarah and promising she'll be OK. They definitely don't want to raise taxes to pay for the drug (higher taxes is unpopular) but they do want that photo (it'd look great on campaign adverts). And hey, the drug maker gives them $50k campaign donation, that's nice. Let's override NICE and divert $5M to get Sarah the drug. Oops, Sarah died anyway, oh well, news moves on. Years ago the Tories introduced a "cancer fund" where for no discernible reason if you had specifically cancer, there was a separate pool of extra money so that they could be shown to be such compassionate people, who really want what's best for everybody. Well, not everybody of course, just people with cancer for some reason. Of course then photogenic people have something that's not cancer and you look really callous because you rejected them. Wow, it'd sure be easier on politicians if these funding decisions were made by some technocrats instead... oh right.
- skippyboxedhero 4y ago
  ...right, but the problem with unaccountable power is that the public won't accept that in some cases. The reason why politicians didn't want it is because the ECB will almost certainly destroy itself if they go too far down this route (imo, it is already too late, the ECB are doing things that no reasonable person could think is sensible outside the context of bolstering a political union...ironically, you seem to assume that technocrats have no political aims...this isn't the case). The reason why the Tories introduced the cancer fund was because NICE refused to pay for cancer drugs that worked. The reason why it is was only for cancer was because there were a large number of new drugs that were effective for cancer and NICE refused to sanction them. The only other group of drugs in a similar place was epilepsy, but the number of people who require this medication is significantly smaller (as in, there is one or two people in the UK who need a certain drug). Btw, the reason why NICE don't like spending money on drugs is because that is money that isn't going to staff wages (those unbiased technocrats again). Btw, there is a govt full of technocrats...China. Everything there is run very efficiently: the corruption, the concentration camps, tracking of political dissidents...all very efficient.
  - orwin 4y ago
    The ECB took sightly better decisions (more timely let's say) than the Fed in the last 8 years and was a lot better at communicating them than their US counterparts. If you think China's governments are full of technocrats, you just don't understand China at all. Yes, china have technocratic boards (HST and SEZ are the most known projects lead by technocrats), but don't ever forget that China is run by its political power first, military second, its economic power third, and only then their technocrats. And those only have power in complex areas (i can develop if you want to know what I mean). And the technocrats lose more ground to the economic powers everyday. Until the military enter and rebalance everything, it will continue. I'm not even talking about local governors and mayors, if you think they are technocrats and not family members of the military or political, you're dead wrong.
- RobertoG 4y ago
  The idea that the ECB is apolitical is similar to the idea that economics is apolitical, a fantasy created to avoid answer to the public. There are little things more political than economics and money.

tialaramex 4y ago

> the ECB (which some nations didn't like because it is basically unaccountable). Of course that's actually a desirable feature of such institutions. Give them a mission, staff them with technocrats dedicated to the mission, defuse political interference and they'll deliver. The US Supreme Court decided you can't do that (well, in practice, that Democrats can't do that, it will be fine when Republicans do it) but outside the US this is an attractive idea. However Politicians don't learn, they will always see political advantage from meddling with the independent entity, and then be astonished when such meddling backfires badly. Take NICE in the UK. The purpose of NICE is to decide how to spend necessarily limited resources to deliver healthcare. How many profoundly deaf 5 year olds being able to hear is worth one grandparent who lives an extra twelve months? If this new drug is $180 to treat one patient while the generic we're using is $5, what sort of benefits does that new drug need to have to justify the price tag? These are the "death panels" Americans were told to be scared of years ago. But politicians don't care about the general idea of NICE, they care specifically that photogenic Sarah, whose husband happens to work for a news publisher, is dying of a rare illness, and NICE says the $5M drug to cure Sarah's illness isn't "cost effective". Politicians want a photo of them hugging Sarah and promising she'll be OK. They definitely don't want to raise taxes to pay for the drug (higher taxes is unpopular) but they do want that photo (it'd look great on campaign adverts). And hey, the drug maker gives them $50k campaign donation, that's nice. Let's override NICE and divert $5M to get Sarah the drug. Oops, Sarah died anyway, oh well, news moves on. Years ago the Tories introduced a "cancer fund" where for no discernible reason if you had specifically cancer, there was a separate pool of extra money so that they could be shown to be such compassionate people, who really want what's best for everybody. Well, not everybody of course, just people with cancer for some reason. Of course then photogenic people have something that's not cancer and you look really callous because you rejected them. Wow, it'd sure be easier on politicians if these funding decisions were made by some technocrats instead... oh right.

skippyboxedhero 4y ago
...right, but the problem with unaccountable power is that the public won't accept that in some cases. The reason why politicians didn't want it is because the ECB will almost certainly destroy itself if they go too far down this route (imo, it is already too late, the ECB are doing things that no reasonable person could think is sensible outside the context of bolstering a political union...ironically, you seem to assume that technocrats have no political aims...this isn't the case). The reason why the Tories introduced the cancer fund was because NICE refused to pay for cancer drugs that worked. The reason why it is was only for cancer was because there were a large number of new drugs that were effective for cancer and NICE refused to sanction them. The only other group of drugs in a similar place was epilepsy, but the number of people who require this medication is significantly smaller (as in, there is one or two people in the UK who need a certain drug). Btw, the reason why NICE don't like spending money on drugs is because that is money that isn't going to staff wages (those unbiased technocrats again). Btw, there is a govt full of technocrats...China. Everything there is run very efficiently: the corruption, the concentration camps, tracking of political dissidents...all very efficient.
- orwin 4y ago
  The ECB took sightly better decisions (more timely let's say) than the Fed in the last 8 years and was a lot better at communicating them than their US counterparts. If you think China's governments are full of technocrats, you just don't understand China at all. Yes, china have technocratic boards (HST and SEZ are the most known projects lead by technocrats), but don't ever forget that China is run by its political power first, military second, its economic power third, and only then their technocrats. And those only have power in complex areas (i can develop if you want to know what I mean). And the technocrats lose more ground to the economic powers everyday. Until the military enter and rebalance everything, it will continue. I'm not even talking about local governors and mayors, if you think they are technocrats and not family members of the military or political, you're dead wrong.
RobertoG 4y ago
The idea that the ECB is apolitical is similar to the idea that economics is apolitical, a fantasy created to avoid answer to the public. There are little things more political than economics and money.