Yekaterinburg could well be a name to remember much like Maastricht, Yalta, Bretton Woods and other places that carry major political history on the back of their relative obscurity. A few weeks ago the big 4 players, Brazil, Russia, China and India, met to in Yekaterinburg to discuss the vexed issue of the $, US assets and US global financial dominance.

As I’ve discussed before there is a major shift underway in the way the global market is structured. Not just in terms of currencies but also trade and influence. The BRICs have a powerful case to make: 40% of global currency reserves and almost half the world’s population (though Russia’s population is declining, a somewhat serious issue).

There is a strong feeling that the US has acted recklessly overt he last 30 years in flooding the world with $ and creating huge imbalances which have caused such chaos in global markets. So whilst there is always plenty of posturing and grandstanding, especially from the Russians, there is a real case for the US to answer:

- Global trade imbalances.

- Cowboy capitalism.

- Turbo boosted monetary expansion.

- Instability in global financial markets.

It’s also interesting that the meeting of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) was held at the same tim and the US was not invited even though it wanted to attend. There is a strong argument that there is no real alternative to the $ but that doesn’t excuse the facts. One dominant currency has not helped create a stable system. It has simply allowed to issuer to experience huge profits from seigniorage and wield extraordinary political and economic power.

And can we really take the rating agencies seriously? They are all US based organisations. Ultimately whether the $ loses influence or not depends on the alternatives. I still believe a commodity backed currency is a likely development, given the nations involved.

At the same time the development of local currencies will help create a more stable and complex system. For now though expect more talk about a $ alternative and expect it to be driven by the BRIC crew starting with the upcoming G8 summit in Italy.

I’m just back from 3 lovely days in Wellington (nice weather for a change!) at the NZ Association of Economists Conference. It had a good vibe and felt like there was a wider range of interesting papers than the last one I attended. The topics of interest for me are listed below (I will post in more detail once the papers have been uploaded to the NZAE website):

- Tax Reform: The perennial favourite, Capital Gains Tax, made some waves as did some more detailed examination of a possible Land Tax. This initially popped up 18 months ago as a floated idea and more recently was discussed at length over at Interest.co.nz.  The session on Tax Reform was sponsored by the Treasury so expect more debate on this in the near future.

- Aid and Development: There were a few papers on corruption and developmental outcomes which were worth following (though I haven’t seen anything to rival Paul Collier’s work). I especially enjoyed a paper on whether aid was helping to achieve the Millenium Development Goals. To me it was clear that whilst aid can make some contribution, targeted p2p actions such as microfinance and giving are more likely to have a lasting impact as they tunnel through the swathe of government and administration on both ends of the aid pipleline. Message to Government: Let people do the giving.

- Business and Innovation: It’s good to see economists looking at this topic since it’s of major importance to NZ. Again lack of capital and R+D incentives for business was a clear problem. We simply can’t compete with countries like Finland or Israel when all our capital is tied up in housing.

- Health: One good paper on “fat” taxes or food “subsidies”. It simply reinforced my position of taking a supply side approach. It’s hard to influence demand through pricing strategies when the underlying commodity (food) is experiencing huge swings in price. As with oil and carbon taxes, the prices movements in food prices will overwhelm any attempt to reduce demand by taking away GST for example (12.5%). Perhaps incentives like gift vouchers/cash in savings accounts will help focus (a bit like the idea to pay girls an annual stipend for each year they don’t get pregnant). We have to get our future health costs down somehow and creative solutions may be required. Time to call in the behavioral psychologists methinks.

- The Financial Crisis: Nice paper looking back at financial collapses over the last 200 years. Yes they happen with regularity…..whoa…yes we know that. The cycle goes back as far as records allow. Even the Bank of England was not immune from overstretching itself… a run on the Central Bank itself. Ooops. So my simple question is: When are we going to change the system?

Overall it was a good conference and a lot came out of it. For next year I can see more focus on the impact of microfinance and p2p activities, more focus on tax reform, more focus on the debt based financial system and hopefully we will have some more ideas to contribute ourselves.

Also good to see someone with a laptop on the go! Surely a first for the NZAE.