Inflation – Hard to ignore again

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

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

Inflation acting up

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

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

Behaving badly again

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

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

Ignoring inflation would be naughty

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

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

Bargain Low Interest Rates to Continue in 2015

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

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

Shopping around

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

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

Best to stay put

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

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

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

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)

Interest Rate Hike – Easy on the Brakes

The Bank of England threatens to be too heavy on the brakes with higher interest rates and the economic recovery may stall as a result

Tinkering with complex machinery is tricky as changing one thing may have unintended consequences elsewhere.  This also applies to the economy.  The prospect of having to raise interest rates at a time when the economic recovery is still fragile is daunting enough.  Yet, there is a number of moving parts of an economy linked with interest rates which could throw an extra spanner in the works – one concern is that higher interest rates will push up the currency and hurt exporting firms.  This may push central banks to use other monetary policy tools to bide their time.

Complicated piece of machinery

What we refer to as the economy is the accumulation of an incredibly intricate multitude of monetary transactions in which we all are a small part.  In comparison, monetary policy is rather basic relying mainly on the lever of interest rates with extra bells and whistles, such as quantitative easing, added only when needed.  Monetary policy has been exceptionally loose but has still struggled to get the economy moving again.  These expansive polices cannot stay in place for ever and there are growing calls for interest rates to be raised off record lows. 

Interest rates normally affect the economy through the costs involved with taking out a loan.  But this is not the only route of influence.  One example is how higher interest rates will attract in money due to a higher pay-out for savings and this extra cash coming into the economy will push up the value of the currency.  A strengthening currency will adversely affect firms exporting to other countries as prices for their goods typically must rise and this risks putting them at a disadvantage relative to competitors. 

The potential for this is larger when one country moves to tighten its monetary ahead of its peers.  Such is the predicament facing the UK as the Bank of England contemplates the possibility of raising interest rates sometime in the next six to twelve months.  The mere expectation of this has propelled the pound higher relative to other currencies and may put further upward pressure on the pound if interest rates are predicted to rise faster than elsewhere. 

This problem comes about due to the freedom of money to chase around the globe after the best return.  Financial firms have made of most of moving cash around using strategies such as the carry trade – borrowing in a currency with a low interest rate and changing the money into a currency where the interest rates is higher.  This is just one way of how excess liquidity in global markets can work to distort exchange rates relative to the actual physical economy.

Warning lights flashing

Normally higher interest rates are used to slow an overheating economy and a stronger currency would help with this.  Yet, the upcoming hikes to interest rates have the goal of returning monetary policy to normality – a state where interest rates and the rate of growth in the economy are roughly equal.  An accompanying rise in exchange rates therefore acts as a further obstacle to economic recovery which is not intended or desirable. 

The weak recovery means that the UK economy is not quite ready for the double whammy of higher interest rates and a stronger pound.  The effects of both may be benign considering the lower rates of borrowing among businesses and sluggish demand for exports from markets such as Europe.  But there is still the potential for a rise in interest rates to put the economy in reverse at a time when the economy is gearing up for recovery. 

The main issue behind calls for tighter monetary policy is a buoyant housing market.  Yet, the Bank of England has a new range of tools to deal with this such as caps on mortgage lending.  So there is room to wait for other countries, most significantly the US, to catch up in terms of interest rates.  With the threat of waiting too long to act mitigated by housing market measures, it is the downside of braking too soon that the Bank of England should watch out for.

Monetary Policy – Surgery Needed

Current monetary policy is still primitive and will remain so without making use of new measures such as macroprudential policies

Monetary policy has come a long way but it is still in its initial stages of development.  Serious shortcomings mean that the tools of monetary policy are still rudimentary just as those of medicine were crude in the past.  In the same way that leeches would be prescribed for every ailment in medieval times, central banks have tended to rely solely on interest rates to manage the economy.  The tendency to “reach for the leeches” is still with us even though the global financial crisis has highlighted the flaws inherent in this approach and a range of new techniques for managing the economy have been made available.

Learning some hard lessons

Doctors often did more harm than good in antiquity due to a lack of understanding of the workings of the human body.  With our knowledge of the economy also deficient in places, economists may be guilty of causing similar damage.  Hubris led economists to believe that booms and busts could be eliminated but their faith was shown to be spectacularly misplaced.  Despite this, economists have been slow to adjust their view of the world even though their remedies are proving both ineffective and costly.

The global financial crisis and its aftermath have taught us a few valuable lessons.  The limitations of using interest rates to moderate the business cycle (both before and after recessions) are now apparent.  Higher interest rates do little to temper lending when both bankers and borrowers want more debt.  It is also becoming clear that different sectors of the economy react to interest rates in different ways.  Consumers have shown themselves willing to take on excessive debt in order to spend or to buy property.  On the other hand, businesses cannot always be enticed to borrow for investment when the economy is weak. 

The limits of monetary policy have been laid bare by the faltering economic recovery.  Low interest rates and cheap cash have spurred on some lending but not the right type to generate sustainable economic growth.  Households have taken on debt to buy property (which mostly just increases prices) rather than businesses or the government borrowing to make the economy more productive.  Surplus funds have also built up prices in the stock market which, while somewhat beneficial in the short term, will create problems down the line.  The abundance of cash in the financial system may also reduce the effectiveness of central banks’ control over interest rates. 

For a better world

Monetary policy needs to continue to develop as economists learn more about the economy and how it reacts to different policies.  Manipulating interest rates is a blunt instrument that is applied across the whole economy.  Interest rates need to be raised eventually but it seems rash to do so in response to distortions in certain sectors.  An early interest rate hike has been proposed as a countermeasure to the booming UK property market.  Yet, this is like chopping off an arm to treat an infected finger.

A more measured approach would be preferable but will take time to realise.  Techniques such as minimally invasive surgery have been developed in medicine over many years and economists should aim for similar progress in monetary policy.  Disparities between policies in theory and practice mean that trial and error will be necessary.  Using a still sickly economy to trial new policy options may seem reckless.  Yet experimentation is the main route to breaking fresh ground even in medicine where there are actual lives at risk.  Forward guidance is an example of a policy which seemed useful in theory but whose application was fraught with issues.

A wider range of policies would help deal with problems now and in the future with greater effectiveness.  These two goals can be achieved by the Bank of England trialling the much-discussed macroprudential policies such as caps on mortgages and other limits on property lending.  Having a greater range of options allows for better tailoring of policy while targeted measures enable greater freedom in setting interest rates to reflect the overall economy.  Just as modern medicine has had to advance beyond leeches, future monetary policy will need to progress past what we currently have and such an evolution will only happen as a result of taking bold actions today.

Drowning in Debt – Need Help

We are being pushed into borrowing our way back to economic growth but staying afloat also involves selling off our future

The last thing a drowning man needs is more water but this is how policy makers have chosen to react to the global financial crisis.  The global financial crisis came about due to consumers being allowed to take on too much debt in the past.  Yet, the policy response has been to push for greater borrowing by lowering interest rates and feeding money into the banking system.  Higher debt now can only mean greater repayments in the future.  This would be acceptable if a swift return to economic growth was on the way but this seems too optimistic.  Instead, while the economy is getting a temporary boost now, growing levels of debt are being forecast to depress the economy for years to come.

Cheap loans anyone?

The debt and water analogy works on many levels.  In the same way that water is essential for life to flourish, debt is needed for an economy to grow.  Yet, like water, too much debt can be as bad as not enough.  The appropriate level of debt depends on the pace of economic expansion.  Rapid economic growth will create greater demand for loans as business opportunities arise and asset prices rise.  Like a garden requires watering when the weather is hot, a booming economy can absorb more debt as the money generated through the loans makes it easier to fund debt repayments. 

The opposite is also true.  It is desirable to have fewer loans as an economy cools since paying off debt is tougher.  It seems a strange time to convince people to rack up more debt but that is what central banks are pushing for.  This is because the tools of monetary policy work by reducing the cost of money (through lower interest rates or printing more cash) when the economy is floundering.  Such policies make sense when assuming a rapid recovery in economic growth but even economists are pessimistic about the prospects for the global economy.

The other bail out option is for the government to ramp up spending through increased borrowing.  This is the typical response to dampened economic growth but concerns about high levels of government debt have limited the capacity for such a fiscal stimulus.  This has resulted in monetary policy having to take on the bulk of the heavy lifting in getting the economy moving again.  Businesses have typically not made use of the cheap credit on offer through the low interest rates (except to buy back their own shares).  It is the increased debt taken on by households that has been the main driver of economic recovery but this is neither balanced nor sustainable. 

Debt – paying the price

It is the role of policy makers to create an environment for encouraging economic growth.  Tough choices are necessary when few options are available but relying on households to pile up more debt seems irresponsible and short-sighted.  The ratio of earnings to house prices is on the rise at a time when wages are standing still.  This means that consumers will be saddled with debt repayments for longer (especially if house prices stagnate as is probable) and this will depress consumer spending in the future.  It seems a poor trade-off even at a time when the economy is underwater. 

This policy seems even dafter when considering that consumer debt is mostly unproductive.  Buying a house off someone else does not add anything to the economy (while spending on renovations does help a bit).  On the other hand, if the government were to borrow and spend more on education or infrastructure, this would increase the output capacity of the economy.  Yet, this sensible alternative is being dismissed even though investors are no longer shunning any government with excessive debt and interest rates on government debt are near record lows for many countries. 

It will ultimately be people like you and me who pay the price.  Our spending power is being put at risk at a time when the government’s own finances are drained and businesses are not putting their balance sheets in jeopardy.  It is likely to remain tough for many people to keep their heads above water and an economy saturated with debt may not provide much help.

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.

Central Banks – false illusion of power

The Bank of England shows how little central banks can do with their limited resources

Everyone looks to central banks as the custodians of the economy.  Once upon a time, central banks were regarded as having almost mythical powers to control the forces of the economy.  However, this fairy tale was shattered by the global financial crisis and central banks have since been trying to regain their previous status as economic titans.  Central banks have fought back with extra powers such as quantitative easing which have helped bolster their popularity.  In contrast, the trouble that the Bank of England is having in dealing with the conflicting problems of a fragile recovery and a booming housing market shows central banks at their most impotent.

The myth and the reality

Much of what central banks do relies on creating a belief in their resolve and ability to call on seemingly unlimited resources.  Chronic inflation in the 1970s was reined in by central banks flexing their muscles and inflation has stayed low ever since.  Even in the throes of a crisis, the European Central Bank kept the Eurozone together merely by proclaiming that it was willing to do “whatever it takes” to do so.

With the power to print money, central banks have the godlike ability to create something out of thin air.  It is often only the ideas of economics that keep central banks from unleashing the full force of their powers.  The ability to summon money from the ether is of limited use when most economists are scared of rising inflation following an increase in the supply of money.  Economics has also restricted central banks to operating only in a small arena, which reduces their capacity to act as a power for good.

One example of this is quantitative easing which helped ease the pain over the downturn but came with side effects.  The purchases of bonds through quantitative easing helped to shore up the financial markets but did little to alleviate a chronic shortage of demand in the actual economy.  A slightly different way of using quantitative easing could have had more punch with less mess but also came with the possibility of some inflation. 

Like something from Greek tragedy 

The Bank of England operates in this world of possibilities, but with only limited options.  It has made use of what was available (low interest rates and quantitative easing) but the economic recovery has struggled to gain much traction even after five years.  Yet, the consequences of its policies have shown up as a housing market boom at a time when the Bank of England still has its hands full nursing the economy.

One thing that the Bank of England is missing is a bit of help from the government.  Not only is the government dragging down the economy with its austerity measures, but it is creating problems with policies such as Help to Buy which stoke up the property market just as the central bank is praying for it to cool down.  For all of their potential power, central banks still have to steer clear of politics putting any criticism of government policy out of bounds.  The government with all of its populist tendencies still trumps an institution established to look out for the long term health of the economy. 

Instead, the Bank of England and its governor, Mark Carney, have tried to use the media to communicate their concerns about the property market.  However, this is having little effect as the Bank of England can be ignored since there are few actions it could actually take to back up its words.  Its main weapon would be higher interest rates but the economic recovery is seen as not yet being strong enough.  It would be a shame to see the Bank of England fall from grace battling a wayward government and a run-away property market but it will take a heroic feat to stop that happening.

UK Interest Rates – putting off the inevitable

Higher interest rates are on their way but are still too scary to talk about

An economic recovery is a timid creature that can be scared away merely by saying the wrong thing.  That is the implication behind statements coming out of the Bank of England which has played down the possibility of higher interest rates.  The Bank of England cut interest rates to a record low more than five years ago, but improvements in the UK economy mean that we are nearing a time when interest rates will have to return to “normal” levels.  This may still be a fair way off considering that the Bank of England seems to think that the subject is too frightening to even discuss.

Why are higher interest rates needed?

It may seem funny to talk about fears in the market at a time when UK stocks are near record highs.  However, many of the gains over the last few years have come with the support of central banks.  Low interest rates coupled with quantitative easing have prompted investors to dive into the stock market in search of better returns.  The property market has also benefited with asset prices in general booming despite the weak economy.

The hope has been that the extra wealth generated as a result of rising asset prices would prompt people to spend more.  This plan has worked to a certain extent with consumer spending being one of the main drivers behind the economic recovery in Britain.  Yet it has also created a problem in that a reversal in this new-found wealth will have the opposite effect and send consumers running for cover.  This line of thought suggests that it would be great if interest rates could be kept at the current low levels.  However, an increase is inevitable.

The main concern for any central bank is that cheap borrowing will create excessive demand and push up inflation.  Your Neighbourhood Economist has argued that these worries about inflation tend to be overblown.  A more pressing problem comes from the UK property market.  Housing prices have surged upward, recovering at a rate considerably faster than that of the overall economy.  This suggests that such gains in property prices are likely to be unsustainable and may cause trouble in the future.  This situation is made worse by the UK government being unwilling to offer much help in stimulating the economy.

What is so scary?

The central bank is caught at a junction where the long-term costs of low interest rates are becoming more obvious relative to the short-term benefits.  Acting too soon could damage a still fragile recovery while problems such as the booming property market could get out of hand if interest rates stay low for too long.  There will be a point where the Bank of England decides that worries about a premature interest rate hike outweigh that of the potential long-term costs but we haven’t reached that stage yet.

The caution shown by Carney in his recent statements suggests that the UK has yet to approach a point where higher interest rates can even be discussed as a possibility.  This partly reflects the possible outcomes facing the Bank of England.  A stalled economic recovery that results from a hike in interest rates would be one of the most dreaded outcomes for a central bank.  On the other hand, the effects of problems such as a housing bubble or excessive debt are only felt years later.

Low inflation adds to the reasons why the Bank of England might take a more cautious approach.  Inflation is not likely to cause trouble anytime soon given weak gains in wages and a strong pound.  A further factor to consider is that the Bank of England will feel the need to forewarn both borrowers and investors that higher interest rates are on their way.  All this points to a hike to interest rates being a bogeyman for some time to come.

Dysfunctional Politics Needs Economic Reforms

Politics typically operates like a badly run economy with unappetising choices between limited options

Current politics could be compared with the old Soviet economy – consumers frustrated due to few choices between ill-conceived products designed to fit what most people want but ultimately satisfying very few.  Replace “consumers” and “products” with “voters” and “parties” and this is an apt description of many Western democracies.  The analogy is even more appropriate in that the solution in both cases is the same – reforms to make participation easier for newcomers so as to create more competition.

How have things gone wrong?

Public perception of politicians seems worse than ever.  The aftermath of the global financial crisis has further exacerbated this.  Governments showed themselves to be inept in managing their finances before the crisis and misguided in their response to the ensuing economic slump.  Though elected to serve for the good of the country, governments often prove themselves unable or unwilling to do so.

A number of examples spring to mind.  The United States came to the brink of defaulting over its debt and almost triggered another global financial crisis due to a reluctance on the part of its politicians to compromise.  The nation states of Europe almost destroyed more than half a century of integration and spreading democracy across the continent by refusing to band together to help out the weaker EU members until the central bank stepped in.  The economic recoveries in many countries have also struggled to gain traction as government policies have been more of a hindrance than a help.

The argument could be made that this is not the Soviet Union and democracy gives us a choice of government.  But this choice is often an illusion and often times boils down to selecting the least worst option.  To take a more pessimistic view, the most common political strategy appears to be to make voters dislike the other party more than your own.  This only works when the electorate is faced with limited options as is typically the case in countries where two parties dominate.

Outflank the other party on a few key issues and the voters have no other choice but to tolerate your policies.  The UK Labour Party lost the public trust by overspending in the lead-up to the global financial crisis, thus giving the current Tory-led government a freer rein on its economic policy.  As a result, the British have been lumped with austerity despite the need for measures to boost aggregate demand.  In the US, the Tea Party has infiltrated the Republican Party making it unpalatable for most voters resulting in a second term for an Obama administration which has been slow to act and disappointing in delivering on its promises of change.  The results of the European elections in May 2014 are yet another example of how mainstream parties are failing voters.

Change is possible

An economy with such poor products on offer would collapse but our political system continues to stumble on with voters choosing to tune out instead.  Reforms more typical in economics provide an option for changing this – more competition.

One key area would be changes to the voting system.  Elections using the first-past-the-post format hamper change by ensuring a large number of safe seats for each party while preventing smaller parties from getting into power.  New political parties would shake up politics by bringing in ideas in contrast to the stale left and right divide that still dominates politics.  Coalition governments do not always work (such as in Italy), but are not a recipe for sclerosis in politics as the experiences of the UK government have shown over the past few years.

Such changes may not bring about anything as profound as the fall of the Berlin Wall, but any change from the status quo is likely to be an improvement.

UK government needs to play its part to lift the economy

The government and the Bank of England should be working in tandem but one is taking a free ride

A good partnership is crucial in many aspects of life.  Take the UK economy for example - it is vital that the government and the central bank work in harmony if they are to provide support for the stumbling recovery.  Both seem to share a common view of the task in hand, painting a gloomy picture of the economy.  Yet, to borrow an analogy from the recent Winter Olympics, the combination is more like an ice skating duo that not only can’t stay in synch but where one is sabotaging the efforts of the other.

Working from same play sheet

The starting point of the government and the Bank of England is the same.  Economic data coming out of the UK shows that the country is performing better than most – GDP was up by 1.9% in 2013 with unemployment down to 7.2% in the three months through December.  Yet, if an economic upswing is on its way, neither the government nor the central bank wants anyone to know.  “Neither balanced nor sustainable” is how Mark Carney, the head of the Bank of England, described the UK economic recovery.  The Chancellor, George Osborne, claims that the “recovery is not yet secure”.  A more pessimistic outlook on the UK economy is actually closer to reality.  GDP in the UK is still lower than before the onset of the global financial crisis.

Despite some signs the economy is picking itself up, a fully-fledged return to form is still some way off.  Key drivers of growth are still frozen with UK businesses neither investing nor finding much business in overseas markets.  The economy also scores poorly in terms of long-term prospects with low levels of investment translating into few gains in productivity as well as stagnating wages.

Are you pulling my leg?

The UK central bank is the more diligent of the pair.  It has been working hard to convince people that interest rates will not be rising anytime soon.  The hope is that businesses and households can be convinced to borrow if they feel secure that interest rates will remain at their current low levels.  Mark Carney has tried to use forward guidance to this end but the policy fell flat (as outlined in a previous post).  Downbeat comments on the state of the UK economy are another avenue for soothing concerns over interest rate hikes.

George Osborne seems to be skating off in a different direction.  His remarks on the economy are part of a routine designed to push his austerity program promoted as painful but necessary due to the high levels of government debt.  Austerity did seem to have its merits amid the Eurozone crisis when investors with cold feet were pulling their money out from indebted countries.  Worries about debt levels have eased but the UK government is still sticking with its harsh spending cuts.

Doing more harm than good

The austerity measures are proving harmful in two ways.  Firstly, there is a shortfall in demand in the UK economy which is exacerbated by lower government spending.  The ideal response to weak demand is a fiscal stimulus with the actual benefit to the economy larger than the actual increase in government spending.  Yet, despite the negative effects, the UK government has chosen to do the opposite due to an ideological dislike of large government.

The other negative is that the Bank of England has been left solely in charge of generating an economic recovery.  It is bad enough that the duet has turned into a solo performance but the austerity measures act as a further handicap.  The one-man act has proven tough even for someone with the stellar reputation of Mark Carney but this situation also creates its own problems.

Loose monetary policy has been a factor behind increased asset prices showing up in the property valuations and the stock market.  This has helped to push up consumer spending as households with property or stocks feel wealthier.  Yet only a small portion of the population are benefitting.  Monetary policy by itself is not the route to a balanced or sustainable recovery (as argued in a previous blog).  A change in direction by the government is needed to give more balance or the economic ice may prove thin indeed.

Nasty Breakup from Forward Guidance

Central banks have been led astray by the policy of forward guidance and it is time to move on

There has been a big breakup in the world of economics just before Valentine’s Day.  Central banks in the US and the UK had been wed to the concept of forward guidance.  This policy involves keeping interest rates low will have greater potency when combined with an outline of how long the policy will remain in place.  With the impact of low interest rates on the wane, central banks in the US and the UK were courted by the idea of forward guidance as a way to eke more out of current policies.  Yet both the Federal Reserve and Bank of England have been caught with their pants down due to the failure of forward guidance to deliver an economic boost.  The falling out has been made worse by debilitating issues with policy execution.

Seemed like a good idea at the time

The Federal Reserve slashed interest rates to 0.25% in December 2008 while the Bank of England pruned UK interest rates back to 0.5%.  In the face of the harshest recession in a generation, this normally dependable form of monetary stimulus failed to have much of an effect.  Continued weak economic growth spurred on a search for something extra and resulted in central banks delving into more unconventional measures.  Quantitative easing (buying bonds with newly printed money) is one example of such measures, forward guidance being another.

It was thought that forward guidance would act as a means to encourage economic growth as low interest rates were not having much of an effect on borrowing by themselves.  The hope was that a pledge that rates would be kept low for at least a few years would be the catalyst that would kick-start lending.  However, the assumption that there was a pent up demand for loans was wrong (as Your Neighbourhood Economist thought it might be). 

Bad idea made worse by shoddy execution

If the thinking behind forward guidance was not the best, the implementation was worse.  Both the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England based the forward guidance on the unemployment rate.  Unemployment was seen as a reliable yardstick of economic performance so the two central banks used it as a marker for changes in policy.  This later became a stumbling block when the number of people out of work declined faster than expected catching out many others along with the central banks.

Having to readjust the policy of forward guidance has been a PR disaster for central banks for whom reputation is key to influencing the financial markets and achieving their goals.  The Bank of England recently explicitly dropped the link between interest rates and unemployment and the Federal Reserve is sure to follow suit.  The necessity for central banks to assuage concerns that interest rates may rise defeats the whole purpose of forward guidance in the first place.

The Bank of England has instead stated that it will rely on a wider range of economic data.  Despite protestations by Bank of England governor Mark Carney that forward guidance is working, the new policy is too vague to act as any guide to the future of interest rates.  The reworking of forward guidance has failed to find any love from the markets.  Expectations that the Bank of England would not be faithful and would hike interest rates sooner rather than later resulted in the value of the UK currency jumping following the statements by Carney.  The saga over forward guidance has left central banks wondering what went wrong but it is time to get out and start afresh. 

The Productivity Puzzle and the Rise of the Self-Employed

Economists are struggling to explain why labour productivity is so low but Your Neighbourhood Economist could be part of the underlying reason

Puzzles can be fun but also frustrating if a solution proves elusive.  Such is the case with the “productivity puzzle” which is a phenomenon economists are having a tough time explaining.  Productivity of workers measured in output per worker has fallen following the global financial crisis and has remained weak.  The lack of an explanation for this is even more irritating as growth in productivity is one of the key factors in pushing up wages and generating higher levels of wealth.  But this dilemma may not be worth all of the worry.

What is so puzzling?

There are a number of pieces to this puzzle which are not fitting together.  The first is that companies are not investing as much.  This in itself is difficult to explain at a time when interest rates are at record lows and profitability for many companies is high.  One reason typically given is that firms are reluctant to risk money on long-term bets as the future is clouded with uncertainty.  Banks have also cut off funding to many smaller up-and-coming businesses who want to expand.  Others have pointed the finger at companies paying their executives with bonuses which prioritise rising share prices rather than investment for the future.

The next part of the riddle is falling unemployment.  A typical recession involves companies taking the opportunity to trim back their workforces.  This results in a jump in productivity as similar amounts of work are carried out by fewer workers.  Yet almost the opposite has proven true over the past few years.  Unemployment has not been as severe as in the past and the number of people out looking for work in countries such as the US and the UK is already falling.

This enigma appears even stranger when considering that unemployment in the UK has fallen to a four-year low of 7.1% while real GDP is still less than in 2008.  Companies seem to be holding onto their workers and hiring more staff instead of buying new equipment or upgrading their offices.  This may be a strategy to deal with an uncertain future (which would be temporary).  Alternatively, it could be a part of a larger shift in the way that business is done.

A reason not to worry

One of the key missing pieces could be technological change shaping new forms of work.  The Internet, along with innovations such as cloud computing, has brought down start-up costs for businesses.  Running a business these days can require little more than a laptop.  This combined with a dearth of decent jobs has seen a dramatic rise in the number of self-employed in the UK (including Your Neighbourhood Economist).

The self-employed are apt to rely mostly on manpower with little need for investment.  Output from operations with just a few workers is likely to be low or else others would have already taken advantage of such business opportunities.  Examples might include freelance web designers or landscape gardeners willing to live off sporadic work while enjoying extra spare time.

This is still not likely to be sufficient to entirely account for the low productivity that is vexing economists.  It is true that business is changing on many levels as people find new ways of harnessing the Internet and economists (including yours truly) are still grappling with what it all means.  However, if the solution involves making work less of a burden and more days working from home, it need not be so troubling after all.

Insights from Asia: New Opium Needed

China has always been a tricky country to trade with but there are still ways of tapping into its growing wealth

Your Neighbourhood Economist has just returned from a four week trip around Asia which provided a few insights worth mentioning.  The first of these came during a layover in the bustling metropolis of Hong Kong with its unique mix of the old and new.  It was the history behind Hong Kong becoming a British colony that caught the attention of Your Neighbourhood Economist because it now seems as if history is repeating itself.

Similarities between Past and Present

In the 18th century China was beginning to open up to trade with European countries.  Goods from China including tea, silk, and porcelain were proving popular in Europe but there was nothing that Europeans merchants could tempt the Chinese into buying in return.  Thus, payment for Chinese goods was made in the form of silver which became a drain on finances.  As a solution, Britain increasingly relied on bringing opium into China but this created conflict between the two countries as importing opium into China was illegal.  The result was the Opium Wars which ended with a British victory and the island of Hong Kong being ceded to Britain by the Chinese as part of their surrender.

Move the clock forward a hundred and fifty years or so and some things are still the same.  China is again exporting goods that the West is keen to purchase – nowadays it is not luxuries but items produced using cheap Chinese labour.  Further similarities include the strong grip exerted by Chinese leaders over the management of the local economy.  Western firms are still eager to sell to Chinese consumers but their options for doing so are limited.  However, this is not because foreign companies have nothing with which to entice the Chinese.  This time the reason is that the Chinese government is acting to stall an invasion of multinational firms until local businesses become large enough to compete.

It makes sense for China to keep control over one of its main resources – a domestic consumer market with one billion enthusiastic participants.  Your Neighbourhood Economist would also advise the same policy of protecting up-and-coming Chinese firms from their battle-hardened Western rivals.  There are few things that China needs at its current state of economic development that it cannot provide for itself.  One of the handful of sectors where imports are important is commodities but China already gets most of its supplies from other emerging economies.

What to do differently this time around

All this has left Western governments scratching their heads with regard to selling to China.  Some countries such as Germany have prospered by selling machinery for Chinese firms to use in their factories.  But most other developed countries are struggling to find their own niche products to sell to China.  As a consequence, large numbers of container ships sail back to China mostly empty.  Opium is obviously no longer an option yet countries like Britain do need to find a way to tap into the growing wealth in China.

It is trade in services that is likely to be key.  Britain has lots of creative and business savvy firms specialising in the design and technology sectors.  Finance is one area which is still out of bounds in China but other sectors are open to outsiders.  Education, on the other hand, is a service that China is finding it hard to provide for itself in either sufficient quantity or quality.  Countries such as Britain can access Chinese wealth while also expanding its educated workforce either through Chinese students who study aboard or foreign schools set up in China.  In the future, higher paying service jobs rather than employment in declining industries such as manufacturing are more likely to provide the bulk of “good jobs”.  China will not always be so closed off or in need of education services but a focus on education seems like a winning formula in the meanwhile.

UK economy is growing but not yet in recovery

Some good news at last for the UK economy but don’t expect the tough times to be over

The outlook for the UK economy is finally beginning to brighten following a harsh recession and weak recovery.  The Office for Budget Responsibility raised its forecasts for the UK economy with growth of 1.4% expected in 2013 up from a previous estimate of 0.6% in March while 2014 is expected to see growth of 2.4% instead of a prior March forecast of 1.8%.  While the government was keen to publicise this as good news, much of the improvement is due to factors that are likely to be temporary.  Government measures along with monetary policy are behind the perkier economy but the effects will not last and a proper recovery may still be some time away.

The unexpected boost to the economy has come through higher spending by households.  Many UK consumers are feeling better off with UK shares near record highs and the UK property market going through a period of resurgence.  Stock markets in many developed countries have been providing stellar returns as extra cash being printed by central banks flows into shares.  House prices have benefited through a range of government schemes aimed at increasing the availability of mortgages.  This has translated into more consumer spending through a mechanism known as the wealth effect which is the notion that people will spend more if the financial assets which they own are worth more.  The UK government has tried to tap into this effect on spending using schemes such as Help to Buy to lift house prices as a means to boost the economy due to few other options (such as higher government spending) being available. 

The wealth effect relies on growing levels of financial wealth which can be lifted by different measures but which ultimately rely on the health of the economy.  As such, temporary boosts are possible but asset prices (and wealth) can only be pushed up so far and may involve potential negative effects for the economy.  Higher prices for financial assets now come at the cost of price gains in the future  (such as a weaker property market in the future) with a reduced wealth effect.  This may be a necessary price to pay with few other avenues for generating growth but the tactic of pushing up property prices has also been used by the UK government to provide cover for its program of austerity measures. 

With public debt reaching around 75% of GDP in 2012, the government has given priority to cutting back its spending but this is controversial coming at a time when the overall economy is weak.  The government claims that the cuts are necessary as investors would not buy UK government bonds (resulting in the government having to pay higher interest rates) were government debt to get even more out of hand.  Concerns about debt levels have eased considerably since reaching near frantic proportions during the Eurozone crisis, but the government remains unrepentantly committed to slashing spending levels.  Cuts to government spending are going to continue for years to come with the stated goal of reaching a budget surplus by 2018 despite calls for a change in policy.

Other areas of the UK economy also have little to offer in terms of growth.  Exports from the UK have failed to pick up despite a weaker pound and the value of the currency has begun to rise again which does not bode well for UK exporters.  Investment is also weak with lending to businesses in decline.  It is proving tough to come up with an engine to drive growth in the UK – a recovery is long overdue but we may still have to wait.

British banks gone AWOL

The banking sector is in dereliction of its traditional duties in the economy and quick fixes will not be enough to make amends

After nearly collapsing and bringing the economy down with them, UK banks are further adding to their bad name by holding back the economic recovery.  Banks are either too weak or too caught up in making easy money to fulfil their traditional role in the economy.  The situation is made worse because monetary policy works through the financial sector and banks are crucial links through which money is fed into the actual economy.  Instead, bank lending to UK businesses has been falling, thereby dampening the impact of lower interest rates and pushing the Bank of England to pump more and more money into the economy (which is not healthy).  Why have banks seemingly abandoned their posts?

Banks have traditionally acted as intermediaries between those with money to spare and those in need of financing.  There is a surplus of funds at the moment due to quantitative easing by the central banks which is aimed at getting more households and companies to borrow.  But this money is not getting to businesses - partly because the weak economy has hit demand for loans but also because of the reluctance of banks to lend.  A large amount of debt, which could go bad due to the weak economy, is making banks cautious while new banking regulations are restricting banks’ capacity to take on fresh loans.  Small businesses have been hit hardest as there are few other options for getting cash.  As a result, there has been a large knock-on effect on the economy as small businesses are a significant source of jobs and innovation.

Other parts of the finance sector have failed to pick up the slack.  Investment banks (which are different to retail banks who carry out the functions above) have long had only weak links with the actual economy and continue to generate profits through their ability to make money from money while also attracting some of the best and brightest who could offer more in other sectors (see previous blog).  Firms such as Wonga, which offer lending services now shunned by retail banks, are being hounded for their trouble.  The only bright spot has been mortgage lending but that has been targeted by government initiatives along with monetary policy to the extent that the Bank of England has had to apply the brakes due to concerns about a housing bubble.

The failure of banking to facilitate the circulation of funds around the economy has resulted in surplus cash flowing into financial assets such as property or the stock market rather than being put to productive use in the actual economy.  The Bank of England has tried a scheme of providing banks with funds for lending but more needs to be done to clean up banks and change their behaviour.  One of the reasons why Japan took so long to recover from a financial crisis more than two decades ago was that it allowed problems in its banking sector to stagnate.  Let’s hope that it doesn’t take that long to learn the same lesson.

UK Property Market – Prudence over Politics

Why we should be happy that the Bank of England is putting the brakes on the government’s efforts to boost the property market.

It is the job of politicians to get elected, but it does not follow that governments always do what is in the best interest of voters.  This might be the best explanation behind the actions of the current UK government with regard to the housing market – angling for voters (and an economic recovery) by pumping up property prices with little concern about the long term health of the economy (for more on this, see rebound in UK house prices is not all good news).  Many expressed a sigh of relief when the Bank of England stepped in to put the brakes on a booming real estate market by taking away incentives promoting mortgage lending among banks.  It is something new to see a central bank taking a stance which puts them at odds with the government but it provides a good case for arguing for greater oversight of government policy.

The current understanding of the role of a central bank is as an independent body which watches over the economy with powers to intervene if there is too much or not enough growth.  Central banks are kept separate from politics where policies are aimed at winning over voters within a time frame of a few years.  Some aspects of government where a longer time frame is required such as monetary policy could be influenced in a negative way by political calculations and it is thought that central banks are better positioned to administer monetary policy in order to achieve goals such as warding off inflation.

The global financial crisis highlighted that low inflation in itself is not sufficient for financial stability with aggressive lending by banks combined with excessive gains in asset prices also shown as big threats.  Central banks have been given greater scope to oversee the overall health of the financial sector and this is behind the latest policy actions by the Bank of England.  The UK government was hoping that a buoyant property market would increase spending and create a feel-good factor propelling it back into power in elections scheduled for 2015.  Yet any gains in real estate prices without higher wages would be unsustainable and put home ownership beyond the reach of many, ultimately requiring weaker prices in the future to bring house prices back in line with the economy. 

Governments and central banks had previously been operating in their own separate spheres of influence but the extended remit of central banks may bring them into conflict.  This has the potential to work in a positive way to provide greater oversight for government policies shown to be at fault in the past (for example, high government borrowing in the UK in the run up to the global financial crisis).  Another example of how the European Central Bank did the most to save the euro while the various governments in Europe squabbled.  It is not hard to argue for giving more power to economists (see previous blog) when politicians provide so many reasons for doing so.