Yesterday Julia Gillard became the first foreign leader to give a speech in Parliament. It was full of mateship and the usual joshing that is a theme for Australian-New Zealand relations. Beneath the jovial tone lay the theme of integration. This has been around for a long time, probably since the CER was first implemented back in 1983. It’s been somewhat on the backburner over the last 12 months as Australia has gone through a political shift but now the same theme is back on the table.

Is complete economic union likely? I addressed this back in September 2009 when it was last on the table. What has changed since then?

There has been a major shift in global political alignments. As the shift of economic power has moved from West to East, so has the political spotlight. Back in 2008 I noted cross border acquisitions from the East and that these signaled a major shift to a post-imperial world. That shift has continued apace with China rising to the fore, now the second largest economy in the world. For the ANZAC brothers that has major implications.

Being connected to the ASEAN has helped both Australia and New Zealand define its geo-political position in a post-Empire world, specifically post European Community integration. Asia is quite clearly the major focus in terms of trade and this has seen some interesting reaction from the old allies. This year we had a visit from William Hague, the British Foreign Secretary, along with his Defence colleague, Liam Fox. It was the first visit in almost 20 years and indicated that the UK was taking this shift East a little bit more seriously. Suddenly old friends were very much worth getting to know again. Previous to this we had a semi-royal visit from Hilary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, down under to sign the Wellington Declaration which put NZ back in the very, very good friends corner. And today we see the Treasury heads of the UK and Australia in town to meet with their NZ counterpart. This is of note as it is the first time they have met together.

So what does this all mean? Simply it’s a jostling for position and a reaffirming of old ties in  a very new world. This puts Australia and New Zealand in a very strong strategic position. We are friends of the old and the new world. We are well located geographically…out of the way but close enough. For the ANZAC buddies that poses some interesting questions. Stronger together, weaker alone or carry on as is?

We can see that the CER is being re-negotiated to allow of higher levels of non-reviewed investment which could mean a lift for corporate activity as well as a loss of company control. And this is really the crux of the matter. Do we want to control our own destiny? Lessons from Europe are all too stark in this regard. Sinking economies have no room to lower their currencies and so swing in the wind, completely reliant on bailouts.

Ultimately the people will decide on this, though its clear that further integration around common borders, regulations and practices is likely to continue. At what point does having separate currencies become a pain? Well ask anyone trying to transfer money between the two countries. You would imagine you could shift cash at minor spreads but actually you pay through the nose. Travelex is one the worst players in this market. Even market spreads are quite wide. So there is definitely a cost to doing business which might add up to 1-2% of overall activity.

A nation’s currency is ultimately a reflection of its sovereignty. The ability to issue your own coin is one the the most recognised symbols of nationhood and has often been as an economic weapon in the colonisation process. If you lose that ability then you lose control. It’s as simple as that. The way to overcome that is to just recognise that you are part of something bigger (in this case Australasia) and take the good with the bad. Personally I think it’s a tough decision to make. History tells me that having control over your own affairs is a good thing. But perhaps the mateship bond will swing views the other way. Perhaps it’s already happened. I’ll leave the final word to Peter Costello, the former Australian Treasurer, at the second Australia New Zealand Leadership Forum in April 2005 (“Crisis”, Bollard, 2010, 26):

“You guys in New Zealand have to get real. If you want to be part of a single economic market with us you can forget having your own banking system. Remember, you sold your banks to us: you don’t own your financial system any more. Leave the regulation to us”.

Strewth!!

“

Greetings earthlings……i was wondering how to kick off 2011 but was a bit stumped. I mean what’s new? Same old, same old. So i had a look back at my first post of 2010 and figured I’d say the same thing again but maybe add some colour this time. So here was my conclusion a year ago:

“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?”

So we saw the Fed continue to print new money and hand it to the banks so they could pay out decent bonuses again. All that new cash managed to pump up the stock markets to new highs and generate hot money flows into commodities and emerging markets thus creating quite nicely the set up for new bubbles. What could the Fed have done? Just directly credited the bank accounts of every citizen thus boosting bank deposits and giving people money to actually spend into the economy or pay down debt.

Oh well, maybe next time.

2010 has seen China flex its international muscles and appear more focused on international relations. And of course Vladimir Putin has been flexing his too but that’s more for Russian domestic consumption. But clearly there’s been an acknowledged shift in influence with the BRIC countries all putting their hands up. Europe has been a huge mess with Auntie Angela having to clear up after the  big party. 2011 will see more shifts as power moves from the USA and spreads all over the globe. I guess it doesn’t help when you national debt is $14trln and rising (great site by the way). How this all plays out will be very interesting but I imagine we will see another crisis within the US insurance market and more derivative catastrophes. There will be huge write offs and if someone owes you a lot of money you may be collecting thin air…..that’s the problem with land…you can’t take it away.

And 2010 was officially rather hot. Well tied with 2005 and 1998. Weather was quite unpleasant all around and the severe flooding in Pakistan, China and now Australia and Brazil. Don’t mention the big freeze in the US and Europe. There’s no answer to this really. Either we bite the bullet now and take action or we’ll just have to adapt and buy a Sealegs amphibious boat (dec: I am a shareholder in Sealegs).

So I think really it’s more of the same for 2011. It’s going to be a year of adjustment before the big one in 2012. We have an election here in NZ in November which might be interesting if we can get financial reform into the debate. Maybe all the politicians should have to watch this film and then discuss (more on this in my next post). Buckle up!

To the joy of conspiracy theorists everywhere, the new “United Future World Currency” coin was presented at the recent G8 summit in Italy. So far though its just a piece of alloy metal but hey value is in the eye of the holder.

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“.

Wokai is starting to get some nice news coverage and the video below is a good introduction to what they are trying to achieve and how the  local microfinance partners actually work.

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.

Listening attentively to a paper on Aid and the Millenium Development Goals at the NZAE ’09, it occured to me that perhaps the traditional aid model should be completely ditched. I let that thought swirl for a few moments whilst i considered the ramifications and then came back to the idea with a simple vision.

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.

Yekaterinburg could well be a name to remember much like Maastricht, Yalta, Bretton Woods and other places that carry major political history on the back of their relative obscurity. A few weeks ago the big 4 players, Brazil, Russia, China and India, met to in Yekaterinburg to discuss the vexed issue of the $, US assets and US global financial dominance.

As I’ve discussed before there is a major shift underway in the way the global market is structured. Not just in terms of currencies but also trade and influence. The BRICs have a powerful case to make: 40% of global currency reserves and almost half the world’s population (though Russia’s population is declining, a somewhat serious issue).

There is a strong feeling that the US has acted recklessly overt he last 30 years in flooding the world with $ and creating huge imbalances which have caused such chaos in global markets. So whilst there is always plenty of posturing and grandstanding, especially from the Russians, there is a real case for the US to answer:

- Global trade imbalances.

- Cowboy capitalism.

- Turbo boosted monetary expansion.

- Instability in global financial markets.

It’s also interesting that the meeting of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) was held at the same tim and the US was not invited even though it wanted to attend. There is a strong argument that there is no real alternative to the $ but that doesn’t excuse the facts. One dominant currency has not helped create a stable system. It has simply allowed to issuer to experience huge profits from seigniorage and wield extraordinary political and economic power.

And can we really take the rating agencies seriously? They are all US based organisations. Ultimately whether the $ loses influence or not depends on the alternatives. I still believe a commodity backed currency is a likely development, given the nations involved.

At the same time the development of local currencies will help create a more stable and complex system. For now though expect more talk about a $ alternative and expect it to be driven by the BRIC crew starting with the upcoming G8 summit in Italy.