After the titanic financial and governmental blow-out, Iceland seems to have found new footing. A caretaker coalition government has been formed, to manage the nation until elections in April. Heading the coalition is Prime Minister Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, the first openly sexual minority national leader in modern history.
Such firsts seem to be coming faster as the Depression deepens: the United States has recently elected Barack Obama as President. Perhaps such changes will become ever more commonplace in the world, as growing financial concerns override bigotry and social divisiveness. It's a sad commentary that it took a depression to help forge these social changes...
Nevertheless, we feel Ms. Jóhanna seems to be a strong and capable leader. We look forwards to seeing what the Jóhanna Government will do for Iceland in the coming months. We also look forward to the Obama Administration over the next four years; we aren't holding our breath about his policies, but we might be wrong in our estimation of him.
Showing posts with label iceland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iceland. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Racing to the Next National Blow-Out
As the financial hydrogen bomb cloud over Iceland begins to fade, her citizens are beginning to adjust to life in a long, cold nuclear winter. Surrounded by a glow-in-the-dark landscape, and a currency that burns to the touch, they've begun to pick over the ruins of their previous life. With a new coalition government in the works, and the age-old practice of whaling to provide jobs, Iceland will probably pull through... though she will be vastly changed. We hope they can find some whales.
Frankly, though -- and not to seem callous -- Iceland was a weak hand. One can call upon the Galbraith Financial Principle: the best and biggest will fail last. Iceland was neither biggest, nor the best; she was merely the first country squashed flat by the 2007 Depression. The question one should be asking is not how will Iceland pull through, but rather, who's next. This piece has a very good list: Great Britain, Latvia, Greece, Ukraine, Nicaragua. We would add Mexico to this list; however, these are probably the next countries to go.
Personally, we would put our money on Great Britain: she's in rough shape, and with the annihilation of the pound sterling in the works, the Brown Government could very well go to pieces a la Iceland. When governments say they aren't concerned about the value of its issued currency, bad things can happen. The Brown Government may feel it's on top of the situation, but it's no more in control than Zimbabwe's.
Then there is the terrible crime of hubris: Mr. Paul Marshall recently told a Treasury committee that a Madoff scandal in the U.K. is "very unlikely." Funny, but we remember Mr. Madoff himself saything that very same thing... Big investors are assuring the Brown Government that there is no "U.K. Madoff," but if the government believes that load of lies... they're unworthy of governing.
Frankly, though -- and not to seem callous -- Iceland was a weak hand. One can call upon the Galbraith Financial Principle: the best and biggest will fail last. Iceland was neither biggest, nor the best; she was merely the first country squashed flat by the 2007 Depression. The question one should be asking is not how will Iceland pull through, but rather, who's next. This piece has a very good list: Great Britain, Latvia, Greece, Ukraine, Nicaragua. We would add Mexico to this list; however, these are probably the next countries to go.
Personally, we would put our money on Great Britain: she's in rough shape, and with the annihilation of the pound sterling in the works, the Brown Government could very well go to pieces a la Iceland. When governments say they aren't concerned about the value of its issued currency, bad things can happen. The Brown Government may feel it's on top of the situation, but it's no more in control than Zimbabwe's.
Then there is the terrible crime of hubris: Mr. Paul Marshall recently told a Treasury committee that a Madoff scandal in the U.K. is "very unlikely." Funny, but we remember Mr. Madoff himself saything that very same thing... Big investors are assuring the Brown Government that there is no "U.K. Madoff," but if the government believes that load of lies... they're unworthy of governing.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
What is Deflation?
There is, at present, a raging debate in the blogosphere and elsewhere as to whether the economy has entered a period of inflation or deflation. The conflict is not helped by the fact that there are no generally accepted definitions of these two concepts. We will attempt to create a definition that will provide a framework for analysis of various viewpoints.
First of all, the most useful definition of inflation and deflation would explain them as two sides of the same proverbial coin. A naive definition would call inflation, rising prices; and deflation, falling prices. Unfortunately in the real world, the prices for all sorts of things rise and fall continuously for a wide variety of reasons. Many analysts attempt to reduce their definitions to narrow, easily observed phenomena, i.e. official defined money supplies, or indices of consumer prices. Much of the contention arises over what is being observed.
Inflation and deflation could be said to be something that is hard to define but, like pornography, we know it when we see it. In that spirit, we define deflation as pervasive, structural falling of costs as measured by the currency across a broad range of economic activity; and inflation as its inverse.
By pervasive, we mean costs therefore do not just refer to retail prices, but also asset prices, wholesale prices, producer prices, and most critically wages and rents (including profits and interest). By structural, we mean that economic activity is inherently complex. Making money has many costs embedded within it, and what one pays out axiomatically ends up as many multiple others' income. This aggregation of costs, wages, interest, and so forth we call the structure.
Is deflation happening in the 2007 Depression? What costs have fallen so far? Obviously, the cost of many securities, houses, and commodities. Not so obviously, the cost of interest on national debts (with some notable exceptions, such as Iceland), and corporate profits. What about costs that are rising? The U.S. minimum wage went up in 2008 by 12 percent, and in 2009 will be going up a further 11 per cent; U.S. Postal first class stamps; and, as a personal example, our water and sewer utility service.
The picture is once again, conflicting trends. Over time, one of these trends will emerge the 'winner'. In the mean time, falling prices of certain things might be called 'deflationary', but that is very conjectural. For example, if the price of a commodity falls so much that it is unprofitable to produce it, the fall will simply be what is known as a price spike down. The price will then have to rise again, if people want to continue using the item. This is hardly deflationary.
Likewise, incomes will likely soon be shown to be falling, and some may call that evidence of deflation, but it might just be people becoming poorer. If what people want to buy does not also become more affordable, then there is no deflation.
It is our opinion that the 2007 Depression will probably not be deflationary. Two significant factors are at work to ensure that outcome. First, it is the stated objective of monetary authorities everywhere to prevent deflation. Second, many costs (such as minimum wages or social security benefits) are fixed by law, and even more costs, contractually over long periods of time.
It is also our opinion that the 2007 Depression will probably be, overall, strongly inflationary, if not even hyperinflationary. We believe that the overhang of money, and money-like securities (bonds, CDs, money market funds, etc.) from the bubble years combined with central bank efforts to prevent deflation will create a surplus of currency chasing a quantity of goods and services which is declining due to contracting production. In other words, when more money chases fewer goods, the outcome is inflation, not deflation.
First of all, the most useful definition of inflation and deflation would explain them as two sides of the same proverbial coin. A naive definition would call inflation, rising prices; and deflation, falling prices. Unfortunately in the real world, the prices for all sorts of things rise and fall continuously for a wide variety of reasons. Many analysts attempt to reduce their definitions to narrow, easily observed phenomena, i.e. official defined money supplies, or indices of consumer prices. Much of the contention arises over what is being observed.
Inflation and deflation could be said to be something that is hard to define but, like pornography, we know it when we see it. In that spirit, we define deflation as pervasive, structural falling of costs as measured by the currency across a broad range of economic activity; and inflation as its inverse.
By pervasive, we mean costs therefore do not just refer to retail prices, but also asset prices, wholesale prices, producer prices, and most critically wages and rents (including profits and interest). By structural, we mean that economic activity is inherently complex. Making money has many costs embedded within it, and what one pays out axiomatically ends up as many multiple others' income. This aggregation of costs, wages, interest, and so forth we call the structure.
Is deflation happening in the 2007 Depression? What costs have fallen so far? Obviously, the cost of many securities, houses, and commodities. Not so obviously, the cost of interest on national debts (with some notable exceptions, such as Iceland), and corporate profits. What about costs that are rising? The U.S. minimum wage went up in 2008 by 12 percent, and in 2009 will be going up a further 11 per cent; U.S. Postal first class stamps; and, as a personal example, our water and sewer utility service.
The picture is once again, conflicting trends. Over time, one of these trends will emerge the 'winner'. In the mean time, falling prices of certain things might be called 'deflationary', but that is very conjectural. For example, if the price of a commodity falls so much that it is unprofitable to produce it, the fall will simply be what is known as a price spike down. The price will then have to rise again, if people want to continue using the item. This is hardly deflationary.
Likewise, incomes will likely soon be shown to be falling, and some may call that evidence of deflation, but it might just be people becoming poorer. If what people want to buy does not also become more affordable, then there is no deflation.
It is our opinion that the 2007 Depression will probably not be deflationary. Two significant factors are at work to ensure that outcome. First, it is the stated objective of monetary authorities everywhere to prevent deflation. Second, many costs (such as minimum wages or social security benefits) are fixed by law, and even more costs, contractually over long periods of time.
It is also our opinion that the 2007 Depression will probably be, overall, strongly inflationary, if not even hyperinflationary. We believe that the overhang of money, and money-like securities (bonds, CDs, money market funds, etc.) from the bubble years combined with central bank efforts to prevent deflation will create a surplus of currency chasing a quantity of goods and services which is declining due to contracting production. In other words, when more money chases fewer goods, the outcome is inflation, not deflation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
