(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.

Making News: Podcast of New BBC Interview on China and Global Markets

Tags

BBC, China, China stock markets, currency, currency wars, devaluation, emerging markets, export-led growth, Federal Reserve, finance, interest rates, investing, Making News, monetary policy, recovery, Trade, Wall Street, yuan, ZIRP

I’m pleased to announce that I was interviewed on the BBC this morning on China’s economic and financial turmoil, and how it’s been shaking the world’s economy and financial markets.  Click on this link for the podcast.  My segment is titled “Global Markets React to China’s ‘Black Friday'” and yours truly comes in at about the 7 minute-50-seconds mark.

Moreover, even as we speak, I’m working on a more detailed analysis that I hope to post shortly.  Stay tuned!

Making News: Review of Major New Book on the Dangers of Casino Capitalism

Tags

finance, Making News, private equity, Private Equity at Work, shareholder value, Wall Street

I’m pleased to announce the publication of a review of mine of an important new book on the U.S. economy’s increasing domination by finance and short-term financial gain.  Generally, these are trends I worry about, but I think you’ll find my conclusions about Private Equity at Work kind of surprising!  Click here to read it on Max Holland’s excellent Washington Decoded website.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Competitiveness Hasn’t Always Required Trade

Tags

Airbus, aircraft, anti-trust, Boeing, Bollywood, competitiveness, entertainment, finance, Hollywood, software, Trade, trade Deals, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Because the Mainstream Media consistently fronts for the economics establishment on the big issues, the appearance of this (evidence-free) post on The New York Times website Thursday indicates that a big official theme of upcoming months will be the inability of the United States to withstand a global slowdown.

This narrative is likely to be put in service of two related sets of policies that would unnecessarily slow an already woefully subpar U.S. recovery, and worsen the global trade and investment imbalances that helped trigger the financial crisis and all the misery that’s followed it.

The first, which I wrote about recently, is the reported decision to open American markets unilaterally in order to boost growth rates overseas in the mistaken belief that the U.S. economy is strong enough to afford this handout. The second is the continuing push to conclude huge trade deals with Europe and Pacific Rim countries that would produce the same harmful results because they’re modeled after a long string of agreements that have supercharged U.S. deficits.

So it seems timely to present some new reasons for concluding that America is amply capable of prospering amid global stagnation – and even worse – and that Washington should be seeking to enhance this capacity for self-reliance, not further degrade it.

A while back, I asked why the economics conventional wisdom – and the chattering class that parrots its every claim – assumes that the enormous U.S. economy couldn’t generate an adequate level of efficiency-enhancing competition all by itself, and that its integration with the larger (but not stupendously larger) world economy is needed to achieve this important goal. I’m still waiting for an answer.

Here’s some new evidence for doubting that international competition is crucial for ensuring satisfactory product quality, consumer choice, innovation, and the like – at least where American industries are concerned: Several major sectors of the U.S. economy that easily come to mind have risen to (deserved) world-leading status while facing virtually no foreign competition at all.

The first example: long-haul commercial aircraft. Boeing today is one of only two serious global players (the other being Airbus), but before the European Union’s heavily subsidized products appeared on the market, American-made long-distance craft were the only game in town. Yes, Britain produced the first commercial jet, which came into service in 1952. But a series of accidents effectively killed the Comet, and Britain’s civilian aircraft industry, and by 1958 Boeing entered the business never to look back. It would be joined by Lockheed and Douglas, but the Americans had the field completely to themselves until Airbus’ entry in 1972,  Among them, the U.S. firms manufactured generations of excellent products, along with some troubled jets like the DC-10.

I’ll be briefer on the other examples, just to get this post up sooner rather than later. But they are:

> computer software. As with commercial jets, American companies totally dominated the field for decades. Although significant foreign competition was absent, domestic competition was fierce;

> finance: Although individual European and Japanese banks and other financial institutions often dwarf their individual U.S. counterparts by various measures, collectively the American finance industry has long towered over all national rivals, and it’s the same situation for financial markets. When it comes to innovation (a mixed blessing, as the financial crisis should teach), the gap has been even wider. And again, fierce domestic competition has been the key – especially after post-1970s waves of deregulation; and

> motion pictures: Whether or not you prefer American to foreign films as a rule, there’s no doubt that the former have long ruled commercially all around the world. In fact, common features of recent and proposed trade agreements have been provisions permitting foreign governments to maintain various types of limitations on U.S. Films’ access to their domestic markets, for fear that the homegrown industry will be overwhelmed. Yes, I know there’s been a huge Bollywood industry in India for roughly 100 years. But with exceptions like Slumdog Millionaire, its offerings have limited appeal globally and simply have never come close to the box office racked up by American blockbusters.

It’s easy to explain all the above narratives with “special circumstances.” For example, American finance has reigned supreme for so long largely because the United States began the post-World War II era with nearly all of the world’s available liquidity. It also began that period with one of only three major aircraft industries not bombed out of existence (along with Britain’s and the Soviet Union’s). But these sectors maintained predominance long after postwar recovery began around the world. And the U.S. software edge, which initially benefited from military investment, grew much bigger once the largely civilian personal computing and internet revolutions took off.

Moreover, the role of special circumstances strengthens rather than undermines this post’s main argument: Foreign competition’s role has been anything but all-important. And as I’d written bein that previous post, America’s immense economy could easily generate more domestic competition – and all its benefits – with serious enforcement of anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws. Could more trade strengthen the U.S. economy still further? Absolutely. But the acid test of new agreements now needs to be not simply how their net gains compare with the situation in the absence of such deals, but how they compare with alternatives within Washington’s grasp that are entirely domestic.