Quote of the day

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

Friday, 27 November 2015

Trade union reform

I know, I know, trade union reform is a supply-side policy that is all about freeing enterprise from the stranglehold hold of bolshy unionistas; there is another side, however, nicely encapsulated in this from tutor2u:

Here is an excellent research document from the New Economics Foundation looking at the importance of trade unions in the modern economy and, perhaps, as a counterpoint to yesterday's Trade Union Bill.
I've just glanced at it but there's a lot of really useful data and whilst I'm unlikely to agree with all of the analysis, I still think that unions have an important role to play in the modern economy in enhancing productivity, employee education and protecting workers - not least in teaching.
This BBC clip looks at the Trade Union Bill and its implications for the Trade unions. I can see another lesson starter emerging for when we're studying trade unions.

Structural unemployment - short video






Sometimes structural unemployment can seem a little distant, and something we study as a technical issue. It is very real for some people, as this short clip from a 1989 documentary shows:







I am certainly not a fan of Michael Moore, but that does not stop me recognising that structural unemployment blights lives, as well as whole communities. It is an on going issue here in the UK, and despite successive governments throwing billions of pounds at the problem, is likely to remain so as our economic landscape evolves.

Monday, 23 November 2015

Article highlighting inflationary effect of weak currency, & economic shocks

Russia faces another round of its economic crisis

The last few days have given us an old-fashioned indication of an economy in distress which is that regimes often look to cast a smokescreen over economic problems at home and potential unrest by indulging in military action and wars. An example of this has been kindly provided this morning by Russia Today.
Russian airstrikes have torched more than 1,000 tankers taking stolen crude oil to Islamic State refineries. This blow against the jihadists comes as the Russian Air Force has hit 472 terrorist targets in two days in Syria, making 141 sorties.
The Russian bear has a sore head and is flexing its muscles in response. Along the way it is sending hints elsewhere as for example by the way that its Backfire bombers have skirted UK airspace on their way to Syria and made the RAF’s day by giving them the opportunity to scramble in response. Indeed if the rumours prove true that today’s defence review will give the RAF 2 extra fighter squadrons then its messes tonight may echo to Vladimir Putin’s name. Of course in terms of economic consequences such a situation is only likely to cause further issues for the UK’s troubled public finances which continue to underperform.
Oil and commodity Prices
Another way of looking at the economic crisis for Russia is provided by the oil price. This morning the price of a barrel of Brent Crude Oil has fallen by 2% to below US $44. Now lets us add in how much oil Russia produces which Bloomberg has provided.
Output from January to October averaged about 10.7 million barrels a day, a 1.3 percent increase over the same period in 2014, the data show. That’s in line with the Russian Energy Ministry’s full-year forecast for production of 533 million tons, or 10.7 million barrels a day.
If we look back to 2011,12,13 and the first half of 2014 the oil price acted as if a tractor beam was keeping it at around US $108 per barrel as we have discussed on here in the past. So if we take these numbers forwards we see a loss to the Russian economy of the order of US $680 million per day. Now I doubt it gets the full oil price and some prices will be different to Brent Crude but this is clearly in broad terms a quantum shift for a commodity producer.
From the domestic point of view this will be insulated for a while by the fall in the Ruble which provides a short-term period of “money illusion” but as the consequent inflation washes through the system the effects will then spread. Also as Otkritie Capital point out the public finances take a large hit.
Through the tax framework, the government took the brunt of the blow, just as it used to take most of the windfall profits.
If we move to the other commodities that Russia mines and produces we see a similar story. This morning’s news on Bloomberg is like a list of things produced by Russia.
Copper fell through $4,500 a metric ton for the first time since 2009, while nickel dropped to the lowest level since July 2003. Zinc lost 2.5 percent as of 8:13 a.m. in London,
Russia is also the world’s main producer of palladium and last week we were told this.
Palladium, also mostly used in pollution-control devices, has plunged 32 percent, and prices are near a five-year low set in August.
Completing the series comes a reminder that Russia is a substantial gold producer as well and the drum beat continues. From Emirates 24/7 today.
Gold extended losses on Monday, falling towards a near-six-year low reached last week…….Spot gold had dropped 0.7 per cent to $1,070.36 an ounce.
The Ruble
This has fallen this morning so that it again requires some 66 Rubles to buy one US Dollar. If we look back to the better times for the Russian economy we see that it was in the low 30s so in essence the shift from the commodity boom to commodity disinflation and for Russia deflation has halved its currency. Quite chilling when put like that isn’t it?
We have seen quite a lot of volatility in 2015 as there was a rally to around 50 in May and a couple of times it has rumbled around 70. So we learn two things. Firstly how can Russian industry and businesses possibly plan in such a volatile environment? Secondly that rather than being a short sharp shock followed by a recovery this is something which to quote the Stranglers is “Hanging Around”. This leads to quite a different set of economic influences especially as we wonder if it will persist for long enough to be described as “temporary”?
Inflation Inflation Inflation
The September Monetary Report of the Bank of Russia summed it up like this.
Therefore, given the ruble depreciation in July-August 2015 and the elevated inflation expectations, consumer price growth in 2015 will be higher than expected – 12.0-13.0%.
This compares to a developed world average inflation rate that is in essence zero per cent and if we look to see the components we are told this.
the contribution of exchange rate dynamics to annual inflation in August was roughly 7 pp and lower demand reduced inflation by about 1 pp.
So the former tells us of  an inflationary burst and the latter tells us of a consequence of deflation. A combination which Britney has helpfully described for us.
Don’t you know that you’re toxic?
Two consequences
The first is that something which low inflation is helping in many countries which is real wages is seeing a doppelgänger in Russia. From Danske Bank today.
real wages growth (-10.9% y/y) shrank the most in 16 years
They also give us a clear consequence of this.
pushing retail sales to their lowest level since 1998 (-11.7% y/y)
Also I note that it is not a good time to be poor in Russia as a basic staple so basic in fact that central bankers describe it as “non-core” has done this.
High food inflation is weighing heavily on private consumers, posting 18.4% y/y in October and 21.2% y/y in the ten months so far.
The second consequence is much closer to home from my point of view as we note this from Bloomberg on the state of play in London’s property market.
Russian buyers acquired 4.2 percent of homes sold in central London’s best districts in the third quarter, compared with 10 percent a year earlier, according to broker Knight Frank LLP.
In Ruble terms UK property has doubled in price over the last 15/18 months as again it nudges 100 Rubles to the UK Pound £.  Russians who invested heavily in the UK in central London such as Roman Abramovich have played a bit of a blinder although it is probably best to hide such matters from Vladimir Putin.
Comment
Central banks especially ones subject to the whims of Vladimir Putin tend to have an optimistic bias so let us touch base with the Bank of Russia.
The Bank of Russia estimates GDP to contract by 3.9-4.4% in 2015…….According to the Bank of Russia forecast, GDP will fall by 0.5-1.0% in 2016 and the economic growth rates are expected to be 0.0-1.0% in 2017 and 2.0-3.0% in 2018.
As you can see things are not so good when even those with a clear incentive to get out the rose tinting can only forecast a return to growth in a period which fans of Carole King would describe as “So Far Away”.
If we move to other issues we see that Russia has quite a lot of the inflation that central bankers are trying to create on a smaller scale elsewhere and via the route (currency depreciation) which some are trying to get it albeit on a smaller scale. I think you would find that Russian consumers and workers would offer quite a critique of the effect on them.
If we move wider there is the ongoing issue of paying US Dollar denominated debt with ever more Rubles and that being deflationary in itself. Of course with interest-rates as shown below there is hardly much incentive to borrow in Rubles either.
the Bank of Russia decided to limit its key rate reduction to 50 basis points in July and cut it to 11.00% p.a.,
Added to these economic factors are the political and military which are intertwined with it. I discussed the military interventionism earlier and we also see Europe extending its sanctions but in economic terms the disruption is highlighted by this from the Wall Street Journal.
State of emergency declared in Crimea after pylons supplying energy from Ukraine are blown up.
Are we seeing inflation in states of emergency too?

Sunday, 22 November 2015

Energy storage & renewables

Energy Storage Tech Finally Starting To Compete With The Grid

By 
Posted on Thu, 19 November 2015 21:58 | 0
Critics of renewable energy always cite the fact that the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow. As such, the intermittency of renewable energy needs to be backed up by baseload power, which would need to come from natural gas, coal, or nuclear power.
The key to resolving the intermittency problem is energy storage, but batteries have thus far been too expensive to offer a viable solution. But that is quickly changing.
Energy storage technologies are now cost-competitive with conventional grid electricity in certain markets. That is not the claim of some environmental outfit, but the conclusion of an in-depth study from asset management firm Lazard.
To be sure, there is still a ways to go before battery storage can compete on a mass scale. But Lazard finds that energy storage is actually a preferred option already in a few scenarios, such as replacing the need for major new transmission lines, or for circumstances where microgrids are needed. Lazard conducted its first levelized cost of energy storage. The analysis is complicated because storage can be valued in so many different ways. Energy storage not only can provide electricity during downtimes, but it can obviate the need to build new power plants. Or it can increase the reliability of the grid. These aspects make it difficult to come up with concrete cost figures, but Lazard lays out a range of cost scenarios. The bottom line is that energy storage is rapidly becoming cost-competitive.
Lazard also expects the cost of battery storage to decline significantly over the next five years, due to rising penetration of renewable energy and specific policies to support storage. At the same time, the aging power grid supports the economics of energy storage, as the costs of maintenance of transmission and the need for more power lines make energy storage competitive by comparison.
Moreover, major battery manufacturing facilities, such as Tesla’s gigafactory, are slated for completion, and the ramp up in battery production will bring down costs. Lithium-based batteries could see costs fall by 50 percent by the end of the decade, for example.
Taken together, Lazard arrives at a striking conclusion: energy storage could “be positioned to displace a significant portion of future gas-fired generation capacity, in particular as a replacement for peaking gas turbine facilities, enabling further integration of renewable generation.” These “peaker” plants tend to be much more expensive than regular power plants, and are only used when demand is at its highest. Over the next few years, it may no longer make sense to build peaker plants as batteries become the most cost-effective option.
There is often talk of a “utility death spiral,” in which rising electricity rates and falling renewable energy costs cause more ratepayers to abandon the grid. As fewer ratepayers are left to pay utilities, rates must go up to compensate, forcing more ratepayers to leave in an accelerated fashion.
Similarly, energy storage could see a virtuous spiral. More installations of batteries bring down costs. That allows more and more renewable energy to come online. The scaling up of both brings down costs even further, allowing for faster penetration. Meanwhile, the cost of transmission and of fossil fuel-based power generation are likely to go up.
In fact, according to Navigant, energy storage could grow from 196 megawatts today to over 12,700 megawatts by 2025.
Batteries will be helped along by public policy. For example, in Oregon, the major utilities will be required to install 5 megawatts of energy storage by 2020. Oregon is the second state, after California, to have a battery storage mandate. The law recognizes the multiple benefits that come with energy storage: Deferred investment on generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure; reduced need for peakers; the ability to accelerate renewables deployment; improved grid reliability; and reduced price volatility.
All of those benefits are increasingly making battery storage a competitive force in electric power markets.
By James Stafford of Oilprice.com

Austerity takes an "interesting" turn:

Not confirmed, and because it is not exactly good news, it probably will come out in dribs and drabs:

Osborne to slash support for industry

Chancellor takes aim at grants for manufacturers and tax breaks for entrepreneurs in spending squeeze 

Kathryn Cooper, Economics Correspondent, and Kiki Loizou Published: 22 November 2015
The chancellor is struggling to meet his pledge to deliver a surplus by the end of this parliament The chancellor is struggling to meet his pledge to deliver a surplus by the end of this parliament
GEORGE OSBORNE is set to cut direct support for industry in a “challenging” autumn statement and spending review this week.
Funding for science and technology will be in the line of fire as the chancellor unveils the tightest fiscal squeeze of any advanced economy over the next four years, amounting to about 3.5% of GDP.
The move will be seen as a reversal of Osborne’s pledge in 2011 to unleash a “march of the makers”. Some of the country’s biggest manufacturers, including Rolls-Royce, have warned of dire consequences for the economy if direct grants are slashed.
Whitehall is believed to have agreed cuts of more than £20bn across unprotected ministries, including the business department, as the chancellor struggles to meet his pledge to deliver a surplus by the end of this parliament. The civil service is braced for a further 50,000 job losses.
Osborne could also hit entrepreneurs, one-man companies and motorists to make his sums add up. Business owners fear that entrepreneurs’ relief, which offers a lower rate of capital gains tax on profits of up to £10m, could be halved.
Industry insiders confirmed last week that part of the budget for science and technology — £4.6bn and £600m a year respectively — will be switched from grants to “a range” of funding options including loans. This will allow Osborne to claim that the overall funding pot has increased, even though direct government support has been cut.
The job of balancing the books has been made harder by worse-than-expected public finances this year. The House of Lords has blown a hole in the budget by voting down Osborne’s £4.4bn reduction in tax credits. 
Fuel duty could also be a target. Duty on diesel and petrol has been frozen since 2011 and the chancellor may decide that, with oil prices down by more than half over the past year, the country could shoulder a 1p or 2p rise in the duty.
About 400,000 contractors could lose out by about £400 a year from measures to clamp down on tax avoidance. The Treasury is expected to announce that those who work on short-term contracts, such as nurses, will no longer be able to claim tax relief on travel to a temporary place of work.

Evan Davies on why a banking-led recession is so bad

http://www.open.edu/openlearn/society/politics-policy-people/economics/different-recession