Categories
Economics Politics & government

[1959] Of who is right?

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams

Categories
Economics

[1958] Of will we see the reintroduction of RM1 coins?

Over at the website of Bank Negara Malaysia — the central bank of Malaysia — there is an inconspicuous survey. The survey begins as it should: it informs readers of the purpose of the survey. The purpose is quite simple: to gauge public’s opinion on some possible changes to the Malaysian coins.

A redesigned coin series!

Oh so I thought until I went through the survey. The real objective of the survey is to gauge public’s opinion of the possibility of reintroducing RM1 coins in the market.

Reading through the survey, there is one possible rationale for such reintroduction because one question asks: If the replacing of the RM1-banknotes with the proposed RM1-coin would result in substantial cost savings to the country, which of these statements best describe your preference?

Hard to disagree with reintroduction if that is the rationale but I am wary of flip-flopping policy. Frequent changes to the coins and banknotes can be confusing for mere mortals on the streets.

Not too long ago in this very decade, the RM1 coins were taken out of circulation in favor of RM1 banknotes. If coin-form enjoys cheaper production cost compared to banknote-form, why were the coins phased out of the market?

If the cost of metal vis-à-vis paper or plastic contributes to the answer, I prefer to stick with the current banknotes. Once the economy is out of the woods, prices of metal are likely to go up again. That will again push coins out of circulation in favor of banknotes, if cost is the sole consideration.

But this may be a weak argument on my side. Cost should be a consideration and if BNM can adapt to changing variables, the users should too. Surely for a libertarian like me, opportunity cost is of concern. Furthermore, adaption or re-adaption of RM1 coins is likely to be painless anyway, probably with the exception of those teller machines.

So, adaption is not my main argument against RM1 coins.

The main argument is the weight of the coins. RM1 is probably the most popular denomination for the common people. Having a bagful worth of coins maybe a good idea if the BNM plans to force those lazy bastards who get on the elevator to get to the immediate next floor to do some extra physical movement. For those of us who are less gluttonous in their diet, the extra weight will be a drag.

But that is just me. How about you?

You can help the BNM decides by visiting their website[1] (it is under the Updates section on the right) or directly to a third party website[2] where the survey is actually hosted.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — Bank Negara Malaysia is at www.bnm.gov.my.

[2] — [Public Opinion Survey: Third Malaysian Circulation Coin Series Project. Bank Negara Malaysia. Assessed April 21 2009]

Categories
Economics

[1956] Of somebody is raising some money

Have you ever wondered how the Malaysian government plans to finance its stimulus package as well as its fiscal deficit?

Well…

KUALA LUMPUR: The RM2.5bil Sukuk Simpanan Rakyat government bond launched Tuesday is all snapped up. [RM2.3bil Sukuk bonds snapped up in 2 days. The Star. April 17 2009]

How about borrowing from PNB?

Permodalan Nasional Bhd (PNB), the country’s biggest fund manager managing RM76 billion worth of funds, will offer 3.33 billion new units of Amanah Saham Malaysia (ASM) and two billion Amanah Saham Wawasan 2020 (ASW 2020) units, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak announced today. [PNB offers 5 billion unit trust. Bernama via The Sun. April 20 2009]

Show me the money!!!

Malaysia: The government will today auction 4 billion ringgit ($1.1 billion) of Shariah-compliant bonds maturing in 2012. Bidding closes at 11:30 a.m. local time. The securities yielded 3 percent in pre-auction trading yesterday. Industrial production in February fell for a sixth month, declining 14.7 percent from a year earlier, a government report showed yesterday.

The yield on the 5.094 percent note maturing in April 2014 slipped one basis point to 3.66 percent, according to Bursa Malaysia Bhd. [China, Malaysia, South Korea, Thailand: Asia Local Bond Preview. Lilian Karunungan. Bloomberg. April 10 2009]

Oh, oh, oh…

The issuance of government bonds is expected to leapfrog by 80% this year to a gross amount of RM90bil. [Issuance of govt bonds expected to jump to RM90bil. Yap Leng Kuen. The Star. April 20 2009]

Are you keeping track?

Categories
Economics

[1954] Of what if ownership to specific bills cannot be ascertained?

Negative nominal interest rate is typically seen as impractical because nobody with profit as motivation would lend at a discount. The borrowers would hoard money at the expense of the lenders, bringing huge losses to the lenders. In a way, the consequence is like an option with unlimited loss. As a result, a supposed lender would rather hold on to their money instead of lending the money. Rather than have the borrower hoards money, the lender decides to hoard money instead.

Greg Mankiw today at the New York Times repeated an idea he blogged about in mid last month[1] to circumvent that restriction by imposing cost on holding money that is higher than the cost of lending at a discount:

At one of my recent Harvard seminars, a graduate student proposed a clever scheme to do exactly that. (I will let the student remain anonymous. In case he ever wants to pursue a career as a central banker, having his name associated with this idea probably won’t help.)

Imagine that the Fed were to announce that, a year from today, it would pick a digit from zero to 9 out of a hat. All currency with a serial number ending in that digit would no longer be legal tender. Suddenly, the expected return to holding currency would become negative 10 percent.

That move would free the Fed to cut interest rates below zero. People would be delighted to lend money at negative 3 percent, since losing 3 percent is better than losing 10. [It May Be Time for the Fed to Go Negative. Gregory Mankiw. New York Times. April 18 2009]

I am having trouble imagining how this would work if a person or an entity does not hold cash but instead have all of their money in the banks. How exactly does this proposal work if ownership of wealth does not lead to ownership of specific bills?

Without specific ownership to a particular bill, identifying which bills to be taken out of circulation will be a problematic exercise. I foresee that by the time the time for out-of-circulation announcement arrived, everybody will place their cash in the bank, eliminating proof of ownership of particular bills to a person or entity. In effect, such act will transfer the risk of discounted face value to the banks.

To address that, it may be good to just eliminate any bills. To imitate the effect of the proposed mechanism where digits play a role, 10% (bills with a particular digit will see elimination; there are 10 digits; hence 1 out of 10) of bills should be removed from circulation instead irrespective of their serial number. That however sounds as if, regardless of level of spending, everybody will be hit with an expected 10% loss of wealth, unless a person or an entity spent all of their wealth.

Also, with money taken out of circulation, would that not increase the interest rate, running contrary to the idea of stimulating spending? This question is probably unimportant because the Federal Reserve could easily reprint the same amount of cash taken out of circulation only with different serial numbers.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — [Reloading the Weapons of Monetary Policy. Greg Mankiw. March 19 2009]

Categories
Economics

[1937] Of Brown, Obama and permanent interest

Libertarians typically have no reason to protest the typical annual meeting of Group 20 (G20). G20 is of course the grouping of the richest and most influential countries in the world. This year’s meet up in London however is not a typical gathering. It is extraordinary because of the global economic turbulence we are witnessing at this very moment. In trying to address the problem, both the Obama and the Brown administrations are advocating large spending and they will likely call for others to do the same at the G20. This call — probably made for the first time in recent memory — gives libertarians a reason to join the protest against the G20, particularly, against the US and the UK.

Both administrations have been building the spending momentum for weeks, if not months now. Indeed, both countries are leading the way in economic stimulus with government spending as a major pillar. Much has been spent but both English-speaking countries — especially the Obama administration — content that too many are not spending enough. The idea is that the problem is not spending too much. Rather, it is about doing too little.[1]

In Malaysia, the Finance Minister Najib Abdul Razak has unfortunately embraced that idea. With as much as RM67 billion worth of stimulus plan with another RM5 billion injected into the equity market with much opacity by the Malaysian government, the credential of the expected next administration of Malaysia — the expected Najib administration — as a big spender is not in question. This is by no mean that Malaysia is following the footstep of the US and UK. Indeed, the current administrator of Malaysia is gloating by the fact that they did it first during the Asian Financial Crisis when the US was dead against it. The Malaysia’s administration takes the current trend as a justification of their past action.

Momentum or not, both Obama and Brown administrations’ effort to lobby for more spending from other countries is meeting resistance, especially from Europe and Latin America. For regions not known for their love for free market, this is certainly refreshing when the traditional advocates of free market are taking steps in the wrong direction.

Germany called United Kingdom Prime Minister Brown’s method as crass Keynesianism.[2] Although eventually capitulating by increasing its spending but still short from what the Brown and the Obama administration had hoped for, Germany was unhappy at what they saw as them bailing out imprudent others. Germany had worked hard to keep its accounts in order and it despised the idea of spending their money to correct others’ mistakes, while undoing Germany’s successes.[3]

Czech Premier who also holds the presidency of the European Union went as far as calling Obama’s call for greater spending as the road to hell. He has been reproached by other European leaders for the harsh words but nevertheless, it exhibits the sentiment of the member states of the European Union.[4]

In Latin America where Brown and later the Vice President of the United States Joe Biden flew down earlier, both faced similar but more politely put opposition. The hero of the moment was Chile, as President Michelle Bachelet, an economic left, practically rehashed argument forwarded by the Conservative Party led by David Cameron in the United Kingdom to Brown.[5]

Judging from the results of these meetings, both Obama and Brown are likely to meet heavy resistance at the table of G20 when it comes to how to address the global economic crisis.

In all likelihood, the reversal of roles probably has little to do with philosophical difference and much to do with the fact that the economic crisis has unequal effect across the world. In Europe unlike the United States, far more comprehensive social safety nets are in place. The automatic pervasive mechanism as advocated by economist John Taylor is already in place.

Germany meanwhile had saved enough in good times that they believed that the country was able to ride on the wave safely. The same argument is applied by Chile when Bachelet effectively said no to Brown’s call for support for greater spending, which he is expected to repeat at the table of G20.

For Asian countries especially for the export-driven economies, while the pain is undeniable, it is unlikely to go as bad as in the US. And indeed, the different nature of economic crisis in Asia demands different solutions. What the US and the UK are asking is but only a one-size fit-all policy.

Also, there is a sense of the often used German word which has found its way to mainstream English language: schadenfreude. Schadenfreude means pleasure derived from watching others’ misfortune. The latest prominent leader seemingly to enjoy the scenario is the Brazilian President when Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. He reminded all that this crisis was caused by “white people with blue eyes.”[6] This schadenfreude however has become excessive lately and risks of becoming masochism.

For libertarians, the opposition mounted against the US and the UK is something to be supported of, even when the causes of opposition differ. As it goes, there are no permanent allies and no permanent enemies. There are only permanent interests.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — In this crisis, doing too little poses a greater threat than doing too much. Any sound economic strategy in the current context must be directed at both creating the jobs that Americans need and doing the work that our economy requires. Any plan geared toward only one of these objectives would be dangerously deficient. Failure to create enough jobs in the short term would put the prospect of recovery at risk. Failure to start undertaking necessary long-term investments would endanger the foundation of our recovery and, ultimately, our children’s prosperity. [Obama’s Down Payment: A Stimulus Must Aim for Long-Term Results. Lawrence Summers. Washington Post. December 8 2008]

[2] — Mr Steinbruck questioned why Britain was “tossing around billions” and closely following the high public spending model put forward by 20th Century economist John Maynard Keynes.

“The switch from decades of supply-side politics all the way to a crass Keynesianism is breathtaking,” he said. [Germany questions UK rescue plan. BBC News. December 11 2008]

[3] — German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in a speech to Germany’s parliament on Thursday that her government was doing more than most to support the world economy through higher spending and lower taxes. Germany’s stance could come under pressure from financially weaker countries within Europe as their economies sink deeper into trouble, economists say.

Struggling EU countries range from Ireland and Spain, where housing-market bubbles have burst, to Hungary and Latvia in the continent’s post-communist East, where capital flight has forced governments to seek IMF aid.

Although Germany is in its worst recession in 60 years, Europe’s biggest economy has relatively strong public finances and enjoys the trust of capital markets.

That means Germany could be doing more to raise its domestic demand through higher government borrowing, say critics. Germany’s reluctance to do so means its neighbors’ recessions will be worse than necessary, says Julian Callow, European economist at Barclays Capital. [EU Rebuffs Calls to Increase Fiscal Stimulus, Aid. Marcus Walker. Adam Cohen. Wall Street Journal. March 20 2009]

[4] — BERLIN, March 25 — The president of the European Union on Wednesday ripped the Obama administration’s economic policies, calling its deficit spending and bank bailouts “a road to hell.”

The comments by Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek of the Czech Republic, which holds the E.U.’s rotating presidency, startled some U.S. and European officials, who are preparing for President Obama’s visit next month to several European cities, including Prague, the Czech capital. [E.U. President Blasts U.S. Spending. Craig Whitlock. Washington Post. March 26 2009]

[5] — Gordon Brown suffered another setback over his diplomatic offensive yesterday, as the Chilean president inadvertently echoed Conservative attacks on the prime minister’s handling of the economy. [E.U. President Blasts U.S. Spending. Craig Whitlock. Financial Times. March 26 2009]

[6] — Mr Brown’s decision to use the South American leg of his trip to call for a G20 $100bn (£70bn) deal to support world trade was overshadowed when Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the Brazilian president, blamed the financial crisis on “white people with blue eyes”. [E.U. President Blasts U.S. Spending. Craig Whitlock. Financial Times. March 26 2009]