
Can Europe cope with a free-spending Germany?
The market moves were bigger than expected. On March 5th German long-term yields jumped by 0.3 percentage points, the largest single-day rise in almost 30 years, and the euro surged. European stockmarkets, which would normally have suffered owing to higher rates, held on to their recent rises. Germany's bombshell of a fiscal package—currently under negotiation—represents more than just the start of deficit spending on defence. It is the beginning of a new European growth model. The continent will depend more on internal demand, and less on the world.
At almost 3% of GDP, the EU's current-account surplus is hefty, with Germany and the Nordic countries leading the way. Their surpluses are caused not just by their exporting prowess, but by the gap between levels of saving and investment: if a country invests less at home than it saves, the difference becomes a capital export, and the trade balance adjusts to accommodate it. Now that Europe wants to be insulated from global shocks, invest to make its economy greener and rearm quickly in order to repel Russia, saving and investment will have to shift back into balance.
There are good reasons to think this will happen. To deter Russia, defence experts believe that Europe will have to spend 3.5% of GDP a year on its armed forces, which could rise depending on the level of American support. Few politicians want to pay for this with cuts elsewhere. As Johannes Marzian and Christoph Trebesch of the Kiel Institute, a think-tank, note, military build-ups are almost always funded with a mix of debt and higher taxes. Given the low existing debt burdens in northern and central European countries, deficit funding will almost certainly be the preferred option this time round.
Another reason is provided by Europe's shift from being an ageing society to a straightforwardly old one. Ageing societies save for retirement. An old society sells assets to spend. The EU's median age is 45 and more restrictions on immigration will speed the greying process. For the moment, Europeans are keen savers: at 14%, the EU's household savings rate is comparable to that of Japan, which is even older, in the 1990s. By 2015, though, Japan's rate had fallen to zero. Tight labour markets, as people retire, are also likely to lift wages in services and the care industry, and such workers are more likely to spend than save.
The last reason for the shift comes from business investment, which has crept up since the euro crisis of the mid-2010s. New industries are likely to emerge soon, prompting more. Defence and aerospace firms will grow to equip Europe's armed forces. And the EU wants to become a net-zero emitter of greenhouse gases by 2050, which will mean yet more spending on everything from grids to charging stations. Estimates suggest that €500bn ($545bn) in extra annual investment by 2030 will be required, equivalent to 3% of GDP.
Yet Europe's new free-spending impulses will have to overcome constraints. Fiscal expansion will be restricted by high debt levels and deficits in some big countries, notably Italy and France. For its part, despite having space to do so, Spain is reluctant to lavish money on soldiers and kit. Common EU debt to fund such spending, although under discussion, is unlikely to end up happening on a large scale.
Economic growth would make life easier. But ageing will shave between 0.4 percentage points (in France) and 1.1 percentage points (in Italy) off annual growth rates until the end of the 2030s, according to Thomas Cooley of New York University. Although German spending will boost the country's GDP, at least in the short run, it may cause problems elsewhere. When the largest member of a currency union spends big, interest rates must rise to prevent inflation. Higher rates will boost the euro, making exports less competitive.
On top of this, the current Trumpian uncertainty makes businesses nervous about gambling on long-term investments. Policymakers hope that, by boosting local demand, they will also make Europe less vulnerable to trade wars. In order to help the process along, they might consider a dose of deregulation. Linking the continent's capital markets, for instance, would both allow savers to earn higher returns on investments and provide funding for new endeavours. Germany has already done the unthinkable. It would be a shame to waste the opportunity.
For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in economics, finance and markets, sign up to Money Talks, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
US aerospace industry anxious as tariffs loom
US airlines and aerospace manufacturers insist they have no use for tariff protections, warning that the proposed Trump administration levies could eat into the healthy trade surplus the sector has enjoyed for more than 70 years. At the request of President Donald Trump, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's department launched an investigation on May 1 to determine whether to impose tariffs of between 10 and 20 percent on civil aircraft and parts, including engines. The US industry those tariffs were crafted to protect swiftly let the administration know it was not interested. "Imposing broad tariff or non-tariff trade barriers on the imports of civil aviation technology would risk reversing decades of industrial progress and harm the domestic supply chain," the Aerospace Industries Association said in a letter addressed to Lutnick and obtained by AFP. The interested parties were given until June 3 to communicate their positions. The very next day, Lutnick announced that Washington aimed to "set the standard for aircraft part tariffs" by the end of this month. "The key is to protect that industry," he said, adding: "We will use these tariffs for the betterment of American industry." But AIA and the Airlines for America trade association voiced fear that far from helping, the tariffs would end up harming US manufacturers. "Unlike other industries, the civil aviation manufacturing industry prioritizes domestic production of high-value components and final assembly," AIA pointed out. According to the organization, US aerospace and defense exports reached $135.9 billion in 2023, including $113.9 billion for civil aviation alone. This allowed the sector to generate a trade surplus of $74.5 billion and to invest $34.5 billion in research and development, it said. The sector employs more than 2.2 million people in the United States across more than 100,000 companies, which in 2023 produced goods worth nearly $545 billion. In its response to Lutnick, the A4A highlighted how beneficial the international Agreement on Trade in Commercial Aviation had been by helping to eliminate tariffs and trade barriers over nearly half a century. "The US civil aviation industry is the success story that President Trump is looking for as it leads civil aerospace globally," it insisted. A full 84 percent of production was already American, it said, stressing that Washington "does not need to fix the 16 percent" remaining. "The current trade framework has enhanced our economic and national security and is a critical component to maintaining our national security moving forward," it said. For manufacturers, the potential tariffs would act like sand jamming a well-oiled machine that has been running smoothly for decades, experts warned. They would also throw off balance an ultra-sensitive supply chain still recovering from the Covid-19 pandemic. "To avoid the situation getting worse, we advocate to keep aerospace outside of trade wars," Willie Walsh, head of the International Air Transport Association , told the organization's general assembly last week. AIA meanwhile stressed that "aircraft and parts are already in high demand and have a limited supply." "Integrating new suppliers and expanding capacity is complex, timely, and costly," it warned, pointing out that finding suppliers capable of meeting rigorous safety certifications could "take up to 10 years." Delta Air Lines also argued for sticking with the status quo, cautioning that the proposed tariffs "would hinder Delta's ability to maintain its current trajectory." "If component parts incur tariffs upon entering the United States, Delta will be at a competitive disadvantage to foreign competitors," it said. "The action would also impose an unexpected tax on Delta's purchases of aircraft contracted years in advance." Delta chief Ed Bastian insisted in late April that the airline "will not be paying tariffs on any aircraft deliveries we take," adding that it was "working very closely with Airbus" to minimize the impact. Delta pointed out in its letter to Lutnick that it currently had 100 aircraft on order from Boeing, and that it was demanding that its Airbus A220s be produced primarily in Mobile, Alabama. But if the tariffs are imposed, it warned, "Delta would likely be forced to cancel existing contracts and reconsider contracts under negotiation." elm/tu/ph/nl/aha AIA Group Delta Air Lines Airbus Group BOEING


Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
India seeks exemption from US' 10% baseline tariff
The fate of the 10% baseline tariffs that the Trump administration invoked on imports from all countries on April 2 is among the issues now at the heart of negotiations between New Delhi and Washington as they attempt to hammer out an early tranche of the trade deal, people aware of the matter have said. Delhi is not in favour of replicating, as suggested by the American negotiators, the approach in the trade deal struck between the US and the UK, where British goods are still subject to the baseline tariffs, these people added. According to a person with direct knowledge of the discussions, Indian negotiators are pushing for their American counterparts to remove the baseline 10% rate as well as commit to assurances that the additional 16%, due to be implemented on July 9, will be left off. An American negotiating team led by assistant US Trade Representative Brendan Lynch 4 landed in Delhi on June for what is the fifth time negotiators from either side have gone to the other's capital for face-to-face talks. The American delegation is expected to be in Delhi till June 10, longer than the previously expected two-day visit. ALSO READ | India-US trade negotiations hit top gear, American delegation extends Delhi stay 'Ideally, both the 10% baseline tariff on Indian goods and the additional 16% from July 9 must end simultaneously after an interim deal is signed. Else, India will also have rights to continue proportionately similar tariffs on American goods till the time the US withdraws the entire 26% reciprocal tariff,' one of them said, citing a joint statement by the two countries' leaders issued on February 13 in Washington. While expounding 'Mission-500' to double bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030 on February 13, the two leaders – Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Donald Trump – in their joint statement mentioned the need for new 'fair-trade terms' that are 'mutually beneficial', the person said. A second person aware of the matter corroborated India's stance: 'Only a mutually beneficial deal would have a long life'. 'Both India and the US are sovereigns. One is the oldest democracy and the other is the largest democracy. While the US is the largest economy, India is the fastest growing major economy of the world. Hence, the deal must be balanced, equitable, fair and acceptable to their people,' the first person said. The second person added that India sees trade interests between both nations as being 'complementary and not competitive', hence New Delhi is open to giving greater market access to the American goods in the Indian market provided Washington reciprocates. 'The trade negotiations continue in New Delhi covering all these matters in a constructive manner as we speak and both sides are hopeful for a win-win,' he said. ALSO READ | Donald Trump claims India willing to cut 100% tariffs on US goods, 'but…' After UK industries faced American tariffs of 25% on all aluminium, steel and derivatives (announced on March 12), 25% tariff on passenger vehicles (announced on April 3), 25% tariff on automobile parts (beginning May 3), and a 10% baseline tariff on all imports (from April 5) – the UK and the US on May 8 announced an economic prosperity deal (EPD). The mini deal secured some concessions for the UK, but the 10% baseline tariff continued. Both partners are racing to conclude an interim, or regarded as an 'early harvest', deal before July 9, which will be followed by a wider first tranche of Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) by September-October 2025. After that a comprehensive BTA will be negotiated, they said. ALSO READ | How Donald Trump decided the tariff for India The current negotiations for an early harvest deal involve greater market access for goods by eliminating tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers, and improving supply chain integration, they said. The current New Delhi round is followed by a face-to-face negotiation between the two teams in the US. During that period, Union commerce and industry minister Piyush Goyal was also in the US from May 17-22 where he held meetings with his counterparts, US commerce secretary Howard Lutnick and USTR Jamieson Greer.


India Gazette
6 hours ago
- India Gazette
Bone-crushing Russia sanctions bill could crush US trade Politico
Washington risks isolating itself from top world economies, including key European allies, according to the outlet The passage of a new US sanctions package on Russia could disrupt America's relationships with its biggest trade partners and isolate it from the world's leading economies, Politico reported on Saturday. The proposed bill includes a steep 500% tariff on imports from any country that continues to buy oil, gas, uranium, or other key commodities from Moscow. Among those most affected would be India and China, which together account for approximately 70% of Russian energy exports. Several other nations that import Russian energy and uranium could also be subject to the bill's penalties. Imposing 500% tariffs on Chinese-made imports would likely trigger a surge in consumer prices, severely disrupt supply chains, and potentially push US unemployment to levels associated with a recession, Politico noted. The sanctions could be described as targeting the US itself since the country continues to rely on enriched uranium imports from Russia for its nuclear power sector. And it could effectively isolate the US from many of the world's leading economies, including its European allies, the article says. US Senator Rand Paul wrote in the publication Responsible Statecraft that the bill "essentially amounts to an embargo" and could trigger "economic calamity on a scale never before seen in our country." He added that such punitive measures are unlikely to change Moscow's core strategic goals and only further entrench the US in a "failing" foreign policy approach. The sanctions bill was introduced in early April by a bipartisan group of senators led by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal. In addition to 500% tariffs, the measure includes secondary sanctions targeting countries that maintain commercial ties with Moscow. Graham recently proposed amendments to exempt countries providing military aid to Ukraine from the tariffs. The change would shield the EU, which continues to import gas from Russia. The senator described the bill as "one of the most draconian sanctions bills ever written" and the sanctions as "bone-crushing." Russia has consistently criticized Western sanctions, calling them illegal, and maintains that they have failed to inflict lasting economic damage. In March, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that a total of 28,595 sanctions had been imposed on Russian companies and individuals in recent years - more than the total number on all other countries combined. According to the president, the West sought to eliminate Russia as a competitor, but its economy has only grown more resilient under pressure. (