Great article in the New Republic which breaks down the global financial mess in plain speak.
Most of my whinging has been about our Domestic Policy: Reduce the IRS to a minor agency by simplifying tax code; Return the Fed to its role as a clearinghouse between banks, and close the "window" to the big businesses who keep talking "poor mouth;" and modify laws to being Plain English so that there can exist bright lines that enable transparency, enforcement, and whistle-blowing (self-regulation).
What of Foreign Policy?
Well, sir, as Isolationist as my instinct are, the reality is that the actual value of the average fiat currency dollar in your pocket whizzes around the world once a day or more.
Therefore it begs definition that there really are no "Isolationists," anymore, and further no major power in the post-industrial economy could afford to be.
As in the article great minds, and Gordon Brown (who I admire, has a great mind, but is the Prime Minister-- so you have to have a cup of salt around for anything he will say, in spite of the fact that he was after all the Chancellor {Finance Minister} for Blair), are calling for a new Unification of the monetary system-- they refer to it as Bretton-Woods III.
I mentioned before that there needs to be a swords to plowshares mentality in the world for there to be avoided some great depression, and the penchant to harmonize and unify is a deep instinct among we human beings. That said, let us examine that there really hasn't been a "Free Market" in currency in modern times.
One good reason is that if you look at the aftermath of The Great War (WWI), The German Mark was deeply punished by the victors and was only brought out of depression by making ready for WWII-- Bretton Woods "I" aside. Currency and collusion between allies against a smaller nation can be a form of War.
On the other hand creating a Universal Fiat would essentially strip many powers of nations to regulate their economic and financial policy decisions... which is the consequence of losing a War, so is essentially a non-starter.
Therefore, as I mentioned before, Trade Zones and the trading parties should have the ability to create Defensive alliances (as in the creation of "Greece"), and conversely current Defensive Alliances (NATO, et. al.) should have the ability to create currency agreements in order to buy and sell at discount, prop up weaker economies in the alliance, and "attack" other economies.
If you remove the warfare from currency, then you will create a greater warfare (most probably, goes my thinking), so you must allow for regulated and controlled violence of the market that can be appropriately contained.
Simultaneous to these exceptions (for instance if NATO agrees it is a dollar denominated Alliance, then all decisions are made in dollars by that Alliance, even though some of those allies might rule in Euros, Pounds, etc.) should be bright line rules of the game for a semi-free form currency market which allows for nations to set policy (such a false rate of Yuan or Yen) towards their own betterment, yet somehow hold them to account. If for instance the Chinese insist in undervaluing their currency to increase exports, the deficits can not enjoy a knock on by the false values. This doesnt mean the Importing nation can not enjoy the discount on goods or services, but it does mean that the reconciliation of Real-versus-Declared value would suffer. (Hence those NATO Allies in that theoretical dollar denominated Defense would still be subjected to the Real Weight of the Dollar according to the rules, and thus affect the larger Commercial Economy.)
I threw out a lot of complex ideas which may not entirely make sense to even studied economists, because I am using my knowledge-- and a lot of it I didnt just get from reading books.
As for what a new Administration can do, well like others, I await the breath of fresh air (as did the G-20 last weekend).
No comments:
Post a Comment