China – Playing Catch Up

Many expect the Chinese economy to misbehave but it is more likely that China will grow out itself out of trouble

China is growing up in front of our eyes and there is an expectation that, like any adolescent, it will get into trouble before fulfilling its promise.  Naysayers predict that China’s growth spurt has left it with a number of issues that must be worked through before it can get any bigger.  Yet, China has a good head on its shoulders in the form of the Communist Party which will do all it can to keep the economy buoyant.  While the years of stellar growth are likely over, it need not mean that the Chinese economy will be held back.

Big trouble in (not so) little China?

The spectacular rate of growth achieved by China over the past decade could never continue forever.  Quite the opposite, the rapid expansion would have been harmful if it had been maintained and a slower pace of growth is actually a preferable outcome.  This is because much of the economic growth had been fuelled by investment – construction of new factories to sell cheap goods overseas along with the expansion of megacities in China to accommodate an influx of workers from the countryside. Normally, investment accounts for around 10% to 15% of GDP in most developed countries but reached 50% of GDP in China. 

This building frenzy could not continue especially when it is becoming more difficult to make money and some investments would be wasted on pointless projects.  It is the examples of this, empty apartment blocks and overly lavish public spending, that pessimists point to as evidence that China has gone too far.  With large amounts of bad debt expected to result from these poor investments, the financial sector is expected to take a big hit and drag the whole economy down with it.  The argument is basically that China has gotten too big for its boots and will need to shrink.

Growing up is never easy

Your Neighbourhood Economist would instead argue that China has a similar problem to what he had when he was growing up.  His mother would buy Your Neighbourhood Economist clothes that were too big for him in the knowledge that he would grow into them.  It is ungainly to be sporting oversized gear and this seems to be similar to the phase China is going through.  This is partly because China had been expanding so quickly that any investment needs to be put up in a hurry.  There is also the added complication of spending getting out of hand as regional politicians try to impress their bosses in the Communist Party.

Yet, China, like a much younger version of Your Neighbourhood Economist, still has a lot of growing to do.  Some of the ill-fitting parts of the Chinese economy may be put to better use as its citizen will continue to migrate toward the cities in search of work.  China has also learnt lessons from its investment binge with the central government shifting emphasis from economic growth to other benefits of greater wealth such as a cleaner environment and a more efficient bureaucracy.  Local officials are being brought into line through a crackdown on corruption and concentration of power within the Communist Party.

Along with changes to policy, the Chinese government also has the resources to deal with any past mistakes.  With both domestic savings and government reserves at high levels, there is plenty of money around if needed.  And, with an eye firmly fixed on keeping the economy growing, the Communist Party would not be as timid compared to Western governments in terms of stepping in and shoring up the banking sector if needed.  China is also moving away from investment as the driver of its economic growth and consumption is expected to pick up the slack (albeit with growth at a slower pace).

Growing while you watch

Your Neighbourhood Economist has seen the change in China with his own eyes.  In a visit 15 years ago, the Pudong area across the river in Shanghai seemed like a ghost town but one that had been freshly built with a scattering of skyscrapers.  Now, Pudong is anything but quiet and the pace at which new buildings continue to go up is testament to China’s growth.  It also shows that it you build it (in China at least), they will (still) come.

Monetary Policy – where has the magic gone?

The European Central Bank tries to cast another spell to save the Eurozone but its magic has been stolen

Monetary policy is like magic – you have to use tricks to get people into believing what you want them to believe.  Both magicians and central banks apply various devices to convince their audience that they can pull off amazing feats.  A bit of showmanship can be crucial in creating an aura of the fantastical when your powers are actually rather limited.  Central banks have pulled this off in the past but quantitative easing by the European Central Bank is more likely to show that it does not have any rabbits left to pull out of the hat.

Trying to work magic

Your Neighbourhood Economist likes to look back fondly to an era when central banks had the financial market enthralled with their mastery of all things economic.  This admiration was won the hard way in the 1980s by bringing double-digit inflation back to more manageable levels and ushering in an era where the booms and busts seemed to have past.  But central banks have been taken down a notch by their inability to revive the economy after the global financial crisis. 

Slashing of interest rates has not worked as high levels of debt meant that no one wanted to borrow. Upping the ante, central banks tried pumping money into the financial system through quantitative easing.  The effect on the actual economy due to quantitative easing also looks to be limited at a time when there is already a lot of spare cash in the financial system.  Financial markets were buoyed by quantitative easing but a side effect has been the potential for heightened volatility in the financial markets. 

With few other options seen as viable, quantitative easing has gone from an unconventional measure to the mainstay policy for central banks despite questions over its usefulness.  The European Central Bank has been slow to try its hand at quantitative easing even though the Eurozone economy was struggling more than most.  This was because Germany (who had initially done well despite its neighbours being in crisis) was firmly against the central bank in Europe printing cash to buy government bonds.  It was only after a further considerable deterioration in the prospects for the Eurozone (as well as that of Germany itself) that the European Central Bank to override this opposition.  

No more magic left

The European Central Bank has been put at a disadvantage considering that the other big central banks have already tried to work their magic through quantitative easing.  Investors are becoming harder to impress having already seen central banks pull off similar tricks.  To maintain the wow factor, quantitative easing has needed to get bigger and bigger.  The central bank in Japan pledged to double the money supply within two years but had to offer up even more cash when its initial plans proved to be lacking. 

The European Central Bank cannot compete on scale as it has to perform magic with one hand behind its back due to the political constraints within the Eurozone.  Any extra boost using the element of surprise was also dented by the protracted process as the European Central Bank and Germany squabbled publicly over quantitative easing in the months before the policy was launched. 

The fractious politics in Europe has sapped power from the central bank who had previously been the main shining light in saving the Eurozone.  Political squabbles have highlighted the limited power at the disposal of the European Central Bank.  It is like a magician who is being sabotaged by their own assistant – it will take more than magic to escape this spell.

Productivity – cutting both ways

Far from being a cure-all, productivity gains are instead cutting into the number of jobs

Higher productivity seems like the answer to all of our economic woes but being more productive is not all good.  Doing more with less is a way of making us wealthier by getting more out of the limited resources available.  Improvements in productivity often thus translate into more profits or lower prices (or both).  But there is also a nasty side in that one of the resources that can be done away with is workers.  Trends such as greater globalization and improvements to technology have resulted in many (well paying) jobs being put to the chop and we should not be expecting any respite soon.

Doing more with less

Economics is a discipline which is based on the notion of scarce resources.  It is no surprise then that economists rave about how improvements to productivity are the key to prosperity.  Any business that can produce the same products using fewer inputs is bound to do well.  Being more productive as a worker is also opens up the way for the opportunity to demand higher wages.  Any gains from higher productivity are split between companies, employees, and consumers but it is not always the case that everyone gets a share.

My favourite example of productivity gains where everyone got their cut was Henry Ford and the motorcar.  Ford did not invent the automobile or the assembly line but he did figure out a way of manufacturing cars cheaply.  The continued existence of the Ford Motor Company is testament to how much he and his family have thrived.  On top of this, workers at the firm also benefited from the new jobs that were created as well as the higher wages on offer.  Cars also became available to many more people thanks to the mass production of the Model T resulting in a lower price tag.

Suffering from cut backs

The example of Henry Ford and the Model T shows how more can be produced cheaply using more workers.  But this is only a viable way of making money when there is a rapidly expanding consumer market and an appetite for more and more goods.  This seemingly came to an end in the richer countries when most households became wealthy enough to buy the basics such as a car, a fridge, and a TV.  Without being able to tap into economies of scale by producing more and more, the emphasis has since shifted to producing goods at the lowest cost. 

One of the main avenues for cutting costs has been outsourcing manufacturing and some services to countries where wages are lower.  Computers and the Internet have also helped companies save money by better optimising their operations and reducing the need for some clerical work.  Companies have obviously benefited from this and we have as consumers (due to lower prices) but not as workers.  There is no modern-day version of the Model T that might provide a new source of lucrative job opportunities.  Instead we spend our money on services (eating out or going away on holiday) or goods where much of the value is in design rather than the goods themselves (such as clothing or electronic gadgets).

Cut yourself free

The challenge for developed countries is to create more high paying jobs for its educated workforce.  Instead, the opposite seems to be happening and the economic recovery after the global financial crisis has been characterized by a proliferation of jobs with low pay.  Higher unemployment allowed companies to hire workers on the cheap and this has dulled incentives for business investment.  It is easier to get things done using cheap labour than spending money on making your current workers more productive. 

Unemployment in countries such as the US and the UK has fallen but this has yet to translate into significantly higher wages.  Neither is a rapid improvement likely as companies are still timid about investing due to the weak momentum of the economic recovery.  Government policy is also a hindrance due to the focus on austerity measures rather than taking advantage of low interest rates to invest.  

The only way out for beleaguered workers seems to be setting up their own business which has become increasingly more popular.  The jump in entrepreneurship may be one of the few silver linings as people cut themselves free to become their own boss and to have productivity gains there for the taking.

Low Oil Prices – Feeding the Addiction

Cheaper oil will bring about much cheer but it will help keep key oil producers happy in years to come

Oil is like a drug that the world economy cannot do without and we are in the midst of a turf war over who will call the shots.  A few dealers have had a stranglehold over the market for oil and have been able to set prices as they please.  The arrival of new kids on the block (with the rise of fracking in the US) has triggered a fight for control of the oil market.  The result has been a plunge in oil prices which is a blessing for the global economy but is part of a bigger strategy to keep us all addicted to oil for years to come.

Not a buyers’ market

The sharp drop in oil prices will provide a welcome boost to the economic recovery in many countries.  Oil is like a drug in that it is always in demand and buying continued despite high prices in the aftermath of the global financial crisis.  Prices for oil have only recently eased off (playing havoc with inflation) as demand from energy-hungry China has weakened while supply from the US has expanded.  Oil is also plagued by a further similarity to drugs in that the suppliers of oil tend to be some ugly characters such as Russia, Iran, and Venezuela (as well as some nice ones such as Canada and Norway).  But the kingpin of the oil market is Saudi Arabia due to the size of its reserves of oil and its willingness to adjust its output to market conditions.

Saudi Arabia is the top dog of a club called OPEC where some of the major producers of oil banded together to wrestle control of the oil market away from Western energy firms.  OPEC came to prominence in the 1970s when the countries cut oil output as a protest against Israel.  Along with the devastation wrought due to the resulting surge in oil prices, efforts to conserve energy also acted to weaken the need for oil.  Once oil prices returned to normal, OPEC has looked to set its output so as to make the most money while also suppressing incentives to cut back on oil consumption. 

Sticking to the optimal level of output was always going to be tricky when cheating would bring in extra cash.  This meant that not all members of OPEC stuck to their quotas set to manage the supply of oil and it was left to Saudi Arabia to shoulder the burden of larger cuts to production when required.  Saudi Arabia could pull this off due to its revenues from oil being more than enough to fund its government spending.  In contrast, governments in countries such as Venezuela and Iran spend big to support their anti-Western antics which tend to max out the cash from their energy sectors.

Trying to stay on top

The arrangements behind this oil cartel have been bust wide open due to the surge in oil output coming out from the US.  New fracking technology has unlocked previously inaccessible oil reserves and turned the US into a big player in the oil market.  Faced with a choice of cutting its output or suffer falling prices, OPEC chose the latter.  The Saudis, in particular, were not willing to take a hit and lose out in terms of market share.  As Saudi oil is typically cheap to get out of the ground, their hope is that a lower price for oil will drive others out of business.  A drop in oil prices will also scare away any investment in oil fields that would boost output in the future.

It pays for Saudi Arabia to take a long term view of the market seeing that it has so much oil still underground.  An abundance of new sources of oil or new technologies that eliminate the need for oil would take a big chunk out of the value of its underground stash.  Saudi Arabia is in a strong enough position to sacrifice short-term gain to lock in future control over the oil market.  Be thankful that the Saudis want oil to be cheap for now and keep us all addicted but don’t expect it to last (much more than a few years).

Fiscal Policy – Not fighting back

The government has been subdued in the fight to revive the economy despite a change in strategy being long overdue

Considering the trouble we are having fighting back against the aftermath of the financial crisis, it seems strange that the government is not using its full arsenal.  Central banks have come out all guns blazing with their monetary policy but governments have held back from firing up fiscal policy.  Worries about their levels of debt were behind this tepid response by governments but such concerns have eased while the economic recovery struggles to pick up momentum.  Why should be suffer further losses while saving our ammunition?

Hit and miss

Central banks launched themselves into the front line while governments remained in the background due to self-inflicted wounds.  Monetary policy had been enough to deal with past recessions and resulted in a belief that central banks were infallible in this regard.  High levels of debt along with a banking sector under attack meant that low interest rates had little effect and quantitative easing was not much better.  Along with not making much headway, monetary policy also caused considerable collateral damage in the form of financial instability.  This was a sign that central banks were being asked to do too much in the face of a once-in-a generation economic slump.

Most governments were happy to sit back having mismanaged their finances resulting in high levels of government debt prior to the crisis.  The Eurozone crisis prompted governments to further retreat amid worries that investors would shun any government with too much debt.  This pushed governments off on a trajectory of austerity which continued even though fears about government debt abated within several months.  The economic recovery has been muted due to weak demand with companies not willing to invest despite low interest rates and consumers hurting due to large debts and stagnating wages.

Time for a new battle plan

Monetary policy was always likely to struggle to make much ground while there is little impetus to spend, let alone borrow.  This shortfall could be overcome by the government which fixes problems, from crime to pollution, that are caused by others.  Keeping the economy ticking over when spending would otherwise be weak would prevent more damage being done to the economy.  Otherwise, the economy becomes less productive as firms stop investing in new technologies and the skills of people out of work deteriorate.

It seems an even more obvious solution at a time when there is so much that the government could spend its money on such as improving Internet access, accelerating the uptake of renewable energy, and updating transport infrastructure.  The low interest rates provide the perfect opportunity to invest for the future especially when companies are not up to doing so.  Investment projects could be set up to boost output in the economy for a few years until spending from other picks up the slack. 

A winning strategy

Despite the still faltering economic recovery, governments loathe changing direction and austerity continues to reign in Europe and the UK (as well as US to a lesser extent).  Moves to fix government finances made sense following the jump in interest rates on government debt in the Eurozone but this turmoil in the financial markets has long passed.  Weak overall spending and the threat of deflation setting in is now the dominant problem facing many countries. 

Higher spending by the government that lifted the productivity of the economy could be funded through borrowing at low interest rates and repaid through higher taxes that a more efficient economy would generate.  This is the opposite of what is happening in the UK where austerity is hurting the economy and efforts to reduce the government deficit are being thwarted due to a fall in money from taxes. 

There is still time for a change of strategy to have an impact in the fight for an economy recovery that improves the lives of us all.  Even if it is too late, investing for the future when interest rates are at record lows seems like a no brainer.  A change is due as this is a battle that no one wants to lose.

Inflation – Hard to ignore again

Low inflation is a nuisance for central banks looking to increase interest rates but they would be wrong to dismiss it

Family get-togethers over Christmas often involve naughty children but it is inflation that is making trouble for central banks.  Inflation unexpectedly shot up in the aftermath of the global financial crisis but is now surprisingly falling despite a burgeoning economic recovery.  Central banks ignored the jump in inflation in 2011 and are now stuck figuring out how to deal with persistently low inflation.  The antics of inflation will be difficult to disregard a second time around considering that the causes for static prices are not all external.

Inflation acting up

The level of inflation is used as a measure to check whether all is well with the economy.  There should neither be too much inflation (suggesting an overheating economy) nor too little (which is a sign of weak overall demand).  With countries increasing sourcing goods from overseas, prices levels in any country can be influenced by prices of commodities on global markets.  This can push inflation in a different direction to the particular circumstances of any economy.

The best recent example of this was a plague of high inflation in 2011 when the economies of many countries were still in the doldrums.  The Chinese economy was still humming along despite financial turmoil elsewhere and China continued to buy up commodities on the global markets.  The result higher prices were most prominent in the UK where inflation topped five percent in 2011.  This bout of inflation was not just a brief spike with prices rising by more than four percent for over a year.  Despite inflation being well above its target of two percent, the Bank of England maintained its loose monetary policy to support the weak economy.  The argument behind this was that the inflation was temporary and not related to the underlying economy. 

Behaving badly again

Inflation is currently misbehaving in a different way and is causing concern due to being too low.  Prices are not rising by much due to lower commodity prices with the spurt of growth in emerging countries having run its course.  While this is a positive for consumers who benefit from a boost in spending power, low inflation is a source of anxiety for central banks.  The Federal Reserve and the Bank of England are getting set to increase interest rates to more normal levels.  Even the prospect of the economic recovery gaining further momentum would not provide central banks with enough of a reason for higher interest rates when inflation is around one percent. 

This irritation is not likely to go away anytime soon if the high inflation in 2011 is any guide.  Inflation is likely to slip even lower in 2015 as the effects of the plunging price for oil feeds through into the economy.  On top of this, swings in commodity prices tend to last for a few years so that inflation is unlikely to pick up for the next couple of years.  This would suggest that inflation will be below target for 2015 and 2016 which is the two-year time frame that central banks look at when deciding interest rates. 

Ignoring inflation would be naughty

Low inflation should imply low interest rates but central banks could choose to ignore this and raise interest rates away.  This is because the same argument as in 2011 could be applied – disregarding trends in inflation that are attributed to outside sources.  It is a convenient strategy for central banks worried about the economic recovery triggering a jump in inflation due to the potential for wages to rise as unemployment falls.  Such an outcome does seem optimistic considering that wages are not budging by much even as the economy picks up steam.

A further problem with turning a blind eye to inflation is that it is tough to gauge what the inflation level would be without the fall in commodity prices.  It is not as if consumers have money to spurge having been stuck with stagnating wages and considerable debts from the pre-financial crisis spend-up.  Sluggish prices are harder to dismiss considering that low inflation is also caused by weak domestic demand.  With inflation likely to continue to play up for a while yet, central banks will need to be patient and bide their time before raising interest rates or else it will be the central banks that may be the ones getting into trouble.

Bargain Low Interest Rates to Continue in 2015

Borrowing is likely to stay cheap in 2015 as a drop in inflation puts pay to talk of higher interest rates

Christmas is usually followed by a rush off to the sales but borrowers need not hurry as cut-price loans are likely to remain for most, if not all, of 2015.  Acting like retailers with surplus stock to sell after Christmas, central banks slashed interest rates after the global financial crisis.  Six years later, there are growing calls for this to be reversed in countries such as the US and the UK due to as a strengthening economic recovery backed by more people finding jobs.  Yet, plans for higher interest rates have been way laid with falling inflation suggesting that all is not well with the economy.  With unemployment and inflation likely to fall further in 2015, there seems to be few reasons for any changes to be made to interest rates over the next 12 months.

Shopping around

The Federal Reserve and the Bank of England are in the midst of a dilemma – like a shopper not sure of where to head first to snap up some bargains after Christmas.  Unemployment data suggests that the economic recovery is becoming more entrenched with the proportion of Americans and Brits without jobs now below 6%.  Yet, despite more workers being hired, companies are still holding back from investing to expand output.  Aggregate demand is also suffering due to cuts to government spending resulting in an economic recovery that is still patchy.

If the stuttering economy is giving central banks reason to worry, it is inflation that is the real sticking point getting in the way of higher interest rates.  The extent at which prices are rising (or falling) has been adopted by central banks as a gauge for the health of the economy.  It is thus a point of frustration that inflation is heading downward as other signs, such as lower unemployment, suggest that the economy is picking up.  These mixed signals from the economy mean that Federal Reserve and the Bank of England are caught in two minds in terms of what do to with interest rates.

Best to stay put

Things are not likely to get any easier for central banks considering that the trends in unemployment and inflation are not likely to change any time soon.  With companies not yet willing to spend big on new equipment, it makes sense to employ more workers (who are relatively cheap) to get things done.  Lower commodity prices is the main cause behind falling inflation and a rebound in commodity markets is not likely as shifts in demand and supply of commodities taking years to change.  Neither are consumers in any mood for higher prices considering that wages have not kept up with inflation over the past few years. 

All this suggests that 2015 will be more of the same and interest rates are also unlikely to change.  Some will argue that interest rates need to rise to give central banks leeway to act in case of other threats to the economy.  Others will claim that the economic recovery means that inflation will be just around the corner and central banks need to pre-empt any jumps in prices.  But these are risky strategies considering that a bit of inflation in the future will do less damage to the economy than a premature hike in interest rates. 

A still fragile recovery means that, like any shopper out after Christmas, the economy could also do with a bargain (in the form of low interest rates).