“To be, or not to be, that is the question,

Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer

The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,

Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,

And by opposing end them.”  Hamlet, Act III, Scene 1.

It seems, after nearly 30 years of deregulated markets, that we face a sea of troubles ourselves. An extreme global debt deleveraging is upon us, the numbers too outrageous to even consider. Not only have we consumed beyond our means, we have mortgaged our future. Whereas once credit was difficult to come by and banks conservative in their lending (can you pay this back?), the brave new world brought us access to unlimited treasures, all paid for on a credit system, which had limited restraint.

As financial models became more complex and debt could be packaged, securitised and sold off, all sense of restraint was lost. Who owed whom was lost in a parallel universe of metaphor: swap, hedge, collateral, obligation, repurchase. Repaying principal and interest, in the old fashioned sense was put to one side. Can you afford the interest? Don’t worry about the principal, that will pay itself off as the price rises! Can’t afford the interest? Don’t worry, we’ll lend that to you as well, or have a holiday (from interest that is….keeps charging but pay it some other time). Tick, tock, tick, tock.

Maybe Hamlet wasn’t as crazy as he sounded.

As I explained in a previous post on the Euro, deleveraging debt is a painful process. As debts are written off, the money supply contracts, causing a contraction in the general economy. This creates a spiral where demand for new credit drops and this causes further losses to business, resulting in more job losses and so on. Traditionally, this has been dealt with by the lowering of interest rates, which hopefully stimulate demand for credit and reduce interest burdens. Sadly, this doesn’t work until the overhanging debt has been cleared out, by which time unemployment has risen and economic output has contracted to severe levels.

The road to austerity is a self-fulfilling process. Clearing the debt mountain will take many years and, perhaps, like Japan, it could be a decade or more. During that time people will be unemployed, machines will sit idle and resources will be untouched. In the 1930s governments stood back, waiting for the miracle of the market. None came. That is not a road we want to travel down.

As the shadow banking system starts to fall apart, it is time to plan and look forward to building a stable and local supply of money to see us through the hard times. Continuing to rely on overseas capital and ever increasing borrowing is a road to ruin. Our gross debt will hit $90 billion  by 2016, according to Treasury forecasts. The government talks of returning to surplus by 2015 but that is very optimistic. Even then we will still carry this debt for many years to come.

So is printing new money and spending it directly into the economy a better idea? I talked about this in a recent interview with Kim Hill and Radio NZ National, which you can catch here.

RadioNZ National Kim Hill interview

I have had an incredible amount of positive feedback since the interview and, interestingly, from a very wide range of people. There were a few comments about “funny money”, including a little pop from Nevil Gibson at the NBR. My answer to that is if you think this is funny money, try explaining the nearly $4 trillion that’s been used to buy debt off US banks! The feedback has confirmed the following: that there needs to be a clearer explanation on how the money creation process actually works (even though the RB has published on this here), that inflation needs to be better understood and that people are extremely concerned about the way the financial system is structured. We will be working on producing a simpler explanation to those issues.

In the meantime, around the world, there is a lot of new work being undertaken around the quantitative easing process and how that is not really working. Sushil Wadhwani (Goldman Sachs and MPC member in the UK) and economist (and former colleague of mine) Michael Dicks have looked at more direct interventions into the economy, noting that QE is a very roundabout way of trying to stimulate an economy. They look at directing lending to companies from the central bank and, more interestingly, at simply giving households a voucher to spend. You can read the brief paper here. Their proposals are in the right direction but do not go far enough. Nouriel Roubini recently wrote that direct spending on new infrastructure in the US would be much more useful than simply buying toxic bonds off failing banks.

What’s clear is that more and more economists and policy analysts are realising that QE is a sop to the banks, boosting their balance sheets and stock prices, at the expense of the taxpayer. Clearly this is a misallocation (and perhaps misappropriation) of taxpayer funds. Furthermore, even with trillions of $ of QE, there has been no inflationary effects at all. This is important to note when considering the direct injection of new money, as we have proposed, for the Christchurch rebuild.

As I noted in this recent piece for ChangeNZ, as long as there is surplus labour and resources, there will be no inflationary effects from new money. This has been confirmed from business sources, who note the economy is limping along at between 33-50% of capacity. So there is little concern over the direct effects of the new money in raising prices. The indirect effects through the banking system are also likely to be minimal, given a very low demand for credit across the economy. Indeed, with debt deleveraging in full swing, we are likely to see further reductions in debt, offsetting any new potential demand for credit. Still, credit numbers will need to be watched carefully and, at the same time, it’s important to note that the amount we are suggesting is only $5 billion. Ultimately the goal is a strong and locally managed financial system with price stability. That is something we have not had, despite the continuing myth of a central bank induced low inflationary environment. The time is right to consider an alternative way forward.

Perhaps we should leave the final words to Hamlet, as we ponder the road ahead:

“The undiscovered country, from whose bourn

No traveller returns, puzzles the will,

And makes us rather bear those ills we have,

Than fly to others that we know not of?

Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,

And thus the native hue of resolution

Is sicklied o’er, with the pale cast of thought,

And enterprises of great pitch and moment

With this regard their currents turn awry,

And lose the name of action..…”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a post from about 5 weeks ago, before the Occupy Wall Street protest started. It was lost on a server transfer so I’m reloading it now. It makes interesting reading when thinking about the Occupy movement and what its core concerns are. I think the post below encapsulates those concerns, namely: measurement, institutions and values. Our current system externalises as many costs as possible, has institutions cuorrupted by money, and has lost any sense of meaningful values, other than monetary gain. Not only has our economy become monetised, so has our society. In terms of how values have been set aside and how they may be recovered, this piece by Chris Hedges is revealing. On to the original post.

Economics is quite popular these days. It’s not so much the traditional discipline, itself, that is the focus, but a constant flagellation of its representation. Simply put, it’s not delivering the goods. Many trained economists would argue that economics is not the problem but the solution. To paraphrase “it’s the politicians, stupid!”.

The word “economics” also seem to be creeping into the title of every other book, blog or column. “The Economics of…….sex, drugs, football, hairdressing (i made that one up) and so on. The message is clear. People want to know how the world works and seek to understand it through the lens of economics, which is, as I’m repeatedly informed, only about the allocation of resources. We’ve also had Freakonomics followed up by SuperFreakonomics, just in case you didn’t get it the first time.

Diane Coyle is a serial offender is this area with 2 recent books called “Sex, Drugs and Economics” and “The Economics of Enough” (I would recommend both and happy to lend them to anyone local). These books do help us to make more sense of the way our economy works and, therefore, how our society is structured. Economics describes how people transact with each other and for what reasons. Getting into the nitty gritty of personal life seems an odd place for economics to be but research continues to show that how we make decisions is very much dependent on variables which can, to some extent, be measured and quantified. Put bluntly, incentives and pay offs do matter (unless you have no impulse control at all – read male teenagers – but this can be controlled and measured as well).

“The Economics of Enough” is a well written account of  the economic challenges facing us and how we can move forward to create more even prosperity and happiness. Diane outlines what is importance to people: happiness, nature, posterity, fairness and trust. She then looks at where the problems are: our measurement system, our values and our institutions. She then finishes off with a “Manifesto of Enough”, a ten point programme for shifting to a world of “Enough”. It’s all very useful and accurate in its conception. What I like about the book is the realisation that our values have become warped (seen readily in the fiasco of the Global Financial Crisis and its response) and our institutions have become corrupted by those same values. Changing that will require some serious reform and will face major resistance by the vested interests happy with the current situation.

Slipping nicely alongside this book is a new film called “The Economics of Happiness“, which I screened last night in Christchurch to an audience of 115 people, including 2 local MPs. This film, by Helena Norberg-Hodge, Steven Gorelick and John Page, visits themes raised by Diane in her book, but it does so in a more poetic fashion. Drawing on many years research and living in Ladakh, Helena pulls together a picture of a severely fractured global population struggling to maintain its humanity in the face of the onslaught of globalisation. The film dismantles many myths around the benefits of globalisation, describing it is ultimately a process designed for major transnational corporations to increase profits at the expense of people and planet. It’s naturally tends towards the polemical but it’s hard to dispute the evidence. Median incomes do not tell us the whole story. The constant externalisation of environmental and social costs produce a massive hidden subsidy to the global business network. The global institutions (IMF, WTO and World Bank) support and embed this process and remove sovereignty wherever possible so that business faces no impediment. We don’t pay the true costs but some one else picks up the tab.

This links back to Diane’s discussion around measurement. Economics can only be of use if the variables, that are plugged into the models, have integrity. As both Diane and Helena note, the value of integrity is missing. The pressure of profit takes few prisoners and if a cost can be ignored, it will be. Whilst Diane is still in favour of economic growth, she recognises it must come within a properly constructed framework. Helena goes further in promoting a more localized world, where we are in touch with, and close to, our processes and means of production. This approach brings the connection back into our lives and this, ultimately, is the root of the happiness we are looking for.

The clear message from these works (and others like it) is clear. There is a desire for a new approach to our economy and there is evidence to support it. The various manifestos, blueprints and proposals for reform are starting to merge in content and structure. Slowly but surely a solid platform for re-envisaging our society is coming together and a renaissance in economics may not be far away.

I was asked recently to give a talk to a small but distinguished group on “how to survive the global financial and ecological crises”. Easy uh! Well you have to start somewhere and have a rough idea of where you’re headed. For me, the more difficult the situation gets, the simpler the solution becomes. Essentially, changes that once would have been rejected flat out as unworkable, implausible and idealistic, are suddenly deemed more acceptable.

We are all conditioned to think and live within a certain paradigm or system. For many of us (especially readers of this blog), it’s considered to be democratic, liberal capitalism. More realistically it’s a neo-liberal system where free markets dominate at the expense of any concept of the public good. Markets will solve any problem. Actually that’s a truism. It’s the outcome that is often of dubious merit.

When I look at the Occupy Movement, I see a protest against this system, a system where people are secondary to profit, and the public is considered to be a wasteful and unnecessary construct. As John Key noted of the Christchurch post-EQNZ insurance problem, eventually the markets will sort it out. Again they will but there may not be any insurance for anyone for a while. This mirrors the government’s approach to managing our prisons: simply contract it out to private operators, who will manage it more “efficiently”. The belief in the idea of the “public” is slowly being eaten away by this neo-liberal fantasy that for profit organisations will always achieve the best outcome.

It will be interesting to see how this protest develops but it feels like it has legs. The outrage is fair and justified: the corruption at the heart of the political-financial system; the gaping inequalities; the disenfranchisement and the feeling that the whole system is built on sand. Over time the picture will be clearer and the protests may coalesce around a series of concrete demand but the consultative and participatory process is a fascinating starting point. Participatory, as opposed to representative, democracy is messy, frustrating, turgid, slow, tedious and annoying but that’s the whole point. It is built on allowing all people a voice and on allowing a process to develop. It is a far cry from the many bills rammed through under “urgency” in the NZ Parliament, with little debate or scrutiny for even our partially elected representatives.

I wish them well in their endeavour. In the meantime, I have three simple proposals to offer, as a starting point:

1) Monetary Dialysis - No more public debt; new public money; raise limits on bank credit.

2) Trucost pricing - Start pricing ecosystem goods and services.

3) Participatory Universal Income - Basic Income for all those participating in society; rebalanced tax system; provision of key public goods.

I focused on the first 2 ideas in my presentation, the outline of which is below. By repricing our economic system, both in the cost of goods and services, as well as the creation and volume of money, we will immediately realign it towards a path of lower volume but higher quality consumption. We will reduce the burden of compound interest, this alleviating the constant pressure to produce and consume. The UPI will restore the public good in reflecting all contributions to society and laying the foundations for a more stable, harmonious and prosperous world. Far fetched? Not really, when you think about it for a bit. My turn is over for now. Who is next in the stack?

The pressure is really on now for the Euro leaders (Germany and France) to come up with a permanent solution for the fiscal disaster that is the Eurozone. They have few options open to them and none of them are palatable to many. However, with the enormous burden of sovereign debt hanging over the Euro, they must make a move sooner rather than later or risk a complete blow up in the Eurozone debt markets which will lead to severe contagion a la 2008 meltdown in credit markets.

So what are the options?

1) One solution, which further develops the Euro project, is for full fiscal integration. This would be a major step and involve the Euro authorities taking over the management of individual countries fiscal responsibilities, outstanding debts and all future decision making over taxation and borrowing. It’s an ultimately surrender of financial sovereignty for all countries in the Eurozone. As with EU membership, this would favour the economically weaker countries as their borrowing rates would fall. Sadly for some, like Germany, their borrowing rates would rise, as there would be one single Eurobond, financed at an average rate of all the countries combined. It would most certainly be lower than the average rates now but still above where the most creditworthy (if there is such a thing) pay. The chances of this happening are slim to none, even though Merkel and Sarkozy have discussed moves in this direction. Behind this idea sits the possibility of a fully fledged Eurozone Government, the fear of many Euro-sceptics over the years. The reality is that this proposal can only work if there is a USE - United States of Europe.

It’s very hard to see this getting past voters in any country unless there is a financial meltdown of apocalyptic scale at which point “emergency measures may be justified” to coin a favorite term of “shock doctrine” watchers. For an amusing fictional account of how things may turn out, read this gem of a story “Berlin gets ready to leave the Euro”. Merkel’s electoral setback is hardly likely to shift matters forward.

2) The middle ground is for some of the weaker countries to leave the Euro and re-create their old currencies. These would be set initially at a rate which would enable some form of devaluation to help their export markets recover. This would entail quite a tricky transition process, both legal and financial, and the sheer mess it would cause logistically is enough to put many off, notwithstanding the theoretical attractiveness of a clean cut. The debt picture would be less fun: it’s hard to imagine anything less than a complete default if there was no further support from the EFSF . ANy debt denominated in local currency would face exorbitant rates meaning, in reality, those countries would not be able to borrow money. In effect, any country leaving the euro would result in default and an inability to raise money. The outcome of this would be complete financial chaos……initially. However, as with Iceland, it could lead to a complete restructuring of their economy at a completely new level.

In some ways this situation parallels that of some clients I have as a budget advisor. Some come with simple problems: a need to budget better, clear debt, sort out messy financial positions. However, some come with debts that are not possible to restructure in any way. They simply have no chance of ever repaying them, barring a lottery win. In these situations, they have been allowed to take on more debt than they can possibly service and often they have depreciating assets against an outstanding debt (a car for example). They are usually finished off by the compounding interest. It’s clear in these cases that lenders have been very, very sloppy. Often, as with professional investors, the search for yield or the desire to sell a loan overrides a proper analysis of the risk profile. This is how people end up with a debt mountain.

Insolvency is, sadly, the only answer. Life after insolvency is a, in current market parlance, an austere one. But it’s not the end of the world….life goes on. However, for the lender, it is a total loss…..though in many cases the debt has been packaged up and sold off, down the debt collection food chain.

Sovereign debt is no exception. Sure some countries can sell as much as they like (the US and Japan for example) but for others, with less collateral (whether in the form of private savings, trade surpluses or simply a reserve currency), there is a limit. Those limits have been breached and there is simply no way out. As I say to some clients: spend less, earn more or default.

This leads us nicely to:

3) Muddling along and trying to keep things as they are. This has been the course charted for the last few years: bank bailouts, sovereign bailouts and major cuts in public spending. This is akin to bailing out a sinking ship with water removed from one area whilst it pours in from another. As with option 1) there has been a reluctance to take action that would create some long term obligations for the major Eurozone underwriters (mainly Germany but also France to some extent). So funds have been created for special purposes to buy the sovereign debt of stressed countries. This has worked in part but again the markets can do the sums and see that they don’t add up.

At fault here, as usual, are the lenders. They have been happy to buy up sovereign debt on the basis that it’s too big to fail (TBTF) and that rates were attractive given the implicit support from the Eurozone. Why buy German Bunds when you can buy Greek paper at a much better yield? The market is supposed to be the restraint on government borrowing, knowing when to demand higher yields and when to say no more. But the post-EMU convergence desire for yield at any cost remains core to the investment approach of many. EMU was a big fudge to start with: how on earth did Greece, Italy and the other laggards suddenly reduce their budget deficits to 3%? It was all too tidy because it was always a political rather than economic project.

So governments spent too much and were able to borrow freely to support this. Investors were unconcerned knowing ultimately, it’s all underwritten by someone. The numbers now are too big and if underwriting as in option 1) is not the chosen path then the muddling along will have to involve some serious haircuts (read: partial defaults) in order for the system to continue to function. And why not? Investors have made poor decisions and have to pay the price. So why the reluctance to proceed down this route?

Well here’s where we get to the crux of the matter. European banks, and others, have invested heavily in sovereign bonds. If we see partial defaults or major restructuring then banks will be in trouble again and we will be back to 2008 in a flash. The reality is though that banks should have been allowed to fail back then with investors taking their losses as would be expected in a market system. Bailing out the banks in Europe and the US, whilst making no real reforms, has simply multiplied the problem and led us to where we are now.

At some point, the loss has to be taken by the investors and not the public.

It’s clear that none of the 3 options are palatable. But as I say to my budget clients, that’s the whole point. They never are. Debt is a miserable beast at best and when it climbs all over you there is no easy way out.

The Euro was always a pet project of Germany and France, a chance to unite Europe and create a powerhouse to rival the US and the ASEAN block. It was a project birthed from centuries of conflict and huge loss of life. Europe’s leaders stand at a crossroads. No path is easy to take: to go forward would see the European Project move towards its eventual conclusion, a true European Union. To go sideways means and end to the dream and a system in tatters.

The former is most unpopular, the latter a financial disaster. There really is no room for soft solutions here. It could be the end of the dream or the start of  a new future. Either way there are hard times ahead.

Slowly but surely mainstream commentators, economists and policy analysts are all starting to realise that exponential debt is the core of our current economic malaise. This is great news to those of us who have been banging on about this for many years.

But still there is confusion around what to do about it. “Saving” has become the new buzzword, sitting squarely alongside “austerity”, as private individuals are urged to save more and governments are urged to spend less. That sounds like a sensible way forward. But watch the economy tank when that happens. Why?

Simply because when debt is paid down (and no corresponding new loans made) the money supply contracts as the debt is destroyed. The debt never existed as “money” in the sense of notes and coin but as an asset and liability for the bank. The interest is collected and the debt destroyed, leaving the profit for the bank. A monetary system based on debt will always lead to booms and busts as the interest charged overwhelms the ability of the productive sector to pay it. Ironically the system always needs infusions of new debt to stay afloat as the amount of money in the system declines.

Of course, when companies start to lay off workers (their first cost saving option) this creates uncertainty and an unwillingness for new borrowing to take place. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle which in some cases leads to recessions and occasionally to depressions. So what’s the best way out of this?

Austerity? No. Austerity will keep some investors happy but generally this will simply lead to slower growth and higher unemployment. But austerity is also a fact of life. When you have borrowed money and spent it, you know one day you have to pay it back. If you haven’t saved for that day then you will have to forego consumption for repayment. If you are in that position, which many governments are, you have, in fact, over consumed your income and eaten into your future. That’s not a pleasant space to be.

Is there an alternative?

Yes there is. I’d like to propose what i term “Monetary Dialysis”. This process seeks to replace debt money with real money (let’s assume for the moment that fiat money is real). The difference between debt money and real money is two fold: firstly, real money is permanent and once it enters the banking system it remains there; secondly, real money enters the banking system without interest, with no charge for its creation.

This two key differences will lead to new outcomes: a more stable money base and a less inflationary one.

How will this process take place?

The government, instead of issuing new bonds to raise money (primarily from overseas investors), will directly spend the money into the economy. In other words public spending will be funded by new money, not new debt. Immediately there will be a saving in interest costs, with current funding costing 5-6% per annum. The current annual bill (previous to the recent enlarged debt issuance) has been running at close to $4billion a year which is a hefty sum (I am only talking government borrowing here).

I use the term dialysis as a representation of a monetary system that is malfunctioning, not just here but globally. I propose a slow transfusion with the goal to end government borrowing completely by 2017.

Where’s the catch? Ok clearly there needs to be some balancing on the other side of the equation. As well as issuing new money instead of new debt, another part of the monetary dialysis approach is to create stronger limits on the abilities of banks to increase the money supply through the issuance of new debt. This can be done in many ways, using a variety of macro prudential tools, whether it’s increasing capital requirements or other similar actions.

Monetary Dialysis is the first step to cleaning up our monetary system. It will lead to a more stable money supply, lower inflation and clear savings in interest costs. The reduction in public debt will be highly beneficial for the economy and the country as a whole. The cost savings from this clean up will be in the order of $20billion over 6 years.

Now that’s something to really think about.

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.