Our So-Called Foreign Policy: Paul Volcker has Just Condemned Globalism

Tags

alliances, Barron's, Federal Reserve, finance, globalism, manufacturing, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, Paul Volcker, Trade

For decades, anyone (like yours truly) who’s even intelligently argued for fundamentally new strategies for U.S. foreign policy and trade policy has been dismissed by defenders of the longstanding globalist approaches as an isolationist or a know-nothing or a protectionist (to name a few slurs). So imagine my surprise to see the other day my own critique of globalism (which decries both its national security and economic dimensions) being closely mirrored by no less than Paul Volcker. Even better, Volcker seems to agree that the mistakes made by both the main aspects of globalism are closely related.

To remind, Volcker is a former Chairman of the Federal Reserve who, as top official at the central bank, had the rare combination of economic smarts and political courage to understand that the only plausible way to end the raging inflation that began crippling the country in the late-1970s was to clamp down hard on credit. A deep recession resulted, but largely because of Volcker’s tight-fisted approach, the economy’s subsequent growth during the 1980s and 1990s was significantly healthier (though not perfectly healthy) than before Volcker hiked interest rates and curbed the money supply’s expansion.

Previously, he served in a senior Treasury Department role at a key juncture of post-World War II U.S. and world economic history (when the post-war global monetary order was falling apart, and a new jerrybuilt order was cobbled together), and as an economist at the Fed. Since leaving the central bank (in 1987), Volcker has been a highly successful advocate of Wall Street reforms and a respected voice for responsible economic policies.  (Here’s a short, handy bio.)

Also to remind, my own basic description of what’s been wrong with America’s globalist policies is that they’ve acted as if developing various types of international arrangements (including institutions like the UN and International Monetary Fund and military alliances), which have been aimed at grandiose global goals (the world’s pacification via the spread of democracy and global economic integration), were the best guarantors of achieving acceptable levels of U.S. security and well-being. (See this article for the most recent, comprehensive statement of these views.)

Consequently, globalists softpedaled efforts to create and sustain the national military and economic strength needed for the country to survive and prosper in the world as it was likely to remain for the foreseeable future: dog-eat-dog and tumultuous. In the process, they regularly sacrificed crucial chunks of the real economy (that is, its most productive sectors) – and the huge number of good jobs they supported – in quixotic efforts to bolster those institutions and to win and keep those allies. As a result, they lost sight of what should be the overriding objective of all foreign policymakers: promoting the interests of the great majority of their own citizens in the most realistic, responsible possible ways (and my definition of responsibility includes financial responsibility).

Actually, Volcker’s indictment is even harsher than mine, at least in tone. In this interview with Barron‘s last week, he suggested that the globalists’ priorities were driven by their desire that America “dominate politically and foreign policy-wise.”

But the substance of our perspectives are remarkably similar. As Volcker argued (and it’s worth quoting the relevant passages in full):

“We were willing to run these current account deficits [in order to pay the mounting costs of globalism without requiring Americans to pay for them with politically toxic higher taxes], and it was favorable for businesses—they could invest abroad, import more freely. But eventually it breaks down. During that process, you lost a lot of small American manufacturing. Now we’re getting the blowback from that. A lot of people feel left out, and they were! We took great pride in open markets, free competition, no tariffs. That pleases the scholars, it pleases big business, but it doesn’t please the people in the part of the country that lost out.

“[Interviewer] Is that an argument for protectionist…?

“Sounds awful, doesn’t it? That’s a bad word.

“Everyone wants to help the home team. We were more interested in dominating politically and foreign-policy-wise. And then we paid, sacrificing rural industry in the process.

“When I was back in the Treasury, the old Treasury bureaucrats would be like, oh God, somebody’s going to visit the president next week, what’s he going to give away? Because other country’s leaders were intent on encouraging the U.S. to buy from them, and the president would say OK, you’re part of NATO, you’re this, you’re that, all these individually small concessions.

“[Interviewer] Am I oversimplifying what you’re saying: The Nixon shock [Nixon administration policies that brought the post-war monetary system to an end] which bought us 40 more years of political dominance?

“I don’t want to overdo it, but yeah. It oiled the wheels of our foreign policy, building a whole network of allies and international institutions and so forth. That’s part of the process, it’s not the whole process. The top dog pays the price [laughing].”

Because I’ve closely followed Volcker’s career, I’m more surprised by the bluntness of this analysis, not its content. But there was one aspect I found genuinely unexpected – his description of Treasury Department career bureaucrats. For decades, in my experience, they’ve been among the truest believers in globalism, including in the desirability of neglecting the productive economy in favor of finance. It seems that in Volcker’s day, they were far more realistic.

As with any argument worth making, critiques of globalism shouldn’t need to rely on “appeals to authority” – the specious practice of insisting on the superiority of a certain viewpoint mainly because supposed experts agree with it. But who could reasonably fault any globalism critics who take pride in being in such splendid company?

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why the Trump-ers (So Far) Aren’t Wrong About the Dollar

Tags

bubbles, consumption, currency, debt, dollar, exchange rates, finance, Financial Crisis, growth, inflation, investment, protectionism, Steve Mnuchin, Trade, Treasury Department, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The economics, finance, and business worlds are kind of up in arms over U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin’s suggestion earlier this week that a weaker U.S. dollar would be good for the American economy.

I say “kind of up in arms” because Mnuchin’s remarks were more nuanced than generally reported; because financial markets in particular seem to be on steroids and have barely reacted; and because he took pains afterwards to profess his confidence that, despite its recent falling value, nothing fundamental had changed to undermine the greenback’s historic appeal to investors. Indeed, just a little while ago, President Trump stated that he “ultimately” wants to see a strong dollar. 

I say “up in arms” to some extent because, the President’s newest words notwithstanding, no American Treasury Secretary has ever said anything remotely like this in public for decades; because Mnuchin’s original words looked suspiciously consistent with what the establishments in these interconnected economic worlds abhor as the Trump administration’s protectionist instincts on trade policy (because all else equal, a weak dollar promotes U.S. exports and curbs U.S. imports); and because dollar strength (and the big U.S. trade deficits it’s encouraged) has long been a cornerstone of the global economy, and a major growth engine for the numerous countries that rely on selling to Americans to promote their own output and employment. (Hence many of them fiddle around with their own currencies’ values to make sure they can sustain these strategies.) Many strong dollar proponents also claim that a weaker American currency could dangerously stoke inflation (especially by boosting import prices) and deter investment inflows into the United States.

But two crucial points are Missing in Action in the tumult sparked by Mnuchin’s remarks. One should be obvious but can’t be repeated often enough, especially in these current overwrought times: You can have too much and too little of a good thing. An overly weak dollar would cause major problems for the U.S. economy. So would an overly strong dollar. Therefore, the key is not to assume either extreme (especially in the absence of any evidence that they’re around the corner) but to figure out a dollar level that achieves the best combination of benefits.

The second has been much less much widely recognized even in calmer periods, but it’s closely related to my longstanding point about the importance of the quality of American growth. As I’ve written frequently, growth based largely on production and the growing incomes it generates place the economy on the soundest foundation. This approach may not always produce the fastest growth, but it fosters the growth that tends to last longest, and that’s least likely to inflate bubbles that then collapse into economic and financial crises).

Such disasters, as we should have learned, stem from growth largely based on borrowing and consuming – i.e., on shopping sprees that eventually can’t be paid for responsibly, and can only continue by racking up enormous debts. And other than legitimate (though clearly overblown nowadays) concerns about inflation, that’s a main reason why folks in finance – and everyone on their payroll in the U.S. government and the rest of Washington – like the strongest possible dollar. Until the merry-go-round stops, they make tons of money by lending to those borrowers.

Here’s where the dollar’s value comes in. A strong-ish greenback tends to result in that borrowing and consuming brand of growth. A weak-ish dollar tends to result in the healthier kind of growth. And as indicated by this chart showing the change in the dollar’s value (also called the exchange rate) against other currencies, only looked at over the shortest possible period could the dollar nowadays be called weak or even weakening. Over a much longer period, it’s obviously still well in “strong territory.” 

And it’s no coincidence, as I’ve also written, that although the U.S. economy seems to be making some slight progress toward creating healthier growth, it still has way too long a way to go – especially given that the current recovery from the crises and the painful recession that followed is now more than eight years old.

The lessons, then, look clear. If you only care about the fastest growth possible regardless of its makeup or the longer-term consequences, and/or if you think finance should be the dominant part of the American economy, you’ll join the chorus of critics scolding Mnuchin for even hinting that some further dollar decline wouldn’t be a disaster for the nation. If you’d like the economy to steer clear of near-meltdowns like the one experienced just about a decade ago, you’ll be applauding what still looks like a subtle call from him for a somewhat weaker dollar.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: America Keeps Getting More Manufacturing-Lite

Tags

Commerce Department, finance, GDP, Great Recession, gross domestic product, healthcare, manufacturing, real value-added, recovery, subsidized private sector, value added, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The Commerce Department’s “GDP [Gross Domestic Product] by Industry” reports aren’t considered market movers by those in the know in economics, business, and finance. Still, I find them well worth following because they provide the most authoritative evidence available on whether numerous claims about the economy’s strengths and weaknesses meet the reality test.

The big takeaway here? For all the post-financial crisis talk from politicians across the political spectrum about the need to reindustrialize the U.S. economy, manufacturing remains a major growth laggard. Indeed, by two key measures, it still hasn’t recovered fully from the Great Recession.

Commerce’s latest report takes the story up to the second quarter of this year, and revises the previously published results back to 2014. For some reason, the new 2014 numbers won’t come out till next month, but we do have the 2015, 2016, and first quarter 2017 revisions. Here’s what they say.

From 2015 through the first quarter of this year, manufacturing’s inflation adjusted growth rate – according to a gauge called “real value added,” which aims at eliminating unintentional double-counting – has been a few ticks lower than originally judged. The 2015 performance was revised down by 0.6 percentage points, the 2016 growth was upgraded by a full percentage point, and the first quarter 2017 result was downgraded by 0.8 percentage points. As for the latest, second quarter 2017 number, it’s a healthy four percent at an annual rate.

Manufacturing real value added’s contributions to growth have been a little more modest, too – which means that it’s been growing more slowly than the rest of the economy. That trend comes through more clearly from the Commerce data showing industry’s actual share of GDP. The main numbers are presented in current dollar terms, meaning that they don’t factor in inflation. But they make clear that manufacturing value added has declined from representing 12.1 percent of total American economic output in 2015 to accounting for just 11.5 percent in the second quarter of 2017.

To make the point even more emphatically, when the Great Recession broke out, in the fourth quarter of 2007, manufacturing value added represented 12.4 percent of gross domestic product.

Of course, there’s a case to be made (not that I accept it) that as long as manufacturing is growing, it doesn’t matter whether it’s becoming a bigger or smaller share of American economic output. But even by these standards, U.S. manufacturing is faltering. The new Commerce numbers show that, since the recession began, manufacturing real value-added is down. It’s not down by much – 0.18 percent in toto. But we’re talking about absolute shrinkage over a period of nearly ten years.

As RealityChek regulars know, the Federal Reserve’s industrial production reports (which also adjust for inflation), peg manufacturing’s shrinkage since the end of 2007 at an even greater 4.26 percent. Only if you take price increases out of the picture does manufacturing show a real recovery. In current dollar value added terms, it’s grown by 18.26 percent during this period.

But even by these terms, manufacturing’s laggard status stands out. In fact, since the fourth quarter of 2007, it’s share of the economy’s value-added has fallen by 10.16 percent. That’s the greatest such drop in the whole economy after mining (26.09 percent) and construction (10.42 percent).

The leaders, by these criteria? The subsidized private sector (industries, notably healthcare services, whose size is determined largely by government largesse) is number one, increasing its share of value added by 16.22 percent. Next is a supersector comprising arts, recreation, accommodation, and food services (up 13.89 percent). And remember all the concern that the pre-recession, bubble-ized economy of the previous decade was too Wall Street heavy? Since it brought the entire world to the brink of economic disaster, the finance super-sector has boosted its share of value added by a healthy 5.05 percent.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Latest Trade Deficit Scuffles Still Missing Lessons of 2008

Tags

bubbles, finance, Financial Crisis, free trade agreements, G20, Germany, Global Imbalances, investment, Japan, manufacturing, offshoring, tax reform, Trade, Trade Deficits, trade policy, trade surpluses, Trump, Wall Street, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Roughly ten years after it broke out, it’s still incredibly rare to see economists or pundits link U.S. and resulting global trade imbalances with the financial crisis. So I’m always thrilled – as I tweeted this past week – to see it ever happen. All the same, even this insightful column by Reuters’ Edward Hadas simply dances around the crucial link between these imbalances and American trade policies, and in particular, their offshoring-friendly nature.

In a March 15 essay, Hadas commented on the German (and other countries’) trade surpluses that have attracted such attention this past week for two main reasons: German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s first-ever meeting with President Trump, and a conclave taking place at the same time of the finance chiefs of the world’s 20 leading economies (the so-called G20). The author’s main contention is indisputable as far as it goes. According to Hadas, the real problem with these imbalances is financial:

“The euros, pounds and dollars which Germany, Korea et al accumulate inevitably land in the global financial system. There would be no problem – only gains all round – if these monies funded valuable infrastructure, productive factories and other assets which can generate a reasonable economic return.

“Too often, though, though, the extra currency winds up supporting counterproductive finance. It backs ultimately ruinous property speculation, lends support to chronically weak governments, encourages unsustainable consumer spending and destabilises developing economies, not to mention enriching banks and bankers and stimulating corruption. A typical example: the recycled dollars from the U.S. trade deficit helped fund the American housing bubble whose pop created the 2008 crisis.”

But what Hadas – and so many others – fail to do is explain adequately why deficit countries (like the United States) make such dangerously shortsighted choices with their windfalls. Three main (and not mutually exclusive) reasons have been served up. First, financial systems in the deficit countries (especially the United States, which runs the biggest deficits) have over-rewarded uses of capital that produce the fastest possible payoffs, and under-reward longer-term projects. The result is too much investment that encourages speculation, financial monkey business, and simple consumption, and too little investment that builds factories and laboratories and funds other activities that create wealth more slowly, but on a more sustainable basis.

Second, such irresponsible uses of capital have become practically inevitable if only because the deficits have been so enormous, and so much money has become available. When anything is in such abundance, and therefore costs so little, most economists would agree that there’s little reason to use it carefully. After all, it looks like a sure bet that more of that thing at very attractive prices will be readily available.

A somewhat different version of this argument has to do with what economists call “moral hazard.” It argues that the American financial system used over-abundant money so recklessly at least partly because investors felt certain that they’d get bailed out of most or all of their mistakes by government. So why not take maximum advantage of what seems to be a “heads, we win; tails, we lose” proposition?

The third explanation for the irresponsible use of resources focuses on the consumption-heavy nature of the economies of the deficit countries. (This argument also tends to note that the surplus countries frequently try to limit and even depress consumption.) The more capital they take in, in other words, the more such spending (as opposed to productive investment) is likeliest to result either because such behavior is encouraged by government, because a “live for today” has been produced by that country’s culture, or because of some combination of the two.

Whenever something as a big as a global financial crisis strikes, many culprits are responsible. And all of the above explanations should be taken very seriously (along with others, like lax financial regulation). But what Hadas and all the rest continue to miss is how the world trade system, national trade policies, and the trade flows they have fostered have actively fostered in deficit countries like the United States a neglect of productive activities like manufacturing (which is so heavily traded).

Specifically, as Washington in the 1990s and 2000s signed more and more trade agreements structured to encourage multinational companies from all over the world to supply U.S. consumers from locations in super low-cost and virtually unregulated developing countries like China and Mexico, American leaders and other elites (e.g., in the media) naturally sought to rationalize their decisions by spreading the message that sectors of the economy like manufacturing (and the income loss produced by the accelerated offshoring that rippled throughout so much of the Main Street economy) could be neglected with impunity. And the administration of George W. Bush (along with Congress of course) and the Federal Reserve chaired by Alan Greenspan underwrote America’s spendthrift ways with big budget deficits and ultra-low interest rates, respectively.

Even worse, these destructive trends fed on themselves. The more offshoring seemed to pay off, and the more domestic manufacturing operations looked like losing — or at least anachronistic — propositions, the less interested financiers became in investing in them. So the amount of productive activity on which to use incoming capital to start with began shriveling. And the less productive activity available to sustain Main Street living standards responsibly (i.e., mainly through earnings), the greater the political establishment needed to prop up those living standards by providing more easy money — at least if it wanted to stay in power while maintaining the offshoring status quo.

Ironically, even though Hadas emphasizes regulation as the answer to global imbalances, his particular focus has big trade implications:

“Regulation can do more than strengthen bank capital ratios. It can reform the system, so trade surplus funds are not directed to economically counterproductive uses. That will be tough, both politically and practically. But it should be easier – and will be far more helpful – to solidify finance than to try to change the national characters of Germany or Korea.”

I’m all in favor of channeling the use of trade surplus funds by deficit countries into productive activity. In fact, I strongly support requiring such uses by U.S. multinational companies if much-discussed tax reform finally succeeds in persuading them to bring home the vast amounts of earnings they’re currently stashing abroad to avoid paying higher U.S. corporate rates. 

But this requirement needs to be accompanied by (at the very least) strong measures to keep out foreign-made goods that benefit from predatory trade practices like dumping, subsidization, and intellectual property theft. Otherwise, foreign competitors will be able to keep undercutting their domestic American competition in the U.S. market, and these new productive investments will fail. It’s also entirely likely, however, that more sweeping trade curbs will be needed – to offset the scale economy disadvantages created by U.S.-based firms’ inability to sell into so many important markets and their rivals’ ability to sell freely in their home countries and the United States.

And this is in fact where recognition is needed that the trade problem created by American policy concerns not simply inducements to offshore, but the coddling of protectionism in high income countries like Japan and Germany.

The bottom line: As indicated in a post last week, the United States may have to accept that even reasonably balanced foreign trade is not achievable with competitors holding radically different economic priorities (as I argued last week was precisely the case with Germany), and that reducing trade flows is a more than acceptable price to pay for preventing financial crises caused by imbalanced trade. When you add in America’s great capacity for much more self-sufficiency in a wide range of manufactured good, that seems like a more than acceptable trade-off to me. More important, it’s where the Trump administration, admittedly in fits and starts, could be leading us.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Links Between Low U.S. Pay and Low U.S. Productivity Growth

Tags

compensation, construction, finance, government, healthcare, manufacturing, productivity growth, restaurants, retail, services, {What's Left of) Our Economy

It’s long been clear to me that one big reason that Americans give lousy grades to the current economic recovery is that it’s been dominated by employment gains in lousy jobs. So it was great late last week to see strong confirmation provided by the Financial Times‘ Matthew Klein – who in the process showed that the problem has much deeper roots than my work has suggested. Klein also makes clear that this discouraging job creation pattern deserves much blame for lagging American productivity growth – which is crucial for the sustainable improvement in the nation’s living standards.

In a September 8 post, Klein demonstrated that since 2000, 94 percent of the net new jobs created by the U.S. economy came in education, healthcare, social assistance, bars, restaurants, and retail stores. When you weight these industries by their sizes, you find that their hourly pay has averaged 30 percent lower than in the rest of the economy – as per this chart he provides:

But the low-pay story hardly stops there. To add insult to injury, since jobs in retail, restaurants and bars typically involve shorter hours than in other sectors, weekly pay in these parts of the economy is fully 40 percent lower than in other industries. And these low-pay industries have been become such important American job creators that their relative growth has depressed the entire workforce’s weekly pay by three percent since 2000.

Further, in case you’re wondering, the employment trends have accelerated during the current recovery.

Even worse for the U.S. economy, especially over the longer term, the sectors producing all these lousy jobs have been sectors with big productivity problems. According to Klein, 96 percent of the net new jobs created in America since 1990 have come in industries known for low productivity (like construction, retail, and bars) or where low productivity is simply suspected, but understandably so, since they don’t feature much competition. (Healthcare, education, government, and finance fall into this category).

And of course, this evidence demonstrates the converse proposition, too – job creation has lagged during both these periods (and nosedived since 1990) in manufacturing, historically the economy’s productivity growth leader. And since it rebounded strongly after a recessionary crash dive, manufacturing output has stagnated at best.

As I’ve written, productivity is the subject economists generally regard as the most difficult to study, especially because it’s so hard to measure in services (which comprise most of the economy on a standstill basis), and especially when those services and their development are based on emerging technologies.

But one aspect of the productivity growth slump does seem to be rendered much less mysterious by Klein’s analysis: When an economy lets so much of its most productive sector stagnate at best, that’s sure not going to help its productivity.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Has the Fed Gotten Savings Incentives Completely Wrong?

Tags

Baby Boomers, banks, consumers, debt, deposit rates, federal funds rate, Federal Reserve, finance, Financial Crisis, housing, incomes, interest rates, recession, retirees, savings, savings rate, seniors, spending, The Economist, zero interest rate policy, {What's Left of) Our Economy

As many of you may know, the Federal Reserve yesterday raised the interest rate it directly controls above an effective zero level for the first time in seven years. So it’s especially interesting and important that a post from The Economist just before the rate hike made a strong case that one of the main rationales for keeping interest rates so low has backfired big-time on ordinary Americans and on the consumer spending still driving most U.S. economic activity.

Just after the height of the financial crisis, the Fed lowered its so-called funds rate to zero (actually, it was a range of zero to 0.25 percent) in part to make sure that the carnage that was spreading from housing to Wall Street and increasingly to the rest of the economy wouldn’t scare households into closing their wallets,and therefore choke off even more growth. The federal funds rate doesn’t directly set consumer borrowing rates – it’s the rate offered by the central bank to the country’s biggest banks. But the Fed was hoping that super-easy money would have twin stimulative effects.

First, when these banks’ borrowing costs fall, they can offer cheaper loans to both consumer and business borrowers and stay just as profitable. And the more affordable credit becomes, the more borrowers were expected to use. Second, the Fed was hoping that super-low rates would penalize saving. A rock-bottom federal funds rate would drive way down the returns on such popular consumer savings vehicles as money market funds and certificates of deposit and savings bonds, and convince Americans that they were better off spending existing savings and incoming income rather than receive literally no reward for thriftiness.

The Economist, though, has argued that the Fed’s penalize-savings strategy was misbegotten. And it looks like it should have been obvious even then. As the magazine points out, the biggest reason Americans save is to ensure a comfortable retirement. For any retirees or those nearing that age who already have substantial savings, even very low-yielding assets can together spin off enough income to ensure the golden years living standards they want.

But then ask yourselves how many Americans were in this situation when the financial crisis and recession struck. Inflation-adjusted incomes for the typical household had been stagnating. Thrift became a forgotten virtue; in part because of those stagnant incomes and in part because perpetually rising home values were hyped as an acceptable substitute, the nation’s personal savings rate hit historic lows and in fact briefly fell below zero. Then, of course, home values began cratering and the stock market went into free fall. So safe but low-yielding assets looked like the only viable savings game in town.

Unfortunately, the lower the return, the bigger the pot needed to guarantee that comfortable retirement. As a result, more and more of the aging American population has felt greater and greater pressure to salt away any new income not needed to cover ongoing living expenses.

Nor do you need to take The Economist‘s analysis on faith. For nothing has been clearer during this weak economic recovery than the continued consumer caution so responsible for holding it back. Many analysts attribute this behavior to a simple – possibly excessive – “once burned-twice shy” fear. But The Economist‘s treatment at least points to another important factor: For Americans with stagnant incomes and meager liquid savings – along with continuing debt – returning to pre-crisis and recession-level spending simply hasn’t been an option. In fact, evidence is accumulating that growing numbers of seniors, including recently retired baby boomers, are feeling these pressures, too – especially on the debt front.

Not that the Fed’s quarter-point rate hike will change matters much. In fact, signs haven’t even appeared yet that it’s a step in the right direction, as those banks that have raised the rates they’re charging for borrowers haven’t raised those that they’re paying to depositors. Until rates rise high enough to reward savings significantly again, most Americans will have ample reason to view recent Fed policies as lose-lose propositions.

Following Up: Behind the Business Investment Slowdown

Tags

business investment, capex, capital spending, casino capitalism, finance, financial deregulation, recovery, The Wall Street Journal, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Today’s Wall Street Journal piece about subpar levels of investment by U.S. corporations wasn’t mainly important for its update on this critical economic trend – which is surely connected with the subpar economic recovery the nation is experiencing. Instead, it was mainly important because it sheds new light on a major debate that’s been taking place about why such investment is lagging.

In particular, the article adds to the evidence that this humdrum investment performance is more a result than a cause of the lousy recovery. In other words, the sluggish economy goes farther toward explaining today’s investment levels than do factors such as financial regulatory policy changes that discourage productive uses of capital and encourage profit-and compensation-padding uses like stock buybacks and acquisitions. And that’s a case that I made most recently this past August.

The key is this chart, which tracks the growth of all forms of investment spending except for residential housing on the one hand, and the growth of consumer spending on the other. Moreover, it compares growth in these two areas as it unfolded during the last few economic recoveries, as well as the current version.

Just eyeballing the chart makes several trends clear. First, even though the growth of such business spending during this recovery has been nothing special by historical standards, its pace isn’t terribly different. Second, although the growth of such investment has been ordinary, it’s been faster than the growth of consumer spending during this recovery. Third, that’s typically been the case for recent recoveries – whether before or after 1980, when the new wave of productive-spending-crimping regulations is thought to have begun. And fourth, the most conspicuous outlier data line in this graphic is the growth of consumption during this recovery. It’s been substantially slower than during all of its recent predecessors.

I’m not saying that this chart clinches the argument for me. Some critics have argued that my decision to use inflation-adjusted data for measuring business spending is flawed.  As mentioned in the post cited above, when I checked, I didn’t find a major difference. It is true, however, that the growth of business spending’s share of the economy in current dollars was faster before the 1980s than after.

Others say that the best evidence of the U.S. economy’s degeneration into a short-term- and finance-obsessed capitalist“casino” isn’t best illustrated by corporate spending on physical assets like new factories and machinery, or even on research and development. Instead, to quote one, “the problem is in training, retaining, and rewarding employees.  That is what turns capex [capital expenditures] and R&D into productivity gains that get shared with workers.”

At the same time, this analyst (who wrote to me in a private capacity) allowed that this “is not to say that there one cannot learn a lot by diving into the data on capex and R&D. But there have been so many changes in the composition of industry (e.g., the rise of biotech), globalization of production, and accounting practices (often for tax purposes) since the 1970s that affect these macro indicators that the long-run trends should be just a starting point for serious discussions about what has gone on in the U.S. economy rather than a way to come to conclusions and end the discussion.”

I’m certainly in favor of being cautious about conclusions, and look forward to continue investigating this subject. At the same time, I think it’s fair to interpret the above position as an acknowledgment that the great financial deregulation wave that began around 35 years ago hasn’t notably soured Corporate America on spending more on physical assets and even intangibles like R&D. And that strikes me as pretty darned important when you consider the role that these assets have played in creating American prosperity – and the role they will need to play in restoring genuine economic health.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: New Data Showing the Fed Really has Worsened Inequality

Tags

asset prices, Bank of America, Ben Bernanke, bubbles, Federal Reserve, finance, housing, inequality, interest rates, Janet Yellen, QE, quantitative easing, recovery, stocks, Wall Street, zero interest rate policy, ZIRP, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Here’s a shock! A study claiming that the Federal Reserve’s historically unprecedented easy money policies have supercharged Wall Street (and the rich) and left Main Street (and the rest) in the dust! And it comes from Wall Street!

The debate over how the central bank’s zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) and quantitative easing bond-buying program (QE) has impacted inequality in America has been just as heated as the debate over how these decisions have impacted economic growth and the prospects for recreating real national prosperity.

The critics charge that easy money has greatly widened the rich-poor gap, largely by boosting incentives to buy and own stocks, and thereby fueling a long, powerful bull market that has overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy because they dominate stock ownership.

The mainstream Fed position was stated by Chair Janet Yellen at the September press conference following the decision to keep interest rates on hold:

“It is true that interest rates affect asset prices, but they have a complex effect through balance sheets, through liabilities and assets. To me, the main thing that an accommodative monetary policy does is put people back to work. And since income inequality is surely exacerbated by a high—having high unemployment and a weak job market that has the most profound negative effects on the most vulnerable individuals, to me, putting people back to work and seeing a strengthening of the labor market that has a disproportionately favorable effect on vulnerable portions of our population, that’s not something that increases income inequality.”

Her predecessor, Ben Bernanke, has made similar points, albeit with more reservations.

A new study from Bank of America, however, contains some data strongly indicating that the Fed’s critics deserve to win this clash hands down. For example, the B of A researchers examined the fate of various possible uses of $100 since the Fed began massively supporting the U.S. economy after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in the fall of 2008. The main findings? A $100 dollar investment in a standard stock and bond portfolio during this time would have more than doubled in value. But a $100 dollar wage would be worth only 14 percent more.

The same methodology also reveals that the financial system is channeling much more credit to the wealthy than to the rest. Thus for every $100 they raised at the start of 2010, venture capital and private equity funds are now raising $275. But for every $100 of mortgage credit extended in America since then, just $61 is being loaned and accepted today. And prime real estate in the nation has appreciated in value more than ten times as much as all U.S. residential real estate.

These results (and others in the study) hardly end the debate over the Fed and inequality. Bernanke and Yellen still make powerful “counterfactual”-based arguments – i.e., claiming that as bad as the situation is now, it would be even worse had the central bank not acted so decisively. And B of A’s possible motives need to be noted. Generally speaking, the financial sector has been campaigning strongly for a Fed rate hike because rock bottom interest rates have greatly reduced the profitability of lending.  (In that respect, this report may not be such a shock.)

But the B of A study should greatly increase the burden on the Fed to demonstrate that its monetary policies haven’t been little more than a boondoggle for the nation’s upper classes – not to mention a flop in and possibly an obstacle to restoring genuine economic health.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Bernanke Flunks Crisis History 101

Tags

Ben Bernanke, bubble decade, bubbles, Federal Reserve, finance, Financial Crisis, Great Recession, Lehman Brothers, monetary policy, recovery, regulation, Wall Street, zero interest rate policy, ZIRP, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Because America is unlikely to avoid a rerun of the last financial crisis and recession without recognizing why they broke out in the first place, it can’t be good news that former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke still apparently hasn’t learned the main lesson of this near-catastrophe (and its still punishing aftermath): The crisis was rooted ultimately not in failures of the American financial system, but in weaknesses in the real economy that remain largely neglected.

I say “apparently” because this judgment is based on interviews Bernanke has granted to tout his new memoir on the crisis, and I haven’t read the volume. But it must be significant that both Bernanke and the leading financial journalists who questioned him have concentrated exclusively on the role played by Wall Street’s behavior and structures on the one hand, and lax regulation on the other, in nearly destroying the global economy. No attention whatever has been paid to the deteriorating ability of the Main Street economy to generate adequate levels of real wealth and income; to decisions made going back to the early 2000s to mask these deficiencies with crackpot credit-creation practices; or to the reckless lending and investment patterns to which this artificial credit glut led.

Not that Bernanke is the last word in crisis-ology. Yes, he spearheaded Washington’s efforts to contain the meltdown and spark recovery. But since his tenure at the central bank began in 2002, just about when the bubbles began inflating, and his Chairmanship began in 2006, just before they started bursting, he clearly was as much part of the problem as he’s been part of what’s so far passed for a solution. So his memoir is obviously an opportunity for reputation-burnishing. But finance has so completely dominated America’s views of the crisis and its origins that Bernanke’s perspective can’t simply be dismissed as self-serving.

Here’s a typical Bernanke comment presenting his view that the crisis was rooted in a panic in the unregulated, uninsured non-bank portion of the financial system that had grown so large that it became capable of endangering an otherwise healthy non-financial economy:

“The previous six months [before Lehman Brothers failed], the economy had been growing, house prices had fallen moderately. After Lehman, the economy just went into a death spiral. The fourth quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009 was among the sharpest declines in the economy in U.S. history. Once the crisis went into a new gear, house prices started falling more quickly, and that had a feedback mechanism. Absent the broad-based panic that froze credit markets, caused asset prices to drop sharply and punctured confidence, we wouldn’t have had nearly so bad a recession.”

Bernanke has even appeared to deny that the economy during the previous decade was bubble-ized by overly easy Fed monetary policy. Asked whether the central bank had kept interest rates too low for too long – in fact long after the shallow recession of 2001 had ended – Bernanke responded:

“The first part of a response is to ask whether monetary policy was, in fact, a major contributor to the housing bubble and all that happened. Serious studies that look at it don’t find that to be the case. People such as Bob Shiller [a Nobel laureate currently serving as a Sterling professor of economics at Yale University], who has a lot of credibility on this topic, says that: it wasn’t monetary policy at all; it came from a mania, a psychological phenomenon, that took off from the tech boom and moved into housing.”

Here’s the immensely big picture that Bernanke is missing. The 2001 to 2007 economy was indeed growing, but the growth was energetically propped up by artificial – and, as it turned out, completely unsustainable – government stimulus. In fact, as shown in this (admittedly complicated) chart I made up while that previous recovery was proceeding, the federal funds rate – the short-term rate directly controlled by the Fed – had been plunged to multi-decade lows during that period, whether in inflation-adjusted or current dollar terms. At the same time, within a few short years, George W. Bush’s administration and the Congresses it worked with drove the federal budget from its biggest surplus in decades as a share of the total economy into deep deficit.

But did this unprecedented peacetime stimulus result in unprecedented peacetime growth? As the chart shows, anything but. And the discrepancy between Washington’s herculean efforts and the the economy’s mediocre results could not have made clearer that the nation’s engines of real (not financial) wealth creation, and thus real prosperity, had broken down.

As I’ve written repeatedly, American leaders could have responded with programs to strengthen that real economy, and therefore the real spending power of American workers. Instead, they tried to create the illusion of prosperity by enabling consumer spending that was not remotely justified by consumer incomes.

Fast forward to 2015, and despite the literally trillions of dollars of stimulus poured into the economy by the Fed under Bernanke and his successor, Janet Yellen, U.S. incomes continue to lag and the current recovery has seen even weaker growth than that of the bubble decade. It’s true, as Bernanke and others have argued, that expansion today is being slowed by a significant reduction in federal deficits. But it’s even more important to recognize that the economy will never truly heal unless the private sector leads. And let’s not forget that, thanks to the zero interest rate policy put in effect by Bernanke’s Fed in December, 2008, credit in America has never been cheaper.

Bernanke by no means deserves all or even most of the blame for the nation’s recent economic malaise. The last time I checked, the president and Members of Congress have been cashing paychecks all this time as well. But since leaving the Fed last year, Bernanke has been outspoken enough to make clear his ambition to remain a major economic voice. Judging from his take on why the financial crisis broke out, however, he doesn’t have much of value to teach.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Where America Is and Isn’t an Economic Superpower

Tags

China, consumption, exports, finance, GDP, gross domestic product, manufacturing, patents, research and development, services, technology, Trade Deficits, {What's Left of) Our Economy

I’m usually not big on fancy interactive graphics in the media, but The Economist magazine and the Washington Post have just issued two that are both worth your while. Each vividly illustrates some of the most important national and international economic trends of the last few decades.

The “American Abacus” in The Economist‘s October 3 feature on the surprising (to many) resilience of America’s superpower status makes possible examining the U.S. share of 26 categories of global economic activity and how it’s changed since 1980. The categories are even color-coded into several super-categories, which enables you to see some mega-trends at a glance. Because data going back 35 years can’t be found for all the subjects the Abacus seeks to measure, it’s far from a perfect gauge. (We’ll get to some other flaws shortly). But I found it thought-provoking at the very least, and although I hope you’ll want to play around with it yourself, here are some of the main conclusions that stand out to me.

First, the situation this year – the picture presented when you first see the Abacus – makes clear that the greatest relative U.S. global strengths are in finance (look at all those medium blue bars near the top) and to a much lesser extent, technology. The technology measures, however, seem controversial, to say the least. I’m OK with including “cloud hosting.” But “social-media users”? At the risk of seeming flip, how are they going to help the nation keep Vladimir Putin at bay in the Middle East, or boost living standards across the board?

Much less impressive is the U.S. standing in the “economy” category, and not just because these measures of economic power are more concrete. After all, they also include America’s share of global research and development activity and patent issuings. At the same time, why are “public and private debt” and “cross border lending” in this grouping, rather than finance. And I know that “consumption” is part of the real economy. But does it generate, or even have much to do with, economic strength and influence?

Also more than little troubling is how indicators such as “manufacturing output” and “merchandise exports” are found near the bottom. And somewhat surprisingly, the United States doesn’t exactly dominate the world in “services exports,” either, even though economists tend to view services as sectors of the future, and goods as kind of old hat.

The results get even more interesting as you move the toggle at the bottom back and historical comparisons become clear. Take “GDP at market prices.” That’s the best measure of how big the U.S. economy is, and last year (the latest data available) it represented slightly over 20 percent of the global total. Toggle back to 2010 and it looks somewhat higher, and it stays higher going all the way back to 1980s, seeming to peak as a percentage of the world economy in the mid-1980s. The main message here: However quickly the United States has grown during this 35-year period, the rest of the world as a whole has been growing faster.

Manufacturing output shows a similar same pattern (though for some reason, the figures only go back to 1997), as do merchandise exports. Household consumption, interestingly, is somewhat different. The U.S. share of the global total has fluctuated some, but has stayed roughly the same since 1980. That, coupled with the nation’s shrinking share of global production, readily explains why the United States runs such big trade deficits. More encouragingly, the percentage of total worldwide public and private debt accounted for by Americans is down since 2000 – apparently when the first figures became available.

Also good to see – since 1985, the U.S. share of global patents has more than doubled . Yet since 1997, America’s research and development spending sank from about 40 percent of the international total to about 30 percent. That doesn’t sound like a formula for continued world science and technology predominance – and all their prosperity- and national security-related benefits.

Unfortunately, The Economist‘s Abacus doesn’t show you which other countries have been on the rise according to these various measures, and which have fallen behind. For a sense of those changes, click on this link at the Washington Post‘s cite for a short video showing that “Asia is the New Europe.” It shows how the world’s economies have seen their percentages of the total global economic pie wax and wane (according to that GDP at market prices measure).

The main conclusion drawn by the Post is that “national economies and the global economy tend to move in waves.” But that claim seems belied by the “trading places” act staged by Asia and Europe, not to mention by the ballooning of Chinese economic power. Concentrate on what happens to the China space starting about three-quarters of the way through the production. Then tell me you’re absolutely sure that it’s in America’s interests that China continue to grow strong and prosperous – and that you’re equally certain that the U.S. government has fully thought through the full implications of the PRC’s spectacular rise.