Seelig Email to Department of Finance

Simon Carswell reported last Saturday on an email from Steven Seelig, who holds the position of Advisor in the IMF’s Monetary and Capital Markets Department, to the Department of Finance commenting on the draft NAMA legislation. The Irish Times obtained this email, along with other communications on NAMA, via a Freedom of Information request and there has been some discussion of it in the comments on this site.

Because the newspaper article only partly reported the text of the email, I asked Simon Carswell would he be willing to pass it on and he has kindly agreed. So here’s the full text of the communication. (Here’s the draft of the legislation he was commenting on )

For conspiracy theorists, the apparently blacked-out word on the second page is “excellent” – Simon had highlighted it in the copy he scanned.

Earnings Data for Ireland

The CSO has released a new and comprehensive survey on earnings patterns in the economy: you can find the release here.  The new Earnings, Hours and Employment Costs Survey (EHECS) results are comparable across sectors and include more detail on components of earnings and labour costs than is currently available. The data show interesting sectoral variation in earnings patterns and the relative roles of adjustment in hourly earnings and total hours worked in determining aggregate earnings dynamics in each sector.  Still, the survey still only relies on aggregated data for each participant in the survey, such that it does not reveal the precise earnings dynamics for specific worker types or occupations.

Prime Time Investigates: The Bankers

Congratulations to Oonagh Smyth and the team at Prime Time Investigates for producing an excellent documentary on what went wrong with the Irish banks. The programme, which has insightful contributions from a number of people including Governor Honohan, is now available online here. The programme is likely to increase the pressure on the government to have an official inquiry.

Dublin’s waste

There are three pieces on waste policy in today’s Irish Times.

According to the first, poor households in Dublin will no longer be exempt from waste charges. This makes a lot of sense. If one is worried about the impact of waste charging on household budgets, then one should increase benefits/tax credits. The present, to-be-abolished system mixes environmental and social policy, both of which are badly served as a result.

According to the second piece, the High Court ruled in favour of competition in household waste collection and against Dublin’s county councils who are both regulators of and operators in this market.

According to the third piece, Minister Gormley talks about the implications for the Poolbeg incinerator.

Inflation in 2000

Following on from Philip’s recent post on domestic demand, I dug out this paper I wrote in 2000 with Rodney Thom to see what I was saying at the time. Philip suggested I post the link as part of our ‘nostalgia series’, so here it is.

I’d say about 5 people read the paper. We got some things right and some things wrong.

The context was the incipient inflationary pressures already building up in the economy. Some thought inflation was due to one-off supply side shocks. Rodney and I argued that the inflation was due to excess demand, and that the correct response (given that the first best policy — raising interest rates — was no longer available to us) was restrictive fiscal policy.  We did recognise the political difficulties of cutting demand through restrictive fiscal policies at a time when the economy was booming. Sadly, that proved all too correct, but I don’t suppose that either of us anticipated the extent of McCreevy’s pro-cyclical folly.

We identified the risk of overshooting, followed by a hard landing, and I seem to recall that a few people at the time were worried about that — cf. the brief snippet of Krugman on this evening’s Prime Time. That wasn’t prescience, just basic macroeconomics.

One thing we got badly wrong was our assumption that if overshooting occured, and a hard landing ensued,  social partnership would provide the means for reducing wages and other costs right across the economy in a coordinated manner. (This was based on the late 80s/early 90s experience. It hasn’t happened. Rather than all jumping together, we have jumped or been pushed one group at a time, which is economically ineffective and politically corrosive.)  Worse, social partnership would soon become an important driver of pro-cyclical fiscal policy.

My conclusions from having gone down memory lane in this way is I guess a pretty obvious one: we don’t have either the fiscal or the labour market institutions that are required given EMU membership.