Posts Tagged ‘Money supply’

file0001053186625

For an economy to grow it needs the money supply to expand. That’s the point that those who favour a return to the gold standard overlook. In a static economy with no innovation and which will look the same in a hundred years’ time, a gold standard would do nicely. But in an economy that has this thing called innovation, a gold standard spells permanent depression. This all begs the question: if we need the money supply to grow, whose responsibility should it be to decide how this should happen and by how much? Adair Turner, former chairman of the FSA, has a plan and it involves debt forgiveness and governments funding their spending via the printing press. (more…)

file000922737309

Now some surveys are suggesting that parts of the UK economy are enjoying their best growth since 2006. So is that it then? Is the crisis that began in 2008 well and truly over? And here is another question: does it just go to show the government was right all along? Austerity works, QE, or quantitative easing, is best?

There are reasons to think the recovery this time around is for real, unlike in 2009/2010 when the UK saw something of a false dawn. This time real things seem to be happening. UK exporters are enjoying more success selling their wares outside the Eurozone, and the success enjoyed by the car industry is a good example of this. Then there is evidence of reshoring, as companies look at return at least some of their manufacturing to their home markets.

But does this really prove that austerity works? Does this really prove QE was the right thing to do all along?

There is something quite ironic about something George Osborne has said. He has often laughed off ideas that the way to solve a crisis caused by having too much debt was to borrow more. That was how he has defended austerity. And yet, by encouraging a new housing boom, it could be argued that Mr Osborne is trying to solve an economic crisis caused by too much household debt, by getting households to borrow more.

It boils down to whether you think government debt is worse than private debt. Just remember that in many parts of the world, such as Spain for example, household debt became government debt.

Now let’s focus some more on UK household debt. In the year 2000 UK household debt to disposable income, according to the OECD, was 112 per cent. In 2007 it was 174 per cent, and in 2012 it was back down to 146 per cent. The Office of Budget Responsibility recently forecast that UK household debt is set to rise again – albeit not by a great deal. This differs, by the way, from the US which has seen the ratio fall to a much lower level, and which is expected to fall even further.

Household debt keeps getting forgotten. It was household debt across the UK, the US and Europe which explained why QE was never going to lead to hyperinflation. Households had become afraid to spend, to borrow. The money supply, the broad money supply, which economists believe is associated with inflation, is as much determined by debt and borrowing levels as anything.

Despite the Bank of England issuing £375 billion in QE over the last few years, the broad money supply has only seen very slight growth. See it terms of a bath with a big hole in it. You turn the tap on full, to make up for the water leaking out of the bottom, and many, who seem to be oblivious to the hole, fret that the bath will overflow.

QE was never going to lead to hyperinflation and the biggest failing of the European Central Bank was not to realise this.

But just because QE was not going to create hyperinflation that does not mean it is a good idea. If you have a bath with a hole in it, what is the best thing to do? Is it to turn the taps up full, or try to fix the leak? QE amounts to taking the former approach.

The trouble with austerity is that it can work when tried in isolation. But it has not been tried in isolation; rather it has been a Europe wide thing. This has had disastrous consequences for the UK and Eurozone.

The UK had a worse downturn than most of the Europe because the UK was more reliant on its banking sector. The UK is enjoying a faster recovery than the Eurozone partly because it is not in the euro and has a cheaper currency, and partly because of QE.

But while QE has not created hyperinflation, it has led to higher asset prices. To misquote George Osborne: “How can you solve a crisis caused by asset prices being too high, by getting asset prices to rise?”

What the UK, the US and Europe need is for central bank money printing to fund investment to enable the world’s developed economies to start fulfilling the potential of the fantastic innovations we have seen in recent years.

Instead, we have seen the UK return to old habits. Central bank policy via QE and government policy are combining to push up house prices and household debt when what we need is more investment. This is not a good development.

© Investment & Business News 2013

Yesterday was a day for selling. But it is noticeable that while gold fell to a 34 month low, and US government bonds to a 22 month low, on the whole equities merely fell to a one month low.

At the time of writing gold is trading at $1,295. To put that price in context, back in September last year it was going for $1,778. The last time it was so cheap was September 2010.

Some say they are puzzled by the falls, but gold really is one of those riddles wrapped in an enigma – a golden enigma, in fact.

Gold rose in the aftermath of the finance crisis, and then again in the aftermath of the aftermath, because many feared a major meltdown as countries raced to devalue, and it was being said that QE created the danger of hyperinflation.

Talk of QE creating hyperinflation always was nonsense. As this column has said before, what matters is the broad money supply, and at a time when banks didn’t want to lend, while households were trying to repair their balance sheets, there was little chance of the broad money supply rising significantly, whatever central banks did.

Now the US economy is showing signs of real recovery, and the Fed chairman Ben Bernanke has suggested QE will be easing up soon and interest rates are likely to rise in 2015, everything looks different.

When real interest rates are negative, the fact that gold offers no yield is a trivial concern. But now that rates seem set to rise, that lack of yield seems to matter a great deal.

As for bonds, the yield on US 10 year treasuries has risen from 1.38 per cent last July to 2.39 per cent at the time of writing.

Markets are moving away from so-called safe harbour assets. During the era of QE, many feared currency wars, as loose monetary policy pushed down on the dollar, and other countries tried to devalue so as not to lose their competitive edge. Now the era of loosening is approaching an end; currency wars have moved to currency peace, and the new fear is that some currencies are in danger of becoming too weak.

As for equities, they too have fallen sharply, but just remember that the falls are not as drastic as recent rises. The FTSE 100 started 2013 on 5,898, rose to 6,840 last month, going close to the all-time high set in 1999, before falling to 6,159 last night.

Look at how equities have fallen since the end of May, and the sell-off looks drastic. Look at equities this year, and the market still looks attractive.

Above all, just remember that it is good news on the US economy that lies behind markets selling.

As rates rise, there will be losers, and for a while the markets may even punish those with strong fundamentals, but a resurgent US consumer is a good thing, and once the dust has settled we will see plenty of winners. But watch the Eurozone, emerging Europe, and maybe Brazil, for the real woe.

© Investment & Business News 2013