The latest in the cuts saga: Trichet v Bernanke

Which of the two is more familiar with “depression economics”?

There has been much discussion of the op-ed by Jean Claude Trichet, the French governor of the European Central Bank, in today's Financial Times. The Tories will be pleased to see Trichet wholeheartedly and passionately backing the draconian "austerity" measures adopted by European governments in recent weeks, writing:

With hindsight, we see how unfortunate was the oversimplified message of fiscal stimulus given to all industrial economies under the motto: "stimulate", "activate", "spend"! . . . there is little doubt that the need to implement a credible medium-term fiscal consolidation strategy is valid for all countries now

Trichet's comments cannot be ignored and will, as I said, bolster the deficit hawks on the right. But, for me, the more significant and fascinating contribution to this debate has been from Ben Bernanke, governor of the US Federal Reserve. Speaking yesterday in front of the House financial services committee on Capitol Hill, Bernanke spurned the UK and the eurozone's approach to the deficit, rejecting immediate cuts and instead urging legislators to maintain support for fiscal stimulus.

From the Guardian:

In a second day of testimony to Congress, Bernanke said the Obama administration should delay measures to reduce Washington's record budget deficits by cutting spending or increasing taxes.

"I believe we should maintain our stimulus in the short term," Bernanke said, as the latest batch of economic data from the world's biggest economy showed an increase in weekly unemployment claims, a drop in home sales and the second easing of activity in three months.

Bernanke's opposition to fiscal retrenchment until economic recovery has been assured is in contrast to the approach favoured by Britain and the eurozone countries, where governments believe action to reduce budget deficits cannot be delayed.

Bernanke is not your run-of-the-mill central banker, and his views on "depression economics" carry special weight in a way in which Trichet's do not. He spent much of his pre-Fed, academic career immersed in studying the causes and consequences of the Great Depression in the 1930s, publishing essays and books on the subject.

As Dennis Cauchon wrote in USA Today, "Bernanke, a former Princeton University economist, is considered the pre-eminent living scholar of the Great Depression. He is practising today what he preached in his book: Flood the system with money to avoid a depression."

So who are you going to trust on avoiding a rerun of the 1930s? The American central banker or the European central banker? I know who my money's on.

Meanwhile, if you want to read a rebuttal to Trichet's piece, check out this op-ed from the US economist Brad DeLong, also writing in the Financial Times. DeLong writes:

History teaches us that when none of the three clear and present dangers that justify retrenchment and austerity -- interest-rate crowding-out, rising inflationary pressures on consumer prices, national overleverage via borrowing in foreign currencies -- are present, you should not retrench and austerity: don't call the fire truck when there is no smoke. And history teaches us that when economies suffer from high unemployment, enormous excess capacity, incipient deflation, businesses terrified of a lack of customers, and an enormous excess demand for high quality assets, then is the time for expansion and stimulus: when the deck is awash, start bailing.

Yet Jean-Claude Trichet rejects these counsels of history. He seems to me to place himself in the position of, as British interwar bureaucrat R.G. Hawtrey described his precedessors at the start of the Great Depression, somebody: "crying 'Fire! Fire!' in Noah's flood."

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Show Hide image

France’s burkini ban could not come at a worse time

Yet more legislation against veiled women can only further divide an already divided nation.

Since mayor of Cannes David Lisnard banned the full-body burkini from his town’s beaches, as many as 15 French resorts have followed suit. Arguments defending the bans fall into three main categories. First, it is about defending the French state’s secularism (laïcité). Second, that the costume represents a misogynistic doctrine that sees female bodies as shameful. And finally, that the burkini is cited as a threat to public order.

None of these arguments satisfactorily refute the claims of civil rights activists that the bans are fundamentally Islamophobic.

The niceties of laïcité

The Cannes decree explicitly invokes secular values. It prohibits anyone “not dressed in a fashion respectful of laïcité” from accessing public beaches. However, the French state has only banned “ostentatious” religious symbols in schools and for government employees as part of laïcité (the strict separation between the state and religious society). And in public spaces, laïcité claims to respect religious plurality. Indeed, the Laïcité Commission has tweeted that the ban, therefore, “cannot be based upon the principle of laïcité”.

While veils covering the entire face such as the burqa or niqab are illegal, this is not to protect laïcité; it is a security matter. The legal justification is that these clothes make it impossible to identify the person underneath – which is not the case for the burkini.

 

By falling back on laïcité to police Muslim women in this way, the Cannes authorities are fuelling the argument that “fundamentalist secularism” has become a means of excluding Muslims from French society.

Colonial attitudes

Others, such as Laurence Rossignol, the minister for women’s rights, hold that the burkini represents a “profoundly archaic view of a woman’s place in society”, disregarding Muslim women who claim to wear their burkini voluntarily.

This typifies an enduring colonial attitude among many non-Muslim French politicians, who feel entitled to dictate to Muslim women what is in their best interests. Rossignol has in the past compared women who wear headscarves through choice to American “negroes” who supported slavery.

Far from supporting women’s rights, banning the burkini will only leave the women who wear it feeling persecuted. Even those with no choice in the matter are not helped by the ban. This legal measure does nothing to challenge patriarchal authority over female bodies in the home. Instead, it further restricts the lives of veiled women by replacing it with state authority in public.

Open Islamophobia

Supporters of the ban have also claimed that, with racial tensions high after recent terrorist attacks, it is provocative to wear this form of Muslim clothing. Such an argument was made by Pierre-Ange Vivoni, mayor of Sisco in Corsica, when he banned the burkini in his commune. Early reports suggested a violent clash between local residents and non-locals of Moroccan origin was triggered when strangers photographed a burkini-wearing woman in the latter group, which angered her male companions. Vivoni claimed that banning the costume protected the security of local people, including those of North African descent.

Those reports have transpired to be false: none of the women in question were even wearing a burkini at the time of the incident. Nonetheless, the ban has stood in Sisco and elsewhere.

To be “provoked” by the burkini is to be provoked by the visibility of Muslims. Banning it on this basis punishes Muslim women for other people’s prejudice. It also disregards the burkini’s potential to promote social cohesion by giving veiled women access to the same spaces as their non-Muslim compatriots.

Appeals to public order have, occasionally, been openly Islamophobic. Thierry Migoule, head of municipal services in Cannes, claimed that the burkini “refers to an allegiance to terrorist movements”, conveniently ignoring the Muslim victims of recent attacks. Barely a month after Muslims paying their respects to friends and family killed in Nice were racially abused, such comments are both distasteful and irresponsible.

Increased divisions

Feiza Ben Mohammed, spokesperson for the Federation of Southern Muslims, fears that stigmatising Muslims in this way will play into the hands of IS recruiters. That fear seems well-founded: researchers cite a sense of exclusion as a factor behind the radicalisation of a minority of French Muslims. Measures like this can only exacerbate that problem. Indeed, provoking repressive measures against European Muslims to cultivate such a sentiment is part of the IS strategy.

Meanwhile, the day after the incident in Sisco, riot police were needed in nearby Bastia to prevent a 200-strong crowd chanting “this is our home” from entering a neighbourhood with many residents of North African descent. Given the recent warning from France’s head of internal security of the risk of a confrontation between “the extreme right and the Muslim world”, such scenes are equally concerning.

Now more than ever, France needs unity. Yet more legislation against veiled women can only further divide an already divided nation.

The Conversation

Fraser McQueen, PhD Candidate, University of Stirling

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.