Coppola Comment

  The crypto ecosystem has grown massively in the last three years. Many of those participating in it have made life-changing amounts of money - on paper, or perhaps more accurately on computer. But  the problem with paper gains is that they tend to evaporate like the morning mist when the market turns. The crypto market turned towards the end of 2021 and is now firmly in bear territory. Bitcoin has fallen from above $60,000 in November 2021 to barely $16,000 now. For anyone who bought Bitcoin near the top, that is a mammoth real loss. And even though it is not a real loss for people who bought Bitcoin in the bear market of 2018 and have HODLed for years, it is still a mammoth paper loss. No-one likes to see an unrealised financial gain wiped out by the markets before they can claim it.  Unsurprisingly, crypto people have been selling up in droves. For crypto investors to cash out their extraordinary gains, there must be real money in the system - dollars, euros, yen, pounds. But the c

 Stablecoins aren't stable. So-called algorithmic stablecoins crash and burn when people behave in ways the algorithm didn't expect. And reserved stablecoins fall off their pegs - in either direction. A stablecoin that does not stay on its peg is unstable. Not one of the stablecoins currently in circulation lives up to its name.  Don't believe me? Well, here's the evidence. Exhibit 1, USDT since the end of April: Exhibit 2, USDC over the same time period: (charts from Coinmarketcap) Both coins de-pegged on 12th May. Neither has returned to par. Stable, they are not.  And no, USDC is not "more stable" than USDT. A stablecoin that can't hold its peg when everyone is piling into it is no more stable than one that can't hold its peg when everyone is selling it. Indeed, since stablecoins can be created without limit, there is arguably much less excuse for a stablecoin de-pegging on the upside. Stablecoin issuers can run out of reserves, but they can't r

The world is saving like crazy. Corporations are building up cash mountains that they can’t or won’t invest in expanding their businesses. Individuals are building up pensions and precautionary savings. Governments, especially in developing countries, are building up FX reserves. The “ savings glut ,” as former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke dubbed it, shows no signs of dissipating. It is sloshing around the world looking for a productive home. But there isn’t one - or at least, not one that offers the safety that fearful investors desperately crave. That, fundamentally, is what is driving down the returns on assets. It is also the primary cause of the wide US trade deficit. The President likes to think that the reason for the US’s persistent trade deficits is unfair trade practices and currency manipulation. And for some countries, these are undoubtedly contributing factors. But the biggest reason by far is the global dominance of the dollar, and above all, the pre-eminence of dollar

This post was first published on Pieria in July 2013. I have re-posted it here on Coppola Comment because it now seems terribly, terribly timely.  I have been reading James Rickards' book Currency Wars . In this, Rickards reviews the use of fiat currency over the course of the last century, and concludes that the present global fiat currency system is inherently unstable and on the point of collapse. He calls for return of the gold standard to stabilise firstly the US dollar and, following on from that, international trade currency. I am no historian, but the first thing that struck me about this book was its partial view of history. Rickards does not discuss the reasons for the classical gold standard being abandoned in 1914. Indeed since he writes almost entirely from an American perspective throughout this book, the European historical dimension is seriously neglected. There are two major omissions:  - the background to World War I and its consequences  - the collapse

How many countries can really claim to have full monetary sovereignty? The simplistic answer is "any country which issues its own currency, has free movement of capital and a floating exchange rate." I have seen this trotted out MANY times, particularly by non-economists of the MMT persuasion. It is, unfortunately, wrong .  This is a more complex definition from a prominent MMT economist: 1. Issues its own currency exclusively 2. Requires all taxes and related obligations to be extinguished in that currency 3. Can purchase anything that is for sale in that currency at any time it chooses, without financial constraints. That includes all idle labour 4. Its central bank sets the interest rate 5. The currency floats 6. The Government does not borrow in any currency other than its own. This appears solid. But in fact, it too is wrong.   The big hole in this is the external borrowing constraint - item 6 in the list. If a government genuinely could purchase

Skewering Patrick Minford has become something of an economists' bloodsport. I admit, I have done my fair share of Minford-bashing, though I do try to stay away from trade economics. Others are much better at lampooning Minford's antediluvian approach to trade economics than me. But when Minford starts pontificating on the effect of currency movements on the balance of trade, I can't resist getting out the shotgun. Minford is appallingly bad on anything that involves foreign exchange. He just doesn't seem to understand how floating exchange rates interact with trade dynamics and capital flows. So it is unsurprising that his latest venture into this complex subject is as disastrous as the last . Here is Minford, in the Express , talking about Brits and their holidays: The mood of British consumers is good, reflecting the fact that the economy continues to grow and create record employment. A staycation is best because of the Brexit devaluation, which makes Britis