
Here's my Top 10 links from around the Internet at 10:00 am (!) today in association with NZ Mint.
We welcome your additions in the comments below or via email to bernard.hickey@interest.co.nz.
See all previous Top 10s here.
My must read today is #1 from Felix Salmon on corporate hoarding and the failure of the global economy to invest savings in job creating activity that employs spare people and capital to expand output. Instead the hoarders put their money in government bonds. Someone has got to break this logjam.
1. A brilliant analysis - Reuters' Felix Salmon points out some obvious things about America's broken economy.
By implication much of the western world has the same problem.
Companies are building up increasingly large profits into piles of cash and are refusing to invest it, or borrow more and invest that extra money in extra output and jobs.
They are too scared about the future to do it, or less charitably, are instead paying it to shareholders and managers for the owners of capital to spend it. In turn those shareholders are also too scared to invest and instead are hoarding it in government bonds.
There is an investment drought and a type of mass hoarding phenonemon that is killing growth.
Just look at bond yields.
This is today's must read. I agree with his conclusion. Governments that have the confidence of bond markets should borrow with their ears pinned back and invest that money in infrastructure and new technologies (but not consumption). Otherwise we have a debt/deflation spiral that will make the Depression of the 1930s look like a picnic.
These two charts tell it all, and Felix explains it deftly:
Basically, we have low bond yields because the Fed has failed to do its job, and persuade the markets that it is capable of engineering a healthy economy over the long run. And we have high stock yields because the market has failed to do its job, which is to treat high corporate earnings as a fantastic opportunity to invest in the economy and build something even greater in the future. Just look at the amount of money which is flowing straight to corporations’ bottom lines, and not being put to good, productive work. Corporate profits now account for significantly more than 10% of GDP: that’s never happened before.
To spell this out: high corporate profits and low levels of job growth are two sides of the same coin. If things were working properly right now, companies would take their excess revenues and use them to hire more people. Instead, they’re basically just letting those excess revenues sit on their balance sheets as cash because they’re scared to invest in themselves. It’s frankly pathetic.
The solution to this problem is nothing complex — the arbitrage is sitting there in the first chart, plain for all to see. The government can borrow at 1.45%: it should do so, in vast quantities, and invest that money back into the economy itself. Take a few hundred billion dollars and use it to fix our broken infrastructure, to re-hire all those laid-off teachers and firefighters, to provide some kind of safety net for the millions of Americans who have been out of work for more than a year. Even if the real long-term return on any stimulus package was zero, the nominal long-term return would be well over 1.45%, making the investment worthwhile.
2. 'Move the retirement age to 70 or 80' - AIG's CEO said this. Here's his thinking.
“Retirement ages will have to move to 70, 80 years old,” Benmosche, who turned 68 last week, said during a weekend interview at his seaside villa in Dubrovnik, Croatia. “That would make pensions, medical services more affordable. They will keep people working longer and will take that burden off of the youth.”
3. Why Neo-Classical economics is bunk - Here's Australian Economist Steve Keen on BBC Radio's Newsnight programme explaining what caused the financial crisis and what needs to happen next. He starts around 1 min 30.
4. 'Fear has become all too rational' - Martin Wolf hits the nail on the head again at the FT.
How much pain can the countries under stress endure? Nobody knows. What would happen if a country left the eurozone? Nobody knows. Might even Germany consider exit? Nobody knows. What is the long-run strategy for exit from the crises? Nobody knows. Given such uncertainty, panic is, alas, rational. A fiat currency backed by heterogeneous sovereigns is irremediably fragile.
Before now, I had never really understood how the 1930s could happen. Now I do. All one needs are fragile economies, a rigid monetary regime, intense debate over what must be done, widespread belief that suffering is good, myopic politicians, an inability to co-operate and failure to stay ahead of events. Perhaps the panic will vanish. But investors who are buying bonds at current rates are indicating a deep aversion to the downside risks. Policy makers must eliminate this panic, not stoke it.
In the eurozone, they are failing to do so. If those with good credit refuse to support those under pressure, when the latter cannot save themselves, the system will surely perish. Nobody knows what damage this would do to the world economy.
5. 'Best of luck' - I'm a fan of Michael Lewis. Not everyone is.
Here's FTAlphaville pointing to Lewis' recent commencement address to his almer mater Princeton in which he highlights the role of luck in a person's career.
My case illustrates how success is always rationalized. People really don’t like to hear success explained away as luck — especially successful people. As they age, and succeed, people feel their success was somehow inevitable. They don’t want to acknowledge the role played by accident in their lives. There is a reason for this: the world does not want to acknowledge it either.
6. 'A lesson about debt, deleveraging and deflation' - Charles Hugh Smith has a nice economics 101 on the pervasive power of deleveraging and what it means for an economy.
This is why I reckon we face more of a risk of deflation than inflation in future.
7. Ever wondered how the really, really rich live? - There's a guy in the Hamptons with a twitter feed who tells the best stories about people with way too much money to know what to do with, New York Magazine reports.
Hamptons Request of Day: Buy 10 electric kid's dirt bikes & make a 1/2 acre temp dirt track in Hedgie's back yard for 10th bday party ($23k)
Hamptons Request of the Day: Drive a poodle back to NYC while owners catch a copter ride w/rich friends. Sorry Muffy,they got a better deal!
Tell us your stories about how the rich live and what they spend it on. Any pool cleaners or nannies on Waiheke (or Herne Bay) who want to make themselves (in)famous?
8. Want to sleep tonight? - Then don't read this alarming chart deck from a former Goldman Sachs hedge fund manager (now research writer) predicting the end of the financial world in the next 18 months. HT Michael West at SMH.
All very plausible, but I just can't see the powers-that-be allowing it. They'll just print and print and bail and bail.
The Japanese scenario is more likely.
9. The impossible hamster - This video is a simplistic cheap shot with a disturbing ring of truth about it.
45 Comments
#4: If those with good credit refuse to support those under pressure, when the latter cannot save themselves, the system will surely perish.
More corporate socialism in other words. Meanwhile those with "good credit" are expected to bail out banks under investigation for corruption.
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/bre85510p-us-bankia-legal-crowdfunding/
Brilliant Dilbert.
4. 'Fear has become all too rational' - Martin Wolf hits the nail on the head again at the FT.
When your only tool is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
Well I Never, a good cat!!
Orsome common sense article from Chris Trotter of all people!!!!
So why is it "common sense" ?
It is particularly rare to find "common sense" mentioned by any in our mainstream media (and on certan websites).
When is the last time you have seen discussed the process by which new money is bought into existence?
They are not like us Wolly, they don't understand how the world works.
Well, awesome or not - I have reason to call into question the validity of Mr. Trotter's claims of NZ banks creating money out of 'thin air'. I posted a comment in response to Les Rudd's musings about the content of the referenced Press article, in an earlier thread.
Since then I have sent a copy of the Reserve Bank article penned by Gillian Lawrence to an officer of the RBNZ to comment upon the apparent contradiction between the article's assumption that NZ banks lend funds according to rules of the US Federal Reserve fractional reserve banking legislation and the apparent high level of foreign borrowing undertaken by our local banks which would seem unnecessary and redundant, unless of course they were being called upon to finance the ongoing and outstanding accumulated shortfall of trade deficits. Those demands are now at such a high level that fractional reserve banking and it's attendant misgivings are possibly not issues that need to be addressed in jolly NZ. I await an answer.
Go to the RBNZ website and search Fractional Reserve and see what you come up with. There are plenty of responses by my eyes start to glaze over when I start reading that crap :-P
Stuff have taken down Trotters article tonight after only 69 comments. Interesting
Damn I wish I had cut and pasted it. I would use my Facebook Wall to disseminate it, particularly the bit about it being taken down.
Just followed the link and the article is back up.
Thanks to both of you. Hopefully my friends that won't listem to me will listen to Mr Trotter. Is on its way around the world now:-)
Useful reading particularly section 3 - scenarios .. noting mention of the OBR in play at page 23.
http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research/bulletin/2007_2011/2011dec74__4hargreaveswatson.pdf
#2: Idiot - as I am currently actively managing the lives of two parents and a mother in law, all of whom are ~ 80 years old, I can confirm they are unable to carry out paid productive duties on a continuous 40 hour a week basis.
And as I approach 60 I certainly believe my faculties are not what they used to be. But there again I couldn't be trusted to engage in regular paid work at any time - too easily distracted for strarters.
Hahaha - perhaps he got the job due to his deteriorating cognitive ability!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Benmosche
After all grumpy old age obstinance serves to preserve the status quo. Can't have a social conscience heading up these mega-corporates.
re #7 who cares how the "rich" spend their money, at least they are spending it, not piling it up in a money bin.
Maybe the twit in the Hamptons should figure out how to cater for these people. Who knows, he might even become rich himself by doing so.
An interesting point. I've noticed that lefties claim taxing the rich and giving it to the poor is good for the economy because poor people consume a greater proportion of their income, yet when the rich consume, they whinge and moan about it!
On another note, vaguely related to a few of the above articles, Chris Christie (New Jersey Govenor) should run for President! He's a straight shooter who gets stuff done, what America needs right now. He's lambasted Obama about his lack of leadership a bit lately!!
Hey Gummy Bear Hero, this one's for you - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-06/fairfax-media-at-59-discount-s…
.... an LBO buy-out of a highly leveraged company in an industry which is in it's death spiral ! .... this would not end well ....
Only Qantas can match it with Fairfax , of the major ASX companies who've massively destroyed shareholder wealth over the last 5 or 6 years ......
..... you Qantas ninnies really should've taken the $A 5.60 offer ! ... unlike NZ , airlines aren't seen as a " strategic " or a " premiium asset " , in Australia ..
Obama getting worried about his re-election? http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/act-now-on-euro-crisis-obama…
Regarding the "Impossible Hamster" clip - I guess the reason that people generally expect the economy to continue to grow is that our global population continues to grow.
Whilst more people are born into this world than shuffle off this mortal coil, we will need an ever increasing money supply, job supply and resource supply. In fact, more human beings tend to automatically generate more of this stuff as they get busy and creative. In other words, our growing global population both needs and drives a global economy that continues to grow.
Granted, we can't carry on forever like this. At some point the earth will be full and we won't have enough food or space for any more people. Because there's basically no way for humans to control this ourselves (because we're generally randy creatures who just won't stop getting "busy"), I'm guessing that Mother Nature will do it for us.
We can look forward to a future bright with the promise of pestilence, food shortages, over-crowding, wars over commodities, violence over food supplies and general death and squallor for the masses.
But on the bright side, just think how much NZ land and property will be worth then. :)
Shush. Don't tell HughP.
He thinks they're too expensive as it is.
"Because there's basically no way for humans to control this ourselves"
Nonsense. Birth rates are falling pretty much everywhere, and they are expected to continue doing so. It's been shown again and again, all around the world, that if you educate women and allow them access to contraception, family sizes will reduce.
Bernard, in reference to #1, have you read any of Richard Koo's work on balance sheet recessions? same idea
Richard Koo's suggestion for the euro was interesting: only let residents of each of the countries within the euro market buy government bonds of the country that they live in. This would mean different interest rates for different countries but all still using the geuro. He suggested that it would actually result in lower interest rates in conuntries like Spain because the local money couldn't then be spent on euro bonds in Germany.
I'm not sure if it would work though because Spanish fund managers would just buy German corporate paper (which would still be safer than Spanish govt debt) instead of their own government's debt. His stuff on politics is what I find most interesting; there is only politcal appetite for fiscal contraction in the bad times (when fiscal stimulus is necessary) rather than the good times (when fiscal expansion is unnecessary). NZ classic example of this.
8 - Every chart I've seen on debt to GDP is different but the proprotions are roughly the same. Here's one with NZ: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-debt-not-wealth
Ours is the lowest, at 200%! NZ **** yeah.
The best bit is that with a money supply introduced as interest bearing debt the percentage can only go one way. Look for parabolic curves as they print to try and get out of this mess.
#2 AIG's CEO said
“Retirement ages will have to move to 70, 80 years old,” Benmosche, who turned 68 last week, said during a weekend interview at his seaside villa in Dubrovnik, Croatia. “That would make pensions, medical services more affordable. They will keep people working longer and will take that burden off of the youth.”
Great idea people keep working till they are 80 so youth unemployment can go up to 80%.
That sure will take the burden off them because they wont have a job.
What's that you said?
"There's going to be heaps of jobs so it wont be a problem" -- Yeah Right
LUMP OF LABOUR FALLACY. YES MY USE OF CAPS IS DELIBERATE!
I gave my opinion
Your opinion on the subject is
LUMP OF LABOUR FALLACY
Hmmm, is he refering to that UN bureacrate that leads the party?
And
YES MY USE OF CAPS IS DELIBERATE!
Hmmm, now what does rising blood pressure have to do with the subject?
If everyone gave replies like yours we would most probably, and rightly, be labelled a 'Bunch Of Dick Heads'
Stick to the topic please.
Not dickhead..... It's Richard Cranium
Yes you gave your opinion, which is based on what is known by economists as the "lump of labour" fallacy: that there is a fixed amount of work to be done and therefore if 80-year-olds are working this must be at the expense of someone else (young people).
This simply isn't true. However, I have seen so many comments on interest.co.nz espousing this flawed notion that I burst a blood vessel or two. So you see, I was sticking to the topic. When you spout nonsense it deserves a nonsensical reply.
Can't take predictions of doom seriously when the graphs are using linear axis. Gotta uslaw log scale when making growth (or loss) extrapolations.
The reason why QE is now failing is that sovereigns are lending cheap money ONLY to the investment banks that put us in this mess. These investors are also the counter parties to the derivatives. Hence they are demanding high returns to make up for past losses. Do these punters deserve bailing out? The difference in this recession from the 'typical' industrial recession is that now the banking system made the wrong investments. Normally a recession is solved with growth from new entrepreneurs. But the banking system is a club that shuts out entrepreneurs. So, break up the investment banks, stop bailing out a failed system and governments should invest directly in wealth and job creating sectors of the economy.
Bernard prefers to utilize lineal graphs (when incorrect to do so ! ) , because that upward sloping hockey stick makes his hickeysterical comments seem appropriate ......
..... if we toned it down , tempered the gloomsterisationalyzing , everyone would bugger off to Kiwi Blog instead ......
Bond-holders have been the " untouchables " in the GFC ...... for whatever reason , governments and central bankers have fought tooth & nail to preserve the wealth of the bondholders ....
... governments have fallen , presidents been ousted , old guys chased Manhattan hotel maids up the corridors ........ those bondholders , their poo-poo really mustn't stink !
A log scale is there to represent the data in an easier manner....the data does not change.....
Your wish not to take the issue seriously, consider your options and act accordingly is your problem...yet in the next paras you pretty much nail it....last line excepted.
"shuts out entrepreneurs" there has been an argument that the age old battle is employers v employees...a newer argument and one I think true, is that in fact it should be employers and employees v banksters. The Republican candidate and how he made his $ by gutting companies, thus creating un-umployment and asset stripping, is a brilliant case in point...and he may well be the 48th? President. If 2012 holds togather and Romney wins I cant see it lasting 2013/14.....he'll kill the US, dead.
For the last line I think Govns make abysmal pickers of winners...they seem to fail most times. An example is bailing the US auto industry.....OK to do it as long as the changes needed ie move to green tech was done, it wasnt, so it was can kicking it will fail. So they way forward is for Govn to invest in valid infrastructure projects to hold up the employment ratios and feed $s into the economy....these must be one off projects btw....create temporary, fixed term demand so there is no inflation..once this occurs the private sector will kick back in and replace / exchange the works / jobs with their own given a bit of time...
IMHO.
regards
Thanks Hugh, great!
Now how did you know I was a rail enthusiast! Thanks.
Yep that one goes on the Facebook wall thanks Hugh.
Good morning fellow peasants..welcome to the new normal...are you enjoying the slippery slope...Have a gork at the best evidence and decide for yourselves whether things are to get worse or are we experiencing Obama's Bernanke printed recovery....has all the QE 'printing' been worth it.
Well said, handy to know the right people in Christchurch if you are CBD property owner currently...
CERA keeps getting bigger in that it appointments are starting to crowd out and degrade the capabilities of parts of the public sector and private sector for key skills....
"… we have low bond yields because the Fed has failed to do its job, and persuade the markets… " The problem with this statement is; if the Fed is not actually capable of engineering a healthy economy at this point. If that were true then any persuasion would amount to fraud and be discovered in time at any rate. Also the criticism of corporates misses the context that many US corporations are multinationals. Apple is making huge profits sure - but they are investing and creating jobs. Just not in America.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.