It’s all Cretan to me

Adam Creighton’s opinions fascinate me. When I used to receive his pieces of work in the Australian for free, I’d relish poring over them to tally the logical fallacies. (Adam-up, I say.) Regardless of the issue he was prosecuting (against a disability commissioner, the welfare state, or the inevitability of inflation from quantitative easing), I could almost guarantee that every time I picked up a Creighton piece I’d be taking the case for the defence. I’d never encountered a series of positions I opposed more comprehensively.

For a time, our continual, invisible disagreements irritated me. As a disciple of Hayek, Creighton appeared to provide example after “extraordinary example of how, starting with a mistake, a remorseless logician can end up in Bedlam,” to purloin Keynes’s evisceration of Hayek’s Prices and Production. In my weaker moments, I considered shouting childish epithets at his by-line, or otherwise punning on the Epimenides paradox, but I slowly realised that, like our respective role models, Creighton and I simply spoke different languages.

To be fair, Mike Wazowski is far more one-eyed.

Thus I was given an opportunity to appreciate his writing anew. Whereas once, I considered the windmills Creighton crafted to be a blight on the landscape, now I recognise that he was providing a renewable, sustainable flow of opinions to tilt at. Reading his columns in this mindset has not aligned our perspectives, but it has strengthened and sharpened mine. And for this, I owe Creighton a considerable debt. But it’s a private debt, so I trust he has no instinctive objection to it.

Australia-New Zealand Currency Union

Our divergence persists. Creighton and I are on opposite sides of the coin regarding his latest proposal, a trans-Tasman currency union. Much like the bilby, this idea typically remains underground for a long time before emerging, often in April, just in time for Easter (or Anzac Day). And much like the bilby (or that tortuous setup), it refuses to die.

Creighton identifies three ‘irrefutable and clear’ benefits of a currency union. It would:

  • Eliminate the bank fees associated with AUD/NZD foreign exchange transactions;
  • End these foreign exchange transactions altogether (the majority of which are ‘speculative flows’, largely unrelated to the ‘real economy’);
  • Abolish the Reserve Bank of New Zealand and cede that nation’s monetary policy to the Reserve Bank of Australia.

While these are facts, their benefits are debatable and the logic used to argue them deserves inspection.

Bank fees

Let’s follow Creighton’s lead by discussing his weakest point first. The fact that bank fees were the first flaw identified with separate currencies (before the elimination of transactions altogether) speaks to the free-marketeer’s natural aversion to fees, taxes, duties and other grains of sand in the gears of an otherwise pristine market economy. While I won’t argue against fees being a deadweight loss in this scenario, why should we stop at those incurred in currency trade? The logic that would combine Australia and New Zealand’s currencies in order to economise on transaction costs could just as easily be invoked to justify merging the equities of Australia’s major banks. Why not combine everyone’s shareholdings and have a single ASX listing, BigFourBanks (BFB)? The banks are structurally similar, their workers are mobile, they’re buffeted by similar shocks and their equity prices regularly move together.

This is a facetious example, but it should draw attention to the inefficiencies in the foreign exchange market which are far more egregious than fees and charges. Speculation might be a blight, but why not adopt a yet more interventionist remedy? The Australia Institute estimates that a Tobin Tax on financial transactions could help to reduce financial market speculation on all traded assets, and net the Australian government between $1 billion and $1.5 billion every year in the process. And we could call off the search for the inevitable native-bird-related nickname for the joint currency. (Though I’d respectfully submit the Crowe.)

In the name of King John, pay or burn.

Speculative flows

Foreign exchange speculation is unquestionably destabilising and, as it dwarfs the flows involved in international trade in goods and services, will typically deliver an exchange rate which is divorced from any of your preferred concepts of underlying ‘fundamentals’. But playing devil’s advocate, Creighton acknowledges that the very reason the currency union debate is re-emerging is because the Australian and New Zealand dollars are close to parity. Does this mean that the speculators have finally, if unwittingly, done the right thing by the ‘real economy’, revealing a true AUD/NZD exchange rate of unity? That would mean that this whole proposal has been prompted by a coincidence. Or does Creighton have the fatal conceit to divine the price of one New Zealand dollar, better than the myriad rational investors in the foreign exchange market? As other ‘wages and prices become more flexible’, why should we volunteer to fix the most important price in a small open economy?

Consolidating central banks 

This is the most contentious point in the piece, and one which I can’t agree with. Creighton celebrates the euro area (whose nations have ceded their currency sovereignty to the European Central Bank), for its apparent contribution to ‘price stability, competition and transparency’. I would hesitate to attribute either the fleeting successes or the ongoing woes of the eurozone (elevated unemployment and underemployment, tendency to deflation, and anaemic GDP growth) to a single cause, but the restrictions of the Maastricht treaty and the inability of constituent nations to draw cheques on their central banks have surely exacerbated the eurozone’s chronic deficiency of demand.

More importantly, in Creighton’s exposition it is unclear who determines New Zealand’s interest rate. In one sentence he acknowledges that, if its central bank were subsumed by Australia’s, ‘New Zealand would lose the ability to set interest rates’. But in the next he attributes the higher interest rates New Zealand has traditionally experienced to the risk premium investors attach to holding its more ‘marginal currency’. Giving Creighton the benefit of the doubt, I’ll assume he’s referring to New Zealand’s Overnight Cash Rate (OCR) in the first instance, and the schedule of bond interest rates in the second. But for as long as the RBNZ exists, the risk premium investors attach to the currency has no effect on the baseline interest rate in the economy. Rather than falling out at the intersection of the investment and saving schedules, the OCR is determined exogenously by the central bank, while investment and saving adjust to this rate via changes in income.

The Bottom Line

The case for a trans-Tasman currency union is not strong; nor is it strengthened by the arguments advanced above. The experience of eurozone nations should caution other countries against yielding their currency sovereignty, unless an equivalent fiscal authority is established in tandem. A union would indeed give New Zealand such a fiscal authority–Australia’s–so it would have more policy space than Greece or Spain, but much less than it enjoys now. Whether the New Zealand government would be content to assume the same fiscal status as an Australian state remains an open question, but one that is unlikely to be answered in the affirmative.

Creighton is correct to suggest that, while Western Australia and Queensland (the states consistently voted Most Likely to Secede) are often economically different enough from the rest of Australia to justify independent currencies, such an arrangement would be ‘ridiculous’. I agree. And for this reason, the Australian government has established a system of transfers to the states, which although imperfect, has no counterpart in the eurozone. State governments, like eurozone nations, cannot draw cheques on the central bank, so their expenditure relies on independently raised taxation revenue, income from the sale of real or financial assets, and–unlike the eurozone nations–transfers from the federal fiscal authority.

In becoming the ninth Australian state/territory, New Zealand would consign itself to an economic fate only slightly improved on that of the eurozone nations. While this would vindicate any journalist who might have previously drawn spurious parallels between the once-sovereign New Zealand and the non-sovereign Greece, the costs of a currency union to the Kiwis would surely outweigh this merely academic benefit.

Postscript: As so often, Wynne Godley argued along these lines most eloquently, in Maastricht and All That, which I highly recommend.

Advertisements
  1. Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Brews and Bacon

Chronicles of a Good Beer Fan

3spoken

Immortality by accident, if at all

alittleecon

There is an alternative

Bill Mitchell - billy blog

Modern Monetary Theory ... macroeconomic reality

Core Economics

Commentary on economics, strategy and more

Economist's View

Immortality by accident, if at all

EconoSpeak

Immortality by accident, if at all

Emergent Economics

Political economy and development

Fixing the Economists

Just another WordPress.com site

Fresh Economic Thinking

Immortality by accident, if at all

Great Leap Forward

Immortality by accident, if at all

heteconomist

Immortality by accident, if at all

interfluidity

Immortality by accident, if at all

John Quiggin

Commentary on Australian & world events from a social-democratic perspective

LARS P. SYLL

Non-ergodic, realist and relevant economics

mainly macro

Immortality by accident, if at all

Mike Norman Economics

Immortality by accident, if at all

NAKED KEYNESIANISM

Immortality by accident, if at all

New Economic Perspectives

Dedicated to modern money theory (MMT) and policies to promote financial stability and the attainment of full employment.

Noahpinion

Immortality by accident, if at all

NYT > Home Page

Immortality by accident, if at all

Paul Ormerod

Economist, Author, Entrepreneur

Peter E. Earl -- Eclectic Real-World Economics

Bringing together Austrian, Behavioural, Evolutionary, Institutional and Post Keynesian Economics

Rajiv Sethi

Immortality by accident, if at all

Real-World Economics Review Blog

Posts are by authors of papers published in the RWER. Anyone may comment.

Whistling In The Wind

Economics, Politics, Religion and Esperanto

Steve Keen's Debtwatch

Immortality by accident, if at all

Stubborn Mule

Obstinately objective

Stumbling and Mumbling

Immortality by accident, if at all

The Case For Concerted Action

Post-Keynesian Ideas For A Crisis That Conventional Remedies Cannot Resolve

The Center of the Universe

St Croix, United States Virgin Islands

This is Ashok.

reality in bits: economics, technology, and thought

Thomas Palley

Immortality by accident, if at all

Thomas the Think Engine

An economics blog

Thoughts On Economics

Immortality by accident, if at all

TripleCrisis

Immortality by accident, if at all

Uneasy Money

Commentary on monetary policy in the spirit of R. G. Hawtrey

%d bloggers like this: