The circle rotates – Japan prepares to spend its way forward

It’s funny how these things work. The US and UK economies expanded rapidly on debt – it was unsustainable – but years of good times was the result. In Japan, misery was the order of the day – the economy lurched from one crisis to another – it became known as the lost decade. Yet, in some ways, Japanese businesses and consumers were doing what many argue US and UK businesses and consumers should have been doing. They were saving.

But now, everything seems to have flipped. While the UK, US, Australia, Spain and several Scandinavian economies seem hamstrung by a legacy of too much spending, Japan is sitting pretty.

According to Bloomberg, Japanese companies now have cash equating to 11 per cent of their assets. For the last few years Japanese interest rates have been zero, or close to it, yet still they saved. It was this refusal to go out spending that held the economy back. Now the economy is in a position of strength, at a time when Western assets are going cheap.

Bloomberg calculated that so far this year the value of Japanese purchases of foreign assets is already 91 per cent up on the whole of 2007. Bloomberg says Japanese companies are on course for the biggest buying spree since the 1980s. But unlike that decade of irrational Japanese exuberance, the spending spree can be funded out of savings, not debt.

It just goes to show, things really do go in circles.

Keynes famously argued that in times of a recession, the last thing you should do is save – it may make sense for individuals, but for the economy as a whole this is a disaster.

The snag is, though, there is a danger that Keynesian economics can lead to an ever growing mountain of debt, as each crisis is avoided by getting people spending.

Some say it was the New Deal, implemented by Roosevelt, following the policies of Keynes, that helped end the 1930s economic depression. Others say the New Deal didn’t go far enough and that actually it was World War II, which, from an economics point of view, represented a kind of extreme Keynesian economics by accident, which ended the depression. Critics of Keynesian economics say the depression was ending anyway, and that the New Deal was wholly unhelpful in dealing with the problems of that era.

The debate is controversial. Some say it is Keynesian economics that created the current economic crisis. Yet Alan Greenspan, who has been criticised by so many for letting US interest rates fall too low earlier this decade, and thus creating the debt pressures that have now surfaced, is himself a critic of Keynes – at least he was far from flattering about Keynes in his book Age of Turbulence.

People such as the winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics, Joseph Stiglitz, say they are at heart a Keynesian, and yet are amongst Greenspan’s biggest critics.

Greenspan relied on interest rates to steer the economy. Keynes said that in times of a debt crisis, cutting interest rates could be ineffective, akin to pushing on string, and the only solution in these circumstances would be to increase government expenditure – especially in ways aimed at the poor.

Japan has come out of a decade of misery and emerged into a position of strength. The challenge, for the West, is to somehow avoid ten years of Japanese-type woe, and at the same time a build foundation for the longer-term. Keynes said: “In the long term we are dead,” but there again, Keynes died 60 years ago. Today is Keynes long-term, and the price we are paying for short-term fiddling, is long-term wailing.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Bank of E split; Yahoo tries to mend split and BP and Russia split up

The latest minutes from the Bank of England Monetary Policy committee showed the truth in those words from Churchill: “If you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions.” Well it wasn’t quite like that, the nine members of the Monetary Policy Committee voted three ways. Tim Besley voted for an interest rate rise. David Blanchflower voted for a cut – something he usually does, and the rest voted to keep rates on hold.

But the minutes from the meeting held earlier in the month also said: “Any change in rates would be better communicated alongside the Bank’s August Inflation Report,” leading to speculation other members of the MPC considered upping rates, but just want a bit more data first.

Meanwhile, profits at Yahoo were down. In all, net income fell 18.6 per cent. The Yahoo poor quarter differed with Google which saw a big leap in profits. This begs the question, then why doesn’t Yahoo just agree to merge with Microsoft. The giant software company offered to buy the company at $31 a share. At close yesterday, Yahoo shares were trading at less than $22.

It seems part of the problem is Microsoft’s somewhat aggressive approach. Its boss Steve Ballmer is known for playing hardball, and maybe Yahoo’s co-founder Jerry Yang needs his hands held, and soft words of love spoken, rather than hearing Ballmer’s more aggressive phraseology.

Mind you, they do say you should keep your friends close, but your enemies even closer. Maybe that is why it has allowed Carl Icahn, and two of his chums, seats on the board. Icahn, also known for his lack of tolerance, wants to see Yahoo sell out, lock, stock and barrel to Microsoft.

The two companies need each other. Both are losing ground to Google so fast that if they don’t come to some accord soon, a merger would be little more than irrelevant.

Lastly, BP, it appears, has finally given up all hope of having a say over the management of TNK-BP. The Russian based company no longer has any BP staff left.

Trouble is, BP staff had to leave the country as they had no work visa. But then again, they had no work visa because the company said it didn’t want them – even though the contract seemed to say otherwise.

President Medvedev is supposed to be pro business. But it seems he is more pro business done the Russian way.

It is truly scandalous the way Russia is running roughshod over western business interests. Russia has the potential to be the world’s food basket. But this latest saga adds more evidence to the growing fears it just can’t be trusted.

On the other hand, it was truly scandalous how western business treated Russia a few years ago. And indeed, for that matter, how the IMF treated Russia in 1998.

What goes around comes around. And right now we are seeing the consequences of policy errors ten years ago. A wounded bear is dangerous. In the late 1990s we should have rushed to its aid; instead, we tied the bear up and baited it with our hounds of business and money.

If you really want to know the true cause of this financial crisis, it lies in major policy mistakes made ten years ago. This was when the IMF turned its back on Asia and Russia and created an artificial boom in the West, run on debt.

Churchill didn’t just say: “If you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions;” he added: “unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you get three opinions.”

The truth is, the West applied Keynes’ policies to itself, and recommended the opposite approach in the Far East and Russia. Both policies were wrong.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

The great shift – have we diagnosed the wrong economic disease?

The last few days have seen a new development – a development that is so far barely showing up on the media’s radar screen – but could yet prove to be both the most important and, if ignored, the most dangerous development yet in the economic crisis of 2008.

In the story of 20th century recessions, there were two big ones.  There were the late 1920s and 1930s (1930s in the US) and the 1970s.     They were both awful, although for most economies the earlier crisis was the worst, but they were also very different.

The 1970s crisis was sparked off by the escalating price of oil – this pushed up prices and led to inflation, while unemployment rose at the same time.    The twin curses of rising inflation and unemployment were referred to as stagflation.

The earlier downturn was kicked off initially via a crash in asset prices, followed by various banking crises and the nasty period of depression – which saw falling prices, or deflation.

In the mid 1990s, what has become known as the lost decade of Japanese growth, was quite similar to the 1930s depression.  Asset prices fell, losses at banks mounted, followed by banking collapse.   Japan experienced deflation – and the central bank of the Rising Sun suffered the shock of discovering that once prices are falling, conventional monetary policy becomes largely ineffective.   You can’t set negative interest rates – otherwise consumers stick their cash under their mattress, and once deflation falls to a level so that even zero interest rates are ineffective, then the central bank is truly stuck.

This begs the question, which of these two crises from the past is the current crisis most alike?  It is an important question, because the economic medicine required is quite different.  In fact, if the wrong medicine is diagnosed, things could actually be made much worse.

When he came up with his famous theory of general employment, Keynes was working during the midst of depression-torn Britain.    His recommendations were adopted by the Roosevelt government in the US in what became known as the ‘new deal.’    Keynes’ cure to a depression involves measures designed to get demand up.  So that’s cuts in interest rates, government spending designed to create employment, and tax cuts aimed especially at low-income earners.    Why the low-income earners especially?  Well this was not necessarily a moral argument, rather the idea was based on economic theory.  Low wage owners tend to save less, so if they have more disposable income they are more likely to spend any new money.  

Keynes’ theory was all about getting people to spend – because when that happens demand rises, new jobs are created, even more people spend, and a fortuitous upward spiral is created.

The medicine Keynes developed was designed for a depression; for a period of falling inflation and employment, leading to low demand.  Depressions can occur when a downward spiral of pessimism sets in. In times of trouble people tend to save, this leads to less money being spent, demand falls, unemployment rises,  and people save even more.  Keynes’ ideas were designed to break this downward spiral.

The crisis of the 1970s was the opposite.  In fact, many would argue that the root cause of the 1970s period of stagflation was the Keynesian economic policy of previous governments.  Subsidies had made business inefficient, job creation schemes had meant labour was employed in areas that weren’t productive, and decades of policy designed to get demand up, had created inflationary pressures.

The surging rise in oil, caused by the Arab oil embargo, was just the catalyst – goes the argument.     Inflation only set in because the foundations for inflation were already in place.   Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan pursued policies which in many respects were the opposite of Keynesianism.  Chancellor Geoffrey Howe upped the rate of interest in the midst of recession, for example.

Alan Greenspan was worried about deflation – that is why he cut US interest rates to 1 per cent.     Maybe he was wrong, certainly many believe today’s credit crunch is down to him, creating an unsustainable credit boom.

Ben Bernanke probably knows more about the 1930s depression than anyone else alive.    As an academic he made his name on his studies into that period.  

But, which one is it today?    If it is 1970s type inflation, then now is not the time for cuts in interest rates.  As painful as it may be, we may need even need higher interest rates. 

But if it is 1930s, then the current inflation surge is just a one-off, governments and central banks should instead revisit the policy recommendations of Keynes.

Evidence has emerged over the last few days that the current crisis may be closer to the 1930s – and to find out why, read the next article.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Is deflation the enemy within?

Beating inflation has been likened to squeezing toothpaste back into its tube.    The trouble is, because you can’t have negative interest rates, beating deflation is even harder – perhaps it is akin to squeezing toothpaste back into the tube, while at the same time you are standing on one leg, drinking a glass of milk and singing the national anthem backwards.

Policymakers must not let inflation get a hold again, but then again, neither must they let deflation get a toehold.

In classical economic theory, unemployment is not supposed to exist in the longer-term, or, as economists call it, equilibrium. If there is unemployment, then wages will keep falling so that demand for labour rises until unemployment reduces to zero. There are two problems with this theory.  Unemployment means low national income, which means low spending, which can lead to even higher unemployment.  If everyone was to take a cut in pay, the net effect on the economy will be lower consumer demand, and perhaps rising unemployment.

A classical economist will say, it just needs time.   Economic depressions sort themselves out, in the end.    They say, in the longer term there will be no unemployment.  By contrast, Keynes once said: “The long-term is a misleading guide to current affairs; in the long-term we are all dead.”

The second problem with this theory is based on the belief that equilibrium can never exist.    This is a theory that is currently being promoted by George Soros, but actually, the anti-equilibrium argument goes back decades.   It involves scientific concepts such as the second law of thermodynamics and entropy, but fascinating though this debate is, it is not relevant to today’s discussion.

It does seem to be true to say that the general thinking today would say this: 1930s-type depression requires tax cuts, lower interest rates and lots of money being pumped into the system by central banks.    A 1970s type stagflation requires painful tightening in monetary and fiscal policies – so that’s less government spending, more tax and higher interest rates.

Today, oil and food are shooting up in price – this suggests inflation. 

Today, asset prices, and house prices in particular, are crashing – not just in the UK, but in the US too, and in Spain.  This brings back memories of 1930s-type depressions.

The key to all this, though, surely rests with wage inflation

If wages rise in tandem with oil and food, then expect a rerun of the 1970s – inflation will soar.  

If unemployment rises, and wages fall, then expect the period of high raw material costs to end, expect demand for oil to plummet, and expect its price to fall, followed by falling prices elsewhere.    In short, expect deflation.

Now, browse the business pages of today’s newspapers and you won’t fail to notice that job losses are back on the agenda.  The Times headlined: “Major threat to building jobs as Persimmon closes new sites.”  The Guardian talked about 1,800 job losses at Norwich Union, and elsewhere headlined: “housebuilders begin to shore up unfinished properties and cut jobs.”   

Last week, a report from the Centre of Economics and Business Research (CEBR) predicted total job losses in the UK business services sector over the next two years of 40,000, the first reduction in the sector since 2001.   CEBR reckons people working for estate agents will be especially badly hit, with around 5 per cent losing their jobs.  

Meanwhile, analysts at JPMorgan Chase reckon 40,000 jobs will go in the City.

Actually, though, if you really want an idea of where we are going, look West.    Data from the US Labor Department revealed that US unemployment rose at its fastest rate in two years during May.  US unemployment is now 5.5 per cent, from 5 per cent.

So employment is falling a time of surging price of  oil.  Hence talk of 1970s-type stagflation.

But there is one big difference today.    In the UK, at least, unions do not have the power they used to have.     In the 1970s, pay cuts, even pay rises below inflation, were not considered acceptable.

But consider these words spoken by the GMB Union.    Martin Smith, from the GMB union told the BBC that his members were being asked to consider pay cuts of between 30 and 40 per cent.  “We’re also hearing on the grapevine from a number of our employers up and down the country that they’re also feeling the squeeze, and they want to start talking about pay cuts and other ways of saving money,” he said.

All of a sudden the question is being asked – will you accept a cut in pay in order to safeguard your job?  According to the BBC: “The Federation of Small Businesses says lower wages and longer hours may be the only way to prevent redundancies.”

Lower wages may prevent redundancies now, but the result could be a 1930s-type downwards spiral.  Pay cuts are the opposite of what Keynes would recommend.

At the end of 2006, we told of a report saying that in the US, corporate profits make up the higher percentage of GDP than at any time since 1929.    This suggests that businesses can afford to cut prices, by eating into profits.

The GMB warning is just that: a warning.     It may or may not prove to be a sign of things to come.

But, as you know, we are predicting that oil will, perhaps after rising this year, perhaps even after hitting $200, fall back eventually.   This could spell deflation.

It may be, just maybe, that inflation is not set to make a comeback at all.  That stagflation still sits in its grave, with a stake in its heart, and garlic infused in its coffin.      It may be that deflation is the real threat.

Policymakers need to watch this new pattern like a hawk.  But if pay cuts prove to be endemic, then they will need to immediately drop their hawk-like warning, and move into dove mode and slash rates. Fast.

At the same time, the government will have to drop its beloved fiscal rules – and borrow and spend – tax cuts in particular will be essential.

The time to act may not be now – but it may be soon.   

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Chancellor set to be anything but the darling of the economy

And while markets were busy saying Phew yesterday, one man was quietly beavering away in his study, preparing for his budget to rescue the UK. 

Yes, our silver chancellor is beginning the biggest day of his career to date. Poor old Al.   it’s not been a good time at number 11.  Gordon Brown was often called the lucky chancellor, his successor seems to have the opposite characteristic. What would Napoleon have made of all this?  He once famously said after being presented with candidates to replace one of his generals, “I want none of those. Go back and find me a lucky general.”

Mind you some of the problems were of Al’s own making.    The changes to capital gains tax, and his plans for nondoms, do smack a little of an idea suggested by his daughter after a day at school.  But this afternoon, the real attention should focus on what he can’t do – and this time, it’s not his fault. If you believe the UK is set to follow the US, and we are running around 12 months behind, then we really need to look at the mistakes made by the Fed and US government a year ago, and make sure we don’t repeat those mistakes.

Right now the Fed is doing a passable impression of someone in panic mode – maybe if it had taken some of the action it is taking now a few months earlier, all this mess could have been avoided.     Then again, with inflation building, it had little choice but to keep rates at 5.25 per cent for as long as it did.  The Bank of England is similarly hamstrung – a big cut in rates now may avoid recession in 2009 – but the underlying inflationary pressures could lead to  a much worse crisis in the years that follow.    Besides lower interest rates encourage more borrowing.  It’s what Keynes called pushing on string.    If there is too much debt, the last thing you want to do is encourage more borrowing.   Instead Keynes argued that a crisis of this type required tax cuts for the poor.

 Why the poor?  The reason why the poor got the benefits of Keynes’ ideas was not so much down to some ideal, rather it was down to pure economics.  The poor have a lower savings rate, therefore if they get a tax rebate they will spend the proceeds, and their money will then spread across the economy.    The rich are more likely to save the proceeds – or in  modern speak, invest it into property.  Well that’s the theory anyway.

Now interestingly, that’s what the US did.  Arguably they were a little late – but earlier this year George Dubya announced a $150bn tax give away – the equivalent of $800 for every US taxpayer – even more for households with two income earners. Now imagine the impact such a move would have upon the UK if Al announced a similar move today.  Fears of a recession would disappear,  and Al’s silver crown would sit beneath a halo. But he can’t do that.    His lucky predecessor, or is he Alistair’s unlucky boss, spent all the money.  When times were good. Gordon spent. The UK probably faces the most serious threat to its run of positive economic growth since the run began in the early ‘90s, yet government finances are in crisis.  Whether there is a halo above Darling’s crown or not, it’s a right royal mess.
 

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Bank of E is no puppet on a string, but it is about as effective

It’s that time of the month again today. By the time you read this you will probably know whether rates have stayed on hold or been cut. There is even an outside chance the Bank of England will cut rates by more than a quarter of a per cent – although it seems unlikely.

The arguments for and against the change have been rehearsed here many times – but maybe they are really distracting us from the real issue.

Maybe instead we should be looking at a far more significant debate which is beginning to take on a new traction, and say that actually the key to seeing the US and UK through the credit crunch lies not in playing with interest rates – but rather with tax breaks for the poor.

And in eliciting support for this view we can call up one incredibly credible witness. ( I am incredulously intrigued - Ed)

Keynes, the greatest economist of the 20th century, said there are times when monetary policy just doesn’t work.

If consumers are already in debt, if asset prices are too high, then the last thing you need are measures to encourage more borrowing. Many argue that by doing this, you are merely sweeping today’s dusty problems under the bed, creating the risk they will return in the future.

Keynes would argue, though, that there are times when encouraging borrowing to get an economy moving, is about as effective as “pushing on a string.” It was one of the great man’s most-famous quotes, and it seems as relevant today as when he said it.

Keynes instead said the answer was to give a boost to the poor – tax breaks, and job creation.

Keynes himself was a man who seemed to propose policies that these days are considered to be socialist, but with his condescending way, and public school manner, never really endeared himself to the people he wrote so brilliantly in favour of supporting.

But right now, the debate is re-playing itself in the US.

As you know, George Dubya’s big idea – well it probably wasn’t his idea – was this massive $146bn tax break to US citizens. Under the plan, 117 million US individuals will receive a rebate of around $600, while married couples will be getting around $1,200.

It is a bold move. If the Brown government took a similar action, then our PM would be accused of blatant electioneering with the tax system. But, the measures taken are what Keynes would have recommended.

But, some people in the US felt the Bush plan didn’t go far enough, and yesterday a Democrat idea for handing out $157bn, but geared more to the poorer families (and in particular pensioners and disabled veterans) was discussed and finally narrowly rejected in the US House of Representatives.

Meanwhile, in the UK there is a growing debate on what the government should do. It is clear that government finances are strapped. A growing number of economists believe Gordon Brown will break his golden rule this cycle. If the Office for National Statistics decided to include government guarantees to Northern Rock in national debt, then the accounts will look even worse.

Yet it seems we are heading for a position when the economy needs tax cuts – especially tax cuts aimed at the poor – who traditionally have lower savings ratios – to get the economy moving.

Don’t be surprised if, ultimately, the golden rule is changed. This is increasingly looking like a meaningless measure – but cut through it all and the real problem facing the UK is that government borrowing was too high in the years of plenty. There is real danger we are about to pay the price for that.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

If this is the end of a 60-year credit boom, maybe the US needs the rest of the world more than the rest of the world needs the US

And so George Soros says we are witnessing the “end of a 60-year credit boom.” Is he right, what can we do?

Maybe the problem lies with the man who is widely considered to be the greatest economist of the 20th century: Keynes.

Mr Keynes once said, “The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead.” He also argued that the solution to the economic depression that was hurting so much at the time he wrote his most famous theories, was to go out and spend.

The thing is, Keynes died over 60 years ago now. He was right, in the long run, he did indeed die, but right now, we are living in Keynes’s long run.

Now, in fairness to Keynes, he wasn’t omnipotent. When he was writing, inflation was not the big problem, at least it wasn’t in the UK and US.

But the post-war years have been characterised by high spending every time there was recession. This, surely, has created what Mr Soros calls the 60-year credit boom.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s it seemed to be changing. When he was Prime Minister, James Callaghan once said, “We used to believe you could spend, spend your way out of recession. But I tell you in all candour, that option no longer exists.” Margaret Thatcher tried to go against Keynes’s theory – and her way of dealing with economic disaster was to cut spending, to try and get finances on a solid footing. Reagan spearheaded a similar approach in the US, but it was short-lived.

Under George Bush senior, the US budget deficit went through the roof, and under Thatcher, Nigel Lawson’s credit boom took hold.

Economic text books used to say the most advanced economy in the world should have a balance of payments surplus, and the developing countries the deficit. But it is all different now, the US has the deficit, China the surplus. There is no precedent for this.

We are also seeing the increasing emergence of a new school of economics, though. George Soros is a signed-up member – he says that markets do not have a self-correcting mechanism, and the solution to the global crisis is global collective action. The man, though, who is emerging as the voice of this new school of thought is Joseph Stiglitz. He has even been hailed as the successor to Keynes. (By the way, Keynes was into global collective action; remember, the IMF and World Bank were partially his idea.)

Above (Good news strikes), we told how banks and the IMF saved the day back in 1998. Well, not everyone agrees. Some, people, including Mr Stiglitz, would argue the price of economic stability in the West back in the late 1990s was economic recession in Asia and Russia.

This time around, though, the problems seen in the US with subprime – which, by the way, we are sure marks just the beginning, are too close to home. It is not practical to get someone else to carry the can.

Then throw into the pot growing US protectionism. Peter Mandelson, the EU trade commissioner, is worried about Hilary Clinton. The Telegraph quoted him as saying, “The things she’s been saying reverberate around the world…This is the last year the Doha trade round can survive. There is little chance of a breakthrough after this president leaves office. People in the current administration tell me the US is turning into a protectionist country. It is a serious concern.”

So, in other words, at a time when Stiglitz and Soros call for collective action, the US could be in danger of turning in on itself.

The big hope has to be that the US is in such a mess, that it needs the Sovereign Funds. Maybe, by being forced to court foreign capital, it will be forced to toe the line on international trade.

These are the most important issues of the year – a theme we will no doubt return to many times.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit