The failings of unconstrained liberal democracy

There is literally no excuse for newspapers and news broadcasters not to be filled to the brim with substantive global news.  However, as there is always trivia about celebrities, sports and the fetish for disaster porn, these will always come first, yet 2011 is becoming one of those years that may go down in history as marking a turning point.   It is a time when critical decisions are needed by elected politicians, most of whom are not really up to the job.   The difficulty comes from the nature of liberal democracy.

It takes a certain type of person to stand for elected office.  At best they are well educated, have benign intent (in their eyes), are willing to take advice, and will carefully weigh up the options before choosing policies that appear to generate more good than harm.   In fact, that's what voters by and large expect.

What people get is something else.  Despite the ravings of tabloid media and talkback radio, political office in and of itself doesn't pay well for the hours that politicians are expected to put in.  That is, if you're professional or entrepreneurial.  However, if you're Georgina Beyer, Ken Livingstone, Alamein Kopu, George Osborne, Jack Elder, Diane Abbott, Danny Alexander or Jami-Lee Ross (yes go read up on them to see what genius is behind them), then this is the pinnacle.  You're unlikely to be earning that much doing anything else.  If you want more, you need to be at best planning your future career (consider Simon Power), or to be corrupt.

Your first and biggest concern as a politician is getting elected, which means telling people what you think they want to hear.  It is an exercise in marketing, and to be fair most voters are either loyal customers of a single party (and so uninterested in results, but act tribally), or make the decision based on hunches and feelings, or single policies that tap their emotions.   The number of voters who thing of the long term, and use any combination of economic or scientific analysis (even flawed) to decide who to vote for is insignificant, and engaging with those who do, one on one, is a waste of any politician's time.   Avoiding conflict and avoiding difficult decisions is what they do, because to do so means upsetting people, and those are people you need for support.  

The Eurozone crisis is entirely because of that factor.  Politicians in Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and other European countries promised voters a lot of "free" things, whether it be healthcare, education, pensions, welfare, housing, or at least lots of cheap things.  They offered more, year in year out, they promised more, spent more money, didn't ask for it in taxes, and simply borrowed.  There were banks that were willing to loan because it was governments borrowing - Eurozone governments - the risk was perceived to be minimal, so they ignored it.

The politicians offered something for nothing, the voters took it and the bankers loaned to the politicians, in a cycle of delusion that is now breaking apart - because the bankers have finally figured it out.

It isn't confined to the Eurozone either.  The US is finally facing the same hiccup, the UK became close to it, all because for year in year out, governments overspent.

Some on the left will glibly blame it all on "capitalism" and "the banks".   Uncontrolled growth in government spending is about as capitalist as Che Guevara.  The blame banks get is for lending to governments in the first place, although you can be sure if they did not, that they'd be blamed for being "obstructive" and not "socially minded", although there are quite a few countries that find it difficult to borrow on international markets.

Certainly the bank bailouts tipped many government finances over the edge in terms of sheer debt load, particularly Ireland.   However, the counter-factual is rarely argued.  If banks were not bailed out, and they were allowed to collapse, and people faced their businesses, properties and deposits being lost, then would that have been preferable?  I'd argue that yes, there should have been a process for the orderly collapse of banks.  However, neither Bush nor Obama, nor Brown, nor Sarkozy nor Merkel, wanted to contemplate that.   

The arguments about debt claim it is all about the banks, but a cursory look at public debt before the financial crisis shows that is simply untrue.  Greece, Italy, the UK and the United States all had growing public debt burdens, the bank bailouts made it worse, but had the public finances for any of those countries been in a far better state - the current crisis would simply not exist.

So now there is the spectre of Western European governments asking a one-party state - the People's Republic of China - to "invest" in lending to their spendthrift governments.   The idea that the Communist Party of China (which, by the way, runs an economy that has a smaller state sector than most Western countries) will take lessons or instructions that suggest liberal democracy has anything to teach it, is laughable.

The one lesson unconstrained liberal democracy is teaching the rest of the world is that in democracies voters are short term thinkers, politicians are driven by popularity and placating whatever rent seekers are the loudest - and the result is the same as if you had a teenager with a credit card seeking to be popular with his or her friends. 

In other words, Europe and the United States are telling the dictatorships in China, Russia, the Middle East, Asia and Africa that their way, is the path to economic ruin. 

Even those who were elected on the basis of dealing with this are largely impotent for they face the opposition from the rent seekers who benefit from the borrowing state.   The Tea Party Republicans in the US who were voted in on a platform of smaller government and less tax, are finding it rather difficult to cut spending.

The political landscape of liberal democracies has evolved to be dominated by the middle ground, that which Tony Blair called "the third way", or which Bill Clinton embraced.  It is naturally "conservative" in that it isn't dominated by radical reform, but is fundamentally corporatist.  It tinkers with the free market, meddles with business, regulates and taxes and tries to manipulate the economy, whilst maintaining a dominant public sector role in areas such as education, health and retirement incomes.  It is neither old left, nor free market "right".   It did require economic growth to keep tax revenues up to sustain budget deficits, and for the Eurozone, for cheap credit to remain on tap, forever.  The brief interlude of budget surpluses in the US in the late 1990s were quickly eaten up by the post 9/11 hit to economic growth, and then devoured as Bush spent up on wars, and everything else as well!

The problem with this model is that it was incapable of responding to the financial crisis, which it begat because at the heart of this model was belief that centrally managed fiat banking could deal to "boom and bust", and because in the US the tinkering was on a grand scale with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the state owned mortgage guarantor, whilst banks were required to lend to those who would not otherwise be able to borrow.   When this corporatist approach unwound because of the property bubble IT begat, and banks faced collapse, the "middle way" suddenly bolted to the left.  Bureaucrats and politicians decided doing something was necessary, so they printed and borrowed. 

The choice was to be Keynesian - or not.  To be Keynesian, was to spend borrowed money and print some more, in the hope it could generate economic growth.  The problem was that public debt in a few countries looked so large, that banks, who had been warned about being profligate (and faced considerable new rules on the amount of leverage they could have), could see enormous risk, particularly in parts of the Eurozone, but also the US and the UK.

Now in the Eurozone reality is hitting home.  The Greek government needs to either cut spending by around 20%, or hike taxes by the same amount or some combination of either to avoid a crisis.  It is unable to do so, because Greek taxpayers are fed up.  Half of them are rent seekers who have been enjoying bank subsidised jobs and benefits, the rest are tax avoiders who don't want to pay for the rent seekers.  Italy is little different.  The German government faces telling German taxpayers to pay more because the Greeks and Italians have been living on borrowed money and they wont pay it back.

There no longer is a middle way.   Either governments live within their means, cutting back or raising taxes, or other governments bail them out.

It is either less government, more free markets and more of people paying for what they use.

Or it is more government, more transfers from those who are productive (in this case Germans, but also Austrians, as well as Dutch, Finnish and French people), to those who are not. 

Merkel and Sarkozy are looking for a middle way, of the banks that loaned to Greece and Italy taking a big hit, of Greek and Italian taxpayers getting less for more, and for German and French taxpayers to save their own banks.  Yet even this wont wash.  Obama also can't find a middle way, because he can't convince enough Americans to pay more tax, while he is unwilling to cut spending on anywhere remotely near the scale he needs to.

For the period from 1989 to 2011, it could reasonably be argued that mixed economy liberal democracies had "won" the battle of ideas, both in terms of economics, but also socially.   The moral and economic bankruptcy of "actually existing socialism" was obvious,  China and Vietnam already knew the economic bankruptcy of it and had started to change.   The moral dimension of freedom vs. dictatorship had won, at the time.  However, since then, it has been challenged.

Russia has seen some measure of economic success, coinciding with authoritarianism, as it has ridden on a wave of community price booms for energy.  China has gone from strength to strength to be the second largest economy in the world.  Meanwhile, Western Europe has been sclerotic, and the US, following the bubble of productivity and innovation arising from IT and telecommunications, is looking like it did in the 1970s - morose and stagnant.

The trend towards more personal freedom continues.  The Arab Spring is, in one part, about that, as people throw off the shackles of dictatorships, although whether they elect their new shackles is a moot point.  China too, is experiencing freedom of speech and debate unseen in over 60 years, although there are still lines that are dangerous for citizens to cross.

However, on economics, mixed "third way" economies are now seen to be wanting.   It is, in part, due to fiat banking (the inflationary bubble created by printing money is only starting now to apper), but is moreso due to politicians being incapable of being fiscally prudent.   In the US the debate is becoming one about whether Americans want a smaller government, with lower taxes, but less benefits/subsidies, or a bigger government, with higher taxes (for a few), more like Europe.  At least there, the debate is being opened up.  In Europe, the debate is yet to be entered into, but the far-left and far-right are starting to sound off where they want it to be.  The far left want to squeeze business and run big governments, the far-right want to reassert national sovereignty and not pay for bankrupt foreign economies.

The centre is floundering about wanting a "solution", but given their philosophical base is neither to increase taxes, nor dramatically shrink the state - they have no clear answer to fiscal profligacy.  Their bumbling attempt to discuss a financial transactions' tax being inept, and largely pandering to the far-left desire for blood, theft and destruction of the financial sector.

You see, it comes down to politicians.  Most do not understand economics, let alone finance.  A TV journalist some months ago asked a cross section of UK MPs what the difference is between the deficit and debt, and many had no clue.  Why would anyone trust any of them to spend your money or borrow in your name?

They do not know what they are doing, and the voters do not understand what is going on, and will vote based on short term imperatives rather than long term ones.

In other words, liberal democracies can't find an answer because they are inherently incapable of making difficult decisions that must be made.

In this climate, is it any wonder that China is looking on to see the eclipse of the West and the slow withdrawal of Pax Americana from the world, as Obama withdraws from Iraq, seeks withdrawal from Afghanistan, plays a back seat role in Libya, and seems ready to leave the world to others, whilst seeking to follow the European example on economics.

The only way this will be confronted is if voters decide they will no longer expect politicians to deliver them answers, but that government should stick to what it is good at, and do less, and tax less.

The alternative is what the "Occupy" lot incoherently seem to want, which is more government, more taxes on those they don't like, to confiscate property and bugger the consequences.

You see the approach being taken now, of spending a little less and taxing a little more, doesn't deliver an environment for economic growth and more jobs, nor does it meet the demands for blood and money that the far-left are bullying for, because it maintains the corporatist state - that borrows and taxes to give privilege to some.

Meanwhile, figure out for yourself who represents what view in the New Zealand elections and in mainstream politics everywhere else.  Good luck at finding those who aren't of the middle ground or the grow the government mob, or indeed journalists who can understand it at all.

Keynesians steal from the aspiring middle classes

You might have noticed the price of gold skyrocketing in the past year or so.  You might wonder if this is a bubble that is going to pop, spectacularly.  Well, it might, but there is a reason why gold (and to a lesser extent silver and platinum) are becoming preferred investments, it is because of fears about the alternatives.  Those fears are because of the abject failure of the Keynesians to deal with a financial crisis that started with a fiat money fueled credit bubble, exacerbated by perpetual government deficits and "saved" by printing money.

You see the real bubble which is being manufacted is inflation.  Central bankers and governments invented the euphemism "quantitative easing" to hide what they are really doing - because most kids at school learnt in economics why printing money doesn't make any sense.  However, quantitative easing is printing money.  It is the easy solution of dictators who don't know how to pay their soldiers, civil servants and the like.  Now it is the easy solution of elected governments who are afraid to let prices collapse in those parts of their economies subject to the credit bubbles, and who are afraid of being forced with the full reality that they have been engaging in fiscal child abuse for decades.   The French government for example, started running deficits in the mid 1970s, so it was borrowing off of people who are now in their 30s and facing either higher taxes or less "benefits", so that their parents and grandparents could have an easier life.

Investors are moving into gold because inflation mean that a whole host of typically "safe" investments no longer are.  Conventional bank deposits (even ignoring the risk of some banks that face sovereign debt risks)

will now not pay enough to cover inflation.  Furthermore, government bonds are now seen as significantly riskier than they once were because of the default of Greece and the near defaults of many others.  Those without such risks are paying such low rates of interest (for demand is so high), they are insufficient to compensate for inflation, so investors diversify their "safe" investments.

Of course what this means is that the vast bulk of the population, who put their savings in "the bank" in some form or another, are losing their money.   In effect, their government is stealing from them by printing money in order to avoid the consequences of others facing devaluations in their businesses, property or other assets.

To put it simply, the Keynesians, who can be seen in both government and opposition in most major governments, are stealing from the vast bulk of the population, by stealth, in order to avoid the fallout of letting some selected businesses and assets from collapsing in value to correct the years of the credit bubbles.   Who does that hurt?  It hurts the young and those on relatively lower incomes who do not have property or do not have any other savings mechanisms.   Don't expect the politicians on the centre-right to have an answer, because they'd rather stay in power, like those on the centre-left.  Those on the far-left want to put their heads in the sand completely, and pretend inflation isn't an issue.

It is - the evidence is seen in gold.

One alternative to gold are to buy shares, which of course many have been doing, although the sheer volatility and complexity of it means that it works well for larger investors and institutional investors who have the in-house expertise to spread risk and seek opportunities for bargains, particularly looking at more robust foreign shareholdings.  The other is property, which of course has been the source of part of the problem in the first place.

The property conundrum is that there have clearly been significant property bubbles in many countries facing the crisis, such as Ireland, Spain, the US and the UK.  Australia has a bubble, but that is commensurate to its own commodity led economic buoyancy.  New Zealand's one is more volatile.   However, we may yet see the spectre of property prices easing up as investors see less risk of losing value in property than in inflation.

Now Central Bank governors and governments may claim that if inflation takes off (we are talking around 5% now, so it's hardly dead) then interest rates will be increased, and the usual monetarist solution to inflation will be applied.  Except, of course, what happens with stagflation?  Will the Keynesians insist that when economic growth is nascent that there should be more and more money printed, and forget inflation?  In which case, batten down the hatches for that battle wont be won.  Or will the monetarists tighten the screws on credit and interest rates, and strangle what little growth there is to kill off the bubble of inflation created by the Keynesians?

For Barack Obama, David Cameron or indeed John Key, the hope is that this doesn't come to pass.   None would swallow what they would have to do to ride things out, which is to give up on printing money, let a significant correction in asset prices occur (including a major slump in property prices and share prices), stop deficit spending and begin the long slow road towards economic recovery based on setting businesses free.

Instead for all of their weasel words, they will continue to steal from the vast bulk of the public by creating inflation, devaluing their own public debt, and creating cheap credit to save themselves from facing voters with the reality of many years of boom and bust economics based on fiat money.

Keynesianism failed before, and it is failing now.  It is about time that both it, and monetarism were consigned to history and a serious investigation begin as to how to reform monetary policy with free banking.   If you think that sounds absurd or frightening, then reflect on the past three years and give a better solution.

End of cloud cuckoo land economics

So says City AM editor, Allister Heath.  In an extended editorial this morning he wrote an elegant piece that summarises where we all are at:

The post-Bretton Woods era is coming to an end. Asia and the emerging nations are on the rise – and the world’s increasingly vocal creditors. As economic power shifts, so will geopolitical and cultural influence. The US, which for decades enjoyed massive inflows of cheap financing, and huge benefits from owning the world’s reserve currency, needs to start to live within its means. The same is true of Europe, which faces two additional challenges: the Eurozone, which cannot survive in its present form and which has become the most urgent threat to global prosperity; and (even more than America) bloated welfare states and a generalised failure to grasp that weak education systems, high taxes and crippling regulations are a no-no in a globalised world.

He has no time for the endless budget deficits and the abuse of fiat currencies as ways to evade reason...

“stimulus” packages of the fiscal or monetary variety have become counter-productive, with every extra pound in economic output created coming at a much greater cost. Ultimately, one needs real, sustainable growth – and that must mean deferring consumption to allow the savings required to finance productive investment; a sound, non-manipulated currency; interest rates that reflect reality; and lots of hard work, creativity, skill and innovation, suitably incentivised. The pseudo-Keynesian micro-management that dominates policy-making is not only intellectually bankrupt but has been proved to fail in practice. Politics and wishful thinking has been defeated by economic reality. In a world of scarce resources, we need to produce before we can consume – all the borrowing and money-printing in the world cannot refute this simple truth. 

His big predictions are that the US can prevaricate for some time, and be in long term relative decline as it does, but the European Union has an immediate crisis, that now threatens to spread beyond the CPIIGS (Cyprus, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain) into Belgium and France.  

But while the US’s decline could run for decades, and will involve further downgrades, the Eurozone’s crisis is urgent. The only question is how much debt the authorities will want or be able to federalise – how many toxic government bonds will the European Central Bank and the European Financial Stability Facility buy, in exchange for creating money or issuing Eurobonds backed by all Eurozone countries. Prudent taxpayers in Germany and elsewhere will pick up the bill left by profligate nations; but given its huge, multi-trillion euro size, this could destroy yet more credit ratings. France could be next for a downgrade. Even more importantly, a sovereign bailout will destroy any remaining popular support for the euro project, especially in Germany, understandably so given that the population was lied to when it was told that countries would retain their fiscal independence despite giving up monetary sovereignty.

 

The implications of this for Europe, could be positive if it unshackled itself from the socialist part of the EU project, and helped set its economies free, but it is unlikely that will happen.

 

The more serious concern ought to be about the decline of the United States, what is means not so much for the global economy, but for the international order.  For decades many in the West have rallied against Pax Americana, more than a few will cheer a New World Order that does not resemble what George Bush (Sr.) declared at the end of the Cold War.   

However, bear in mind what it represents.  It means Asia being dominated militarily as well as economically by China, and India, both nuclear powers.  It means the Middle East being dominated by Saudi Arabia and Israel, it means Europe being dominated by NATO and Russia, and it means the United States doing what Obama has royally done, opting out of the world by withdrawing.

The so-called "peace movement" will proclaim the world is a safer place as a result, although if it is a place where the United States no longer carries a banner, and sword, for freedom, one wonders how true that will be (not that the "peace movement" ever believed in freedom).   Some US libertarians welcome this, not wanting the US to be "World Police" (not that it ever really was), but what it leaves is a philosophical vacuum - one that is increasingly filled with "make money wherever you can regardless of individual or property rights" as the Russia and Middle Eastern kleptocracies move forward and China seeks a 21st century imperialism over African natural resources to replicate the 19th century Western equivalent.   Islam may fill part of it, corporatist state capitalism will fill some more, as will knuckle-dragging nationalism based on ethnicity. 

However, consider this.  If you were in Poland, with a relatively chilly authoritarian neighbour to the east, and you saw the US withdraw its presence in Europe - given the past 70 years of history - would you be feeler safer as a result?

Davos Economic Forum? Why bother

There is not inconsiderable hype in the business world and among some in governments about the annual exercise in mutual onanism called the Davos Economic Forum in Switzerland. Like many conferences of high profile people, one of the key objectives is to get people to agree and put out nice sounding statements that will offend no one and look like some enormous intellectual capital has been applied to the economic issues of the world.

Quite simply if you look at the 2008 World Economic Forum it will speak to you in abundance about how little intellectual capital is applied - after all, that Forum hardly predicted the worst recession since WW2. You can get the Summit report yourself here (pdf) and read it.

The most it said was "the unfolding financial crisis should be viewed as a chapter in a much larger, more profound story – the rebalancing of global wealth away from the West and toward the emerging economies of Asia and the Middle East" except, of course, that the recession is global. Oops didn't see that coming, that export led economies can't grow without anyone buying their goods.

If you don't like buzzword cliche phrases, then don't read this with a meal. This statement should be enough to provoke cynicism:

"Fourteen global CEOs and company chairmen representing a range of industries and regions
issued a call to their peers to join collaborative efforts to strengthen public governanceframeworks and institutions as a core element of their approach to corporate citizenship."

However, what's most telling are the "achievements" of the forum, which, barring one initiative, would do next to nothing for the global economy. These are:

- Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda unveiled a five-year, US$ 10 billion fund to support efforts in developing countries to combat global warming (apparently forgetting this is an economic forum);
- Agility, TNT and UPS, three leading logistics and transport companies, are joining forces to help the humanitarian sector with emergency response to large-scale natural disasters (nice, but this isn't economic is it);
- The World Economic Forum launched a landmark report on the interfaith dialogue between Muslim and Western societies. Islam and the West: Annual Report on the State of Dialogue (oh nice, a book);
- The World Economic Forum released the first part of the most comprehensive investigation into private equity: "The Globalization of Alternative Investments Working Papers Volume 1: The Global Economic Impact of Private Equity Report 2008" (nice another book);
- Mayors, regional governors and the private sector launched the World Economic Forum’s SlimCity Initiative, an exchange programme between cities and companies to support action on resource efficiency in urban areas, focusing on energy, water, waste, mobility, planning, health and climate change (yes noticed how well cities run anything they touch? Yep congested roads, undermaintained water supplies, first class health care systems);
- British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, Irish musician Bono et al issued a joint statement vowing to make 2008 a turning point in the fight against poverty. (well it certainly turned out to be a turning point. Just as politicians, businesspeople and musicians get together, economies start folding inwards);

Ok enough. Besides a few privately led development initiatives, it was onanism on a grand scale.

What the forum COULD do is be a platform to actually point the finger at some of the most appalling actions by government globally. So while the Davos Forum gets ready to be held, here are a few tips for those who are going- if they can put away their onanistic business consultant speak for a few days:

1. For many developing countries it is corruption, rank, explicit, corruption that destroys the ability of citizens to produce and retain wealth. War needs to be declared on this, as this IS unfair distribution of wealth, because it is governments granting privilege to those who pay them off. Failing to note this corruption, which also exists in wealthy countries, is ignoring one enormous elephant in the room.

2. It is property rights that need defending and protecting, but the World Economic Forum says nothing about that, as so many countries either have little notion of it (as in African kleptocracies) or sacrifice it for expediency (US concept of eminent domain). Without property rights, creating and producing wealth becomes a momentary exercise for immediate consumption. The lack of property rights, protected by a free, open and uncorrupt government, is the number one reason so many countries stagnate.

3. It is free trade that needs advancing and yes, protection. The damnable procrastination of the EU and Japan, and to a lesser extent the USA, in protecting agricultural markets, subsidising farmers and dumping their subsidised goods on world markets helped exacerbate the crisis in food prices in 2008. If governments could push for a multilateral liberalisation of trade in primary products and services, then it could spark off some recovery - like the GATT did in liberalising trade in manufactured goods in the 1950s and 1960s. Forget collaboration, businesses need to tell governments to get the hell out of the way - let those inefficient French farms fail.

4. Finally, it is the wealth shredding obsession with unpriced environmentalism, that is sucking productivity out of economies in developed countries. Recycling commodities that are worth little, taxing car parks to discourage car ownership, in essence spending more directly or indirectly for the environment than the benefits people get from that spending. It is an abominable trend in policy that the evangelism of environmentalism has hardly been challenged by objective analysis.

However, that would require confronting the countless vested interests, NGOs, businesses, governments and labour leaders who wouldn't like it. So instead Davos will be a lot of nice words, and talk about collaboration, working together, synthesis, co-operation, understanding, investing, refocuses, refreshing, rebuilding, blah blah. You see it is explicitly politically neutral, which of course can only take you so far when politicians and their lackeys are the problem.