Showing posts with label Deficits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Deficits. Show all posts

Friday, 16 October 2009

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.

Saturday, 4 October 2008

Buying is Dead Money

It has been widely assumed for years now that renting a property is a waste of money, or what has become known as dead money. For years now I have rented, moving from property to property, one end of the country to another, and I have never understood the saying of 'dead money'. How can paying for a living space be dead money? I mean, I pay rent to the owner of the property, who then provides me with a house to live in. He maintains all the upkeep, insurance, wear and tear and I get to live in a fully furnished property. Now that property prices are completely collapsing, along with the overinflated UK economy, I can view the events occurring with no worry or stress, in fact with enjoyment as I watch an interesting chapter in human history unfold. I have no huge debt. If I need to move for another job I can relocate within a month or two. If I wish to move into a larger place I can do so. Renting, during a downturn like the one we are about to go through is anything but dead money. It's money well spent and let me break down some of the 'home ownership' myths that have been falsely put forward in the age of stupidity.

  • The first one, and I always enjoy hearing this, which reveals the majority of peoples financial illiteracy, is rental payments are dead money as opposed to paying a mortgage. For the type of properties I rent in order to buy them in the past couple of years the interest payments on the mortgage would have been larger than the rent I paid. Now if I actually wanted some sort of payment plan, then it would have obviously cost a lot more, in fact all my wages pretty much. Then of course if I miss payments on a mortgage persistently I risk having the property repossessed and of course obtaining a terrible credit rating, with the bank chasing me for years to come. If I miss a rental payment persistently, the landlord will eventually be able to evict me, but I have no bad credit rating, no legal proceedings. I just have a bad reference, in which case you just don't use for your next property as most landlords are desperate for tenants.

  • Rents will rise and mortgage costs will drop. This is the complete opposite of what will happen over the next few years. As credit becomes tighter and banks try to repair their balance sheets they will seek to deter borrowing and encourage saving. Therefore mortgages will be more more expensive. If I did buy in the last couple of years I would have needed to get a huge adjustable mortgage which would have been in negative equity by the time re-mortgaging came around therefore I would be paying the much higher adjusted rate. I feel sorry for a lot of people in this position who will have to pay a lot more in the years to come, especially when they see rents falling. Despite what the 'experts' say (the same people that were telling you the sound fundamentals of the economy, when I was telling you they were lying), rents will come down, in fact they already are. People are emigrating, moving back in with relatives as jobs are lost and so on, meaning less demand for rentals. This is how it always works in economic downturns.

  • I have no upkeep costs of the properties I live in. If the boiler breaks down, I don't pay a penny, and its the landlord who is responsible. Washing machine breaks? No worries, my landlords wallet can pick that one up. Fancy a change of decor? Rather than buy a load of tat with the stress of getting it and building it, I can go find a house that is furnished to more of my tastes (if I was interested in that kind of thing).

  • In the event I loose my job, I simply give my landlord two months notice and leave. Go back with the parents what ever I want. I can walk away, intact and with money still in the bank.

  • The savings I have acquired so far I can put into savings accounts that will earn interest. If this money was put into a deposit a couple of years ago, it would have long been eaten away by the price drops of the past year.
Point is, I'm comfortable and happy renting, and for some reason for the past decade, in particular in the UK and the US if you rent you are almost seen as a second class citizen. The sad thing is, people are still trying to buy property now, thinking because it has dropped 10-20% it is somehow a bargain. People are still viewing property through the tinted glasses of a way to get rich. In reality the equity they will have will be shortly wiped out in the next few years and will not be recovered for decades. The collapse of Bradford and Bingley should completely topple BTL owners and it will bring about even more drops to come, along with the rising unemployment and government budget deficits. Despite the deteriorating state of the economy people are still talking about a bottom on property. A bottom will appear when everyone stops talking about a bottom. It will happen when people have become weary of debt, governments and banks. It will happen when mortgages are far cheaper than rents, and sizable deposits are required, with banks lending to prudent standards once more. It will happen when people have lost their 'pensions' in BTL and say there is no money in property and only a fool would buy now. It will happen when people say, buying is dead money.


Turning to the Bailout

The situation is quite clearly going from bad to worse. I said that the governments and institutions of the world would try and prop the economy up, and this would only make things worse. It's no suprise that the $700 Billion Bailout package has passed on the second attempt. Since the post war period, Western economists and leaders have become drilled in Keynesian economics, a tragic and false theory whereby governments should become active in fiscal stimulus activities during recessionary periods, with the discouragement of saving and encouragment of consumption. I mean it defies logic when you think about it, and its what is occurring at this very moment. We've just had the biggest consumer boom and spending spree, well ever. According to John Maynard Keynes whose theories our leaders are trying to follow, we should be increasing spending and government intervention, trying to prop up the very excesses that were caused during the boom. House prices are too expensive, therefore we throw money at the problem, which is a waste of resources and goes against the very market forces that demand the correction. What the market at the moment is saying, is that we have too much debt in society too little savings and are not producing any real value in the economy due to all the mal investment that has occurred. Therefore prices in certain areas need to fall and fall fast in order to bring about a normalisation to the economy. All good economists recognise the recession is the good part of the business cycle, and at the end of one the economy is returned to a state of optimal efficiency. The media and mainstream 'experts' however, have made economic contractions into something that should be avoided at all costs, even if it induces a worse recession in the end. Its all scaremongering, just like terrorism, rather than looking at causes and reasoning as to why the terrorism was created in the first place. It's how institutions always control people. Religion, for example Christianity, does this by giving the concept of 'hell', a place where people go if they don't conform with convention and ask questions.

This bailout package won't be the last. It's just the foot in the door. There will be more, with politicians proclaiming it needs to be carried out in order to save the system from collapse, when in reality the problems are compounding further, with the endgame of a worse collapse. Government deficits are increasing along with debts, while savings are being depleted further, thus the fundamentals are continually getting worse. I was hopeful we may let the bust proceed but as ever the powers that be have decided to prolong the bust and ensure that we experience the worst recession any of us have ever seen. We are entering a period of great change, as we pass the opening chapter of many chapters to come.