Home » Economy (Page 18)
Category Archives: Economy
Emerging markets – the next bubble
NYT on the next asset bubbles.
It seems premature to start worrying about the next financial crisis. Yet amid the current gloom, Wall Street is snapping up assets of the “emerging economies” that are growing faster and offer higher, more consistent returns. Financial regulators and policy makers in these countries need to pay close attention.
The Institute of International Finance, which lobbies for big banks, estimates that $825 billion will flow into developing countries this year, 42 percent more than in 2009. Investments in debt of emerging economies alone is expected to triple, to $272 billion.
While developing countries often benefit from foreign investments, huge inflows of capital complicate their macroeconomic management. They push up the value of their currency, boosting imports and slowing exports, and they promote fast credit expansion — which can cause inflation, inflate asset bubbles and usually leave a pile of bad loans. This money turns tail at the first sign of trouble, tipping countries into crisis.
Those are the dynamics behind Mexico’s 1994 “tequila crisis,” the 1997 Asian crisis, the 1998 Russian catastrophe, the 1999 Brazilian debacle and the 2002 Argentine collapse. The housing bubble that burst here in 2008 was painfully similar, with irrational investments and then a sudden flight.
A collapse in emerging market bonds would further damage the weak balance sheets of American banks. Still, it is not time to panic. Developing countries are in relatively good economic shape, while interest rates in the wealthy countries are likely to stay low for years. Yet the financial system remains fragile. And a shock — say a default in Ireland or Greece — could prompt a fast U-turn away from emerging markets.
There is little policy makers in the rich world can do to stop these flows. Governments in the developing world must prepare now for when the money masters change their minds.
That means they cannot let their budgets get out of hand. And they have to keep a very close eye on their own banks. This might also be a good time to consider capital controls to slow inflows. Chile managed them successfully in the 1990s. Even the International Monetary Fund — long a foe of anything that got in the way of money — acknowledged this year that controls should be part of the toolkit.
Americans sour on trade
The American public, already skeptical of free trade, is becoming increasingly hostile to it.
In the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, more than half of those surveyed, 53%, said free-trade agreements have hurt the U.S. That is up from 46% three years ago and 32% in 1999. Even Americans most likely to be winners from trade—upper-income, well-educated professionals, whose jobs are less likely to go overseas and whose industries are often buoyed by demand from international markets—are increasingly skeptical.
"The important change is that very well-educated and upper-income people compared to five to 10 years ago have shifted their opinion and are now expressing significant concern about the notion of…free trade," said Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who helps conduct the Journal survey. Among those earning $75,000 or more, 50% now say free-trade pacts have hurt the U.S., up from 24% who said the same in 1999.
Unfilled job openings
This year's Nobel prize of economics was awarded yesterday to a trio of economists who have contributed to research in labor market frictions. Given the persistently high unemployment in the US, now at 9.6% and expected to go higher, the prize seemed to have a good timing. But despite their contributions, policy makers today still could not solve the problem. So is it just a mockery?
WSJ today has a good story (also good timing), on why there are so many unfilled job openings despite the high unemployment rate:
Among the explanations for the stubbornly high U.S. unemployment rate, factors such as housing troubles and extended unemployment benefits have played a leading role. Increasingly, though, economists and job seekers are identifying another problem: Employers are being pickier, or not trying as hard as they usually do to fill the openings they have.
The reasons for the foot-dragging are closely related to the reasons employers aren't creating many openings in the first place. Companies lack confidence about the outlook for consumer demand, they're not sure what the government will do with taxes and regulation, and they want to keep squeezing as much output from their current workers as they can. They also feel they have plenty of time to pick the best candidates.
the Fed compounds its mistakes
Allan Meltzer on the Fed's potential buying of more treasury bonds and inflation talk:
The Federal Reserve seems determined to make mistakes. First it started rumors that it would resume Treasury bond purchases, with the amount as high as $1 trillion. It seems all but certain this will happen once the midterm election passes.
Then the press reported rumors about plans to raise the inflation target to 4% or higher, from 2%. This is a major change from the Fed's quick rejection of a higher target when the International Monetary Fund suggested it a few months ago.
Anyone can make a mistake, but wise people don't repeat the same one. Increasing inflation to reduce unemployment initiated the Great Inflation of the 1960s and 1970s. Milton Friedman pointed out in 1968 why any gain in employment would be temporary: It would last only so long as people underestimated the rate of inflation. Friedman's analysis is now a standard teaching of economics. Surely Fed economists understand this.
Adding another trillion dollars to the bank reserves by buying bonds will not relax a constraint that is holding back spending. There is no shortage of liquidity in the economy—banks already hold more than $1 trillion of reserves in excess of their legal requirements, and business balance sheets show an unprecedented amount of cash and near-cash assets. True, increasing bank reserves means mortgage rates will decline, at least temporarily; they already have in anticipation of the bond purchases. But neither the Fed nor the public should expect much stimulus as a result.
The most important restriction on investment today is not tight monetary policy, but uncertainty about administration policy. Businesses cannot know what their taxes, health-care, energy and regulatory costs will be, so they cannot know what return to expect on any new investment. They wait, hoping for a better day and an end to antibusiness pronouncements from the White House. President Obama could do more for the economy by declaring a three-year moratorium on new taxes and new regulation.
Homebuilding is a major employment industry. Lowering mortgage rates helps a bit, but it is small beer when the supply of unsold houses remains large. The only lasting solution for housing is to let prices fall to a new equilibrium. Painful, yes, but necessary. Temporary palliatives such as lower interest rates delay that adjustment.
The market's response to the talk about renewed bond purchases includes a 12% or 13% decline in the value of the dollar against the euro. This depreciation occurred despite a weak euro, beset by potential crises in Ireland, Greece and Spain. The dollar's decline is a strong market vote of no confidence in the proposed policy.
Once the economy does begin to heat up, the Fed will urgently need to reduce excess bank reserves lest they stoke inflation. The Fed has talked about policies it can use to do so, such as raising the interest rates it pays to banks to hold their reserves. It has not offered a coherent, credible program to do so since it does not say, and probably does not know, how high the market interest rate would have to be.
But that is always the critical issue because the administration, Congress, business, unions and much of the public will demand a looser monetary policy if interest rates rise above 5%. Adverse public reaction to higher interest rates has stopped anti-inflation policy many times in the past.
Today bond markets act as if they believe the Fed can reduce current excess bank reserves fast enough to avoid inflation above 2% or 3%. They do not share my skepticism. Will they remain sanguine when excess reserves increase to $2 trillion? Or will interest rates rise, pushed up by a flight from government bonds? That's a risk that does not seem to bother many. Not yet, but it should, and it will.
One of the main reasons offered by some Fed governors and market portfolio managers for more stimulus is the fear of deflation. Yet the annual rate of increase in the consumer price index has remained between 1.2% and 2.5% every month this year. No evidence of deflation there. In fact, the Fed's inflation target is said to be between 1% and 2%, just about where it is.
The fear of mild deflation is another mistake, one commonly made. In the almost 100 years of Federal Reserve history, periods when prices declined over several months have occurred seven times. Sometimes the deflation reached 30%, yet the recoveries that followed six of the deflations cannot be distinguished from any other post-recession recovery.
The exception, the seventh, was the Great Depression. Prices had fallen but were expected to fall faster because, under the gold standard then in operation, people responded to failing banks and collapsing output by hoarding gold, further contracting the money supply.
Yes, a sustained deflation would be a big problem, but it is unlikely in today's circumstances. Countries with a depreciating exchange rate, an unsustainable budget deficit, and more than $1 trillion of excess monetary reserves are more likely to inflate. That's our problem today, and it's another reason the Fed should give up this nonsense about more stimulus and offer a credible long-term program to prevent the next inflation.
Mr. Meltzer is professor of political economy at Carnegie Mellon University, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and the author of "A History of the Federal Reserve" (University of Chicago Press, 2003 and 2010).
What’s holding back small businesses?
Here’s a chart from NYT breaking down what percent of small businesses cited each of these problems as their biggest challenge, going back to 1986:
Besides weak demand as shown up in poor sales, uncertainties in tax issues and government regulations are small business’ biggest concerns.
China to offer support to Greece
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao offered Greece a major vote of confidence on a visit to the debt-ridden European nation, saying China will continue to buy Greek bonds and announcing the creation of a $5 billion fund to help Greek shipping companies buy Chinese ships. The remarks represent some of China's most substantive support for the euro zone amid the region's debt troubles, and reflect the Asian giant's growing willingness to wield its economic clout to obtain wider international influence.
This is another attempt that China is trying to diversify away its investment in dollar-denominated assets. It's still too early to tell the impact of these government initiated investments. But history shows repeatedly when government gets into the business of firms, banks and individuals, it usually produces very poor results. What China should do is to reform its currency policy and speed up its financial reform; What it should not do is to continue building up foreign exchange reserves, and firms and businesses should be allowed to have their own foreign currency account and manage the currency risk by themselves.
Gary Becker on China’s Long Term Prospect
Gary Becker just came back from China. And he shares his thoughts on the country's long-term growth prospect. Like many others, Becker sounds a little worried about the enlarging state-sector in Chinese economy.
China's Next Leap Forward
by Gary Becker
Mr. Becker, the 1992 Nobel economics laureate, is professor of economics at the University of Chicago and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
I just spent two weeks lecturing in China and Hong Kong, and discussing China's economic development with many economists, businessmen and government officials. China's progress since my first trip there in 1981 has been truly remarkable, and I expect considerable growth during the next decade. Nevertheless, China still faces many challenges if it is to move beyond middle-level income status into the exclusive club of high per capita income countries.
No country in the modern world has managed persistent economic growth without considerable reliance on private enterprise and decentralized private markets. All centrally planned economies failed to achieve sustained development, including the Soviet Union before its collapse, China before market reforms began in the late 1970s, and Cuba since Castro's revolution in the late 1950s.
China's private sector has led its dominance in textiles, electronics, and other consumer and producer goods. It's followed the model of the "Asian Tigers"—Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan—and relied heavily on exports produced with cheap labor. In the process, China has accumulated enormous reserves, as Taiwan, Japan and other rapidly growing Asian economies did in past decades.
Poorer countries like China need not get everything "right" to grow rapidly through exports to richer countries. They need only have some strong sectors that use world markets to fuel overall growth. Japan's rapid growth from the 1960s-1980s was led by a highly efficient manufacturing sector. Yet at the same time Japan also had a large and inefficient service sector, and an agricultural sector that was riddled with subsidies and inefficient incentives.
Similarly, China's economy still has a glut of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) with excessive employment and low productivity. Their importance has fallen over time, but Chinese economists estimate that they still control about half of non-agricultural GDP (*SOE's share in manufacturing sector is much lower – my own note). One crucial example is the state-controlled financial sector that makes cheap loans to other large, inefficient and unprofitable state enterprises. China's economy also suffers from extensive price controls, restrictions on migration, and many other structural barriers to efficient growth.
Some democracies, like postwar Japan, have made the economic reforms needed for sustained economic progress. India, for example, experienced rapid growth after it began in 1991 to shed a socialist orientation and encourage private investment and private initiative. But economic progress has been swift under autocratic rule as well, including in Chile under Augusto Pinochet, Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew, and Taiwan under Chang Kai-shek. Usually, however, personal freedom has grown along with rapid economic progress in autocratic governments. Chile, Taiwan and South Korea, for example, all became vibrant democracies after they'd grown rapidly for a number of years.
Something related has happened in China. The degree of personal freedom in China today is enormously greater than in 1981, when the vast majority of the population had essentially no personal freedoms. The Internet, in particular, has given hundreds of millions of Chinese access to all kinds of information, including what happens in democracies, and various criticisms of their government's policies. The government actively tries to censor the Internet, but these censors are easily bypassed. Students and others say they readily "climb the wall" by using cheap software (appropriately, made in America) that gives them direct access to the Internet in Hong Kong and hence avoids the censors.
I do not know how soon China will evolve into a political system with competing parties, or whether China will continue to have effective leadership under its single-party structure. But as the economy continues to develop it will be impossible to prevent personal freedoms from expanding, including the freedom to criticize economic and social policies.
Global markets allow poor countries to grow rapidly for a while, but it is far more difficult to grow beyond middle-income levels. Much has been made of the fact that a month ago China's aggregate GDP surpassed that of Japan. But all that means is China's per capita income is about 10% of Japan's, since China's population is about 10 times that of Japan. Despite its great economic advances, China still has a long way to go to become a rich country.
China's locally owned government enterprises have been more efficient than national enterprises. This is mainly because local government enterprises have to compete against each other, whereas national enterprises often receive monopoly positions. But competition among government enterprises is a partial substitute for competition among privately owned enterprises. If China wants to continue to grow rapidly it will have to reduce the scope of the SOEs, especially the national ones, and greatly expand the private sector in finance, telecommunications and many other fields.
Developing countries improve their technological base by importing technologies and knowledge developed in advanced countries. China has encouraged direct foreign investment in part to get access to the technologies of Japan, the U.S., Germany and other nations. Using technologies developed by others is still important after countries advance to middle-income levels, but these countries must then also develop more of their own technologies to advance much further.
To accomplish this transition, China has been promoting university enrollments and a growing R&D sector. University attendance in China has grown greatly since the late 1990s, propelled by rapid increases in the earnings of individuals with higher education. China is innovating more, but it is still a long way behind the U.S., Japan and other rich countries.
As for China's currency, it's true that the yuan is considerably undervalued due to Beijing's continued intervention in foreign-exchange markets. But the undervalued yuan is a gift to American and other consumers outside China because it makes goods produced in China much cheaper.
In effect, China sells goods cheaply to the rest of the world and receives in return U.S. and other paper assets that pay almost no interest, and will depreciate in value when inflation rates increase in the U.S. These are the main reasons why China should move toward floating the yuan.
Many Chinese officials believe that substantial yuan appreciation will make the SOEs even less competitive, thereby increasing unemployment and social unrest as these enterprises contract. Yet an undervalued currency not only leads to a further accumulation of paper assets but also weakens the incentives of Chinese companies to cater to domestic consumption—which is remarkably weak—and to upgrade their exports to higher quality products.
There is tremendous pride and enthusiasm among Chinese regarding their economic achievements, and a growing confidence that China is returning to its great-country status of centuries ago. This is reflected in the enormous energy of its professionals, entrepreneurs and workers...
What leads to success?
In case you are still wandering…facing hard choices…