Paphitis wrote:Maximus wrote:Paphitis wrote:In addition, people make the mistake in looking at currency values as some kind of measure for economic performance. It's NOT. Much better to look at unemployment figures or the FTSE.
If it was, then why isn't the Dutch, Australian and Swiss currencies the strongest in the world. They have the strongest economy in the OECD so shouldn't those currencies be strong?
The answer is NO. Particularly in Australia's case which is a commodity exporter.
The opposite is true. An expensive AUD generally has adverse affects on the economy. A lower AUD is seen to be advantageous to competitiveness. If Australia had Cyprus Pound values, then the economy would be in meltdown because it wouldn't be able to sell all its commodities.
Currency values are a measure of a country's performance relative to another country.
The FTSE is traded in GBP's. It is not traded in ASX's, DAX's or Nasdaq's.
So I hear its cheaper for an Aussie to invest in the UK economy. How about for a Brit?
Oh really! Then Cyprus should have had the strongest economy in the world when it had the pound.
Most more wealthy than any in the OECD.
But that's not the case is it? Didn't even come close! Let's not get carried away now.
What is a measure is the unemployment rate, consumer confidence, property prices and development. Currency is just a commodity like any other.
Some countries even deliberately devalue it or try to inhibit its value.
Well actually Paphitis when CY had the pound, I usually got less CYP's when I exchanged my GBP's when visiting for holiday. I dont think it is a good example because the CYP was fixed. Something like 1GBP = 80 CY cents.