No Bubbles in Sight?

For those wishing for an antidote to negative news on the housing market, the person to read is Christopher Joye. (The institution to follow for optimism on debt is the Reserve Bank of Australia). I must admit that despite a lot of study, I simply have no idea whether there is a bubble or not in the Australian and Chinese housing markets. (After being a long time pessimist I fear being too optimistic and being wrong again in reverse).

Luckily I'm not paid to be either an optimist or a pessimist. What I think is obvious is that increased debt does lead to increased vulnerability as the RBA Governor recently warned about.

But that doesn’t mean it would be wise for that build-up in household leverage to continue unabated over the years ahead. One would have to think that, however well households have coped with the events of recent years, further big increases in indebtedness could increase their vulnerability to shocks – such as a fall in income – to a greater extent than would be prudent.

It may be that many households have sensed this. We see at present a certain caution in their behaviour: even though unemployment is low, and measures of confidence have been quite high, consumer spending has seen only modest growth. This may be partly attributable to the fact that the stimulus measures of late 2008 and early 2009 resulted in a bringing forward of spending on durables into that period from the current period (though purchases of motor vehicles by households – a different kind of durable – have increased strongly over recent months). But the long downward trend in the saving rate seems to have turned around and I think we are witnessing, at least just now, more caution in borrowing behaviour. Of course this will have been affected by the recent increase in interest rates but the level of rates is not actually high by the standards of the past decade or two. We can’t rule out something more fundamental at work.

We can’t know whether this apparent change will turn out to be durable. But if it did persist, and if that meant that we avoided a further significant increase in household leverage in this business cycle, it might be no bad thing. Moreover if a period of modest growth in consumer spending helped to make room for the build-up in investment activity that seems likely, perhaps that would be no bad thing either.

Fortunately, however, for those who don't like to sit on the fence like I (and the Governor it seems) do, there are definite proponents of boom or doom that you can read. For doom read Steve Keen; for boom (but not bubble) read Christopher Joye.

Joye's arguments are very persuasive and he always brings interesting data to the table. But I'm still concerned about the level of private debt in Australia. Most commentators are much more focused on public debt (partly because economists as a bunch are generally anti-govt and pro-market as a first principles assumption).

The problem with private debt is that there is no political constituency to develop policies to keep it down, as there is with public debt. Despite democratic pressures that encourage higher spending and lower taxation - what the Marxist James O'Connor in the 1970s called the "fiscal crisis of the state" and what others on the right called the "crisis of democracy" - eventually governments have to face the judgement of those from whom they borrow or tax.

While the 1980s did not signal the demise of the state as many predicted it did stop the growth of the state - at least while growth remained subdued. As Lindert (2004: 22) points out: "For all the often-reported “crisis” or “demise” of the welfare state, all one really sees after 1980 is a slowdown, not a decline, in the shares of GDP that welfare-state taxpayers put into such programs."

Recent events have shown just how important states remain in the global economy and I'm imagining that the last few years will show a considerable growth in the size of the state throughout the world. But as in the 1980s, this growth cannot continue and the constituencies in favour of fiscal retrenchment are reasserting themselves despite the uncertain nature of the recovery. Last week's G20 meeting was divisive compared to previous meetings and the major divide was over appropriate fiscal stances. (Just quietly those pesky global imbalances are unlikely to go away with the Germans tightening policy and the Americans keeping things pretty loose.

Retrenchment is well under way in Europe as countries as diverse as Greece and Ireland deal with fiscal crises. The Irish have decided to take harsh medicine and as a consequence the Irish population is going through hard times. Greece is another story and the major problem is actually building up a decent tax base. In other words, Greek authorities need to get people to pay tax. The Germans are major advocates of fiscal retrenchment, much to the annoyance of the United States.

One of the excellent points made by David Lindert (2004: 6) in his seminal study of social spending Growing Public is that governments are constrained by democracy:

There is no clear net cost to the welfare state, either in our first glance at the raw numbers or in deeper statistical analyses that hold many other things equal … It turns out there are many good reasons why radically different approaches to the welfare state have little or no net difference in their economic costs. Those reasons are many, in terms of an institutional list, but they boil down to a unified logic: Electoral democracy, for all its messiness and clumsiness, keeps the costs of either too much welfare or too little under control.

But what are the restrictions on the expansion of private debt? Governments have encouraged the growth of debt through taxation policies for housing and company debt.  And financial liberalisation has massively increased access to credit. Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-financial liberalisation. I would much rather live in an era where access to credit is not rationed and the financial sector is innovative and consumer oriented. But like all good things there is need for balance.

Rather than deal with the consequences of private debt in Australia, governments have attempted to underpin debt through subsidies, guarantees and . There is a good reason for this - any major pay down of debt in Australia will lead to lower spending. Now I hope that the optimists are right, but in the back of my mind is the continuing worry about what level of debt is too much.

Undoubtedly Australia has survived a very big stress test, but it did so by increasing public debt to maintain private debt. As Keynes supposedly once said: "the unsustainable cannot be sustained".


Reference:
Peter H. Lindert (2004) Growing Public: Social Spending and Economic Growth since the Eighteenth Century, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Government Spending, Deficits and Debt

There's been a lot of spurious stuff written recently about the dangers of deficit financing during the Great Recession. Reading some of the more alarmist stuff one would be forgiven for thinking that the world didn't just dodge a huge bullet - a major systemic financial collapse and a serious depression in the developed world, which would have eventually engulfed the whole world. The negative feedback possibilities were extremely scary. Massive fiscal stimulus made a big difference. As growth returns money will need to be paid back. My major concern is with indebtedness across the system, rather than in the govt sector.

The more alarmist writers always refer to govt debt in gross terms rather than in net terms.
Those interested in the detail can read the earlier post "Public Debt (for Nerds)". What really matters is net debt or more to the point net financial worth and net worth.

There is no doubt that govts cannot keep borrowing indefinitely, just like households and corporations.
One of the main differences between public andf private, however, is the capacity to fix finances through taxation. In the US in the 1990s, Clinton shifted the US debt position relatively easily and then Bush messed it up again.

For an excellent counter-intuitive account of these issues see Robert Frank's article "How to Run Up a Deficit, Without Fear" 

Frank drily notes that:

there are really only three basic truths that policy makers need to know about deficits: First, it’s actually good to run them during deep economic downturns. Second, whether deficits are bad in the long run depends on how borrowed money is spent. And third, eliminating deficits entirely would not require any painful sacrifices.

What! You ask, surely this can't be true? The first point comes directly from Keynes who correctly argued that in times of recession govts should do what they can to bolster spending.

Consumers won’t lead the way, because even those who still have jobs are fearful they might lose them. And most businesses won’t invest, since they already have more capacity than they need. Only government, Mr. Keynes concluded, has both the motive and opportunity to increase spending significantly during deep downturns.
Of course, if the government borrows to do so, the debt must eventually be repaid (or the interest on it must be paid forever). That fact has provoked strident protests about government “bankrupting our grandchildren.”
It’s an absurd complaint. Failure to stimulate the economy would mean a longer downturn. That, in turn, would mean longer stretches of reduced tax receipts, increased unemployment insurance payouts, and depressed private investment. The net result? Higher total public borrowing and a permanent decline in productivity compared with what we would have had under effective economic stimulus.

But govts do have to pay the debt back as the economy recovers.

At full employment, extra borrowing often compromises future prosperity, just as critics say. On President George W. Bush’s watch, for example, the national debt rose from $5 trillion to $10 trillion. Some of that borrowing paid for an expansion of Medicare prescription coverage and a financial bailout a year ago, but most went for a war in Iraq and tax cuts that largely just allowed for additional consumption. Our grandchildren will be forever poorer as a result.

What matters is what govt borrowing is used for - govts can usefully make productive investments that will benefit future generations.

After decades of neglect of the nation’s infrastructure, attractive public investment opportunities abound. It’s been estimated, for example, that eliminating bottlenecks on the Northeast rail corridor would generate $12 billion in benefits at a cost of only $6 billion. These are present value estimates. When government undertakes such investments, our grandchildren become richer, not poorer.

Frank then suggests correctly that in normal times, govts should pay for productive investment with savings rather than borrowings.

But they’d be richer in the long run if we paid for those investments with our own savings rather than with borrowed money, for that would allow our grandchildren to benefit from the miracle of compound interest. Many fiscal hawks insist that the only way to eliminate deficits and pay for additional investment is by cutting government spending. But as California’s experience suggests, that approach often backfires. Government programs have constituents. Those that get the ax are often not the least valuable ones, but those whose supporters have the least influence. California’s schools, once among the nation’s best, are now among the worst.

The solution, of course, is taxation. A dirty word for many, but essential for not only a civilized society but a productive one as well.

To eliminate deficits, we need additional revenue. The encouraging news is that we could raise more than enough to balance government budgets by replacing our existing tax system with one that taxes activities that cause harm to others. Called Pigovian taxes by economists — after the English economist Arthur Cecil Pigou — such levies create a burden that is more than offset by the reductions they cause in costly side effects of everyday activities.
When producers emit sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, for example, the resulting acid rain harms others. As the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act demonstrated, the most efficient and least intrusive remedy was to tax sulfur dioxide emissions. Doing so entailed no net sacrifice, because solving the same problem by prescriptive regulation would have been much more costly.
Similarly, when motorists enter congested roadways, they impose additional delays on others. Here, too, taxation is the best remedy. The time that congestion fees save is more valuable than the fees are burdensome.
When the transactions of financial speculators fuel asset bubbles, they increase the risk of financial meltdowns. A small tax on those transactions would reduce this risk.
When drivers buy heavier vehicles, they increase others’ risk of dying in accidents. This risk would be lower if we taxed vehicles by weight. Carbon dioxide emissions contribute to global warming. Here as well, taxation offers the most efficient and least intrusive remedy.
Anti-tax zealots denounce all taxation as theft, as depriving citizens of their right to spend their hard-earned incomes as they see fit. Yet nowhere does the Constitution grant us the right not to be taxed. Nor does it grant us the right to harm others with impunity. No one is permitted to steal our cars or vandalize our homes. Why should opponents of taxation be allowed to harm us in less direct ways?
Taxes on harmful activities would be justified quite apart from any need to balance government budgets. But such taxes would also generate ample revenue for the public services we demand, quieting the ill-considered commentary about deficits.
In the meantime, however, such commentary continues to render intelligent political decisions about deficits less likely. For example, 58 percent of respondents in a recent NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll said the president and Congress should worry less about bolstering the economy than keeping the deficit down, while only 35 percent said economic recovery was a higher priority.
If we really want to bankrupt our grandchildren, that poll charts a promising course.

 

Krugman on Stimulus, Debt and Hysteria etc

Paul Krugman has long been the most accessible economic commentator on the US scene. I've been reading his work from the early 1990s when his contrarian views were aimed at those centre-left commentators like Lester Thurow, Robert Reich and Robert Kuttner who he argued were over-estimating the impact of globalisation.

His book Pop Internationalism was a fairly savage attack on what he implied was an economically illiterate position. In those days I saw him as a bit of smarty, who set up straw man constructions of his opponents' arguments (and he really did see the debate in these oppositional terms).

But in the main, I soon realised he was largely correct about globalisation and indeed his scepticism was needed. The belief of the Clinton Liberals that they were "held hostage by a bunch of f...king bond traders" was indicative of the overblown (financial) globalisation thesis that effectively argued that finance ruled and needed to be obeyed. (Susan Strange and Philip Cerny also argued this position).

This was always crappola, especially in the US, but the lobbies were extremely powerful and US policy-makers saw a more free-wheeling approach to financial regulation as in the US's interests. Unfortunately, the fact that the Clinton admin gave so much ground to financial interests is a fundamental antecedent of the global financial crisis.

No doubt Krugman has shifted to the left since those days and perhaps today he is the most influential liberal (in the American sense) economic commentator in the US, writing regularly for the New York Times.  His blog The Conscience of a Liberal is definitely worth following if you're interested in the US or world economy.

His latest crusade is against the fear mongering about US public debt. Now US debt is extremely high at $12 trillion, but Krugman argues that the crisis was and is still so bad that this debt is worthwhile and needs to be extended.

The NYT itself ran a story on the front page about the debt quoting Bill Gross of Pimco, who argues that

What a good country or a good squirrel should be doing is stashing away nuts for the winter ... The United States is not only not saving nuts, it’s eating the ones left over from the last winter.

You got to love folksy parables about government debt. Not.

But government debt makes good copy. It is, after all, the tax payers' money. And, you'll be pleased to know that the financial sector has the taxpayers' interests at heart!

Krugman's most recent target in "The Phantom Menace" is Obama, whom he argues is losing his nerve and rationality.

In December 2008 Lawrence Summers, soon to become the administration’s highest-ranking economist, called for decisive action. “Many experts,” he warned, “believe that unemployment could reach 10 percent by the end of next year.” In the face of that prospect, he continued, “doing too little poses a greater threat than doing too much.”

Ten months later unemployment reached 10.2 percent, suggesting that despite his warning the administration hadn’t done enough to create jobs. You might have expected, then, a determination to do more.

But in a recent interview with Fox News, the president sounded diffident and nervous about his economic policy. He spoke vaguely about possible tax incentives for job creation. But “it is important though to recognize,” he went on, “that if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession.

What? Huh?

Most economists I talk to believe that the big risk to recovery comes from the inadequacy of government efforts: the stimulus was too small, and it will fade out next year, while high unemployment is undermining both consumer and business confidence

Now, it’s politically difficult for the Obama administration to enact a full-scale second stimulus. Still, he should be trying to push through as much aid to the economy as possible. And remember, Mr. Obama has the bully pulpit; it’s his job to persuade America to do what needs to be done.

Obama, according to Krugman is getting the wrong advice from Wall Street. One wonders how much credibility is left on the Street, but I guess that money (especially when buttressed by the tax payer) can buy a lot of influence.

Ever since the Great Recession began economic analysts at some (not all) major Wall Street firms have warned that efforts to fight the slump will produce even worse economic evils. In particular, they say, never mind the current ability of the U.S. government to borrow long term at remarkably low interest rates — any day now, budget deficits will lead to a collapse in investor confidence, and rates will soar.

...

And shouldn’t we consider the source? As far as I can tell, the analysts now warning about soaring interest rates tend to be the same people who insisted, months after the Great Recession began, that the biggest threat facing the economy was inflation. And let’s not forget that Wall Street — which somehow failed to recognize the biggest housing bubble in history — has a less than stellar record at predicting market behavior.

Still, let’s grant that there is some risk that doing more about double-digit unemployment would undermine confidence in the bond markets. This risk must be set against the certainty of mass suffering if we don’t do more — and the possibility, as I said, of a collapse of confidence among ordinary workers and businesses.

And Mr. Summers was right the first time: in the face of the greatest economic catastrophe since the Great Depression, it’s much riskier to do too little than it is to do too much. It’s sad, and unfortunate, that the administration appears to have lost sight of that truth.

 Let's hope that Obama doesn't take too much advice from Wall Street or the Pentagon (but that's another story).

Asia's on the road to recovery according to Asian Development Bank

It's hard being a negative vibe merchnat at the moment
Yet still I remain so ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/business/global/22yuan.html?emc=tnt&tntemail0=y