The World After November

Javier Solana

29 October 2012


MADRID On November 6, either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney will emerge victorious after an exhausting electoral race, setting the wheels in motion for the coming four years. An ocean away, on November 8, more than 2,000 members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will gather in Beijing. Approximately a week later, the members of the Politburo Standing Committee will walk out in hierarchical order, preparing to take charge of a growing country of 1.3 billion people.
The leaders of the world’s two largest economies are changing. So is the world itself. The Middle East, in particular, is experiencing a moment of intense transformation. While reconstruction – both literal and figurative – is commencing in some parts of the region, countries like Syria are aflame.
Others, such as Iran, with its moribund revolution, have never ceased rumbling. Amidst a crumbling economy, the country remains belligerent, using its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, to launch at least one successful drone flight above Israel and reportedly initiating recent cyber attacks.
As a result, relations among regional actors remain tense. After his speech at the United Nations appealing for a “red line” on the Iranian nuclear program in the spring or summer of 2013, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu called an early general election, which could potentially give him a strong mandate for action against Iran. Egypt, meanwhile, is finding its own equilibrium, both domestically, drafting a new constitution, and in terms of foreign policy.
Then there is Turkey, straddling Europe and the Middle East. An emerging economy poised to become a regional power, it has exchanged fire with its neighbor to the south, Syria, and has called on its NATO allies to bolster its security.
This is part of the changing panorama that new world leaders will inherit in the Middle East – a region in which the United States has been deeply involved. After nearly a decade of draining military engagement, the US combat mission in Iraq concluded in 2010, and the combat mission in Afghanistan is set to end in 2014.
The next American president will also inherit a country with a markedly changed geopolitical perspective. Technological advances and innovation have begun to turn the longstanding dream of energy independence into a reality. Whereas extraction of America’s extensive reserves of natural gas was previously thought to be unfeasible, technologies such as hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) have ushered in a shale-gas revolution.
Indeed, the US is on the cusp of energy self-sufficiency. Last year, for the first time in 15 years, less than one-half of the oil consumed in the US was imported. Annual growth in shale-gas production has increased from 17% between 2000 and 2006 to 48% between 2006 and 2010. By 2035, shale gas is projected to account for roughly one-half of total US energy production.
The repercussions of this revolution will not be only economic. Politically, reduced reliance on foreign oil may allow the US to concentrate on its foreign-policy shift toward Asia.

But it is not just the new US leader who will inherit a changed world. Across the Pacific, the days of record-breaking economic growth in Asia – a key component of social and political stability – may be coming to an end.
Indeed, events in China in recent months have revealed internal unease. Though nationalist sentiment directed against external foes tends to divert attention temporarily from internal turmoil, the country’s serious domestic problems need to be addressed. China’s economy and politics, ideologically transformed in all but name, will soon need to be adapted to address rising social inequality.
Despite global economic headwinds, China’s leaders will surely remain focused on maintaining and boosting growth, in order to lift more Chinese out of poverty and avert social unrest; they are also certain to continue monitoring the oil-rich Middle East. After years of relying on America’s presence in the region, playing an advantageous waiting game, China’s next leaders may embrace a more active role. And, because China’s reputation in the region is untainted by a legacy of imperialism, they may be in a rather advantageous position to do so.
Meanwhile, the European Union is struggling with its own demons. Despite the EU’s need to focus inward while weathering the global economic crisis, the Union must not abandon its neighbors to the south. It is crucial to engage with the southern Mediterranean region as a critical meeting point – a place of political, economic, and energy cooperation. In this respect, the EU’s most valuable tools are its signature, Nobel Prize-winning model of multilateral dialogue and soft power.
Next door, Russia, too, must respond to new vulnerabilities stemming from changing global conditions. The Kremlin continues to support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, maintaining a strict aversion to military intervention and seeking to defend its strategic interests, including its naval base in the Syrian city of Tartus. That stance has translated, most obviously, into repeated vetoes of UN Security Council resolutions aimed at ending a conflict that has already produced tens of thousands of victims.
International inaction on Syria is bad news not only for the country’s people; it is also eroding the legitimacy of one of the world’s most important multilateral institutions. Given that the issues of Iran and Syria are closely connected, internal division among the Security Council’s five permanent members (the US, China, Britain, France, and Russia) could be extremely damaging to the search for a solution to Iran’s nuclear-enrichment drive. That is reflected in the current stalemate in talks between them (plus Germany) and Iran.
Too much is at stake, which is why all possible tracks for a negotiated outcome must be pursued. Whether or not recent rumors of bilateral US-Iran talks prove true, such initiatives should be welcomed. While the big players remain preoccupied with their internal changes, the region continues to smolder. The main question now is whether the leaders who emerge in November will be firefighters or fire starters.
Javier Solana was Foreign Minister of Spain, Secretary-General of NATO, and EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy. He is currently President of the ESADE Center for Global Economy and Geopolitics and Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Copyright Project Syndicate -

October 28, 2012 7:30 pm

Building blocks for America’s recovery

The final full week of the US presidential campaign will see both candidates intensely debate the future of economic policy. But despite the rhetoric about its means, most experts agree on its ends. First, re-establishing economic growth at a rate that makes real reductions in unemployment possible; second, placing the nation’s finances on a stable footing by putting in place measures to ensure that the nation’s sovereign debt is declining relative to its wealth; and third, renewing the economy’s foundation in a way that can support steady growth in middle-class incomes over the next generation as well as work for all those who want it.

Where are the candidates on these three issues? Barack Obama has recognised the inadequacy of demand as the main barrier to growth and sought to bolster both public and private sector demand since becoming president. Recent work by the International Monetary Fund has confirmed the premise of his policies, namely that at a time when short-term interest rates are at zero, fiscal policies are especially potent as multipliers are larger than normal. The president has also respected the independence of the Federal Reserve as it has sought to respond creatively to the challenge of increasing demand.

And he has put the economy on track to almost doubling exports over five years through a series of measures such as increasing government support for exporters. He has made clear his commitment to taking advantage of low interest rates to finance public investment and protect public sector jobs, to respect the independence of the Fed and to continue to promote exports.

Mitt Romney, in contrast, supports immediate efforts to sharply reduce government spending even as economic slack remains and Congress at the president’s behest has already legislated the most draconian cuts ever in domestic discretionary spending. Through some set of intellectual gymnastics he concludes that spending on new weapons systems by the government, or on luxury goods by the recipients of tax cuts, will create jobs but spending on fixing schools and highways do not. He also seems comfortable involving himself in monetary policy discussion on the side of reducing the supply of credit relative to current Fed policy. And his insistence that he will name China a currency manipulator on day one of his term even before his appointees have moved into their offices surely increases uncertainty by making a trade war possible.

President Obama has embraced the principles though not all the details embodied in the Simpson-Bowles commission report on budget deficits. Like the group of chief executives who made a major statement on deficit reduction last week he insists that achieving sustainable finances means both containing spending especially on entitlements and raising revenue. The budget he has put forward has been thoroughly audited by the Congressional Budget Office and puts the US debt to gross domestic product ratio on a declining path within this decade. And he has made clear that in talks with willing partners to conclude a deal, he is prepared to go beyond his budget proposals to ensure that debt accumulation is contained.

Mr Romney, meanwhile, has not suggested even a partial approach to the budget that has enough detail to be fully evaluated by independent experts. He has, however, insisted on the need for military spending of at least a trillion dollars more than recommended by Robert Gates, George W. Bush’s defence secretary, and for 20 per cent across the board tax cuts which independent estimates suggest would cost close to $5tn over the next decade. To offset these measures, he has spoken of “closing loopholes” without naming any specific items and in the face of repeated demonstrations that even the elimination of every tax benefit for those with incomes over $200,000 would raise far less than the totality of his proposals would cost.

From the Lewis and Clark expedition to the land grant colleges, to the transcontinental railway, to the interstate highway system, to the original research and development that led to the internet, the federal government led by either political party has always sought to lay a foundation for future prosperity. President Obama has continued this tradition while recognising the inevitability that in an uncertain world some investments will work out better than others. While audits have found many fewer problems with public investments than most expected over the past few years, much has been accomplished. Major efforts to measure and act on student achievement results are now in place in most states. Medical records are being systematically computerised. Domestic fossil fuels and renewable energy sources are meeting more and more of our energy needs. New financial protections are in place for consumers even as the capital reserves required of financial institutions have been substantially increased and student lending has been streamlined. These steps illustrate the kinds of progress that a second Obama administration would strive towards.

Mr Romney, on the other hand, has made clear a preference for using any available resources to reduce tax rates below their current level – in the hope that there are great investments companies are not already undertaking even in the face of sub 2 per cent interest rates and the lowest effective tax rates in generations. If this represents a foundation for prosperity it will be a very different one than America has enjoyed historically.

The writer is Charles W. Eliot university professor at Harvard and a former US Treasury secretary


Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2012.

The Quest for Certainty

By John Mauldin

Oct 29, 2012

“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”

– Albert Einstein

“To trace something unknown back to something known is alleviating, soothing, gratifying and gives moreover a feeling of power. Danger, disquiet, anxiety attend the unknown – the first instinct is to eliminate these distressing states. First principle: any explanation is better than none The cause-creating drive is thus conditioned and excited by the feeling of fear"

– Friedrich Nietzsche

Very few beings really seek knowledge in this world. Mortal or immortal, few really ask. On the contrary, they try to wring from the unknown the answers they have already shaped in their own minds justifications, confirmations, forms of consolation without which they can't go on. To really ask is to open the door to the whirlwind. The answer may annihilate the question and the questioner.”

– Anne Rice, The Vampire Lestat

The last two weeks we have been looking at the problems with models. First we touched on what I called the Economic Singularity.

In physics a singularity is where the mathematical models no longer work. For example, models based on the physics of relativity no longer work if one gets too close to a black hole. If we think of too much debt as a black hole of sorts, we may understand why economic models no longer work.

Last week, in “The Perils of Fiscal Cliff,” we looked at the use of fiscal multipliers by economists in order to argue for or against governmental economic policies. Do you argue for austerity, or against it? There is a model that will support your case, most likely using the same data that your adversary uses.

These letters have generated a great deal of positive response and conversation. While I very rarely suggest to readers to go back and read previous letters, but reading these may help you appreciate why it is so difficult to understand what is happening in the global economy today.

This week, in a somewhat shorter letter, we once again consider the vagaries of measurements and models. Growth of the US economy, we are told, was 2% last quarter. That number will of course be revised, but what is it we are measuring? Should we attach any importance to the measurement at all? The short answer to the last question is yes, but it is important to understand that there is no certainty in that number. Or at least not any certainty according to the generally accepted meaning of that word.

The Problem with Dynamic Condition-Dependent Multipliers

I use the above subhead with a great deal of irony. I garnered that phrase from a rather insightful letter from my friend Rob Arnott (founder of Research Affiliates, whose brilliant work is used to manage over $100 billion). I am going to start this week’s Thoughts from the Frontline with his letter, with my comments inserted in brackets. He was responding to last week’s letter on the problem with economic forecasts.

Incidentally, Rob and his family spent five days in Italy with me this summer. There were many late-night discussions (and lunchs and dinners) about this topic.

“Most fiscal multiplier data is simplistic, trying to convert dynamic condition-dependent multipliers into static multipliers [i.e., if you adopt this tax cut or that spending increase you will have a very specific effect on the economy]. Why? Because that makes economics, economic forecasting, and policy prescriptions pretty simple and easy to explain to reasonably intelligent people. In so doing, ignore the impact of:

the starting levels of debt, magnitude of deficits, rate of change of demography

[This is important and at the root of Economic Singularity. If you start with massive debt, as the Greeks or Spanish have, stimulus spending has much less effect than if you have a very small debt. There is a significant difference between the economic policies of Japan and Brazil, for instance, because of the age of their populations. What works in one country may be counterproductive in the other.]

different multipliers between taxes and spending, and between increases or cuts in either [The academic literature suggests that there is a clear difference between the effects of income taxes and consumption taxes on the economy. Trying to use a one-size-fits-all multiplier on taxes or spending is bad economics. Much easier, of course.]

differential multipliers for temporary vs permanent tax changes (the mythical temporary tax cut and its famously useless multiplier)

different multipliers for categories of fiscal stimulus (bridge to nowherebad; repair creaking bridge between economic centers before they collapsebetter)

the effects that employment policy choices can have on the fiscal multiplier (i.e., let’s not forget the role of the private sector!).

Move away from a static multiplier, and there are so many possibilities.

Most of the factors that affect multipliers are not easily controlled by government; and most changes inflict pain before they deliver their promised benefits. Reciprocally, changes that deliver immediate benefit carry a daunting long-term price tag.

Consider the vicious cycle embedded in fiscal multipliers. If aggregate tax rates are 50% (between income and VAT and property taxes, not to mention regional or city taxes) in most of Europe today, a multiplier of 2 creates infinite feedback [which brings us to a Point of Economic Singularity where the models will produce silly results, so economists just assume away any such condition].

“… in such a world, you could boost taxes by 1% of GDP and watch GDP drop 2%, producing no more tax revenue than before; rinse and repeat, until you’re beyond Greece. At Hollande’s 75% rate (80% if the wealthy actually spend anything and incur VAT), you hit this cycle if the multiplier is 1.25. And will the multiplier be affected by tax-rate levels? Of course. Higher taxes strangle the private sector so that the multiplier for incremental change in tax rates will increase. [Note: Rob is not arguing for the use of the specific multiplier, just pointing out that a single-variable multiplier can seriously distort the models.]

“The right answer is to not get into this mess to begin with. After we’ve blundered into this situation, the predictable political reaction seems to be, ‘I can’t inflict pain on my watch. Every pain must be immediately rewarded by gain.’ With a dearth of useful alternative ideas, this leads to the ‘kicking the cannonsense, which makes the eventual implosion far worse.

“The right answer, once we’re already on the gurney, needing glucose to stay alive, but needing to shed the consequences of past glucose overdose, is only a little more subtle. First, we adopt the Hippocratic Oath: ‘First, do no harm.’ E.g., do nothing that carries lasting consequences that might exceed the near-term benefits.

“So, what are the possibilities?

One thing is to try to understand dynamic condition-dependent multipliers, even roughly, over multiple time spans. As the economics profession seeks simple models that can win Nobel Prizes, they’ve let us down by doing far too little of the work on condition-dependency or horizon-dependency.

Absent convincing models on the multipliers, do not dismiss common sense! Would borrowing and spending another $10 trillion produce a positive multiplier for next year? Of course. Over five years? Of course not. It’s no different from a family that boosts the GFP (Gross Family Product i.e., family run-rate consumption) by buying a car they can’t afford. Would stimulus diverted to pork projects boost near-term GDP more or less than long-term debt? The latter is pretty obviously the correct answer. It’s no different from a family deciding to buy bling rather than upgrading to a more reliable commuter car. Common sense trumps mathematical models, every time.

Apportion austerity *and* stimulus, short-term pain and gain, in measures that deliver maximum deficit reduction, ideally without deep recession. E.g., stimulus spending has an okay short-term multiplier, but it almost always delivers more long-term debt than near-term economic stimulus; spending cuts reverse this effect at a cost of near-term recession. Tax hikes, if perceived as permanent (they usually are), have a terrible long-term multiplier; tax cuts reverse this  unless the bond market is spooked by default risk.

Liberalizing private sector labor laws is very underrated, because we have attached such a deeply ingrained [public sense of what is “right” and “fair”]: [Labor laws] have a vast multiplier whenever regulation actively discourages new job creation, as is true throughout the developed world. Get rid of the minimum wage? How dare you?!?! But, suppose it’s replaced with a negative income tax that allows flat rates at all income levels. In effect, we’re replacing a regulatory minimum wage, imposed on employers and discouraging employment, with public funding of a minimum wage, supplanting much of the public welfare bureaucracy. [This is one of Rob’s more interesting proposals and would go a long way towards alleviating youth unemployment, a topic near and dear to this Dad’s heart. If you can hire a teenager for relatively little cost, you can give them a job and training that will make them more productive later in life.]

This means we can combine a high-multiplier positive policy choice, delivering immediate positive GDP gains, before (perhaps mere weeks before) instituting a lower-multiplier adverse policy choice, like cutting public spending, that has known long-term benefits at a cost of short-term pain. The combination can offer goldilocks outcomes. [Or, what Rob might not argue, raise taxes while cutting spending in a compromise to control the deficit.]

“None of this happens without clear leadership at the top. While my libertarian political leanings are well-known, there’s catnip in the sensible solution for both parties. But, I doubt any of this will happen in time. We ‘hire’ our political leadership for their perceived ability to respond well to crises, not to anticipate and avert crises. Why would I say this? Because averting crises usually requires short-term pain for long-term gain. And no politician who deliberately imposes pain, successfully deflecting a crisis, will ever get credit for the success. Why? Because no one ever sees the crisis that didn’t happen!”

It is here that I am more optimistic than Rob; and as my friend Newt Gingrich emphasized when he sat in on some of those late-night sessions in Tuscany, most politicians on all sides of this debate recognize the sheer magnitude of the disaster that it would be to avoid dealing with the deficit in what has now come to be the near term. Admittedly, they have different solutions, but they recognize the problem (note that I said most politicians – certainly not all). While Rob is right that no politician can run on a platform of cutting the things you like and raising taxes, if we’re not prepared to do something very much like that in the first part of 2013, the Fiscal Cliff we talk about will seem like merely stepping off a curb, compared to what comes next.

Measuring GDP

We will circle back to this discussion in a minute, but let’s visit this week’s announcement that GDP rose by 2% in the last quarter, up from 1.3% in the second quarter, which itself ended up being revised down almost 2% from the initial estimate. My guess is that we will see the same downward revisions over the next few months, as the other economic data last quarter was not robust. But clearly, we are not in a recession, just a Muddle Through Economy, as predicted here.

A 2% number is not bad, but there is more to it when you look at the underlying components. A large factor in the quarterly growth was defense spending, which leapt by a quite robust 13%. Personal consumption was up just 2%. Then there is inflation. If you think inflation was 2%, then the GDP number is overstated by 0.5%.

Couple that with normal defense spending, and growth would have been less than 1%. That would not have been a political winner.

Inflation can be measured in several ways. GDP data does not use the Consumer Price Index, which shows inflation of more than 2%. You can get a much different GDP depending on what inflation number you use, and those numbers are dependent on what assumptions you make about how to figure inflation.

And while we all seem to use GDP, is that really the measure that makes the most sense in today’s world? Might we be better off targeting Gross Domestic Income, rather than looking at a consumption-based number like GDP? And isn’t Gross Private Production what we really need, rather than just an indicator that includes changes in government spending? At the end of the day, government spending can only be a function of what is produced in the private sector.

The Economics of Assumptions

We all want to have numbers that are “real.” But economics is different from accounting. Economics makes assumptions in almost all of the models it uses, and those assumptions come with biases. How many discussions do we get into that proceed along the lines of:

Look at this statistic. It clearly goes up [or down] with GDP [or employment or…]. Therefore, if we could just fixX,’ we would solve the world’s problems.”

For instance, I can clearly demonstrate to you that raising taxes on the rich will have no effect on their spending, if I use just one or two correlations in certain time frames. Throw in a few good stories, and the obvious conclusion is that we should raise taxes on the rich again and again. Just ask Monsieur Hollande – it’s their fair share.

Then I can just as easily show you that raising taxes on the rich will result in serious economic calamity. Just see what it did in this situation. And see what cutting taxes did there.”

The counterargument then runs that your interpretation misses some other factor, so your conclusion is wrong. And so on and on. This goes back to the quote from Anne Rice at the beginning of the letter. While her character was talking about another form of knowledge, the observation applies doubly to economics. Here it is again:

Very few beings really seek knowledge in this world. Mortal or immortal, few really ask. On the contrary, they try to wring from the unknown the answers they have already shaped in their own minds – justifications, confirmations, forms of consolation without which they can't go on. To really ask is to open the door to the whirlwind. The answer may annihilate the question and the questioner.”

Human beings seek certainty. We actually get an endorphin rush when we get an explanation for something we do not understand.

Whether it’s religion, politics, philosophy, a crossword puzzle, or economics, we want to be able to come to a definite conclusion that we think is correct. There is psychological rest in certainty, along with the physiological rewards). Models, even flawed ones, give us the illusion of certainty. We need to be careful of what illusions we cling to.

Economics becomes quite a problematic discipline when it tries to create mathematical models that are supposed to guide political philosophy and praxis. So many assumptions have to be made to get to a result, that basing policy on a simplistic model is dangerous.

One size does not fit all, and past performance really does not indicate future results. The entire economic environment must be taken into consideration. We cannot extrapolate simplistically from the Reagan or Clinton years and say, “If we just reverted to those policies, we could get the same results.” Only if you could change all the other variables that are beyond the control of the government!

Models can be useful, but they are not exact. They give us a sense of direction. Using them is more like navigating by the North Star than using a GPS system. The more variables that enter into the actual situation, the less likely we are to be able to come up with that oneeasy-buttonpolicy prescription.

In the end, the only real tool we are left with is common sense, guided by our models and an appreciation of history. We “know” that, in general, the lower the price the higher the demand. If you tax something, you will get less of it.

We get that we can’t let financial institutions run amok. There have to be some protections for the public. Debt is useful until it becomes a burden, and we have to be careful in how we use it. We can come up with dozens of such truisms, based on common-sense wisdom.

We elect politicians and then expect that somehow the world will improve in accordance with their promises. What we really need to do is try to see what general direction they are leading us in and base our votes and our personal decisions on whether we like that direction. But to trust an economist, or even worse a politician, with a model? That can be dangerous.

Let’s close with a quote from my favorite central banker, Richard Fisher, who is president of the Dallas Federal Reserve.

“It will come as no surprise to those who know me that I did not argue in favor of additional monetary accommodation during our meetings last week. I have repeatedly made it clear, in internal FOMC deliberations and in public speeches, that I believe that with each program we undertake to venture further in that direction, we are sailing deeper into uncharted waters. We are blessed at the Fed with sophisticated econometric models and superb analysts. We can easily conjure up plausible theories as to what we will do when it comes to our next tack or eventually reversing course. The truth, however, is that nobody on the committee, nor on our staffs at the Board of Governors and the 12 Banks, really knows what is holding back the economy. Nobody really knows what will work to get the economy back on course. And nobodyin fact, no central bank anywhere on the planet – has the experience of successfully navigating a return home from the place in which we now find ourselves. No central bank not, at least, the Federal Reserve – has ever been on this cruise before.”

We indeed have not been on this cruise before as a nation and as a world. We know what happens when one country or another runs up against the limits of borrowing power. But when the bulk of the developed world does? Another cruise, indeed.

Investing in an Uncertain World

I’ve been writing about the virtues of absolute-return investment vehicles, such as hedge funds, for years. Markets continue to remain uncertain, and investors are increasingly seeking ways to achieve more consistent returns but with less downside risk.

Equities still represent the greatest potential for long-term outperformance over bonds and cash; yet the road looks bumpy, and most investors tend to be biased toward long-only equity. Offsetting some of that long-only exposure with a long/short equity strategy may potentially help create greater risk-adjusted returns – or, in other words, help create a smoother path.

The long/short equity strategy is one of the oldest and most popular hedge fund strategies, in terms of quantity of assets under management. The strategy has attractive characteristics over traditional long-only equity approaches, including the potential ability to capture a significant portion of the equity upside while minimizing drawdowns and protect capital. Equity long/short is also a highly opportunistic, liquid, and transparent strategy that makes it appealing to many

Have a great week. I know I will.

Your comfortable with being uncertain analyst,

John Mauldin

Copyright 2012 John Mauldin. All Rights Reserved.