Quantitative Easing – Getting less from more

The European Central Bank has been late to try quantitative easing and may find that additional euros cannot buy much relief

We all have the tendency to rely on the tried and true tricks we have found helpful in the past even when their usefulness has faded.  This also seems true of central banks who have come to rely on quantitative easing even though its effects show signs of fading.  Even the initial boost provided by the first attempts at quantitative easing was limited and the situation has deteriorated amid its continued application.  As the last major central bank to give it a go, the European Central Bank will not get much return from any extra cash. 

Why more is not always more

Economist should know that repeating the same policies does not always work considering a well-used idea in economic theory known as diminishing returns.  This concept refers to the way in which more of the same often comes with fewer additional benefits.  Economists use this to describe why the second plate of ice cream does not taste as good as the first or why one more cook in a crowded kitchen doesn’t necessarily improve the food. 

Printing more money, which is the basis for quantitative easing, sounds like a sure-fire way to generate economic growth but any economy can only handle so much money.  The world is already awash with cash even before central banks started with quantitative easing.  This means that every additional dollar, euro, or pound printed as part of quantitative easing is being added to an already substantial pile of cash.  With money already being hoarded by many companies and governments not wanting to spend more cash, there is not much use for any more.

No need for more

With the meagre effects of quantitative easing on the wane, it was the earlier versions that would have generated the most bang for each additional buck.  It was the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England that tried out the first rounds of quantitative easing – the goal was to push investors away from government bonds to more risky investments such as corporate bonds or stocks.  The hope was that this would help provide companies with easier access to cash and to perk up investors by boosting share prices. 

Not all of the extra dollars and pounds would have stayed local but also headed overseas to find places to earn more money.  This meant that the effects of quantitative easing would have been felt far beyond the countries where the cash was originally coming from.  It has been helpful in places such as Portugal and Spain with overseas investors buying bonds issued by the Portuguese and Spanish governments as worries about Europe eased.

With the effects of quantitative easing having already spilled across international borders, there is not much more to be gained from even more cash.  As such, the additional euros coming out of the European Central Bank following the recent launch of quantitative easing in Europe may not amount to much.  Any further action may also be limited as the saga over whether or not to implement quantitative easing has highlighted how the European Central Bank only has limited room for manoeuvre when running in opposition to Germany.  Now, more than ever, it is time to try something new.

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.

Getting more from Monetary Policy

Japan has made lots of mistakes and it is time that Europe learnt from them

We can all learn from watching others make mistakes and the experiences of Japan continue to provide valuable lessons.  Japan has stumbled into another recession following a hike in taxes to fix the government’s finances.  The other key policy doing the rounds in Japan, using expansive monetary policy to put an end to deflation, also seems to be flagging.  It is Europe that has most to learn from the unfortunate trials and tribulations in Japan since many of the same problems are shared by both.  What should Europe do to avoid making the same mistakes and decades of stagnation?

Following in the same footsteps

Japan has been hit first with many of the same problems that are increasingly expected to plague Europe and other Western countries.  For starters, new-borns in Japan are increasingly outnumbered by pensioners which have pushed the population into decline in recent years with an aversion to immigration further accentuating this trend.  This translates to fewer workers to provide the taxes needed for the rising costs involved with taking care of old people.  The situation is made worse by government debt which is already more than double GDP due to years of inefficient government spending.

Japanese consumer prices have been falling for years as a reflection of the weak demand.  There are few opportunities to profit from in Japan due to the falling population and even Japanese firms are looking elsewhere to invest.  Weak global demand means that even one of Japan’s strengths, exporting, offers only limited respite even with a weaker yen due to its loose monetary policy.  All of this means that the Japanese economy itself is like a tottery pensioner - even a small rise of sales tax from 5% to 8% was enough to push Japan back into recession.  This does not bode well for Europe where the economy is sputtering along due to many of the same problems while the governments there are also trying to get a grip on their finances.

Trying different directions

Having been stuck with these problems for longer, policy makers in Japan are increasingly more aggressive in coming up with solutions.  The current prime minister, Shinzo Abe, launched a raft of new measures dominated by a massive expansion of the money supply to target falling prices.  This new aggressive approach to monetary policy was facilitated by the government installing a new governor to the Bank of Japan who was willing to give up its independence and toe the line.

This is the complete opposite to the situation in Europe.  The head of the European Central Bank is eager to do more with monetary policy but is prevented from doing so by the German government.  German politicians want to reforms to come first due to an expectation that their neighbours will not implement the necessary policies. Whereas, in Japan, the aim was to use the loose monetary policy to help build momentum that will allow the government to implement reforms. 

Yet, the Abe government has been disappointing in its reform efforts (as Your Neighbourhood Economist predicted) and this will bolster the stance taken by Germany.  With the Bank of Japan finding it tough to generate sufficient inflation despite a rapidly expanding money supply through quantitative easing, many will question about the reasons behind using a similar policy in Europe.  Central banks are struggling to have much influence in a world that is already awash with surplus cash.  

Time for Plan C

It seems like the key lesson from Japan is that monetary policy cannot do much by itself.  Japan still languishes despite the best efforts of the central bank as the Abe government shirks the much needed measures to free up the economy.  Yet, bullying countries in Europe to reform by withholding the full extent of monetary policy is not helpful either.  A grand bargain marrying reforms with looser monetary policy, as was supposed to be the case in Japan, seems the obvious solution. 

This takes more political willpower when the many countries of Europe are involved but is not something beyond the realms of possibility.  Ironically, the chances for such a deal may be improving as deflation becomes more of a concerns and the economic stagnation in Europe also spreads to Germany.  Japan has already paid the price for years of economic mismanagement – there is no reason for Europe to do the same.

Monetary Policy – Germany to feel the pinch

A taste of its own medicine may prompt Germany to rethink its tough guy approach to Europe

No one like a bully but that seems to be Germany’s role in Europe.  It makes other countries walk the line in policy terms (for their own good) even amid simmering discontent among its neighbours.  Germany has been mean in terms of pushing for monetary policy to be less expansive as elsewhere in spite of struggling countries needing help.  Yet, things may change as the German economy is starting to suffer from similar problems to those it bullies.  Germany is likely to be stuck with monetary policy that is too harsh for even its own economy and this may result in it softening up its approach to others in Europe.

Help wanted

It is a given that the economy in Europe could do with a boost.  Weak demand from consumers and firms means that unemployment remains stubbornly high and inflation for Europe as a whole is not far off zero.  But Germany continues to push its policy of tough love onto Europe.  As with most other developed countries, fiscal stimulus is not an option as governments deal with high levels of public debt.  Germany has gone further in cajoling other governments in Europe to sort out their budget deficits despite the likelihood of adverse economic effects.  

Germany has also not allowed the use of monetary policy as an alternative means of stimulating the economy.  Measures such as quantitative easing have been utilised with some benefits in the US and in Britain but not in Europe even though Europe needs a boost more than anywhere else.  The reasoning behind this approach by Germany is that, by offer laggards in Europe an easy way out, the current problems which are holding them (and Europe as a whole) back will remain in place.  As a result, the European Central Bank has had to be creative and try other measures such as negative interest rates.  But it is difficult for monetary policy to have much effect when its scope is limited.

Turning the tables

Germany may have been able to bully others in Europe but it may be the Germans turn to feel the pain.  The German economy is beginning to flag amid weakening demand for its exports from places such as China.  Forecasts for economic growth in Germany are being cut as its prospects deteriorate while inflation has fallen to below 1%.  The normal response to a weakening economy anywhere else would be for looser monetary policy.  But having not allowed other European countries this option, Germany’s tough stance on others may result it also being tough on itself. 

It is funny to think that the Germans would have likely allowed itself to have more stimulus via monetary policy if there was just a German central bank looking after just the German economy.  But its own actions in influencing monetary policy will mean that Germany may have to endure monetary policy that does not reflect the weak state of its economy (along with most everyone else in Europe).  When framed in this way, Germany must rethink its ideas on economic policy for Europe if just for its own good. 

Continued stubbornness by the Germans would be unconstructive even in comparison to the often dysfunctional politics in Europe.  Deflation is another concern that will only get worse with the current policy measures.  Germany was never going to go easy on others in Europe while its economy was riding high.  It is only a Germany that has been laid low that may soften up and be more willing to help itself by helping others.

Euro as the new Deutsche Mark

Germany practically controls the euro as if it were its own currency but it would gain more being less in charge

Being a big fish in a small pond can have its benefits as Germany is discovering in its dealing with Europe.  Its powerhouse economy means that Germany was one of the few countries left standing after the Eurozone crisis.  Germany has used this position of strength to turn the euro into its own de-facto currency.  It dominates the decisions over monetary policy and has influences spending decisions by politicians outside of its borders.  This level of control is alienating many others in Europe while still being insufficient to keep Germans happy.  As a result, more could be gained by Germany trading away its power to secure a brighter future for Europe as a whole.

Benefits of being the boss

Control over monetary policy is not something that Germany fought for but it came as a by-product of the Eurozone crisis that hobbled the other powers in Europe.  More prudent management of government finances meant that the government has less debt and the economy has been resilient due in part to its exporting prowess.  This left its Chancellor, Angela Merkel, as one of the few politicians who is backed by voters and in a strong position to dominate European politics.

It has allowed Germany to impose its own policy measures over the Eurozone.  Germany has set the tone regarding austerity as well as its concerns over inflation limiting the scope of monetary policy.  Countries such as Spain and Italy would benefit in the short term from more government spending and looser monetary policy.  But Germany has pushed for a range of policies which are a better fit for its own economy than others in Europe where the shortfall in demand is more pronounced.  The aim is to bring others into line in terms of implementing reforms which would improve the outlook for Europe in the future.

Along with setting policies, being the boss of a widely used currency comes with a host of benefits.  For starters, investors looking for the safest place to park their euros will choose Germany over other European countries and this keep down interest rates in Germany.  Worries about a sluggish economy in Europe are a further boost to Germany by keeping the value of the euro weak.  The euro is both too strong considering the economic circumstances of many of the countries in Europe but considerably below what a truly German currency (a new Deutsche Mark) could be valued at. 

Getting more from less

As is often the case, its power has become like a poisoned chalice.  Not only is Germany out of tune with many of its neighbours but the euro is also increasingly unpopular at home.  The rapid rise of an anti-euro party in Germany (called the Alternative for Germany party) suggests that there are many Germans who feel as if they are getting a raw deal from being part of the Eurozone.  This party joins a growing list of populist parties in Europe worried about the level of integration needed to maintain the euro. 

If a position of strength does not come with many rewards, sometimes more can be gained from giving power away.  Germany could soften its strict stance on fiscal and monetary policy as a trade for more reforms in other countries.  This bargain would help deal with the short-term issues of a weak economy needing stimulus as well as concerns about the prospects for Europe over the long term.  Compromise also seems more likely now that deflation is a growing threat and the German economy itself is flagging.  It is time for Germany to cash in now as it may be too late if the situation in Europe gets worse. 

Europe – finding a way out

Europe seems trapped with a sluggish economy but a way out may be close

Getting out of a hole that you have dug for yourself can be tough.  This is what Europe is struggling with as the Eurozone crisis seems to have passed only to be replaced with a slow strangling at the hands of deflation.  Infighting among politicians about the best way to deal with the economic stagnation in Europe has resulted in few reasons for hope of an escape.  Yet, this may change due to recent developments such as a flagging German economy and the rise of reform-minded governments in some countries.  Sometimes things need to get worse before a way out is possible and the situation in Europe may have finally got bad enough for positive change to occur.

An economic escape route…

An economic recovery is typically an automatic progress but may not always be easy.  Companies going bankrupt and workers losing their jobs cause considerable pain but is actually something that is good for the overall health of the economy.  A cull of weaker businesses provides more space for more successful firms to grow and prosper.  This process has the label of “creative destruction” in economic theory due to the idea of the old needing to give way for the new. 

In this way, economic growth returns after a recession as resources such as workers move to more productive uses.  The economy can grow faster as a result but a certain level of economic freedoms are needed to allow this to happen.  In this way, there is a trade-off between economic growth and the potential for instability.  It is not possible to have the former without the latter but any instability can be limited through controlling economic excesses (which often show up in the financial system).

Getting the balance right is not easy.  Companies in finance have been given too much leeway and created havoc as a result.  Yet, in other areas, businesses have been burdened with too many rules.  One example is regulation which makes it difficult for firms to fire workers.  This may seem like a good way of keeping people in jobs but such regulation has an adverse effect in that companies will not want to take on new workers if their employment is almost permanent.

… and the politics to make it happen

Many countries in Europe are in desperate need of policies to free up business from such regulation but implementation is often tricky.  At a time of rapid change, voters often crave stability of bygone eras that are no longer viable.  This does not stop populist parties making false promises to turn back time and dismissing the need for reforms.  It is heartening for the outlook in Europe that some countries such as Spain have made progress with its reforms.  Others such as France and Italy also have governments that are making the right noises in terms of reforms even if not actually putting new policies in place.

The lack of reforms has been preventing the recovery in Europe in other ways.  Germany, who has a firm grip on the reins of power in Europe, has stubbornly refused to offer much help to struggling European countries.  The reasoning behind this is that offering an easy way out would mean that these countries would not deal with the problems within their own economies.  The flip side is that, once reforms begin, Germany may be more accommodating in providing support. 

This opens up the possibility of a grand bargain, such as reforms as a trade for looser monetary policy and less focus on austerity.  More action from the central bank seems likely as the German economy is beginning to falter and genuine fears about deflation in Europe grow.  Its own weak economic growth and low inflation will highlight to the Germans that the problems are plaguing Europe as a whole rather than just individual problem countries.

Your Neighbourhood Economist penned this posting with comments from readers in mind.  Europe and the euro was seen as a lost cause by one reader while others have been annoyed that this blog always had to be so pessimistic.  Hopefully, this post will hopefully prove them wrong (but in a good way).

Quantitative Easing – Waiting while Europe Sinks

As Europe cries out for more action against deflation, the central bank must wait until the situation gets even worse

It would be strange to hold off saving people in a sinking ship until the ship is just about to go under, but this is how monetary policy works in Europe.  The situation in European grows continues to get worse as economic growth stagnates and deflation sets in.  Yet, the central bank cannot help, as it is hamstrung by politics, and must hold off until the cost of inaction is too high.  This means that Europe will have to take on a lot of water until a rescue package can eventually be put in place. 

Politics muddies the water

Monetary policy is tough enough in one country, let along for the 18 countries which use the euro.  The European Central Bank has acted boldly when given the chance.  It took a stand in 2012 stating that it was willing to do “whatever it takes” to save the Eurozone.  This was the lifeboat that saved Europe from collapse at a time when national governments were absorbed riding out wave after waves of turmoil.  But the European Central Bank was only free to jump in once it seemed as if Greece and other countries were about to let go of the euro. 

Despite a temporary reprieve, the economies of Europe have been like a listless ship with leaks.  Reforms have been put off in the hope that the worst is over and economic growth would return without any further encouragement.  Yet it is not a surprise that Europe is close to being sunk again but this time in slow motion.  The problem is the rules and regulations that get in the way of more efficient ways of doing business.  Economic growth cannot be seen as a given and government policies must allow resources to move to more productive uses.   

Such reforms tend to be unpopular as the costs are borne upfront while it takes time for the benefits to show.  So politicians in Europe have put off these measures as pleasing voters is proving tough enough as it is.  Instead, it has been easier to blame others and wait in the hope that economic growth will return.  This wait-and-see approach relies on the central bank to help out with the economy but this is beyond what the European Central Bank can achieve.

The politics behind the European Central Bank is made even more difficult in dealing due to some countries floundering more than others.  Amid all of the concerns about deflation, it is already a fact of life in some countries such as Greece and Spain.  Yet, even Europe as a whole is edging closer to deflation which is typically the symptom of a sluggish economy.  The fear is that deflation will create its own problems if falling prices prompt consumers to hold of spending in the hope for cheaper goods in the future.

Waiting until things get worse

The central bank has already responded to the threat of deflation through a policy of negative interest rates.  Quantitative easing, which has already been used (with limited success) in other countries, is the obvious choice to ramp up monetary policy.  This option has been kept off the table due to its potential to cause inflation which raises hackles among Germans.  Since any measures by the central bank could be deemed to be inflationary, Germany has used its influence to restrict the ability of the central bank to act. 

Yet, even the Germans will eventually have to see deflation as the greater threat.  But, at the same time, it is tough to gauge when too little inflation (or too much deflation) will be enough for a change of tack.  Germany has stuck to its guns since the outbreak of the Eurozone backed by an economy which had until recently remained buoyant.  So Europe is likely to get quantitative easing sometime (soon) and hopefully before the Eurozone is too far under water.

The Economics behind Populist Parties in Europe

Voters kick up a stink in the European elections but mainstream politicians only have themselves to blame

The success of anti-EU parties in the European elections has been in the news over the past week but it is economics that provides much of the backstory.  Voters in Europe have flocked to political parties offering the illusion of a way of opting out of the changes that threaten their livelihoods.  Such frustration is understandable considering that the more established parties have only offered up piecemeal measures as a solution.  Acceptance of the limited options available will be the first step to making real progress.

Going with the flow

The economic prospects of those with few skills are dire.  Many of the sectors that provided jobs for workers in earlier generations have shrunk due to the double whammy of technology and globalization.  Gains in technology have seen a rise in the mechanization or computerization of many tasks.  Globalization has allowed firms to search the world to find the cheapest workers.  These are not trends that are expected to change anytime soon.

Despite the large number of those put out by these trends, the benefits for the economy as a whole have been unprecedented.  Technology has brought a wealth of information and possibilities to our fingertips and outsourcing has made the bulk of things we buy much cheaper.  There is no one who has not gained in some way with the overall gains far outweighing the costs.  The problem is that these costs are borne by a relatively limited number.

In an ideal world, some of the wide spread benefits would be used to compensate those missing out due to the rise of technology and globalization.  However, governments in the Western world have been moving in the opposite direction.  People are increasingly left to fend for themselves with few hand-outs from the government.  The affected workers need money during periods without work as well as help with reskilling to move into growing industries.  Yet, unemployment benefits are being trimmed back and education is becoming more expensive. 

Instead, governments look to shield themselves from the blame, and since no one is going to come out against technology, globalization is the obvious fall guy.  The EU takes the blame in Europe as the epitome of the uncontrollable external forces pushing for more open borders.  Rather than admit that they are almost powerless in the face of outside influences which are part of globalization, politicians offer temporary reprieves.  Typical responses include attempts to limit immigration, moves to block factory closures, railing against takeovers by foreign firms, or moaning about a strong currency hurting exports.  The failure of such actions to have any substantive effect leaves governments open to criticism.  Hence, the rise of political parties proposing to do more.

A dose of honesty

The policies of populist parties will not offer any long-term respite.  It is possible for an economy to shut itself off from the global economy.  However, fighting against the tide of history is not a long term option - a faster pace of economic growth in other countries which are more open will inevitably reveal the folly of such isolation.  Instead of being a viable alternative, the anti-immigration political parties tend to function as a form of protest for voters to vent their frustration at the status quo.  But there is still the possibility of one of these protest parties snatching power, likely with dire consequences.

The main remedy might be something as simple as a bit of honesty.   Politicians need to be more open with voters about the limits of their policies.  This would give them the scope needed to deal with the negative effects of technology and globalization which need more than ad hoc measures.  Long term investment in education and infrastructure will be key in terms of both dealing with the negative and reaping the most benefits.  Now is the time for governments to step up and act or else face a more rapid tumbling down the global pecking order.  Politicians and voters need to come to their senses.  And soon.

Greece – On the mend but still broken

The Greek government is selling bonds again but its debts require a further fix

Greece was always broken but it was not obvious until the Eurozone crisis.  With its increasingly shabby façade finally stripped away, Greece's dilapidated economy was shunned by investors and needed to be bailed out - twice.  But, with help from others, Greece is on the mend and recent progress has been rewarded by the Greek government regaining the ability to borrow from financial markets.  While this is a key step in putting the pieces back together again, a big chunk is still missing.

Shoddy foundations

The Greek economy had never been on the firmest footing.  A raft of regulations sapped the dynamism of the economy, making Greece an alluring holiday location but an unattractive place to do business.  To avoid cumbersome rules, companies typically remained small and often hide out in the shadow economy.  This resulted in Greece being mired in low productivity and chronic tax avoidance.

Investors were willing to overlook all of this once Greece joined the euro.  Despite its obvious faults, Greece was treated as if it were the same as any other country using the euro.  This gave Greece access to funds at a lower interest rate, triggering a boom in investment in property among other things.  The government joined in and ramped up spending on the assumption that the good times were here to stay.

Yet, what was seen as a blessing at the time proved to be the wrecking ball that was to bring down the house.  Cheap financing dried up with the onset of the global financial crisis and the weakened economy collapsed under the weight of excessive levels of debt.  The government needed to borrow more and more as the economy sank into recession but investors were no longer forthcoming with their cash. 

With no one willing to lend to the Greek government, the IMF and others stepped in to prevent a default due to fears that other countries in Europe would be put in peril.  The result was a prolonged economic slump as Greece struggled with the aftermath of its borrowing binge as well as with austerity measures needed to shore up the government’s finances.  The situation was so bad that Your Neighbourhood Economist was one of many who thought that the Greeks would leave the Eurozone lured by the illusion of an easy way out.

Major repairs still needed

The economic stagnation in Greece has continued with six consecutive years of recession leaving GDP around 25% lower.  Forecasters are now optimistic enough to predict that the Greek economy will grow slightly in 2014 with austerity measures expected to ease as government finances improve.  Another sign of progress is that investors are again willing to lend the government money.  The Greek government sold 3 billion euros worth of bonds earlier in April offering a yield of just under 5% after yields spiked to over 30% around two years ago.

Investors are keen to snap up debt from other peripheral countries in Europe.  This reflects brighter prospects for some countries such as Ireland and Spain.  Yet, in the case of Greece, it is more a reflection of a dearth of other investment options offering similar returns and of investors being more willing to take on risks.  That Greece can sell bonds again is a sign that the Eurozone crisis is over but the Greeks are still left with the harsh reality of excessive debt.

Exacerbated by the sharp drop in the size of the economy, the debt to GDP ratio is around 175% and still edging upwards.  Considering that the Greek economy is unlikely to generate enough of a surplus to pay off this debt, another bailout has always been on the cards.  The Greek people are also unlikely to be able to live with the burden that this brings.  Until the shackles of debt are removed, the Greek economy will never be properly fixed.

Another New Policy - Negative Interest Rates

Another unconventional policy measure may be trialled in Europe as its central bank struggles to revive the moribund economy

The on-going economic troubles have been demanding in many ways – including having to learn the meanings of an ever-increasing range of new economic terms.  This is due to central banks implementing a range of practices to breathe life into an economy which seems impervious to their best efforts at resuscitation.  The list of unconventional policies started with quantitative easing, which was soon followed with forward guidance.  The next piece of headline-grabbing jargon may be negative interest rates.  This latest innovation is expected to come from the European Central Bank (ECB) even as other central banks look to wind down their operations.

The What, How, and Why of Negative Interest Rates

The policy of negative interest rates is just as simple as it sounds – paying someone to hold money instead of receiving interest on any deposits of cash.  Fortunately, the humble blogger on the street will not be required to pay negative interest rates by his or her retail bank; instead, the banks themselves will be charged for their holdings at the central bank.  Banks tend to park any surplus funds with the central bank so the idea of negative interest rates is to spur banks into making better use of their reserves.  In particular, the policy is intended to boost lending by banks which has remained sluggish despite record low interest rates.

The policy is all about creating the right incentives.  The actual payments themselves would be small.  For example, the ECB is said to be considering an interest rate of -0.1% in place of its current rate of 0.25%.  Central banks have been frustrated by the failure of low interest rates to generate the desired result – more lending.  Both forward guidance and negative interest rates are policies aimed at achieving this.  

Timing – why now?

Now we understand the basics of negative interest rates, the final question is one of timing – why now?  The ECB is driven by two key factors – the changes to monetary policy in the US and fears about deflation in Europe.

The effects of the Federal Reserve printing money to buy bonds (known as quantitative easing) have reached far beyond the US borders with some of the money also finding its way to Europe.  Less loot leaving the US will likely lead to less liquidity in the European banking system.  Low levels of inflation (0.7% in January) have led to fears about consumer prices starting to fall, something already happening in places like Greece.  There are concerns that such deflation could further undermine demand and result in debts increasing in size relative to the economy.

The potential adverse consequences of these developments have pushed the ECB to act and negative interest rates are one of the few options available.  This is because the actions of the ECB are restrained by divergent views among the member countries of the European Union.  In particular, Germany has been adamant in upholding rules that limit the ability of the ECB to purchase bonds. 

Negative interest rates would also bring their own complications.  European banks may struggle to deal with negative interest rates which are not the norm.  The extra costs may weaken banks by lowering their profits, making them more cautious lenders and exacerbating the problem.  Low lending rates have had only a muted effect so the benefits of going negative may be limited.  Even if the policy is seen to be effective, Germany would be loath to offer more help to struggling countries in the periphery of Europe as it may encourage them to put off crucial reforms.

It is too early to say whether negative interest rates will ever make it into our everyday lingo.  Either way, we can only hope that it does not take many more new policies until we can shake off the current economic stupor.

Good Deflation better than Bad Inflation

Central banks seem to be keen on avoiding deflation at any costs but inflation for its own sake is likely to be worse  

Inflation is on the retreat in much of the world giving rise to concerns about deflation.  Economic theory along with the experiences of Japan makes deflation one of the most feared outcomes in economics.  The central bank in Japan is planning to double its money supply as part of its battle to end deflation while the European Central Bank cut interest rates after inflation figures in October were too low for comfort.  The fears about deflation have resulted in policies which suggest that inflation in any form is better than deflation.  But deflation is a symptom of bigger problems and the prescribed cure may do more harm than good.

Economics textbooks paint a grim picture when it comes to deflation – lower prices translate to less money to pay off debts for both businesses and governments with consumers holding off on purchases if today’s prices are likely to be lower tomorrow.  Japan has been a case study of the damage done by deflation –the bursting of a gigantic financial bubble in 1989 resulted in around two decades of falling prices seen as sapping the life out of the Japanese economy while government debt has reached around 230% of GDP.  The years of deflation reinforced the notion of deflation feeding upon itself to reduce demand for goods and services and further drive down prices.

However, according to this rationale, deflation is the cause of the problem rather than simply a sign of a sluggish economy.  The reasons behind deflation are based on prices being too high as a result of unsustainable price increases in the past.  We can see an example of how this works in that stock prices in Japan are still less than half their peak value, highlighting the extent to which prices can be massively overinflated.  Prices for consumer goods are not subject to the same price pressures as in the stock market but the example illustrates the consequences of economic overheating.

There are parts of Europe with similar issues but nowhere is close to being on the same scale.  So, while Japan shows what can happen, its relevance to Europe is likely to be limited.  The deflation emerging in Europe, such as in Greece and Spain, is the result of weak demand coupled with falling wages which helps businesses by lower their costs.  The lower wages are needed for these countries to regain their competitiveness relative to the rest of Europe as other options, such as currency devaluation, are not available for countries in the Eurozone.

The response of central banks in Japan and Europe has been to use monetary policy to weaken their respective currencies but this targets the symptom and not the problem.  A weaker currency increases the price of imports and is tantamount to paying foreigners more to buy stuff just to create inflation for its own sake.  However, higher prices are more likely to result in consumers tightening their belts as their purchasing power diminishes.  The idea that low inflation requires more of the same approach misses the fact that these monetary policies bring their own costs with little benefit.  Deflation doesn't seem so bad in comparison.

Monetary Policy – via the currency market

With the banking system clogged up, the European Central Bank is looking for other ways to make monetary policy work

Unconventional - this is a term currently used to describe many new elements of monetary policy such as quantitative easing.  It could also be employed in relation to the manner in which monetary policy works nowadays.  The European Central Bank (ECB) cut interest rates in November 2013 due to concerns about deflation (for more info, see previous blog) but the effects are not expected to work through the banking sector as would normally be the case.  Instead, the unspoken target of the policy change was the value of the euro.  This is stuff that you won’t find in any economics textbook, so how does it work and why is the ECB having to rely on such disingenuous tactics for its policies?

The normal result of a cut in interest rates would be a boost to the economy through an increase in lending with lower borrowing costs convincing more households and businesses to take out loans.  The extra spending that this generates would spur on the economy.  But this policy route is not working at the moment as demand for new loans is weak irrespective of how low interest rates are.  The fall in inflation has prompted growing concerns about deflation and the ECB felt the need for further action to signal its intent to prevent this.

Accordingly, the ECB is targeting another avenue (without stating it outright) to achieve the desired results – the currency market.  Europe has been burdened with a currency which reached a two-year high against the US dollar in October.  This is relevant to the fight against deflation in two ways – a stronger currency hurts the economy by making exports more expensive (and harder to sell overseas) as well as reducing the prices of imports (which adds to downward pressure on prices).  A reversal of this trend, that is, a weaker currency, would then work in Europe’s favour and is one of the few levers available to the ECB.

A lower interest rate helps to drag down the value of a currency by reducing the benefits of holding cash in that currency and providing an extra incentive to sell.  This effect is further magnified by the large amount of cash sloshing around in the global financial system at present.   But it is not so easy - some other central banks (namely the Bank of Japan) are keen on achieving the same results through similar policies and not all countries can have weak currencies.  This has resulted in the coining of the term "currency wars" as countries battle to drive down the value of their currencies.  It all sounds rather dramatic but it is evidence of how things in the system of finance are far from normal.

Eurozone crisis: Still bubbling away

The debt crisis in Europe seems a long time ago but a political hiccup in Italy shows that its revival may not be that far off.

Around this time last year, weeks would go by without this blog commenting on anything but the Eurozone crisis.  The turning point came near the end of 2012 with a bit of imaginative policy making by the European Central Banks who said they were willing to do “whatever it takes” to save the euro.  By the start of 2013, the worst seemed to be over (Good and Bad in 2013), but many of the problems still had to be fixed.  This year has seen the economic problems in Europe simmering away in the background rather than being likely to erupt as in 2012.  However, the turmoil in Italy at the moment shows that it does not take much for things to heat up again.  Europe may not dominate the headlines as in the recent past but it is never too far from the front pages and here is a look into why.

Politics in Italy are tricky at the best of times but an election earlier this year left the country with a fragile coalition.  A fresh saga was triggered as the constant distraction that is Silvio Berlusconi looked to pull his support from the government after being convicted of tax fraud in August.  Yet it was Berlusconi who suffered from his latest attempt at meddling as he was forced into a dramatic U-turn which involved providing support to the government in order to avoid seeing his own party rebel against him.  After a jump in the interest rate on Italian government bonds, the weakening of Berlusconi cheered investors as he had held sway over Italian politics for a long time despite Italy having not benefited much from his time in power.

Although Italy has avoided the unwelcome prospect of another round of elections, the problems that the country faces are greater than the immediate political woes (for some background, see Bigger than Berlusconi).  This year, the government budget deficit is expected to top 3%, which is the upper limit for EU countries, with government debt approaching 130% of GDP.  The coalition government lacks the political capital to push through the necessary reforms to get the economy moving ahead to help generate the tax revenues needed to reduce the shortfall in the government’s finances.

Italy is hampered by a problem which is typical for countries in Europe feeling the strain in the aftermath of the Eurozone crisis – voters weary of austerity measures with little to show for their perseverance.  Mainstream political parties who have been pushing government cuts have seen their support eroded by fringe parties which promise relief through policies which will have negative long term effects.  The democratic process has struggled to deal with the consequences of the economic slump and mounting debts following the global financial crisis.  Voters have been stuck with two unappetizing options – enduring the hardship of austerity with scant rewards or repelling against spending restrictions but becoming an outcast in the financial system.

The same themes can be seen being played out in Portugal and Greece among others.  Greece has witnessed the rise of the far-right extremist Golden Dawn party which has fed off the frustration of Greek voters.  Local elections in Portugal resulted in heavy losses for the ruling party who had pushed through austerity measures.  Despite all the hardship endured in these two countries, further bailouts are seen as necessary to deal with the stubbornly high levels of government debt.  The economic stagnation in Europe continues with countries like Greece still suffering with GDP down by 6.4% in 2013.  Portugal, Italy, and Spain among others also ended 2012 with lower GDP. 

While the European Central Bank has staved off the immediate threat of crisis, the flipside is that the pressure for reforms has eased.  As such, politicians can no longer blame the financial markets for their unpopular policies.  Leadership in Europe has also been lacking with the national elections in Germany drawing the attention of Angela Merkel away from Europe.  Coalition negotiations in Germany following the elections in September will leave Europe seemingly leaderless for a few more months.  The Eurozone crisis may have been put on the back burner but it could still boil over at any point if not watched.

What Europe has to teach Japan

As the Japanese government mulls a higher sales tax to improve its finances, what do the experiences of Europe over the past few years suggest?

When thinking about the problems with the economy in Europe – feeble economic growth, high levels of debt, and banks shackled with bad debts – Japan has been seen as a lesson of what not to do.  Europe had the luxury of learning from Japan’s mistakes – Japan tried to ride out the problems while Europe has been more proactive in sorting out the mess following the global financial crisis.  It could be argued that Europe has come further in a few years than Japan has come over the past two decades, and with Japan considering a move to improve its dire finances through higher sales tax, it seems a good time to see whether Japan has anything it can learn from the experiences of Europe.

Talk of crisis in Europe is significantly more muted these days with the worst of the Eurozone debt troubles having been left behind in 2012 (for more, refer to Both good news and bad news for Europe).  Recent data showed that the economy in Europe grew marginally in the second quarter of this year giving rise to hopes that a brighter future awaits.  A key element of Europe’s gradual return to health has been its austerity.  Japan has been saved from the forced cut backs imposed by some governments in Europe as domestic savers in Japan are reliable buyers of government bonds there.  But the absence of any pressure to rein in spending has a downside as well in the form of more and more debt.  

Normally, gradual and mild rises in interest rates act as a warning signal as in Europe when buyers of bonds shun the debt of any country that seems likely to default.  So even without any signs of trouble being on its way, debt in Japan could all of a sudden reach a point where a large chunk of the holders of its debt decide to jump ship resulting in financial meltdown.  The lack of urgency has meant that austerity has never taken off in the same way that it has been embraced by leaders in Europe. 

Japan is trying a different tack as a means to sort out its finances – a higher sales tax.  This option has long been thrown around as a possibility in Japanese politics and has dominated headlines in Japan with the Abe government considering a two stage rise in sales tax from 5% to 10% by October 2015.  The two different approaches – to cut spending or raise revenues – are both plausible solutions but it seems strange that Japan and Europe have chosen different routes to solve similar problems.  Europe has had more success with its way of doing things but that may be a sign of great resolve instilled through higher interest rates.  Some countries in Europe have adopted measures to increase their income but it begs the question – why has the Japanese government not made more of an effort to rein in its spending?

Government spending in Japan was 15% higher in 2012 compared with 2007 before the global financial crisis but government revenues have fallen by over 8% over the same period.  One of the key reasons behind Japanese politicians’ aversion to cutting spending is its patronage style of government.  Political leader divvy up the resources that come with the levers of power in the same way that traditional community bonds would dictate.  Support of those in power comes through rewarding your followers, and even though this old-style source of power is on the wane, it is where the current ruling party has a reliable support base in rural districts which are overrepresented in the Japanese parliament.  So the reasoning behind the approach of the Japanese government would be that higher taxes will spread the pain whereas cuts to spending will hurt your supporters.

The Abe government in Japan has been trying lots of other tricks including even greater increases in spending in 2013 through a fiscal stimulus package (see When Keynesian policies won't work for why this is not likely to work) along with expansionary monetary policy (which is unlikely to do much good either – see Don't hold your breath).  Yet, spending seems to have passed being useful considering the countryside in Japan is already covered with roads and bridges that see little traffic as well as a multitude of small plots of land farmed by the elderly with government support.  This seems even more incongruous considering that the population in Japanese is declining which will see further falls in revenue and higher spending on pensions and medical bills for the elderly.  This means that the reforms proposed by the Abe government are even more crucial in order to make the falling number of workers even more productive.  Or else, Japan might have to resort to another policy option used in Europe – default…

Walking a Tight Line

Europe is being caught between convincing investors that all is well while trying to stop the improving outlook from feeding through to a strong currency.

All of the fires that had been keeping politicians busy over the past few years seem to have been put out – the Eurozone is no longer on the verge of collapsing, politicians have come up with a short-term comprise to deal with increasing government debt, and the outlook for the global economy looks likely to improve in 2013.  So with disasters averted, the focus is turning to generating growth in stagnating economies.  With domestic markets still sluggish, exports have been targeted as a route back to economic recovery and a weak currency is a crucial advantage.  But what seems easy in theory is tricky in practice.

This shift has been most pronounced in Europe.  The worst seems to be over with investors having been snapping up bonds from previously shunned countries such as Spain and Italy over the past few months.  But the long slog of getting the economies in Europe moving again still lies ahead (refer to Both Good News and Bad News for Europe for more on these two trends).  Exports have been targeted as a source of growth by tapping into perkier demand in emerging markets.  A weaker currency is an easy shortcut into foreign markets but such a policy is of little use (and could work to the determent of all) if other countries follow suit.  Hence, the rise of concerns about “currency wars” as the policy of central banks printing cash to prop up weak economies has also had the added benefit of lowering the value of currencies (for more on this, refer to Currency Wars).  Currencies will tend to fluctuate depending on economic forecasts with weak growth linked to a low interest rate which puts off investors from holding cash in that currency. 

The new government in Japan has been quick to push its central bank into pumping out more cash.  On the other hand, Europe has been hamstrung by fears about inflation from the overly cautious Germans as well as brighter prospects for its economy now that the dark clouds of the Eurozone crisis seem to have passed.  So the improving situations in Europe along with its less aggressive monetary policy could saddle the Eurozone with a strong euro which could scupper the recovery.  The euro had held up reasonably well despite the turmoil as the currency remained necessary for trading with the large single market in Europe.  The perceived turnaround with regard to the fate of the euro has resulted in investors rushing in to buy bonds of Spain, Italy, and the like due to their higher interest rates. 

A further problem is the different competing view on what would be a suitable policy with regard to the euro.  On one side of the argument, the French president Francois Hollande has called for a managed exchange rate with a target for the exchange rate set by the European Central Bank.  France is averse to market reforms which would improve competitiveness so a weaker euro is an easier option.  Jens Weidmann who is the head of the Central Bank in Germany sits at the other end of the spectrum and argues against a weak euro as this will increase inflation (due to imports becoming more expensive).  The Germans have also been among those most vocally critical of the Japanese government influence over its central bank and its aims to reduce the value of the yen. 

Squeezed between the two powers (France and Germany) in Europe is Mario Draghi, the president of the head of the European Central Bank, who takes a more nuanced stance.  It is Draghi who has done the most to stabilize the situation in the Eurozone (see Whatever it takes) and has tried to instil confidence in the fate of Europe while stopping the euro getting stronger as a result.   Draghi came out with a statement earlier this month that it was not the role of the European Central Bank to dictate the value of the euro.  However, strengthening of the euro and any resulting inflation would require action.  This would involve interest rates being nudged up from their current low levels and the growth prospects in Europe would suffer as a result – hence stopping a possible rise in the euro in its tracks.

If Your Neighbourhood Economist was to bet money on the outcome of this tussle, it would bet on Draghi.  The ability of the European Central Bank to act without being restricted by what voters might think gives a reason for investors to listen to what Draghi has to say.  The policy of the European Central Bank to do “whatever it takes” has helped to save the Eurozone despite no action having been taken as yet and this shows how an intention to act by itself can influence the market forces.  It may take more than words and a splash of extra cash to keep Europe on track but the situation could be significantly worse considering the competing opinions in Europe.

The danger of positive thinking

With global stock markets in the midst of a major mood swing at the beginning of 2013, a new found optimism brings its own perils.

It is as if the market as a whole decided to focus on the positives as its New Year’s resolution.  Global stock markets have taken off in January 2013 as investors have shrugged off the worries that had weighed down on stock prices in 2012.  But while chronic pessimism has plagued markets over the past few years, the opposite has been the case in the New Year as stock prices have rebounded to levels which are tough to justify amid weak growth in the global economy.  So even though too much negativity has wreaked havoc in the markets, unfounded optimism can bring its own problems.

The prices of shares had been due for a rebound.  Investors had been on a knife edge with the potential for disaster seemingly around every corner as leaders in Europe dithered during the Eurozone crisis, politicians stepped up to the edge of the fiscal cliff in the United States, and the economy in China slowing during changes at the top of the Communist Party.  But along with Mayan predictions of the end of the world, all major catastrophes were averted in 2012 and this prompted a change of heart after investors returned from their holidays. 

Bonds are the typical haven for investors in times of woe and the past few years followed this pattern with investors having snapped up the bonds of prudent countries that have manageable debt levels even though interest rates have been below two percent.  Yet, bond prices have risen so high that further gains are not likely, but there were few other attractive investments at the time. And, as 2012 drew to a close, investors aching for higher returns had already shifted from the safer government bonds into the bonds of previously shunned countries such as Spain and Italy as well as corporate bonds. 

The new signs of life in the stock market tempted many into believing that the time was right to take on more risk and cash in their bonds to place a bet that improvements in the global economy would pick up pace in 2013.  This scenario has prompted talk of a “great rotation” as a swing in sentiment prompts investors into moving money from bonds in stocks.  The continued printing of money by central banks to shore up ailing economies has also helped to buoy the spirits of investors.  This all suggests an abundance of cash which will be heading into the stock market.  Yet, although it makes for a nice story to help prop up share prices, it may just turn out to be a fairy tale.

One of the main sticking points is that, while share prices have rebounded, the outlook for the global economy is still grim.  Higher share prices need to be backed up by companies generating larger profits and this cannot happen until the global economy has regained more vigour.  While an economic armageddon has seemingly been avoided in 2012, growth in the global economy will remain sluggish as high levels of government debt in many countries are trimmed back over years of austerity (for more details about Europe in this context, see Both Good and Bad News for Europe).  

Despite the holes in the story of the “great rotation”, many investors have been keen to believe in a new beginning.  Even the temptation of dubious scenarios can draw buyers back to the market due to concerns about being left behind if the market rebounds.  Investors also buy on expectations of what will happen in the future rather than based on the here and now so a dramatic improvement in economic growth in the following 12 months could prove that now is the right time to buy.  But with many having suffered heavy losses as share prices plummeted during the global financial crisis, a false dawn will do little to reassure investors that it is safe to return to the market.  An overly inflated stock market will also create a conundrum for central bankers and may prompt them to tighten up monetary policy while the economic recovery is still tenuous.  So here’s hoping that investors wake up from the pipe dream of soaring share prices before it turns into a nightmare.  

More Power to Economists!

With sound economic policy out of favour, there may be an argument for giving economists more control in government.

Good economics is a hard sell.  Economists have tried their hardest to convince people that relative free movement of goods will benefit the economy as a whole but businesses battling against imports from overseas win out against typically tepid support for free trade.  The United States and Britain are cutting back on immigration and restricting the entry of even highly-skilled workers despite such individuals paying significantly more in taxes than they receive in government payouts.  Considering that some areas of government such as monetary policy have already been handed over to economists, is there an argument for more policy to be handled over to such unelected experts?

The independence of central banks in monetary policy is sacrosanct in many countries.  Politicians who already determine fiscal policy (government spending and taxation) are seen as being too unreliable to also have the power over the tools of monetary policy such as the ability to set interest rates.  For example, a government may be tempted to lower interest rates in the period before an election which would boost the economy as well as their chances of staying in power.  Politicians have instead handed over the control of monetary policy to their country’s central bank whose officials are seem as better at long-term economic policy due to not having to worry about reelection.  But politicians still get to stipulate the goals of monetary policy such as low inflation (or full employment in the case of the Federal Reserve in the United States).  

The handing over of monetary policy has been made possible by worries about the adverse effects of inflation.  Rising prices eat away at the value of savings and households and businesses may hold back on spending if prices jump around a lot.  The relative level of consensus over the need to rein in inflation has made monetary policy less controversial and enabled its outsourcing to central banks.  In comparison, fiscal policy involves more numerous components such as the level of taxation and spending along with what should be taxed and where money should be spent.  As such, there will always be winners and losers in fiscal policy as, for example, spending by the government will benefit some and exclude others depending on what is targeted.  To ensure that the majority of people are happy with the way in which the government goes about its business, politician parties have to outline their spending and taxation plans to voters in a democracy in order to get elected.

However, democracy does not mean that voters will choose the party with the best economic policies to govern with other issues also swaying the minds of voters.  There is a theory which espouses that voters have biases in the ways in which they vote such as a dislike of foreigners which leads to parties attracting voters with policies with lower trade and less immigration than would be optimal for the economy.  Other examples of biases could include an anti-tax bias where people dislike being taxed and a jobs bias where the number of jobs is seen as more important than the amount of overall production .  Yet, it would require a considerable investment for voters to acquire the knowledge to decipher which policy options would be best so it is easier to fall back on their inherent biases. 

The debt crisis in Europe has thrown up one example of a country giving up on politicians and handing over the government to an economist – Italy.  Mario Monti was appointed as the head of a government of technocrats in November 2011 after years of mismanagement had left Italy as the most indebted country in Europe and in threat of economic collapse amid the turmoil in Europe.  Italians initially welcomed Monti but his popularity faded quickly as the austerity policies his government introduced proved too much for Italians to bear.  Now, in a bizarre twist of fate, Italians have a choice in elections at the end of February between parties headed by Monti and Silvio Berlusconi who was the previous Prime Minister before he lost his majority in parliament and who is responsible for many of Italy’s problems (more background on Berlusconi’s follies at Bigger than Berlusconi).  

However, economists are not always prescribing austerity.  The IMF which is an international body stacked full of economists made a case for austerity measures in Europe to be eased if growth continues to remain weak (for a further explanation, refer to Time for Plan B?).  On the other hand, Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, has been the toughest advocate for spending cuts in Europe as German taxpayers are unwilling to bail out the spendthrift countries in Europe.  Germany’s voters distrust of their fellow Europeans has resulted in the Eurozone crisis dragging on for much longer than it needed to (see Conspiracy Theory for your Greek Holiday for more) which has also been painful for the Germans themselves.  But Europe would have not gotten into this mess in the first place if government spending had been kept in check during the boom times preceding the crisis.  Your Neighbourhood Economist would not be as bold (or stupid) to argue that economists are without fault in the Eurozone crisis but having economists overseeing government spending levels could have helped stop government finances following the boom and bust of the economy.  The current debt crises in Europe and the United States may not be enough to facilitate such a role for economists but that does not mean it is not an idea worth considering.