Tuesday, December 22, 2009

The Close of 2009

As 2009 comes to an end, where does the UK economy stand? As is common practice at this time of year, I thought a review (and commentary) might be appropriate.

There is some good news. It seems that UK households have finally realised that they actually need to save money, and that they are preparing for tougher times ahead. Of course, some of the Keynesian discussion about how bad it is to save in a recession being trotted out, but even the Times is dismissing this concern:
[referring to the Keynes argument] But that does not not appear to be the case here. Instead, all the evidence points to the savings ratio improving simply because of a number of the most heavily indebted households paying down their borrowings, along with a of minority of households overpaying their mortgages. That in itself does not necessarily jeopardise growth prospects — such as they are — for 2010 and is probably worth celebrating in that it confirms a long-overdue recognition from many consumers that they were too far in debt.
One of the curiosities in the figures is that hotels and retailers have reported a 0.7% growth in spending, which is puzzling in light of the switch to savings. However, that people are paying down debt is positive, but a question remains as to where those that are saving (rather than paying down borrowing), may be going. With low interest rates, are savers taking large risks?

The remainder of the news is not so positive. The latest rating agency to express concern about the fiscal situation of the UK is Fitch:
International ratings agency Fitch on Tuesday urged Britain, amongst other nations, to put forward "more credible" plans aimed at reducing state debt or risk "pressure" to its top credit ratings.

The UK is rated 'AAA' by Fitch, meaning the agency has the highest confidence in their ability to repay borrowings.

Fitch said in a report published on Tuesday that "all major 'AAA' sovereign governments need to articulate more credible and stronger fiscal consolidation plans during the course of 2010."

Fitch added that such action was necessary "to underpin confidence in the sustainability of public finances over the medium-term and the commitment to low and stable inflation."

Should the UK be alarmed? According to an article on the BBC, the UK should not:

No wonder leading credit ratings agencies have expressed concern and suggested the UK's AAA rating - reserved for only the very safest borrowers - is under threat, sparking widespread hysteria in the media that UK debt is spiralling out of control.

Reading some headlines, you might even be forgiven for thinking UK plc is on the verge of going bust.

But are the UK's debt levels really that bad when compared with other leading developed economies?

The article goes on to show a chart, which identifies the high level of debt in other developed economies, as if this were to suggest that UK debt levels are OK. It is a curious argument that is put forward in various forms by many commentators. It is like a person who is about to go bankrupt pointing to their neighbour and suggesting that their neighbour has borrowed even more than themselves, so that means that they will not themselves go bankrupt. Of course, their neighbour might be earning more in relation to their debts, might be better able to cut their expenditures, might have borrowed from family rather than the bank and so forth. Also, there is the possibility that their neighbour will go bankrupt too. It is, in other words, a simplistic and complacent point of view.

The concern for this post is that the growing fiscal deficit goes alongside the ongoing fall in GDP.

Britain's economy shrank by 0.2pc in the three months to September, more than the 0.1pc decline expected, as stronger construction output was offset by a weakening in the services and industrial sectors.

This leaves Britain officially mired in recession, unlike most of its major trading partners, even though the previous estimate had shown a bigger 0.3pc GDP contraction.

Regular readers will be aware of the fact that GDP includes debt based activity, so it is apparent that the record levels of government borrowing are still insufficient to prop up the GDP figures. Such an outcome is quite shocking, and suggests that the underlying state of the economy is truly dire. The key question is to ask what GDP might look like without the government's huge borrowing, and the word 'ugly' comes to mind.

As for the policy of Quantitative Easing (QE - printing money to finance government borrowing), there is considerable discussion of the policy coming to an end:
All but one of the 53 analysts in a Reuters poll reckon the Bank of England will halt its quantitative easing programme when the current 200 billion pound ($320 billion) asset purchase fund, intended to help keep credit flowing, runs out in the next few weeks.
I am not so confident. As I have previously asked, who exactly will pick up the slack if the Bank of England ceases purchases of gilts? The Bank of England has expressed concern about the state of the fiscal deficits, but that is a long way from a decision to throw the gilt markets to the wolves. This is not to excuse the Bank for an irresponsible policy, but rather an acceptance of the dilemma that the Bank is facing. On the other hand, with the fig leaf of the deflationary fear receding, how might the Bank justify an ongoing policy of QE? I would guess that there are some strained meetings taking place between Alastair Darling and the Bank of England.

The scope of the problems of QE and the fiscal profligacy of the government are now having an impact on the gilts market, with yields on gilts moving to levels that are now comparable with Italy. Even mainstream economists are starting to accept that the policy of QE increasingly looks like a method of monetization of government debt, and that this will eventually lead to a crisis:

In a letter to The Sunday Times, the economists, including Tim Congdon, Patrick Minford and Gordon Pepper, warn of “heightened risk” of a downgrade of Britain’s sovereign debt rating.

The signatories, several of whom are on the “shadow” monetary policy committee, say that the integrity of UK fiscal and monetary policy is at stake because of the huge budget deficit.

They warn that international investors could see the Bank of England’s £200 billion quantitative easing programme, mainly the purchase of UK government bonds (gilts) as “driven by a politically-motivated desire to ease the government’s funding difficulties”
Regular readers will know that I have been making the argument that the QE policy is a method of funding massive fiscal deficits, and that I argued even before the commencement of the policy that the response to a growing fiscal hole would see either printing money or sovereign default. The most incredible part of the entire story is that economists, analysts and commentators have accepted the Bank of England spin on the policy for so long. I suspect history will not be kind to those that have accepted the Bank's line on this policy.

Then there is the 'real' economy. Starting with the banks, they are facing major headwinds, with losses on lending stretching out to the horizon. Commercial property is looking a particular risk, with loans in breach of agreement doubling in the first half of 2009, and expectations for the situation to become worse. Residential mortgage arrears, already at a high rate, also increased in the third quarter of the year by 3%. Some positives might be seen in the figures, even though they are still terrible:

A total of 13,987 properties were repossessed by lenders during the three months to the end of September, according to the Financial Services Authority.

But the figure was 6% lower than during the first quarter of the year, as a combination of low interest rates, Government schemes and lender forbearance helped people to stay in their homes.

The Government has launched a raft of initiatives to help people struggling with their mortgage stay in their home.

[and]

The combination of of Government support, low interest rates and lender forbearance has caused the CML to slash its forecast for repossessions for 2009 by more than a third to 48,000, although this would still be the highest number since 1995.

Of course, the question about such schemes is to ask how much they will cost, and whether they are sustainable, or simply putting off the day of reckoning for both the banks and the mortgagees. With regards to interest rates, if inflation picks up or there are problems rolling over government debt, then it is quite possible that the Bank of England will be forced into interest rate rises.

As for consumer credit, the losses in the coming year are expected to be horrendous, with the following from the Telegraph:

"Economic indicators and feedback from our collections clients suggests that the first quarter of 2010 could be the busiest period ever seen."

Experian is anticipating the worst due to the 771,000 job losses in the first nine months of the year, a 94pc increase on 2008, and the record quarterly personal insolvency rate of 41,390 for the three months to September.

There are a few points to highlight from these indicators. The first is that, with consumers saving and restricting in their spending, it is not clear where the shops, bars, restaurants, and all the other consumption based businesses are going to get their income (the puzzle of growth in spending mentioned earlier). This lack of income will in turn impact upon employment and commercial property, and this will in turn feed into more mortgage and credit defaults, and this will then impact upon the banks. The truth is that, now consumers are trying to live within their means, and are prudently saving, the adjustment can not be stopped. The move of consumers to living within their means can only mean a downward spiral, until the point is reached where businesses supported by excessive borrowing are gone.

Even the government's massive borrowing, acting as the consumer of last resort, is insufficient to hold back the inevitable adjustment - at best it is an expensive mechanism of delay.

Then there is manufacturing. Output is down by 8.4% according to the Economist of 12th December. Bearing this in mind, I read an interesting article in the Times, which was still harping on about the much vaunted theme of the knowledge economy:
The primary question, though, of where the money comes from in the future, is difficult. In 1975 55 per cent of the British economy came from services. Now 75 per cent does. Manufacturing was more than a fifth of the economy 20 years ago. Now it is less than one eighth. But this, in itself, does not mean the economy is “unbalanced”. Manufacturing is roughly the same share of the economy in the UK as it is in France and the US. In any case, outside the aerospace, defence and biotechnology industries, manufacturing is stuck in a trap of low value and low skills. These jobs will migrate to anywhere that adds low wages to the mix.
They still do not get it. This is the bankrupt model that led the UK, and other economies into the mess we are in. A quick look at the current account balance for the UK shows that this has not, and is not, working. Again, according to the Economist, the UK's trade balance is $US -126 billion, and the current account balance is $US -50 billion.

The article in the Times presents the aspiration for a future built upon "biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and sophisticated engineering", but we have heard this mantra in the past, and it is not paying the UK's bills. That winning in these sectors would be a good thing is not a matter of dispute, but the reality remains that the UK has, over a long period of time, failed to achieve this miracle.

Whilst it is possible to point to many successes in the creation of jobs from these industries, it has become clear that the UK also needs to compete in old fashioned manufacturing. The added value in the output in the 'creative' and high tech sectors has not been paying the bills, and this has been hidden by debt based growth. In order for the UK to succeed in manufacturing, the reality is that it must accept the necessity to compete with lower wage countries, a critical element is to remove the burdens on the UK economy associated with excessive government expenditure and debt creation.

A reduction in the size of the state is not the whole solution. A more efficient state is necessary, as is the necessity of pushing for fairer free trade, for example addressing the currency manipulation of China, or the inequities of state intervention in industry in the EU. In addition, there are many areas of the UK in need of reform, and it is beyond this post to detail all of them (see links to my suggested reform at the top left of the page). The point is that the one thing not being addressed by government is the underlying problems at the heart of the UK economy.

Talk of success in high tech and creative industries is easy. Actually generating enough to support a high standard of living in the UK are entirely different matter. History to date has shown us that it is not enough, and there is no reason to think that this will (as if by magic) change simply because people wish it to. The UK has been living on borrowing for too long, and something must change if the UK is to achieve economic success.

For those that point, for example, to the success of countries like Germany, and that we should emulate their policy, I have a simple question. If it was possible to achieve, why is it we have so stubbornly failed to do so? We have had industrial policy and it failed, we have had high government expenditure, and massive state intervention and it failed. Why will it be different this time? Economists might argue about what are the key elements of German success, but can another country - with so many structural and cultural differences - ever hope to reproduce the success? I would argue that the success of one country can not be easily transferred to another country with an entirely different structure and culture. In other words, the UK must enact policy that will work for the structure and culture of the UK.

I read an article recently (sorry, I forget where) which suggested that ongoing falls in the £GB will see trade eventually return to balance. Currency devaluation is often seen as a solution to economic problems, which is partially true. If the value of a currency falls, then the competitiveness of businesses does indeed increase. However, it does so at the cost of relative impoverishment of everyone who holds the currency. In simple terms, if you are paid in £GB and enjoy Belgian beer, then the price of the beer will go up - you are literally poorer in terms of your Belgian beer purchasing power.

As such, devaluation is a solution to a poorly performing economy, but it is a solution in which everyone in the economy is quite literally poorer. It is a mechanism of re-balancing an economy, but it always puzzles me that it is proposed as a 'successful' solution by some economists. It is just a wage cut for everyone, and the erosion of the purchasing power of savings. It is a form of achieving competitiveness that is punitive, in particular for those who have worked hard and saved.

Although devaluation might eventually lead to a re-balancing of the economy, at cost to everyone, the problems of such a devaluation are numerous. As has already been detailed, there is considerable nervousness about the UK's fiscal policy. If a government and the Bank of England seeks the devaluation solution, then there is a real possibility of a gilts strike. If investors believe that there will be an ongoing and substantial devaluation, then it will become ever more difficult for government to borrow, which means printing more money to fund deficits. In addition, inflation will continue to increase, as imports become more expensive. As inflation increases, the cost of government will increase, requiring higher levels of borrowing. I think you can see where this is heading...an inflationary spiral.

Devaluation is therefore a very, very high risk solution. It leaves only one viable solution, which is that the UK economy must just stop consuming more value than it produces. That means that government must follow the lead of consumers and stop borrowing to spend. That the solution will be very hard does not remove the necessity. Yes, the economy will go into a tailspin. Yes, it will need cuts in expenditure in every sector of the economy, even in the NHS.

The basic question to be asked is what is the alternative? A government that lives on printed money, crippling inflation and massive interest payments? Yes, the UK economy might get away with the policy of printing money and massive fiscal deficits for a little longer. But what will happen when this finally unwinds? How much worse will it be then?

As 2009 comes to a close, the deep seated problems in the structure of the UK economy are harder and harder to hide. The (neo) Keynesian solutions that so many supported are now being seen as what they are - a progression towards disaster. The idea that government can borrow and spend to infinity is being tested, and it is apparent that this can only work if people are willing to lend. This small detail escaped the Keynesian economists, who seemed to assume that governments could indeed borrow with no restraint or consequence.

You do not need a PhD in economics to know that people will only lend money if they think they have a reasonable chance of having that money returned to them. You do not need a PhD in economics to know that, if your finances are in a mess, lenders will demand ever more reward for the risk of lending you money. You do not need a PhD in economics to know that you can not continue to live beyond your means forever, and that one day the borrowing will have to stop and paying back the debt will need to start.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the coming year for the UK will be the election. It might be that Gordon Brown will seek an early election, hoping for re-election before the economy becomes any worse, or in fear of a coming gilt strike. The likely winner of the election is the Conservative Party, who will inherit an economy and fiscal situation that is on the brink of disaster. To date, the Conservatives have failed to persuade me that they have either the will or the courage to tackle the deep seated problems of the economy head on. Perhaps they are hiding their plans from the public, and do intend a more radical policy than they are currently proposing. This can only be speculation, but in all cases the Conservative Party should be honest with the public.

As the world enters a new year, it is time for honesty. The party is over, and the hangover must now start. When surveying the news, there are still only hints from the politicians of the severity of the situation. The time has come for the politicians to come clean, and tell people about exactly how bad the situation actually is. It is only then that people can actually accept what is an absolute necessity, and that is wholesale restructuring of the UK economy.


Note: That restructuring the UK economy alone is not enough should not stop the process from starting. The more difficult and intractable problems of the world economy must also be addressed, but the UK government can not by itself address this problem. Currency manipulation by China, for example, requires action from the US an the EU.

23 comments:

  1. Excellent article as ever.

    The problem with the Conservatives being honest is the Socialists will lie continually (and be supported by the likes of the BBC as per your article).

    Large numbers of the public are extremely stupid and even many of the intelligent ones don't seem to realise how bad things are ; they appear to believe that when the recession is over, things will "return to normal".

    So the voting public could be given a choice between happy times with the Labour party or misery with the Conservatives - or that's how they may try to push it - and there are too many idiots willing to buy that line. Even now about 28% of the population are willing to support Brown

    Thus the Tories can't be honest. I, like you, am not totally convinced they will do what needs to be done. However, I know for certain that Labour won't until it they are forced to by (say) the IMF.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's nice to see an end of the year post. Merry Christmas to one and all.

    I regret I didn't get a chance to comment on the climate change post, as I enjoyed it very much.

    It is clear that the earth is cooling and that the man-made global warming issue has serious problems, with scientific opinion divided over whether it is occurring.

    For those on the left, I recommend the excellent writing of the skeptic Alexander Cockburn of Counterpunch on climate change.
    People on the left should be far more skeptical of climate change, in my view.
    Here are some initial comments on this post:

    Such an outcome is quite shocking, and suggests that the underlying state of the economy is truly dire. The key question is to ask what GDP might look like without the government's huge borrowing, and the word 'ugly' comes to mind.

    Indeed, but then do you really think that a policy of severe fiscal contraction would have made things better?
    That it would have been a better policy?

    Regular readers will know that I have been making the argument that the QE policy is a method of funding massive fiscal deficits, and that I argued even before the commencement of the policy that the response to a growing fiscal hole would see either printing money or sovereign default. The most incredible part of the entire story is that economists, analysts and commentators have accepted the Bank of England spin on the policy for so long

    A more convincing conclusion is that the post Keynesian school called "chartalism" has been vindicated by the US and UK use of QE. See Quantitative easing 101 at Billyblog:
    http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=661

    For those that point, for example, to the success of countries like Germany, and that we should emulate their policy, I have a simple question. If it was possible to achieve, why is it we have so stubbornly failed to do so?

    The answer is not easy to find. We haven't emulated their policies! A good start is reading this article:

    Wyn Grant and Stephen Wilks, 'British Industrial Policy: Structural Change, Policy Inertia,' Journal of Public Policy 3. 1, Industrial Policies in OECD Countries (1983): 13-28.

    In brief, a laissez faire mentality has stymied industrial policy in the UK, which has often taken the form of half hearted plans that are never properly implemented. In the absence of a highly aggressive policy of the kind you find in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, it is not at all strange that there has been no great success in the UK.

    We have had industrial policy and it failed, we have had high government expenditure, and massive state intervention and it failed.

    When actually was this? The UK has never, to my knowledge, had a "massive state intervention" in industrial policy.

    Devaluation is therefore a very, very high risk solution.

    The historical evidence says otherwise. It is a fairly common way to regain competitiveness. The US engineered the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza_Accord to regain competitiveness. It was reasonably successful, and inflation actually fell down to 1987. No hyperinflation resulted.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Comments 2

    The (neo) Keynesian solutions that so many supported are now being seen as what they are - a progression towards disaster. The idea that government can borrow and spend to infinity is being tested, and it is apparent that this can only work if people are willing to lend. This small detail escaped the Keynesian economists, who seemed to assume that governments could indeed borrow with no restraint or consequence.


    I am disappointed to say that this is a rather poor straw man argument. Even Keynesians don't believe that governments can "borrow and spend to infinity".
    What they do say is that very high government debt to GDP ratios are not necessarily an economic problem.
    The "government is just like an individual when it comes to borrowing" analogy is deeply, deeply mistaken.

    If it were true, then the UK, the US, Canada and Australia would have collapsed after WWII.

    Here are their relevant government debt to GDP ratios in 1945:

    US - 117.5%
    Canada - 120%
    New Zealand - 145%
    Australia - 120%

    As I have said before, the government has the power to rollover much of its debt and is the monopoly issuer of the currency.

    Furthermore, the government has access to tax receipts which grow over time, which can effectively mean that the cost of interest servicing falls as the population rises, as long as it borrows in own currency.

    You do not need a PhD in economics to know that people will only lend money if they think they have a reasonable chance of having that money returned to them. You do not need a PhD in economics to know that, if your finances are in a mess, lenders will demand ever more reward for the risk of lending you money. You do not need a PhD in economics to know that you can not continue to live beyond your means forever, and that one day the borrowing will have to stop and paying back the debt will need to start.

    You don't need a PhD either to know that governments are the monopoly issuers of their own currency.
    The risk of default is low. That is why investors flee to government bonds in times of crisis, just as they did to the US dollar in late 2008.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gold Bubble?

    And at its current "record" price, gold still hasn't recovered over the past 30 years to meet, much less surpass, the $850 that had Torontonians lining up around the block in the bitter cold of January 1980 to buy gold wafers, bars and coins at the since-defunct Deak & Co. at King and Yonge Streets.
    Taking inflation into account, gold should now be trading at $2,163.62 to match its previous high. Anyone who bought gold at its historic peak in 1980 is suffering a $1,313.62 loss three decades later on every ounce of gold purchased at that time.


    Olive: Fool's gold.

    ReplyDelete
  5. See the excellent post on Debtwatch about excess reserves and the hyperinflation scare:


    Fictional Reserve Lending And The Myth Of Excess Reserves.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cynicus,

    I think the mystery of growth in spending and saving is not a mystery and you alluded to the answer. People are better off because of low interest rates so they can do both. Interest rates are pinned down because the BoE is acting like a forced seller in the market with its QE policy.

    I guess the problem with the East-West imbalance is that China has billions of people with small savings/earnings rather than millions of people with large savings/earnings and Chinese individuals probably don't want to spend the little money they have on the expensive products that we produce. How much devaluation would be required to tip that balance?

    I think there is a reasonable chance that the Conservative party will want to put all the bad news at the start of their term so they can blame it on Labour. Having said that, I thought the same thing about Obama and he's still in Stimulus City.

    Lord Keynes - Perhaps its reasonable to assume that a big deficit in itself is not a problem and you say that Keynesians don't believe in borrowing to infinity, so when is a big deficit too big and what changes do you think will happen to bring the UK deficit back down?

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Stagflation will be the UK-centric buzzword for us in 2010.

    I note John Paulson and Julian Robertson are shorting the long-end T-Bill, Paulson is also into Gold.

    Two website articles which consider the inflation/deflation debate:

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article16085.html

    http://www.financialsense.com/fsn/main.php

    Once the bond market turns or failing that the currency, the term Crass Keynesianism should be de rigueur.

    Death to Bubble Addicts

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lord Keynes,

    I am dissapointed to read you as a Rodney Hide-ite climate change sceptic. Intelligence in the hands of the in-judicious renders polemical results at best, as you (both) prove.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Cynicus,

    Thank you for yet another excellent view on the current state of play. There are a number of things that I really don't understand about the economic happenings of the last couple of years.

    Firstly QE.Historically printing money has resulted in two things, a collapse in the exchange rate of the currency and a degree of inflation that just has not happened to the £. Why not?

    Secondly Interest rates. Although we are at a record low in B of E base rate the prevailing retail rates for consumers and small businesses are in fact increasing. An example of this is HBOS where they have changed their "High Interest" retail account so that it no longer pays interest on balances and for overdrafts they have "simplified" the system whereby you pay £1 per day regardless of the level of overdraft up to, I think £1500. The interest rate is eye watering if you only borrow £100 or £200! Credit card rates are heading towards 20% but more perniciously terms are being changed to increase the liability for interest, for example interest is now due d=from date of purchase rather than statement date and even from time of purchase rather then time the amount is debited from the account!

    Thirdly, In a situation where we are in dire need of foreign income banks are offering poorer exchange rates, higher transaction charges for currency transactions and incredibly onerous "anti money laundering" procedures to deal with even modest amounts of foreign transactions. Why is the Government allowing this?

    What could be done, do you think, to improve the situation of the UK economy?
    Caber

    ReplyDelete
  10. In regards to the Conservatives, I cant speculate what CCHQ are planning or thinking but I do believe they understand the depth of the problem we are facing. If we win, once they get a look at all the books, I suspect there will be an "emergency budget" which will set out the figures and the proposals - which will be austere in the extreme (but hopefully sensibly-targetted.)

    @Paul was quite right that the Socialists do everything with lies and spin, making it difficult to 'come clean' for fear of the electoral backlash - though I agree with you that honesty is the best solution regardless. Generally the public don't want to hear the bad news, but I think times have changed. Common sense seems to be prevailing at last. I think the Conservatives could win even if we were brutally honest about the state of things - but I'm no electoral strategist so maybe i'm wrong?

    My own opinion (as I've stated many times before) is that over-regulation and taxation of business and labor are the root cause of our problems in manufacturing (and I run a light-engineering firm, so I have first hand experience of this.) This will have to change, but I suspect it will take disaster to strike before people accept that, sadly.

    The official inflation figures are something of a mystery to me. I've been going over my old bills and looking at rises in costs of common purchases in the last 2 - 3 years. Looking at things like bread, meat, milk, chocolate, rice, fruit and other groceries it would appear that inflation is more like 10-20% per annum. Motor fuels and energy continue their relentless rise. All my industrial suppliers in business have increased their prices by between 4 and 15% this year. I am very sceptical of the 'official' rate indeed.

    Thanks for a great year of insightful and well-written comment, CE. Your posts and the input of your readers remains excellent, interesting and valuable. Keep up the good work!

    Merry Christmas All.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The outlook for the UK for 2010 depends on one thing - the BoE QE program.

    If if continues, then things will continue pretty much as they have for the last year, a collapse in the private sector, offset by the spending in the public one. This seems like an entirely benign action, however the longer it continues, the worse the inflationary bust will be in 2011/12. Plus the longer it goes on, the greater the risk of bond/sterling holders taking fright and selling off their sterling assets in fear of losing them to inflation, thereby exacerbating the inflationary pressure.

    If QE is halted fairly soon (I expect it to be extended as far as the election, as the BoE seem determined to save the Labour govt from the consequences of its spendthrift ways) unless the new govt, of either hue, gets a rapid grip on spending and raises taxes, then at some point in 2010 we face the same sterling/funding crisis.

    Either way, at some point in the next few years we will have to face reality - as a nation we have overspent, publically and privately, and now must face the consequences.

    The main one being that we are not as wealthy as we think we are, and what we spend in future will be contrained by a) our earning capacity, and b) our requirements to finance (let alone repay) all the debt incurred in the boom years.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thankyou Cynicus, for your continued blog.I am an avid reader,i always find time to take in your posts.
    In our own farming business things are way worse than a year ago,i would say most farming based businesses will be loseing money this year,prices are under great pressure demand is down,costs are way to high and riseing.
    So no income tax there for mr UK,and rebates for most.In our fresh chip trade demand is 20% back on this time last year.Sadly i see next year back more as the public sector is cut as in Ireland.
    I wish mark and the readers a healthy and happy 2010.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Interesting article in the Indy today:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/concern-as-china-clamps-down-on-rare-earth-exports-1855387.html

    Concern as China clamps down on rare earth exports

    Neodymium is one of 17 metals crucial to green technology. There’s only one snag – China produces 97% of the world’s supply. And they’re not selling

    ...Amid claims that Beijing is using its rare earths monopoly as a tool of foreign policy, the British Department of Business, Industry and Skills said it was "monitoring" the supply of REEs to ensure China was observing international trade rules.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The comments about gold by Mr Olive are embarrassingly skewed.

    He even says at one point that gold is in 'almost infinite supply'! Oh really? Why is it so expensive then? Laws of supply and demand suspended for gold? It's expensive because it's rare. Mr Olive is clearly hard-of-thinking.

    As for the comment about those who bought at the peak being down, why yes, people who buy at the peak in anything are always are down, by definition. I think the price peaked massively (+$100) on just the one day. So how many people bought at that price then? Duh...

    People who bought at the Brown Bottom in 1999 are up 300%. That's a decade ago. Beats the sh1t out of the stock market. Gold is cyclical so care needs to be taken when buying but then, the stockmarket appears cyclical too...

    Really what gold is good at is being a store of value that socialists can't steal from you by sleight of hand and deception. I'm quite happy with its performance ta very much.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Reply to Anonymous on Gold

    I think you miss the point of the article. It's arguing that the current price of gold is itself a bubble, which will collapse.

    Gold is cyclical so care needs to be taken when buying but then, the stockmarket appears cyclical too...

    So really there is not that much difference? Except returns on the stock market in the short term are much higher?

    As it is pointed out in the article, you could have bought stock in boring old Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan and seen a 771% return now, or stock in Walmart in 1978 and made 68,109% return. Both returns in the stock market leave gold for dead.

    You also missed this in the article:

    Early this month, Hu Xiaolian, a vice-governor of the People's Bank of China, was asked if the central bank would be replacing more of its greenbacks with gold after a gold purchase earlier this year. He said that was unlikely given that the bank now worries about the emergence of a gold bubble

    With all the talk of the RMB becoming a new "gold standard" reserve currency, this statement from a senior official in China about a possible "gold bubble" and a suspension of their gold buying should give people pause.

    Really what gold is good at is being a store of value that socialists can't steal from you by sleight of hand and deception.

    Given that governments and international organizations have large reserves of gold, they could flood the market and destroy the price, which gives the lie to your "store of value argument". Incidentally, your concession that "gold is cyclical so care needs to be taken when buying" also undermines the argument that it's some kind of magical and reliable store of value.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Cherry picking Lord Keynes
    "As it is pointed out in the article, you could have bought stock in boring old Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan and seen a 771% return now, or stock in Walmart in 1978 and made 68,109% return. Both returns in the stock market leave gold for dead."

    Or one could have instead bought shares in Woolworths!

    Keep up the good work Mark-Great post,
    Happy new year from Mismo

    ReplyDelete
  17. Come off it, LK, if China really was in the market for large amounts of gold, do you think they'd telling us all about it, or talking the price down while they scale in?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mismo makes a point for me, cherry picking stocks and dates can lead to any result you like. I could have bought Coca-Cola in 1900 too and be up a zillion percent. No, actually I couldn't, wasn't alive then, nor could I have bought Walmart in 1978, too young.

    I did buy British Biotech, what a disaster, down 99%. That will never happen with gold. Biotech you see, was in a bubble. Tech stocks went that way too. Hell, the whole stockmarket was in a bubble. If you want to talk about bubbles I suggest you start with stocks and house prices. That means we must avoid buying them, non?

    As it happens I do own stocks...in mining companies. Up over 60% in 9 months. They mine...gold and silver.

    Everything is cyclical in its own way. 'Cyclical' is not a synonym for 'bubble'. Even gold requires a little thought when purchasing in order to derive the greatest benefit from it. The fact it is rare, shiny and dense does not give the buyer total protection from life's vagaries.

    Gold is better viewed as insurance against unpleasant events and the machinations of government than as a get-rich-quick scheme. The returns are lower than stocks generally as it is lower risk. No surprises there then.

    Stocks and gold generally alternate in a twenty year cycle. This can be seen the the Dow: Gold ratio. Right now we're in the part where it's better to own gold.

    I didn't miss the chinese quote in that article. The Chinese say what they say to achieve the efect they want. If China is buying gold then it will talk the price down - but it will continue buying.

    Central banks destroy the price of gold? They've been trying that for a long time now. They were sellers all through the noughties. Gordon Brown had a good go, it's all failed really. 'Unproductive asset' blah blah, 'barbarous relic' blah blah. Keynes is dead and gold never even noticed. Brown will be dead one day and gold won't bat an eyelid. That's a track record you can trust.

    Of course if they really want to get rid of all their gold in one go it would drive the price down. This would hurt the CBs as much as gold. Other countries not quite so enamoured of paper promises would buy it at a knockdown price and wealth would be transferred. Then the price would recover. Great result - called cutting off your nose to spite your face I think. India just bit the IMFs hand off when it sold 35 tons of gold I think late last year.

    I'll take the chance the CBs are going to go mad and give their gold away for peanuts - I'd be a buyer then because they'll have absolutely no tangible reserves to back their currencies with then at all. As it happens the evidence is they're starting to buy it again - a bit behind the curve as usual.

    Here's the thing about gold - it won't go to zero or anywhere near it, it's no one's liability and governments can't magic it up out of nowhere ( which is why they hate it ). That's why Nixon 'closed the gold window'. Degaulle wanted gold for French goods, not dubious dollars in payment and the gold was flowing only one way, out of the US, so convertibility was disallowed.

    Nixon wanted to spend more than the US was earning. Gold found him out. He was saved by the dollar being the world reserve currency. That meant he could stiff other countries and get them to pay for his war and profligacy. It's been going on ever since, though it must have a finite lifetime, as all pyramid scams do.

    No doubt the desire to live within your means is only a petit-bourgeoise whim unbecoming of great thinkers. It certainly explains Gordon Brown's attitude...

    ReplyDelete
  19. Central banks destroy the price of gold? They've been trying that for a long time now. They were sellers all through the noughties.

    Indeed. And that's why the price of gold fell and kept falling in the 1990s.


    As you can see here:

    Price of Gold in 180 dollars


    In fact, gold fell in virtually every year from 1980 to 2002. That is a twenty year bear market. Hardly a reliable store of value.

    ReplyDelete
  20. It's risen every year since. That's all I care about.

    ReplyDelete

You are more than welcome to comment on the posts, but please try to stay on topic....I will publish all comments, excepting spam and bad language, and my moderation of the comments is just to exclude these.

Please allow up to two days for the comment to appear.

I have had a request for an email address for the site and have created the following:

cynicuseconomicus[at]yahoo.com

I have ommitted the @ symbol to avoid spam....

For general purposes I would suggest using the comment form, but will occasionally look at this email account. Please be clear what is for publication and what is not, though I will also not guarantee publishing of email comments, unlike the comments through the form! Thanks.