Quote of the day

“I find economics increasingly satisfactory, and I think I am rather good at it.”– John Maynard Keynes

Saturday 30 March 2024

The Federal Reserve may be ready to pivot:

 


The Federal Reserve is preparing for a hand-brake U-turn on interest rates

US economy’s ability to reset itself when imbalanced is being stunted by interventions

Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Jerome Powell
Jerome Powell may soon be forced to oversee rapid interest rate cuts at the Fed CREDIT: Kent Nishimura/Getty Images

If you want an idea of how the current fiscal and asset bubble in the US might end, pay close attention to Bernard Connolly, esteemed consigliere to hedge funds and central bankers across the world for the last quarter century.

It will not end in a soft landing – a “chimaera” – and will certainly not end in another leg of accelerating economic growth. Nor will it end in soggy stagflation.

The invidious choice facing the Federal Reserve, he warns, is either to allow a deep economic slump to unfold, or slash rates to the bone before inflation has fallen back to target. The latter course will send the dollar into free fall and destabilise the world’s dollarised financial system, an outcome already being sniffed out by the reawakening gold market.

Mr Connolly is one of the very few prophets who foresaw both the Great Recession and the eurozone sovereign debt debacle, not just in vague terms – many did that – but with eerie precision and with a powerful intellectual argument for why they would happen and why they would prove so intractable.

His new magnum opus, You Always Hurt the One You Love: Central Banks and the Murder of Capitalism, is the story of the Faustian Pact made by central bankers from the 1990s onwards, when they first became addicted to bubbles and started stealing prosperity from the future.

His blistering critique over the decades has not stopped top officials at the Fed, the Bank of Japan, and the Bank of England from seeking his advice whenever trouble hits. After a long silence, he is again issuing warnings.

“There can be little doubt that there will be a US recession unless the Fed loosens hard and soon. The labour market is weakening and ‘excess savings’ from the pandemic-era handouts are exhausted,” he said.

“The likeliest near-term outcome is that, as in 2000 and 2007, the Fed holds off cutting interest rates just yet, citing worries that inflation is not convincingly and sustainably moving to target. By mid-year the weakening of the economy will have become evident even to the Fed’s modellers. But they will not cut far enough or fast enough,” he said.

Mr Connolly said the next step will be highly political. Fed officials are alarmed by the prospect of a second Trump presidency – this time unbridled – fearing that he will change the Federal Reserve Act and open the floodgates to inflationary fiscal dominance.

Joe Biden has already packed the Fed with allies, much as Trump packed the Supreme Court. We can assume that they will strive to engineer his reelection, disguising this with creative economic science. “The temptation to say that inflation has already come down a long way will be very strong,” he said.

This points to an initial rate cut in June, followed by cascading cuts in rapid succession, though still too little, too late. The Fed Board is already preparing for a hand-brake U-turn. Governor Adriana Kugler recently reminded everybody that the Fed has a “dual mandate”: jobs as well as inflation.

Days earlier, New York Fed chief John Williams said the supply-side shock of the pandemic had blown over and that US inflation had carved out a near perfect round trip, “like the Apollo missions to the moon and back.” He said three-year inflation expectations are now below their 2014-2019 average. This is a Fed preparing its alibi.

As I wrote last week, the US economy has lost a net 900,000 workers since November, based on the US household survey. This has lifted unemployment from 3.4pc to 3.9pc. The jump is close to triggering the Fed’s ‘Sahm Rule’ recession indicator.

The US economy is not as strong as widely assumed. The latest US financial accounts show that gross domestic income (GDI) grew by just 1.2pc last year. This measure has been consistently weaker over recent quarters than the GDP figure, which ought to give pause for thought.

A Fed study found that GDI is more accurate when the economy rolls over. It foretold a recession in 2007 at a time when the GDP figures (revised down later) were still signalling clear blue sky.

Such modest growth is thin gruel for an economy running a war-time $2 trillion fiscal deficit at the top of the cycle. So what will happen this year as the caffeine fades and the fiscal impulse turns negative?

The Wicksellian theme running through Mr Connolly’s book is that central banks have created a chronic ‘intertemporal’ misalignment in the western economies, starting with Alan Greenspan in the 1990s.

They have let asset booms run unchecked but have always stepped in to prevent the economy coming back into balance during downturns. But you cannot pull consumption from the future forever without consequences. The future catches up with you.

“The real difficulty with the Greenspan maxim – that a problem deferred is a problem solved – is that you have to keep on deferring, via ever-bigger bubbles that ultimately threaten to destroy both capitalism and democracy,” he said. Furthermore, this reflex obstructs the Schumpeterian cleansing process of creative destruction.

As Joe Biden’s budget boom deflates this year it will become clear that the US economy cannot handle interest rates anywhere near the current level of 5.33pc. America and the West will discover that they are on the same conveyor-belt towards “ever-lower real interest rates”, requiring drastic cuts to refloat the next bubble in equities and credit.

My angle is slightly different. Deflation will keep coming back to haunt us with each cycle – requiring zero rates and crazy money – because of ageing demographics, digital technology, and above all the Asian saving glut.

The cardinal fact is that China produces 31pc of global manufactured goods but accounts for 13pc of total consumption. Xi Jinping’s regime is dumping massive excess capacity on the rest of us. It is reverting to the worst practices of Leninist capitalism. This is the elephant in the global rowing boat.

Whether Mr Connolly is right or savings glut theorists are right, both imply a secular collapse in the natural rate of interest and the subversion of western free market system.

The central banks and the academic priesthood are floundering because their canonical DSGE model – new neoclassical synthesis – assumes that the economy comes back into equilibrium when it patently does no such thing. The model is self-evidently defective but all other voices – Wicksellian, monetarist, Austrian, or old Keynesian – have been shut out of the debate.

The priests were badly wrong in 2007-2008. We will find out who is badly wrong this year soon enough.

Friday 22 March 2024

Is the cost of furlough becoming clearer?

 

Furlough didn’t save millions of jobs. Its true costs are only now becoming clear

Sunak was right to worry about his £70 billion scheme. It has led to a welfare crisis, not a jobs recovery

Conservatives posted this imnage on x 21 March 24

The latest Rishi Sunak advert paints him as quite the hero. “14 million jobs saved” it declares, in Hollywood poster style. And underneath: “Furlough announced, four years ago today.” SuperSunak is shown in three action-man guises: at his desk, in trademark hoodie. Then walking, with a look of urgent purpose. Finally, wearing a face mask, tie tucked into his shirt, ready to save a life or two. It recalls happier times: when he was more popular than Churchill, hailed as a financial miracle-worker who had saved the country from the worst economic impact of Covid.

At the time, the real-life Sunak was nowhere near as confident. He didn’t sleep the night before furlough launched, feeling physically sick at the sheer scale of his gamble. It would pay 80 per cent of employees’ wages: might such generosity end up creating welfare dependency, making things worse long-term? Would it just prop up jobs that were never coming back, spending a fortune to delay economic rejuvenation? The test, as he knew, would come years later.

In the end, Britain has turned out to be one of the few countries in the world whose workforce is still smaller than it was before the pandemic. Furlough was a powerful drug initially designed for three months. It ended up being used on and off for a year and a half, with £70 billion given to 11.7 million people. Companies, not all of which actually existed, were helped with loans. That was the short-term cost. We’re only now starting to see the longer-term effect. 

So it’s nonsense to say – as the Conservatives are now doing – that Sunak “saved” 14 million jobs. Most who took furlough would have been safe anyway, as we saw from places without such a safety net. Yes, far more jobs would have been lost – at least for a while. But an even greater number would have probably come back later and at better salary levels. This has been the experience of the United States, whose economy is now roaring.

What struck me, in my small magazine, is that we got the money whether we needed it or not. We feared the worst, furloughing receptionists and events organisers. But The Spectator boomed, as those locked down bought in entertainment. It was springtime for Netflix subscriptions, Peloton bikes, lockdown kittens and sourdough starter kits. 

It felt unseemly to add taxpayer subsidy on top of this windfall, so we said we’d return it to the Treasury. We were told by an incredulous HMRC that there was no means of doing so. Only when we threatened to leave it in a swag bag outside the Treasury did they relent.

Would it have been so hard to deny furlough cash to companies who, in all honesty, didn’t need it? We saw, here, a new reflex: when ministers panic, they splurge. Companies and even the rich now expect to be bailed out. 

In the energy price crisis, Liz Truss subsidised everyone’s bill – so taxpayers ended up helping billionaires heat their swimming pools. From the crash onwards, the list of things that the public expect protection from has grown and, with it, the size of the state (and tax burden). The risk is that this makes everyone poorer. 

When the Bank for International Settlements looked around the world, it found employment “recovering more slowly where pandemic-related fiscal support was larger”. Intriguingly, it also diagnosed an “apparent change in the attitude towards work and the way we think about work and the labour market”. In other words, people seem more keen to work in places where Covid-era unemployment was higher.

This is – and can only be – a theory. It’s impossible to prove an attitude or a mindset. But we do know that, in Britain, lockdowns soon gave way to a worker shortage crisis. But bizarrely, at the same time, worklessness in our great cities was comparable to the 2008 crash or 1992 recession. In Blackpool, official figures show 25 per cent on out-of-work benefits. In Middlesbrough, 22 per cent. In Liverpool, 20 per cent. With these cities teeming with jobs, the worklessness is an economic and social scandal.

It’s wrong to blame furlough, but it certainly is a contributing factor. The longer you stay out of work, the more reluctant you are to return to it: this is a basic fact of economic life. It helps explain why over-50s left the workforce in such numbers. But the real problem is one that started a year before furlough began: people saying they’re too sick to work. Five years ago, 2 million were in this category. Now, it’s 2.7 million. That’s the equivalent to losing the working-age population of Birmingham, our second city.

This is, quite simply, a calamity. No economy can prosper while casting aside the skills of so many millions. No other country has it quite so bad. If Britain’s post-Covid workforce had recovered at the speed of Germany’s, we’d have 1.3 million more in work now and the recent recession would not have happened. Keeping up with France would have meant 1.2 million more in work by now; with Japan 1.1 million.

Sunak’s big mistake was thinking that, because the new Universal Credit system had moved record numbers into work, it could do so again. He didn’t see – no one did – that mental-health complaints had started to discombobulate the entire system. Mel Stride, the Work and Pensions Secretary, recently told this newspaper how it works (or doesn’t). “If they go to the doctor and say ‘I’m feeling rather down and bluesy’, the doctor will give them on average about seven minutes. And then on 94 per cent of occasions, they will be signed off as not fit to carry out any work whatsoever.”

The Prime Minister still tells friends that he will always be remembered for furlough, “for better or for worse”. The triumphalist Conservative Party adverts don’t reflect his own mixed feelings. 

It’s easy to see why party spinners are invoking the days when he was the toast of the nation – but he always saw that as illusory. “Let’s see how these polls look when they get the bill for all this,” he told aides back then. He was, as so often, right first time.

Monday 18 March 2024

Red tape - supply side policy

 

Badenoch slashes red tape for medium-sized businesses in post-Brexit boost

The Business Secretary is set to announce reforms as the government looks to kick-start growth and improve productivity

Kemi Badenoch plans to cut red tape for businesses
Kemi Badenoch plans to cut red tape for businesses CREDIT: Jordan Pettitt/PA

Costly red tape including climate risk reporting will be axed for up to 40,000 businesses under post-Brexit reforms planned by Kemi Badenoch.

The Business Secretary is on Monday set to announce reforms expected to save medium-sized firms £150 million a year as the government looks to kick-start growth and improve productivity.

Under the proposals, medium-sized companies would no longer have to spend time and money compiling an annual “strategic report” for shareholders, as had been required under European Union rules.

Ms Badenoch will also announce that the number of people a company can employ before it is legally classed as large will rise from 250 to 375.

The move will see 5,000 companies reclassified as medium-sized, meaning they are subject to far less red tape.

Changing the rules

Under the current rules, all medium and large companies have to produce an annual strategic report setting out the risks and opportunities they face.

For large firms, requirements include detailing climate-related risks and opportunities.

As a result of the new reforms, 37,000 existing medium-sized businesses and the 5,000 reclassified large firms will no longer have to comply.

When Britain was in the EU, it was Brussels that set the thresholds which determined whether a business was classed as small, medium or large.

The reforms are expected to be announced in a consultation later this year and it is estimated they may save businesses £148 million a year.

Ms Badenoch said: “Almost every job in the UK is owed to what is, or what previously was, an SME [small and medium-sized enterprise]. They are the engines of economic growth for this country.

“Whether it’s through cutting red tape, unlocking investment or lowering business costs, today’s announcements show that this government is committed to doing all it can to turbo-charge SMEs so that they can go further and faster than ever before.”

Major speech on economy

In his first major speech since the Budget, Rishi Sunak will on Monday announce a package of pro-business reforms as he looks to turn the economy around.

During a visit to Warwickshire, the Prime Minister will pledge £60 million in new investment to help smaller businesses take on 20,000 more apprentices. He will also unveil a new taskforce designed to boost private investment into women-led businesses in an attempt to boost the number of new startups.

Mr Sunak said on Sunday]: “Whether it’s breaking down barriers and red tape for small businesses, helping businesses hire more young people into apprenticeships and skilled jobs or empowering women to start up their own businesses – this government is sticking to the plan and leaving no stone unturned to make the UK the best place to do business.”

Labour dismissed the reforms, saying it was “getting harder and harder to run a successful business” under the Tories.

Jonathan Reynolds, the shadow business secretary, said: “All this ongoing Conservative chaos comes with a cost as under the Tories we have seen a record high in the number of businesses having to close their doors for good.”