At least I know people are reading this stuff

Already some well known investors such as Jim Rogers are looking elsewhere to put their money. Last year he called the US recession and the $ decline. Interestingly he saw the Euro as disappearing within 15-20 years as it was a “political currency”. I never though it would last 10 years so it’s done well. He also recently said he would like to put all his money into Yuan…wouldn’t we all?

But there has also been plenty of chatter about new currency unions….Asian? or what about a NAFTA based system?

It’s called the Amero, a union between the US, Canada and Mexico.  It’s an interesting project, overrun with innuendo and conspiracy theories. As Jim Rogers says political currency unions never last (the same goes for free trade agreements).

Whatever the merits of the Amero, it’s clear that the geo-currency axis is shifting to incorporate more players. It could make for some interesting times ahead in the global currency markets.

As reported it paints a grimmer picture using recent data and stresses the need for immediate action. Coming just before the Bali Conference on 4th December it’s a clear statement as to the direction the UN will be looking to take.

At the same time there are those who continue to decry these types of reports as another installment of fiction along the lines of the Da Vinci code.

So where are we left?

The costs of inaction are difficult to summarise regardless of serious estimation like the Stern Report. After all economics is hardly a science well known for its predictive ability.

Ignoring those who say climate change and global warming are a sham (and they should always be part of the debate), what is the best way to approach this?

Adaptation or restraint? How about Both/And? Why does it have to be one or the other. We need to keep refining our energy systems and the one we have now is incredibly inefficient, controlled by cosy cartels and unreliable nation states.

Climate change provides an opportunity to address the environmental impacts off our consumption processes as well as the way in which we access and generate energy.

Why argue the toss? Just do both and somewhere the right equilibrium will be achieved.

When the Bank of England was formed in 1694 it was not as a government agency but a joint stockholder company who then lent money to the government to wage war. Money and war go hand in hand really….sound familiar?

But the deal was interesting. Coin, in the form of gold and silver, had to be deposited and then was lent at a rate of interest which at the time was 8%. This is where the term “gilt edged” comes from.

So far so good. But at the same time new money in the form of paper bills was issued against the same deposit of coin. Therefore at a stroke the amount of money as measured by coin and paper was doubled. The paper money was exchangeable for coin so in fact there was only enough coin for half the supply of money.

I’ve seen more complicated magic tricks at a children’s birthday party!

Needless to say some bright spark decided to up the ante somewhat and the first run took place. Over time this settled down so that 4 to 6 times the gold on reserve could be lent out as paper money. This paper money became known as “good as gold”. Quite clearly it wasn’t but it became accepted.

This was taken to extreme by the Farmers Exchange Bank from Rhode Island which was found to have issued banknotes to the tune of $580m backed up by metal reserves of just $3m (note to Les Hunter for that information).

It never hurts to check the balance sheet of your bank to see exactly how much it does have in the way of equity but as we saw in the UK recently it doesn’t really matter since its all guaranteed by the authorities anyway!

Energy prices go up followed by interest rates.

So people are made worse off by increases in prices for goods and services that they cannot easily deflect or cut back on. That’s hard.

But wait there’s more, like a boxer climbing off the floor after a big punch they are hit again even harder by interest rate rises.

And to cap it off it’s all their fault.

I must be missing something here.

The only result of this type of policy is a regular cycle of boom and bust with more and more people forced into bankruptcy for no good reason.

It could be argued that interest rates should be cut in this scenario so that people are not forced to seek higher wages to compensate.

The main concern in the inflation issue is asset and commodity prices. But really its asset prices that are the culprit. They have been driving the global economy for many years now, most notably since financial deregulation in the 80s.

Talk has surfaced recently of the Treasurer invoking a clause in the Reserve Bank Act to move the inflation target aside in order to focus on the exchange rate. Whilst this is a bit far fetched it is another symptom of the policy malaise NZ is facing.

The Reserve Bank Governor has made the same mistake many others have before him: not understand the role and process of bank credit.

It’s as simple as that.

Using an inflation target to manage an economy is like riding a bike with one eye closed. Eventually you have a write off.

What interest me further is whether all finance can move to a P2P platform and seriously eat into the major lending markets currently controlled by the commercial banks.

I think it could do. This crosses the web with money and complimentary currencies.

Remember that anyone can create “money” if they really want, it just can’t be in the form of bank notes issued by the Reserve Bank. Commercial banks create bank loans by a simple bookkeeping entry. Only 2% of the money supply in NZ is in the form of notes and coin so banks don’t actually hold any money other than a bit of cash.

My point is that P2P finance could take off in a very big way once we get the hang of it. My guess is that the firms currently involved don’t realise how big this could be.

Expect the central banks to cast their beady eyes over these operations once they get a roll on. For now it’s just some web bizness but this feels like 1694 all over again.

This is not good news at all but the market has been through this before with the Long Term Capital meltdown in 1998 and of course the 1995 collapse of Barings Bank by Nick Leeson. So it won’t be in complete panic but this is a big move to Bear Stearns and perhaps just a taste of what can go wrong when the music stops.

Hedge funds are heavily leveraged and so when a big move goes against them the losses can be astronomical. In theory risk models are supposed to flash warning lights at set points but the reality is that these models are not foolproof (after all we designed them) and traders can often disguise bad positions. And from my experience all risk is underpriced since it is based on average volatility and not the heavy meltdowns that come with increasing regularity.

The last 10-15 years has seen a huge amount of money created by the worlds’ banks and much of that finds its way back into the financial markets to be invested or used as speculative margin. The numbers are so huge that the Fed in the US has decided it would rather not publish money supply numbers anymore.

So when the market goes into reverse it can cause major losses which have knock on effects around the whole system.  It will be interesting to see how this situation pans out but at some point there will be a serious contraction unless new demand can be conjured up.

Well the RB has a clear mandate to keep inflation, as measured by the CPI, between 1-3% on an annual basis. According to them they also say that,

“The Bank is required to ensure that, throughout the economy, money works as well as possible as a mechanism for making transactions, storing value, and keeping account.”

So let’s say they are also responsible for price stability in a general sense i.e. no serious asset bubbles or major deflationary shocks.

So how are they doing?

Since 1998 the CPI has risen 20.7% to December 2006. So an average of 2.5% per annum which is within the prescribed band.

But the key worry, or so they keep repeating, has been the housing market which in the same period has risen 143%.

So what have they done about it?

From Mar 04 to Dec 06 they raised interest rates by 2%, from 5.25% to 7.25%. That doesn’t sound like a great deal by historical standards and clearly has not had any impact.

From Mar 04 to Mar 05 rates went up 1.5% as inflation took off towards 3%. However, they stopped when they should have kept going. When CPI hit 3.4% and stayed above, the bank should have got really serious and jacked rates up very quickly.

They didn’t. CPI was above 3% from Sep 2005 to Sep 2006 and they moved only 50bp. This was their big mistake. With house prices on the march as well they should have had rates up to 8% by June 06. They are a year behind the curve and that could cause some major problems.

Alan Bollard has been soft in his approach and this may well stem from the false comfort that low global rates has brought. The great inflation crush of the late 1990s has seen global rates fall into ranges not seen for many a year. Central bankers have been playing in a very small range and have been lulled into a false sense of security.

All around us we witness the asset price bubble caused by cheap global credit. The Japanese are still at it pumping out cheap yen that no one really wants. This is a major disaster waiting to happen. We’ve seen it before when USD/JPY fell to 79.65 back in 1995 on the back of US trade concerns and Asian Central banks dumping their US$. For now the flow out of the yen and into the kiwi continues with a rise of over 15% in the last 6 months.

Yesterday Winston Peters called for an amendment to the Reserve Bank Act asking that the Reserve Bank take a more rounded approach to managing monetary policy. I have to agree with him that a major review is needed and that simply using the OCR to control the economy is not working.

Submissions for the inquiry into a future monetary policy framework close on 19th July. I will post my submission up here in due course. It’s a great opportunity to throw open the arcane nature of our monetary system and make proposals that may lead to a more productive and stable economic system.

Whilst there is a certain amount of PR spin and product placement going on here they are both worth a look at if you have a spare 15 minutes. As i noted previously it is reminiscent of the 1920s and the media battle that took place from there on. Same stuff, different technology?

You can catch them here

This is just the beginning of a more serious debate on the issue of environmental costs otherwise known as externalities. Food miles is just a simple way of engaging the public and media just as the phrase “think global, buy local” has always done.

We all like to support our local farmers whether in NZ, UK, France, Japan or the US. However we all like to sell as much as our produce into markets where we can achieve a better price (even after taking account of transport costs). NZ is heavily geared towards exporting and with a large productive base and small local market it is more exposed than many other larger countries.

Stepping away from the hype and hysteria we can see that the Food Miles debate is both important and necessary. Consumers should be paying the full price for the goods they buy and that includes the basic inputs of energy and matter as well as ecosystem goods and services.

Whilst food miles comes across as a marketing ploy and is somewhat simplistic in its formulation, it can be seen as the start of a serious attempt to bring Trucost pricing into the mainstream economic system. Of course it makes sense to buy your veggies from the farmer down the road but the supermarket system is all pervasive and has driven costs down so far that they have been able to get away with an international supply chain as well as shipping domestic produce many miles further than necessary.

Pricing ecosystem services in at the primary level would see a vastly different pricing mechanism: one which included the price of nutrient and effluent run off, mining run off, soil depletion, air quality processing, clean water provision and the numerous other services which have enormous economic value.

If this happens then maybe we can relax a bit as the produce in our supermarkets and farmers markets will be priced on the same basis.

Only then will we really know which is really cheaper.