Why we don't need Manufacturing

A common assumption among many commentators is that Western countries need a manufacturing base. We have these trade and budget deficits because we don't 'produce' anything tangible. I suppose 200 years ago the same people would have said we need an agricultural base and not this 'phoney' manufacturing industrialisation many nations embarked towards. I disagree with Peter Schiff, Americans don't need manufacturing any more than a country used to employ huge numbers of the population in the agricultural sector. They just need to do things that other nations can't. The service sector is not a drag on the economy, its a path to further prosperity and represents an increase to a nations living standards. 

The purpose of conducting trade on a global scale is take advantage of one another's skills. Argentina and New Zealand are rich in agricultural, so we import their produce as it is more efficient than producing our own. Japan has virtually no natural resources so they turned to electronics and car production and export such goods for the exchange of oil or steel for example. China has an army of low cost workers, impoverished by Mao's Communism, they now look to improve their living standards by using Western expertise in tooling, to produce goods we buy here in the West. America has been a nation of great entrepreneurship, producing some of the leading technologies we use throughout the world. Apple, Microsoft, Google - even Facebook - they all came from an American and throughout the world we all enjoy using their services in some instances for free.

The point is a country does not require manufacturing in order to prosper. American Manufacturing lost out to the first wave of Asian tigers such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan - not because of 'Government Regulation' as Peter Schiff wrongly associates in the video, but because they could do the work better and cheaper than the Americans. They do it so well, that the US exports their Iron Ore for the South Koreas to use, then South Korea sells it back to America in its end form, and it is still cheaper than doing the work domestically. 

The decline of manufacturing in America is not an isolated case. Throughout the West - Germany, France and Britain, the sector has continually shrunk. That's nothing compared with Hong Kong. It's manufacturing base is 10% of the total economy. Yet Hong Kong is an impressive place. I was impressed by how efficient things worked when I visited. The service was excellent where ever I went and cheap. Hong Kong used to be predominately a manufacturing economy along with the other first wave of Asian Tiger economies - Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea. Now they have all to some degree expanded into a post industrial economy, into services, yet all these countries generally run trade and budget surpluses. 

The fact that the second wave of Asian tigers have picked up the manufacturing tasks - India, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and so forth shouldn't be something to fear, we should embrace it. We all benefit.

Its easy to use emotive arguments to state that paying Asian workers a dollar a day is immoral, but every society needs to begin somewhere, and history illustrates this. 200-150 years ago our Western ancestors lived in conditions we can't begin to imagine. They lived in fear of constant starvation, literally if the weather was bad that year people would starve, it was that bleak. We moved out of these conditions into the relative utopia today by our ancestors working, innovating and building the capital structure we inherit today. They built the infrastructure, knowledge and tools we use today. And as generations move on, a free market improves this process and each generation should be better off than the previous one (excluding Government stupidity).

Take for example a Chinese person. They are beginning this process our ancestors went through, however they can access a wealth of Western knowledge that will greatly speed up this process. For example the Chinese worker on a Dollar a day now, can feed himself and his family while in comparison under Mao millions starved. As China exports more to pay for technical imports they can build roads, lightening fast railways and improve their capital structure like we did. His Children then have access to more education, tools, computers - objects their father never had. Instead of working at the factory for a Dollar a day, they set up a company that competes with the Western firm. This is what happened in many places like South Korea and Taiwan. Now they have their own companies, HTC (I highly recommend their phones), LG, Samsung, which the Children of the similar hard working parents indirectly helped to create. 

The so called humanitarians are currently protesting against such wage rates, but wait another generation to see how it transforms the ancestors of the people who walked before them. It will be a different picture.

The common mistake is that when a manufacturing job is lost, this will deteriorate our living standards. When we joke that everything is made in China, we also talk about the decline of our living standards to come. The opposite is in fact true. Both sets of nations benefit. 

Think about it. Since China has become the manufacturing hub of the world every good conceivable has come down in price. This increases our purchasing power and living standards. It helps China move out of poverty. We move into work that pays better and exchange this other service based products for such goods.

That's not to say its all a bed of roses. People who previously had these types of jobs in the West are displaced. They need to find alternative work. With the advent of minimum wage rates and generous benefit options it has become increasing hard for such people to find alternative work. They are the forgotten minority, the underclass who become stuck in a vicious cycle, created by the plethora of Government experiments. A free market society would find jobs for such people. The Government hampers this process. 

Peter Schiff has also made comments in the past stating that China should send their push bikes to America (indicating a reverse in living standards for Americans as opposed to China). Peter is also wrong on this front and history again has the answer. The UK used to be like America, the most prosperous country in the world, ahead of the game. As we went into decline others became more prosperous. Now if we take like for like, Britain was once America and America was once the China of the world, do I now have lower living conditions than my great grandfather? Relative to Americans conditions may have declined, but over time both sets of peoples living conditions have risen. Its the same with the rise of Developing countries today. Just as America made huge innovations in technology and exported it to the world to use, Chinas rise will also benefit us all.

With 3 Billion people awakening from the shackles of Socialist or right wing Statist Military dictatorships, all that extra human labour will be a great boon for the global economy, just as it has been already. Historically the native Han Chinese are a very entrepreneurial people. When Mao took control, many such individuals fled - Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, the West - and they all prospered. With Chinas embracement towards freer trade I'm willing to bet there are some smart people there that will have some great ideas, products that people will want, innovations that will make our lives better. Jobs we don't even know exist will be created from such ideas. Just as Americas innovators have made our lives better with their products, it will be the same with developing nations as they rise in prosperity. 

As more of the world becomes educated, more service jobs will be created. More wealth will be created at an ever increasing rate. There's only been hundreds of millions in the West over the past Century who have had free speech and markets. Imagine what another 3 Billion people can bring to the equation as they become increasingly educated and freer. 

To contrast markets to Governments look at the technology sector, the industry I work in. It is probably the most dynamic and fast paced industry continually making our lives easier and more productive. Its also one of the few sectors that has no Government interference at all. No regulation. No government agencies monitoring it. Yet it continually increases the quality of goods with more features. We are told that we need regulation and Governmental agencies to 'protect the consumer' condescending people that they are too stupid to manage their own interests. Yet the technology sector flies in the face of such logic. Bad products and companies go bust quickly, and quality always wins out at as consumers are rational and don't need an agency to co-ordinate such an activity. Contrast that with the financial sector - fractional reserve banking instigated by the Government, Regulation after Regulation, Agencies (Moody, S&P, FSA etc), price fixing of interest rates, currency monopolies - its no coincidence that its in a mess. It will always be in a terrible condition and a drag on society with the Governments involvement, meanwhile the technology counterpart continues to efficiently mobilise societies resources effectively using the free market. If you ever need to argue the merits of a free market then this is the example to choose and will stump anyone opposed to the concept of Capitalism. I don't even think the Socialists would dare contemplating nationalising this sector. On the other hand many financial service jobs we could do without. Just like propping up our Steel, Coal and Car industries of the seventies its with finance this time and its counter-productive.

I'm bullish for the Century to come. Sure we all know many Governments are walking head on towards the next crisis of their own doing - stagflation, trying to erode our capital structure and removing individual liberties. Its going to be rough for at least the next decade, probably slightly longer. Going forward however we have a lot to look forward too. Markets will be embraced further, people will see our Governments misdoings. The Socialist and Communist experiment is dead. Thatcher or Regan didn't kill the left, it was the free market. I don't agree with Peter Schiff, I personally align more with Warren Buffets recent statement where he said our children will have better lives than we did. So long as we allow markets not Governments to enhance our lives this will always be the case. Relative decline, sure, but as with the example of the UK's decline each generation has had a better standard of living because we never truly abandoned the free market despite a few wobbles along the way. Look forward to the future, the innovation revolution is only just beginning.

Keynes and Hayek (Accompanied by General Ramblings)

“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.”
John Maynard Keynes
The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money


“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”
F A Hayek
The Fatal Conceit

Both quotes above are taken from the recent econstories rap video that has been showing up all around the Internet which can be viewed here. A very lucid video crammed with factual information, so don't be put off by it's format as a rap song. As we start a new decade, more people will see the ill's of our economic system and formats such as this will help inform people on all levels, as I realise many people find history and economics a very dry and boring subject.

The video contains many subtle messages. The receptionist not recognising Hayek, Keynes book in place of the bible in the hotel room, a party at the FED - the old alcoholic analogy along with "Tim" and "Ben" as the bar tenders. It compares our current solutions to nothing more than the 'hair of the dog', painting a clear picture of what needs to be done. The video is not biased either, with a fair representation of Keynesian economics.

Back in the real world Greece finds itself on the ropes once more, the bond vigilante's are turning up the heat sending rates upwards meaning rollover default is becoming a real danger. As quick as the pansy states will be able to cut their budgets, the rates on their bonds will rise over the long term negating all of the spending cuts. Portugal was thrown in the same gladiatorial arena, as the med club cousin found it couldn't find buyers for some of its bonds. Who's next - Spain, Italy, Japan, the UK, the landscapes getting ugly as distress in the bond bubble is on display for all to see. The Euro fell, but the Germans seem to be having no Southern Shenanigans. Staunchly opposed to any bailouts instead demanding nations begin to get their house in order as their Bunds still look as solid as any other government debt instrument out there. Could the Chinese bail the Greeks out? Yu Yongding doesn't believe so declaring the assets as unsafe.

What seems to have surprised many is the speed of events and how the Greek economy has fallen into the abyss. Well this is what happens when a government runs out of bullets, the market always catches up with you. It took near 80 years for it to catch up with Communist Russia but when it did, it fell in spectacular fashion. The decades of decay are still there for all to see.

Pimcos Bill Gross has given a big no, no on UK Government Gilts as he sees not only real rates of return as an issue but the devaluation dilemma. When the UK politicians still have access to devalue, investors wisen up and realise its not just the interest rate you need to worry about, its a question of will the currency still be worth the same 10 years down the line? Italians used to perform this form of default when the basket case lira was around, nonetheless international money gets smart and knew not to trust an Italian Government. Similar to their driving, reckless.

In Britain it goes from bad to quite simply awful. Over in America Obama has felt the peoples backlash of late, with all the Wall Street bailouts and excessive government intervention coming back to bite him. Meanwhile the 'Great' British public reward Gordon Brown, increasing his bounce in the polls, even though the current Labour government are doing all they can to make the fundamentals worse. That's the British for you, we believe in the free lunch and that Government can solve the issues of the day. We like illusions, inflation, governments and think there's not enough spending on public services despite our gigantic deficit. Americans talk of dollar death, they should think about coming over to Europe and see how to really mess things up! Sorry Peter Schiff, its not just America that's the 'Caboose', its pretty much the whole of the West.

Japan has been in the news a fair amount lately, with many commentators declaring default could occur there first. While Japan is a basket case, their savings rate is not what it was and they are all getting a lot older, they still have a lot of currency reserves, second only to China. They will sell these first to pay for the latest Government who are following Keynes advice just like the previous Government did for the past 20 years. They will also stop buying US Treasuries at some point, which they still seem to have an appetite for, instead buying their domestic bonds. Of course they will go pop at some point. You don't build up 200% of government debt and not pay for it. Any slight move in rates would be fatal, therefore expect the above actions to be taken first.

Switching gears, Shells profits collapsed forcing the sale of its assets and job losses for the oil giant due to oils lower price. You always hear about price rises in the media, but never hear about the falls. When oil was around $148 a barrel, it was the 'evil' oil companies that was causing the price to rise, profiteering at the expense of the public. When it collapsed, the same reasoning didn't add up as the same companies were scrambling to mend their books. 'Why didn't the price of oil fall at the pump substantially when its price fell from $148 to $40' - simple its hedged. The free market insulates consumers from the volatility in the commodities markets by using futures contracts to hedge against price spikes and dips. Hence the price at the pump stays fairly stable in comparison. The only reason the price rises over the long term is from Government Monetary mismanagement. Of course the government likes to blame speculators, oil companies, Arabs and the public generally buys the lies. Against gold of course oils price doesn't really move anywhere over the long term, but enough on minor details such as these.

Reports again come out detailing inequality is larger than it was thirty years ago. As Milton Friedman once said "We all start the race from the same point, but each one of us has a different finishing line". Markets enable us all to prosper and follow our own goals, using our available talents. Governments are the ones who ensure further inequality. The monopoly on money ensures the currency is inflated, enriching the asset rich at the expense of the asset poor. Lower incomes are also crushed further as a larger chunk of money is used to buy everyday goods, food, energy and so forth. The Government welfare state has meant the 'why work?' culture further expands creating an increased disillusioned underclass stuck in a vicious circle. Charity starts at home and the only way to help people is to allow them to help themselves. Who says the free market can't run a social welfare system? They already exist in the form of voluntary organisations who gain donations or Church organisations. People are more reluctant to claim if they can see the people providing the handouts, rather than some faceless factory system, where the government churns out the public's money. Of course we only get widespread unemployment when the free market tries to correct the governments wrong doings. Otherwise shocks to the whole system wouldn't occur, outside of a natural disaster of course.

Coming full circle back to Hayek and Keynes, I always find history is full of interesting stories. One such story is before Keynes wrote his famous book in 1936 becoming the de-facto textbook in economics, Hayek had critiqued Keynes previous works. In Keynes previous work, Hayek had done such a good job that Keynes declared to him that he no longer believed in what he wrote and had gone back to the drawing board to write his famous general theories. When this later book was released Hayek decided not to critique it as he didn't wish to waste his time again and felt everyone would see it to be as flawed as his previous works. The rest, they say, is history.

Ascent or Descent of Money

Murray Rothbard once said, "Historians don't understand economics and economists are useless historians". As an avid reader of history, it's a common issue that I fully appreciate. One historian who is held in high esteem regarding economics is Niall Ferguson. After reading his recent book, 'The Ascent of Money', I beg to disagree. He may be on TV, he may have a fancy academic post, he may in fact be a highly intelligent person, but clever people can be as fallible as any other person. In Contrast with his other works, 'The Pity of War' or 'Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World', his recent book felt rushed, an attempt to cash in on the unfolding economic events at the time of publication. It was after all published a full year after the credit crunch.

Money, Regulation, Gold Standards, Bubbles and Greenspan are typical topics discussed, but in many of the above, confusion is the only common theme. Professor Ferguson tries to piece together various areas without the pre-requisite economic knowledge. The Achilles heel of historians is once again on display for all to see.

Money. The books title has the word. It dramatically begins with a list of aliases, however the book falls woefully short of explaining what money is, what its context is, how important it is. A passing mention regarding our sovereign monopoly of money doesn't connect the dots. If the required homework had been carried out, Ferguson would have realised that this was the key. Why do we live in seemingly free markets but they periodically crash, overproduce, mal-invest? Its our governments incompetence over money that causes this. There is no mention that money originated from the free market to overcome barter, that kings took over money for personal gain, that inflation has always been a common phenomenon under this type of arrangement. This admission sets the pace for the rest of the book - for non-critical minds a satisfying read, for others, frustrating.

Stating 'Anything can serve as money, clay, silver, paper', it is true many things have served as money but it doesn't mean they have lasted throughout the ages. Metals have generally been used as the de-facto monetary standard. On the other hand, paper, has continuously ended in runaway inflation as there is no limit to expand the supply. Unfortunately this part of history is omitted leading Ferguson to the conclusion that its 'different this time', they can suck out the liquidity, but as Winston Churchill would argue 'All fiat money has ended in inflationary disaster'. Gold Standards are rendered as inflexible, inelastic, incompatible to increase the money supply under times of extreme contraction, however only half the story is told. It is the first part, the initial unwarranted monetary expansion during the boom that causes the bust, not the lack of expansion in money after the crisis. Classic examples such as John Law in France, which lead to hyperinflation because he tried to fix the economic bust by printing more money seems to allude our academic friend. Despite coming to the conclusion that it ended in disaster and no good came from printing more money, Ferguson still believes it to be a good idea. As the quote at the top of this blog states, you either keep expanding indefinitely destroying the currency or you take the medicine.

Despite mentioning the recent great economic powers, Germany, United Kingdom, America, Holland did he ask the question what did all of these have in common during their height? Sound Money. The United Kingdom exported sound money around the world, gold, silver or bimetallic standards, to keep a check on government abuse. All the nations listed went into decline as soon as they abandoned these principles. The Bank of Amsterdam abandoned 100% reserves, Britain abandoned its gold standard in the thirties, Nixon's closing of the Gold Window in '71 in which we have since seen a relative decline in Americas Global dominance.

One pressing issue isn't even mentioned, fractional reserve banking. Its one of the most important issues in banking and one of the reasons finance makes a disproportionate income compared with all other sectors of a modern economy. Despite what is conventional told, you don't need fractional reserve banking to run a successful economy. 100% reserve banking, where the banks can not create money out of thin air would not only give greater stability, but would be fairer for all. Savers are rewarded, peoples purchasing power would increase, all sections of society would gain equally from such a system. One of the reasons society is plagued with great income inequality is that when you inflate the currency based on no supply and demand dynamic, this excess liquidity will inevitably end up in assets such as houses, stocks and so forth. The rich in general posses more assets and when they increase in value caused by the monetary expansion their wealth increases disproportionately. For example, if houses went up 100%, then a person with the previously valued £100,000 house would gain £100,000, however the asset rich person with a £1,000,000 would gain £1,000,000 - ten times the gain, or to put it another way a 1000% more! The rich get richer while the poor get poorer. People with no assets have no such luck.

Fractional reserve banking is an immoral system. It allows the banking community to leverage, i.e. create money at will and profit from something that they can create out of thin air. Can you imagine a factory that could make products out of thin air? A civil engineer making invisible bridges and getting paid for them? This is finance, the rules the government lay down. Allowing our banks to inflate the money supply based on governments targeting their inflation metrics. The better the free market does its job, by lowering the cost of goods and services, the greater the rewards for the banking community as expansive monetary policy is the solution for falling prices. Alas this topic isn't even covered in the book.

Bubbles and Regulation are narrated upon, nevertheless critical analysis is lacking. Ferguson outlines bubbles along with expansive monetary policy but the vital connection is not made. Instead human psychology is used to explain the 'irrationality' of markets, the conventional scapegoat. If our money was sound there wouldn't be the excess money to inflate bubbles and prolong their expansion misleading people to mistake these false price signals. The liquidity would not be available to inflate bubbles as other sectors of the economy would require capital. I recently saw Ferguson interviewed after his book in which he remarks that behind bubbles you will almost always find a central banker, from John Law to Alan Greenspan. It's a shame the book misses this point.

Regulation. We need more regulation? We need to set up a regulatory committee to stop people from poking themselves in the eye, or do we? People are rational to the extent that they make informed decisions. When banks get reckless they get reckless based on the premise that they get bailed out. One of the most heavily regulated industries is banking. I work in the computer software sector and from what I know we don't have any regulation. We don't have codes of conduct in how to make software. Good software companies survive using good business processes and sound coding techniques. They don't need some bureaucrat who visits every so often to inspect the software. The market, that is people, decide what is good or bad quality and cost effective. It should be the same with banks. If a bank is unsound it fails like any other business. When banks used to be allowed to go bust, they took pride in their long history. This in turn attracted people to bank with them as they continually survived during economic crisis. All of this occurred with little or no regulation, people came to that decision on their own accord.

Take for example electronics companies who for example make Computers. Should we have a regulation that states a certain quality of hard drive should be used in order to minimise computer failures, or should we allow people to decide if they wish to pay more for a PC with greater reliability. Of course the market drives up quality. When the Japanese companies started destroying the Western electronics giants they did so not from government regulations but because of market forces, people individually making rational decisions based on build quality and innovation. The books passing comments in relation to regulators maintaining financial stability contradicts the recent economic crisis we are living through.

Described as the best historian of his generation, what premise do I a software developer, have to disagree? Was it not the clerk in a patent office who challenged classical Newtonian mechanics and set off a whole generation of physicists who questioned authority and conventional wisdom? Just because a person has an academic post or a prestigious award doesn't mean he has mastered a particular subject matter. Just as Einstein was brilliant, he was as fallible as us all. Later in his life he couldn't accept quantum mechanics and a host of other new theories, stuck in the past he slipped into insignificance despite being one of the most recognised scientist in modern history. In my opinion one of the greatest economists, Ludwig Von Mises, couldn't even get a paid academic post whilst residing in America.

Critical thinking is rarely conventional wisdom, something Professor Ferguson has forgot. His earlier books such as 'Empire: How Britain Changed the Modern World' challenged the conventional viewpoint that the British empire was inherently bad for the world, on the contrary Ferguson argues well that it was beneficial and ahead of its time. 'The Pity of War' argues that the first world war was not inevitable, people were more apprehensive than conventional wisdom makes belief. It wasn't as black and white with the infamous Archduke assassination that set off a series of chain reaction events that is narrated by many historical texts. Britain held the key, indeed she was the prime cause of the war due to unusual diplomatic moves and indecisiveness.

Ferguson states that finance is the key to modern society. Finance is vitally important but its no more important than the doctors, the engineers, the scientists, the factory workers; everyone plays a key role in society enabling living standards to rise. Finance is the heart of the economy, not the brain. It pumps credit around the economy to the sectors that require it, the brain is the scientists, innovators, entrepreneurs and inventors. These people decide how to do things better and how best to satisfy individuals desires.

Whilst reading the book the title always troubled me. Have we witnessed the 'Ascent of Money'? If that were the case would the story of money not read that people first experimented with common objects such as, shells, clay, beads then we moved to using metals. This became cumbersome so we transitioned onto a more convenient medium which behind it lay the backing of a finite metal such as gold or silver. Then people threw away the governments monopoly and allowed the market to choose what money was. Instead we witnessed the first three steps, but have now instead moved to fiat money, backwards in time to the exception, not the rule. History warns us that fiat systems have always self imploded and we are no more wiser than any previous civilisation that tried to manage paper money. The 'Descent of Money' I feel would have been a more fitting title.

Japan a Deflation Death? - Nope Stagflation

Gordon Brown this week announced what can only be described as a car boot sale of UK PLC's bric-a-brac goods, an attempt to sooth markets regarding the budget deficit. Many of the items have been for sale before, but I'm sure the government in their current desperation will be willing to accept lower offers this time around. I agree with privatisation in getting the state out of our lives, but a student loan book and a crossing in Kent are hardly big ticket items, never mind the fact that they are assets that generate money. Thatcher sold the majority of the family silver during the eighties privatisation bonanza however contrary to common belief there's plenty more the state could sell. Institutions such as the NHS, education the road infrastructure and so forth could all be sold, but these are not politically palatable areas that the public can swallow, meaning they are off limits for any politician that doesn't want to ruin their career. The Prime Minister once more began another Keynesian rant stating that the Conservatives proposals would lead to the same problems experienced by Japan for the past two decades. The title 'Prudent Chancellor' seems ever more absurd as time goes on, his emphasis on yet more needless spending in an attempt to bankrupt the nation. It doesn't matter if its Americas Great Depression or the lost decade in Japan, economists, politicians and journalists all seem to draw the wrong conclusions. What Gordon Brown in fact proposes are the very same policies that were pursued during both periods above and resulted in stagnation. Japan didn't get ravaged by the 'dangers of deflation', it was instead a good old classic stagflation.

Many Keynesian economists are still baffled by Japan. Over the years, policy after policy has been proposed by their school of thought, all of which involve some form of government action, but time and time again they all seem to fail. The classic Keynesian rebuttal whenever these policies fail is "Well, the authorities didn't do enough". Just like they apparently didn't do enough during the Great Depression. Yet put forward the question regarding Americas 1920-21 Depression and all Keynesian theory goes out of the window. Here Warren Harding, Americas president at the time, cut government spending, cut taxes and in fact did very little during a time when the economy was contracting at an alarming rate with the measure of unemployment rising faster than during the subsequent Great Depression. Yet the economy with market forces in full control, liquidated unprofitable lines of production and subsequently America during the 1920's experienced one of the greatest economic booms in history. The unemployment rate came dramatically down in no time at all, without government spending to alleviate this process as we are now all told. Herbert Hoover, who was later to become Americas President during the next depression, unsurprisingly didn't agree with Harding's polices, a pre-cursor of what was to come. Don't mention any of this to the Keynesian's though, it will give them a real headache.

What did Japan do when their bubble burst? Cut taxes? Cut Government spending? Liquidate? They of course carried out the exact opposite. Their Government debt used to be as low as the UK's before its recent exponential trajectory however Japans now stands at 200% plus and keeps growing. They propped up their infamous zombie banks, crippling the pricing mechanism that is so vital for an economy to prosper. Increases in taxes will choke the economy as rising social costs increase. In order to assess what really happened we need to deal with the aspect of deflation, or what is currently assumed as the bogeyman to economic growth. Japan never entered a downward death spiral of prices, that consistently fell year on year, in fact the lowest their CPI hit during this time was -1%. During the mid-nineties it spiked back up to 2%. There was only around 6 years of official deflation during the two decades using the Governments metrics. What gave the impression of price deflation was in fact asset price deflation. Both real estate and stock prices completely collapsed and have not returned since, instead stagnating for years. The reason why they never recovered to their previous highs was exactly what the Government did, they took over and tried the command economy approach. Roads to nowhere, propping up banks that were insolvent, not allowing private enterprise to take over the means of production. Rather than money going into the private sector, Japanese savings that were accrued during their economic miracle were funneled into Government bonds, wasteful Government consumption. It was quite simply a classic stagflation, that is still ongoing.

The UK are now pursuing similar policies and will go into a long period of stagnation unless the current direction is reversed. However it is useful to try and make further sense of Japans situation during that time, compared with our own. When the crunch came for Japan they ran budget surpluses, had high domestic saving rates for years and were a creditor nation. The UK on the other hand has the complete opposite and relies heavily on overseas investors to buy our Government bonds. Japan only began to run double digit Government deficits eight years later. They were able to sell their bonds to domestic citizens. They were still obtaining plenty of foreign currency as they exported more than they imported. The UK has already printed in excess of 10% GDP to pay for the debts, is running a huge budget deficit only two years after the current financial crunch and for the past decade its citizens have had low savings rates.

So what does all the above mean? Quite simply the UK is in a much more highly inflationary situation that Japan was. Japan's government couldn't really print money until over 10 years later as a last resort due to there being ample savings to pay for the Government debt. Japans government created their budget deficit, the UK has a structural one in which politicians are notorious for not tackling the shortfall. While Japans significant industries, electronics and car manufacture, continued to grow with global demand, the UK's key revenue streams, finance and North Sea, are in decline.

Another key factor is if the Government Bond market is in a bull or bear market. During Japan's economic disaster the bond market was in a bull market. Interest rates kept falling, people still had faith in many paper financial assets. Since 1981/82 Government Bonds have been in a bull market however these things always move in cycles, typically we should be seeing the end to this trend at some point. 25 years plus is a good run and in the near future this will turn into a long, grinding bear market, we may have already crossed that point. In a bear market, interest rates on bonds rise, which means Governments have to increasingly spend more on interest payments, diverting money away from spending such as health or education. Recently the CEBR said interest rates will stay low for the foreseeable future during the first half of the next decade, however that would mean the bond bull market lasting for over three decades, a highly improbable situation.

History is always an important guide to future trends, however it is crucial to compare given contexts in their current time frame. I have seen articles recently stating that Britain had debts in excess of 200% of GDP after the Napoleonic wars, indeed I have mentioned it myself before, however this didn't count for much when the UK went broke in 1976 with debts as meager as 48% of GDP. In the prior scenario the UK was the global superpower but a much bigger factor was that the UK didn't have a Welfare State. There was little government expenditure, with the majority of taxes just going to pay off the debt as alternative expenses didn't exist. Contrast that with current Government spending in which the interest payments are now comparatively small along with a rainbow of other Governmental expenditure, we see how context is key. Somehow, within the time frame of 150 years, Britain had transformed itself from one of the leaders of laissez faire, into a nation that was almost turning Communist in 1976. An ever expansive state, a declining currency, an economy with little productive purpose, meant investors wouldn't lend the UK any more money, despite the debt being around a quarter the level than that of the early nineteenth century.

Japan recently has around the same debt as the UK did 200 years ago and is still able to pay for it. It's dangerous to compare Britain with Japan, as Britain will not be able to sustain a public debt level that high. Japan built this debt up during a bull market in Government bonds and had savings to pay for it. The UK doesn't have either of those luxuries. It's one of the key concepts that many forecasters and economic commentators overlook, the fact that interest rates can rise over time and enter bear and bull markets. Payments for the interest are already predicted to soar as the debt increases based on the current low rates, but what about if those rates double 10 years from now? The government admits the earliest they can balance the books is around then therefore debt is almost certain to keep going up.

Do not believe predictions regarding long term interest rates and the level of debt a country can absorb, no one can forecast precise figures in these areas. Instead look at the fundamentals. Are the government balancing the books? Has the printing press been shut down? Has liquidation occurred? Until fundamentals return then stagflation looks the most likely outcome here in the UK. Just like Japan, only I fear much worse.

British Pound Devaluation Delusions

"It does not mean that the pound here in Britain, in your pocket or purse or in your bank, has been devalued."
Harold Wilson, British Prime Minister, after the Pounds devaluation in 1967

"A weak currency arises from a weak economy which in turn is the result of a weak Government."
Gordon Brown, During the Pounds devaluation after it was withdrawn from the ERM


Mervyn King the Bank of England's Governor has been causing a stir in the markets this week. Despite Sterling being a flawed currency it hasn't stopped Mervyn King from making comments that he feels a weaker currency is beneficial for the UK. Undeterred by the pound losing around a quarter of its value, it seems that the BoE still feel the need to send it lower. US-centric reporting has been emphasising the Federal Reserves draconian monetary actions, but yet it is the UK that leads the way in QE and the destruction of its currency. Labour Governments always seem to be in power when the pound gets a pounding. 1931, 1967, 1976 and recently 2008 and beyond. If Neil Kinnock had won the 1992 election like so many believed at the time, they would have got the whole set for the past one hundred years. So what does it matter that the pound has devalued of late? Is it as black and white as 'it will boost our exports', that the media and business pundits proclaim? I agree with the quote above, not Harold Wilson's, but Gordon Browns. Over the long term, Governments that use their currencies to try and solve their economic troubles are doomed to fail. If you try to alleviate trade deficits with this mechanism over the short term it may succeed, but eventually more devaluations will be required in order to 'boost' exports again.

Implications of Devaluations

An examination of the devaluation is required to understand what benefits/disadvantages it brings. Governments always claim that this will lower the cost of our exports, which it does, but no analysis is paid to what actually occurs. If we examine a factory that exports goods, they may be struggling to compete, say against similar German products. A devaluation would instantly lower the cost of the good on the export market. The German Government, for example, may hold steadfast and are not willing to allow their currency to depreciate by the same margin. The British company without doing anything have instantly gained a cost advantage, in effect a free handout. The German company on the other hand has to look for savings itself. Management immediately begin cost cutting, increase productivity or improving their processes. They look at their product, they start to innovate or add extra features or improve the quality to justify the short term price dynamic that has just occurred. The British management does not need to do the above. They can produce the exact same product, using the same processes as there is no immediate need to innovate.

Also something much worse occurs. For the sake of the example say the two products, German and British, now are priced at €500 and €400 respectively after the devaluation, whilst previously they were €500 and €550 respectively. The British management now can increase the price over the short term, to say €450 as they are still cheaper than the German products. This extra margin may go into inflating workers pay, or other company benefits. Not only have no product or business improvements happened, but the British company is also rewarding itself.

The Import Dynamic

Misreporting in the media leads us to believe that the cost of our overseas holiday is the biggest headache when the value of our currency goes down - if only. When the currency takes a fall the whole nation is immediately given a pay cut, all our imports now go up in price. If we have to buy raw materials or products produced abroad it now costs us more, our purchasing power has effectively fallen. In the example given above, if the British company has to import any materials to produce its end product these will drive up their costs. Also the public now have to pay more for the product in question. The cost may seem to have reduced to €450 but remember its all relative, the British people are still getting paid in pounds. People can't buy the same amount of products as imports go up. A price spiral starts. The mechanic who imports car parts from abroad must now charge the public more for car repair work. There are an infinite number of other business transactions that take the same format as the given example. All these costs eventually come back to the British company as their workers require higher wages to cope with the higher prices. This in turn keeps driving the cost of the product higher. Meanwhile in Germany, they have continued innovating lowering their costs through business improvements, driving costs down in order to compete and in turn producing a better end product. The end products cost after a year or two, could now be say €400 and €500, for the German and British companies respectively. The British company is back where it started but in a worse condition, as they have fallen further behind in terms of productivity and end product quality.

The above process can develop into a vicious spiral, with the British company loosing further export share and demanding further devaluation in order to 'boost' exports. There is no simple fix, if a currency goes down in value it doesn't help anyone.

What needs to occur is to let the market take the pain, not the currency. This may mean higher unemployment in the short term, but people and companies get competitive again. Any nation in history who has enjoyed an export boom has done so on the back of a strong domestic currency. Britain during the 19th Century, Germany and Japan through the second half of the 20th Century, the US when they rose as the global superpower. However times change. For the past 30 years or so US politicians have put forward the benefits of a lower Dollar for jobs and exports, but over the years it hasn't worked. Workers wages continue to decline, and US companies continue to disappear.

In Japan from the end of the second world war up until just before the lost two decades, the Yen dramatically appreciated against the US dollar. Yet Japanese exports during the same time frame also increased. Westerners used to joke that Japan only produced kimonos or tiny cheap ornaments. Japan subsequently underwent a huge economic development, beating the West on car manufacture and electronics to such a point that it has now become hard to name a handful of Western electronics companies. In 1970 the Yen was valued at around 357 to the US dollar. Within 20 years it was 146, more than doubling in value. During the lost two decades it hasn't moved much further, to around 90, however its worrying that its still appreciating despite the stagnation of the Japanese economy during this time.

Where does this leave the British Pound?

It's worrying when the people responsible for the defence of a currency welcome devaluation and even believe that this will solve the economic imbalances we face. You can't solve a domestic economies shortcomings by debasing the currency. The British Pound has resumed what it was prior to the late seventies and early eighties. It's once again the whipping boy in the currency markets. Investors beware, the British Pound will not be a place to be for the foreseeable future.

What the Autumn may Bring ...

History has a habit of repeating itself. Markets also, follow a similar pattern as history can show. As Summer draws to close, as we enter Autumn, I feel we are in for another action packed time, similar to the close of 2008. Optimism is in the air all around with a complete turnaround of sentiment. When the majority are optimistic, its best to go against the tide and September and October are historically torrid times for the markets. There is evidence all around the globe that imbalances still exist - many worsening as time passes. China is in a rampant bubble driven by the Communist party. Many Eastern European nations are close to currency crisis, exposing many Western European countries who have lent them money. Sterling continues to worsen, as the UK leads the developed world in printing money and debauching the currency. Liquidation is put on hold, as governments believe they can avoid the inevitable. There have already been ominous signs for this month, with the classic August stock market volatility. Central Banks are planning their next moves, in the US there have been rumors regarding a second stimulus package as the first one runs out.

If we take a look at the VIX (the volatility index) it has been moving downwards since the events last October. Notice how quick it can move upwards as last year shows.


There was always going to be a market rally. Nothing ever moves straight up, or straight down. There are always periods of consolidation. If we look at Sterling, it has rallied quite substantially since its dramatic decline last year. Does this mean it has reached a low? I'm afraid not, all the fundamentals point for it to resume its bear market run, and if I was a trader I'd be looking to put shorts on Sterling as the next few months should see a deterioration once more. Sterling looks once again a basket case currency as it did during the sixties and seventies with a new generation that is fooled with the same rhetoric past politicians used to say to justify the devaluations.

30-40 years ago the politicians always justified the devaluations. We need to buy time, it will make our exports more competitive, we need to 'invest' to keep jobs and so forth. Roll forward 30 years and the same fallacies are being told. The idea that a devalued currency can bring prosperity is sheer madness, if it was that easy then no one would have to innovate or increase productivity. Over the long term this policy never works. You need a strong currency and a strong government to put the breaks on and say 'Ok, we tried to inflate, it didn't work, therefore we will stop the printing'. As painful as this would be it works. People adjust, they become more competitive, make better products, start investing. This is how you become wealthy and give your exports the edge. This is what Japan and West Germany did.

After the Second World War both these nations had worthless currencies. War torn, people had resorted to bartering rather then use government money, they had no currency reserves and their people were living in poverty. Nations usually have to get in this state before politicians get a spine and change their ways and that's what happened. Germany abandoned the flawed Reichmark and introduced the Deutsche Mark with a new emphasis on maintaining a sound currency, and so began Wirtschaftswunder, the great Germany economic miracle. Britain meanwhile became the sick man of Europe and was synonymous with the term 'Brain Drain', despite getting more American Aid than the Germans from the Marshall Plan. Germans on the other hand enjoyed a booming economy, one that had low inflation during the stagflationary seventies.

Japan also took a similar route. Their goal was to get Western Currency, and the only way they knew how to do that was to sell quality products that Westerners wanted to buy, and in return they got their pieces on paper. Did they debase the Yen to achieve this? They did the exact opposite and they created quality products. Westerners used to joke about Japanese products (similar to what they say about Chinese ones now as China tries to emulate Japan) but what do people think of when they see Sony, Toyota or Seiko now? They did this while the Yen appreciated, innovating, increasing productivity and smashing the Americans once dominance of export markets during the 1950's and 1960's. The only reason Nissan or other such companies placed their factories here in the UK is for shipping costs and the 'enlightened' tariffs governments have imposed to 'save' jobs. Even if the Chinese or whoever could do it cheaper.

Of course Japan and Germany are different entities now. Their first and second generations built their wealth and generally as the generations move on it gets wasted. They aren't the countries they used to be. Nations such as China are where Japan were back in the 1960's, a generation who still remember Communist hardship, whose parents still remember the mass poverty and killings. Following a similar model they had no currency reserves and now have amassed $2 Trillion Dollars, and are still amassing them. They have high savings rates like Japan once had and are becoming a huge creditor nation. All of this takes huge personal sacrifice. Sacrifice many current western generations are not willing to make.

So will anyone take similar action as the above for the UK? I don't believe so. Things haven't got that desperate yet. They will keep debasing telling the public the reasons above, a noose will slowly tighten around the government. Spending out of control, exports unable to pay for imports, international investors dumping the currency, tax increases on businesses driving out talent, with the process going full circle. Of course the markets will force their hand eventually. We are a way off yet, but I feel this is what it will take. A real crisis. We should see currency controls at some point in the future as the government attempts to bolster Sterling. They may even start with limiting the amount of foreign money you can take abroad.

People in the UK, I feel, are putting too much trust in David Cameron and the Conservatives, that they will win the election next year and all will be fine, however I personally think the trust is misplaced. Tory Party members have recently attacked the NHS and David Cameron has shown what he feels. He wants the NHS and is willing to spend more money on it. I don't think he has the conviction to scale back government significantly and even if he did the damage is already too bad. Mr Cameron seems to want to mimic Labour as close as he can and won't want to upset the public too much. Even if he was like Thatcher, back then the deficit wasn't as bad, we had oil and gas, and we weren't monetising our debt on the scale we are now. Thatcher would recoil in what needs to be done under our current circumstances.

In a nutshell the world still has plenty more deleveraging, which means Governments will be looking to carry on with printing more money. The UK has continued with QE and for some reason this shocked the markets recently, but it shouldn't have shocked any regular readers to this blog. It will keep on going, £200B, £300B and so on. I don't know how much but I do know there is no way they will sell it all back to the market like many believe. Not when the nation is running deficits for the next decade at least. Now the path has been embarked upon it becomes very hard to stop, and as our politicians were all too weak to take the pain from the credit crunch there is no way they will stop the monetising of government debt. You see people still don't understand and tell themselves "Well we will just wait a bit until the credit crunch passes then we will sort out this or that". It doesn't work like that. The easiest path would have been to take the pain fully as soon as the credit crunch hit. Once you postpone it, you make it worse and then politicians keep saying we will wait until this next crisis passes etc. Then the markets force their hand, and then a nation faces real hardship with no alternatives left.

In times like this there is only one asset for amateur investors - Gold. It reveals all the lies the government and media tell us. Its price tells you what is really happening. Recently the asset has been mentioned in the press, with commentators talking about it, however they still don't understand its value. They ask the wrong questions such as "Why would you place value in Gold?", rather than "Why do you place value in Sterling?". Ignorance and historic naivety, its amazing how well we have been conditioned away from Gold and Silver, free market money. Over a hundred years ago our ancestors would have gasped in horror at the financial system we live in. Four Pounds used to buy an ounce of Gold back then, now its more like 570. Gold may have made the news but what do commentators say when they mention it? Should people sell at these high prices. People are interviewed selling the stuff. When did you ever hear these people call a bubble, and now they seem to think Gold is in one. It will be in a bubble when they are all telling people to buy the stuff, its a safe investment, supply and demand and all that jazz. There's a long way to go until that moment happens.

Gold also tells you the truth of real prices. While people were hysterical regarding house prices, did they realise what was actually happening to the true price? Of course in Sterling prices shot up 200-300% but what about another currency, for example Gold, true historic value. In Gold house prices were stagnant as Gold climbed a similar amount during the same period against Sterling. You could have saved yourself all the hassle of estate agents, mortgage brokers, Tenants, property maintenance and so on, and bought gold in a few minutes online and sat back. Sterling lost its value which gave the illusion that houses were worth more. In other words we never had a housing boom. We had good old currency debasement, mass inflation. Its the same with Oil and so forth. Oil jumped ahead last summer due to demand being larger than supply, but its now still up around 300% since its low 10 years ago in say dollars, but in Gold it hasn't moved.

The governments in recent months have allowed the banks to use false accounting laws. If the market did this the company executives would be sent to jail, but when the Government changes the rules its fine, just like before the S&L crisis blew up. Central Banks have all sorts of worthless paper on their balance sheets. They are monetising the deficits. The banks they have nationalised are trying to lend further money to the economy. Easy money, ruins society. It always has throughout time. The decline of the Roman Empire as they debased their Gold Coins. The Spanish Empire as the Conquistadors drove out the Islamic Moors from what is now Andalucia and continued their conquests by discovering the Gold laden lands of South America, again easy money same effects. Latin American nations throughout the 20th Century had government after government who pursued similar mistakes, despite places like Argentina being richer than the US 100 years ago. Italy and Britain during the sixties and seventies played with easy money and look where it got them during the seventies devaluation sagas. What remained of British Industry collapsed, as companies thought they could keep selling on price, rather than quality and innovation, but eventually costs go up also as companies become sloppy relying on further devaluations to bail them out.

Politicians are too tempted to play the easy money card as the great deflationary juggernaut, China, exports low cost products, recycling their money back to the West to encourage further easy money policies here. China have studied their history well and know full well how destructive easy money is to society, and realise what they are doing to the West.

Unfortunately when Fiat currency exists it is a lot harder for the Government to face the pain and do what is right for the long term. Easy money means easy living for the short term, but it just impoverishes society in the long run and puts a greater burden on future generations. We should have another scramble for cash over the coming months, but I suspect this will be the last scramble for the fiat currencies. After that only true money that has a historic track record such as Gold will be desired. What will the Autumn bring ... we will all have to wait and see.

The Curse of being a Creditor Export Nation

"Germany was one of the leading borrowers on the American market during the boom. Germany was undoubtedly short of capital, bereft as she was by the war and then by her ruinous inflation, culminating in late 1923. However, the German bonds floated in the United States did not, as most people thought, rebuild German capital. For these loans were largely extended to German local and state governments, and not to private German business. The loans made capital even scarcer in Germany, for the local governments were now able to compete even more strongly with private business for factors of production."
Murray Rothbard, Americas Great Depression

The recent GDP figures in relation to the German economy were dreadful. The economy was reported to have shrunk 3.8% in the first quarter. Later in the week Japans figures came out, again the numbers were once again nauseating. This time a contraction of 3.5% for the quarter along with a collapse in exports. Meanwhile millions in China are being made redundant. Despite the massaged figures that the Communist party reports, China is heading for a hard landing. Many commentators have begun warning the Asian bloc of nations that their export based economic model is flawed, signaling they need to buy our bonds to avert a further collapse in their own economies. Ambrose Evans Pritchard has stated that Asia will author its own destruction if they stop buying US governments bonds, meanwhile Anatole Kaletsky claims that Germans need to abandon their rigid monetary stance and deploy a looser fiscal policy in order to save itself and the Eurozone. Why is it that prudent nations, who saved, lived within their means, who were running trade surpluses during the boom are having a harder time of late than nations such as the UK or US, who did the exact opposite? I mentioned that this should occur back in February, and it is perfectly logical. It is always the prudent that face a worse punishment than the reckless, this is the way it always works.

Think of a hypothetical situation in which Person A works, saves, lives within his means and always seeks to improve his working skills. Person B on the other hand, works as little as he can, doesn't save, borrows as much money as he can and has no interest in bettering himself. Person A has so much saving that he doesn't know what to do with it all, therefore lends it to Person B to fund his lifestyle. It seems like a good idea, as both benefit, one gets interest on his loans, the other is able to live beyond his means. Person B comes to a point where he has simply borrowed too much, but insists that Person A must continue to lend him money just until he gets back on his feet, otherwise he would default on his loans. Person A initially agrees, but as time goes on Person B has still not changed his ways, still threatening that he needs more money as both would be in real trouble if the current agreement stopped. At some point, Person A decides enough is enough and decides to cut his loses. Person B realises he can no longer pay back the money so defaults.

In the above Person A has to go through a lot more pain, as he has essentially just worked and saved for no reason, as Person B defaulted on his loans. He has lost all his capital and doesn't know what to with his future earnings. Person B however has had a pleasant lifestyle and at this point has gained greatly. He hasn't taken the short term hit. Yet despite this, over the long term Person B needs to develop his skill set to pay for his lifestyle he was previously used to and needs to learn once more how to live within his means. Person A meanwhile has the above already and has a head start on person B. Over the long term he is in far more beneficial position as he re saves his money, continues working and has learnt a lesson not to take excessive risk by lending to individuals such as Person B.

The above is an extreme and simplified situation but illustrates the global issues we are now seeing. Despite all the empty threats Hilary Clinton sends to China to continue buying US government debt, as soon as creditor nations decide to cut their losses the better they will be in the long term. This is the decoupling commentators such as Peter Schiff mention. The initial stages will be very painful for the creditor export based nations, but over time they will write off these losses and move forward consuming more of what they produce, rather than shipping it to others who can't pay.

The globe was at a similar junction during the Great Depression. Back then America was the creditor export nation of the world, making loans to Europe and assisting with the inflationary program Britain was pursuing as she tried (and failed) to keep the pound artificially high. During the 1920's Europe was a economic fiasco. Germany witnessed the collapse of the Mark, Austria nearly had a similar fate, France was weak, Britain was struggling with her empire and Russia had cut itself off as it succumbed to Communism, embarking on the road towards impoverishing her people. When the phrase 'roaring twenties' is used, it never applied to Europe, America was the creditor of the world producing and exporting some of the most innovative products of its day. With this surplus she helped nations in Europe, even into the depression;

"The New York Federal Reserve loaned, in 1931, $125 million to the Bank of England, $25 million to the German Reichsbank, and smaller amounts to Hungary and Austria. As a result, much frozen assets were shifted, to become burdens to the United States. The Federal Reserve also renewed foreign loans when borrowers failed to pay at maturity."
Murray Rothbard, Americas Great Depression

Economists always like to mention the fact that European nations never had as bad depression as America, such as the BBC's commentator Stephanie Flanders, however comments like this miss the whole economic perspective and analysis. Europe never had a boom, therefore it didn't have as hard a time as the US, instead during the 1920's many of the continents nations experienced high inflation to erode the value of debts obtained during the First World War. Over the long term America, as history showed, bounced back and became the economic superpower. During the 1950's and 1960's American products were practically unbeatable and she also assisted with Europe's Reconstruction after WW2 with the Marshall Plan.

The recent idea that a nation who consumes too much is doing nations that live within their means a favour is absurd. Its much easier for one to consume than to produce. Generally once a nation becomes a debtor for consumption purposes it becomes very hard to break the cycle, as increasing amounts of money is used for further short term consumption or paying interest on the existing debt. Many Eastern European states borrowed heavily from the West for such means while they were still within the unproductive Iron curtain. Nations such as Poland, who in 1970 were 1.1B in debt, increased these overseas debts to 25B ten years later. This money was not used wisely as it was just used to consume goods rather than to increase productive capacity. Many such nations experienced mass inflation with the economies being effectively Dollarised (foreign visitors were quite frequently asked by the locals to pay for goods or services in Dollars rather than the local currencies).

Many commentators justify Americas recent borrowing stating that America borrowed hugely from European countries such as Britain and Germany in Europe during the 19th Century, but again they miss the point. Back then this money was used for production, not consumption. Countries like China recently have borrowed huge amounts of money from the West, however they have used this money for production purposes or investing in human capital. There is nothing wrong with borrowing money - it's what you do with it that matters.

America up until the eighties was a creditor nation, it was during Reaganomics that it chose to become the worlds largest debtor in history. Once travelling along this path it becomes very hard to stop or reverse. Tough choices have to made by politicians and the countries citizens, all of which are avoided until it is too late.

Don't get me wrong, there are issues with many of the worlds creditor nations. The Saudis are ruled under a despotic regime, Russia still suffers from decades of Communist decay, China has too much bureaucracy, Germany has a rigid labor force and Japan has huge amounts of Government debt, increasing as the crisis deepens. In short I think the whole world has issues.

Keynesian economics always tells people what they want to hear, mainly it is an economic framework that provides individuals with the notion of a free lunch. As Milton Friedman said "There is no free lunch", every action has a cost. Consumption, Debtor nations will have to pay more for their situation than the export and creditor nations in the long run. There is no curse for being an export creditor nation. The curse is a Keynesian myth, the economic school that once again gets the wrong end of the stick. The curse lies with debtor consumption nations. It always has and always will.

The Fallacies of Deflation

It seems every authoritative figure has begun warning about the dangers of deflation. With Britain's Monetary committee making a case for printing money, we are told that this is to ward off the 'dangers' of a falling money supply, and we need to inject more cash into the system to get the economy moving again. The Keynesian's, the governments economic cheerleaders, are proposing that inflation is needed in order to combat deflation and the new money can ensure increased consumption in order to drive the economy forward. Deflation is one of the most misconceived economic terms, used as a scapegoat by the above institutions portrayed that it can somehow cripple an economy. Yet Deflation should always be embraced as it is a sign of a healthy free market economy. If our economic system was truly free, we would never get inflation. We would always have deflation in the modern sense of falling prices. However Banks and Governments always prosper with inflation. Throughout history this has been demonstrated with the costs borne by the rest of us. I felt this post was needed as I have become weary of these statements that deflation is some how a terrible event that should be avoided at all costs, used to try and justify printing money. Nothing can ever justify printing money or inflation and this post attempts to tackle these common misconceptions that have been indoctrinated onto the public, either by officials and economists that prosper from such policies or are incompetent to see what is happening.

Credit Expansion, Banks and Governments

Governments worship inflation. It funds their expensive welfare programs. It funds their wasteful consumption. It funds their political ideologies, their Utopian society they promise the public who elect them. Permanent inflation, like the one we have in our monetary system would never occur in a stable and free market monetary system. It can only occur by the continual expansion of our money supply. Markets always reduce the costs of goods ensuring greater productivity efficiencies as capital is used to enhance the way we make products. The debasement occurs with the co-operation between the banks and the state, similar to what we are seeing now. There is no conspiracy behind this as there is a long history of governments encouraging reckless credit expansion from the banks. A credit boom, like the one we have just come out of, creates huge amounts of credit which is spent during the boom. Most of this money does not exist as fractional reserve lending allows banks to lend far more money than they hold on deposit (money that actually exists). The government allows this privilege to banks as it inflates the currency, expanding the amount of money in the system. Despite the huge deflation we have had over the past 10 years in, computers, mobile phones, holidays, with all these items coming down in price, we have still had continual inflation. That inflation was a credit boom created by the private banks orchestrated by the central banks who prop up this credit expansion process, ensuring it goes on for far longer then would occur in a free market system.

At some point this process breaks down (a credit crunch), usually by previous investments turning bad (sub prime was the trigger recently) thus wiping out what little reserves the banks have. The banks reach a point where they can no longer inflate and central banks become the lender of last resort propping up these banks, and essentially printing money to replace the credit being destroyed. This is the current time frame we find ourselves in. Deflation, as in a contracting money supply is happening, thus the government and institutions step in to inflate. Since the credit crunch began true deflation has not actually occurred. Instead the money supply (Broad Money, M3, M4) is still growing as the governments resort to running huge budget deficits, that will be paid by printing money. We are told that this is necessary, as our economy needs the credit in order for it to operate. This however is not the case.

It doesn't matter how much money you have in the economy, so long as it is stable and divisible enough to price goods and services. Zimbabwe has huge amounts of money, yet they are no better off than traditional hard money countries such as Switzerland. In other words our prosperity does not depend on how much money there is, only that it be a commodity that can retain its value. If we allowed our money supply to drop, as markets are currently indicating, prices would just fall to a new equilibrium. If our money supply fell 50% then prices would generally fall 50%. This is the way to get out of the economic hardship we find ourselves in. This ensures a healthy liquidation process runs its course and cleans out these excessive speculative debts, those of the wasteful businesses and individuals. It would also stop government spending, and these unpayable deficits that we now see. It would be painful, depending on your circumstances, but it was brought about by the excessive credit expansion of the previous boom. The market is simply trying to get rid of these excesses. The worst thing we can do is try to re-inflate like we are currently doing. History has always shown this, and economic theory proves it.

Deflation is Compatible with Economic Growth

The recent credit bubble has now morphed into a violent contraction as the credit expansion process has turned into a credit contraction. This is not to be confused with normal market deflation (constantly falling prices), rather a by product of the elasticity of our money. In a free market that did not permit excess credit creation (ideally none), used sound money and removed the monopoly our governments hold on our money, deflation would be a normal occurrence. As history has shown, economies that have undergone deflation, have performed better than economies that have experienced inflation. Milton Friedman, who in fact believed in price stability therefore inflation, concluded that America during the period from 1865 to 1879 experienced huge economic growth despite having no inflation. On the contrary the U.S. was experiencing deflation.

"[T]he price level fell to half its initial level in the course of less than fifteen years and, at the same time, economic growth proceeded at a rapid rate. . . . [T]heir coincidence casts serious doubts on the validity of the now widely held view that secular price deflation and rapid economic growth are incompatible."
Milton Friedman and Anna J. Schwartz, A Monetary History of the United States 1867–1960

Around this time Germany also experienced rapid price declines, yet had the best economic growth in the whole of Europe as they became a world superpower that challenged Britain's status at the start of the twentieth century.

These false justifications to create more credit will ruin market forces for years to come. Credit merely channels societies resources. If we have less credit then prices drop to their new equilibrium. Just because credit contracts, doesn't mean we suddenly loose all our infrastructure, our skills, our resources? They are still there, and will just be re-priced accordingly. The competent, people and businesses who did not overextend themselves during the credit boom, did not make wasteful purchases, will take over from the people who were overextended and have been liquidated, who could not manage societies scarce resources.

'Price Stability'

So why do we have this catastrophic credit expansion that creates all the issues we now have? Governments and Central banks use a concept of price stability. Many of you would have heard of it before. In the UK for example we have a composite index that represents typical consumer goods, called the CPI (Consumer Prices Index). The government (Central Bank) try to keep this target in a range of 2-3%. Around the turn of the Twentieth Century a proponent of this concept was an economist called Irving Fischer (an early day monetarist). The concept goes that this will somehow ensure greater economic productivity and planning. Another economist at the time, Friedrich Hayek, indicated that this proposal was doomed from the start. In order to stabilise prices in a free market where prices were continually falling, the stabilisation would inevitably take the form of a credit expansion, which would provoke a boom. This boom would be unsustainable and would result in these artificial credit distortions eventually unwinding with a bust.

These polices were used during the 1920's in America, with the Federal Chairman Benjamin Strong, ensuring 'price stability' by crediting a huge credit bubble in the stock market. Irving Fischer, who supported such polices said in 1929;

"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau."

He also made statements for the continuing years that stock prices seem to have stabilised, even as they continued to decline until 1933. Meanwhile in 1928/1929 Friedrich Hayek, had wrote that a great depression was coming. Price Stability was a form of central planning, targeting fixed metrics that were incompatible with market forces. It was central planning intervention, interference with markets just like Communist Russia. At the time he was laughed at, people were saying it could never happen, this was the "Global Economy", the "New Economy". However the disaster was always on the cards, it was just a matter of time. Governments and Central Banks subsequently use 'Price Stability' to legitimise this expansion of the money supply that always brings about the boom and bust process we are currently seeing.

Price Indexes

Then we come to the point of the price index (CPI, RPI etc). How do we determine the algorithm to use? In a free society how do we decide what people spend their money on? Well one cost would be living costs, as we all have to live somewhere. Not in CPI. CPI, the preferred measure the government uses doesn't even include typically peoples biggest cost, their roof over their head. So how can they target 'price stability' when we don't include house costs. Quite simply they can't and its all an illusion. All the inflation went into houses - trillions of it, now its all spilling out as the governments try and replace the bad loans that were lent on these assets. It's a similar story with stock markets, they are also not included in any measure. The indexes they use from the start are flawed. Its all deliberate, to give people the illusion of prosperity i.e. rising asset prices to ensure continual inflation, debasement of our money. These are the justifications they now use for printing money, flawed centrally planned metrics which is just the same as any Communist centrally planned ethos. All monopolies are doomed to fail and impoverish the people. This is no different.

The amusing thing with CPI in the UK, is it hasn't even fallen in it's targeted range and yet the government are already wanting to print money, even before true falling prices have actually met their bounds that they use.

Arguments against deflation

There are many common horror stories with deflation, a fear is installed in people with various doomsday scenarios that will occur, and all of them incorrect.

The first one, is no one will buy anything. People will stop consuming and we will all have no jobs. So when mobile phones, computers, televisions, holidays, cars etc have all been falling, did people prospone their consumption? Of course they didn't, people have a time preference to enjoy their life now. Everyone knew these goods would most probably fall in price over the past 10 years yet everyone kept buying them at record levels for the enjoyment of these products now. People buy mobile phones every year, despite them continually falling in value. Common sense says people always spend money. We always need goods. People use these justifications for houses, if prices keep falling then no one will buy them. People will always buy houses regardless, as its a home, and people will always pay for the enjoyment of 'their' home. If peoples past expectation during the housing bubble was rising appreciation, then these attitudes need to change. A house is a home and historically has been a poor investment. When the credit crunch began people stopped buying homes not because they thought they would fall, but because the banks stopped reckless lending. Now people are not even sure if they will have a job, so buying a home suddenly seems like a liability.

Second, it would be harder to service our debts. Sure, if you have a million pound house with an income on minimum wage and a 125% mortgage. This only occurs in the extreme case we find ourselves in now, that is caused not by deflation, but the excessive credit expansion of the preceding years, all in the name of 'price stability'. Even in our current situation, people who have over extended themselves get liquidated. The people who have been prudent and competent take over these assets. Governments cut their wasteful spending, and don't rob the people through inflation allowing the competent private sector companies to take over - not the government like we are seeing now. An attempt to re-inflate will only result in further struggles to pay debts as the new money ends up in food, energy etc meanwhile production is distorted and hampered by these re-inflationary tactics.

Third, we will get a deflationary collapse like Japan in the nineties. It wasn't the deflation that killed Japan, as in a monetary trap, it was the government, a structural trap. It continued with further inflation. The government expanded its involvement, tried to prop up prices and didn't allow liquidation. The funny thing is U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner now states that Japan did not inflate enough and that's why their economy never recovered. Talk about clown school economics. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. It was like Robert Mugabe stating that Zimbabwe's economy is in such a bad state, because he didn't print enough money.

Deflation allows all sections of society to prosper. It distributes lower priced goods and services to all income groups, regardless of social standing or what assets they hold. Inflation enriches the wealthy at the expense of the poor. It puts a break on social mobility. Banks and Governments are always the winners as they receive the money first. As the money moves out, prices rise and the last to get it suffer. As long as the government holds a monopoly on our money they will always inflate, regardless of the consequences. Regardless of robbing the very people they are elected to represent. The only way to prevent this is by giving production of money back to the people - to the market. Just like any other good, Chicken, Shoes, Phones, all are provided by the market and money is no different. It is merely a convenient commodity to exchange our more cumbersome goods. Britain had free market money around the turn of the nineteenth century, as it rose to become the economic superpower of the world. Government intervention outlawed it, as there was no benefit for them subsequently creating the modern money monopoly they still hold. One day, I hope we will look back at inflation as an ancient cult, extinct, with deflation a permanent feature in our economic landscape, discriminating against no social group and ensuring everyone can enjoy the fruits of a true free market.

"Today everybody is prepared to consider a rise in his nominal or monetary income as an improvement to his material well being. People’s attention is directed more toward the rise in nominal wage rates and the money equivalent of wealth than to the increase in the supply of commodities. In a world of rising purchasing power for the monetary unit they would concern themselves more with the fall in living costs. This would bring into clearer relief the fact that economic progress consists primarily in making the amenities of life more easily accessible."
Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action