The nineties seemed so easy in comparison…yes some financial disasters but they are part of the regular boom/busy cycle..but in general times were good and there was an air of stability. Y2K came and went and in all the excitement we had ourselves caught up in a huge stock market bubble…..the tech wreck….horribly followed by 9/11 and the start of a new era in US expansionary policy.

The last decade saw the financial system gutted from the inside out. That it is still standing is a testimony the the magic that one can weave with numbers. The spread of social media and the growth of the internet was nothing if astonishing. The ability to communicate 24/7 took many by surprise and for some completely took over their lives. The rise of Apple….and the iPod generation transformed music, computing and basically created a whole new industry in itself…mind you was it much different to the Walkman and its introduction? Yes Google, Apple, MySpace, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter brought the world of media, in all its forms, to a completely new level. But that’s what technology does…we’re just moving at an exponential rate.

China and the rest of the BRIC gang really came to the party. The US ended the decade on its knees…wrapped up in wars it cannot win, with a financial system in disarray and an economy on its knees. With Japan the first industrialized economy to fail and the US not far behind, the global shape of international relations has changed. Multi-polarity is an uncomfortable idea for many and how that works out will be a real test.

On that subject climate change continues to take center stage notwithstanding the inevitable failure of the Copenhagen talks. The records all show the noughties being the warmest on record but the small matter of fiddling numbers won’t have helped bolster the case of extreme action. When arguments hinge on tiny fractions any question on their veracity can have serious consequences. As a researcher in this area for sometime i must admit even i have become somewhat sanguine over the whole thing.

When I look back over the last decade and forward to the next, it seems as if the same themes will recur:

- Financialisation of Economies: Can we remove the yoke of derivative financial instruments from the real economy?

- Technology: Will social media enable the development of a networked based economy?

- Global Politics: Can we move to a multi-polar world without the necessity of the United Nations as a de facto world government?

- Climate change: How do we manage the change in our climate and the resulting shifts in population and its attendant baggage?

There’s plenty of hope in those questions for moving to a more sustainable world. But any one of those we get wrong could easily send us into a period of darkness. Let’s hope we don’t end up taking this road.

I will explore each topic in more detail over the next few weeks.

Recently smoke signals have been wafting from the Beehive as John Key and Kevin Rudd white flagged the issue in recent talks. When politicians say it’s a good idea but unlikely you know that it’s on the table. In fact this is not a new story. It comes up whenever there has been a proper meltdown and New Zealand looks a bit lonely and downbeat.

It’s been raised by some local economic commentators and all the usual pros and cons have been mentioned. Don Brash laid these all out nicely in a speech back in May 2000 and it’s hard to see past his conclusion that it is primarily a political decision, given that the economic pay off is unclear.

It may be a political decision then but it may not be a comfortable one. As Bernard Hickey writes today “we may not have a choice if we continue to borrow heavily”. The “shotgun wedding” wouldn’t be the most favourable outcome but NZ is not well placed at the moment. To coin a phrase you can’t be a little bit pregnant.

And, as Brian Gaynor writes, according to a recent OECD study, New Zealand is perilously close to Iceland in a ranking of countries with exposure to “overseas debt……personal debt and financial leverage”.The numbers are eye watering and the piper will be most surely paid at some point in time.

But, for now, the Australian banks, which make up most of our banking system, have underwritten us by sending new capital across the ditch. We also had to follow Australia’s deposit guarantee scheme with no choice in the matter. To all extents and purposes we are heavily dependent on them. So as Bernard notes we may find ourselves at the altar of currency union by default and not by political will. And it may happen sooner than we think.

Is there an alternative? Yes. A fully sovereign domestic money supply. More on that another time.

I guess we can call this Basel III or maybe a souped up Basel II. Who knows? When you have an inherently unstable system any new plan for control is likely to end up in the round filing cabinet before it has a chance to be implemented.

But one thing is clear from the latest global pow-wow: monetary stimulus will remain in place for some time as extra tightening through higher capital requirements sucks in more capital. With all the talk of recovering economies and poistive GDP reads in some countries, it is easy to forget the amount of wealth that has been sucked into the black hole of balance sheet never never land.

Who would be a bean counter these days?

It reminds me of the time I was working on the ticket sales operation for the Brisbane Expo back in 1988. It was a $60m take and I was drafted in to make the numbers balance. It was a lot of fun and eventually I got to the point where I had accounted for everything but there was still a pesky $110 I couldn’t reconcile. It simply didn’t make any sense to me but in the end I just gave up and figured it didn’t matter that much.

Now the numbers seem a bit larger when it comes to bank meltdowns. We have a long way to go before we actually can understand where the money has gone, who owes it, who lost it and what the actual impact on the supply of money is.

So in this case G20 are spot on. Deflationary forces abound. I have no worry about inflation at all. Sure we will keep seeing short term rebounds in some statistics and small sighs of relief. Let’s face it, the markets ahve had an enormous rally in the last 6 months. But do they reflect the underlying reality? Nope.

That’s because the crevasses have been papered over with huge swathes of new paper. But underneath they lie there waiting for some poor fool to fall in again. Slowly it feels like the bankers are starting to understand that they let credit growth go bananas and that their carefully constructed inflation numbers didn’t always tell the truth about asset prices.

We still have major systemic problems to deal with. Tightening credit will cause severe pain but low rates will help ease some of that. But catching the tiger by the tail is the only way forward.

So back then I suggested the RBNZ should think about selling as much NZ$ as they could. Why? Why go against prevailing market sentiment which is that intervention doesn’t really work and simply provides a target for the speculating hordes which incidentally account for 95% of the volume of daily trades.

That’s a fair sentiment when your currency is falling but when it’s rising? And when you have an eye popping foreign debt of almost 140% of GDP……that’s foreign debt not overall debt.

And yet the punters keep buying the NZ$. Perhaps they know something I don’t. Maybe 50 years worth of oil has been discovered in the Southern Basin. Who knows?

The point is that at some point that money has to be paid back and at the moment, due to the sneaky monster that is compound interest, we can’t even get close to reducing it.

But now is the time to strike.

Again I would like to suggest that the RBNZ starts selling NZ$. When you have a lot of something to sell it’s always best to do it when others are keen to buy. Now is that chance.

By selling NZ$ now and paying back, or at least holding for that same purpose, it will take the pressure off the very precarious dependency we have on overseas lenders.

This doesn’t eliminate the debt but simply transfers it to a domestic situation where it can be managed at lower rates and where there is no threat of having to suddenly repay.

How can the RBNZ do this? Again this is very simple. Print NZ$ and buy US$. There is no change to the actual money supply just how the debt is denominated.

Considering the implosion Iceland experienced and the unfolding disaster that is Ireland (surviving only due to its membership of the Euro), it makes complete sense just to get on with this now.

To allow foreign debt to be run at such a level is financial mismanagement of the highest level.

It also shows a willingness to be dictated to and dependent on overseas interests. This makes no sense at all when the country’s economy security is at stake.

Simply put the developing or poorer nations have got pressing issues of poverty to deal with and they simply don’t see why they should have to pay for the ecological sins of the developed and richer nations, never mind the fact that they got rich on the back of an imperialist framework!

It just seems that no deal can ever be done without some form of equity payback. There has been some suggestion that revenue raised from either carbon taxes or auctioning of permits could be rebated on a per capita basis. This is simply redistributing the costs in a progressive manner and makes sense on the face of it.

However, can’t see the wealthy punters in the West going for that. What to do?

Maybe it’s time to look for the simplest solution and just get a carbon tax on the books. It’s quick and simple as you only need to tax, at source, basic fossil fuels: oil, gas and coal.

This is something i posted about in 2007 but it’s time to take another look.

Let’s say we have established a price for “carbon”,this being a proxy for externalities caused in the combustion of fossil fuels. The most efficient way to alert the market to this cost is to price it in at source ie where the fossil fuel is sold wholesale. This would be the global oil, gas or coal exchanges.

In my paper, Climate Control, i argued for the establishment of a World Energy Agency, where all fossil fuels were sold through. Simply add on the price of carbon and leave it at that. As a one point global process it would be very simple and then that price information would flow out across the world. End of story.

But there are two issues here:

One is that we are trying to stop carbon quantities breaching certain levels. The price elasticity of fossil fuel consumption may hinder this somewhat as consumers of oil products are slow to change demand in response to price. But there is no doubt that the price rises over the last few years certainly caused some pain in the wallet and made people think about ways of cutting back on petrol usage.

The second issue is interesting. What happens to that money? Who does it belong to? As a charge being levied by the WEA it has no soveriegn recipient. So i propose this “charge” goes into a Global Environmental Contingency Fund (GECF). I want to make clear this is not a tax, it is a cost. It is therefore directly related to an expense which is in this case the use or environmental services.

Let’s stop using the word tax. It’s incorrect and draws attention from the fact that we are simply paying for a service we are using.

So how could the GECF work? I have to give that some more thought but the rough idea is that it would hold those funds in bonds (sovereign) or could lend them out at low interest to fund projects that have a positive environmental benefit. This is the tricky bit. But let’s sit with the first piece. The money comes in and sits in bonds. That’s it. So it’s not being spent on projects of a dubious outcome. As the title implies its a Contingency Fund. We don’t know for sure what will happen in the future. The money can be repaid if required by discounting the price of fossil fuels if it turns out that the cost has turned out to be lower.

What could New Zealand do right now?

Implement a tax and use that revenue to reforest the whole country. This can link into a global emissions trading scheme at some point but the important point is to make sure that the tax collected does not go into the general pot.

People need to see the flow of money from them into pure offsetting activities. If we don’t restrict supply (the only accurate and long lasting solution) then we have to slowly change behaviour and do it in the most straightforward way. A ring fenced and targeted tax is probably the best option we have right now given the likelihood of any global agreement at Copenhagen.

As usual it was the Russian President, Dimitry Medvedev, giving the $ a good roasting and moving the debate forward to the minting process. But really how far advanced is this process and how serious are they? More to the point what would a global currency unit look like?

To answer the first question is simple: I have no idea. At the political level it is mere grandstanding usually for the domestic audience. Sometimes it’s easy to forget that most politicians have little understanding of how the global financial system works (no different from anyone else!) but back in the offices of Treasuries and Central Banks it may be a different story.Though I was struck by the recent bizarre questioning of Bernanke over the issue of $ currency swaps with central banks. It’s a classic.

I do think though that the Eurasian block are serious about making this move. Each step is a step closer to creating a multipolar currency whether its based on the Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), a Commodity Backed Currency (CBC) or an Energy Backed Currency (EBCU). Even the Amero could be a consideration.

But the key outcome will be whether we move from a Fiat based system to a hard currency system. That would make a major change in the structure to the global system perhaps taking us back to Keynes’s suggestion, the Bancor. If we stay with a Fiat system then we simply exchange one piece of paper for another.A hard backed system would certainly restore some much needed reality to the meaning and value.

What’s clear is that the US has become a fiscal disaster and holders of paper issued by the US have said enough is enough: your paper is not “as good as gold“.

As the reporter notes China is not really regarded as a poor nation anymore. How could it be with over $2trln in reserves. But outside of the big cities it is a different stories. Access to finance in rural areas is difficult and state finance has been directed towards major projects and city development.

By creating a platform and helping local partners Wokai is actually laying the foundations for community based finance systems in China. This is a great mix of local and gloabl partnership and shows the power of the internet as a platform for building global networks without government interference.

The financial restrictions in China mean that loans through Wokai eventually become donations as the money cannot be repatriated out of the country (for now). However, it is tax deductible being a donation so you get a good bang for your buck.

Another bonus is the opening up of China to the outside world. Given that censorship is still heavy (many networking sites are often blocked) its great to be able to connect with the local population in an open business exchange. This can only help bring China closer to the international community and foster a greater connection between different people.

Let peer to peer aid be the new model driven by people not governments.

Why are governments involved anyway? Well that’s not about aid really, its about influence…ok let’s be brutal it’s about money and power. Yes it’s all about politics: quid pro quo, backhanders and the rest of it. We’ll give you money and you help us out, vote for us at the UN or give us some nice contracts for whatever.

That’s the good bit. Now let’s see it in action. Up the government chain on one side and down the other. Hands out all the way up, across and down. Let’s not even go there. Of course some governments take this seriously and see aid as a genuine redistribution of national income but the model has been sorely abused over the years.

Even locally we had the Niue government telling the NZ PM that if it didn’t receive aid quickly it would turn to China instead. It doesn’t get more blatant than that. More and more aid has become a strategic tool in the foreign office of wealthy nations.

Francis Fukuyama recently reviewed two books on the subject both with similar themes but differing opinions: “The Challenge for Africa” by Wangari Maathai and “Dead Aid” by Dambisa Moyo. What I like most is that these are books coming from Africans themselves and women as well. It’s a refreshing change to Western University academics. It’s also an area of quite passionate debate. Here’s a great debate with Dambisa Moyo, Hernando de Soto, Paul Collier and Stephen Lewis on whether foreign aid does more harm than good.

Some issues are clear: corrupt governments and a weakened civil society; years on the western government welfare teat; trade barriers and resource depletion. The West carries the guilt and assuages it with cash even if its straight into the Swiss bank account of the latest tyrant.

So if governments are the problem why not remove them from the picture?

Well perhaps that is what will happen. Today the UK Conservatives unveiled a new policy on aid. As part of that they proposed a Gbp40m fund called “My Aid” which would allow the people to vote on their favourite aid project. Ok this all sounds a bit like the next reality show but for me it signals a subtle change in direction.

What if governments simply dropped their Aid budgets and gave that money back in either tax cuts or tax credits for giving? What would happen?

- Microfinance would take off.

- Giving platforms would widen and internationalise.

- There would be more targeted and personal involvement.

- Social Media would drive this (TwitterAid?).

- This would lead to grassroots build up and development of localised civil society.

- It may lead to an increase in giving as government moves out of the way.

- And maybe less celebrity nonsense as well!

Above all this p2p Aid model would be people driven and . as with microfinance, be very empowering. The aid infrastructure will still be necessary but that too may require some modification or restructuring. The Kiva and Wokai models will be very useful for this as will giving and donating platforms.

He sees an unstable system accentuating positive feedbacks. This amplification of feedbacks can send out misleading signals i.e. periods of cooling can be just as intense as the system ratchets up the power of an accelerating loop. This is similar to tipping points observed in fisheries when the catch hits all time highs one year with collapse the next….no fish left…look there’s loads…..crash. In this interview he leans towards a population collapse, a general die-off as the likely result of our earthly transgressions.

I think I’m with him on this. Having followed and tried to get involved in the climate debate for the last 10 years I have seen how hard it is to effect change and also that change needs to come at a global level AND from the supply side. All the tinkering in the world will not make a difference and perhaps we should just focus on adaptation instead.

At the same time he’s heading off into space, courtesy of Richard Branson who offered him a ride on spaceship Gaia. Hopefully he’ll be listening to Bowie as he takes off. For all you fans here’s the original video….sit back and take off