With the meltdown in the US $ has come a raft of stories about the end of the greenback as we know it. Messrs Chavez and Ahmadinejad have been whooping it up at the recent OPEC summit and gloating over the demise of the $ etc etc. Well not everyone agrees with their opinion on the matter but clearly the $ has had a major kicking and there are now other options on the table for currency reserves such as the Euro and now more than ever the Yuan though it’s not fully convertible.

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.

Today the IPCC released its synthesis report bringing together the work of the past few years. It’s clearly worse than expected suggesting that at current levels warming could be up to 6 degrees by 2030 which is above the 1-4 degrees by 2100 as previously predicted.

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.

No not today but back in 1696. But its useful to just retell the story as it has laid the foundation for the development of industrial societies all over the world but primarily the UK and the USA.

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!

Local government rates go up followed by interest rates.

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.

I’ve been following the spread of microfinance for a while and have been getting involved with Kiva which has been a great experience. I have also noted the rise of social lending businesses such as Zopa, Prosper and even Facebook. Jason has written a good piece on the rise of new forms of financing.

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.

Oh dear it seems as if Bear Stearns may be in a little trouble as it coughs up $3.2bln to support one of its hedge funds exposed to the US subprime market.

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.