Advantage America
John Mauldin
September 10, 2013

 

 

Today’s Outside the Box, which comes to us from good friend Gary Shilling, is unusual because that old confirmed bear is waxing positively bullish about the future prospects of the US. In doing so he mirrors my own views. It is just a matter of time before I go from being bearish on the US because of the dysfunctional US government to being an irrational perma-bull, at least for the next few decades. There is just too much upside potential with this country of ours — if we can muster the political will to handle our serious fiscal issues.

Gary builds the positive case beyond the fiscal concerns, and a compelling case it is. In six crucial areas, he says — demographics, entrepreneurial activity, labor relations, domestic vs. foreign debt financing, currency strength, and energy independence — the US is better positioned than any of its major competitors.

Gary pays particular attention to the importance of a strong US dollar. The dollar is not even close to being unseated as the world’s primary reserve and trading currency; but that is not to say there won’t be currency challenges ahead, with the biggest global currency war since the 1930s just getting fired up. Already competitive devaluations and protectionist measures are rampant around the globe. Can the US take the high road? If we want to maintain the privileged position of our currency, we must.

OTB readers can subscribe to Gary Shilling’s Insight for one year for $335  via e-mail. Along with 12 months of Insight you’ll also receive a free copy of his full report detailing why he believes it will be “advantage America” in the coming years and a free copy of Gary’s latest book, Letting Off More Steam. To subscribe, call 1-888-346-7444 or 973-467-0070 between 10 am and 4 pm Eastern time or email insight@agaryshilling.com. Be sure to mention “Outside the Box” to get the special report and free book in addition to your 12 months of Insight (available only to new subscribers).

I’m in Chicago this afternoon doing interviews and catching up on my reading before giving a speech this evening. Tomorrow morning I’m off to the Dakotas, where I will spend the day with oil entrepreneur Loren Kopseng talking about shale oil and gas. Coincidentally, I just got a question for Loren from the research team at Mauldin Economics. Can I ask him about the new, potentially $20-trillion shale oil find in Australia and what he thinks of it? I’m sure it won’t dampen his enthusiasm for all things Bakken, but it does go to illustrate that shale oil is not just a US phenomenon. Oil has always been there. It just takes technology and the willingness and ability to use it to get it out of the ground. Plus high enough energy prices, of course.

I have been reading about new shale oil discoveries all over the world. Enthusiasm about oil and gas discoveries in the eastern Mediterranean was palpable in Cyprus. I should note that it was a Texas company that was crazy enough to go after that oil, which will soon make Israel energy independent and supply a great deal of energy to Europe. And we note that Russia is very concerned about its potential port in Syria. Just a coincidence, I’m sure.

The first thought that leapt to mind upon reading the query about Australian oil was, “Ho-hum, yet another oil discovery.” But then the thought that followed very closely was that this is a country whose people more closely resemble crazy Texans than anyplace else I have been (and for whatever reason, I find that a good thing). There is plenty of capital Down Under, and it would not surprise me if they figured out how to exploit these shale oil reserves. I’ll have to do a little homework before I head out to Saudi Arabia in January. There will be interesting questions to ask my hosts. The world just keeps getting more interesting every day. (I just watched a lengthy presentation on robotics and continue to be amazed at the progress that is being made. Interesting times indeed!)

I’m not sure where I will be when I write this week’s letter, but it will show up again this weekend. And have a great week. ($20 trillion? Really? Really!?! And I thought Texas oil guys were irrationally exuberant.)

You’re fascinated by human ingenuity analyst,John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

subscribers@mauldineconomics.com

Are you reading the right financial research?

Making profitable investment decisions start with access to the right financial information. Each week John Mauldin studies hundreds of articles and reports personally sent to him from his network of world-class money managers and investors. John understands that very few people can commit this kind of time to research and that even fewer have access to much of the analyses he receives. That is why he personally filters all of this information down to the most crucial items he feels you need to know. Find out how easy it is to look over John’s shoulder for the right information, today.

Learn More About Over My Shoulder Today


Advantage America

(excerpted from the July 2013 edition of A. Gary Shilling’s Insight)

Beyond what I believe are bright prospects for a return to rapid U.S. economic growth and the resulting decline in federal debt-to-GDP, Americans in future years will enjoy six major advantages over developed and developing country competitors in the globalized world.

1. Demographics

Demographics are one. The current immigration debate in Washington isn’t over throwing illegals out but over how to give them legal status and a path to citizenship while attracting highly educated and skilled newcomers. Only a few other countries such as Canada and Australia are at least as open as America.

Immigrants tend to be younger than current residents and have higher birth rates, especially Hispanics. So the U.S. fertility rate of 2.06 is close to the 2.1 births per child-bearing woman needed to sustain the population in the long run (Chart 1).

In contrast, the fertility rates in all European countries and even Canada and Australia are below the reproduction level. Japan’s, the lowest at 1.39, is compounded by the total lack of any immigration. China’s fertility rate is just 1.55 because of the one-child-per-couple policy, which the government is reconsidering.

Most immigrants have jobs, either those requiring high skills and education or low level work that natives shun. They’re not old enough to draw Social Security and Medicare benefits in large numbers but their payroll taxes help provide benefits for retiring postwar babies.

Because of aging populations in all major countries, immigrants are needed to keep the 15-64 working-age population from falling faster as a percentage of the total. By 2040, the U.S. ratio, 60.3%, is projected to be the highest of any developed country. China’s ratio falls rapidly from 72.4% in 2010 to 63.1% in 2040 due to its one-child policy, and already, new labor force entrants age 15-24 are declining in number.

Even if the 2 million people who left the labor force in the last two decades for non-demographic reasons never re-enter because their skills are rusty or they prefer disability benefits and food stamps, it won’t impede robust real GDP annual growth of about 3.5% after the Age of Deleveraging is completed. With 2.5% growth in productivity per year, employment would need to rise 1% annually. That’s about 1.44 million more workers per year.

The working-age population in future years is projected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to rise about 2.2 million per annum. With the current participation rate of 64% (Chart 2), that would produce 1.4 million new job-seekers, about the same as new labor demand, assuming these new entrants’ skills match those that are needed. And a declining unemployment rate would add more to the employed.

2. Entrepreneurial Spirit

Another big advantage for the U.S. is the American entrepreneurial spirit, observed by de Tocqueville in the 1830s and still going strong today. Despite perceptions of an erosion of U.S. economic vigor, America still seems way ahead of whoever is in second place. It starts with the education system, which has many faults but does encourage free inquiry and the challenging of accepted doctrine.

Foreigners attending U.S. colleges and universities are often shocked when they are encouraged to question professors. Japan discourages individuality. “The nail that sticks up must be hammered down,” is their expression. Chinese education involves rote learning with no emphasis on student inquiry, begging the question: How is China going to grow after she gets her labor force fully employed and catches up to Western technology?

Furthermore, China’s economy remains heavily tied to bureaucratic, inefficient state-owned enterprises that produce about half of GDP and employ around a quarter of the labor force. Over half of companies listed on the Shanghai Stock Exchange are SOEs, the direct result of the government’s preference for them as IPO issuers while private businesses are starved for capital. SOEs are so inefficient that they require loans at sub-market rates from the government banks, subsidized by low deposit rates.

Government direct subsidies to about 90% of the companies listed on China’s stock exchanges, most of them SOEs, were up 23% last year to $13.8 billion. These subsidies were equal to 4% of total profits, which rose less than 1% and were in the form of cheap land, tax rebates, support for loan repayments and simple cash. Without subsidies, many Chinese companies would fail due to excess capacity and weak export demand.

With the renaissance of U.S. oil and gas production and resurgence of robotic and capital-intensive manufacturing, the U.S. bested China for the first time since 2001 as the more favorable place for foreign direct investment, according to a recent survey (Chart 3).

Leaping American oil and gas production has created a global energy supply cushion that allows the U.S. to deal with Iran and other trouble spots without debilitating spikes in oil prices.

3. Labor Flexibility

An added long-term advantage for the U.S. in international competition is her flexible labor markets. Labor unions are becoming a thing of the past, especially in the private sector and now increasingly among state and local employees (Chart 4). Partly as a result, U.S. wages are flexible on the down side. Surveys show that of the people out of work for six months (Chart 5) who do find new jobs, a third work for less money than previously.

Working for less is almost unheard of in Europe and lifetime employment is the rule in Japan. China is increasing minimum wages about 25% per year to provide more consumer spending power as she strives to shift from an export-led to a domestically-driven economy. But higher wages erode the global competitiveness of China and production is shifting to cheaper locales like Vietnam, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

The auto industry is a case in point. After the Great Recession drove GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy, U.S. automakers introduced $14 per hour wages for new employees, half the level of veterans. So in 2011, the average pay of U.S. autoworkers including benefits was $38 per hour compared to $66 in Germany and $37 in Japan. U.S. pay has increased $3 per hour since 2007, but $12 in Japan and $14 in Germany. As a result, vehicles from U.S. auto plants are beginning to be shipped abroad in numbers.

4. Declining Need For Foreign Financing

An additional major advantage for the U.S. in future years is the likely decline in dependence on foreign financing. The current account deficit measures the extent that U.S. investment exceeds the combined saving of consumers, business and government. With consumer saving low and large federal deficits, the current account deficit has been sizable, about $400 billion at annual rates. This deficit is financed by increases in foreigners’ holdings of stocks, Treasurys, real estate, etc., as they recycle dollars back to dollar-denominated investments.

I don’t share the fears of some that the Chinese or others will dump their huge holdings of Treasurys and other dollar-denominated securities (Chart 6). They’re not suicidal, and if they started selling, the value of their remaining Treasurys would collapse and a global recession would no doubt follow as interest rates skyrocketed. China and other export-led economies would be the big losers in the resulting buyers’ market.

But accidents can and do happen, so America’s global status will improve if the trade and current account deficits shrink. That’s likely if my forecast of a rise in the household saving rate back to double digits unfolds (Chart 7).

As I’ve discussed in my recent book, The Age of Deleveraging, and in many past Insight reports, Americans have little choice but to save more. They no longer trust their stock portfolios as they did in the 1980s and 1990s to substitute for saving out of current income to educate their kids and finance early retirement. The nosedive in house prices after heavy cash-out refinancing of mortgages and home equity loans has removed much of the home equity they earlier used to finance oversized spending. The postwar babies have been notoriously poor savers and desperately need to keep working and save much more for their old age.

As the saving rate rises, spending will grow more slowly, the reverse of what occurred when the saving rate slid from 12% in the early 1980s to 1%. That drove consumer spending growth about a half-percentage point per year faster than after-tax income and fueled the domestic economy. It also propelled the many Asian and other lands whose economies are driven by exports, largely to U.S. consumers. For every 1% rise in American consumer spending, U.S. imports—the rest of the world’s exports—rise 2.8% on average.

A rising consumer saving rate will retard the growth in spending on everything, including imports. This will curtail the exports of export-led economies like China, whose leaders are aware of this likelihood and are working to shift that economy to domestic emphasis. In any event, the resulting shrinking of the U.S. trade and current account deficits will put fewer dollars in foreign hands that will be recycled into U.S. investments.

But fewer will be needed since money is fungible, and the high consumer saving will provide more money to replace foreign funds in financing the federal deficits and other needs. At a 10% household saving rate, $1.2 trillion would be available to finance federal deficits, now less than $1 trillion, as well as business net borrowing.

On balance, the U.S. will meet more of its financing needs internally, but probably not all. If the American trade and current account deficits disappeared completely, the many Asian, Latin American and other import-led economies would be in severe trouble until they converted to domestically-driven states. Also, without U.S. current account deficits, the dollars that almost every foreign country depend on as their primary reserve currency would be difficult to accumulate.

Needless to say, as long as the economies and other developing countries remain export-led, they will be coupled to the economic health of the buyers of their exports, principally the U.S. and Europe. In the fall of 2007, on the eve of the Great Recession, many thought that China and India would lead global growth and indeed support the U.S. economy as the American housing and consumer sectors faltered.

Nevertheless, we wrote in “The Chinese Middle Class: 110 Million Is Not Enough” (Nov. 2007 Insight), that China’s middle class, those with discretionary spending power, was growing but not yet big enough to carry the economy. Ditto for India. We predicted that “the looming U.S. recession will spread globally,” including to China.

Well, as they say, the rest is history. China’s growth collapsed to recession levels (Chart 8) and was only revived by massive government stimuli. China’s middle class is growing rapidly, but domestic spending is not yet big enough and China’s exports are still important enough to keep her coupled to the West. This dependency is magnified by her immense excess capacity problem and ongoing financial crisis. It will probably take about a decade before China’s domestic economy can carry the economic ball.

5. Strong Dollar

A rising dollar is another long-run advantage for the U.S. in the global arena, reflecting the economic, political and financial strength of America as well as the buck’s continuing status as the world’s primary reserve and trading currency.

A review of history since ancient times reveals six characteristics of a dominant global currency. The buck will likely remain the winner in at least five of the six for many years.

1. Rapid growth in the economy and GDP per capita, promoted by robust productivity growth. This is probably the most necessary condition for a dominant international trade and reserve currency. It was key to British sterling’s success in the 19th century and the dollar’s superior position since then. It’s also necessary to support globally-dominant military structures in modern democracies while still satisfying voters with acceptable standards of living.

In the last decade, the U.S. has excelled in productivity gains among developed areas. Her emphasis on entrepreneurial activity and American superiority in new technologies suggest this lead will persist.

2. A large economy, probably the world’s biggest. That was true of ancient Rome, which had an unusually effective administration and centralized control for the times. With the breakdown of communications in the Middle Ages, size was less important and allowed relatively small Italian city-states and their currencies to achieve international primacy. In modern times, Singapore and Switzerland meet our other qualifications but are just not big enough to have primary currencies.

With rapid productivity growth and relatively open immigration, America will probably continue in this role. Population is falling in Japan and will soon follow in other developed lands as well as China with her one child-per-family policy.

3. Deep and broad financial markets. Internationally, money—especially today when it can be transferred anywhere in a split second—wants to be where the action is. That requires not only a powerful and large economy but also deep and broad markets in which to invest. Today, the U.S. Treasury market trumps all others in size and, in the eyes of investors (Chart 9), in safety as witnessed by the mad rush into Treasury bonds in times of recent global trouble.

Similar American stock market capitalization is four times that of China, Japan or the U.K. and is over three times the eurozone’s (Chart 10). Almost 50% of Treasurys are held by foreigners but only 9.1% of Japan’s government net debt is owned by non-Japanese. According to the IMF, 62% of the world’s currency reserves are in dollars. The 24% in euros is down from 29% four years ago. Foreigners so love investing in the U.S. that at the end of 2012, it exceeded U.S. investment abroad by $4.4 trillion, up from $4 trillion a year earlier.

4. Free and open financial markets and economy. Foreign investors are willing to hold a country’s currency if they are convinced they can invest it in financial or tangible assets in that country with few restrictions. The U.S. is essentially open, which is necessary if the Chinese and Japanese are to continue to recycle their current account surpluses with the U.S. into Treasuries and other American investments.

Free and open markets persist in the U.S. but less so in Europe with the eurozone crisis. China will probably continue to control tightly her financial markets and currency, anathema for an international trading and reserve currency. Nevertheless, China is relaxing control of her currency slowly and the yuan has surpassed the Russian ruble and the Danish krone to become the world’s 13th most used currency for international payments.

5. Lack of substitutes. A primary global currency, by definition, has no close competitors. The risk is that the top dog gets fat and lazy while upstarts surpass it in productivity growth, and ultimately, in GDP-per-capita or GDP-per-employee. That’s how the Dutch lost out to the British in the late 1700s, and in turn, the U.K. was overrun by the U.S. a little more than a century later.

Today, the rigidly controlled Chinese economy and financial markets eliminate the yuan as a rival to the dollar for the foreseeable future. Export-dependent and inward-looking Japan does not want the yen to be a primary global currency. And the ongoing eurozone financial crisis and recession eliminate the euro for at least a number of years.

6. Credibility in the value of the currency. Internationally, money is fleet-footed, congenitally cautious and runs from uncertainty over risk of confiscation, debasement, etc., as discussed in our earlier review of history. The Roman aureus, the Byzantine solidus and the Arabian dinar all went out of international style when those empires waned, but the related debasement of those currencies speeded the exit. On the flip side, in World War I, Britain went off the gold standard only to return in 1925 with the prewar price of gold in sterling. With immense wartime inflation in the interim, that action vastly overpriced sterling, causing uncertainty and leading to a mass exodus of U.K. money to New York and elsewhere.

Credibility in the dollar has been strained by its overall decline since 1985 (Chart 11), but still is substantial. The troubling current account deficit will probably continue to shrink as retrenching consumers moderate imports, as discussed earlier, as U.S. production becomes increasingly competitive, and as net U.S. energy imports move toward exports. Also, in effect, competitive devaluations will ultimately be against the U.S. dollar. This will only add to the greenback’s luster as the only safe haven currency of any size in a persistently uncertain world.

6. Energy Independence

America is on her way to self-sufficiency in energy. To the dismay of Peak Oil devotees, horizontal drilling and fracking technology have unlocked from shale oceans of natural gas and petroleum. Combined with the oil sands in Canada and other nonconventional sources of energy as well as higher auto fuel-efficiency and other conservation measures, there are predictions that the U.S. could be relatively free from foreign oil dependence by 2020. Cheap natural gas is a competitive advantage for U.S. producers, especially of petrochemicals and nitrogen fertilizers.

Leaping American oil and gas production has created a global energy supply cushion that allows the U.S. to deal with Iran and other trouble spots without debilitating spikes in oil prices.

Category: Think Tank

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

12 Responses to “Shilling: Advantage America”

  1. Willy2 says:

    O.M.G. The article clearly shows that Shilling has a number of blind spots as well. a number of things he considers to be positive for the US are actually a negative for the US.

    Any one who is familiar with the international monetary system knows that “US Energy Independence” is actually VERY detrimental for the US. Lower wages mean more employment but its also detrimental for tax revenues.
    Agree, a shrinking Trade & Current Account Deficit means the US is less dependent on foreign financing but it’s also a sign US domestic demand is shrinking, lower tax revenues and higher budget deficits. Then the US government is faced with two different bad things: rising deficits and falling foreign financing, meaning that a growing part of the deficit must be financed domestically. Higher interest rates any one ?

  2. ilsm says:

    US’ place in terms of life expectancy should be worrisome.

    The most positive note this week is the US has not ‘shot first’ and there is a very remote chance that the military industry congress complex’ health as a growth sector may not drive US foreign policy.

    US carbon energy ‘independence’ does not affect China’s interests in the US not blowing up the Persian Gulf. Iran is not a small country.

    Energy independence based on more carbon is not a good thing.

    As long as the US can ignore the externalities…….

  3. krice2001 says:

    I love how we celebrate “labor flexibility” – that Americans are willing to work for less money. Somehow this is a good thing? Yes, it reduces labor costs for business but I can think of some downsides to people making less and less money. Apparently, there’s a class of people who are totally comfortable with that downside, presumably because they do not expect to be negatively impacted by it.

    • rd says:

      Unfortunately, he portrays labor flexibility in only cost per hour. There are other aspects of labor flexibility that are as important if not more so.

      For example, in the 1990s I was touring a Big Three auto plant. I bent down to pick up some trash on the floor that was a potential slip and trip hazard to put it in the trash can 10 feet away – I was immediately scolded by my tour guide who explained that if a union worker saw me throw that away, there would be a grievance filed by the union because I had done a laborer’s work – so we left the trash on the floor. Elimination of this type of stupidity is something that can help free up the economy to work efficiently.

      Similarly, many cultures have fundamental social rules that prevent people from different classes or castes from migrating between types of work. The US has been slowly eliminating these barriers over the past century with integration of minorities and women into the workplace. This is still an ongoing process but is probably the single biggest reason for the rise in the labor participation ratio from the mid-60s to the early 2000s. It is no accident that the start of this rise starts when the Civil Rights Act was passed. We (and some other countries like Canada) are still way ahead of the rest of the world in this. Ultimately, this is probably the single biggest future booster for the US and Canadian economies – we can absorb immigrants from everywhere into our economy, although imperfectly. This is largely unimaginable in countries like China, Japan, and many European countries.

  4. VennData says:

    Instead of carrying A Gary’s jock strap, why not tell us which of your right wing buddies you side with to end “the dysfunction in Washington:” You with the Tea Party? or you with Boehner?

    And let us know where you’re “speaking” in Chicago so we can come heckle you. You “speaking” at a diner counter near the Loop.?

    I don’t think they rent clown cars here in the Windy City but if you find one and drive around parroting back what you heard on Fox News to everyone you want. I know they rent megaphones though why BR loans you a square pixel to tell us what Rupert Murdoch thinks once a week is beyond me.

    • bear_in_mind says:

      I, too, have posted excoriations of Maudlin (sic) and his right-wing based bloviating. I’ve come to barely skim his posts because he’s so wedded to the same drivel.

      That said, I agree with Barry’s contention that one must try to remain open-minded to opposing views and defend against our *own* predilection toward confirmation bias.

  5. louiswi says:

    VennData nails it!!

  6. RW says:

    What Willy2, ilsm, krice2001 and VennData said.

    Since the opinions in this article also appear to be shared by others who sell to the 1% and the Very Serious People in Washington DC we could be looking at incestuous amplification in addition to pandering or confirmation bias but whatever clues this might provide to where policy is likely jump next (and how screwed up its likely to be) probably won’t be be helpful in most cases IMO; too much doublethink going on, hard to tell what these folks really believe.

    Personally it just makes me want to take some off the table and allocate a bit more of the remainder to international assets.

    NB: Of course there is a chance the latest debt ceiling idiocy might convince more global players to rely on currencies other than the US dollar and that could wind up being a good thing for the little people; e.g., those who just live and work in the good old USofA and don’t take their vacations abroad.

  7. BenE says:

    An open letter to John Mauldin,

    I often read your newsletters through the Ritholtz blog. Your letters are always full of thoughtful insights on a well curated set of economic events around the world. Given the brilliance that shines through your letters I am always sad to see that your opinions on the monetary side of things go against accepted macroeconomics.

    I’m sure tons of people have tried to change your mind on this before but given your smarts, I feel there is a mental block there and it is worth giving it a try myself. So here is the shortest, most concise explanation I can make. I hope it leads you to an “ah ha!” moment that makes you reevaluate the way you see the role of money in the economy.

    My explanation will be only a few paragraphs and mainly emphasize the difference between money and other types of savings instruments.

    The most important aspect of money is that it, in itself, doesn’t carry intrinsic value. Loans and bonds also have that characteristic. They are just promises to be paid later, claims on a specific amount of future wealth of another party. Money’s main difference with other loans is that it is redeemable at anytime from anyone.

    When you have a certain amount of money, it means society in general owes you a certain amount of goods that you can redeem whenever you want. Carrying money is effectively, the most flexible, shortest maturity, least risky bond you can have. The fact that money is redeemable for stuff at anytime from anyone has huge benefits but also a huge downside.

    With all other forms of savings, the claim on wealth is backed by specific, people things or activities (let’s forget complex contracts and derivatives for the sake of this argument). For example, you can save by buying something you will need in the future. You own the thing immediately so its value is obvious and immediate. You can also save by buying stocks in a company. In this case you have a claim on the value and profits of this particular company and you can evaluate the risk in that claim by looking at the business worthiness of that company. The stock value is backed by this company. You can also buy bonds or loan money. In this case you have a claim on future wealth of a particular party and you can evaluate the creditworthiness of these specific parties. These parties back your investment.

    When it comes to money on the other hand, it is not clear who or what ‘backs’ its value. I don’t mean this in a legal way. This is not about who is legally obligated to convert or tax or produce money. I mean this in purely economic way. If there is an stock of money that people want to spend, who will be responsible for producing the goods this money will be traded against?

    The answer with money is that society at large, everybody that trades in money, are responsible to back money, by which I mean they are responsible to produce the goods that trade for money. This has a very important consequence. It means that if there is too large a stock of idle money out there compared to the ability of the economy to produce goods, then the money is not backed by enough capacity and will likely either lose its value when people collectively try to spend it or require market distorting central bank interventions to maintain its value.

    This is why, as much as possible, money or money like instruments (such as safe short term government bonds) shouldn’t be overly used as a long term saving instrument. Money should mostly serve as a medium of exchange and negotiation so that people don’t have to resort to bartering.

    People who want to save longer term should save in things that are backed by real economic activity. Things that have a defined role in the economy which can be evaluated for worthiness.

    This is why it is critical that money has a return that is lower than real private safe investments. This means that in a recession where the safest investments in the private sector temporarily have real returns of less than -3% or -4%, money shouldn’t artificially produce a return of -2%. That is, in these conditions inflation should be higher than 2%.

    Otherwise money crowds out private safe investments and the -2% being a few percent above what the private free market can generate is effectively a subsidy to holders of money and money like instruments. When banks and businesses hoard cash and government bonds instead of investing, we know that electrons or pieces of paper are artificially providing more value than the free market can provide. Furthermore this accumulation of money waiting on the sidelines is not backed by much real economic activity.

    In these economic conditions, low inflation is a central bank subsidy to cash savers and established businesses that don’t depend on loans. The wealth is extracted from small entrepreneurs and innovators that rely on loans to buy new equipment to jump start their businesses and create new wealth and new jobs.

    What’s more, in these conditions, when central banks don’t create enough inflation, the flow of money slows down, businesses and banks stockpile money which creates a higher risk of inflation in the future when money velocity will be restored.

    It is a bit of a paradox but overshooting inflation early in a liquidity trap, to maintain the velocity of money, actually decrease the overall risk of inflation by preventing people from accumulating stockpiles of money that could later flow back too quickly in the economy.

    I hope this helps understand why under high unemployment and low interest rates, there would be huge benefits in having temporarily high inflation and it would even help maintain long term inflation at lower levels.

  8. Bridget says:

    I’ve always considered Australians to be a sort of schizophrenic blend of Crazy Texans and Crazy Californians.

  9. panskeptic says:

    Mauldin sells hedge funds to HNW individuals. As a toady to the uberrich, his writing is utterly without interest.

    As for the incomprehensibly venerated Shilling, let me add my disgust at the wilfully blinkered quality of rightwing gasbaggery. The beggaring of the American workforce is not a plus, and the hosannahs for fracking are premature.

    Just Google the phrase “What’s wrong with fracking?” It’s even worse than you think.