Greece, as any nation, is represented by is the sum of its public and its formal and informal private sector.

Sir, Martin Wolf in “Time for common sense on Greece” June 22 makes a clear case for why common sense should not be delayed more than it already has. Even the argument that he qualifies as “right” namely that there is a “net transfer of resources into the Greek public sector” is doubtful if the Greek public sector does not merit such transfer.

A World Bank report states “it has been reported that Greeks already hold EUR 250bn in Swiss banking accounts and that the private-wealth capital outflow from the country is ongoing.” If we were just to suppose that all that private money is invested in public sector debt of Germany and France, and that the banks of Germany and France hold that same amount in Greek public sector debt… the question of who is better off in the case of a Greek public debt default, becomes a truly debatable one, since a nation is, at the end of the day, the sum of the public and the formal and informal private sector.

I mention this since in my country, Venezuela, I witnessed how foreign banks in the late 70s and early 80s trampled on themselves in order to lend to the Venezuelan government and, what finally saved the nation, was that the private Venezuelans did not believe in such nonsense and kept their money in safer overseas investments.

Martin Wolf’s savings are not much different from China’s or Germany’s

Sir Martin Wolf referring to the surpluses of countries China and Germany writes “they cannot have both safe foreign assets and huge surpluses”. Why not? It is obvious that persistent surpluses do create special difficulties but these are faced by all investor, even Mr Wolf if he runs a surplus. “It is in Beijing’s interests to lend Geithner a hand” June 10.

In fact had it not been for the misguidance produced by the credit rating agencies or the regulators intervening in the risk allocation process of the market by way of the minimum capital requirements for banks, the system could have kept on working for a very long time until other factors would have become important on the margin.

For instance, just a couple of years ago many were analyzing what would happen to China when they ran out of their labour surplus and salaries were not any longer so competitive. Sadly now we won’t know this for quite some time.

Wolf considers “China’s decision to accumulate roughly $2.000bn in foreign currency reserves... a blunder” What did he himself do? Spent it all? Kept it in pounds? Did he also blunder?

No sir, it is not the individual citizens responsibility to help the society to spend itself out of the mess.

Sir you write “Saving the savers is not the priority” January 6 and, in that, you are right. But then you go on saying “This is surely the right time to encourage people to spend, spend, spend” and, unless you are yourself doing that and giving exactly the same advice to your own children, this is a shameful thing to say.

Yes it would be lovely if all consumers by magic fully recovered their confidence in the economy but while the economy is not showing a clear direction of where it is going the individual responsibility of a citizen that a country could be proud of, is to save, save, save… even if not for any other purpose than to have the money to pay, pay, pay for all the taxes that will come.

A scary Fantasy Island

Sir, Samuel Brittan as “An economist on Fantasy Island” May 10 scratches his head and just wonders. In a world where the IMF, in their Global Financial Stability Report, April 2007, could say something as surrealistic as “The persistence of global imbalances brings with it an important financial stability issue—the problem of sustaining the financial flows needed to support the imbalances” and get aways with it, he is certainly not alone. Sir Samuel Brittan then makes what in a financial world could be called a straddle by on the one hand preaching the advice of a-when-in-doubt-be-careful, coming out in favor of tighter money, while simultaneously reminding us of the “paradox of thrift” where an “excess of savings can promote a slump”. Let me feed the conundrum.

The world has been painting itself into a corner where if it wants to solve disequilibrium while keeping up growth, China is now its consumer of last resort. There is nothing wrong with that, except for: first we are not really certain about what could happen when China tries to cash in on their international chips to pay for their consumption, and second, given that the consumption demands of China could differ a lot from the current, whether we have sufficient environmental space so as not to burn up in a global oven, or the sufficient commodities so as not have all fizzle away in another bubble. Some Fantasy Islands are indeed great; others are just a little bit too scary.

Do not tax the migrants, make them save instead.

Sir, I could not agree more with Philippe Legrain on that Europe (and the US) need urgently to develop some large scale temporary immigration programs if they want to have a fighting chance of keeping what is happening under reasonable control. If the political price to pay for such programs is along the lines that he suggests in “A migrant tax would slash illegal entry into Europe”, April 25, namely an “extra payroll tax on foreign workers” so be it, and only because something is better than nothing. Nevertheless, let us be clear that what he is suggesting is a form of bribery offering all the “true” citizens to share into the earnings produced by the migrants, the secondary citizens. It is also equivalent to a handicap system where you place a special tax on the shoulders of foreigners, so that your homeboys can easier compete, which could have of course some long term debilitating effects for your own.

Much better is a system that looks to really guarantee the temporary aspects of it all. Not only do you have to make certain that the migrants keep up their contacts with their homelands, so as to avoid the risk of any heart-drain but also, that those same homelands manage to get better homes to return to. That you take a percentage of the migrants earnings and place it into a savings account that he will get back when he returns home, sounds much more reasonable than taxing him so that he might remain poor and impeded from returning home.

How to get someone else’s grandson to take care of you when you are old?

Sir, Michiyo Nakamoto reports “Japan requires age-old wisdom on problems of productivity” April 23, on how a country of saver “who have long been happy to keep the bulk of their wealth in bank deposits” now have to start looking for improved returns on their money in order to make ends meet in an ageing society with declining workforce.

This is just the beginning of some truly important intra-generational transfer challenges that have been surprisingly little studied, and planned for, and simply accepting more risks in order to get better returns does not really cut it as a sustainable solution to this problem. For instance the Japanese society might need to take an urgent look at issues such as the saving propensity of the coming generations in Japan and the rest of the world, since if those generations do not want to save as much as theirs, then with whom are they in the future to barter with their investments and savings against the cash they need. Could it even be that they could be better off by simply cashing in their investments today and holding the cash?

Needless to say this is a question that affects many countries and I can already see a young generation of nurses in developed countries asking and getting six figure incomes… or even much more if they restrict the competition with foreign nurses.