China - staying out of the news

A tumble in stock prices gives rise to more worries about China but it is not deserving of the bad press

News about China often hits the front pages as its swift rise is both scary and a source of economic salvation.  Stock markets in China have been making news recent due to a sharp selloff in shares.  The media are quick to jump on any potential hiccup in China’s rapid expansion due to its growing importance as a global economic superpower.  Yet, the peculiarities of stock markets in China mean that the spill over effects are likely to be limited even though the financial sector will continue to be a source for headlines in the future.

New to this game

Picking the right stocks and when to buy them is never easy but it is even trickier with China being a relative newcomer to trading shares.  The shorter the period of time over which shares have been traded, the more difficult it is to pin down what should be paid for stocks.  Many of the companies themselves are also still young and are still fighting a fierce battle with rivals for survival.  On top of this, the bulk of the investors in the Chinese markets are locals and have less experience in trading stock. 

The government further muddies the picture with its plans for liberalising the financial markets.  While fewer restrictions would be welcomed, the reforms create jitters due to the potential pace of change depending on the whims of its leaders.  Yet, the government regulations in themselves are part of the problem.  One issue is limits on how much banks can pay out in interest on savings accounts.  Starved of other places to put any spare cash, too many Chinese look to make money in domestic share markets which are ill equip to deal with the inflows.

While many eager investors have managed to sidestep the barriers, heavy regulation of the financial markets keeps out many more Chinese.  This has the effect of limiting any losses when the inevitable selloffs hit the stock markets.  In this way, the government ensures that the underlying economy is sheltered from any volatility in the stock markets.  Neither is the stock market much of a reflection of what is going on in the actual economy.  Chinese stock prices had stagnated for a long time prior to the recent ups and downs so it is unlikely that any bad news in the stock markets will be a prelude to trouble with the economy.

Watch this space

All this would not make the headlines if happening in any other emerging market but China is a big deal these days.  Its importance as the main global driver for economic growth makes outsiders nervous.  Its haphazard mix of free market and government control means that pessimists are quick to spot its faults.  But, just like with the patchy rules governing financial markets, the government has adapted in the past to stay on top of problems before things get out of hand.

The fear of market turmoil spilling over to society at large will continue to keep the Chinese on a cautious path to freeing up financial markets.  Over this time, China will continue to be plagued by a jumpy stock market as its investors grow used to the ups and downs of share prices.  Considering that even Western investors have not fully mastered this, the trials and tribulations of Chinese share prices will likely to be hitting headlines again many times in the future.  But, with government policy helping to stem the spread of any losses, it is not something that needs to cause too much worry yet.

Property Market – nowhere to call home

House prices are distorted by demand from investors and governments are making the situation worse

Houses have become so much more than homes and many of us are missing out as a result.  More than just a place to live, houses have become the investment option of choice during turbulent times.  The popularity of investment properties means that buyers looking for a home are being crowded out of the market.  Rather than correcting this distortion, government policies typically make things worse and leave the dream of their own home beyond the hopes of many.

No home sweet home

The property market is never far from any topic of conversation.  Since everybody needs a place to live, it affects us all.  The substantial price tag that comes with buying a house would be enough to weigh on anyone’s mind.  But property purchases take on even greater significance as real estate also counts as a form of saving for the future.  The money tied up in property is the biggest investment that many of us make.  This means that the ups and downs of the housing market shape the financial well-being of many families. 

The predominance of property investment is further accentuated as buy-to-lets become increasingly popular as a means of putting ones wealth to work.  The abstract nature of shares and bonds along with the shenanigans in the financial markets makes property seem like the safe-as-houses option.  Yet this extra source of demand for real estate inflates house prices beyond their value as a mere place to live.  Investment in real estate brings benefits, such as providing rental accommodation and improvements to neglected properties, but the costs also mount as investment in property increases.

With a relatively fixed amount of housing in large cities, one person’s buy-to-let gets in the way of a house becoming a permanent home.  Along with the benefits to home owners, neighbourhoods also have a greater sense of community with stable residents.  The higher house prices due to property investment results in home ownership being coupled with a larger amount of mortgage debt.  This makes the property ladder more tenuous for debt-laden buyers who could easily be caught out by any economic hardship.

Need to make room for more

Governments, which could work to limit these negative consequences, tend to only exacerbate the problem.  Policies targeting the real estate market differ across countries – tax breaks for mortgage debt, low levels of capital gains tax, easier access to loans.  But the common thread is that it is all too tempting for governments to please better off voters by bolstering the property market.  The predominance of monetary policy as the main tool for managing the economy makes this even worse by stoking up borrowing (and the property market) when the economy is weak. 

While pushing up demand, governments do too little to boost supply.  It is more housing that is often cited by politicians as the solution to buoyant property prices but government regulations and zoning rules are not reflective of the growing need for new houses.  Houses take too long to build while elections are never far off even though more building would make for good economic policy at a time when the economy is still suffering from a shortfall in demand.

Financial markets are awash with other places to invest.  Our animal spirits should be limited to parts of the economy where the ups and downs can be absorbed without wider consequences for the rest of us.  Housing is too important to get caught up in such investment games.

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.

Let's not (Christmas) party like it's 2007

The heady days leading to the global financial crisis were never meant to last so there is no point in expecting to turn back the clock

It is the time for great merriment but Christmas office parties across London still leave many wishfully thinking back to the good old days.  Despite much talk of an economic recovery, it can still be tough to find reasons to be cheerful about and less cash being spent by companies on seasonal festivities is another reminder of this.  But we should not be asking Santa for a return to the days of lavish Christmas dos with workmates and big entertainment budgets (if they ever did exist).  The economy of old which allowed such excesses could only bring in a few good years of partying before the good times inevitably turned bad. 

Living the high life on borrowed time

The boom times that were still in swing a decade ago seem a long way off.  It was a time when all seemed good with the economy and nothing much would go wrong.  This spirit seemed best exemplified by the exuberance among economists who (mistakenly) thought that their ideas had conquered the ups and downs of the economy.  The great evil of past decades, inflation, had been kept in check and the recession following the dotcom bust passed without much strife. 

This new stable economic environment seemed to benefit the finance sector most of all.  Banks came up with new ways of making lots of money with bankers themselves reaping much of the rewards.  Even some among the rest of us got to enjoy a sprinkling of the good life with many companies splashing out the odd treat on their workers (especially around Christmas time) even if this generosity was not reflected in wages.

The enthusiasm was infectious and we all wanted our share.  The result was loads of new debt as our spending reflected these new aspirations even if our income was lagging behind.  Even the governments in many countries spent beyond their means and got their finances in a mess.  Since inflation remained subdued despite the elevated spending, interest rates never rose by much enabling the debt levels to soar beyond what was prudent.  And banks were only too happy to lend since new financial products, such as mortgage-backed securities, allowed them to pass on increasingly dubious loans to others.

Not banking on trouble

This was one party that could not go on for ever.  An increase in debt is good for spurring the economy along but this can only go so far until lending becomes more reckless.  The final straw was mortgage lending in the United States where new rules encouraged housing loans to individuals who were never likely to be able to afford repayments (so-called sub-prime mortgages).  The many who lost their jobs (including Your Neighbourhood Economist) and even their homes in the ensuing financial turmoil ended up with little to show from the good years.  Yet, on the other hand, the exorbitant pay packets received by many bank employees left them sitting pretty whatever was to happen.

We should all feel repentant like Christmas drinks where we get carried away and make a fool of ourselves.  One way of stopping ourselves getting into trouble is to rein in the banking sector.  This does not mean the equivalent of alcohol-free Christmas festivities but just stricter rules to make sure that things don’t get out of hand.   The perils of too much debt should have always been obvious but it is inability of the banking sector and the financial markets to suitably regulate lending that is perhaps the biggest lesson that we need to address.

Time to sober up

Any economic growth does not count for much if we have to give back most of the gains after a few good years.  Yet, giving up on this easy way of making ourselves richer also means that we cannot expect the economy to grow like in the past.  It will take hard work and sensible policies rather than financial wizardry to make genuine improvements in our standard of living.  The trade-off being that we can create a world where our jobs and what we make for ourselves is more secure.

The government could have a big role to play in this especially since companies are not investing as much as they used to.  Greater spending on infrastructure and education as well as lower medical costs would be a good start to help increase productivity (and wages) as well as going some way to propping up spending.  The solution sounds simple enough but politics is never easy especially at a time when the easy option is for politicians to offer up false promises.  It is voters most of all that need to be realistic in terms of what is achievable.  No party is worth a hangover on the scale of the global financial crisis.

Economic Recovery - Downgraded

Amid talk of economic recovery, we may not get back to living the life we had in the past

Being downgrading can be tough – no one likes having to get by with less – but this is what we might have to put up with regard to the economy.  Life was much easier around a decade ago when we were enjoying the perks of strong and steady economic growth.  But the upgrade was likely temporary when considering that it was funded with a borrowing binge that was unsustainable.  With wages likely to continue to stagnate for years to come, we may not have it so good again for a long time.

Anything but first class

Gains in wages are typically the main route to the good life for most of us.  Bigger pay packets at the each of the month give us more money to spend.  This money goes back into the economy to create a virtuous cycle helping create a healthy economy so that wages to rise again in the future.  The main avenue through which wages rise is higher output per worker.  This involves people being put to more productive use whether through raising their levels of skills, working together with machines or computers, or doing business in a better way.  The economy usually operates to ensure that this happens automatically as businesses, which want to maximized their profits, will try and make the most of their staff. 

Yet, the past few years, if not the past few decades, have shown us that the tendency for higher wages is not something that we can take for granted.  This is because the two forces of globalization and technology have made life tougher for many people in richer countries.  The sectors of the economy which typically supported the middle class with stable and steady jobs have been eroded.  Jobs such as those in manufacturing along with clerical work have been either moved to countries where labour is cheap or increasingly carried out by machines or computers. 

This has led to a polarization of the work force between high and low skilled areas with a shrinking middle ground.  At one end of the spectrum are bankers, IT experts, and professionals whose knowledge and training ensure a high level of pay.  The rest of the workforce is left with menial jobs such as taxi drivers, shop assistants, and delivery personal only because these are jobs that can’t be shipped overseas.  On top of this, austerity measures in many countries also mean that public sector workers are also suffering.

No route out

With many of us now competing with machines or overseas workers, our bargaining has been considerably diminished.  So while wages rises is a perk that many are missing out on, profits for many businesses have never been higher.  Profitable firms could be the agents of economic growth by expanding their operations and investing in more equipment.  Yet, with weak wages crimping consumer spending, most companies prefer to hoard their cash until the economic recovery is more robust.   What seems like a common sense strategy for each firm has added up to a prolonged slump for the economy as a whole.

The government could step into the breach and provide the investment in worker training or infrastructure to boost productivity.  Yet, the infiltration of pro-market economic theory has pushed the government to the sidelines of the economy.  Even the wealth that had been created in the boom years before the crisis was only benefiting a small portion of the economy.  One example is the finance sector that was creating wealth that mostly went to those working in finance rather to the economy as a whole.  Building a road or new schools creates benefits now and in the future while repackaging of loans only generates money for a lucky few working in banking.

Stuck with a second class economy

Workers have been battling with the consequences of globalization and technology for decades but could rely on debt in the past to enjoy some of the high life.  But like an ever expanding credit card balance, this spending spree was never built to last.  To make things worse, even politicians got involved.  The US government with Bush junior in charge slashed tax rates while the Labour government spent lavishly on the UK public sector around the turn of the century. 

Government finances had been boosted by economic growth fuelled by debt but this was a luxury that would prove fleeting.  Now government is like the rest of us in having to cut back.  Without many goodies going around, voters are likely to become increasing tetchy.  Politics is also getting ugly with constructive policy making likely to go out the window.  Low interest rates and more debt have been offered up as a way out but this creates even more problems in the absence of economic growth.

Something special will be needed to get both consumers and businesses to hope for something better.  Yet, the grim realities of life mean that this may not happen anything soon.  Like being in a long haul flight in economy class, we might be stuck here for a while.  

Question – Interest rates

In response to an inquiry from a reader, Your Neighbourhood Economist explains how low interest rates should have but didn’t affect the economy (with a surprising culprit)

Your Neighbourhood Economist was pleasantly surprised to have a proverbial knock at the door (a photo of which was posted on the blog recently along with an email address for questions) with the following inquiry on interest rates…

I read your blog entry on BOE interest rate hike and needed an opinion. I'm not a finance student but am trying to understanding why something so unusual is happening with the BOE interest rate. You have explained why there is a need to hold the rate low at the moment, seeing there isn't enough inflation yet (as posted in UK Interest Rates – putting off the inevitable). But could you explain to me in layman's terms how this has affected our economy and what other solutions could have been used?

Interest rates are a hot topic at the moment with changes afoot at the Bank of England.  Sometime over the next six to twelve months, the UK central bank is likely to raise its benchmark interest rate off its record low of 0.5% where it has been for more than 5 years.  Low interest rates are the most common way that central banks will try to raise economic growth.  The theory behind this is that cheaper loans will push businesses and households into borrowing money and this extra spending will boost the economy. 

Good in theory but not in practice

In practice, things have not worked out so well.  Businesses have held off taking out loans due to uncertainty over the future direction of the economy.  Companies need to be assured of a decent return from any investment which will typically only make money over the span of several years.  Worries about the future earning potential of any new operations have outweighed the lower costs of borrowing money to invest.   As a result, business lending in the UK has fallen for seven consecutive years with companies preferring to hoard cash instead. 

The main benefactor of low interest rates has been the property market.  House prices in London held up despite the global financial crisis and added to the myth that property values never fall.  So once the worst of the crisis was over, low mortgage rates prompted many to scramble to buy property.  The buoyant housing market has boosted the economy a bit by making people who own property feel richer and spend more.  But more mortgages only pushes up house prices rather than making the economy more productive as investment by businesses would have done.

So the actual effect from low interest rates has been less than hoped.  This resulted in central banks also using quantitative easing – creating new money to buy bonds and other financial assets.  The aim of quantitative easing is increase the amount of money in the economy and help out the banking sector.   Quantitative easing too has been somewhat of a disappointment with few places for the extra cash to be put to good use.  The banking sector typically acts as one of the main means to move cash around the economy but banks have had to focus on their own survival.  The surplus of cash has created its own problems such as distortions in the financial markets which may cause trouble in the future.

Other solutions…?

With businesses not spending and mortgages not adding much to the economy, the obvious solution would be for government to make up the shortfall.  A fiscal stimulus is the typical response to a slowdown in the economy with the extra spending by government making up for weak demand from consumers and businesses.  Yet, government finances in the UK and elsewhere were already stretched before the crisis and deteriorated further with higher welfare payments and falling tax revenues following the crisis.

The Eurozone crisis from 2010 resulted in investors shunning any countries with high levels of government debt.  This prompted the UK government to launch its austerity program with the hope convincing investors that it would sort out its finances.  The plan worked in that the interest rates on UK government debt remained low (also with help from quantitative easing) unlike some countries in Europe such as Ireland and Spain.  However, cuts to government spending hurt the economy and prolong the slump in the economy while also ironically making even more cutbacks necessary.

Still struggling

Getting ourselves out of trouble following the global financial crisis was always going to be tough going.  Recessions stemming from banking crises are typically longer than normal recessions as it takes time to work down the excessive levels of debt and fix the banks.  Less expected was how the economic recovery has been further hampered by ineffective and lacklustre policies. 

Fiscal policy has been working in reverse and the UK government should do more to boost the economy considering that investors are no longer so worried about government debt.  The Bank of England could have done more with monetary policy considering that it can print as much money as it likes but it held back due to misplaced concerns about inflation.  Your Neighbourhood Economist would have liked to have seen more spending by the government and quantitative easing going straight into the economy.

Perhaps the biggest factor holding back the recovery is that economists are slow learners.  Policies such as quantitative easing are new and have helped but more could have been done if economists had not been so caught up with their own ideas.  It is of some consolidation that lessons from the Great Depression (such as the bank bailouts) have been applied to ensure that a similar type of crises has resulted in less fallout.  We can only hope that this crisis is bad enough to ensure better policy in the future.  

(Please add any further questions on this topic using the comments section at the bottom of the page or email any inquiries on different issues related to the economy to Your.Neighbourhood.Economist@gmail.com)

Time to rethink the role of Government

While their reputation has suffered at the hands of economists, it is time for governments to show that they have wised up

It must be tough being repeatedly told that you are stupid but that is what governments have had to put up with.  Mainstream economic theory tells us that markets know best and clumsy governments only get in the way.  But the global financial crisis has highlighted that financial markets are not smart enough to be left to their own devises.  This is just one of several areas where it would be wiser to bring back government as a power for good.

The Invisible Hand was always seen the clever one

Economists like to think that markets are the smartest thing around.  Markets refer to not just places where anything from sausages to shares are sold, but also to the economic system where numerous companies compete to offer goods or services.   The clever thing about markets is that prices and output can change to reflect demand from consumers and this helps to determine the best allocation in an economy.  The best bit is that this optimal outcome is not based on decisions made in one controlling body but market information gleaned from the individual decisions of consumers and firms. 

This belief stems all the way back to the father of economics, Adam Smith, who argued over three centuries ago that the private actions of individuals in the market would work for the public benefit.  Governments, on the other hand, are seen as more of a heavy hand in the economy.  Governments get in the way by creating red tape that strangles business and misallocating resources by dishing money out to favourite sectors.  Examples of misspent money abound as do unworthy recipients of taxpayer cash.  

Yet, all economists would also agree that some government actions are needed for markets to function properly.  Basics such as national defence and policing are essential for any business to operate and can only be provided by governments.  Companies also rely on a supply of workers with some degree of education as well as communication and transport infrastructure.  So while some level of government intervention is necessary, the extent to this is something that is defined by politics.   

The trend started by Thatcher and Regan has been for an increasingly shrinking role for government in the economy.  Economic theory was enlisted to make the case for smaller government which came as a backlash against decades of expanding government.  Much of the initial cases for privatizations and deregulation were justified due to numerous areas where government had overextended itself.  Yet, faith in markets and distrust of government has become so embedded in politics that cases where more government might be good are dismissed.  Governments are so timid in their actions that much of policy to do with the economic recovery has been outsourced to central banks (which creates its own problems).

Who looks stupid now?

Government policy does not always work out as hoped.  But bureaucrats are not alone in making mistake – just think of Enron or BP.  Yet, the most obvious example of where government involvement has been missed is the finance sector.  Deregulation over the past few decades let loose forces that even the banks themselves were not smart enough to understand.  Banks messed up in terms of the seemingly common sense notion of putting long-term survival ahead of short-term profits.  

More proactive government policy would have gone a long way to preventing many elements of the crisis and is something that we should apply now with the benefit of hindsight.  But the notion that more government is good can also be applied elsewhere.  Transport infrastructure has been neglected amid the trend for smaller government while other areas such as R&D and training for workers could do with more government input.  Governments which are not willing to take an active role in the economy leave voters feeling frustrated and opens the way for the rise of populist parties.

This is not an argument to re-establish government dominance over the economy.  A bigger government need not involve significantly higher taxes and large welfare payments.  But, there are parts of the economy where action is needed to ensure the public good and only government can respond to this.  While politicians on the right need to be more accepting of the positive effects of government, it is up to left-wing parties to make a better case about the good that government can achieve.  It is time that we were all smarter in the way they think about government.