Writing Dreams

Two recent events have rocked the world of a couple of internet denizens.

The first is David C. Simon, the creator of the webcomic Crimson Dark. Simon, a talented user of computer graphics and scriptwriting, has been nabbed by the Game company that is producing "Star Wars: The Old Republic". Simon's role will be mainly in writing, but there's no doubt that his skills in creating Crimson Dark were an important part of this process.

The second is that a Redditor named Prufrock451 with a good script idea is now in talks with a Hollywood company. While this is early days yet, it is the culmination of a very quick few weeks in which the Redditor began writing a sci fi/fantasy story in which a Marine battalion in Afghanistan is transported back in time to ancient Rome. The story, called Rome Sweet Rome, started off mere weeks ago as an experiment in writing that somehow gained a huge following amongst Redditors. Just the mere idea of Machineguns mowing down Praetorian Guards got people involved, not just in reading but also in editing. I suppose you could call it a Saw and Sandal epic (see here).

A proposed solution: Co-ordinated international fiscal and currency policy

Synopsis: A new international agreement between China, Japan the US and the Eurozone should be made to boost economic growth: The US Dollar should be actively depreciated against the value of the Japanese Yen and the Chinese Yuan; Japan and China should enact substantial stimulus programs while the US dollar drops in value. This should boost internal demand in Japan and China which would result in a higher amount of goods and services exported from the US. The Eurozone should also enact a stimulus program while depreciating the Euro slightly. This would ensure both an increase in overall economic growth in all nations while solving the current account imbalances which helped create the economic crisis in the first place.

Due to the inter-relationships between various economies and the imbalances that occur between them, it strikes me that one of the better solutions to the world's current malaise would be to enact some sort of co-ordinated fiscal and monetary policy.

I am one who believes that our current situation has arisen mainly due to imbalances in world investment. Huge current account surpluses in some nations have led to a permanent culture of saving while huge current account surpluses in other nations have led to a permanent culture of borrowing. As a result, certain nations have become "geared" to either saving & production or borrowing & consumption. The response to the economic crisis so far has not resulted in a move away from this imbalance but has rather sought to entrench it further. For example, policy in the US is all about the importance to reviving consumption, either via various stimulus packages or quantitative easing - all of which are designed to boost consumption and reduce saving. Meanwhile, China and Japan and other nations geared towards saving and production continue to manipulate forex markets to keep their nations producing and their citizens saving, all the while waiting for the US to begin consumption and borrowing again.

Well let me suggest the opposite as a solution.

If we want to rebalance the world economy at the same time as boost it, then there needs to be a shift towards balanced current accounts. This would mean that the US would no longer be the world's borrower and consumer, and Japan and China no longer be the world's saver and producer. It would work something like this:

1. A new "Plaza accord" is agreed upon between the US, China and Japan and the Eurozone. This agreement would see a depreciation in the value of the US dollar against the Japanese Yen and the Chinese Yuan. A small depreciation in the Euro would also occur.
   
2. At the same time as this occurs, the governments of China, Japan and the Eurozone enact substantial fiscal stimulus programs to boost internal demand.
3. The increase in internal demand from Japan and China combined with a lower US Dollar will result in an increase in US production.
4. All three nations, along with the Eurozone, agree to have a currency board to ensure that a balanced current account exists between them. This currency board would not exist to peg the three currencies but to merely ensure that the current account remains balanced within the limits of a floating currency.

What this will do is ensure that future Chinese and Japanese economic growth is no longer linked to US consumption and borrowing. The stimulus program in China and Japan should increase the demand for US goods and services. This would increase aggregate demand in the US without relying upon US government spending. Now to some questions about this:

How does the Eurozone fit in?
The Eurozone already has a balanced current account. Unlike many commentators I support the notion of the Eurozone and believe that it is an optimal currency area, which means that any internal current account imbalances amongst Eurozone countries is not as important as the current account of the whole. At present, the Eurozone's current account is nicely balanced, which means that any new Plaza accord should aim to change the current account balances of China, Japan and the US, but not the Eurozone. Of course the stimulus program in the Eurozone would only be useful if the current account remains balanced, which is why only a small depreciation in the Euro is required.

But the US doesn't produce anything!
This is plainly wrong as any judicious person knows. The US has the world's largest manufacturing base. Any increase in external demand will result in an increase in US manufacturing. In order to boost manufacturing and create jobs (especially for those with lower skills) a balancing of the current account must be undertaken.

Can we trust the currency boards?
So long as there is an agreement between the nations involved, so long as the boards are kept free from political and market influence and so long as they are answerable for the decisions they make, then they should be trustworthy.

Can Japan afford it?
Japan's long period of economic malaise has been accompanied mainly by a lack of internal demand. Balancing the Japanese current account and enacting a stimulus would ensure that any boost in economic performance arising from the stimulus is felt mainly in internal demand. In short, Japanese consumption - which is problematic - will be boosted; simultaneously US production - which is problematic - will be boosted. Accompanying this new economic situation will be a decrease in Japanese savings levels - which are too high - and an increase in US savings levels - which are too low. The result of this should be an increase in Japanese economic growth and, with it, an increase in tax revenue. Japan's public funds are certainly problematic, and so I would suggest an increase in tax rates accompany the increase in government spending. The short term boost in spending - which would boost economic growth - would then give way to a longer term sustainable economic performance which, because taxes are higher, would result in increase government revenue and more government debt being paid off. It stands to reason that the Bank of Japan change its policy to, at the very least, prevent long-term deflation (a phenomenon that is felt more by the Japanese GDP deflator than in the CPI).

What about Wall Street?
Let the follow rather than lead. With an increase in US manufacturing and exports, Wall Street should begin investing in companies that actually produce goods and services. Then Wall Street will be doing its job properly.

What about the rest of the world?
With China, Japan, the US and the Eurozone combined, this agreement accounts for over 75% of world GDP. The other 25% will probably need further international agreements - but at the moment we can leave that for the future.

What about US Conservatives?
This agreement won't need much in the way of further government spending for the US. US Conservatives couldn't care less about Japanese, Chinese or European big government spending. Actually, they should be happy that US goods will be increasingly sold in China. They should also welcome the profits made by US industrialists.

An analysis of the past 30 years

So I was playing around with my spreadsheet and some numbers recently and decided to work out just how much money has been invested in the sharemarket as a proportion of GDP. Of course we remember the time when the Dow hit 10,000 and unemployment was low - but it's currently over 10,000 and unemployment is high. This should indicate something strange going on, not to mention question the idea that the Dow represents the economy.

I couldn't use the Dow index, though. Instead I decided on the Wilshire 5000, which is an index that a) encompasses all shares in all publicly traded markets in the US, not just the top performing ones, and b) comes up with an index number that also closely approximates the dollar value of the entire sharemarket. For example, the W5000 index for 2011-08-18 (last Friday) closed at 11806.16, which approximates $11.8 Trillion. Historical numbers of this broad index can be found at St Louis, as always. So what happens when you look at this index and compare it to GDP? This:

By way of comparison, throughout the 1970s this index averaged around 56% of GDP, and swung between 38% and 83% of GDP. The 1980s and half the 1990s thus saw a W5000 performance not too different from previous experiences. Then from 1995 onwards we have the tech boom, which peaks in 2000 Q1 at over 140% of GDP. Yet there was no decline back to the sub 80s for the long term but a re-inflating of the bubble from 2003 Q1 onwards (which, by the way, occurs around the same time as the Federal Funds Rate drops from 1.75% to 1.25% and then 1.00% for the rest of 2003). A second, lower, peak is reached in 2007 Q2 (108%), which then plunges back down to 58% in 2009 Q1 as a natural result of the 2008 credit crisis. Since then it has re-inflated back up to 92% of GDP in 2011 Q2. Of course, there is a huge chance that this number is going to crash down again.

What appears to have happened is simple - there has been a sharemarket investment bubble that has inflated since 1995 and which has yet to be properly dealt with. My belief is that the higher the sharemarket value to GDP ratio is (as demonstrated by the graph above) the more chance there is of a bust and a damaging recession. Either the sharemarket needs to crash down or GDP has to increase to ensure a more sustainable level. Anything below 50% of GDP should be a policy goal. This can be achieved through a Tobin Tax or a Market Capitalisation Tax imposed upon the sharemarket - with taxation rates increasing the higher the ratio gets in order to prevent runaway over-investment.

This issue also reveals shortcomings in monetary policy. While monetary policy affects the entire market, it affects the financial market and its behaviour directly through its operations. If the market is in the process of over-investing, then all monetary policy ends up doing is re-inflating the bubble, rather than mitigating liquidity issues arising from a deflating bubble. Ideally monetary policy in this situation should create a "soft landing" for the deflating bubble - but in practice it has simply re-inflated the bubble and, as a result, postpones the bubble bursting to a later date.

This issue also reveals shortcomings in fiscal policy. Tax cuts for the rich have not resulted in a substantial increase in money velocity but rather a further investment into the share market.

Finally it also appears that our current economic state is the result of the tech boom's bust. We're paying now for decisions made by the financial market up to 16 years ago. While it is true that the 2008 credit crisis had a more damaging impact upon the economy and upon unemployment than the 2001 recession, we can trace back the credit crisis to the tech boom.

Now the second graph to look at concerns personal saving. I've based this upon the St Louis Fed PSAVE series which measure the dollar amount of personal saving. I've then compared it to GDP. What has happened since 1981? This:

By way of comparison, between 1951 and 1980, the ratio of personal savings to GDP averaged 6.04%, with the lowest being 3.86% in 1951 Q1 and the highest being 9.28% in 1975 Q2. The average between 1980 and today has been 4.27%.

So since 1980 personal savings as a percent of GDP has dropped. In fact it dropped below the 4% level on a more or less continual basis since... 1995 Q2. Now where have we heard of that quarter before? Oh yes... that was when the sharemarket tech bubble started. In recent years the savings ratio has tried desperately to rise above 5% but has gotten no further than 4.84%

My belief is that too much personal savings is bad, but that too little is bad as well. If we assume that the 1951-1980 period was a better period for personal saving then obviously it should increase in these times. But it hasn't. Why?

The first is that we need to look at personal saving at the same time as we look at sharemarket investing. As sharemarket investing has grown so has personal saving dropped. This indicates that people are investing more in the share market than they are in cash.

The second reason is that GDP has grown substantially in response to sharemarket investment. While it has created a "virtuous cycle" for part of that time, it means that ordinary people have had less money in proportion to GDP for them to save.

But here's another graph: Public debt.

One rule of thumb that people over the years have believed in is that when the government goes into debt, the private sector begins to save. Yet this doesn't appear to be true when it comes to personal saving. Since 1980 personal saving as proportion of GDP has decreased, while US government debt has increased. If the rule of thumb worked, then why wasn't there an increase in personal savings?

Well in one sense there was an increase in personal savings - investing in the share market. Share market investing, because it became so attractive, took money away from cash investment.

And the fourth graph is interesting too: The balance on the current account.

By way of comparison, the period between 1960 Q4 and 1979 Q4 saw an average current account surplus of 0.26% of GDP, with a high of 1.06% of GDP in 1975 Q4 and a low of -0.87% in 1978 Q3. Since 1980 the current account has averaged around -2.58% per year, with a high of 0.05% in 1991 Q4 and a low of -6.11% in 2006 Q3.

The first thing to note is that the first drop in the current account between 1984 and 1988 occurred during a time when the US Dollar increased in value. The Plaza accord was signed in 1985 Q3 to reduce the value of the US Dollar. This eventually saw the current account reach a trough in 1987 Q2 and begin to rise again.

The 1997 Asian financial crisis then saw a rush of investment into the US Dollar, which began rising again. By 1998 Q3 the current account had dropped past -2% of GDP. Since then the current account has been deeply negative.

We need to remember that the world cashed in on America's sharemarket boom as well. The current account deficit hid inflation and prevented any meaningful tightening of monetary policy to rein in the asset-price bubble that had formed.

In light of this, what would OSO do?

1. Institute a Tobin Tax or Market Capitalisation Tax to dissuade over-investment in the sharemarket. Rates would be increased the more the market over-invests. This money would, at the moment, be useful in paying off government debt.
2. Create a currency board to control US currency. This would not be an abandonment of a floating currency and nor would it be a return to Bretton Woods. Instead a currency board would act to ensure a balanced current account by entering the Forex market and either buying or selling US dollars in response to current account fluctuations. The US would also take the lead in creating a new world trade agreement to ensure that all major industrialised nations would institute currency boards to do the same thing for their own currency zones: ensure balanced current accounts (rather than current account deficits or surpluses). I go into more detail on this idea here.
3. Create more broad-based monetary policy to ensure a wider scope for its effect: Quantitative easing needs to do more than just buy back government bonds - it could also be used to directly fund treasury, to create banks or even be used in Keynesian stimulus programs.
4. Regulate the financial industry to dissuade the ponzi-like nature of modern financial investment. More details here.
5. Expand government services with a commensurate increase in taxation to create another "New Deal". A minor "Total War" economy needs to be examined again, though with money being spent on growth (and obviously the environment and global warming) rather than on military equipment and wars. More details here.
   

Bigger government is needed for the US economy - OSO's New Deal

This graph from Calculated Risk has been worrying me for a while:

The most noticeable thing about this particular recession is just how long it has taken for unemployment to recover - or not recover as the case is. But this is not an isolated case. The 2001 recession took ages for unemployment to recover, as did the 1990 recession. Obviously something has happened to the US economy that has prevented quick employment recovery even while GDP recovers.

I'm still trying to work out what that is. I have at theory but that will come in another posting.

What is obvious though is that the market is just not creating enough jobs. While the cause might be debatable, the result is not.

But what is needed to fix this is not just another round of stimulus packages. What is needed is a structural expansion of government spending. In essence, the US government needs to spend more.

Of course readers of this blog might wonder if I have changed my mind from recent times when I advocated austerity. The problem is that the word "austerity" has ended up becoming synonymous with spending cuts - which is the favoured position of conservatives. While I have advocated spending cuts in the area of military spending I came to the conclusion that the only way the US could ever hope to cut enough spending to make any difference would be to destroy Medicare or Social Security (and I don't use the word "destroy" lightly - you'd be looking at cuts of over 50% to make any difference). The alternative is to raise taxes - and that is the option I have always promoted. I still define this as "austerity" since it causes pain, but it is not the preferred description of the word in these times.

What I have done, though, is change my position on the market's ability to recover properly. I would've been happy for Obama to cut military spending and raise taxes in order to run a small deficit (at the least) but do little else while the economy stumbles, falls and eventually recovers from my austerity package. Now I realise that the economy wouldn't recover - at least not quick enough to make any difference.

So here's my big government solution:

More government spending.

I would create the following long term or permanent programs:

1. Universal Health Care. This would involve "Medicare for all" and would probably increase the size of government by 4-5% percent of GDP. So you're looking at an increase in government spending from around 25% of GDP to around 29-30% of GDP. This would naturally have the effect of Keynesian stimulus but the result would be healthier citizens - something that would boost the productivity of workers. The increase in spending relative to GDP would be permanent.
   
2. Building a renewable energy infrastructure. This would involve the eventual shutting down of all coal and gas powered power stations and the building of renewable alternatives to replace them. Developing nuclear reactors based on the Thorium & Molten Salt technologies would be acceptable but I can't get over the sheer availability of deep geothermal power: they would be expensive to develop and build but once they're there they will last for many decades. To fast-track the building of these, a renewable energy sector would take at least 10 years to complete. But as we can see from the military buildup during world war 2, all it takes is the will to do it. This would radically reduce America's carbon emissions. An upgrading of America's electricity grid would also accompany this. You're looking at adding another 1-2% of GDP being spent on this over a ten year period.
   
3. Mandate and support an electric car industry. This would involve a legal framework preventing the sale and registration of carbon-emitting cars by a certain date (say 10 years in the future) but would also need substantial government investment in battery technology. The Nissan Leaf, the first real "electric car" sold to the market, still has only a short range. Inventing batteries that hold more power is essential if electric cars are to effectively replace their petroleum or lpg powered competitors. Spending on this program would also build a nationwide network of recharging stations to ensure that no electric car is out of recharging range. Not only would such a program reduce carbon emissions, they would also reduce America's dependence upon oil and mitigate the problem of Peak Oil. Add another 1% to GDP being spent on this over a ten year period.
   
4. Set up a national water grid. This would involve potable water being distributed over all states and towns throughout a national network of water pipes and purification plants. This would ensure that any future droughts in the US (brought on by global warming) would not affect town and urban water supplies. It would theoretically mean water sourced from Seattle finding its way to Texas through this proposed water grid. While this would require a huge amount of work, a lot of the work would simply involve connecting up disparate water infrastructure and bringing standards up to a national level. You could probably add 0.1% to 0.5% of GDP on this over a ten year period.
5. Provide a national child tutoring strategy. This would involve the hiring of personal tutors to deliver numeracy and literacy skills to the nation's Kindergarten,1st and 2nd grade students. Each student would receive one hour of personal tutoring per week at the school they attend during the school year. While this will not have any immediate economic benefit apart from increasing the money velocity, it will eventually produce adults who are better educated and more likely to succeed at employment and less likely to end up in jail. All economic benefits. I'm not sure how much this would cost but you'd be looking at at least 0.1% of GDP being spent on this program on an ongoing basis. Additional tutoring, say in 3rd grade and above, would increase this effect even further.
   

Less money on Defense

America does not need to spend huge amounts on national defense. Of course it is important that some level of defense spending exist to defeat any potential attacker, but I am convinced that the most bloated, most inefficient and most corrupt sector in government spending is in defense contracting. Reducing military expenditure may not even reduce America's military strength, it will make the whole contracting system better.

In fact I would suggest a change in the way the whole contracting thing works. Rather than contracting out to companies who design weaponry and other military items, the government should actually do this themselves. Let's say we want to build the fictional B-5 supersonic stealth bomber. Instead of contracting out the design to Boeing, the design is actually made by government employees working in a government building somewhere. Once the design is complete, they then contract out the parts building to the defense companies - and ensure that common parts can be made by many different manufacturers in order to reward the productivity and profitability that would arise in a competitive environment. The B-5 could even be manufactured by different aerospace companies, with Boeing manufacturing some, Northrop Grumman some more, and Lockheed Martin the rest.

Higher Taxes - especially for the rich and corporations

Alongside this substantial increase in spending should be a substantial increase in taxation. I don't believe that deficits don't matter and there is a need for the debt to be paid down. Since we can no longer rely upon the market to provide enough economic growth to increase tax revenue,  the government will simply have to step in, increase spending and increase taxation. In fact I would argue that the increase in taxes should be substantially higher than any increase in spending. I would advocate not only an increase in spending (outlined above) but an increase in taxes so high that a budget surplus is created. It is expected that any economic pain generated by this increase in taxation would be matched by the economic gain of the increase in government spending (above)

There are many ways to achieve this - one way is to increase the highest marginal tax rate. Another is to introduce a Tobin Tax.

My preferred method of taxing the financial market would be to create a market capitalisation tax: public companies being taxed incrementally on a daily basis according to their market capitalisation (share price multiplied by amount of shares). In fact I would adjust the tax according to the average p/e ratio in order to punish over-investment - if the p/e ratio of the whole sharemarket is too high, then there will be an increase in the market capitalisation tax. If the p/e ratio falls down low, then the tax would also be lowered. This system would not only generate income for the government to balance its finances, but would also act as an "automatic stabiliser" for the financial industry - punishing the market if it approaches unsustainable investment bubbles, encouraging the market if it there is not enough investment.

OSO's New Deal

Of course once the spending I have outlined above runs out over ten years (with the exception of Medicare and the tutor system), we would also assume that government debt would have been paid off by the increases in tax revenue. What then? Well I'm happy, once America has reinvented its energy, transport and water infrastructure, for taxes to drop. Hopefully the success of my "New Deal" would see so much economic and social success that Norquisters, Randians and Supply Siders would descend into obscurity. It would also force political conservatives to be more centralist, where they can be far more effective at promoting non-extremist conservative policies and ideas (conservatism does, after all, still have many considerable strengths once the extremism is removed from it).

So what are the chances of this occurring? Probably none. Rather, I expect the coming downturn to turn people against Obama and vote for a crazy Republican in 2012, ensuring a Republican controlled congress as well. What they would do from there is anyone's guess, but I doubt that any polices they do enact will do anything except make things worse.

Market Cap heading for adjusted US dollar fall?

I've adjusted the Russell 3000, an indice that measures market capitalisation, by the value of the US Dollar as measured by the USDX index, and I found this interesting thing:

Financial analysts have often used little thingys like lines of resistance or something like that. I don't fully understand it but it seems to show that a potential high has been reached and that maybe, just maybe, there'll be another drop. In the context of this particular graph, it would be either a drop in the value of the US Dollar or a drop in the value of the Russell 3000, or some combination of both.

US Dollar history since 1980 - and how it affects GDP

The USDX is the indice that measures the relative worth of the US Dollar to the rest of the world. Here is a graph showing how the US Dollar has performed since 1980:

As you can see, there was a huge increase in the mid 1980s. The Plaza Accord wiped out the value in the second half of the 80s, while the late 90s saw a resurgence in the US dollar, partly as a result of panic induced by the Asian Economic Crisis, and partly by the Dot-Com Bubble. The large swing upwards in 2008 was due to panic induced by the 2008 Credit Crisis, when investors dumped shares and fled to the safety of treasuries, which naturally drove the US dollar up.

------

Now if we add Real GDP to the mix, we can see just how well the United States as an economy has performed against the rest of the world. The idea here is that we look at Q1 1980 as the baseline (100), and then adjust each quarter's GDP performance by the 12 month USDX average. I chose to average out the USDX over twelve months rather than three months because otherwise the graph would look a bit too shaky. Here it is:

What is notable here is that the US economy grew rapidly in the early 80s and then busted as a result of the Plaza Accord. this meant the US GDP relative to the rest of the world did not recover until the 90s. The indicie on my spreadsheet shows that GDP per capita peaked at 193.86 in Q3 1985, reached a trough of 133.49 in Q1 1991, and then reached 195.29 in Q2 1998. In other words, it took 13 years for the 1985 peak to be reached again.

GDP then peaked at 259.93 in Q1 2002, which is interesting since this was after the early 2000s recession had peaked. Obviously the drop in GDP was more than made up for in the rise of the US Dollar. Since 2002, the US has been in a protracted fall in real GDP measured against the value of the US Dollar, the trough being 192.54 in Q3 2008 (just when the credit crisis was hitting the most). Since then there has been a small rise, but not by much. The Q3 2010 indice was 207.38 (awaiting GDP revisions), which means that the US economy has barely doubled in size since 1980.

-----

Now we look at Real GDP per capita. This is an important measurement because it examines economic performance per head of population rather than just output. Measuring Real GDP per capita is probably the broadest way to measure whether an economy is growing or is in recession. If we adjust it according to the USDX, we get this:

This, of course, looks worse than Real GDP. In fact the latest indice on my spreadsheet for Q3 2010 is 151.48, which means that economic growth per person is only 50% better than what it was in 1980. Peaks and troughs are pretty much the same as Real GDP.

-----

The last thing I want to look at is the performance of public companies in the US. The Russell 3000 Index measures market capitalisation and has been running as an indice since September 1987. If we adjust the indice by the USDX (monthly values for both) we get the following graph:

Again you can see here the massive impact of the Dot-Com bubble in the late 1990s. The index peaked at 532.12 in August 2000, with a trough of 266.82 in February 2003, a smaller peak of 417.43 in May 2007, a deep trough of 209.98 in February 2009 (a few months after the credit crisis started), and a recent peak of 326.03 in April 2010. The October 2010 indice is 309.75.

In many ways you can see just how damaging the Dot-Com bubble was - each successive peak appears to be lower than the previous one. And remember that this takes into account the relative value of the US Dollar, which means that while Market Caps (and the Russell 3000) might be increasing, the US Dollar might be lowering in value - so what we're seeing is US Market Capitalisation in the context of the entire global economy.

-----

NOTE: The use of Real GDP figures as opposed to current dollar GDP figures here may be problematic. When I measure public debt I only ever use current dollar GDP. If there are any problems with this then let me know, since re-doing these graphs according to current dollar GDP will be fairly easy (the numbers are already in my spreadsheet).

If anyone wants the raw data on my spreadsheet, contact me and I'll send a copy to you. Having my data and conclusions verified by others is a pleasure (even if it means that I have been proved wrong).

Why invest in America?

This graphic is from the recent Economist magazine and can be found at this link:


It seems rather clear that overseas sharemarkets are performing better than the DJIA and S&P500 - even when you take out the falling dollar they are better.

A Deflationless Depression?

Logic can be a bad weapon when the equation isn't finished.

Think back to the Great Depression. Long lines of unemployment, years of economic contraction, suffering, etc.

One big thing that happened during that period was deflation - a continual falling of prices. Goods and services dropped in value on a daily basis.

The problem was chronic, and policy makers at the time either didn't know how to cure it, or didn't really see it as an important issue. In hindsight it was. Keynes rightfully argued that a good response would've been for the government to expand its operations and run a deficit, thus increasing economic growth and reinflating. Monetarists rightfully argued that interest rates at the time were too high and that increasing the money supply by lowering rates would've been a good solution. Ben Bernanke, in his study of the Depression, declared that there was always the option of merely creating money ex nihilo and throwing it around until deflation disappeared (and thus was born his nickname "Helicopter Ben").

So... here we are on the cusp of yet another potential depression. Ben is doing his best to keep deflation at bay - interest rates have dropped again, a process which acts to stimulate money growth. If the problem gets any worse Ben may have to warm up his helicopter and begin money bombing.

But will this solve the problem? Will the simple process of creating more money - which is balanced out by the market's deflationary money hoarding - do the trick? Is it simply a matter of monetary policy?

The answer to that, of course, is no. It will certainly help prevent exacerbating the problem, but we need to remember that the Great Depression was not simply a failure to keep prices stable.

At present, I would argue that our current set of policy tools and economic understanding is quite capable of coping with an economic upheaval similar to that which caused the Great Depression. Yet I would also argue that the upheaval we are experiencing now is twice as worse as the share price bubble bursting in 1929.

The basis for this argument is the below graph, which I mentioned back in July and which was instrumental in changing me from an "optimistic financial doomer" into a "pessimistic financial doomer":

The graph is sourced from this article at Naked Capitalism.

There is always something terribly frightening about any graph showing exponential growth as it plots something in the real world. "What goes up must go down" is the rule - and the current market crash seems to be following this principle.

I still cannot believe that total credit market debt is equivalent to around 350% of GDP. If that isn't frightening enough, look back the great depression years - the "spike" on the left hand side of the graph. This may, of course, be simply a Propter Hoc scenario - two bits of information that appear to be linked but aren't - but I honestly doubt it since we are comparing stats from the same area of study.

(Note: an example of a Propter Hoc fallacy would be to say that the decline in popularity of Spirographs has occurred while childhood literacy has dropped - thus creating the impression that declining literacy rates could be stopped by buying more Spirographs. The two areas of study - developmental psychology and sales figures - need more to link them than just sheer coincidence. In the case of the graph above and the instance of economic downturns, the information is linked in the area of financial statistics, thus making the correlation between the two more reliable).

If the graph is correct (and I trust Yves), then we are facing a financial situation many times worse than that which hit in 1929. Debt-based asset price bubbles (such as property or shares), when they go bust, leave a trail of deflationary and expanding debt.

It is important to look at the above graph and compare the Depression years with the years since 1980. The depression years saw debt increase to around 170% of GDP before the crash. The increase of the debt to 260% of GDP occurred after the crash and is most likely due to the deflationary spiral that the world economy went into (debt levels remained the same while GDP contracted sharply, thus increasing the share of debt to GDP).

What we have seen since 1980, however, has been a build-up of credit market debt to a level representing 350% of GDP. That is around twice the comparable amount of debt that was present before the 1929 crash. This means that we have further to go.

Think of it like this: The economy is a car ("automobile" for you yanks). In 1929 the car hit the wall at 100kph and crashed. Unfortunately no one knew how to fix the car properly after the crash, which meant that the problem got worse. Moreover, it took years of research and study to determine the best methods of fixing the car properly. Now that the car has hit the wall again, it is tempting to say "well we know how to fix it now" - except this time the car has hit the wall at 200kph.

And that goes back to the title of this article - a deflationless depression. I am absolutely certain that we have learned from the policy mistakes of the 1930s and we are able to prevent the world from going into a 1930s-type deflationary spiral. But we must also remember that our economy has hit the wall harder and faster than in 1929. We cannot assume that this will be of no consequence.

Monetary policy is, of course, an essential tool for running an economy properly. But monetary policy is best used as a preventative rather than a cure. The most effective form of monetary policy occurs when interest rates are raised or lowered in response to price signals while the economy is running along relatively smoothly. Emergencies like deflationary spirals or stagflation do require monetary intervention - but they still remain emergencies. It is obvious that central banks like the Federal Reserve need to step in and provide emergency assistance to an economy that has hit the wall - but the work that monetary policy does in those cases is not a cure, but merely a bandaging of wounds and a setting of broken bones. At some point the market ends up having to cure itself with bed rest.

It is entirely possible to have a deflationless downturn - just as the 1970s showed us that it is possible to have an economic contraction and high inflation at the same time. Whatever the Fed or the US government will do in response to the current crisis will never be enough to cure it but hopefully will be enough to limit the damage. After all, the last thing we need is for policy mistakes to make the situation worse.

Ugly

Futures indicate around a 5-6% drop in the Share Market today. The market may even "trip" (cease trading for the day) because of the loss.

Volatility

Looks like this:



I'm no financial/market maven. I think candlesticks are useful when there's no electricity, lines of resistance are guerilla tactics and Fibonacci is an Italian fashion designer.

But I would hazard a guess that, at present, no one knows what the heck is going on.

And it's also very interesting - like being a gawker at a recent traffic accident.

Berserk Market Behaviour

Bloomberg:

U.S. stocks staged the biggest rally in seven decades on a government plan to buy stakes in banks and a Federal Reserve-led push to flood the global financial system with dollars.

The Standard & Poor's 500 Index rebounded from its worst week in 75 years with an 11.6 percent advance, its steepest since 1939, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed more than 936 points. Morgan Stanley soared 87 percent after sealing a $9 billion investment from Japan's Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc. Alcoa Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Chevron Corp. and Prudential Financial Inc. posted their biggest gains since Bloomberg began tracking the data. Europe's benchmark index climbed 10 percent, its best jump ever, and Asia's added 3.1 percent.

``The worst of the immediate danger is past,'' said Bruce McCain, chief investment strategist at Key Private Bank in Cleveland, which manages $30 billion. ``It's always easier when you've got markets going up and you're not having to talk clients back in off the ledge.''

I don't know who this Bruce McCain is but his words might just come back and bite him so hard on the bum that he won't be able to sit down on his financial seat.

Volatility is the key here. This incredible market rally is a result not of certainty, but uncertainty. I would prefer a week where the market advanced or contracted not more than 0.5% per day. That sort of behaviour would indicate a return to normalcy, not a financial roller coaster ride.

The reality is that the US economy is still contracting, unemployment will continue to grow and houses will continue to foreclose. Today's rally does not presage a return to normalcy, nor does it indicate that the worst is over.

Scared yet?

From here.

Dow 3600.00?

Well it's certainly been a fun day on Wall Street today. All sorts of records are being broken... but none of the good ones. Yet there is a sort of Hubris going on.

Take the book Dow 36,000, released in 1999 during the tech boom. That book examined the economy at the time and pretty much came to the conclusion that the good times will never end and a Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) of 36,000 was entirely possible within a few years.

Well, the DJIA never did reach that mark... and today it fell 678.91 points (-7.3%)  to 8579.19.

Dow 36,000? More like Dow 3600.00!

Recent sharemarket activity in context

Yeah yeah, the sharemarket has fallen again. But it's been falling for a year hasn't it? Ever since August last year the sharemarket has been in free fall.

Yes, true. But let's keep the recent falls in its historical context. Take the Wilshire 5000 - a broad index that measures the total amount of money invested in shares. Here is the 12 month graph courtesy of INO:

That's cliff diving all right. After a high of 15806.95 in October 2007, the index has fallen to 10056.95 today. A drop of over 5000 points is a drop in value of around $5 Trillion.

The Botched Big Bailout

Well it seems that the Big Bailout^TM is getting harder and harder to pass Congress. I haven't been looking for the finer details, but I pretty much gather that the major problems are:

• The nature of the bailout, which seems to be throwing money at banks and financial institutions rather than buying them out (which was the Swedish model).
• The idea that bad behaviour should be rewarded.
• The idea that the US government is engaging in the worst sort of "socialism for the rich".
• The threat posed to public debt, which is already too high.
• The belief that the market should simply run its course.
• The fear that the bailout will have little or no impact on the problem.
• The fear that the bailout grants too much power to the US Treasury.
  

There is a sizeable group of Republicans who are refusing to pass the bailout in its current form. Essentially the issue is one of trust - is Hank Paulson's bailout sufficient enough to solve the problem or not?

My personal opinion is that both sides of the argument have merit. The Democrats and Republicans who support the bailout are doing so because they truly fear the consequences of the current economic crisis. The Republicans opposing the bailout are doing so out of fear that the consequences of the bailout will outweigh the benefits.

This is not a time for partisanship, yet I don't think anyone is being too partisan here. It's not that I have confidence that Congress will make the decision (I don't), but, in this particular case, I am not questioning their motives. There is enough fear and doubt on both sides to make the decision hard to make.

So let me offer some level of solution, not that anyone will listen to me, of course.

I believe that some sort of bailout is needed. I'm not convinced that the Paulson plan is the best way to do it, which is why it is good that Congress is debating these measures. The best outcomes we can possibly hope for is for the money to give financial institutions some breathing space while the economy tanks and, eventually, recovers enough so that the billions used in the bailout get paid back over time. In other words, the bailout has to take resources from the future in order to secure the present.

The more I look at the Swedish solution, the better it looks. Rather than throwing money at the problem (which seems to be the Paulson plan), it would be better if the government bought out the struggling financial firms - in other words, nationalization. This would allow the institutions to keep running and providing (albeit limited) levels of credit without the threat of bankruptcy. Yet the nationalization will be temporary - lasting no more than ten years maximum. In that time the financial company is made leaner and meaner and then eventually unleashed back into the market when the Federal government fully privatizes it - with the proceeds from privatization paying back the debt accrued from the original buyout.

Moreover, I suggested earlier the importance of instituting some form of market capitalization tax as a means to pay back the debt as well. I am absolutely certain that the Swedish model I propose in the previous paragraph will NOT result in all of debt being paid off. Therefore another form of revenue should be instituted. I am loathe to suggest income tax rises since I believe that the people of America should be the last to directly pay tax to save Wall Street. A market capitalization tax (Market capitalization is when a listed company's share price is multiplied by the amount of shares) would be a broad-based tax upon all publicly owned companies that would help pay off the debt. In essence, future Wall Street profits would be taxed to pay for the present rescue - which is why I describe it as "taking resources from the future to secure the present".

I gotta tell you though that even with the best bailout there is nothing that will stop the US from going into a deep recession. As I have said in comments threads on other blogs, the best thing to do at the moment is for individuals to pay off debt and live within their means. Moreover, even with hundreds of billions of dollars (or even more) being hurled at the problem, US economic policy in the medium to long term should be focused upon the points I have reiterated before and yet again remind you:

• Cut military spending
• Raise taxes on the rich
• Run a fiscal surplus to pay off debt
• Use interest rates to keep inflation low
• Re-regulate the financial industry to prevent such a crisis from occurring again
• Fire Ben Bernanke
• Create a universal health care system that will cut present health costs

I still think that a crash in the US dollar is likely and that the coming recession will probably end up rivalling the great depression - and I say this even if a bailout goes ahead. There is nothing anyone can do to reverse the problem, but there is plenty that can be done to limit any future damage.

What if?

One of my great fears is that this current economic crisis will lead to a crash in the value of the US Dollar. This is something I have been predicting since at least 2005 and now seems more certain than ever.

Of course, what prompts me to write this is the recent drop in the US Dollar. Is this the beginning of the end? I honestly don't know. The thing about predicting economic trends the way I do is that the event occurring is more certain than when it occurs. The US Dollar may jump back up to last week's levels in the next 24 hours, but the downward trend is more likely to occur at some point than any time before. It's like geologists making predictions about earthquakes or volcanic eruptions - the signs are all there that it will happen, but the actual time and date is unknown. When it comes to the US Dollar crashing, the same principle is in effect.

So, assuming I am correct, what will happen to America after the Dollar crash?

1. Economic decline - even more.

It's hard to imagine, but the most obvious effect of a currency crash is economic decline. In normal circumstances this would be bad enough, but, if judicious economic and financial analysts are to be believed, America is already facing the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression. The subprime bubble has spread financial contagion all throughout the US. Big companies are going bankrupt, the sharemarket is volatile and unemployment is rising. And that is all happening before a dollar crash.

If and when the dollar crashes, the effects of the crash will reverberate throughout the economy. While the current credit crisis is hitting mainly financial firms while manufacturing and services take some serious collateral damage, a crash in the dollar will heighten these effects. Banks and financial firms that could have been saved from bankruptcy won't be saved. Firms that could've survived battered and bruised will go under. People who would've been able to keep their jobs throughout the original crisis will lose them. A dollar crash will take the damage already done and make it worse.

In terms of official statistics, you can already see GDP reclining. 2008 Q3 will most likely see economic decline when the stats get released in October. Unemployment, already at 6.1%, is likely to increase. But a dollar crash will make these worse. GDP will continue to decline for 2 or more quarters after the dollar crash, and unemployment will continue to rise.

As I have pointed out above, economists and financial analysts see this crisis as being the worst since the Great Depression. This means that unemployment is likely to reach, at the very least, the levels of the early 80s recession - 10.8% in November and December 1982. Now add to this the dollar crash and you can add a few more points to that level. Unemployment of 12% or more is likely.

2. Inflation and the policy problems that follow it.

The most obvious effect of a dollar crash will be a substantial increase in inflation. The United States is a consumer-based economy rather than a producer-based economy. This means that much of America's economic life depends upon the consumption of imported goods. If and when the dollar crashes, the price of all goods and services will increase.

A dollar crash will make imported goods more expensive to import. Americans will therefore find that everything from gasoline to teddy bears will begin to cost more.

Debate still rages over whether this crisis will lead to increased inflation or deflation. The "Deflationistas" - those who believe that prices will drop - argue that a credit crunch of the sort we are experiencing has historically led to deflation, that is, falling price levels. These people are actually correct in a sense, as any economic contraction leads to lower levels of demand for goods and services, which will inevitably lead to downward pressure on prices. Unfortunately, these deflationistas don't take into account something as serious as a crash in the dollar. If the value of the US dollar is ignored in calculations, then deflation is a natural conclusion for those who are studying the current credit crisis. The problem is, though, that recent history - namely the 1997 Asian Economic Crisis and the 1998 Russian economic crisis - shows that any credit crisis in economies with floating currencies (ie, currencies that are traded in the marketplace and change in value accordingly) eventually leads to capital flight - a situation in which people take assets and money out of an economy in order to invest it in another. What happened in 1997 and 1998 was that investors ran from Asia and Russia and invested in the US Dollar.

So, in the midst of the worst financial crisis in over seventy years, a dollar crash would inevitably lead to upward pressure on prices- namely, inflation. What these inflationary levels might become depends upon how far the currency crashes - the more the currency crashes, the higher inflation will get.

In the midst of this situation, what can the government do? Very little I'm afraid. The only government institution charged with the task of controlling inflation is the Federal Reserve Bank. Faced with a dollar crash and spiralling inflation, what would the Fed do? Standard monetary policy is for central banks to raise interest rates to control inflation. In the past, the Federal Reserve has indeed lifted rates whenever inflation began to worry them.

The problem with raising interest rates is that, while it ends up controlling inflation, it also acts to dampen economic activity. If the Federal Reserve should raise rates in response to inflation brought about by the dollar crash, the effect upon an already deteriorating economy would be devastating. Yet to keep rates low and to endure inflation in the hope that the economy might be given a chance to recover is a process which has historically never worked - the 1970s, for example, saw central banks all over the world ignore inflation and focus on employment and economic growth. Despite this, neither the economy nor levels of employment nor inflation were ever fixed. It was only until Paul Volcker bit the bullet and killed off inflation with high interest rates in the early 1980s that inflation, economic growth and employment ended up getting fixed. In other words, the only way for central banks to improve economic conditions and levels of employment is to focus solely upon inflation. In our particular situation, with a potential dollar crash looming, the only thing the Federal Reserve Bank could do in response is to raise rates.

I need to reiterate: There is nothing that the President, Congress or the Federal Reserve Bank can do to solve this problem. The only thing they can do is to limit the damage and remove the policies that caused the problem in the first place. As I have mentioned before, the only thing that the Government can do is:

• Cut military spending
• Raise taxes on the rich
• Run a budget surplus and pay off public debt
• Use interest rates to keep inflation low
• Regulate the financial industry with more common sense laws
• Fire Ben Bernanke
  

As I said, none of these things will solve the crisis, but they will give a better grounding for the eventual economic recovery.

I would also add to this list the following:

• Institute a Universal Health Care system, and raise taxes to pay for it.
  

I don't put this here just because I'm a pinko commie subversive, but because it also makes economic sense. The United States of America could cut its total health care costs by one third if it instituted a Universal Health Care system similar to those already in operation in other Western nations. The US spends around 15% of GDP on health care while comparable Western nations spend around 10% of GDP and have the same - if not better - health outcomes. Cutting health care costs by deprivatising and regulating the health industry will have enormous social and economic benefits.

3. A Current Account Surplus as America recovers.

Although I often joke that a dollar crash will be "financial armageddon", I know that things will eventually turn around. Even the great depression ended, although those who suffered through it thought it might never end. The same is true in this case. The current crisis added to a dollar crash will cause some very serious economic damage, but a recovery will naturally follow (although the speed of this recovery might not be as fast as people hope).

One thing that will happen as America - and the world - recovers from an economic disaster and dollar crash is that the US will eventually become a net exporter. Moreover, the United States will eventually end up running a current account surplus. This will be the natural effect of a dollar crash.

If and when the US Dollar crashes, one result will be that American goods and services - even manufactured goods - will become more competitive on the world market. While the dollar crash will naturally hurt every part of the economy, international demand from US manufacturing will increase. America's economic recovery will be in many ways due to an increase in demand for American goods. Instead of being a consumer nation, the US will become a producer nation after the dollar crash.

Moreover, it is also likely that the world's producer nations - especially those who have run massive trade surpluses like Japan and China - will end up becoming consumer nations. This will be because the dollar crash will end up overturning current trade balances. It may seem strange to believe that Japanese consumers might end up buying US manufactured goods, but, if a dollar crash occurs then the natural corollary will be a rise in the value of the Yen and other world currencies. When a currency rises, imported goods become cheaper to buy and exported goods become more expensive to sell.

4. A New International Economic Order.

One eventual result of this crisis will be a new economic world order. I'm not talking conspiracy theories or a one world government here, I'm talking about a more integrated world economy in which trading nations agree to abide by treaties that will determine what sort of policies are implemented in national economies.

Such treaties already exist. Supranational entities like the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation all exist as a way of creating and developing international co-operation in economic areas. An even more advanced supranational entity - the European Union - has even greater power over how member countries may run their affairs.

For anyone who insists upon national sovereignty, such entities are despicable and evil. For those of us who know just how important common rules and policies are for international economic well-being, such entities are exceptionally important (although certainly not perfect).

The importance of any future economic agreement rests upon the damage done at present. Although the US is a sovereign nation and its economic downturn is entirely its own fault, the damage that it will create will spread around the globe. No nation linked in with the world economy will escape damage, although it is clear that the US will be the nation most badly affected. Given that this is the case - that one nation's economic stupidity can lead to economic pain for all nations - economic treaties and agreements will be put in place to ensure that all nations who participate in the world economy follow "the rules" to prevent their own contagion from affecting everyone else. One aspect of this agreement may be common monetary policy, whereby central banks will pursue the same goals, such as having common inflation targets. Another agreement may be universal rules applied to financial sectors, which would not only prevent economic problems in one nation, but in all nations who are part of the treaty. In America's case, accounting principles would be better suited following international rules rather than the homegrown American ones.

Conclusion

For some, a dollar crash will lead to financial armageddon. But, just like in the Great Depression, the United States and the rest of the world will recover and learn from the mistakes that were made. Unemployment may sky-rocket and the economy may decline, but they will both recover eventually.

Unfortunately I'm not as confident as I could be at this point. Peak Oil will make it very difficult for economies to recover over the next 10-20 years, while Global Warming won't stop just because humans have had some economic problems. Both of these issues will require much thought and changes in economic and social behaviour - changes which will cost but which are necessary if people's lives are to be saved. Moreover, the economic and social challenges posed by both Peak Oil and Global Warming need a workable economy to be faced.

TEOTWAWKI

Saw some interesting end-of-the-world information just now.

Firstly,

11 standard deviation event hits some shares:

In a TheStreet.com($) story with the (TEOTWAWKI) headline, Doug Kass noted that the price increase in the Financial Select Sector SPDR was 13%, an 11 standard deviation event.

According to Kass, the odds of an eleven standard deviation event is equivalent to the world ending – between three and four times.

From what I can gather (the details seem to be in advanced financespeak and unintelligible to ordinary people), some Depository Receipts are undergoing such changes that previous risk calculations are proving to be incorrect. That both indicates a lack of proper risk management and the desperately painful state of the financial market .

Secondly,

Paul Krugman - L-ish Economic Prospects:

Home prices are in free fall. Unemployment is rising. Consumer confidence is plumbing depths not seen since 1980. When will it all end?

The answer is, probably not until 2010 or later. Barack Obama, take notice.

It’s true that some prognosticators still expect a “V-shaped” recovery in which the economy springs back rapidly... On this view, any day now it will be morning in America.

But if the experience of the last 20 years is any guide, the prospect for the economy isn’t V-shaped, it’s L-ish: rather than springing back, we’ll have a prolonged period of flat or at best slowly improving performance.

I would agree with Krugman here - there are too many exploding bombs here to expect a "V" recovery. An "L" shaped one - a decline followed by a long, painful, trough - is what I have been predicting for a while.

Thirdly,

High school dropout rate in California has reached 24%:

Deploying a long-promised tool to track high school dropouts, the state released numbers Wednesday estimating that 1 in 4 California students -- and 1 in 3 in Los Angeles -- quit school. The rates are considerably higher than previously acknowledged but lower than some independent estimates.

The figures are based on a new statewide tracking system that relies on identification numbers that were issued to California public school students beginning in fall 2006.

It's amazing how one of the most dynamic states in the world's biggest economy has such an terrible dropout rate. This sort of statistic indicates that America's woes are going to continue decades into the future as unskilled workers keep flooding the market, depressing America's future economic performance.

I find the 1 in 3 in LA interesting though - you would have thought that LA would be the worst place in California for high school students but obviously not. Considering that LA has a large black community, it seems as though African Americans in LA are not as badly off as the rest of California. 1 in 3, though, is still incredibly tragic and dangerous.

Market carnage tomorrow?

Despite my less than stellar record in predicting short term events, I will go out on a limb and say that Thursday July 3rd will be a very bad day for the American economy. Why?

1. The ECB will probably raise interest rates.
2. The June US unemployment rate will come out. I am expecting a substantial rise.
   

These together should do the following:

1. A big drop in the value of the US Dollar.
2. A big drop in US Shares.
3. Higher Oil Prices.
4. Higher Gold Prices.
5. Media reports where the word "depression" is used.

But, you know, these sorts of predictions sometimes go wrong!

Update 11.48 UTC:
ECB Raises interest rates to 4.25%.

Update 12.33 UTC:
Unemployment steady at 5.5%.

No carnage... but probably a bad day anyway.

AAAAAAAAA

A blog post with every single category marked (I'm doing this for scribefire)

Credit Crisis - Third Wave about to hit?

Calculated Risk has the lowdown here. Basically the problem is "commercial paper" and the spread between high and low quality versions of it.

So far we've had two major market "corrections" in the last 12 months, both matching increases in the spread of commercial paper. A third one has just recently developed, which means that there is a chance that another market correction is probably due, with the resultant actions by the Fed to try to calm everything down.

I won't claim this as a prediction simply because CR are the ones making it. I just happen to believe them.