Previous Page  16 / 80 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 16 / 80 Next Page
Page Background

16

The Economist

June 9th 2018

Letters are welcome and should be

addressed to the Editor at

The Economist, The Adelphi Building,

1-11John Adam Street,

London

WC2N 6HT

E-mail:

letters@economist.com

More letters are available at:

Economist.com/letters

The role of central banks

The Free exchange column in

your issue ofMay 26th recom-

mended that central banks

grant the general public access

to their digital currencies by

offering accounts to everyone.

Thus, in times of recession, the

interest paid on these digital-

currency accountswould

become a potent tool formon-

etary policy. However, offering

this service directly to the

public raises fundamental

questions. Acentral bank

might become a superpower

in retail banking, disrupting

traditional commercial bank-

ing by refinancing the credit

supply via deposits. Commer-

cial bankswould have to

increase interest rates accom-

panied by a fall in theirmar-

gins in deposit and lending,

endangering financial stability.

In periods of stress, there is a

high riskof digital bank runs.

The column also argues

that accounts for everyone

could distributemore

“helicoptermoney”, or newly

mintedmoney, to the public.

However, the distribution of a

central bank’smoney as a

giveaway to the public is not

merely an accounting

problem. It would involve

distributional decisions that

are usually the domain of

elected governments, not of

independent central banks.

PROFESSOR JOACHIM WUERMELING

Member of the executive board

Deutsche Bundesbank

Frankfurt

Data points

Another reasonwhy the life-

insurance industry is strug-

gling (“Declining years”, May

19th) is that it is unable to quan-

tify longevity risk fully in

relation to the solvency of life-

insurance portfolios. Life

insurance is too dependent on

actuarial statistics that extrapo-

late from the past and are

rather poor in assessing this

risk. The adage that past results

do not guarantee future perfor-

mance applies in this case.

A study by the

IMF

on life

expectancy argued that mor-

tality tables used by life-insur-

ance actuaries exacerbated

longevity riskwithin the

industry by underestimating

how long peoplewill live. So

rather than looking at the past,

models on longevity riskneed

to take account of factors such

as the pace and duration of

improvements in life expectan-

cy that can potentially occur in

the future.

WEIMENG YEO

Newark, California

One emerging trend in the

industry is “shared value

insurance”. Because life insur-

ersmakemoremoneywhen

people live longer, their profits

are alignedwith their custom-

ers’ good health. Life insurance

can encourage healthier life-

style choiceswith financial

incentives. The idea is to help

customers overcome cravings

for instant gratification and

stop being over optimistic

about their health, which

behavioural economists say

lead to unhealthy lifestyles.

The shift from infectious to

lifestyle diseases has been

significant. Just three choices—

physical inactivity, an

unhealthy diet and smoking—

nowcausemore than 50% of

deaths and 80% of the disease

burden, according to the

OxfordHealth Alliance. This

opens up a newrole for life

insurers, but one that is com-

plementary and supportive of

their core product of protecting

people against the unplanned

contingencies of life.

Thismodel has been

successfully implemented in

South Africa, where demon-

strable increases in life expec-

tancy have been observed,

and is nowbeing adopted by a

networkof some of the largest

global insurers in theirmarket,

including PingAn,

AIA

,

Generali, JohnHancock,

Manulife and Sumitomo.

ADRIAN GORE

Group chief executive

Discovery Vitality

Johannesburg

Our newcolumn onwork

I look forward to readingmore

of Bartleby’s reflections (May

26th). Manyworkers ponder

day in and day out that if

economic survival was pos-

siblewithout thewholesale

occupation of employment,

what would life involve and

would there bemeaning to it

of the sort that HermanMel-

ville’s Bartlebywanted? As the

growth of services, artificial

intelligence and better redistri-

butionmake these a tangible

reality, we have an unparal-

leled opportunity to spread the

benefits of economicwell-

being thatWesterners have

enjoyed for over100 years.

DEEP SAGAR

Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire

Politics in Singapore

Your Banyan columnist (May

26th) notes that “voting is

clean” in Singapore. Further-

more, that the ruling People’s

Action Party (

PAP

) haswon14

general elections since 1959

because it runs “the country

competently”. I thankBanyan

for the compliment. After all,

howmany former British

colonies are therewhere

voting has always been clean

and their governments consis-

tently competent?

But Banyan insists there is

more to the

PAP

’s longevity: a

“favourable electoral system”

and a cowed electorate, among

other things. The

PAP

won 70%

of the popular vote in the last

general election. Could a

“favourable electoral system”

have delivered that? Your

correspondents have been

stationed in Singapore for

decades. Did Singaporeans

strike themas a people easily

brainwashed into believing

that the

PAP

and Singapore are

“synonymous”?

Singaporeans arewell-

travelled, well informed and

some even read

The Economist

.

They continue to vote for the

PAP

because it continues to

deliver themgood govern-

ment, stability and progress.

The

PAP

has never taken this

support for granted. As Lee

Hsien Loong, the prime

minister, noted recently, the

political system is contestable.

We have kept it so. The

PAP

couldwell lose power, and

would deserve to do so if it

ever became incompetent and

corrupt.

FOO CHI HSIA

High commissioner for

Singapore

London

Some good advice

Bagehot thinks that a good

constitutional monarch is one

who keeps his thoughts to

himself (May19th). Monarchs

are not elected, so in a democ-

racy they should not have the

power to turn their opinions

into laws. Fair enough. But

denying royals the possibility

of expressingwell-informed,

competent views takes this

point too far, and deprives a

country of a valuable source of

independent thought, argu-

ably like

NGO

s, which are also

unelected and politically

unbeholden. Consider Prince

Albert’s soft-power contribu-

tion to industrial-age Britain.

Bagehot dismisses Prince

Charles’s views as unconven-

tional, though admittedly

prescient at times. Those are

two qualities not in abundant

supply in political soundbites.

Perhaps it takes amonarchy to

take up a certain kind of advo-

cacy, where votes do not factor

in. Agreewith himor not, I fail

to seewhy a thinkingmonarch

is any less “dignified” for it.

EDWARD CECIL

Madrid

Peculiar politicians

I suggest the hyphen is redun-

dant in this line fromyour

piece on “Cabinet splits and

party twists” (May12th) over

Brexit: “the European Research

Group consists of 60-odd

backbenchers”.

ANDREW BILLINGTON

Marsden, West Yorkshire

7

Letters