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.

Britain, the Canary down the Western Coal Mine

"We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists, and in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion since the war by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step."

Jim Callaghan - Speech at the Labour Party Conference, 28 September 1976

Gold prices had been on the rise for weeks, then all of a sudden fell back with a thud as we were told that only 11,000 jobs were lost in the US during November. Another Brown bounce in the polls left Cameron backtracking, austerity is so last month, instead 'growth' by government spending is now acceptable as policy is dictated by focus groups. The Middle Easts version of Las Vegas got a helping hand which was good news for many UK banks, however only a mere $80 Billion would have been at stake. Years ago it would have meant something, not today with Trillion dollar bailouts. China's vice governor at the peoples bank declared 'We must watch out for bubbles forming on certain assets, and be careful in those areas' referring to golds recent upward trajectory. Nice try, that deceit may wash with CNBC but those of us in the loop know full well that China would love to transfer much of their paper assets into hard assets such as Gold.

It's sometimes easy to forget what the average person thinks in relation to financial matters. Articles posted here are certainly not consistent with mainstream thinking. People are still on the same broken record, 'Buy a house now while prices are cheap before you get priced out', 'We are past the worst now and good times are ahead', 'The government will make a good profit for the taxpayers with the bank bailouts'. Ask people who read the financial sections of broadsheet newspapers about gold and you get told 'The price can go up as well as down' as though this is a unique quality that does not apply to other assets such as bonds, real estate or stocks. Indeed it is important to remember just what people are thinking, because you don't want to be on the same page as them. 'Repeat after me, Gold is a bubble, Central Banks can 'tame' markets, the sustainable recovery is here and there is no inflation! There is no spoon!' There's no analysis of the thunderstorm that is brewing in the distance.

So what about this Gold bubble then? People are right, however they are 5, 10, 15 years too early in calling it. People are buying the stuff because one day it will be a bubble as the Worlds Central Banks are busy blowing the next bubbles as I write. The currency and Government Bond bubbles will eventually burst causing mass inflation and creating the next bubble, commodities and precious metals. As Bernanke and Company try to assess how best to deal with bubbles, they fool the public as though these events are some mystical force that no one can control. I have a simple solution, how about stop printing so much money. We instead move from bubble to bubble, the Centrals banks policy after one pops is to inject further easy money into the system. Like some drunk who throws up after a bottle of vodka, 'I best have another to sort myself out'.

Could the US unemployment figures signal the turn with people getting back to work? Maybe in the short term, but I don't think this will be a long term trend. You have to remember governments everywhere are printing huge amounts of money and this is bound to give the so called 'prosperity' effect in the short term but it won't last, the free market hasn't healed. During the coming stagflation a lot of conventional indicators will seem to be healing when in fact the underlying fundamentals are deteriorating. For ten years after the credit crunch in 1973/74 the unemployment rate in the UK kept rising.

It didn't move up in a straight line, with periods of consolidation and even movements to the downside. When the correct path was taken it took years to fall. Numbered estimates in the news are useless, three million, four million, all have been given as figures for the short term, however no one can say for certain, all we do know is that history says it will keep rising over the long term.

For a developed country the British people sure do love their inflation. While many other nations inflation indices have plummeting like many a British Banks shares, the UK's inflation rate has remained remarkably 'sticky'. Whether its the appreciation of our assets, our rising incomes, our increased levels of debt or the fallacy that we believe the weak pound is good, we really do want to beat other nations in the race to the bottom. The yanks scream 'bloody murder' watching their beloved dollars debasement from the powers that be, not realising that one hundred years ago a British pound used to be worth $5. Anything you can do across the pond, we can do it much worse. Over the next decade I'm sure we will show the developed world what not to do. The problem I see is that British people want inflation. We want to see rising prices, we believe that this is a healthy state of affairs and will thus allow a greater level of leniency towards our policymakers compared with other nations when it comes to expansive monetary policy.

Will the BoE raise interest rates when the market forces their hand? Contrary to what people believe it is the market that controls long term interest rates. We may like to think of central banks under a paternalistic viewpoint, our saviours there to insulate us from financial destruction and chaos, to solve economic issues should they arise. Central bankers are just like their Communist Central Planning counterparts, eventually market forces get the better of them where eventually they follow the market, not set the tempo as they would have us all believe.

In order to understand how markets dictate prices such as interest rates its easier to compare the lowering of interest rates to say lowering the price of bread. If the government declared rather than liquidity not been easily accessible that the issue was now high bread prices, they therefore set forth a policy to fix the price lowering it below the market one. As suppliers begin making losses they shut down production, at the same time people consume more as they can purchase more of the product. Eventually the country runs out of bread with all stocks depleted. Rather than bite the bullet immediately the government would in all probability resort to rationing rather than admit the error of their ways with bread queues becoming a common occurrence. A black market may appear as people under their free will and against the governments law begin selling bread to one another for a price set by people, the marketplace. If however the government wishes to fix the state of affairs they must liberate the price once more, allowing the market to determine the price of production. As suppliers closed down long ago abandoning their supply networks it takes a short while for supply to meet demand once more. During this period the price of bread goes into the stratosphere as people bid up the cost of the present scarce bread. Eventually market forces will drive the cost down over time to a point of equilibrium.

How does bread relate to interest rates? Its the same principle. Governments can set the price low but eventually the market will force its hand to raise the price, with the price going into the stratosphere. This is why we had 18% interest rates when Thatcher tried to put things right, or when Paul Volker put US rates above 20%. The policy makers were just chasing the market, trying to reign in inflation which was driving the free markets interest rates haywire. During the 1973/74 credit crunch Central Banks had the same idea as now, that is they lowered interest rates in response to the recession, but the longer and lower you try to hold down these prices the higher and sharper they have to eventually rise as many an older reader will painfully remember.

The BoE could be forced to raise interest rates under a number of scenarios. They may have to raise rates if there is a currency crisis with the pound falling as investors flee. Like the bread situation above, they will put off the price liberation, instead they will put currency controls or limits on capital (like bread rationing) in order to try and provide a short term fix. Eventually the market beats them and they have to hike rates as over the long run a lack of foreign investment creates a less dynamic economy and higher inflation.

It could be forced to raise rates if inflation got out of hand with the free market demanding increased real rates of return to negate the depreciation of the currency. Even if central banks keep buying government debt at artificially low rates, private banks still lend to all of us, with this mortgage rates could rise for example. Its similar to what we see now, despite base rates at near zero average mortgage rates are far higher as the free market realises there are inflation risks over the medium to long term. They are also hedging against their potential losses as the government props them up.

However they could do none of the above. They could keep rates low, spurring on more inflation as the government can no longer afford increased rates on the ever expanding debt. They by pass the market and lend to individuals themselves at these rates. They print money directly to cover the shortfall in the various government payrolls. Currency collapse is ensured at this point as it becomes clear to all that its time to pack your suitcase. Marc Faber believes this is the conundrum America will face at some point in which its policymakers will not rise to challenge, instead they will shirk away from the correct action to take, opting for runaway inflation. At some point the stock market of such a country would be a screaming buy, just at the depths of the seemingly never ending hyperinflation when the average person has lost all confidence.

Could the UK be the Canary down the Western coal mine? There are many other nations with serious issues that have faced or will face issues sooner, but I wouldn't put them in the same tier as Britain, a nation who still has a recent innovative and industrious past. She could however, be the warning signal for many other Western nations that mass inflation and/or interest rate rises are just around the corner. Either option ain't pretty.

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.