Capitalism and free markets.

What a great idea. It’s a shame no one has actually tried it out or bothered to let homo rationalus economicus that it’s an urban myth. We operate mainly in a state sponsored system of capital markets underpinned by arcane and often opaque trading rules and regulations.

The provision of capital is key to any functioning economy and has been since the beginning of time. Each empire had its own approach to coinage to support trade and the governing class or head of state. The first pillar of modern capitalism was established in 1694 with the formation of the Bank of England. Thus began the first stirrings of the fractional reserve banking system and the modern financial system.

I’ve previously covered the many bailouts experienced by the banking system and the Bank of England itself and in some ways our current malaise is no different. The central precept of free markets is that they should operate on their own merits - caveat emptor.

I’m not going to discuss that fallacy here but focus on the problems of bail outs. Why should a failing business be rescued by the state? The simple answer to that is when it has implications for the national economy or issues of national security (often regarded as twos sides of the same coin). We have seen the fiasco in the US, the UK and Europe. We have seen the banking system bailed out, private companies bailed out and yet we still hear the mantra of free markets, trade and market liberalisation and privatisation repeated.

Here in NZ we have seen South Canterbury Finance bailed out and most recently AMI. On both occasions the government intervened to provide capital from taxpayers for businesses which had clearly failed. In the case of SCF depositors were guaranteed under a standard deposit guarantee framework but bondholders also benefitted to the tune of $350m. Those bonds should never have been covered under a deposit guarantee scheme. Investors enjoyed a big free lunch here at the expense of the taxpayer. In the case of AMI, the government intervened to support an insurance company who didn’t have enough reserves on hand post the February 22nd quake. The government could easily make a good case for supporting AMI, in terms of providing it with backstop liquidity but in doing so it needed to be very clear that it was suspending any belief in free markets.

The moral hazard is clear but the implications have not been explored. On one hand the government wants to bail out private companies who are clearly responsible for their own position. At the same time they want to promote policies like privatisation because, wait for it, private companies are more efficient than public ones.

It’s very clear that the neo-liberal dream is in tatters but no one seems to want to wake up and smell the reality. Market morality is indeed quite hazardous.

Today John Key revealed the policy what we have all been waiting for: privatisation or, in his words, partial asset sales. Let me be clear that I am not against privatisation as a whole but certainly I am very concerned about the sale of key and core infrastructure assets. I also noticed how John trotted out the “TINA” message: there is no alternative otherwise S+P will downgrade us. Expect to hear this being repeated as some kind of mantra…..otherwise saying we are dependent on the opinion of the same guys who rated dodgy Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) as AAA.

There are some key human requirements for any society. We are lucky to be blessed by all of them: plentiful water, energy generation and food production. Any decent society with these assets should be able to provide them to all people at the lowest possible cost. Why? Because it can.

We are already well into a fight over NZ’s water assets and consumers are paying through the nose for basic food items especially dairy in which we are global leaders. Energy is also costing us more and more each year as the dysfunctional electricity market continues to fail.

Contact Energy has already been sold off to foreign investors with Australian energy company Origin owning 51%. Expect more pain in the pricing policy we have witnessed since this company was first floated. I have never understood the need for energy generation (water is even more inexplicable) to be a competitive process between private companies. Deregulation has not delivered cheaper prices and yet more privatisation is on the cards.

The deregulation of the 80s made was driven by a desire for greater efficiency and more dynamic management as well as the demand from financiers for new investment prospects. But change could have been brought about in different ways such as simply instituting new management, guidelines etc. It would be very possible to run a state owned company focused on providing electricity, in all forms, with the sole focus of the customer.

So instead of selling off more energy assets we should be thinking about changing the model. I favour looking at some form of  quota based allocation which comes at the cheapest possible price (a break-even number) with market pricing on top of that. These quotas could be traded (as in DTQs 0r Domestic Tradable Quotas) as part of a generalised carbon trading scheme. But the important issue is that energy is a basic human need and in New Zealand this can and should be provided at the cheapest possible cost. I do not believe, and have seen no evidence, that the current system delivers this.

We should also address the silly argument about “mum and dad” investors. Please no more of this patronising label. Lots of people are investors, not just these mythical and no doubt unsophisticated “mums and dads”. But let’s point out the very obvious hole in this argument. We already own these companies, yes us taxpayers, mums, dads and bubs…we own it already so why do we need to re-buy into it? plenty of money for the investment banks involved in the float (they have been pushing this for ages). More importantly there will be losers: low income people who simply could not afford to buy into the share bonanza….it’s just another process for transferring wealth from low to high income earners. This will look great for some but ultimately we all lose in the end and inequality is further increased.

Privatisation is only going to make things worse. It’s time to put people before profit.

Sorry John, there is an alternative.

Well after years of allowing banks to categorise any paper bearing the words “i hope to pay back” as Tier 1 capital, G20 has agreed to a new global framework on bank capital under which “banks will face higher capital requirements”.

I guess we can call this Basel III or maybe a souped up Basel II. Who knows? When you have an inherently unstable system any new plan for control is likely to end up in the round filing cabinet before it has a chance to be implemented.

But one thing is clear from the latest global pow-wow: monetary stimulus will remain in place for some time as extra tightening through higher capital requirements sucks in more capital. With all the talk of recovering economies and poistive GDP reads in some countries, it is easy to forget the amount of wealth that has been sucked into the black hole of balance sheet never never land.

Who would be a bean counter these days?

It reminds me of the time I was working on the ticket sales operation for the Brisbane Expo back in 1988. It was a $60m take and I was drafted in to make the numbers balance. It was a lot of fun and eventually I got to the point where I had accounted for everything but there was still a pesky $110 I couldn’t reconcile. It simply didn’t make any sense to me but in the end I just gave up and figured it didn’t matter that much.

Now the numbers seem a bit larger when it comes to bank meltdowns. We have a long way to go before we actually can understand where the money has gone, who owes it, who lost it and what the actual impact on the supply of money is.

So in this case G20 are spot on. Deflationary forces abound. I have no worry about inflation at all. Sure we will keep seeing short term rebounds in some statistics and small sighs of relief. Let’s face it, the markets ahve had an enormous rally in the last 6 months. But do they reflect the underlying reality? Nope.

That’s because the crevasses have been papered over with huge swathes of new paper. But underneath they lie there waiting for some poor fool to fall in again. Slowly it feels like the bankers are starting to understand that they let credit growth go bananas and that their carefully constructed inflation numbers didn’t always tell the truth about asset prices.

We still have major systemic problems to deal with. Tightening credit will cause severe pain but low rates will help ease some of that. But catching the tiger by the tail is the only way forward.

Yekaterinburg could well be a name to remember much like Maastricht, Yalta, Bretton Woods and other places that carry major political history on the back of their relative obscurity. A few weeks ago the big 4 players, Brazil, Russia, China and India, met to in Yekaterinburg to discuss the vexed issue of the $, US assets and US global financial dominance.

As I’ve discussed before there is a major shift underway in the way the global market is structured. Not just in terms of currencies but also trade and influence. The BRICs have a powerful case to make: 40% of global currency reserves and almost half the world’s population (though Russia’s population is declining, a somewhat serious issue).

There is a strong feeling that the US has acted recklessly overt he last 30 years in flooding the world with $ and creating huge imbalances which have caused such chaos in global markets. So whilst there is always plenty of posturing and grandstanding, especially from the Russians, there is a real case for the US to answer:

- Global trade imbalances.

- Cowboy capitalism.

- Turbo boosted monetary expansion.

- Instability in global financial markets.

It’s also interesting that the meeting of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) was held at the same tim and the US was not invited even though it wanted to attend. There is a strong argument that there is no real alternative to the $ but that doesn’t excuse the facts. One dominant currency has not helped create a stable system. It has simply allowed to issuer to experience huge profits from seigniorage and wield extraordinary political and economic power.

And can we really take the rating agencies seriously? They are all US based organisations. Ultimately whether the $ loses influence or not depends on the alternatives. I still believe a commodity backed currency is a likely development, given the nations involved.

At the same time the development of local currencies will help create a more stable and complex system. For now though expect more talk about a $ alternative and expect it to be driven by the BRIC crew starting with the upcoming G8 summit in Italy.

It’s been nearly 9 months since the $ started to show signs of meltdown fever. Except the meltdown was the rush to buy $ as a hedge against collapsing markets and disappearing credit lines.

In the last few months we have seen markets bottom and even recover some poise, aided and abetted by the action of nearly last resort, quantitative easing. There was nothing left in the toolbox really.

So far so good in some respects. The S+P has rallied 37% off its lows…….mind you its lows were 57% down from the highs and the index still stands 42% off the highs of the last few years. Not that the numbers really matter. The main news is that markets are functioning…still.

And the $ balloon has finally burst with QE signaling a chance to sell the $ without worrying what the equity markets were doing. The Kiwi$ has rallied 32% from its March low even outpacing the hammered Pound, up 21% from its low of $1.35.

Markets can do very strange things. Even whilst the $ was rallying to extreme highs against all currencies, no one really wanted to own it. Now people really really don’t want to own it.

This is all very well but this type of volatility is impossible to manage. How can any investment manager talk about average returns of 10% a year when markets are moving at this rate. How can any business hedge currency risk when currencies are moving like this.

The bigger problem for the US is trying to stop the snowball effect that may happen if markets really decide to dump the $. The noises coming from China may be regarded as monetary brinksmanship but with Russia, looking very wolflike these days, nibbling in behind, it’s becoming a more serious issue.

There’s a lot of politics involved in this but the positioning is clear: the US is weak not just economically but militarily. The exhausting foray into Iraq has stretched the US war machine as well as seriously impacting on its reputation. Historically the ability to create coin or currency was usually backed up by military power. One of the first actions by invading nations was to replace the local currency with its own.

This makes currency both a political and economic issue. So whilst there is unlikely to be any immediate change in the $ role as global reserve currency, there is no doubt that the dance of change is underway.

The short term problem for China is its huge ownership of US bonds and other paper. So they wouldn’t be happy with a complete collapse right now but it seems like less money will be staying in $ and more will be finding a new home whilst they work out how a new global currency system might operate.

But with GM falling apart and US unemployment rising to severe levels, concerns over the health of the $ will only continue to mount.

Iceland has become the first country to see its government fall as a result of the global credit crisis. A tragedy of excess has found its way into the heart of the democratic process.

Of course in a case such as this the ending barely surprises. In fact we never seem to be surprised at how excess and gluttony ends in tears. So perhaps its normal like a child who has too much ice cream, sweets or cakes. We know the ending but somehow stand by and watch because ultimately the child has to learn.

Nothing much really changes though.

The financial warriors of the ice nation rampaged through the European bazaars picking up companies like confetti. A sad tale signifying what? Same old, same old.

Th reality is that we always succumb to the bubble. It’s in our nature, it’s part of our make-up: a relentless and cored belief that somehow it’s all going to work out and we will have something for nothing.

And even in the deepest mess that is the US financial system crazy stories still appear. John Thain and his $40k or whatever toilet. Nice.

Nothing is new. Nothing has changed. It’s just bigger and makes a lot more noise.

As Frank Rich mused on Obama and the End of the Gilded Age,

He spoke of those at the economic pinnacle who embraced greed and irresponsibility as well as the rest of us who collaborated in our “collective failure to make hard choices.” He branded as sub-American those who “prefer leisure over work or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame.” And he wasn’t just asking Paris Hilton “to set aside childish things.” As Linda Hirshman astutely pointed out on The New Republic’s Web site, even Obama’s opening salutation — “My fellow citizens,” not “fellow Americans” — invoked the civic responsibilities we’ve misplaced en masse.

Let’s face it we all want to make loadsamoney……on our houses, investments, crazy schemes…..but the truth is it’s just a facade. But like Versailles it will linger on in our minds for years to come.