Wrong, wrong and wrong again – a response to “Latvia: let the lat go”
The debate for or against a Latvian fixed exchange rate rages on. There are good pieces of analyses on both sides of the debate, there are less good ones, there are mediocre ones – and then there is Jonathan Ford’s “Latvia: let the lat go” from 29 July.
The article does not argue why the lat should be devalued –- fair enough, the arguments have been heard before. Neither does it mention all the potential risks of devaluation such as a currency collapse but I can live with that, too. But an 804-word article that contains no less than 10 – 10! – inaccuracies or outright wrong statements is highly objectionable.
For those who have read Mr. Ford’s article allow me to make comments on these 10 points.
“The central bank has been obliged to raise interest rates” –- no it lowered its refinancing rate from six percent to five percent on 24 March 2009 and to four percent on 24 May. And lat rates are not that important anyway for Latvians as most loans are in euro.
“… a host of non-Latvians … have urged the small Baltic state to cleave to its currency board system”. Latvia operates a fixed exchange rate system that allows the lat to fluctuate at +/- one percent around a parity of 0.702804 LVL/EUR; it is not a currency board. More importantly a host of non-Latvians have recommended devaluation (Nouriel Roubini and Kenneth Rogoff among others), arguing that maintaining the peg is a foreign plot is just plain wrong –- it is actually the Latvian authorities that have demanded this.
“…which pegs the lat at the wildly uncompetitive rate of 0.702804 to the euro”. Proof? I believe myself that the lat is overvalued but I haven’t seen any analysis pointing at it being “wildly uncompetitive”.
“Far from cutting spending and raising taxes, Western countries have done the opposite”. True –- and Latvia would have preferred that but due to an unsustainably procyclical fiscal policy in the boom days it is not possible as the ensuing budget deficits could not be financed as it cannot borrow in international financial markets.
Latvia can only maintain a budget deficit via the loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Union (EU); without those it would have to run a balanced budget which would be even more contractionary for the economy.
Mr. Ford argues, based on analysis from the 1930s that “those which clung on [to their pegs] became highly protectionist”. In the days of the EU and World Trade Organisation that analysis is hardly an indicator worth anything.
“As the de facto lender of last resort [the Germans], they had no desire to admit any more members to the currency bloc”. The lender of last resort is of course the European Central Bank and while Germany may or may not want more eurozone members, it is the Maastricht criteria and their interpretation that determines entry –- witness Slovakia that entered just half a year ago.
“This might set off contagion, with competitive devaluations across Central Europe” -– yep, and if everybody (or at least many) devalues, the impact on competitiveness will be minimal in the end and thus hardly worthwhile in the first place.
“…drafted protocols that automatically committed all the joiners to euro membership” – but the Latvians are not unhappy about this; on the contrary they crave eurozone membership!
“They know [the internal devaluation] it’s hurting, but it isn’t working” –- well, come and see for yourself! Wage decreases are the norm here!
OK, one is allowed to be against the euro or to believe that the IMF/EU package for Latvia is a sinister Brussels-led cabal –- but for Mr. Ford’s article to obtain at least a small degree of credibility it would be nice if it at least got the facts right.