By Winton Bates, on December 31st, 2009
In my last post I gave several reasons why I think the ‘good society’ is a useful concept. There is another reason. The concept of a ‘good society’ may help us to think more clearly about progress.
What is the problem with progress? I am just about old enough to remember the 1950s when the most persuasive point used in favour of any change in Australia seemed to be: “You can’t stand in the way of progress”. A lot of good things were done in the name of progress but other things, particularly uneconomic public investment in dam building etc. gave progress a bad name. More recently the concept of progress has been confused by well-meaning people who have combined national accounting concepts with idiosyncratic values to produce meaningless indicators of “genuine progress”. Further confusion results from the tendency for people who still cling to long-discredited collectivist political views to be described as progressives.
The article in “The Economist” this week (19 Dec ’09 to 1 Jan ‘10) about progress and its perils discusses the popular view that while technology and GDP advance, morals and society are either treading water or sinking back into decadence and barbarism. The general message is that despite a general tendency to shy away from judgementalism many people yearn for a sense of moral purpose. The article ends by quoting Susan Neiman, a philosopher, who asks people to reject the false choice between Utopia and degeneracy: “Moral progress, she writes, is neither guaranteed nor is it hopeless. Instead it is up to us”.
I agree that people need a sense of moral purpose. A large part of the apparent decline in sense of moral purpose, however, can be attributed to a lack of moral clarity. In particular, there seems to be a great deal of confusion about the morality of modern consumer society. It is common to hear even avid users of new technology suggesting that the production of this stuff uses scarce resources but does little to add to their happiness in the long run. So why do they buy it and use it? Could it be because such stuff provides them with improvements in communications etc that are of enduring benefit, even though it has little effect on their emotional states in the longer term? The moral issue, whether it is good for us to have such stuff, does not depend on its transitory impact on our emotional states.
In terms of public policy, if progress means anything it must mean movement toward a good society, or movement from a good society to a better society. Changes can be counted as progress if they improve our capacity to live together in peace, provide us with greater opportunities to flourish or provide us with greater security.
However, the idea of progress also embodies optimism about the future of humanity – the idea that there has been a tendency for material, political, social, intellectual and moral conditions to improve throughout human history and that such improvement will continue in the foreseeable future. Roger Kerr has recently reminded us how inspiring the idea of progress was in the 18th Century. He argues that the idea that life tends to get better over the longer term still has potential to be inspiring today.
It seems to me that despite all the existing and potential problems faced by humanity there is a basis for optimism that advance of knowledge will continue to enable people to enjoy progressively better lives in coming decades.
Join the forum discussion on this post - (2) Posts
By Rok Spruk, on December 31st, 2009
Writing an op-ed for NY Times, Nouriel Roubini discusses the role of Ben Bernanke in this year’s recession (link).
Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts
By Eldon Mast, on December 31st, 2009
The Chicago ISM survey of area purchasers was released on Wednesday. The purchasers manager’s index (PMI) rose sharply, up nearly 4 points to 60.0. This Chicagoland index has now posted gains for three months straight — all at accelerating rates (60.0 Dec, 56.1 Nov, 54.2 Oct).
The new orders have also held to over 60 for three straight months. This is actually quite surprising given that each month’s comparison is increasingly difficult to maintain such acceleration. Any reading above 50 indicates month-to-month growth.
Order backlogs were also strong in today’s report — month-to-month growth indications that a slowdown is not in store anytime soon.
We have been laser focused on jobs recently. The report indicated that employment jumped more than 9 points in the month to 51.2. That level is indicative of month-to-month net hiring.
Like the Texas report earlier this month, the Chicago area readings underscore a return to payroll expansion this December — likely confirmed in next week’s employment report.
Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts
By Ajay Shah, on December 30th, 2009
In thinking of protectionism, the Great Depression, the Great Recession, and what might come next, here are two interesting angles.
Governments with their backs against the wall
Ideally, stabilisation using monetary and fiscal policy, alongside actions by the private sector, should restrain the decline in consumption, and yield conditions which are not too harsh for households. At the time of the Great Depression, much less was known of economics. Pegging the currency to gold meant giving up monetary policy autonomy; the US Fed succumbed to contractionary monetary policy once you take into account the closure of banks; the fiscal policy response at the time was miniscule.
It has been argued that the the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act came about in the US in June 1930, at a point in time where the politicians were coming under enormous pressure to do something. After seven months of inaction by macro policy, with mounting difficulties in the economy, the politicians succumbed to protectionism. This appears to have been of decisive importance in sending the world down the destructive path of competitive trade barriers and cometitive devaluation. In the graph made famous by Barry Eichengreen and Kevin H. O’Rourke, at month 7 there was almost no decline in world trade. Douglas A. Irwin is worth reading on this.
Protectionism adversely impacts the recovery
Greg Mankiw and Scott Sumner point out one more channel through which Smoot-Hawley damaged prospects for the recovery was through the impact of protectionism on confidence.
The private sector saw protectionism as symbolising government backing away from responsible thinking in economics, and responded with a weakening of investment demand. This served to exacerbate the downturn.
Will this time be different?
The bulk of world GDP is now endowed with inflation targeting central banks. This ensures that monetary policy will be counter-cyclical: under bad business cycle conditions, inflation forecasts will drop below targets, and central banks will use every trick in their book to push inflation back up to target.
Fiscal policy has responded well this time around, thanks to better understanding of business cycles when compared with 1929. But there is little headroom to go further.
The world has as little ability to rein in some players engaging in competitive devaluation (e.g. China) today, as was the case in 1930. But with the bulk of world GDP being placed with inflation targeting central banks, the extent to which such tactics will be used will be relatively limited.
So far, we have had an upsurge of protectionism, but nothing on the scale of that seen from 1930 onwards. This could partly reflect the dramatic actions which governments have undertaken through monetary and fiscal policy, through which politicians have been able to reduce the domestic political difficulties that go along with business cycle downturns. But if, in coming months, the world economy remains mired in recession, then we could get fresh pressure to do something. In a recent voxEU post, Jeffrey Frieden points out that the path of adjustment of macroeconomic imbalances and currency distortions will involve political pain along the way, which could spillover into protectionism.
Some protectionist decisions could reflect bargaining tactics aimed at getting China to reduce or end their market manipulation of the currency market. But if there is an upsurge of protectionism beyond this, it will further damage the recovery by hurting investment, giving a spiral of bad economy -> protectionism -> reduced investment demand -> worse economy.
Join the forum discussion on this post - (2) Posts
By Eldon Mast, on December 30th, 2009
Brian Wesbury is one of the more optimistic professional economists out there. He’s proud of being dubbed “Mr. Sunshine.” Wesbury is chief economist at First Trust Advisors of Chicago and his assessments on the economy are quite in line with what you read here at the Good News Economist day after day.
He even has a new book entitled “It’s Not As Bad As You Think.”
His current unpopular predictions:
1. Like the Good News Economist blog, Wesbury predicts economic growth of 5% or more in Q4 of this year.
2. His job growth predictions mirror our prediction of a return to net job growth in December with unemployment falling below 8.5% by the end of 2010.
3. On housing he is bullish as well. He says things are improving so fast that by the third quarter of 2010, there will likely be a hot seller’s market in the housing segment of the economy.
4. He also sees (like us) retail sales that are now up at an annualized rate of 7% in the last six months of the year.
5. He points to manufacturing output that is up 8% and inventories that are now extremely low. The meaning? Manufacturing has fallen behind and firms have likely waited too long to try to catch up with demand. The result? Manufacturing activity will accelerate quite quickly in coming months in order to restock inventories and catch up with demand.
6. And finally he asserts that tight credit condition claims are overblown considering the tremendous money supply. “Money is like a flood” claims Wesbury. It will find its own level and with so much liquidity in the system, the flood will find its way into the economy one way or the other. Tighter credit policy is similar to other recessions, and those non-accommodating stances did not stop those recoveries.
Wesbury summarizes, “I’m an optimist on the economy and its long history shows I’m usually right.”
Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts
By Claus Vistesen, on December 30th, 2009
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
Churchill 1942
Summary
- The extent, so far, of the internal devaluation process depends on the time period used for analysis. Using Q3-2007 as the beginning of the economic crisis suggest that Greece and Spain have not corrected relative to Germany as a benchmark. However, if we look entirely at the world in a post-Lehmann context the picture is different with Greece and Spain having observed excess deflation relative to Germany to the tune of -1.7% and -4.5% respectively for unit labour costs and -5.4% and -1.7% respectively for the PPI.
- The correction observed in the context of unit labour costs appears technical as German unit labour costs have increased sharply since Q4-2008 due to a large reduction in working hours and an increase in short time work. In comparison, the relative correction in the PPI looks more solid.
- The internal devaluation has not yet trickled down into the overall price level represented by the CPI. Both using the period Q3-07 to Q3-09 and Q4-08 to Q3-09 as the relevant time horizon reveals that there has been no meaningful internal devaluation in Greece and Spain measured on the CPI.
- While the analysis presented here may go some way to quantify the intra-Eurozone imbalances and the course of the internal devaluation so far it is impossible to say precisely how far (and for how long) Greece and Spain (and indeed Latvia, Hungary etc) have to go here. More importantly, it is impossible to say exactly which measures that must be taken albeit that they have to be severe in the context of reigning in public spending and, ultimately, the public debt and ongoing deficit. Likewise, it is difficult to quantity just how high unemployment should drift and for how long it should stay there in order to grind down past excess.
As 2009 is fast approaching an end it is worth asking whether this also means an end to the financial and economic crisis. Even if 2009 will be a year thoroughly marked by a global recession it could still seem as if the worst is behind us. Most of the advanced world swung into positive growth rates in H02 2009, risky assets have rallied, volatility has declined to pre-crisis levels, and interest rates and fiscal stimulus have been adeptly deployed to avert catastrophe. However and precisely because the last part has been a crucial prerequisite for the first three and as policy makers are now adamant that emergency measures must be scaled back or abandoned either because of necessity or a balanced assessment, it appears as if Churchill’s well known paraphrase is an adequate portrait of the situation at hand. In this way, what is really left in the way of global growth once we subtract the boost from fiscal and monetary stimuli and what is the underlying trend growth absent the crutches of extraordinary policy measures?
This question is likely to be a key theme for 2010.
Nowhere is this more relevant than in Greece and Spain who, together with Eastern Europe, have slowly but decisively taken center stage as focal points of the economic crisis. With this change of focus a whole new set of issues have emerged in the context of just how efficiently (or not) the institutional setup of the Eurozone and EU will transmit and indeed endure the crisis.
I won’t go into detail on this here mainly because I would simply be playing second fiddle to what Edward has already said again (and again) in the context of his ongoing analysis of the Spanish and Greek economy to which I can subscribe without reservations. It will consequently suffice to reiterate two overall points in the context of Spain and Greece.
Firstly, the main source of these economies’ difficulties, while certainly very much present in the here and now, essentially has its roots in population ageing and a period, too long, of below replacement fertility that has now put their respective economic models to the wall. It is interesting here to note that while it is intuitively easy to explain why economic growth and dynamism should decline as economies experience ongoing population ageing, it is through the interaction with public spending and debt that the issue becomes a real problem for the modern market economy. Contributions are plentiful here but Deckle (2002) on Japan and Börsh-Supan and Wilke (2004) on Germany are good examples of how simple forward extrapolation of public debt in light of unchanged social and institutional structures clearly indicate how something, at some point, has to give. Whether Spain and Greece have indeed reached an inflection point is difficult to say for certain. However, as Edward rightfully has pointed out, this situation is first and foremost about a broken economic model than merely a question of staging a correction on the back of a crisis.
Secondly and although it could seem as stating the obvious, Greece and Spain are members of the Eurozone and while this has certainly engendered positive economic (side)effects, it has also allowed them to build up massive external imbalances without no clear mechanism of correction. Thus, as the demographic situation has simply continued to deteriorate so have these two economies reached the end of the road. In this way, being a member of the EU and the Eurozone clearly means that you may expect to enjoy protection if faced with difficulty, but it also means that the measures needed to regain lost competitiveness and economic dynamism can be very tough. Specially and while no-one with but the faintest of economic intuition would disagree that the growth path taken by Greece and Spain during the past decade should have led to intense pressure on their domestic currencies, it is exactly this which the institutional setup of the Eurozone has prevented. I have long been critical of this exact mismatch between the potential to build internal imbalances and the inability to correct them, but we are beyond this discussion I think. Especially, we can safely assume that the economists roaming the corridors in Frankfurt and Brussels are not stupid and that they have known full well what kind of path Greece and Spain (and Italy) invariably were moving towards.
Essentially, what Greece and Spain now face (alongside Ireland, Hungary, Latvia etc) is an internal devaluation which has to serve as the only means of adjustment since, as is evidently clearly, the nominal exchange rate is bound by the gravitional laws of the Eurozone. Now, I am not making an argument about the virtues of devaluation versus a domestic structural correction since it will often be a combination of the two (i.e. as in Hungary). What I am trying to emphasize is simply two things; firstly, the danger of imposing internal devaluations in economies whose demographic structure resemble that of Greece and Spain and secondly, whether it can actually be done within the confines of the current political and economic setup in the Eurozone.
On the last question I personally adamant that it has to since failure would mean the end of the Eurozone as we know it but this is also why I am quite worried, and intrigued as an economist, on the first question. Specifically and as Edward and myself have been at pains to point out (and to test and verify) this medicine while certainly viable in theory has three principal problems. Firstly, it takes time and may thus amount to too little too late in the face of an immediate threat of economic collapse. Secondly, an ageing population spiralling into deflation may have great problems escaping its claws, and thirdly, because of the pains associated with the medicine the patient may be very reluctant to acccept the treatment. Especially, the last point is very important to note from a policy perspective and was made abundantly clear recently in the context of Latvia where The Constitutional Court ruled that the very reforms demanded in the context of the IMF program to reign in costs through cutting pensions would violate the Latvian constitution. And as Edward further points out, the situation is the same in Hungary where voters recently (and quite understandably one could say) decided to reject a set of health charges that were exactly proposed as part of a reform program designed to reign in public spending. We are about to see just how willing Spain and Greece are in the context of accepting the austerity measures that must come, but similar dynamics are not alltogther impossible.
Consequently, and while I agree with Edward as he turns his focus on the inadequacy of the political system in Spain and Greece to realize the severity of the mess; it remains an inbuilt feature of imposition of internal devaluations through sharp expenditure cuts that they are very difficult to sustain given the political dynamics. This is then a question of a careful calibration of the stick and carrot where the former especially in the initial phases of an internal devaluation process is wielded with great force.
Internal Devaluation, What is it All About Then?
If the technical aspects of an internal devaluation have so far escaped you it is actually quite simple. Absent, a nominal exchange depreciation to help restore competitiveness the entire burden of adjustment must now fall on the real effective exchange rate and thus the domestic economy. The only way that this can happen is through price deflation and, going back to my point above, the only way this can meaningfully happen is through a sharp correction in public expenditure accompanied with painful reforms to dismantle or change some of the most expensive social security schemes. This is naturally all the more presicient and controversial as both Spain and Greece are stoking large budget deficits to help combat the very crisis from which they must now try to escape. Positive productivity shocks here à la Solow’s mana that fall from the sky may indeed help , but in the middle of the worst crisis since the 1930s it is difficult to see where this should come from. Moreover, with a rapidly ageing population it becomes more difficult to foster such productivity shocks through what we could call “endogenous” growth (or so at least I would argue).
With this point in mind, let us look at some empirical evidence for the process of internal devaluation so far.
In order to establish some kind of reference point for analysis I am going to compare Greece and Spain with Germany. This is not because Germany, in any sense of the words, stands out as an example of solid economic performance as the burden of demographics is clearly visible here too. However, for Spain and Greece to recover they must claw back some of the lost ground on competitiveness relative to Germany. This highlights another and very important part of the internal devaluation process. Spain, Greece etc will not only be fighting their own imbalances; they will also fight a moving target since they may not be the only economies who face deflation or near zero inflation as we move forward.
Beginning with the simple overall inflation rate measured by the CPI we see that the level of prices (100=2005) has risen much faster in Greece and Spain than in Germany. Compared to 2005 the price level in Germany stood 7.1% higher in Q3-09 which compares to corresponding figures for Spain and Greece at 11.5% and 10.3% respectively. However, this does not tell the whole story about the build up of imbalances since the inception of the Eurozone. Consequently, since Q1-00 the price index has increased some 15% in Germany whereas it has increased a healthy 29.3% and 27.2% in Greece and Spain respectively.
 
Turning to the bottom chart which plots the annual quarterly inflation rate a similar picture reveals itself with a high degree of cross-correlation between the yearly CPI prints, but where the German inflation rate has been persistently lower than that of Greece and Spain. The average inflation rate in Germany from Q1-1997 to Q3-2009 was 1.6% and 3.5% and 2.8% for Greece and Spain respectively. It is important to understand the cumulative nature of the consistent divergence in inflation rate since it is exactly this feature that contributes to the build-up of the external debt imbalance. From 2000-2009(Q3) the accumulated annual increases in the CPI was 57% for Germany versus 109.4% and 104% for Greece and Spain respectively. Assuming that Germany remains on its historic path of annual CPI readings (which is highly dubious in fact), this gives a very clear image of the kind of correction Greece and Spain needs to undertake in order to move the net external borrowing back on a sustainable path which in this case means that these two economies are now effectively dependent on exports to grow.
If the divergence in Eurozone CPI represents a general measure of the built-up of external imbalances and the need for an internal devaluation through price deflation two other measures provide more direct proxies. These two are unit labour costs and the producer price index (PPI) which are both key determinants for the competitiveness of domestic companies on international markets. Intuitively one would expect unit labour costs as an important input cost to drive the PPI which measures the price companies receive for their output. Yet this is only going to be the case if the companies in question have market power on the domestic market. Consequently, if you regress the quarterly change of the PPI on the quarterly change on unit labour costs you get a negative coefficient in Germany and a positive coefficient in Greece and Spain (highly significant for Spain and not so for Greece). This is exactly what one would expect since German companies are highly exposed to the external environment (where they enjoy no market power) and thus has to suffer any increase in the cost of labour input through a decline in their output price. Conversely in Spain, the connection between an increase in unit labour costs and the PPI is strongly positive which suggest that Spanish companies has enjoyed considerable market power due to a vibrant domestic economy [1]. It is exactly this that must now change.
 
If we look at unit labour costs and abstract for a minute from the increase in German unit labour costs from Q2-08 to Q2-09 in Germany [2], both Greece and Spain have seen their labour cost surge relative to Germany since the inception of the Eurozone. Since Q1-00 the accumulated change in the German index has consequently been 15.2% which compares to 97.7% and 105.6% for Greece and Spain respectively. More demonstratively however is the fact that since the second half of 2006 the labour cost index of Spain and Greece have been above the Germany relative to 2005 which is the base year. Consider consequently that the labour cost index in Greece and Spain was 13.3% and 16.4% below the German ditto in Q1-2000 and now (even with the recent surge in German labour costs), the Greek and Spanish labour cost index stands 7.2% and 5.2% above the German index.
Turning finally to producer prices the similarity between the three countries in question are somewhat restored which goes some way to support the notion of persistent lower labour cost growth relative to fellow Eurozone members as the main source of the build-up of Germany’s “competitive advantage” and in some way the build-up of intra Eurozone imbalances.
 
Essentially, and while definitely noticeable the divergence between Greece/Spain and Germany on the PPI is less wide than in the context of unit labour costs and the CPI. Consequently, and if we look at the index, the divergence which saw Spanish and Greek producer prices increase beyond those of Germany came very late in the end of 2007. Moreover, the correction so far has been quite sharp in both Greece and Spain relative to Germany with the PPI falling 14.8%, 5.7% and 2.8% (yoy) in Q2-09 and Q3-09 in Greece, Spain and Germany. The accumulated increase however, in the PPI, from 2000 to Q3-09 has been 85% in Germany and 136% and 101.7% in the Greece and Spain respectively.
If the numbers above indicates the extent to which intra Eurozone imbalances have manifested themselves in divergent price levels and rates of inflation, the concept of internal devaluation concerns the net effect on the prices in Greece and Spain relative to, in this case, Germany. On this account, and if we put the beginning of the financial crisis as Q3-07 (i.e. when BNP Paribas posted sub-prime related losses) the butcher’s bill look as follows.
From Q3-07 to Q3-09 and in relation to the CPI the average quarterly inflation rate in Greece in Spain has been 1% and 0.66% higher than in Germany. The accumulated excess inflation rate over the German inflation has been 8% in Greece and 5.29% in Spain. Only in the context of Spain do we observe some indication of the initial phases of a relative internal devaluation as Spain has seen an accumulated inflation rate lower than that of Germany to the tune of 1.28%.
Turning to unit labour costs the picture changes quite a lot depending on the time horizon. Using the same period as above, the average quarterly excess increase in unit labour costs of Greece and Spain relative to Germany has been 1.75% and 0.3% in Greece and Spain respectively. The accumulated increase in unit labour costs has consequently been a full 14% and 2.8% higher in Greece and Spain relative to Germany. However, if we focus the attention on the period from Q4-08 to Q2-09 and due to the fact that labour hours in Germany have gone down further than in Greece and Spain, labour costs have corrected sharply in Greece and Spain relative to in Germany to the tune of -5.2% and 13.7% (accumulated) and -1.7% and -4.6% respectively. The fact that German producers have so far cut down sharply on labour hours could mean that Germany should claw back some of the lost ground vis-a-vis Greece and Spain if and when these two economies follow suit.
Finally, in relation to producer prices the picture is very much the same as in the context of unit labour costs with the notable qualifier that the relative excess deflation observed in Greece and Spain from Q4-08 and onwards is likely to be less “technical” and thus more “real” than in the case of labour costs. In this way the period Q3-07 to Q3-09 saw the excess rate of produce price inflation reach 14.8% and 6.8% (accumulated) and 1.8% and 0.8% (quarterly average) in Greece and Spain respectively. However, if we focus the attention on Q4-08 to Q3-09 the picture reverses and reveals a substantial degree of excess deflation over the Germany PPI in Greece and Spain to the tune of 16.1% and 5.2% (accumulated) and 5.4% and 1.7% (quarterly average) for Greece and Spain respectively.
The End of the Beginning
As we exit 2009 it is quite unlikely that we will also be able to leave behind the effects of the economic and financial crisis and this is not about me being persistently negative or even a perma-bear. Things have definitely improve and much of this improvement owes itself to rapid, bold, and efficient policy measures. However, some economies are in a tighter spot than others and this most decisively goes for Spain and Greece who now have to correct to the fundamentals of their economies with rapidly ageing populations.
As this correction largely has to come in the form of an internal devaluation the following conclusions are possible going into 2010.
- The extent, so far, of the internal devaluation process depends on the time period used for analysis. Using Q3-2007 as the beginning of the economic crisis suggest that Greece and Spain have not corrected relative to Germany as a benchmark. However, if we look entirely at the worldin a post-Lehmann context the picture is different with Greece and Spain having observed excess deflation relative to Germany to the tune of -1.7% and -4.5% respectively for unit labour costs and -5.4% and -1.7% respectively for the PPI.
- The correction observed in the context of unit labour costs appears technical as German unit labour costs have increased sharply since Q4-2008 due to a large reduction in working hours and an increase in short time work. In comparison, the relative correction in the PPI looks more solid.
- The internal devaluation has not yet trickled down into the overall price level represented by the CPI. Both using the period Q3-07 to Q3-09 and Q4-08 to Q3-09 as the relevant time horizon reveals that there has been no meaningful internal devaluation in Greece and Spain measured on the CPI.
- While the analysis presented here may go some way to quantify the intra-Eurozone imbalances and the course of the internal devaluation so far it is impossible to say precisely how far (and for how long) Greece and Spain (and indeed Latvia, Hungary etc) have to go here. More importantly, it is impossible to say exactly which measures that must be taken albeit that they have to be severe in the context of reigning in public spending and, ultimately, the public debt and ongoing deficit. Likewise, it is difficult to quantity just how high unemployment should drift and for how long it should stay there in order to grind down past excess.
In this sense, 2009 will not go down as the end in any sense of the word, but more likely as the end of the beginning.
—
[1] – Naturally, this argument assumes non-sticky prices and thus a 1-to-1 relationship in time between a change in input costs and output prices of companies. Since contractual arrangements are likely to make both sticky in the short run and likely with divergent time paths too, the quantitative results are not robust. The results for Germany are significant at 10% whereas those for Spain are significant at 1%. Mail me for the estimated equations if you really want to see the results.
[2] – The index rose 7.8% over the course of the year ending Q2-2009 which is way above 3 standard deviations of the “normal” annual change in the index from 1997 to 2009. The explanation is really quite simple and relates to the fact that German manufactures (in particular) has sharply cut overtime work and short time work has been rapidly extended (see e.g. this from Q2-09) which is obviously not the case in Greece and Spain. The fact that German producers have so far cut down sharply on labour hours means that Germany should claw back some of the lost ground vis-a-vis Greece and Spain if and when these two economies follow suit.
Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts
By Eldon Mast, on December 29th, 2009
Last week markets were subdued as many economists and investors on Wall Street and Main Street took several days off to prepare for holiday celebrations.
The data that did arrive was mostly reminiscent of the spirit of St Nick – slipping coinage into stocks without their owner’s knowledge.
A report on the Tuesday before Christmas showed that US corporate profits in the third quarter were up sharply from the second quarter of 2009. Profits in the third quarter rose an annualized 68.0%, following a 24.5% boost in the second quarter. Corporate profits of course are a strong indication when determining the direction of a company’s stock price. When corporate profits rise, then it is a good bet the stock price will get a lift. The report underscores the fact the US corporate profits have now been up for three consecutive quarters — a fact that shakes out any lingering economic doomsday advocates and gives additional fundamental underpinnings to a stock market that continues to be bullish. (Some indexes now up well over 75% since March)
On the same day, a report on existing home sales revealed steeply higher numbers in November on the heels of record growth in October. Existing home sales rose 7.4% in November on top of October’s 9.9% lift-off. The year-on-year rate is now up 44%. The annual unit sales rate of 6.54M single-family homes and condominiums flew by even the most optimistic estimates of only 6.34M dwellings for November.
Retail sales rates in the week before Christmas Day were also jovial. The Redbook retail report illuminated results of plus 1.9% year-on-year. Many feared that a big snowstorm on the east coast would hamper sales, but the net effect of the snow was a big pick up in online shopping instead. Cumulative weekly retail results this quarter continue to point to a quite positive effect on Q4 GDP results.
A very bright spot in the economic data came on Christmas Eve. The initial jobless claims reports continue their downward trend. The claims fell another very substantial 28,000 in the Dec. 19 week to 452,000. The current report points to what it calls a “long-term trend of improvement.” The four-week average also fell to 465,250 for a 2,750 decrease. Continuing claims also keep retreating to a level now at about 5M. As we said back in early November, the trends for both initial and continuing claims show sizable improvement and point to our conclusion back then, that net US job growth has now likely begun. (Just in time for Christmas) The December payrolls report (released on January 8th) will confirm that fact.
The best news is that as we move further into 2010, the job market situation will continue to improve substantially. Now that net job loss has stopped, net job growth can begin.
As our jobs chart trend predicted in November, the US economy will likely be adding nearly 500,000 jobs per month by mid 2010. Thanks Santa!
(click chart to enlarge)

Source Data: US Dept of Labor
Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts
By Trace Mayer, on December 29th, 2009
The recent gold upleg has proceeded fairly predictably based on previous trends. Like the Octrober correction and consolidation the December correction and consolidation has laid a firm foundation for the third round of the upleg. 
FIRST ROUND
With gold trading around $995 on 9 September 2009 in Gold Party Barely Started I wrote, “This puts $1,300 gold and $25 silver within range without greatly exceeding previous trading norms”.
Slightly later on 9 October 2009 with gold below $1,050 I was interviewed on BNN:
BNN HOST: You said the credit crisis has not been calmed but intensified. Why? … So as we get more and more concerned with the top of that pyramid, the derivatives play, you are talking about $1,300 bullion. How do you get to that figure?
TRACE: $1,300 bullion comes from looking at the 200 day moving averages and where gold has consolidated and where it goes based on the usual uplegs. It looks like we are following the same thing that happened in 2004 with the rise in 2005, the consolidation in 2006, which went to the rise in 2007, and the consolidation in 2008, and it looks that it will lead to a similar rise in 2009 and 2010 which will take gold to $1,300 which should be a little bit above its 200 day moving average. But in the same trading ranges as we saw in 2005 and 2007.
For the rest of October we saw gold consolidate and prepare for the second round of this upleg. The credit crisis intensified with CIT and Dubai. Commercial real estate is still frozen and about $600B needs to be refinanced during 2010. The spread between 2 and 10 year Treasuries has been getting omnious at highs not seen since the early 1980’s.
SECOND ROUND
On 28 October 2009 with gold trading at $1,031, the lowest price since the BNN interview, in Gold Party Intermission Nearly Over, I wrote:
While the probability for a profitable trade is not nearly as high as it would be should the price relative to the 200dma be significantly below the 200dma there is still room for the price to run as we enter winter. The October intermission is likely coming to a close. …
The current correction and consolidation of gold appears to be within trend and expected based on the seasonality. November is the strongest month and this recent correction on low volume is laying a strong foundation for a large move upwards.
Within 26 trading days gold for LBMA delivery was $1,218.75.
THIRD ROUND
Gold is currently trading at about $1,105 with a 50dma of $1,114.57 and a 200dma of $989.68 or a current price of 1.116x the 200dma.
There has been no substantive change to the quality of US Treasuries and the Federal Reserve is failing with quantitative easing. The Greater Depression is still being intentionally exacerbated by the Obomba administration. States are in even worse shape; so make sure you keep nothing in a safety deposit box or it may end up on Ebay.
One substantive change is that private ownership of gold now surpasses officially reported central bank holdings. Big players like John Paulson with over $4B in gold investments is flanked by David Einhorn of Greenlight Capital and Paul T. Jones of Tudor Investments and the sheeplike investment community is beginning to change its attitude towards the Ancient Metal of Kings. Freedom is good for business and private gold ownership is good for freedom.
As Ludwig von Mises wrote,
It is impossible to grasp the meaning of the idea of sound money if one does not realize that it was devised as an instrument for the protection of civil liberties against despotic inroads on the part of governments. Ideologically it belongs in the same class with political constitutions and bills of rights.
After seeing the record and the numbers I chuckle at some of the Establishment ‘financial professionals’. For example, in January 2009 on my article ‘How the Treasury Bubble Will Burst and Why‘ at Seeking Alpha I received a comment from Alan Brochstein, CFA of AB Analytical Services and fellow Gold Standard Contributor who provides analytical services for hire. He said, “Trace, sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense…” This is not surprising considering his 8 Dec 2008 article ‘Own Gold? Time to Fold‘ where he stated, “Gold remains a sucker’s bet…”
Since Mr. Brochstein’s article gold has powered from $772 to $1,104. But gold is not a portfolio asset; everything else is. For those who perform mental calculations of value using gold as the numeraire the results are truly stunning and likely to lead the market entrepreneur to be shell-shocked. It appears that following the advice of most of these ‘financial professionals’ peddling paper coupons was the real sucker’s bet. Scoreboard.
CONCLUSION
Everything appears in place for the third round of gold’s upleg. The previous two rounds have followed the same predictable pattern found during 2005 and 2007. The fundamental reasons for owning gold have not changed. Quantitative easing is failing as little colored tickets evaporate, federal budget deficits are ballooning, States are bankrupt, extremely respected money managers are moving into bullion, the world needs a new reserve currency and private ownership of gold is at record highs.
Sure, the third round of the upleg could not materialize for any number of reasons such as interest rates being raised, the mythical Cibola being discovered, etc. As the upleg progresses the gold to silver ratio should probably close from the current 63.27 towards a more normal 50-55. The better time to buy gold, silver or platinum was before the first or second rounds of this upleg. But if the precious metals are absent from one’s portfolio then the second best time to buy them is now. And by all means, avoid the GLD ETF despite the caterwauling of the prospectus challenged illiterate apologists as it is merely a paper ticket that struts around like the precious metal.
DISCLOSURES: Long physical gold, silver and platinum with no position the problematic SLV or GLD ETFs.
Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts
By Rok Spruk, on December 28th, 2009
Foreign Policy composed the rank of the most influential global thinkers (link).
Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts
By Ajay Shah, on December 28th, 2009
Howard Davies was a deputy governor of the Bank of England, and the first head of the UK FSA. He is one of the world’s leading thinkers on financial regulation and monetary policy, and one of the people who combines skills in both finance and monetary economics. In a recent article, he focuses on the five interesting questions about central banks and asset prices. Everyone interested in monetary policy today needs to ask themselves these five questions.
Q1: Should central banks target asset prices?
Davies points out that the consensus view is that central banks should remain focused on inflation targeting and not target asset prices.
However, pretty much everyone would agree that information from the world around us, about asset prices, is useful for forecasting inflation and output, and should be used in figuring out what values for output and inflation we put into our Taylor rules (whatever they might be).
So it seems that on this question, there is consensus: Asset prices are (and have always been) useful inputs in monetary policy formulation, but monetary policy should continue to do inflation targeting and not asset price targeting.
Q2: Should the measure of inflation targeted include an element of asset price, and particularly house price inflation?
Any reasonable CPI must have house rent in it, and through this, a boom in house prices and thus rents will get reflected in the CPI. This would give one more channel through which asset prices would directly influence a traditional inflation-targeting central bank.
Q3: Is it possible to identify serious asset price misalignments, and are they of legitimate concern to monetary policy-makers?
This is controversial territory. Some economists believe it is possible to ask central banks to make a call on when asset prices are misaligned.
I am personally skeptical about the extent to which this is possible. It is always easy to look back, ex-post, and say that it was obvious that US house prices were way off in 2006. But how many of the people who say this today were shorting US housing then?
Making a call about asset price fluctuations is hard even for a well motivated hedge fund manager. It is doubly hard in the public sector given the peculiar combination of skills and incentives that are found within central banks. The people with real skill in these things are unlikely to choose to work in a central bank; years spent in a central bank do not hone skills at market timing; the public will be very irritated if a central bank calls wrong.
So overall, I’m skeptical about the extent to which central banks (past or future) can usefully make calls about when asset prices are out of whack.
Q4: Even if we can identify misalignments, and believe that some price adjustment is bound to occur, is it right to use interest rates to try to moderate the expansion?
Even if you knew that asset prices were grossly wrong, interest rates seem to be a very blunt tool, which inflict collateral damage all around the economy. Davies quotes Mervyn King who said two months ago: Diverting monetary policy from its goal of price stability risks making the economy less stable and the financial system no more so.
Q5: Should we try to find and use mechanisms other than interest rates to moderate extravagant credit expansion and associated asset price bubbles?
I think there is a good case for building some kinds of counter-cyclicality into financial regulation. But operationalising this is hard.
It should be feasible for financial regulators to have three manuals which govern boom times, normal times, and recessions. Full public disclosure of these three manuals is, of course essential, to avoid the usual issues of transparency and consistency. The question is: When would you flip from one manual to another?
Doing this based on asset prices runs into the difficulties articulated above. How is a civil servant to know when asset prices are in a boom or a bust?
Doing it based on business cycle conditions is more objective and feasible. It should be possible to setup indicators like Eurocoin which give low latency information about a coincident indicator. This could be used to drive rules about when we go into each of the three manuals. I personally think this would be useful.
Such efforts can be rationalised on the narrow ground that we seek to reduce the extent to which finance is a source of pro-cyclicality in the economy. If this is done right, it would reduce the amount of heavy lifting that monetary and fiscal policy have to do by way of stabilisation.
You don’t have to have a `financial markets are irrational’ view to support this. All you have to believe is that the existing structures of financial regulation are a source of pro-cyclicality. If that much is agreed, then there is a case for changing the framework of financial regulation so as to reduce the extent to which this is the case.
Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts
|
|
Most Popular Posts