Showing posts with label G-20. Show all posts
Showing posts with label G-20. Show all posts

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Andy Xie on G-20 in Seoul

The G-20 in Seoul was supposed to be a pressure cooker for China. Geithner coordinated a united front against China before the ministerial gathering by signaling that the euro and yen were high enough, emerging economies could restrict capital inflows and resource exporters would be exempt from the proposed 4 percent limit over GDP of the current account surplus ceilings. The coast was clear for everyone except China. The hope was for the G-20 to gang up on China at the Summit. Instead, it became a festival of global backlash against the Fed's QE 2. Some people are just too clever for their own good.

How are emerging economies curbing capital inflows?

A war of words is unfolding before the Summit and the battle lines have been clearly delineated. Germany is leading the charge against QE 2. China is more than willing to echo the sentiment. On the other side, the U.S. is leading the push for capping current account surpluses. It is backed by India's support for its QE 2. But an element of the absurd is at play here by targeting surpluses. Why isn't the onus on the largest deficit economies to rein in the deficits on their own?

The piling of sandbags against a deluge of hot money has begun. Taiwan is restoring restrictions on foreign holdings of local currency bonds. Korea is proposing a hefty tax on foreign holdings of its bonds. China is stepping up checks on sources of foreign capital inflows. Most of its foreign exchange reserves are not from trade surpluses, but from hot money. If the government is really serious, it could surely stop the inflows.

The fight against inflation is heating up too. Australia just raised interest rates again. China increased its deposit reserve ratio. The market is pricing in four rate hikes in the next 12 months. I think the rate hikes will continue. India's central bank just raised its interest rates too, in an effort to curb real estate loans.

When the U.S. is engaging in super loose monetary policy, emerging economies must curb capital inflows and increase interest rates to fight inflation and asset bubbles. It seems that the Fed's QE 2 has convinced everyone of this path. The measures may have come too late for some. Inflation in emerging economies may be already in double digit territory. It seems underreporting CPI has become fashionable, under the pretenses of prolonging an economic boom. The consequences could be severe.

Negative real interest rates and an increasingly large current account deficit are a lethal combination for emerging economies. History has shown repeatedly that it leads to crisis. Brazil and India are in that camp today. Brazil is running a surplus. But, it is too small to offset the Fed's impact on commodity prices. When commodity prices are so high, a country like Brazil should run a large surplus like Russia. India is running a huge deficit outright. Its real interest rate is severely negative by some measurement. Its boom continues because the Fed's policy encourages speculative capital to fund its deficit and support its currency value.

China and Russia have inflation too. But they have large current account surpluses and wouldn't have a liquidity crisis when the Fed is forced to abandon its policy. Brazil and India don't have the same cushion. Unless they tighten substantially in the coming year, they may feature big time in the looming 2012 crisis.

Can rich countries grow?

Germany is upset with the U.S.'s policy and for good reason. A decade ago, it was left for dead. Its economy was saddled with high cost commodity industries. As East Asian countries like China and Korea were charging into them, few thought Germany had a chance. The Germans didn't give up. They cut costs dramatically, even wines, to the Frenchmen's astonishment. In addition, they innovated and turned many commodity businesses into IPR-dependent ones. With low costs and pricing power, Germany is enjoying the fruits of an export boom. But, the Americans want to turn it into an exchange rate issue. It is facing many issues that Germany faced before. Instead of restructuring, it is looking for a quick way out through devaluation.

Even though Germany is very competitive, it's not growing rapidly like an emerging economy – and it shouldn't. High growth belongs to emerging economies. If rich economies try to grow fast, it will run huge deficits and lose wealth. The reason is globalization.

Information technology created the 21st century multinational corporation and made the current wave of globalization different from the previous ones. A multinational corporation is a company in name and substance. But it has the breadth of empire. It has transformed the world through investment and trade into one economy. Both demand and supply are global now. Cost arbitrage by multinational corporations have made it necessary for labor in developed economies not to compete against that in the developing economies. The wage difference is too big to be bridged in the foreseeable future. This force ensures that demand stimulus in developed economies will lead to widening trade deficit and limited impact on employment.

Europe and Japan have accepted this reality and have gone into the wealth preservation mode: focusing on pricing power, not volume in exports, targeting low growth rates and cushioning displaced workers with benefits. The U.S. is in so much trouble because it wants to grow out of its problems. When labor costs ten times that in developing countries and, adding to this is the fact that the other side has ten times as many people, this sort of thinking seems irrational. Yes, technology and quality can improve exports. But, this will barely affect trade volume. When the U.S.'s best product idea – the iPhone – doesn't lead to a rise in production at home, one should be wary of optimistic sound bites.

The U.S. government wants to change the global reality by rearranging the exchange rates. If this idea works, one must lift the standard of living in countries like China and India instantaneously to that in developed economies or lower the U.S.'s living standard to that of China and India's. Neither is possible. The political atmosphere in the U.S.'s requires solutions that generate instantaneous effects. The world can't offer that. As long as the U.S. continues to search for the impossible, the world will be a dangerous place.

Where are the real fault lines?

Rising incomes and widening wealth gaps are a global phenomenon. The top 1 percent of the U.S.'s population takes one fourth of the national income and 40 percent of the wealth. China's household income is below 40 percent of GDP, probably the lowest in the world.

The process of globalization should lead to increasing gaps in wealth. It is demonstrated in the strong balance sheets and good earnings of the top global companies, even as major economies struggle with low growth rates and high unemployment rates. But, globalization is not the only reason, and may not be the most important one in explaining highly concentrated wealth.

Financial bubbles, created by loose monetary policy from people like Alan Greenspan, are the most important factor for the rising inequality. The bubbles mislead low income people to borrow and spend on fictitious paper wealth. Their debt becomes the profits for a few. When the bubble bursts, the lower income groups spend less and cut the labor demand for themselves. Lower income demand usually produces lower income employment.

China's low consumption is due to excessive government power, not from low exchange rates. The force that pushes the economy forward is the government's desire and plans for big investment. It then raises money through taxes, property sales or state monopolies overcharging. Under such a system, consumption can't possibly play a leading role. Focusing on the exchange rate won't solve anything and may make the situation worse.

How will the U.S. treasury market fare?

The U.S. is obsessed with manipulating demand, through lowering or increasing debt cost, to manage its economy. It doesn't recognize that supply side management is the key in an era of multinational corporation-led globalization, because the latter doesn't provide instant gratification. Under political pressure to bring down unemployment rates quickly, it will continue to muck around with the money supply and the dollar's value in search of a quick fix. It will stop only when it can't do so anymore. Only a collapse of the treasury market can play that role.

The U.S. government is running a budget deficit close to 10 percent of GDP. The U.S. runs a current account deficit of nearly 5 percent of GDP. The dollar is so weak that inflation is likely to run above average. But, the treasury yields are close to historical lows. Investors justify their holdings by assuming that they can sell to the Fed at higher prices. This perceived Bernanke "put option" is similar to the Greenspan "put option." Investors bought crazy financial instruments, because they counted on Greenspan to bail them out in a crisis. But these maneuvers only work on the market's faith. But the Fed cannot buy all the treasuries out there. It will cause hyperinflation.

The trigger for the crisis will be something that panics treasury holders. It could be the worry over another maxi-dollar devaluation or inflation. Most American policy thinkers don't believe that inflation will come. Otherwise, they would have to pull back the dollar printing presses. But, when one looks at food and oil prices, it seems it's only a matter of time before inflation hits the U.S. via emerging economies and commodities.

Brace yourself for turbulence ahead. Unfortunately, it will likely end with another crisis. Hopefully, the world will be better off after 2012.

(Ref. Group Study Questions, for 20, Nov 12, 2010)

Monday, June 7, 2010

Bruce Krasting: Tim's Gotta Go

The following are portions of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s final communiqué to the G20 and my comments. The full communiqué can be found Here.



Last year, the G-20 acted to restore growth to a world in crisis. The IMF expects global growth to exceed 4 percent in 2010 and 2011.

Tim, that is not what the IMF said. From Reuters:
"An IMF report presented at the G20 meeting earlier estimates that coherent adoption of the adjustment policies could increase global growth by as much as 2.5 percent annually over a medium-term five year period."
The head of the IMF Strauss-Kahn had this to say on growth prospects:
"I am totally comfortable" with a final communique calling for troubled euro zone countries to accelerate fiscal consolidation. They have to consolidate strongly even if it has some bad effect on growth."
So Tim, the IMF does not share your rosy views on global growth. In fact they are worried that the necessary fiscal consolidation will result in slower growth. Geithner’s statement was read by every finance minister at the meeting and around the world. They will read Tim’s words and just conclude that he is selling a story to the newspapers and has no substance to offer. So much for financial statesmanship.

The US is in its 4th quarter of solid growth.

Solid growth Tim? This is just a lie and he and the other heads of state know it. The recovery to-date has been tepid by any comparison to any recent US post recession cycle. We have unemployment at 9.7%, a 50 year high and we can’t create 50,000 jobs a month without massive fiscal and monetary stimulus. We are growing because of a very big inventory cycle and the continued stimulus measures. Were it not for those factors we would be looking at negative real organic growth. Tim is selling a bag of crap to an audience who knows better.

European authorities gave us an update on their reforms and financial programs. Our discussions were focused on our two core priorities: growth and financial reform.

On growth, we reaffirmed our strong interest in making sure we reinforce the ongoing recovery in private demand across the G-20. As we do so, we agreed on the need to undertake and credible commitments to restore fiscal sustainability over the medium term.

This stupid sentence did not go unnoticed. The focus was on the words, “medium term”. In this case what Tim was really saying was:
“We all know what we are doing is not sustainable and it may kill us if we continue, but we have to keep kicking the can down the road for at least two more years. That way my boss has at least a chance of being re-elected and I might keep my nice job”.
Tim wants the world to do what he is doing at home. Deficits in excess of 10% of GDP. Debt levels that are approaching annual GDP. Debt levels that far exceed GDP when the D.C. mortgage debts are included. He wants ZIRP to last forever, even though he knows it is killing savers. He wants an unending stimulus program for housing, cars, agriculture and every other segment of the economy. And he wants to do this when our country is in a protracted and expensive war. There is no leadership.

In the United States, we’re moving forward with important reforms of health care, education, and our financial system—together with substantial investments in innovation, basic science and research and development, and infrastructure. All these initiatives are designed to provide a stronger foundation for future economic growth.

More lies. The health care reform was a joke that was rushed through in the dark of night. The assumptions used were bogus. The whole thing is going to have to come back on the table in less than one-year it is so badly flawed. About those investment in science and research, is that why the administration gutted NASA?

What Tim and his cohorts did in the past 18 months is wrack up an additional $2 trillion in debt to keep things going. The have not done one thing that I can think of to, “provide a stronger foundation for future economic growth”. There is a great deal of empirical evidence that economies have a difficult time of sustaining any growth when debt to GDP exceeds 100%. We are functionally there today. Tim has done nothing to help us long term. If anything, his plans will mute growth for decades.

Within the G-20, we discussed how the ongoing shift toward higher saving in the United States would need to be complemented by stronger domestic demand growth in Japan and in the European surplus countries, and sustained growth in private demand, together with a more flexible exchange rate policy, in China.

Tim is begging the rest of world to help him out. He wants Japan, China and Germany to help him out? Those folks are not listening and Tim knows it. He was just in China and the issue of exchange rates was not addressed. There is little prospect for “flexibility” by China anytime in the near future. He failed miserably on this issue. Japan has 200% debt to GDP and Tim thinks they are going to be the source of global growth? This country has 1/3 our population and 1/3 of our GDP. They will not assume the role that the Treasury Secretary wants.

For me, the most significant response to Timmy’s plea for more deficit spending came from the head of the ECB, J.C. Trichet:
“The impact of narrower budget gaps on growth could not be considered negative because it would improve confidence. The need for such action is clear in old industrialized economies.”
Trichet has said he will not play in Tim’s sandbox. I love that he stresses the point that confidence is now a central issue in global economies. He is admitting that without sane policies confidence will be lost and when confidence is lost the mother of all depressions will follow.

When Trichet says, “old industrial economies” he is talking about the USA. These folks choose their words carefully. They are diplomatic. When Trichet said this it was equivalent to a punch in the nose in the real world. While Tim shed no blood, this comment hurt. It was a strong rebuke. Damn near an insult. Do not look for the ECB to bailout the US or Europe for that matter. Consider also the comment from the Germany's Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble:
"I made no bones about the fact that I share the IMF's underlying philosophy only in a very limited way,"
The ECB and the Germany have spoken as one. They both have said “no” to Tim. This exchange should not be ignored. It has significant implications as to how far the Germans are prepared to go in support of the EU. My read on this is that the answer to the question, “How far should we go?” is “Not far at all”.

Fiscal consolidation should be “growth friendly”—as the IMF puts it—with the pace and composition of adjustment varying across countries.

“Growth friendly” = big deficits = Death. Tim relies on words from the IMF. He is using this as a way to defend what he wants. He is hiding behind the skirts of the IMF technocrats? A very weak place to hide.

The United States is moving aggressively to fix things we got wrong and to strengthen our economic fundamentals.

Moving aggressively? What is he talking about? Fin Reg? That is also a joke. Timmy G has gone out of way to avoid addressing the problem the country faces with the mortgage agencies. These beasts now represent an off balance sheet commitment in excess of $7 trillion. They continue to write 97% LTV loans and suffer double digit defaults. They are 90% of the current mortgage market. The GSEs represent a far greater systemic risk than any other component of our economy. Yet the Treasury Secretary thinks these problems are too difficult to confront. The result will be over $400b in losses born by the public.

Tim is going to get hit in the face with a two by four on December 1st when the Fiscal Commission comes public with its recommendations on how the US can return to fiscal prudence. On that day everything that Tim has been calling for will be trashed. The Fiscal Commission was made necessary to some extent because the Treasury Secretary was too weak to lead a proper response. But the job of selling and implementing the spending cuts and tax increases that will be recommended will fall to the Treasury Secretary. There is not one chance in a hundred that he will succeed in that role. He is wedded to big debt and big government spending. He is the wrong guy to lead us in the right direction. If we are going to make it to 2015 without a major financial collapse we need some leadership.

Time's up Tim. You gotta go.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Stiglitz Says Banking Problems Are Now Bigger Than Pre-Lehman

Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize- winning economist, said the U.S. has failed to fix the underlying problems of its banking system after the credit crunch and the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

“In the U.S. and many other countries, the too-big-to-fail banks have become even bigger,” Stiglitz said in an interview today in Paris. “The problems are worse than they were in 2007 before the crisis.”

Stiglitz’s views echo those of former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, who has advised President Barack Obama’s administration to curtail the size of banks, and Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer, who suggested last month that governments may want to discourage financial institutions from growing “excessively.”

A year after the demise of Lehman forced the Treasury Department to spend billions to shore up the financial system, Bank of America Corp.’s assets have grown and Citigroup Inc. remains intact. In the U.K., Lloyds Banking Group Plc, 43 percent owned by the government, has taken over the activities of HBOS Plc, and in France BNP Paribas SA now owns the Belgian and Luxembourg banking assets of insurer Fortis.

While Obama wants to name some banks as “systemically important” and subject them to stricter oversight, his plan wouldn’t force them to shrink or simplify their structure.

Stiglitz said the U.S. government is wary of challenging the financial industry because it is politically difficult, and that he hopes the Group of 20 leaders will cajole the U.S. into tougher action.

G-20 Steps

“We aren’t doing anything significant so far, and the banks are pushing back,” he said. “The leaders of the G-20 will make some small steps forward, given the power of the banks” and “any step forward is a move in the right direction.”

G-20 leaders gather next week in Pittsburgh and will consider ways of improving regulation of financial markets and in particular how to set tighter limits on remuneration for market operators. Under pressure from France and Germany, G-20 finance ministers last week reached a preliminary accord that included proposals to claw-back cash awards and linking compensation more closely to long-term performance.

“It’s an outrage,” especially “in the U.S. where we poured so much money into the banks,” Stiglitz said. “The administration seems very reluctant to do what is necessary. Yes they’ll do something, the question is: Will they do as much as required?”

Global Economy

Stiglitz, former chief economist at the World Bank and member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said the world economy is “far from being out of the woods” even if it has pulled back from the precipice it teetered on after the collapse of Lehman.

“We’re going into an extended period of weak economy, of economic malaise,” Stiglitz said. The U.S. will “grow but not enough to offset the increase in the population,” he said, adding that “if workers do not have income, it’s very hard to see how the U.S. will generate the demand that the world economy needs.”

The Federal Reserve faces a “quandary” in ending its monetary stimulus programs because doing so may drive up the cost of borrowing for the U.S. government, he said.

“The question then is who is going to finance the U.S. government,” Stiglitz said.

(from bloomberg.com, September 13, 2009)