Will be, I'm sure, the source of many research papers. But pretty horrible for people living through it: 150%+ yoy increase in prices! That's positively Argentinian.
A strong argument for independent central bankers.
Why would they write anything else in English? We don't write Deutschland or România either, do we?
The only strange thing is that CNBC decided to use the Turkish name of the country, probably from some misunderstanding of the recent official UN name change.
May or may not be much fodder for the research papers. We've done this so many times before that there's really just nothing left to study/learn beyond coloring in the picture of misery with higher resolution.
We've known for at least a century (really, about two) exactly how this works. It's just that people are stupid and they keep asking for it again and again.
> A strong argument for independent central bankers.
It's a weird sort of thing. At one level it's easy, just elect politicians who respect independent central banks. But it's the politicians from whom the central banks are independent, so can they really be independent if their independence depends on the people who they're independent from?
Erdogan started his career with relatively independent central bankers, but since they made decisions he didn't like, he replaced them with cronies. Erdogan was also able to change the constitution to reflect his preferences, so it isn't an argument for entrenched independent central bankers either - a person who can get the constitution changed, but who doesn't get rid of the independence of the central bank is choosing that.
We can go back and say it's an argument for electing politicians who respect the independence of central banks, but it's something like an argument that says we should elect good economic managers: if you could reliably get good economic managers, it doesn't matter if you have independent central banks, and it doesn't matter if you have independent central banks if you have bad economic managers. And on the other hand, most voters just aren't going to consider the independence of central banks when voting.
With Erdogan, it doesn't matter how the economic management is structured: you're going to get low interest rates and high inflation rates and generally spook the market. Your goal has to be not to get Erdogan, over and above any argument for central bank independence.
Really, all we're left with is the political position that good economic management is better with central bank independence - a position Erdogan fundamentally disagrees with.
It's all the same with Pierre Poilievre in Canada (currently leader of the Conservative Party and the Official Opposition), who stated he wanted to fire the chair of the Bank of Canada because he didn't agree with their decisions. Once you do that, you don't have an independent central bank any more. So the only way for Canada to retain central bank independence is not to vote for Poilievre. But in Canada as in Turkiye, the central bank's independence from politicians would be dependent on politicians i.e. there wouldn't actually be central bank independence.
At the end of the day, "central bank independence" only exists if major political players in government and opposition agrees to it. Surely they should look at this lesson, and I think the lesson of recent weeks in the UK too. They both tell you that governments are up against limitations in what they can do and that the governments who respect those constraints will govern their countries better than the ones who don't, even when they make stupid decisions.
I think I would be greatly relieved if there was a different phrase, one that tells you what we mean, rather than something that is impossible at the time it is most needed.
A strong argument for independent central bankers.