Showing posts with label Malta. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Malta. Show all posts

Thursday, 2 May 2019

The ideology stikes back

"May you live in exciting times" goes the old Chinese curse. For decades since the fall of the Iron Curtain, most of us in Europe and the west have lived under a stable regime oscillating between centre-left and centre-right parties. If not in a two-party system like here in Malta, then in a system of political alliances dominated by centrist blocks.

This edifice that has been steadily eroding now shows signs of accelerating collapse. In Italy, France, Spain, Portugal and Greece parties that once dominated the political scene now share the opposition benches with their former rivals or share power with upstart new parties. In the United States and the United Kingdom old parties have been taken over from the inside or split down the middle and in Germany the establishment hangs by a thread.

The trend is clear; the dichotomy of centre-left and centre-right politics is at an end and voters are binning old parties for radical agendas and a return to ideology.

Ideology has always been a part of politics, but in the post cold war west it had become something of an after-thought. You could vote for a moderate that promised to increase the size of government through borrowing or for another moderate with the same plan and slightly different priorities.

This lack of differentiation must have bored many voters. However, until recently they mostly shied away from ideologically consistent parties like communists, anti-immigration parties and independence movements. These parties were always there and always had radical agendas, so why is it only now that the centre is being dumped for the fringes? Why is this happening in so many different countries at the same time?

Of course, sometimes the zeitgeist just happens to blow the winds of change in a particular direction, and future historians can only speculate and argue among themselves as to why a particular thing happened when and where it did. But to me it is quite clear what is going on, and understanding the cause of this transition does not fill me with hope for the future.

A similar thing happened before, not too long ago. After the Great Depression, many of Euorpe's moderate parties were defeated or taken over by radical agendas. The high unemployment and financial uncertainty angered voters who blamed their sitting governments for the malaise.

Voters punish the government and bring in the opposition. The opposition, also unable to magically improve the condition of the voters are also booted out. Voters start to cast their hopes further out as their frustration grows. Indeed it was common, as the Fascists and Communists knew, for the same voters to switch their vote from the far-left to the far-right and vice-versa. Such ideological inconsistency is actually consistent with the driver of their actions; frustration and desperation.

Hang on, you might say. Great depression era unemployment was massive and the world was gripped by a deflationary downward spiral. The economy in the west today might be a little flat, but we're not even in a recession, let alone a depression.

That's all true, however if you look beneath the surface of seemingly good ecnonomic data, a stealth depression lurks below and is entering its second decade.

Unemployment is nowhere as bad as it was in the depression, it is 8% in the Eurozone and below 5% in the US. However, that figure is misleading as it hides those who have dropped out of the labour force entirely and those who are underemployed. Shadowstats' more believable number puts unemployment in the US north of 20%.

Much worse are the governemnt's inflation figures. Hedonic substitutions, qualitative and seasonal adjustments allow governemnts to understate inflation. Their calculations ignore significant qualitative changes and shrinkflation. Here are some anecdotes: paying the same amount as you did last year for a new laptop counts as a massive saving as the CPU is faster. Your flight is €100 cheaper but the cost to add your seat, buy a meal and check in a bag are not captured in the goods basket. You pay 10% more for that bag of crisps, which now contain 20% fewer crisps.

This understating of inflation directly boosts GDP and gives the central banks cover to keep monetary conditions artifically easy. This easy money boosts asset prices which give an impression of prosperity and allows those who own assets to continue to live beyond their means. But what about those of us with no assets? Young people, loaded with student debt, look at house prices in dismay. They go to their part-time job and realise that at this rate, they will never move out of their parent's house. The parties of their parents created this mess, only the parties on the fringe are even willing to acknowlegde their plight.

So until we return to normal monetary conditions and suffer through the asset deflation we so desperately need, voters will continue to increasingly support radical agendas. There is no easy way out and it might already be too late, in some countries at least. The horses have already bolted and the best we can hope for is a rough landing and no wars.

Christchurch, UK, 2nd May 2019


TLDR: The transition to new political parties is a symptom of economic hardship

Wednesday, 7 November 2018

Bubble Bath

Looking at the Maltese skyline, one was hard pressed to find a view devoid of a crane. The construction industry has been the biggest industry in the country since the end of the socialist era. Indeed this made sense, a lot of pent-up demand was unleashed as the economy started to prosper and people stopped fleeing the malaise and started returning in larger and larger numbers.

But looking around today, one sees not a crane in every direction, but ten. Property construction, redevelopment, urban expansion and encroachment on ODZ areas are now happening everywhere. If you ask around, people are starting to sense that we have reached bubble proportions. But why? Why now and not ten years ago? What has changed? What’s going on? Is this normal?

To the inquisitor, a number of answers are ready supplied by eager opinionators. They are all wrong, and the real culprit escapes the blame. One popular explanation is greed. Greedy people, greedy developers, short-sighted profit-seeking, greedy politicians accepting bribes from greedy developers who only want to get rich quick. This is only half right. Yes developers are greedy, yes politicians are greedy. We are all greedy. We all want to get rich. The quicker the better. But why are we suddenly all so much greedier than before? We are not.

The other even more popular wrong answer points the accusing finger at the foreigner. I have been repeatedly told that the passport scheme specifically has resulted in an additional 10,000 rich new citizens who are buying up everything in the country. This is plain wrong as only a couple of hundred passports have been issued under citizen-for-investment scheme, besides which almost all of the newly minted citizens have availed themselves of their EU rights and moved on to where they really wanted to go in the first place.

If it’s not the passport scheme, it is other foreigners, Italians, Brexiteers, Germans, eastern Europeans and asylum seekers all moving here by the tens of thousands to grab a piece of Birkirkara while the going is good. This notion ridiculously overstates the demographic trends, which although the growth rate has increased significantly, the population has yet to breach the half million mark.

So if it isn’t speculators or foreigners or foreign speculators who is it that is to blame? The answer is to be found between the ears of a Italian man in Frankfurt. The reason for the extremely rapid rise in asset prices in Malta is the European Central Bank.

Turn the way-back machine back to 2008. The financial crisis was turning into the European debt crisis and Malta officially joined the Eurozone on January 1st. The debt crisis had been caused by earlier action by the ECB and the Fed to ‘save’ the economy from the dot-com bubble bursting almost a decade earlier. The far-too-low rate of interest in the Eurozone created massive construction booms in the PIGS countries and massive overborrowing by their governments and municipalities.

Malta was saved all this turmoil. Having the Maltese Lira, governed out of Valletta we played no part in the mania. The currency was pegged to the Euro to be sure, but interest rates kept pace with inflation reasonably well. But when we joined the Euro and suddenly interest rates collapsed at Frankfurt’s direction, trouble started brewing. And this is crucial - bubbles take time to form. Our property bubble didn’t materialise on joining the Euro on January 1st 2008. Ten years of negative real interest rates later, and now Malta resembles the 2008 Costa Brava.

The ECB would scoff at this. They would point out, rightly, that I do not have an economics degree, and that they, the experts, know best and have everything in hand. This would continue their remarkable streak of getting everything wrong all the time. The current ECB interest rate is at 0%, which makes the official real interest rate in Malta somewhere close to -2%. This insane interest rate alone is enough to fuel a speculative mania. However, the real interest rate is much much higher.

The official inflation rate of less than 2% is bullshit. The ECB is constantly reworking the formula, adding hedonic adjustments and substitutions to arrive at this absurdly low number. Indeed, at 2% inflation, Malta has seen rent prices increase at a rate of 47% in the years 2013 to 2016. That alone would blow the 2% number out of the water. So with real inflation running somewhere in the double-digits, the 0% interest rate becomes a dangerously irresponsible policy prescription.

Ah, but you say. Malta is not the only country in the Eurozone. What about the other 18 members? Well, of course you cannot compare Malta to Spain, which had a property boom go bust in 2008. Nor could you compare it to Germany, which has had much lower inflation. You could compare it very easily to the other country that joined the Euro on January 1st 2008, our sister in the sea, Cyprus. And wouldn’t know it, many Cypriots are starting to wonder if their unprecedented property boom is now a bubble. Two other countries Slovenia (joined the Euro in 2007) and Slovakia (joined 2009) are also experiencing bubble-like tendencies in their markets.

I haven’t seen this movie, so I cannot tell you how it ends. Well, not exactly, I have seen pretty much every bit of crap this director has put out and I know how it ends. The boom will bust and property prices will attempt to return to their inflation-adjusted trendline with a healthly pendulum overswing to the downside on the way. Until the ECB saves us again from a disaster of their own creation by going even easier for even longer.

At some point however, one straw is one too many and the camel’s knees buckle and collapse. Asset prices collapse and bankruptcies usher in a period of depression or the Euro is finally printed into oblivion.


Edinburgh, November 7th 2018


 


 TLDR: The ECB is the reason why Maltese property has gone ballistic







Monday, 27 August 2018

Paroli

Years ago, riding my bike down Utrechtestraat in Amsterdam, I came to halt having heard something I did not expect to hear. Something I hadn’t heard in a while and did not expect to encounter in Rembrandtplein. It was unmistakable and instantly recognisable; a language I and only a mere half million other people can speak. It was Maltese.

Maltese tourists in Amsterdam are hardly remarkable, but when one comes from such a small country, the sound of your countrymen tends to fill you with excitement rather than dismay. My serendipitous encounter made me feel happy to be part of such an exclusive club, a speaker of a linguistic gem of a language.

Maltese is itself unexpected. A semitic language that survived the 11th century Christian reconquest of southern Europe. For most of nine centuries, the language was not taught in schools, used in courts or even written down. Not the Norman French of the reconquerors, the Spanish that presided over the islands for centuries, the various Romance languages of the crusaders or even English was able to defeat Maltese. Unlike other non-sovereign languages in Europe like Welsh, Irish, Basque, Catalan, Occitan, Frisian and Swabian to name just a few, Maltese did not substantially decline and retained its semitic character.

However, since Maltese became a sovereign language, substantial concerns for its survival have emerged. Unfounded concerns, as the language’s ability to survive is clear, and these concerns have resulted in damaging policy actions by the government. Resources have been diverted to this culture war to rename streets and change road signs, with foreigners unsure how to get to Valletta and Gozo (now labeled Il-Belt and Għawdex) and locals not needing the signage in the first place.

Another salvo in the war against Maltese is the founding of the Maltese Language Council. This shows the conceited ignorance of the state. Here you have language, a beautiful, self-organising, bottom-up phenomenon that thrives if left unregulated. To then impose a top-down order from an all-knowing council is totally ignorant of linguistics and language history and is mired in the conceited belief that they can better steer the language then the speakers themselves. As the French and Germans can tell you, these language councils are at best, a waste of resources and at worst a danger to the vitality of a language. Ask an English speaker, and he might wonder what such a poorly-conceived council even was.

This culture war in favour of Maltese has in its crosshairs our other language, English. English has been so daemonised and marginalised that the level of English in Malta is actually deteriorating. Often, one can find old women who speak English more fluently than their granddaughters. In Spain, Germany, France and Italy, where the inhabitants traditionally speak very poor English, the situation is reversed. Levels of fluency are improving rapidly. In losing our claim to being a native English speaking country, we do great damage to our economy and culture.

English, after all, is not just another language. It just so happens to be the lingua franca of the world. When a Pole and a Portuguese person want to communicate, they will do so in English. There was a time when it would have been French and a time when it would have been Latin, but today it is English. Our ability to speak and write in native English is a coveted prize in this environment. The wealth of resources written in the English language dwarfs not just Maltese, but any other language on the planet. Indeed, more people speak English than any other language.

Will this always be the case? Probably not, but the regional lingua franca shifts only very slowly, and this is the first time in history that there is a global lingua franca. So as the culture war continues and politicians add fuel to the fire to benefit from misplaced nationalism, English is further neglected in favour of Maltese and this economic and cultural advantage over our neighbours further subsides. Losing native access to the that incredible wealth of knowledge will leave us poorer, culturally and fiscally.

Add to this an erroneous fetish of Maltese language purity. Maltese, being cut off from the Semitic world for 900 years lacks a myriad of vocabulary that has been lost or was not needed at the time of our severance. Luckily, the language was able to thrive by co-opting romance words and remarkably even semiticising them. Luckily, no language council was able to prevent this from happening. The turn of the 19th century saw us leave the orbit of the Kingdom of Naples and lose direct contact with Sicilian and Neopolitan speakers. These next 200 years, representing almost a quarter of the time Maltese split from Siculo-Arabic are just as important for the development of the language as the previous 600. English words entering the language and being semiticised are scorned as illegitimate by the purist fetishists. In reality, these words are just as legitimate as the Italian loan words and artificially re-borrowed Arabic inkhorn words that they insist on.

This tendency to reject English borrowings (even if they are 200 years old), championed by the ridiculous council, and to favour Italianate and Semitic words that have never been part of the language, or have fallen entirely out of use, will do Maltese a lot of harm. By insisting that Maltese is written in a specific way, using specific words, the council (if successful) will eventually create two distinct languages. A written language that is as defunct as Latin and written Arabic and hopefully a still living vibrant spoken language outside of their control. These attempts to plow the sea, at taxpayer’s expense, showcase the ignorance and conceit of government intellectuals.

This linguistic nationalism also marginalises the native English speaking minority. These people are 100% Maltese, who happen to have English as their native tongue. Proponents of the culture war tar them as snobs and traitors. While I’m sure, some members of this minority might be guilty of snobbery, even treason, it is still shameful to marginalise the whole lot of them and treat them as foreigners in their own country, despite our constitution.

All this wasted effort in trying to protect a vibrant, living language in no real danger (apart from that posed by bureaucrats) at the expense of a valuable asset that is slipping through our fingers defies belief. Yes, one can be Maltese, and a native English speaker without being a snob. Yes, one can celebrate the amazing linguistic gem that is Maltese without trying to cage the bird and make it sing.

Siġġiewi, 27th August 2018


Building a wall around a language will not make it great



TLDR: Government efforts to favour Maltese over English will harm both languages

Tuesday, 26 June 2018

State of Disunion

I don't vote. I would vote if there was a candidate or a party that didn't want to increase the cost or scope of government, but no such luck for me. My friends and family get upset around elections, were I duly go to the poling station to draw willies on my ballot paper. Choosing between two or more socialist parties that want to take more of our money and spend it on slightly different priorities, for me only validates their mandate. By turning up to vote and invalidating my ballot, I can vote for the electoral system without helping to put any of these pricks in power.

There was one exception, however. I did vote in 2004, saying yes to our country becoming the smallest member state of the European Union. I would also have voted to re-legalise divorce, but I was abroad for that particular referendum. At the time, I was a fan of the European project. I naïvely thought that Brussels could stop Valletta from running amok. The dream of being able to live and work anywhere in Europe, to turn our market of 500,000 people to one of 500,000,000 was intoxicating. Unfortunately, the Euopean project lured me, and so many others, in on false pretenses.

To be clear, I'm not sure I should have voted no. Nor I am sure I would vote to leave if that question were asked of me. EU membership has been good. Personally, it allowed me access to a much larger market for my services and allowed me to live and work in the Netherlands, Germany and the UK. For the country more broadly, it brought legitimacy to our institutions, with which were able to attract massive investment from abroad through a comparative advantage in taxation and regulation. This is possibly the first time we have ever had a comparative advantage in anything, except maybe corsairing in the 17th century. Without membership, our lax rules lose their edge over even friendlier jurisdictions like Panama and the Bahamas, at least to the European customer.

So what has been the price of membership? With project funding and cohesion funds and cushy jobs for our boys in Brussels and Luxembourg, it's hard to see the cost of the European project. But the cost is real and enormous. For starters, there is the price we pay as net contributors to funding the EU, to funding the drug and booze parties in Brussels and the incredible waste and inefficiency of the bloated bureaucracy. To funding massive agricultural subsidies that create (literally) mountains of wasted food. To pay for translating miles of regulation into a myriad of languages, including ours, which no-one, not even our lawyers will ever read in that language.

The waste, white elephants and scandalous expense reports are only the beginning. The regulatory burden is also astounding. Miles and miles of regulation in the name of health, safety, the environment and social 'justice' ensure that in many sectors, the EU will be at a significant competitive disadvantage. All that aside, the main cost is exacted upon us by the second most reckless monetary policy in the world. The Euro was eagerly adopted as the Deutschmark for everyone. unfortunately, we have all been lumped with the Lira. Alas, not the Maltese Lira, but the Italian one. The reckless ZIRP and NIRP policies and bond purchase programs have generated massive inflation. No, not an increase in consumer prices (although that too), but the real and original definition of inflation as evidenced by reflated stock and property markets to bubble levels, record prices at auctions, and most importantly record levels of government debt.

Euro membership has allowed our government to borrow and spend much more than it would have been able to otherwise. And no, there is no surplus. GDP growth that is slightly higher then the current account deficit is not a surplus, the debt is still increasing. ECB and EU policy have incentivised massive government debt growth and deliberately fueled inflation. And despite the marketing campaign, 2% inflation is not price stability and is not good for us.

But again, do these massive costs outweigh the massive benefits of membership that we have successfully reaped? For the moment, no, but the trajectory is very disconcerting. With the British leaving, will that be remembered as it is considered now, as Britain making a fatal mistake, or will the near future make them look prescient? There are dark clouds on Europe's horizon. The EU was supposed to be, as Churchill put it, the "United States of Europe". At the time, the US was highly decentralised, before the war the government accounted for a tiny fraction of GDP and state independence was paramount and celebrated as the laboratory of democracy. Unfortunately, we do not have the United States of Europe, but rather an attempt at the Brussels Hegemony, or a rehash of the 19th Century Frankfurt Parliament. The Frankfurt Parliament is obscure today, as it was an abysmal failure to assimilate the various German, Austrian and Bohemian states into a single country though regulation and inter-state compromise.

Indeed, the focus is shifting away from Britain (who will probably only replace the mistakes in Brussels with problems in London) towards the EU's eastern and southern flanks. The ECB's massive irresponsible gamble has bailed out the PIGS, but should they try to normalise monetary conditions, they will soon discover (if they don't already know) that you cannot solve a problem of over-indebtedness with more debt. And no, they cannot stay this easy forever, as even official 'liar' inflation rates are now close to their mandate and heading much higher in a hurry. Unable to solve the problem of out-of-control inflation and bankrupt governments down south simultaneously, the EU will have a difficult choice; not dealing with inflation will eventually make the Germans (and to a lesser extent the Benelux) throw in the towel, but a rise in rates will force real austerity on the south, which will surely respond with Grexit, Spexit, Portugo and Ciao. In the latter case, the PIGS will find that their old currencies, thought they can be printed, cannot buy prosperity.

The financial apocalypse aside, there is a growing rift between East and West not seen since the rusty curtain. The East is showing signs of independence, unfortunately largely motivated by racism. The exit of Britain (or Brexit, if you will) has upset the balance of power within the union. Allemagne and Frankreich now have only Malta, Ireland, Poland and others (depending on the issue) opposing the Brexit response. This response is massive centralisation. We can expect an increase in the regulatory/litigational clampdown on Ireland's and Malta's taxation and regulatory independence. We might see rules aimed directly at tax and regulatory 'evasion' as the Franco-Germans bring der hammar down. this will negate the main advantages to our membership and leave us with only the costs. This policy might see the exit of some countries in the East but Malta will most likely go along for the ride and then it will be too late for me to vote no.

Dingle, Ireland 26th June 2018

At the edge of Europe on the edge

TLDR: The European project is being betrayed by parastatists 

Monday, 8 January 2018

Absolute Corruption

As the smoke clears, the picture gets no clearer. What did she know? Was it a criminal gang? 
Was it someone in government? Is there even a difference? Corruption is, rightly, today’s hot-button 
issue. Many are angry, they should be. Many say corruption is rife, they are right. They clamour for 
change, but of what sort? Will electing the right people really make a difference?

The old aphorism is true: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I have heard nobody since
the tragedy ask the right questions or propose a solution that can work. Are we seriously trying to 
understand the nature of corruption? Will trying to do the same thing over and over ever yield different 
results?

Luckily, corruption is a solvable problem. To solve it requires an understanding of where it comes from. 
It does not come from bad people, it does not come from greed. We are all imperfect, we are all greedy. 
Corruption comes from power. To solve it, requires the confiscation of power from the political class and 
its rightful return to the people as individuals.

To remove all power from government is an absurd extreme, a straw-man that would suggest I am in 
favour of anarchy. But to understand the relationship between power and corruption is logical, to see it as 
a sliding scale; the more power, the more corruption, is borne out by the evidence. If we had less political 
power, we would have less corruption. Having no government power whatsoever is as undesirable as 
having no corruption whatsoever is impossible. Power corrupts, a little power corrupts a little.

So what then, specifically? Where to start? Government is responsible for many many areas that it was
previously not responsible for. This gives ministers and bureaucrats so many opportunities to award 
contracts to their friends, reward their backers and accept money under the table to help them make up 
their minds when deciding on policy.

In a simple and topical example, if the government was not in charge of energy procurement, there would 
be no way that any alleged wrongdoing would even have been possible in the Azerbaijani scandal. Do 
you think that shareholders in a private company would have accepted a CEO's decision to buy energy 
from anything but the best source? Alas, when it comes to the public interest, politicians, as well as 
everyone else, knows that what is good for them, is good for the country.

This is human nature, and it is a good thing, that when guided by the invisible hand of the free market, our 
self-interest guides us to do good to the general public, even though this was not our intention. To pine on 
socialist morality totally ignores this human nature, with predictable results. Alas again, we do not need 
to predict the results. Friends, we have seen this movie before.

Our choice then, is clear to me. One option is that we blame the few bad eggs or the many bad eggs, and 
change one colour of politicians for another. Hope in vain that this new crop of leaders is superhuman, 
un-human that they will self-sacrifice themselves for the greater good. This will not work, they will be as 
corrupt as those they replace, or more so. If they are not, they will become so.

Another option then is to dilute political power, separate and ring-fence it. More watch-dogs. Watch-dogs 
watching dogs. This is progress; there will be more people to bribe. Each one for less, to the extent of 
their power. It will also increase the cost of government. And does it even work? This has also been tried. 
In software we ask “who guards the guards?” A single point of failure is sufficient. If such re-organisation 
could work, the Soviet Union would have defeated corruption.

The right option is to open our eyes. Our leaders, past present and future, blue, red, green and yellow are 
not at fault. The fault is our own; for letting them get away with the usurpation of so much power. Of 
course it will corrupt them, have you not heard that power corrupts? If the recent tragedy was indeed the 
result of some government corruption, we should punish the political class collectively by never trusting 
them again with so much. The children have run amok, we have to take their toys away and return to the 
time when we took responsibility for ourselves. 

Leipzig, January 8th 2018



TLDR: 
The only effective way to reduce corruption is to reduce government power.

Clouds on Europe's horizon