Free trade’s not free, bring back the tariff – On Line Opinion

The idea of free trade is of course based primarily on David Ricardo’s 1817 theory of ‘comparative advantage’. Comparative advantage is a lovely little mathematical proof that even if one party is better at producing everything, the greatest efficiency in production can be attained, and all parties can benefit, if each trading party focuses on producing what they are relatively best at, and they trade freely with one another for the rest of what they need.

….comparative advantage does not take into account the costs associated with shifting a regions productive infrastructure from where it is now to producing what it is relatively best at producing.

Neither does comparative advantage take into account the costs of trade; the ports, the ships, the rail lines, the petrol. As well as the economic costs, we can also look at social and environmental costs in relation to both this and the above point.

….Considering these problems, I think it is fair to say that all that the mathematical proof of comparative advantage tells us is that it is possible for all parties to benefit from free trade, not that they necessarily will.

via Free trade's not free, bring back the tariff – On Line Opinion – 1/12/2011.

Clinton warning over aid from China – FT.com

Hillary Clinton has urged developing nations to be “smart shoppers” when accepting foreign aid from China and other new donors, as she became the first US secretary of state in more than 50 years to visit Burma on Wednesday.

In Rangoon, Mrs Clinton warned that powerful emerging economies may be more interested in exploiting natural resources than promoting real development.

“Be wary of donors who are more interested in extracting your resources than in building your capacity,” she said. “Some funding might help fill short-term budget gaps, but we’ve seen time and again that these quick fixes won’t produce self-sustaining results.”

via Clinton warning over aid from China – FT.com.

U.K. Seeks to Revive Growth – WSJ.com

[Treasury chief George Osborne] will also announce an extra £30 billion in new money to be spent on infrastructure such as railways, roads, classrooms and broadband connections, said a person familiar with the matter. Of this, £20 billion will be provided by pension funds. The Treasury has signed a memorandum of understanding with the National Association of Pension Funds to provide this cash. Another £5 billion will come out of savings in other government departments and be spent over the next four years. The other £5 billion will be spent after 2015, but plans will be set out now.

via U.K. Seeks to Revive Growth – WSJ.com.

Five Challenges facing President Obama

On his inauguration in 2009, Barack Obama inherited a massive headache from the GFC. With unemployment stubbornly above 9 percent, efforts to create new jobs have so far proved futile.

  • Low interest rates from the Fed failed to stimulate new investment. Richard Koo coined the phrase balance-sheet recession to describe private sector reaction to a financial crisis. Low interest rates have as much effect as pushing on a string. Corporations and households alike have no wish to borrow in the face of falling asset prices and erosion of their own balance sheets — and banks have little desire to lend.
  • Quantitative easing failed to lower long-term interest rates and stimulate employment. Instead it revived inflation expectations, creating a surge in commodity prices.
  • The trade deficit widened despite the falling dollar, reflecting an inability of US exports to compete in offshore markets — and a loss of manufacturing jobs as foreign exporters made inroads into US domestic markets.
  • Fiscal stimulus, whether through tax cuts or spending on education or infrastructure not only failed to create sustainable jobs but has left the taxpayer with a mountain of public debt.
  • The home construction industry, a major employer, remains stagnant. Inventories of new and existing homes amount to more than 12 months sales at current rates — when one includes “shadow inventory” of homes repossessed, in foreclosure, or with mortgages delinquent for 90 days or more.

Deflation threat
When the housing bubble collapsed, households and corporates were threatened by falling values and shrinking credit. Savings increased and were used to repay debt rather than channeled through the financial system into new capital investment. A deflationary gap opened up between income and spending: repaying debt does not generate income as new capital investment does. The gap may appear small but, like air escaping from a punctured tire, can cause significant damage to overall income levels as it replays over and over through the economy. The only way to plug the gap is for government to spend more than it collects by way of taxes, but the result is a sharp increase in public debt.

Five point plan
Companies are unwilling to commence hiring until consumption increases — and consumption is unlikely to increase until employment levels rise. The only solution is to create sustainable jobs while minimizing borrowing against future tax revenues.

  1. Stop importing capital and exporting jobs.
    Japan and China have effectively maintained a trade advantage against the US by investing more than $2.3 trillion in US Treasuries. The inflow of funds on capital account acts to suppress their exchange rate, effectively pegging it against the greenback. Imposition of trade penalties would result in tit-for-tat retaliation that could easily escalate into a trade war. Capital flows, however, are already tightly controlled by China and others, so retaliation to capital account controls would be meaningless. Phased introduction of a withholding tax on foreign investments would discourage further capital inflows and encourage gradual repatriation of existing balances over time. Reciprocal access to capital markets could then be negotiated through individual tax treaties.
  2. Clear excess housing inventories.
    Supporting prices at current levels through low interest rates will prevent the market from clearing excess inventory. Stimulating demand through home-buyer subsidies would achieve this but increases public debt and, as Australia discovered, leaves a “shadow” of weak demand if the subsidy is later phased out. Allowing home prices to fall, on the other hand, would clear excess inventory but threaten the banking sector. Shoring up failing banks also requires funding, although this could be recovered over time through increased deposit insurance.
  3. Increase infrastructure spending.
    Infrastructure projects should not be evaluated on the number of jobs created but on their potential to generate future revenue streams. Whether toll roads or national broadband networks, revenue streams can be used to repay public debt. Projects that generate market-related returns on investment also open up opportunities for private sector funding. Spending on education and community assets should not be funded with debt as they provide no viable revenue streams for repayment. The same goes for repairs and maintenance to existing infrastructure — they should be funded out of current tax revenues. Similarly, research and development of unproven technologies with open-ended budgets and uncertain future revenues.
  4. Raise taxes to fund infrastructure investment.
    Raising taxes to repay debt, as FDR discovered in 1937, has the same effect as a deflationary gap in the private sector and shrinks national output. But raising taxes to fund infrastructure investment leaves no deflationary gap and increases the overall level of capital investment — and job creation — within the economy.
  5. Increase austerity.
    Cutting back on government spending merely re-opens the deflationary gap between income and spending. Reducing regular spending in order to free up funds for infrastructure projects, however, would leave no deflationary gap while accelerating job creation within the economy.

Bi-partisan approach
The magnitude and extent of the problems facing the US require a truly bi-partisan approach, unsuited to the rough-and-tumble of a vibrant democracy. Generational changes are required whose impact will be felt long after the next election term. It will take true leadership to forge a broad consensus and set the US on a sound path for the future.

Published in the November issue of Charter magazine.

Stimulus spending, austerity and public debt: James Galbraith

Prof. James Galbraith on fiscal stimulus and public debt:

[gigya src=”http://d.yimg.com/nl/techticker/site/player.swf” width=”576″ height=”324″ quality=”high” wmode=”transparent” allowFullScreen=”true” flashVars=”vid=27057059&browseCarouselUI=hide&”]

Agree:

  • Fiscal stimulus should not be a short-term program that will run out. The term should be 10 to 20 years so that business can make long-term plans.
  • Stimulus spending should focus on investment that creates assets — to be offset against the accompanying liabilities.

Disagree:

  • Austerity cuts are foolhardy. ~ Austerity cuts should free up money for investment in infrastructure projects.

Strongly disagree:

  • “There is no long-term debt problem here. We’re clearly in a sustainable situation otherwise the markets would not give the US government the (low) rates they are.” ~ Keep telling yourself that!

A Proven Principle Behind Obama’s Jobs Plan – NYTimes.com

It wasn’t until the 1940s that economists realized that a balanced-budget stimulus could be effective, too. As I’ve discussed in earlier columns, economists starting with Walter S. Salant and Paul A. Samuelson realized that during a depression or in near-depression conditions, any government expenditure fully funded by taxes will increase national income approximately one for one, without raising national debt. This is known as the balanced-budget multiplier.

The public improvements suggested in the president’s proposal would have been fully paid for by the bill’s tax surcharge. And any new legislation we now consider could also pay for such improvements with tax increases, so as not to raise the national debt even temporarily. This idea should still have common-sense appeal to Americans in this time of high unemployment, just as the idea of winter work does on the farm.

via A Proven Principle Behind Obama’s Jobs Plan – NYTimes.com.

Polish Economy Defies Europe’s Woes – WSJ.com

Poland’s economy expanded robustly in the second quarter despite slowing growth in the euro zone, outpacing Central European peers more dependent on exports to Germany.

……Much of the strength in Poland’s domestic demand was the result of government spending on infrastructure, supported with European Union subsidies, which more than offset a slight slowdown in the rate of growth in private consumption.

via Polish Economy Defies Europe’s Woes – WSJ.com.

Obama’s Jobs Plan May Include ‘Infrastructure Bank’

With only one week to go before President Obama details his plan to revitalize the stalling economy, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis vigorously defended the administration’s efforts to crank up hiring during a speech on Tuesday at the National Press Club. She stressed that Obama’s plan will include a payroll tax cut extension, an unemployment benefits extension, and the creation of a national infrastructure bank to rebuild roads and railroads with a mix of private and public funds.

via Obama’s Jobs Plan May Include ‘Infrastructure Bank’.

What we need and what we actually get may be vastly different

This is in response to a question raised by Thomas Franklin:

Hi Colin,

….. My question is not just about the bond market although it is part of it but a reflection of the bigger picture globally with what is unfolding. With many governments facing rising debt levels and the Feds policy of financial stimulus, surely this is just delaying the inevitable of “Global Financial Meltdown” The USA and the dollar is a sinking ship, with the Fed losing the battle of bailing the ship out. So what do you think will replace the system we currently have?

Hi Thomas,
What we need and what we actually get may be vastly different.
Firstly, what we need:

  • A consensus Swiss-style democracy instead of the winner-takes-all system we have at present, where incumbent politicians run up fiscal debt in order to boost their chances of re-election.
  • Restrict the Fed to a single mandate, to protect the currency, rather than targeting inflation to help the politicians.
  • Restrict capital flows between countries, like China/Japan’s purchase of >$2 trillion of US Treasurys, used to manipulate exchange rates and create a massive advantage for their export industries.
  • Austerity to cut unnecessary spending and public works programs to improve national infrastructure and create employment — but the programs must deliver real returns on investment so they can later be sold off to repay debt.
  • Europe needs a eurobond system, with central borrowing and restrictions on individual member deficits.

What we will probably get is:

  • More of the same: government controlled by special interests and dominated by fear of the next election.
  • The Fed going nuclear and buying more Treasurys — creating inflation to bail out the banks and save Treasury from default.
  • Inflation as a soft form of default to give bondholders (read China/Japan) a haircut and deter them from buying more Treasurys.
  • More profligate spending and ill-chosen, bridge-to-nowhere infrastructure projects.
  • A breakup of the Euro?

Hope that doesn’t sound to optimistic 🙂

Regards, Colin