War on entitlements doesn’t extend to military | | MacroBusiness

By Leith van Onselen, with kind permission from Macrobusiness:

I have noted previously how the Coalition has ear-marked tens-of-billions of taxpayer dollars to local defence manufacturing, including a $10 billion to $15 billion-program for 1,000 locally produced armoured vehicles, and locally designed and built submarines for around $40 billion. It has also flagged a multibillion-dollar warship project that will be built locally.Today, The AFR has revealed that an $8 billion contract for local shipbuilder, ASC, to supply three air warfare destroyers for the Australian Navy is running two-and-a-half years late and more than $300 million over budget because the company has no experience in shipbuilding:

  • An audit released in March… warned there could be further cost blowouts and delays to come…
  • The 320-page audit found defective drawings supplied by Navantia and an inexperienced Australian shipyard workforce were a devastating combination leading to hull blocks not joining up, pipes, air conditioning systems and cabling requiring modification, doors not lining up and equipment being left off and expensive and costly rework.

Surely the above schmozzle casts serious doubts over the Government’s plan to build military hardware locally.

While I acknowledge that there is an argument to retain your own military hardware building capacity, at what cost? The Coalition’s hard line on industry assistance appears to be in stark contrast to its defence procurement policy. Australia could easily purchase proven, fit-for-purpose, military hardware from abroad at a fraction of the cost of developing similar technology locally, saving taxpayers billions in the process.

Once again, it is these sorts of inconsistencies that undermine the Government’s goal of “ending the age of entitlement”. While it slashes benefits to vulnerable sections of the community, it is allowing egregious lurks and subsidies to remain in others, which is undermines the Government’s calls for “shared sacrifice”, whilst also ensuring that the burden of adjustment is not broad-based, reducing its efficacy. As I’ve said before, a much clearer framework for these decisions is needed.

Past experience of Australian military hardware (e.g. Collin’s class submarines) is that locally built generally means over-priced and second-rate (….be kind). While that does not necessarily extend to armoured vehicles, naval vessels such as frigates, destroyers and submarines appear beyond present capabilities. Commissioning local development is no doubt intended to create jobs, but is at the expense of selling short our soldiers and sailors — equipping them with second-rate equipment in situations where it can mean the difference between life and death. Which is why military procurement, like the selection of infrastructure projects, should be above the political process.

Read more at War on entitlements doesn’t extend to military | | MacroBusiness.

Has democracy failed us or have we failed it?

I came across this opinion piece I wrote for Memorial Day three years ago. How little has changed:

Who kept the faith and fought the fight;
The glory theirs, the duty ours.

I would like to make this quote from Wallace Bruce the theme of today’s newsletter on Memorial Day, May 30th.
We often take for granted the institutions that our ancestors sacrificed so much to secure. Have we fulfilled our duty to preserve the freedoms that they sacrificed so much for? And have we held the members of our institutions to account for the neglect of their duties?

Some legislators only wish vengeance against a particular enemy. Others only look out for themselves. They devote very little time to consideration of any public issue. They think that no harm will come from their neglect. They act as if it is always the business of somebody else to look after this or that. When this selfish notion is entertained by all, the commonwealth slowly begins to decay.

Little seems to have changed since Thucydides made this observation in about 400 BC, a century after the foundation of democracy in ancient Athens. The fundamental weakness of democracy seems to be that those who are elected to office tend to place their own interests ahead of the interests of their electorate — and ahead of the interests of the nation. Not surprising when, as Thucydides pointed out, they believe that little harm will come from their neglect. But if enough legislators place their own interests ahead of those of the country, they will cause irreversible damage.

The First Rule of Politics is to Get Re-Elected

By placing their own interests first, I do not necessarily mean that office holders seek to enrich themselves at the expense of the taxpayer — although that does occasionally happen. Rather that they define their primary duty to their country as re-election. The pressure to get re-elected is bound to influence their thoughts and actions on almost every issue.

The Presidential Cycle

The temptation to manipulate the system to maximize your chance of re-election is too great for most politicians to resist. In fact it has become so ingrained that the whole economy, and the stock market particularly, is subject to the political cycle. Jeremy Grantham explains the presidential cycle in his last quarterly newsletter:

In the first seven months of the third year (of the presidential cycle) since 1960, Year 3 has returned 2.5% per month for a total of 20% real (after inflation adjustment)…. Now, 20% is perilously close to the total for the whole 48-month cycle of 21%. This means, of course, that the remaining 41 months collectively return a princely 1%.

It’s the economy, stupid

The third rule of politics is don’t run for re-election during a recession. Ask George H. W. Bush who, despite successful prosecution of the first Iraq war, was beaten by Bill Clinton in 1992 with the slogan “It’s the economy, stupid.” (The second rule, by the way, is: never forget Rule #1)

Successive presidents/governments have failed to find a way to re-schedule elections to a time that bests suits them (despite many examples in the rest of the world). They soon, however, came up with an ingenious alternative: re-schedule the recession.

How to Re-Schedule a Recession

As soon as politicians realized they could spend future taxes as well as current taxes, the demise of the current system became inevitable. Prior to the Great Depression of the 1930s, governments were assessed on their ability to balance the books. Previous disasters with fiat currencies (continental and confederate dollars) were still fresh in the national consciousness. Only during times of war could they justify running a deficit. So much so that Herbert Hoover refused to run a deficit despite the deflationary spiral following the 1929 Wall Street crash.

When FDR lifted that constraint in the 1930s, with the acquiescence of a desperate public who were willing to try almost anything, an immense new power was born. Unfortunately with immense power comes immense responsibility — and successive governments have proved themselves unequal to the task.

Spend Future Taxes and Leave your Successor a Pile of Debt

It has become too easy for whoever is in power to spend future taxes to stimulate the economy and postpone a recession. The result is that their successor inherits a pile of debt, which if they attempt to repay, is likely to lead to a recession. So the game becomes one of pass the parcel, with each elected government adding to the debt and passing it on to the next.

If the ancient Greeks had the same power, the decline of Athens may have been a lot sooner. Their modern counterparts have demonstrated that the game cannot continue indefinitely. At some point the market will begin to question government’s ability to repay, raising interest rates to compensate for the risk of sovereign default. Their fears become a self-fulfilling prophecy, with higher servicing costs increasing the burden on the already-precarious fiscal budget.

Fed Compliance

The second actor in this modern form of Greek tragedy is the Federal Reserve. Without a compliant Fed, government efforts to kick the can down the road would be largely negated. An independent Fed could put the brakes on government efforts to stimulate the economy with borrowed money, merely by acting as a counter-balance to their actions. Unfortunately the Board of Governors are political appointments, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) may be more evenly balanced with the addition of the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and four of the remaining eleven Reserve Bank presidents, who serve one-year terms on a rotating basis, but is still dominated by the seven Board members. You can be sure that very few mavericks are appointed as governors and that most dissenting votes come from the regions.

Washington, Inc.

Elections are an expensive business and no candidate is likely to achieve re-election without financial backers, making them especially vulnerable to outside influence. The finance industry alone made $63 million in campaign contributions to Federal Candidates during the 2010 electoral cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That will buy you a lot of influence on the Hill, but is merely the tip of the iceberg. Interest groups spent $3.5 billion in that year on lobbying Congress and federal agencies ($473 million from the finance sector). While that money does not flow directly to candidates it acts as an enticing career path/retirement plan for both Representatives and senior staffers.

The revolving door between Capitol Hill and the big lobbying firms parachutes former elected officials and staffers into jobs as lobbyists, consultants and strategists — while infiltrating their best and brightest into positions within government; a constant exchange of power, influence and money. More than 75 percent of the 363 former senators or representatives end up employed by lobbying firms, either as lobbyists or advisors.

Can the Present System Evolve?

Are we likely to experience slow decay that Thucydides predicted? The present system is entrenched and likely to resist any attempts at reform. Evolution, however, does not occur in small increments. The norm is quite the opposite, with species enjoying long periods of stability followed by violent change when threatened with extinction. The current GFC presents just such an opportunity for change. The Tea Party movement, for example, is attempting to re-define the way that the system works, while I am sure that there are many Democrats who mistrust the motives of Washington.

If they fail to succeed, there is bound to be a next time. And probably sooner than we think.

The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its laws made by cowards,
and its fighting done by fools.

~ Thucydides (c. 460 BC – c. 400 BC).

BOE’s Carney Tells Bankers to Clean Up Their Acts | Real Time Economics – WSJ

By Jason Douglas

Bank of England Gov. Mark Carney said Tuesday the misdeeds of the financial sector risk undermining public support for free markets and called on bankers to radically improve their behavior, a sign of simmering frustration in policy circles over a string of misdemeanors.

In a forthright speech, Mr. Carney said recent scandals in currency and commodity markets highlight “a malaise in corners of finance that must be remedied,” saying such “corruption” has hurt trust in modern capitalism, according to the text of his speech.

His remarks echoed criticism of the financial sector earlier Tuesday by International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde, who accused banks of delaying much-needed reforms to the financial system, which were agreed to in the wake of the crisis that tipped the world into recession in 2009…..

Read more at Bank of England’s Carney Tells Bankers to Clean Up Their Acts – Real Time Economics – WSJ.

3 Reasons to be suspicious of the inequality debate

My concerns with the inequality debate are twofold:

  1. The poor are seldom rescued from poverty by redistribution. Raising taxes on the rich to bolster welfare payments increases dependence of the latter on government. While this may be a sound political strategy to garner votes, dependence on handouts robs people of their self-respect and foments other social issues. The welfare system should focus more on assisting the disadvantaged to become independent: teaching skills, improving access to higher education, and providing support for those striving to achieve autonomy.
  2. Progressive taxes on the rich foster resentment at the unequal treatment and encourage tax evasion/avoidance. Raising income taxes also acts as a disincentive to produce further income. Any tax acts as a disincentive, but income taxes are particularly inefficient as the following chart from the Henry Review shows. Taxes collected from raising income tax rates often fall short of expectations, with higher taxes acting as a handbrake on economic growth. Past attempts at taxes on wealth, on the other hand, have proved largely impractical.

Marginal welfare loss from a small increase in selected Australian taxes

Marginal welfare loss is the loss in consumer welfare per dollar of revenue raised for a small increase in each tax (the extent of compensation required to restore consumer satisfaction reflects the distorting effect of the tax on the economy). Taxes at the top of the graph are the most inefficient in terms of outcomes, while those at the bottom achieve the greatest net benefit.

I should explain that my attitude to welfare is shaped by my own experience. My mother was widowed when I was four and faced the daunting prospect of raising children on her own. She went back to work and, because of her circumstances, was offered a partial interest rate subsidy (on a mortgage) by the local municipality. This enabled her to build a modest home and raise four children, who (apart from myself) grew up to make a useful contribution to society. Without assistance, I shudder to think how we would have fared. But I appreciate that the help offered was to restore our independence, rather than foster ongoing dependency and a sense of entitlement.

When I hear President Obama talk of the top 1%’s share of “our income” or their share of “our nation’s wealth” I do a double-take. It is not “our” income or wealth, but “theirs”. We have not earned it and have no claim to the income or assets of others other than that they pay their fair share of taxes. And shifting a disproportionate share of taxes onto them is just as misguided and immoral, in my opinion, as exploiting the less fortunate. For an economy to succeed you need a healthy partnership between the haves and have-nots, where both will benefit from prosperity. Not like the present tug-of-war, with abuses and mistrust on both sides. Raising taxes would drive a further wedge between the two sides rather than restore trust and cooperation. We need to seek a win-win outcome, rather than an outcome where all of us will lose.

In my opinion the inequality debate and higher taxes are a red herring, designed to distract the public from the real issue: globalization and the insidious partnership between large corporations and their Asian suppliers. Globalization opened up new export markets for corporations while lowering input costs through access to cheap labor. On its own, globalization is manageable, but politicians turn a blind eye to currency manipulation by Asian exporters like China. By saying much but doing little, they allow a continual drain of jobs to offshore markets. Many corporations silently welcome a weak RMB because it lowers the cost of imports while enabling others to make offshore investments and acquisitions cheaply with the strong Dollar.

Corporate profits as a percentage of GNP have soared…

Corporate Profits/GNP

…while manufacturing workers suffer from a shrinking job market and lower wages.

Employee Compensation/Value Added

If you want to fix inequality, don’t raise taxes. Instead, reduce progressive tax rates while closing many of the loopholes to create a level playing field. But, most importantly, end currency manipulation to ensure that the Dollar trades at a fair, market-clearing rate. That should help regain international competitiveness, go some way to revive a struggling manufacturing sector…

Employee Compensation/Value Added

… and restore jobs lost over the last two decades.

Policy, not capitalism, is to blame for the income divide | FT

James Galbraith describes the research on inequality over the last two decades at the University of Texas Inequality Project:

Since 2000, inequality has declined in the post-neoliberal countries of South America, and we believe it has been falling since 2008 in China. There, ever more comprehensive urbanisation plays a major role. In Europe and the US, inequality fell after the financial crisis, but rose again as stock markets recovered.

Rising inequality is not necessarily a sign of bad times. The boom creates jobs, reduces poverty and expands wellbeing. But high inequality tends to prefigure a crisis. After a crisis inequality falls – like blood pressure after a heart attack. But that is a bit late.

Read more at Policy, not capitalism, is to blame for the income divide – FT.com.

China Isn’t Just Slowing Down — It’s Contracting | Business Insider

Kyle Bass, founder and principal of Hayman Capital Management, on China’s debt bubble:

China’s banking assets have grown to over 100% of its GDP in the last three years, according to Bass. If the U.S. had engaged in similar policies – which he said would translate to $17 trillion in lending over that time period – it, too, would have achieved more than 7% GDP growth.

China’s banking assets now total approximately $25 trillion, or almost three times the size of its $9 trillion economy. Its low default rate on bank loans – about 1% – is about to rise, according to Bass. Much of that lending is construction-related. Bass said that 55% of China’s GDP growth has been in the construction sector. The marginal return on those loans must be very small, he argued.

“A rolling loan gathers no loss,” Bass said, “and that’s what’s been going on in China for the last few years.” He said it is impossible to believe China could “manipulate” the inputs of its financial system without losing control of the outcomes.

Deflation is also threatening China. Bass said that its GDP deflator is now below zero. He expects the PBoC to engineer a devaluation of the renminbi as a way to stimulate exports and avert further deflation…

China may well attempt to engineer a devaluation of the RMB, but neither the Fed nor the ECB are likely to tolerate China exporting their deflation to the US/Europe.

Read more at Kyle Bass On China And Japan – Business Insider.

China’s export dilemna

Growth in value of exports from China has slowed to single figures since 2012. It will be difficult sustain current GDP growth if this trend continues.

China Exports

The Harper Petersen index of shipping rates for container vessels, the Harpex, remains near its 2010 low, reflecting continued weakness in Asian manufactured goods exports (a rise in exports from Europe or North America would be absorbed by the high percentage of containers returned empty to Asia on the round trip).

US Imports from China

Rising Australian bulk commodity exports reflect the disconnect between Chinese imports and exports, with vast investment in infrastructure and rising stockpiles of raw materials used to sustain economic growth. But diminishing marginal returns on further infrastructure and housing investment mean failed recovery of manufactured goods exports would lead to a hard landing.

Australian Bulk Commodity Exports

A key factor will be the strength of the RMB against the US Dollar. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard suggests that China will meet strong resistance in its attempts to export its deflation to the West. Treasury’s forex report to Congress (April 2014) highlight’s sensitivity toward further exchange rate manipulation:

In China, the RMB appreciated during 2013 on a trade-weighted basis, but not as fast or by as much as is needed, and large-scale intervention resumed. The RMB appreciated by 2.9 percent
against the dollar in 2013. However, as a result of the depreciation of the yen and many emerging market currencies, the RMB strengthened more on a trade-weighted basis, with the RMB’s nominal and real effective exchange rates rising 7.2 and 7.9 percent, respectively. For most of 2013 the RMB exchange rate was at, or very near, the most appreciated edge of the daily trading band, suggesting continuous pressure for greater RMB appreciation. During 2014, however, the exchange rate has reversed direction, depreciating by a marked 2.68 percent year to date.

There are a number of continuing signs that the exchange rate adjustment process remains incomplete and the currency has further to appreciate before reaching its equilibrium value. China continues to generate large current account surpluses and attracts large net inflows of foreign direct investment; China’s current account surplus plus inward foreign direct investment in 2013 exceeded $446 billion. The reduction in the current account surplus as a share of China’s GDP has largely been the reflection of the unsustainably rapid pace of investment growth. Finally, China has continued to see rapid productivity growth, which suggests that continuing appreciation is necessary over time to prevent the exchange rate from becoming more undervalued. All of these factors indicate a RMB exchange rate that remains significantly undervalued. Further exchange rate appreciation would help to smoothly rebalance the Chinese economy away from investment toward consumption.

The Chinese authorities have been unwilling to allow an appreciation large enough to bring the currency to market equilibrium, opting instead for a gradual adjustment which has now been partially reversed . The expectation that the RMB would continue to appreciate over time resulted in large and increasing capital inflows in 2013. The PBOC’s policy of gradual adjustment triggered expectations of continued appreciation, and resulted in large-scale foreign exchange intervention. China’s foreign exchange reserves increased sharply in 2013, by $509.7 billion, which was a record for a single year. China has continued large-scale purchases of foreign exchange in the first quarter of this year, despite having accumulated $3.8 trillion in reserves, which are excessive by any measure. This suggests continued actions to impede market determination.

In short, China has been buying US Treasurys as a form of vendor financing, allowing them to export to the US while preventing the RMB from appreciating to its natural, market-clearing level against the Dollar. The fact that they are attempting to disguise this manipulation, using third parties, means that Congress is unlikely to tolerate further suppression of the RMB against the Dollar and will be forced to take action.

Feared sales of US Treasury investments by China, leading to a collapse of the Dollar, are most unlikely and would be a death knell for Chinese exports. Reversal of capital flows would cause rapid appreciation of the RMB against the Dollar, up-ending China’s former competitive advantage and boosting US exports.

Even without a reduction of existing Treasury holdings, appreciation of the RMB against the Dollar and Euro appears inevitable. This would be disastrous for China, causing them to forfeit their competitive advantage in export markets. And without access to the level of technology and global branding enjoyed by their Western counterparts, Chinese exporters are likely to struggle to hold existing markets, let alone achieve further growth. With diminishing returns on infrastructure and housing investment, China could soon run out of options to stimulate its economy. And its path as a global economic powerhouse may well follow that of its predecessor, Japan.

Piketty Problems: Top 1% Shares of Income and Wealth Are Nothing Like 1917- 28 | Cato @ Liberty

From Alan Reynolds:

First of all, the Piketty and Saez estimates do not show top 1 percent income shares nearly as high as those of 1916 or 1928 once we use the same measure of total income for both prewar and postwar data.

Second, contrary to Summers, there is no data from Piketty, Saez or anyone else showing that the top 1 percent’s share of wealth “has risen sharply [if at all] over the last generation” – much less exhibited a “return to a pattern that prevailed before World War I.”

Dealing first with income, it is interesting that the first graph in Piketty’s book is about the top 10 percent – not the top 1 percent. Saez likewise writes that “the top decile income share in 2012 is equal to 50.4%, the highest ever since 1917 when the series start.” That is why President Obama said, “The top 10 percent no longer takes in one-third of our [sic] income – it now takes half.” A two-earner New York City family of six with a pretax income of only $110,000 would be in this top 10 percent, and they are certainly not taking “our” income. Regardless whether we examine the Top 10 percent or Top 1 percent, however, it is absolutely dishonest to compare the postwar estimates with prewar estimates.

The Piketty and Saez prewar estimates express top incomes as a share of Personal Income, after subtracting 20% to account for tax avoidance. Postwar estimates, by contrast, express top incomes as a share of only that fraction of income that happens to be reported on individual income tax returns – rather than being unreported, in tax-free savings or assets, or sheltered as retained corporate earnings.

Transfer payments are not counted as income in either series (as though federal cash and benefits were worthless); this distinction is inconsequential for the prewar figures but increasingly important lately. “Total income” as Piketty and Saez define it accounted for just 61.8 percent of personal income in 2012, down from 67 percent in 2000.

Read more at Piketty Problems: Top 1% Shares of Income and Wealth Are Nothing Like 1917- 28 | Cato @ Liberty.

Norway teaches Britain how to choke house booms without killing economy – Telegraph Blogs

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports the resounding success of Norway’s central bank in using macroprudential tools to take the steam out of a housing bubble:

if the Bank [BOE] wishes to contain credit, it should learn from Norway’s success. Instead of raising rates, it has used “macroprudential” tools. It cut the loan-to-value ceiling on mortgages from 90pc to 85pc. It forced the banks to raise to capital buffers further.

The Norges Bank has recommended a 1pc counter-cyclical buffer based on its view of what constitutes a safe level of credit growth.

Contrary to claims that these tools never work, they worked splendidly, as you can see from this chart today from HSBC’s David Bloom.

Norway/UK House Prices

The RBNZ adopted similar measures and it is puzzling why the RBA, which faces an equal threat, is not doing the same.

Read more at Norway teaches Britain how to choke house booms without killing economy – Telegraph Blogs.

Is the market overpriced? Episode V

In my last post I concluded that the same factors driving rising inequality — new technologies and access to cheap labor through increased globalization — may also be driving a sustainable increase in corporate profits. While we may be understandably wary of “this time is different”, consider the following:

The rise of China as a trading partner over the last two decades.

US Imports from China

Corporate profits at 11% of GNP suggest a new paradigm when compared to the historic (normal) range of 5% to 7%.

Corporate Profits/GNP

The decline in employee compensation as a percentage of corporate value added mirrors the rise in corporate profits.

Employee Compensation/Value Added

And Robert Shiller’s CAPE, normally used to argue that the market is currently overpriced. If we stood in 1994 and looked at the range of CAPE values for the past century, we would no doubt have concluded that a CAPE value greater than 20 indicates the market is overpriced. In the last two decades, the CAPE only briefly dipped below 20 at the height of the global financial crisis. Now pundits argue that a CAPE value greater than 25 indicates the market is overpriced. Something has definitely changed.

Shiller CAPE

Whether the change is sustainable, only time will tell. But one thing is clear. Of the 466 corporations who have so far reported earnings for the first quarter 2014, 77% have either beaten (68%) or met (9%) their estimates. Corporate profits are not in imminent danger of collapse.