EconoMonitor » Australia’s Economic Outlook—The Nauru Option?

Satyajit Das writes:

In a 29 November 2010 speech entitled The Challenge of Prosperity, RBA Governor sought to illustrate the combined effects of the gains of the appreciating terms of trade position and the A$ strength in the following terms: “In 2005 a shipload of iron ore was worth the same as around 2,200 flat screen televisions In 2010, the same shipload was worth around 22,000 flat screen TVs”. In a Freudian slip, the RBA Governor identified a fundamental issue with Australia’s economic model.

Australia may have substantially wasted the proceeds of its mineral booms, with the proceeds channelled into consumption. The nations did not channel enough into strategic long term investments or develop a new industrial base. According to one study, the commodity boom increased government revenues between 2002 and 2008 by around A$180 billion of which A$36 billion was used to repay public debt, A$69 billion was placed into the Future Fund (to meet the cost of public sector superannuation liabilities) and $75 billion was transferred to households in the form of tax cuts and payments.

Read more at EconoMonitor : EconoMonitor » Australia’s Economic Outlook—The Nauru Option?.

The Fed's interest rate policies are damaging rather than restoring confidence and should be reversed

Vince Foster at The Fiscal Times writes about this Wednesday’s FOMC meeting:

With Operation Twist due to expire at the end of the year and because the Fed is essentially out of short-term bonds with which to finance purchases, it is virtually assured that they will opt for outright purchases financed with printed money……….Now, said Ned Davis Research in a report last week, the Fed is likely to replace Operation Twist with purchases of Treasuries, perhaps in the $45 billion a month range, bringing its total monthly purchases to $85 billion.

Outright purchases of long-term Treasuries are far more expansionary than Operation Twist purchases which are off-set by the sale of shorter-term maturities.

Foster discusses Fed motives, considering that previous QE failed to lower interest rates or lift stock market values.

It has been my contention that the main objective is not to reflate asset prices but rather to stimulate credit creation and the velocity of money. According the Fed’s H.8 Release banks are holding over $2.6 trillion in cash that’s sitting idle on their balance sheet in securities portfolios. Bernanke is trying to flush the banking system out of these bloated securities positions and into extending credit by lowering bond yields to levels where banks can no longer afford to hold them.

Foster points out that negative real interest rates may be discouraging banks from lending, inhibiting the recovery. Also that bank balance sheets — bloated with Treasuries and MBS ($2.6 trillion) purchased as an alternative to lending — are vulnerable to capital losses should interest rates rise.

The Fed’s low-interest-rate policies have created a powder keg while being largely ineffectual in stimulating credit creation and consumption. The safest approach would be to reverse these policies and raise interest rates. Raising long-term rates to sustainable levels would reduce uncertainty and help restore confidence. House prices and stocks may initially fall but this would flush any excess inventory out of the system, giving purchasers and banks confidence that the market really has bottomed. With higher rates and stable collateral, banks will be more willing to lend.

At present we are all sheltering under the shadow of the Fed’s low-interest-rate umbrella, but with a nagging fear as to what will happen when the Fed takes the umbrella away. Fed policies are no longer adding confidence but increasing uncertainty. The sooner the umbrella is removed, the sooner the system will return to normality.

QE is likely to continue — Treasury needs to print money in order to fund the fiscal deficit — but this can still occur at higher rates. The fiscal deficit unfortunately will remain with us for some time — until confidence is completely restored and deflationary effects of private sector deleveraging are consigned to the history books.

Read more at How the Fed Will Affect Economy, Market in 2013 | The Fiscal Times.

Phoney recovery?

First signs of recovery after a recession are normally rising earnings, initially from corporate cost-cutting but followed up with rising revenues.

With massive central bank pump priming — referred to by Mark Mobius here — this time may be different. Flows of new money from central bank balance sheet expansion are likely to find their way into the stock market — and even the housing market — driving up prices. But consumption is lagging with slow growth in employment and average wages. With lackluster sales growth, earnings are likely to remain sluggish. Which means inflated stock market valuations and high price-earnings ratios as stocks are driven into over-bought territory. Not a solid foundation for a sustained recovery but another rung up the ladder of risk.

Jack Kemp Showed GOP How to Appeal to Minorities

Bruce Bartlett writes that late senator Jack Kemp is a role model for how Republicans should engage with minorities:

Although Kemp pushed for a cut in tax rates for the wealthy, he was adamant that all workers must share in the benefits of lower taxes. He also focused heavily on the idea that saving, investment, technological advancement and capital formation were the essential goals of economic and tax policy, because they raised productivity, which would raise the wages of workers. Today, Republicans just blithely assume that tax cuts for the wealthy will automatically help the economy without ever explaining how or why.

The key to a thriving capitalist system is a successful partnership between capitalists and labor. Capitalists benefited hugely over the last half-century from jobs the private sector created — and from rising wage levels — through growing consumption. Without consumption they would fail. Workers on the other side of the bargain have also benefited from job creation and rising wage levels. Without them they would suffer unemployment and genuine hardship. Neither side can afford to focus on their own needs without recognizing the importance of the other’s.

Mancur Olson argued that specialized unions with narrow membership will attempt to optimize benefits to their members, be it airline pilots or sanitation workers, even if this achieves a sub-optimal outcome for the economy as a whole. In other words, they will advance their own interests at the expense of others. But he also argued that broad-based unions will not, recognizing that they cannot advance their own members’ interests if the economy as a whole suffers.

I believe the same applies to capitalists. Monopolies or cartels who attempt to maximize their own profits will damage the economy, while broader-based groups will recognize that they can only maximize profits by advancing the economy as a whole — creating new jobs and lifting wage levels.

You also cannot focus solely on lifting wage levels — as Herbert Hoover attempted in the early 1930s — in the hope that this will support the broader economy. Higher wages will slow job creation and retard the recovery. The focus has to be on maximizing the total wage bill — and consumption. At times, during a recession, this requires lower wages and more jobs. But as the economy approaches full employment, wages will rise while job creation slows.

Exporting jobs offshore may serve the narrow interests of some manufacturers but is ultimately not in their long-term interest. They may gain from cheaper labor costs but they are also exporting consumption, which will directly or indirectly hurt sales.

That Kemp was an extraordinary man is also borne out by his views on immigrants, emphasizing integration rather than exclusion:

I also know that Kemp had a far different attitude toward immigrants than virtually all Republicans today. He welcomed them, seeing immigration as one of the economy’s lifebloods. He would be extremely critical of efforts to demagogue Latino immigrants who come here, legally or illegally, just looking to earn an honest living and enjoy the American way of life.

Read more here: Jack Kemp Showed GOP How to Appeal to Minorities | The Fiscal Times.

Unsaving the U.S. economy | MacroScope

Gabriel Burin writes that the U.S. savings rate sank last month to its lowest since November.

“Households were only able to boost consumption in the third quarter by dipping into their savings,” said Paul Dales, senior U.S. economist at Capital Economics, after the Commerce Department release. “Faced with the prospect of major tax hikes in the New Year, however, they will soon become more cautious”……..

via Unsaving the U.S. economy | MacroScope.

Don't Expect Consumer Spending To Be the Engine of Economic Growth It Once Was

By William R. Emmons:

The recession itself could be described as a period in which consumer spending contracted sharply, while other sources of private demand were unable to offset the shortfall. The subsequent recovery, such as it is, largely has been the result of massive government interventions in the form of financial rescues, unprecedented monetary stimulus and record-breaking government budget deficits. We’re left with extremely low short-term and long-term interest rates, as well as historically large budget deficits—all of which must reverse at some point.
…..To assure strong, sustainable growth in the long term, the U.S. economy needs to include a larger role for business investment and exports than has been the case in recent decades.

via Don’t Expect Consumer Spending To Be the Engine of Economic Growth It Once Was.

STEPHEN ROACH: America Can't Keep Relying On Spending To Drive The Economy – Business Insider

STEPHEN ROACH highlights the importance of capital investment in any US recovery:

Over the last 18 quarters, annualized growth in real consumer demand has averaged a mere 0.7%, compared to a 3.6% growth trend in the decade before the crisis erupted…… Consumption typically accounts for 70% of GDP (71% in the second quarter, to be precise). But the 70% is barely growing, and is unlikely to expand strongly at any point in the foreseeable future. That puts an enormous burden on the other 30% of the US economy to generate any sort of recovery.

Capital spending and exports, which together account for about 24% of GDP, hold the key to this shift. At just over 10% of GDP, the share of capital spending is well below the peak of nearly 13% in 2000. But capital spending must exceed that peak if US businesses are to be equipped with state-of-the-art capacity, technology, and private infrastructure that will enable them to recapture market share at home and abroad. Only then could export growth, impressive since mid-2009, sustain further increases. And only then could the US stem the rising tide of import penetration by foreign producers.

via STEPHEN ROACH: America Can't Keep Relying On Spending To Drive The Economy – Business Insider.

Christian Noyer: Public and private debt – imbalances of global savings

Christian Noyer, Governor of the Bank of France and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the BIS: My first remark….. In advanced countries, the average public debt to GNP ratio is 100%. In emerging countries, the figure is 30%. This is a very wide gap, and it represents one of the global economy’s largest imbalances. And one of the least mentioned. It also represents a complete reversal of the situation compared with just over twenty years ago…..
Second remark, global demand is still fairly concentrated on the advanced countries. Not only is their debt higher, but their savings (as a ratio of GNP) are lower. The G7 countries alone still account for 56% of global consumption. The problem is clear. How can we hope to raise our level of consumption if we need to reduce our level of debt and increase our savings? And if the advanced countries’ consumption stops growing, what will happen to global economic growth and particularly that of emerging countries with entirely export-oriented economies?

via Christian Noyer: Public and private debt – imbalances of global savings.

Has the Chinese government given up on rebalancing already?

Zarathustra: As more and more evidence suggests that the Chinese economy is slowing rapidly, there is also more and more evidence that the Chinese central government has given up on real estate market curbs even though they say they will continue, and they have given up cleaning local government debts even though they said they were cleaning them up. And by giving these up, they have also unofficially given up on rebalancing the economy away from investment driven to consumption driven once more.

via Has the Chinese government given up on rebalancing already?.