Analysis of the global economy
Some sweeping generalizations from Stiglitz and Conard denial that the Fed was architect of the 2007/2008 asset bubble but some interesting insights from both parties.
Edward Conard, a former managing director at Bain Capital LLC, and Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, talk about the U.S. economy and income inequality. They speak with Betty Liu on Bloomberg Television’s “In the Loop.”
Austerity decimated Asian economies during their 1997/98 financial crisis and similar measures have failed to rescue the PIIGS in Europe 2012. David Cameron’s austerity measures have also not saved the UK from falling back into recession. So why is Wayne Swan in Australia so proud of his balanced budget? And why does Barack Obama threaten the wealthy with increased taxes while the GOP advocate spending cuts in order to reduce the US deficit? Are we condemned to follow Europe into a deflationary spiral?
First, let’s examine the causes of the current financial crisis.
Government deficits have been around for centuries. States would borrow in order to finance wars but were then left with the problem of repayment. Countries frequently defaulted, but this created difficulties in accessing further finance; so governments resorted to debasing their currencies. Initially they substituted coins with a lower metal content for the original issue. Then introduction of fiat currencies — with no right of conversion to an underlying gold/silver standard — made debasement a lot easier. Issuing more paper currency simply reduced the value of each note in circulation. Advent of the digital age made debasement still easier, with transfer of balances between electronic accounts largely replacing paper money. Fiscal deficits, previously confined to wars, became regular government policy; employed as a stealth tax and redistributed in the form of welfare benefits to large voting blocks.
Along with fiscal deficits came easy monetary policy — also known as debt expansion. Lower interest rates fueled greater demand for debt, which bankers, with assistance from the central bank, were only too willing to accommodate. I will not go into a lengthy exposition of how banks create money, but banks expand their balance sheets by lending money they do not have, confident in the knowledge that recipients will deposit the proceeds back in the banking system — which is then used to fund the original loan. Expanding bank balance sheets inject new money into the system, debasing the currency as effectively as if they were running a printing press in the basement.
The combination of rising prices and low interest rates is a heady mix investors cannot resist, leading to speculative bubbles in real estate or stocks. So why do governments encourage debt expansion? Because (A) it creates a temporary high — a false sense of well-being before inflation takes hold; and (B) it debases the currency, inflating tax revenues while reducing the real value of government debt.
Continuous government deficits and debt expansion via the financial sector have brought us to the edge of the precipice. The problem is: finding a way back — none of the solutions seem to work.
Slashing government spending, cutting back on investment programs, and raising taxes in order to reduce the fiscal deficit may appear a logical response to the crisis. Reversing policies that caused the problem will reduce their eventual impact, but you have to do that before the financial crisis — not after. With bank credit contracting and aggregate demand shrinking, it is too late to throw the engine into reverse — you are already going backwards. The economy is already slowing. Rather than reducing harmful side-effects, austerity applied at the wrong time will simply amplify them.
We are repeating the mistakes of the 1997/98 Asian crisis. Joseph Stiglitz, at the time chief economist at the World Bank, warned the IMF of the perils of austerity measures imposed on recipients of IMF support. He was politely ignored. By July 1998, 13 months after the start of the crisis, GNP had fallen by 83 percent in Indonesia and between 30 and 40 percent in other recipients of IMF “assistance”. Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea and the Phillipines reduced government deficits, allowed insolvent banks to fail, and raised interest rates in response to IMF demands. Currency devaluations, waves of bankruptcies, real estate busts, collapse of entire industries and soaring unemployment followed — leading to social unrest. Contracting bank lending without compensatory fiscal deficits led to a deflationary spiral, while raising interest rates failed to protect currencies from devaluation.
The same failed policies are being pursued today, simply because continuing fiscal deficits and ballooning public debt are a frightening alternative.
At some point political leaders are going to realize the futility of further austerity measures and resort to the hair of the dog that bit them. Bond markets are likely to resist further increases in public debt and deficits would have to be funded directly or indirectly by the central bank/Federal Reserve. Inflation would rise. Effectively the government is printing fresh new dollar bills with nothing to back them.
The short-term payoff would be fourfold. Rising inflation increases tax revenues while at the same time decreasing the value of public debt in real terms. Real estate values rise, restoring many underwater mortgages to solvency, and rescuing banks threatened by falling house prices. Finally, inflation would discourage currency manipulation. Asian exporters who keep their currencies at artificially low values, by purchasing $trillions of US treasuries to offset the current account imbalance, will suffer a capital loss on their investments.
The long-term costs — inflation, speculative bubbles and financial crises — are likely to be out-weighed by the short-term benefits when it comes to counting votes. Even rising national debt would to some extent be offset by rising nominal GDP, stabilizing the debt-to-GDP ratio. And if deficits are used to fund productive infrastructure, rather than squandered on public fountains and bridges-to-nowhere, that will further enhance GDP growth while ensuring that the state has real assets to show for the debt incurred.
Faced with the failure of austerity measures, governments are likely to abandon them and resort to the printing press — fiscal deficits and quantitative easing. It is more a case of “when” rather than “if”. Successful traders/investors will need to allow for this in their strategies, timing their purchases to take advantage of the shift.
How austerity will prolong the recession.
Richard Koo, Chief Economist, Nomura Research Institute at the Closing Panel entitled “Overhangs, Uncertainty and Political Order: Where Do We Go From Here?” at the Institute for New Economic Thinking’s (INET) Paradigm Lost Conference in Berlin. April 14, 2012.
Aired on Bloomberg TV 4-30-2012 Ron Paul vs Paul Krugman Debate
Paul Krugman is simply wrong about needing the government to set interest rates. The market would do a better job of managing demand and supply. Where government is needed is to regulate the banks and prevent excessive debt growth by the banks.
It is not often I agree with Paul Krugman. This is one of the few.
….not that I am in favor of big government.
Rising short-term interest rates (represented by 3-month Treasury yields on the chart below) caused negative yield differentials in 2006/2007 which led me to warn of an economic down-turn. Yield differentials are calculated by subtracting short-term (3-month) yields from long-term (10-year) yields. Banks borrow mostly at short-term rates and lend at long-term rates, generating a profitable interest margin. But when the yield differential turns negative, bank interest margins are squeezed, forcing them to contract lending. A lending contraction shrinks consumption + investment and sends the economy into a tail-spin.
Negative yield differentials (or yield curves) are normally caused by rising short-term rates as in 2006/2007, but now we are witnessing the opposite phenomenon. Short-term rates are near zero, but falling long-term rates are starting to squeeze the yield differential from the opposite end. The situation is not yet desperate but a further decline in long-term yields would shrink bank interest margins. Fed initiation of QE3, purchasing additional long-term Treasuries, is likely to drive long-term rates lower and exacerbate the problem. The resulting contraction in bank lending would cause another economic down-turn.
Jamila Trindle: Regulators should push derivatives out of federally backed banks and tighten the Volcker rule, former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair said Thursday.
“Don’t let insured deposits fund that activity,” Ms. Bair said at a roundtable on the Volcker rule held by staff of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Andy Xie, an independent economist in China, said European countries without a competitive advantage must simply work harder or spend less. Alternatively, if they want to keep living it up, they will have to accept wrenching labor reforms and deregulation.
Xie saw no popular consent for either course of action. Nor did he detect that Europe was tightening its belt as urgently as Asia did after its 1997/98 financial crisis. “While eurozone economies have contracted a bit, people seem to be bent on enjoying life as usual,” Xie wrote in New Century weekly, a Chinese publication. “China cannot save Europe. No one can. Only Europeans can, through increasing work relative to leisure.”
Thom Hartmann is joined by Nobel Prize winning economist Dr. Paul Krugman, professor of economics and current affairs at Princeton University and columnist on the New York Times. His new book is titled: End This Depression Now. Europe is in crisis mode. The United States could be headed off a fiscal cliff at the end of the year.
Part 2:
Comment:~ Paul Krugman believes in big government and big unions and dismisses the alternative as “voodoo economics”. The issues are more complicated than this. John Maynard Keynes was right in some areas — austerity does not restore confidence in a shrinking economy — but over-simplistic in others. If governments do run deficits — I believe this is a necessary evil during a financial crisis — increasing government spending on welfare payments and non-productive assets simply carries the country to the next crisis — ballooning public debt. The only way to avoid this is to channel fiscal deficits into productive investment which will enhance GDP growth and help to repay the debt incurred.
Spain’s economy showed fresh strain as retail sales fell at a record pace in April, showing the government’s austerity program is strangling consumption and suggesting deepening recession. Data Tuesday from the National Statistics Institute, or INE, showed seasonally adjusted retail sales fell 9.8% on the year in April, compared with a 3.8% drop in March. The decline was the sharpest since INE started collecting the data in January 2004. Household spending is dropping as unemployment approaches 25% of the work force.
