Dear Mr Deliveli,

I have read both pieces and they are interesting. I also found interesting additions to them in two pieces over at TEPAV:

Fatih Özatay: ,"Although the Financial Stability Committee seems to be a good idea in terms of coordination, it turns out to be the opposite when you think through. The relevant minister already has the chance to meet and exchange ideas with the officials of the mentioned institutions, if deemed necessary. If this is not sufficient, then the purpose is different: they are planning to initiate a chain of command. This is not good. We will not suffer from this immediately, but those days might come. If you think why short term capital inflows are a concern, what I imply will become clear. Who needs differentiating Turkey in a negative sense from other emerging market economies given the current risky milieu?"

I tried to find out the answer, but I couldn't. Do you have any idea?

And this may add to it, by Güven Sak: ,,In the current circumstances, what should a country do to control the current account deficit problem? It either reduces the disposable income of consumers to tighten the demand or depreciates the currency, increase the relative price of foreign goods, keep the current nominal income constant and thus tighten the demand. You can do both at the same time. But tightening the demand is the only option in any case. In this sense, a country like Turkey has to make a single decision. The government has to decide whether or not it will introduce measures to reduce the disposable income of the people. This was why the government played a number of tricks to manage the game before the elections. If the government chooses not to fulfill its responsibility, the price adjustment will be ensured by markets via the exchange rate, in the case of Turkey."

I think this Thursday's meeting will be telling which way Turkey chooses. If there is no rate hike, the lira will go sky-high.