Showing posts with label Monetary policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Monetary policy. Show all posts

Monday, March 07, 2011

Free floating currencies - a burden?

Share |
Julia Gillard has come out in sympathy for those struggling Australians who she acknowledges are 'doing it hard' because of the strong AUD. We must acknowledge a number of things:
1. These 'strugglers' or 'straglers' if you prefer are benefiting from a strong economy in terms of strong capital inflows, strong business investment, strong domestic sales & confidence; most particularly compared to other countries. The country has low unemployment after all.
2. These people are benefiting from lower-priced imports, i.e. Higher import penetration, and the corresponding greater competition. Mind you, in a global market which is increasingly 'free', the currency factor is less significant. i.e. All produce is priced to global pricing parity, plus or minus a premium for transport costs.

This is of course one of the problems with a floating currency regime. It is a relative rather than an absolute standard of value, so you might wonder whether its a good idea. It induces competition in countries, demanding those who struggle to get better, whilst those who excel can relax. Importers are doing well now, but manufacturers might have a harder time if they are using local produce, otherwise they are forced to switch to imported produce. Its a balancing act. At the end of the day, it is a good thing.
The notion of Harvey Norman workers losing their jobs is a disruption; but its actually a good thing because its a wealth creation process called 'Creative destruction'. Australians are too skilled and over-priced to be working in a shop-front. They ought to be managing a process or setting up an online store, not doing things which some call centre agent in NZ, or even in the Philippines can do for 30% to 70% of the price, even if with some quality loss. When we retain people in Harvey Norman, there is a huge opportunity cost in several respects:
1. People are paying too much for products than they need - thus Harvey Norman is retaining high profit margins, but this gives him no incentive to compete, so he doesn't. People have fewer financial resources to spend on other things, i.e. The efficiency of their spending has fallen. Some disparities in pricing make a joke of inflation calculations.
2. People are performing inefficient process or production routines which ought to be done by less capable, less skilled people
3. People are remaining safe, when they should be encouraged to be aspirational, so they are not a drain on the rest of the economy.
The biggest drain on our economy are middlemen. The greatest drain is the 'unconditional' support you are forced to give to incompetent political leaders. Don't vote them out! They set up the system so you always get a dud. Push them out! Get in the streets and campaign.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

Friday, February 11, 2011

Abolishing the Fed is not the first step, its the last

Share |
Notwithstanding the intelligence and truth of what these guys say, they seem inclined to blow smoke up people. The notion that the voter is intelligent is more intelligent than Ben Bernacke strikes me as a poor explanation. The reality is that the current need to recapitalise economies is because:
1. The mistakes made years ago which voters and other vested interests did not object to
2. The ease with which governments can print money and create debt
3. The banks are just another vested interest group

The problem is that voters do not use their minds...they didn't a decade ago; they didn't two decades ago. If they did know, they would not vote for the type of monetary policy pursued by both sides of politics in the USA by the Democrats and Republican Party. The notion that we are going to be saved by a single member of the Republican Party - Ron Paul - strikes me as lunacy. This happened because voters are short-range thinkers. It happened because our political system rewards poor decision-making. Even the nature of the stimulus has been poorly invested. At times of low demand, it should have been invested in infrastructure like high-speed railways or energy efficiency measures. Not encouraging more consumption. The reality however is that the worst mistakes were made a decade ago when most people did not care that there was a problem. I know Jim Rogers has been ranting for at least 5 years (probably longer); I have been ranting for 10 years, and neither of us were alone. Its been in the works for a decade; but the voter listens to the uncritical mainstream media which has no interest in truth where it concerns government.
The solution is a meritocracy; thereafter to end the role of the Federal Reserve and to restore a tangible concept of monetary value - that is gold.


------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon
Resource Rent Tax
Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

ConvinceMe.Net - Anyone up for a debate?