One should read the article by Gillian Tett in the Financial Times this morning. The title in the print copy is “Asia Pulls Strings Behind Scenes as Eurozone does Bank Test U-turn,” (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e73958fe-8f67-11df-ac5d-00144feab49a.html). The article presents a vivid picture of the world of the future, something people are going to have to get used to.
The scene: the meeting of the G-20 in Busan, South Korea, June 4-5, 2010.
The subject matter: whether or not the eurozone governments should publish the results of the stress tests being performed on the largest banks within the region.
The result: the “eurozone governments performed a U-turn, by finally agreeing to publish the results of such tests.”
The reasons given: one argument was that lobbying had taken place inside the European Central Bank and this caused the change; another argument was that United States Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner persuaded his eurozone counterparts to alter their position.
Tett reports, however, that it was the “powerful Asian investment groups and government officials” that won the day. These officials “expressed alarm about Europe’s financial woes” and indicated that future purchases of eurozone bonds might be substantially reduced until more information was available to them on the health of Europe’s banks.
“That, in turn, sparked a sudden change of heart among officials in places such as Germany and Spain.”
This is important!
It is important because this is, more and more, the way that the world is moving.
Note, this encounter took place at the G-20, not the G-8. The smaller group is fading into the shadows because it does not include the emerging nations that are becoming relatively more important in the economic and financial affairs of the world. It is less easy for the United States to dominate the larger group and there is no history of total United States dominance in this group as there is in the smaller group.
Second, the emerging nations included in the G-20 have substantial amounts of wealth and their economies are in better condition than are those of their western counterparts. These nations are becoming more comfortable with the power they possess.
In one sense, events could not have broken more favorably for these emerging nations than they did. Before 2008 the question always seemed to be “When would China and the other emerging nations catch up with the United States and Europe in terms of economic power? These nations were coming along, but a productive and growing United States would be hard to catch. People thought that it would be the 2020s or the 2030s before the relative gaps would close significantly enough to alter political relationships.
The Great Recession changed all that! The United States and Europe have had lots of problems to deal with. And, not only was their economic strength tested, but their focus was diverted away from the improving performance of the emerging nations. And, these economies apparently will remain weak for an extended period of time. China, and the other BRIC nations…and a few more…have been testing the waters, standing up to the “big guy” or “big guys” and testing just how far they can push the envelope.
The result is that the leaders of these emerging nations, political and business, are taking a more aggressive stance in almost every area of concern. And, by-and-large, the United States and Europe and the UK are having to take it. They are just not in a position to put up much of a fight.
Third, the competition taking place in the world is not just between the United States (and Europe) and each BRIC country. Competition is also becoming quite fierce between these countries. (Note another article in today’s Financial Times about South Asia. The subheading states that “India’s failure to match its economic clout with local influence has heightened Delhi’s concern over losing out to China in what is set to be a long-running battle for ascendancy.” (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/11872b80-8f78-11df-8df0-00144feab49a.html)
But don’t leave out Russia and Brazil. Each of these countries, in its own way, is gaining relative to the United States, but also is engaged in competition with China…and India.
And what about Japan? And, Canada? Then there are several other players in the world.
What did we just see in the newspapers? Pictures of BP president Tony Hayward meeting with the president of Azerbaijani. BP has turned to the middle east to either raise additional capital or sell assets. But, Citigroup did that along with a dozen or more other major corporations from the west.
Countries not only have to be concerned about their position relative to the United States (and Europe) they have to consider how they stand relative to a dozen or more other nations in the world. This is not an environment in which these nations can “stand down.” They must be strong and competitive against all comers.
So, things are changing. Ms. Tett’s article just points to the fact that the influence of China is growing along with their confidence. This is also being seen in the behavior of the leaders of other nations, like the connections Brazilian President Lula da Silva is making with the leaders of countries that are not necessarily friends of the United States, like Venezuela and Iran.
This situation is not likely to change unless these emerging nations plunge into a Great Recession and have to re-focus their efforts on re-building their economies and restoring their financial wealth.
Also, as Ms. Tett implies, China and the other emerging nations are still testing the waters. “There is little sign those investors are being ‘intimidating’.” Yet, they are in the process of finding out how far they can go. But, this process will continue and that is why examples like the one presented in her article are a harbinger of the future. Tomorrow, these investors might by “intimidating”!
Economic and financial wealth is spreading throughout the world. Influence and power follows economic and financial wealth. In the emerging competition taking place in the world between the United States and other countries and within the other countries themselves, it is hoped that the competition does not boil over into wars, either trade wars or fighting wars.
Unfortunately, these wars have not been avoided in the past. The question is, what kind of world can the United States and the other emerging nations create that will allow economic and financial competition to take place within and between nations without the competition deteriorating into trade wars or fighting wars?
The signs of the future competitive world are there. How the world works out this future is the big issue.
Showing posts with label Japan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Japan. Show all posts
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Why Krugman Is Wrong!
Talk about a fundamentalist preacher! Paul Krugman continues to rely upon his inerrant interpretation of the dogmatic Keynesian worldview as he condemns those “sinners” that have followed another path from the one he draws strength from.
Krugman’s New York Times column on Monday chastises those that take an alternative view: “More and more, conventional wisdom says that the responsible thing is to make the unemployed suffer.” (See “The Pain Caucus”, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/31/opinion/31krugman.html.)
He goes on: “What’s the greatest threat to our still-fragile economic recovery? Dangers abound, of course. But what I currently find most ominous is the spread of a destructive idea: the view that now, less than a year into a weak recovery from the worst slump since World War II, is the time for policy makers to stop helping the jobless and start inflicting pain.”
Amen, brother! Alleluia!
Right out of the creed! When you need to protect your economic doctrine, bring out unemployment and the unemployed. This goes back in history at least to Keynes and the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 when there was a fear about the spread of the Bolshevik revolution throughout Western Europe. (See my book review from October 25, 2009 of “John Maynard Keynes and International Relations”, http://seekingalpha.com/article/167893-john-maynard-keynes-and-international-relations-economic-paths-to-war-and-peace-by-donald-markwell.)
To support his argument, Krugman claims that America would be creating a situation not unlike that of Japan in the 1990s if the United States followed the “conventional wisdom” he disdains. “We are, however, looking more and more like Japan….[Recent data] suggests that we may be heading for a Japan-style lost decade, trapped in a prolonged period of high unemployment and slow growth.” (See the article by William Galston, “the Case Against Keynes (With Some Questions for Krugman, Too)” at http://www.tnr.com/blog/william-galston/75228/the-case-against-keynes-some-questions-krugman-too.)
The problem is that Krugman (and other fundamentalist Keynesians) interprets the Japanese situation—and the current situation in the United States—and the current situation in Europe) as “a rare real-world example of Keynes’s famous ‘liquidity trap’ in which monetary policy loses its effectiveness.” (See the Galston article.) The Keynesian solution to such a dilemma is to engage in “pump-priming” government expenditures that, through a cumulative multiplier effect that substantially increasing private demand, initiates a self-sustaining process of economic recovery.
The difficulty with this is that it does not take into account the huge amounts of debt that may have been accumulated through the earlier credit inflation that caused people and businesses to increase their financial leverage and risk taking. It was this credit inflation that ultimately led to the financial collapse that put the economy into the current situation. The other side of a credit inflation is a debt deflation.
The problem? People and businesses (including commercial banks) may find themselves so in debt with loan and interest payments far in excess of their own cash flows that they stop spending because they must repay or write-off large chunks of debt. They choose to become as liquid as possible because they must continue to live and finance their daily needs as much as they can through any wealth they may have accumulated. They do not become liquid because of they are afraid or unwilling to commit to the purchase of investment goods. They become liquid to survive.
Within such an environment, the Keynesian solution of pump-priming which leads to credit inflation becomes the only real response because it leads to inflation. To Krugman, Galston argues, “The root of the Japanese crisis is deflation, and the only remedy is a credible shift to a long-term inflationary policy.”
Although not stated in the “liquidity preference” arguments for such a policy, inflation reduces the debt burden because it reduces the real value of the debt. Inflation is always a way to get out-of-debt. The problem is, inflation encourages more financial leverage and more financial risk taking. This is what we in the United States have been doing for the last fifty years. And, ultimately it does not prevent the problem of a financial correction, it just postpones it.
Getting ones financial books in order is not necessarily a bad thing. It appears that Ireland is pulling out of its crisis situation after enduring “one of the worst recessions of any developed economy since the Great Depression.” (See the Bloomberg article: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a_gxU5nfACkg.)
Also, the United States in the 1990s presents an example fiscal prudence which contributed to a period of sustained economic growth. The Clinton administration pulled off a very successful policy of deficit reduction which was accompanied by the longest post-World War II period of economic expansion on record. So it can be done.
Other countries around the world are showing the fruits of fiscal discipline in the face of the economic slowdown of the past three years. Even with the turmoil in Europe, manufacturing seems to be recovering around the world, in the U. S., in the U. K., in Canada (where the Bank of Canada just raised interest rates yesterday over concerns about its robust economy), and in Australia, Brazil, China, India, and Japan.
The lingering problem connected with the buildup of debt is the “debt overhang” that remains once the peak of the credit cycle has passed. Yes, there may be liquidity problems connected with reversing out of the expanding economy into an economy that is contracting. Any reversal of direction will experience a dislocation of markets. But, the liquidity problem is a short-run phenomenon. Once the short-term problem is eradicated, the issue becomes one of getting the balance sheets of individuals, businesses (including commercial banks) back into a more conservative structure. And this can take time and can hinder the strength of the recovery.
But, unless one is inflating the country out of its debt load, this re-structuring of the balance sheets must take place for the recovery to become a healthy recovery. There will be pain during this time. But, living beyond ones means for fifty years creates a situation that is uncomfortable for some. Unfortunately, the people that are hurt are not generally the people that really profited from the credit inflation that caused the excesses.
Perhaps focusing on longer term financial discipline might be better for workers over time rather than concentrating on every little short-term wiggle in unemployment. Certainly, the countries that are paying more attention to longer-run issues (like China) are going to put a lot more economic pressure on those countries that only focus on the short run (like the United States and Europe). For more on this see “How China is Changing the World” http://seekingalpha.com/article/206830-how-china-is-changing-the-world.
Krugman’s New York Times column on Monday chastises those that take an alternative view: “More and more, conventional wisdom says that the responsible thing is to make the unemployed suffer.” (See “The Pain Caucus”, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/31/opinion/31krugman.html.)
He goes on: “What’s the greatest threat to our still-fragile economic recovery? Dangers abound, of course. But what I currently find most ominous is the spread of a destructive idea: the view that now, less than a year into a weak recovery from the worst slump since World War II, is the time for policy makers to stop helping the jobless and start inflicting pain.”
Amen, brother! Alleluia!
Right out of the creed! When you need to protect your economic doctrine, bring out unemployment and the unemployed. This goes back in history at least to Keynes and the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 when there was a fear about the spread of the Bolshevik revolution throughout Western Europe. (See my book review from October 25, 2009 of “John Maynard Keynes and International Relations”, http://seekingalpha.com/article/167893-john-maynard-keynes-and-international-relations-economic-paths-to-war-and-peace-by-donald-markwell.)
To support his argument, Krugman claims that America would be creating a situation not unlike that of Japan in the 1990s if the United States followed the “conventional wisdom” he disdains. “We are, however, looking more and more like Japan….[Recent data] suggests that we may be heading for a Japan-style lost decade, trapped in a prolonged period of high unemployment and slow growth.” (See the article by William Galston, “the Case Against Keynes (With Some Questions for Krugman, Too)” at http://www.tnr.com/blog/william-galston/75228/the-case-against-keynes-some-questions-krugman-too.)
The problem is that Krugman (and other fundamentalist Keynesians) interprets the Japanese situation—and the current situation in the United States—and the current situation in Europe) as “a rare real-world example of Keynes’s famous ‘liquidity trap’ in which monetary policy loses its effectiveness.” (See the Galston article.) The Keynesian solution to such a dilemma is to engage in “pump-priming” government expenditures that, through a cumulative multiplier effect that substantially increasing private demand, initiates a self-sustaining process of economic recovery.
The difficulty with this is that it does not take into account the huge amounts of debt that may have been accumulated through the earlier credit inflation that caused people and businesses to increase their financial leverage and risk taking. It was this credit inflation that ultimately led to the financial collapse that put the economy into the current situation. The other side of a credit inflation is a debt deflation.
The problem? People and businesses (including commercial banks) may find themselves so in debt with loan and interest payments far in excess of their own cash flows that they stop spending because they must repay or write-off large chunks of debt. They choose to become as liquid as possible because they must continue to live and finance their daily needs as much as they can through any wealth they may have accumulated. They do not become liquid because of they are afraid or unwilling to commit to the purchase of investment goods. They become liquid to survive.
Within such an environment, the Keynesian solution of pump-priming which leads to credit inflation becomes the only real response because it leads to inflation. To Krugman, Galston argues, “The root of the Japanese crisis is deflation, and the only remedy is a credible shift to a long-term inflationary policy.”
Although not stated in the “liquidity preference” arguments for such a policy, inflation reduces the debt burden because it reduces the real value of the debt. Inflation is always a way to get out-of-debt. The problem is, inflation encourages more financial leverage and more financial risk taking. This is what we in the United States have been doing for the last fifty years. And, ultimately it does not prevent the problem of a financial correction, it just postpones it.
Getting ones financial books in order is not necessarily a bad thing. It appears that Ireland is pulling out of its crisis situation after enduring “one of the worst recessions of any developed economy since the Great Depression.” (See the Bloomberg article: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a_gxU5nfACkg.)
Also, the United States in the 1990s presents an example fiscal prudence which contributed to a period of sustained economic growth. The Clinton administration pulled off a very successful policy of deficit reduction which was accompanied by the longest post-World War II period of economic expansion on record. So it can be done.
Other countries around the world are showing the fruits of fiscal discipline in the face of the economic slowdown of the past three years. Even with the turmoil in Europe, manufacturing seems to be recovering around the world, in the U. S., in the U. K., in Canada (where the Bank of Canada just raised interest rates yesterday over concerns about its robust economy), and in Australia, Brazil, China, India, and Japan.
The lingering problem connected with the buildup of debt is the “debt overhang” that remains once the peak of the credit cycle has passed. Yes, there may be liquidity problems connected with reversing out of the expanding economy into an economy that is contracting. Any reversal of direction will experience a dislocation of markets. But, the liquidity problem is a short-run phenomenon. Once the short-term problem is eradicated, the issue becomes one of getting the balance sheets of individuals, businesses (including commercial banks) back into a more conservative structure. And this can take time and can hinder the strength of the recovery.
But, unless one is inflating the country out of its debt load, this re-structuring of the balance sheets must take place for the recovery to become a healthy recovery. There will be pain during this time. But, living beyond ones means for fifty years creates a situation that is uncomfortable for some. Unfortunately, the people that are hurt are not generally the people that really profited from the credit inflation that caused the excesses.
Perhaps focusing on longer term financial discipline might be better for workers over time rather than concentrating on every little short-term wiggle in unemployment. Certainly, the countries that are paying more attention to longer-run issues (like China) are going to put a lot more economic pressure on those countries that only focus on the short run (like the United States and Europe). For more on this see “How China is Changing the World” http://seekingalpha.com/article/206830-how-china-is-changing-the-world.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Who is going to be the next Greece?
This seems to be the major question asked by most commentators in most media outlets. Is it going to be Spain? Japan? The U. K.? Italy? Portugal? Just who might it be?
Might it be California? Or New York? Or some major city?
Who are the hedge funds attacking this week? Where is the bailout going to come from? What about the IMF, what role is it going to play? And so on and so forth?
As far as the United States is concerned, thank goodness for all the attention being paid to the problems being experienced by these other countries, and states, and cities. At least others governmental units are getting the headlines about the debt problems going on in the world, and not the U. S. government.
And, the nice thing about the problems going on in the rest of the world is that investors still consider the dollar and dollar-denominated securities to be the least-risky of the lot. Flee to the dollar! Flee to U. S. Treasury securities!
Sometimes it is good to rank things on a relative basis. The person who receives a grade of D can save his own self-respect and place in the world when compared with the rest of the class who received a grade of D-. Doesn’t say much, however, about the whole class.
The United States dollar, a currency under attack until the financial crisis of 2008-2009, once again finds itself gaining strength as the financial condition of other countries come under attack and their currencies come under selling pressure.
The value of the United States dollar, which was once again under attack in the late summer and fall of 2009, has risen by more than 6% against major trading partners since the beginning of December as investors “flew to quality.” The United States dollar has done even better against the Euro as it has risen by about 18% versus the Euro over this same time period.
And, what are central banks doing under these circumstances?
They are still primarily operating under the umbrella of “quantitative easing.” That is, the central banks cannot drive interest rates any lower so they continue to provide reserves to their own banking systems in order to keep those banking systems afloat.
For the vultures circling over the scene it seems to be banquet time. The big banks, the big hedge funds, and others seem to be prospering in this environment of close to zero borrowing costs. These organizations are earning record profits! Not so, of course, for the small- to medium-sized financial institutions that are hanging on for their lives.
There are no good solutions! Every path out of this situation is full of difficulty and pain. And the strong get stronger and the weak, weaker.
The problem faced by politicians is that they must appear as if they are being active in the attempt to resolve the problems that their countries are now facing. Yet, to increase stimulus packages only exacerbates already stretched budget deficits. But, to cut spending, because revenues are down due to the weak economic conditions, only causes greater misery and social unrest. The fiscal conservatives attack those that push for more economic stimulus; the social liberals attack those that push for more budget restraint.
The central bankers worry about what will happen when interest rates begin to rise and asset values and business expectations start to fall again.
The world is in a tough spot when the basic question being asked becomes “who is going to fail next?”
It seems as if all these countries (states and cities) can do is attempt to reach a balance between improving the fiscal discipline being demanded by investors and voters and between the safety-nets that need to be created to cushion the difficulties being faced by many of the people within their domains.
With no “good” solutions available, governments must “muddle through” as best they can. There is no panacea.
The thing that should be avoided, but, in the distress of the moment, will, in all likelihood, not be avoided, is to create programs or solutions that will not be helpful once the crisis period is over. Politicians and others tend to “rush in” during “crisis” times and create programs, rules, regulations, or laws. (As Rahm Emanuel has stated, ““You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.”) Once on the books, however, these programs, rules, regulations, and laws remain in practice for a lengthy period of time, and, over the longer-run, many fail to achieve the positive effects that was desired when implemented.
It is important for leaders, in my mind, to appear as if they are in control during times like these. In essence, all of these leaders are heading “turnaround” situations. These leaders must be pragmatic in practice. They must re-establish discipline in all that is done under their watch. They must not be the slaves of some ideology.
What these leaders do will not be pretty, but they need to be strong in order to bring people behind them. These leaders need to build support and trust. The worst thing that they can do is to look as if they are not in control for the vultures will jump on this appearance and dominate events.
What do the markets seem to be saying in response to the efforts of current leaders?
The headlines we are now reading in the newspapers and hearing on newscasts indicate that governmental leaders are not in control. It appears as if the future is being driven by hedge funds and others who are taking advantage of the feeble conditions in the various political units around the world. No one seems to be in charge and no one seems to be rising to the task!
Might it be California? Or New York? Or some major city?
Who are the hedge funds attacking this week? Where is the bailout going to come from? What about the IMF, what role is it going to play? And so on and so forth?
As far as the United States is concerned, thank goodness for all the attention being paid to the problems being experienced by these other countries, and states, and cities. At least others governmental units are getting the headlines about the debt problems going on in the world, and not the U. S. government.
And, the nice thing about the problems going on in the rest of the world is that investors still consider the dollar and dollar-denominated securities to be the least-risky of the lot. Flee to the dollar! Flee to U. S. Treasury securities!
Sometimes it is good to rank things on a relative basis. The person who receives a grade of D can save his own self-respect and place in the world when compared with the rest of the class who received a grade of D-. Doesn’t say much, however, about the whole class.
The United States dollar, a currency under attack until the financial crisis of 2008-2009, once again finds itself gaining strength as the financial condition of other countries come under attack and their currencies come under selling pressure.
The value of the United States dollar, which was once again under attack in the late summer and fall of 2009, has risen by more than 6% against major trading partners since the beginning of December as investors “flew to quality.” The United States dollar has done even better against the Euro as it has risen by about 18% versus the Euro over this same time period.
And, what are central banks doing under these circumstances?
They are still primarily operating under the umbrella of “quantitative easing.” That is, the central banks cannot drive interest rates any lower so they continue to provide reserves to their own banking systems in order to keep those banking systems afloat.
For the vultures circling over the scene it seems to be banquet time. The big banks, the big hedge funds, and others seem to be prospering in this environment of close to zero borrowing costs. These organizations are earning record profits! Not so, of course, for the small- to medium-sized financial institutions that are hanging on for their lives.
There are no good solutions! Every path out of this situation is full of difficulty and pain. And the strong get stronger and the weak, weaker.
The problem faced by politicians is that they must appear as if they are being active in the attempt to resolve the problems that their countries are now facing. Yet, to increase stimulus packages only exacerbates already stretched budget deficits. But, to cut spending, because revenues are down due to the weak economic conditions, only causes greater misery and social unrest. The fiscal conservatives attack those that push for more economic stimulus; the social liberals attack those that push for more budget restraint.
The central bankers worry about what will happen when interest rates begin to rise and asset values and business expectations start to fall again.
The world is in a tough spot when the basic question being asked becomes “who is going to fail next?”
It seems as if all these countries (states and cities) can do is attempt to reach a balance between improving the fiscal discipline being demanded by investors and voters and between the safety-nets that need to be created to cushion the difficulties being faced by many of the people within their domains.
With no “good” solutions available, governments must “muddle through” as best they can. There is no panacea.
The thing that should be avoided, but, in the distress of the moment, will, in all likelihood, not be avoided, is to create programs or solutions that will not be helpful once the crisis period is over. Politicians and others tend to “rush in” during “crisis” times and create programs, rules, regulations, or laws. (As Rahm Emanuel has stated, ““You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.”) Once on the books, however, these programs, rules, regulations, and laws remain in practice for a lengthy period of time, and, over the longer-run, many fail to achieve the positive effects that was desired when implemented.
It is important for leaders, in my mind, to appear as if they are in control during times like these. In essence, all of these leaders are heading “turnaround” situations. These leaders must be pragmatic in practice. They must re-establish discipline in all that is done under their watch. They must not be the slaves of some ideology.
What these leaders do will not be pretty, but they need to be strong in order to bring people behind them. These leaders need to build support and trust. The worst thing that they can do is to look as if they are not in control for the vultures will jump on this appearance and dominate events.
What do the markets seem to be saying in response to the efforts of current leaders?
The headlines we are now reading in the newspapers and hearing on newscasts indicate that governmental leaders are not in control. It appears as if the future is being driven by hedge funds and others who are taking advantage of the feeble conditions in the various political units around the world. No one seems to be in charge and no one seems to be rising to the task!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
