PDA

View Full Version : Protectionist dominoes are beginning to tumble across the world


nmap
12-21-2008, 12:35
This is the sort of thing that may be more problematic than the ongoing economic crisis. People react to sudden, adversem and unexpected changes in their economic status - and history seems to suggest the reaction is unpleasant.

News generated by populations and governments around the world seem likely to make for interesting reading.

--------------------------------------------


Link to article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/3870089/Protectionist-dominoes-are-beginning-to-tumble-across-the-world.html)

The riots have begun. Civil protest is breaking out in cities across Russia, China, and beyond.

Greece has been in turmoil for 11 days. The mood seems to have turned "pre-insurrectionary" in parts of Athens - to borrow from the Marxist handbook.

This is a foretaste of what the world may face as the "crisis of capitalism" - another Marxist phase making a comeback - starts to turn two hundred million lives upside down.

We are advancing to the political stage of this global train wreck. Regimes are being tested. Those relying on perma-boom to mask a lack of democratic or ancestral legitimacy may try to gain time by the usual methods: trade barriers, saber-rattling, and barbed wire.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the head of the International Monetary Fund, is worried enough to ditch a half-century of IMF orthodoxy, calling for a fiscal boost worth 2pc of world GDP to "prevent global depression".

"If we are not able to do that, then social unrest may happen in many countries, including advanced economies. We are facing an unprecedented decline in output. All around the planet, the people have reacted with feelings going from surprise to anger, and from anger to fear," he said.

Russia has begun to shut down trade as it adjusts to the shock of Urals oil below $40 a barrel. It has imposed import tariffs of 30pc on cars, 15pc on farm kit, and 95pc on poultry (above quota levels). "It is possible during the financial crisis to support domestic producers by raising customs duties," said Premier Vladimir Putin.

Russia is not alone. India and Vietnam have imposed steel tariffs. Indonesia is resorting to special "licences" to choke off imports.

The Kremlin is alarmed by a 13pc fall in industrial output over the last five months. There have been street protests in Moscow, St Petersburg, Kaliningrad, Vladivostok and Barnaul. Police crushed "Dissent Marchers" holding copies of Russia's constitution above their heads in Moscow's Triumfalnaya Square.

"Russia has not seen anything like these nationwide protests before," said Boris Kagarlitsky from Moscow's Globalization Institute.

The Duma is widening the treason law to catch most forms of political dissent, and unwelcome forms of journalism. Jury trials for state crimes are to be abolished.

Yevgeny Kiseloyov at the Moscow Times said it feels eerily like December 1 1934 when Stalin unveiled his "Enemies of the People" law, kicking off the Great Terror.

The omens are not good in China either. Taxis are being bugged by state police. The great unknown is how Beijing will respond as its state-directed export strategy hits a brick wall, leaving exposed a vast eyesore of concrete and excess plant.

Exports fell 2.2pc in November. Toy, textile, footwear, and furniture plants are being closed across Guangdong, now the riot hub of South China. Some 40m Chinese workers are expected to lose their jobs. Party officials have warned of "mass-scale social turmoil".

The Politburo is giving mixed signals. We don't yet know how much of the country's plan to boost domestic demand through a $586bn stimulus package is real, and how much is a wish-list sent to party bosses in the hinterland without funding.

Shortly after President Hu Jintao said China is "losing competitive edge in the world market", we saw a move towards export subsidies for the steel industry and a dip in the yuan peg - even though China already has the world's biggest reserves ($2 trillion) and the biggest trade surplus ($40bn a month).

So is the Communist Party mulling a 1930s "beggar-thy-neighbour" strategy of devaluation to export its way out of trouble? Such raw mercantilism can only draw a sharp retort from Washington and Brussels in this climate.

"During a global slowdown, you can't have countries trying to take advantage of others by manipulating their currencies," said Frank Vargo from the US National Association of Manufacturers.

It is a view shared entirely by President-elect Barack Obama. "China must change its currency practices. Because it pegs its currency at an artificially low rate, China is running massive current account surpluses. This is not good for American firms and workers, not good for the world," he said in October. The new intake of radical Democrats on Capitol Hill will hold him to it.

There has been much talk lately of America's Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which set off the protectionist dominoes in 1930. It is usually invoked by free traders to make the wrong point. The relevant message of Smoot-Hawley is that America was then the big exporter, playing the China role. By resorting to tariffs, it set off retaliation, and was the biggest victim of its own folly.

Britain and the Dominions retreated into Imperial Preference. Other countries joined. This became the "growth bloc" of the 1930s, free from the deflation constraints of the Gold Standard. High tariffs stopped the stimulus leaking out.

It was a successful strategy - given the awful alternatives - and was the key reason why Britain's economy contracted by just 5pc during the Depression, against 15pc for France, and 30pc for the US.

Could we see such a closed "growth bloc" emerging now, this time led by the US, entailing a massive rupture of world's trading system? Perhaps.

This crisis has already brought us a monetary revolution as interest rates approach zero across the G10. It may overturn the "New World Order" as well, unless we move with great care in grim months ahead. This is where events turn dangerous.

The last great era of globalisation peaked just before 1914. You know the rest of the story.

The Reaper
12-21-2008, 12:52
nmap:

You are such a ray of sunshine.;)

You have some of the best insight and analysis here, so this constant negativity concerns me somewhat.

Thanks for the info, and keep it coming. If you ever find any good news, feel free to post that as well.

TR

GratefulCitizen
12-21-2008, 15:07
This is the sort of thing that may be more problematic than the ongoing economic crisis. People react to sudden, adversem and unexpected changes in their economic status - and history seems to suggest the reaction is unpleasant.


In this country, I wonder how much of the problem is real and how much is perception driven by media hyperbole.
So long as there is an obesity problem and people buy new ipods because they don't like the color of their current one, real problems are scarce.

Bread and circus abound.

Adversity for the people of this country would seem to be a lesser worry than the concentration of power among the elected/appointed leaders.

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
-Abraham Lincoln

FWIW, I firmly believe my sig line.

Pete
12-22-2008, 07:04
Since the big drop off in late Sep, early Oct the DJIA has appeared to be bouncing around 8500. Some days up, some days down with a few wide swings but pretty much around 8500.

Six weeks ago there was talk about 5000.

Today looks to be another down day but anybody care to make a wild stap at the 90 day outlook? Are the big investors starting to feel the bottom of the pond or is it only muck that will suck them down?

nmap
12-22-2008, 09:13
There are three views of investor sentiment...each of these can be viewed through a contrarian perspective. So if most people are bullish, it generally means that the market is headed lower.

1) Investment Advisors: BULL RANGES: (55% = Bearish; 35% = Bullish) BEAR RANGES: (50% = Bullish; 20% = Bearish), As of Dec. 12, the Bull range was 26.9% and the Bear range was 47.3%.

2) Individual Investor Sentiment: Now predominantly bullish. 40% are bulls, 36% are bears.

3) Wall Street Sentiment (Experienced analysts and traders) 28% bulls, 44% bears.

Overall, it looks neutral to bearish to me.

Barron's Confidence Index: 45.2. Since the bond market (which this index uses) is considered more sophisticated than the stock market, and since the index is quite low, then it's bearish.

The weekly basis chart looks negative to me, but may generate a bounce. Here's a LINK (http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$INDU&p=W&b=5&g=0&id=p78182486693&a=157349544)

The first week in January is important - often, if it's up, the whole year is up. Likewise, the first month of January (the January barometer) tends to suggest which way the year will go. Both together have something like an 80% accuracy of predicting the direction for the year.

My guess? We'll have a little bounce upward, then come back down and test 7470 on the Dow. After that, we'll drift upward again. Our problem will be corporate earnings - people see good value (in terms of dividends and PE ratios), but corporate earnings are likely to decline as the economy slows. Those declining earnings will keep investors nervous.

If we break 7470 decisively, we are likely to head much lower. That would not be good for the economy. But I don't expect that. (See? I can post wildly optimistic views!)

Richard
12-22-2008, 09:38
Thomas Sowell makes some important arguments regarding the 'reality' of this matter--although he focuses on the Big3's plight--which are worth thinking about here.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Postponing Reality
Thomas Sowell
17 Dec 2008

Some of us were raised to believe that reality is inescapable. But that just shows how far behind the times we are. Today, reality is optional. At the very least, it can be postponed.

Kids in school are not learning? Not a problem. Just promote them on to the next grade anyway. Call it "compassion," so as not to hurt their "self-esteem."

Can't meet college admissions standards after they graduate from high school? Denounce those standards as just arbitrary barriers to favor the privileged, and demand that exceptions be made.

Can't do math or science after they are in college? Denounce those courses for their rigidity and insensitivity, and create softer courses that the students can pass to get their degrees.

Once they are out in the real world, people with diplomas and degrees-- but with no real education-- can hit a wall. But by then the day of reckoning has been postponed for 15 or more years. Of course, the reckoning itself can last the rest of their lives.

The current bailout extravaganza is applying the postponement of reality democratically-- to the rich as well as the poor, to the irresponsible as well as to the responsible, to the inefficient as well as to the efficient. It is a triumph of the non-judgmental philosophy that we have heard so much about in high-toned circles.

We are told that the collapse of the Big Three automakers in Detroit would have repercussions across the country, causing mass layoffs among firms that supply the automobile makers with parts, and shutting down automobile dealerships from coast to coast.

A renowned economist of the past, J.A. Schumpeter, used to refer to progress under capitalism as "creative destruction"-- the replacement of businesses that have outlived their usefulness with businesses that carry technological and organizational creativity forward, raising standards of living in the process. Indeed, this is very much like what happened a hundred years ago, when that new technological wonder, the automobile, wreaked havoc on all the forms of transportation built up around horses.

For thousands of years, horses had been the way to go, whether in buggies or royal coaches, whether pulling trolleys in the cities or plows on the farms. People had bet their futures on something with a track record of reliable success going back many centuries.

Were all these people to be left high and dry? What about all the other people who supplied the things used with horses-- oats, saddles, horse shoes and buggies? Wouldn't they all go falling like dominoes when horses were replaced by cars?

Unfortunately for all the good people who had in good faith gone into all the various lines of work revolving around horses, there was no compassionate government to step in with a bailout or a stimulus package.

They had to face reality, right then and right there, without even a postponement.

Who would have thought that those who displaced them would find themselves in a similar situation a hundred years later?

Actually the automobile industry is not nearly in as bad a situation now as the horse-based industries were then. There is no replacement for the automobile anywhere on the horizon. Nor has the public decided to do without cars indefinitely.

While Detroit's Big Three are laying off thousands of workers, Toyota is hiring thousands of workers right here in America, where a substantial share of all our Toyotas are manufactured.

Will this save Detroit or Michigan? No.

Detroit and Michigan have followed classic liberal policies of treating businesses as prey, rather than as assets. They have helped kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. So have the unions. So have managements that have gone along to get along.

Toyota, Honda and other foreign automakers are not heading for Detroit, even though there are lots of experienced automobile workers there. They are avoiding the rust belts and the policies that have made those places rust belts.

A bailout of Detroit's Big Three would be only the latest in the postponements of reality. As for automobile dealers, they can probably sell Toyotas just as easily as they sold Chevvies. And Toyotas will require just as many tires per car, as well as other parts from automobile parts suppliers.

nmap
12-23-2008, 13:11
Thanks for the info, and keep it coming. If you ever find any good news, feel free to post that as well.

TR


Thank you for the kind words, Sir.

Actually, I don't post some of the more pessimistic items I come across; there are items from some well-respected, established sources that are disturbing. Some of the individuals accurately predicted, in terms of both time and events, the situations we currently observe.

That said, the quantity of negative reports may be, in and of itself, a positive. I first started looking at the markets seriously back in 1974. Financial publications had advertisements from advisers who suggested that the Dow might decline to 400, or even lower. The old highs of 1000 seemed impossibly optimistic, and a severe recession spread fear. You might find the attached image of Time magazine's cover from that period amusing. As it turned out, October 1974 was the bottom, and despite all the negative reports, a powerful bull market started. Although there are deep differences between that time and today, there are also some parallels. The end of the bear market, whenever that is, will probably signal the end of the recession 6-12 months later. The bear market will end when the sellers finally exhaust themselves. The bad news is already known to the market, and thus reflected in today's prices. When we start seeing the markets claw their way upward in the face of terrible news, we can (perhaps) hope for better times.

I'll be eager to find some good news; hopefully, we'll see a few reports as 2009 rolls forward.

Richard
12-23-2008, 17:33
Well, here’s another way to look at it all.

Economy, consumer spending shrank in Q3

The Commerce Department said Tuesday that the gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic health, declined at an annual rate of 0.5 percent in the July-September quarter.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28365353/

Now, the MSNBC headline writer could have written this in two ways and, assuming the number is correct, would have given a completely different spin to the story:

1. The economy shrank at a 0.5% annual rate

2. The economy maintained spending at a 99.5% annual rate

The former is all doom and gloom: the world is coming to an end, oh woe is us. The latter is more of a “things are still reasonably normal” theme despite all the bad news. So this bespeaks the question of why MSNBC chose the former rather than the latter to deliver the news. Yet, when you bring this up to the average person, all you get is a “deer in the headlights” stare.

For dealing with such things in life, I always liked this question: Is the glass half-full or half-empty?

One answer is supposed to indicate you are an optimist, the other choice a pessimist.

As for me, I much prefer more of an engineering response to the question: the glass is improperly sized to hold the designated volume of liquid.

However, I do worry about all the governmental finagling in this bandwagon push to 'fix' the current economic situation for which they played a very large part in creating. Thomas Sowell gives a good synopsis of why this finagling is not such a good idea.

Another Great Depression?

With both Barack Obama's supporters and the media looking forward to the new administration's policies being similar to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's policies during the 1930s depression, it may be useful to look at just what those policies were and-- more important-- what their consequences were.

The prevailing view in many quarters is that the stock market crash of 1929 was a failure of the free market that led to massive unemployment in the 1930s-- and that it was intervention of Roosevelt's New Deal policies that rescued the economy.

It is such a good story that it seems a pity to spoil it with facts. Yet there is something to be said for not repeating the catastrophes of the past.

Let's start at square one, with the stock market crash in October 1929. Was this what led to massive unemployment?

Official government statistics suggest otherwise. So do new statistics on unemployment by two current scholars, Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway, in their book "Out of Work."

The Vedder and Gallaway statistics allow us to follow unemployment month by month. They put the unemployment rate at 5 percent in November 1929, a month after the stock market crash. It hit 9 percent in December-- but then began a generally downward trend, subsiding to 6.3 percent in June 1930.

That was when the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were passed, against the advice of economists across the country, who warned of dire consequences.

Five months after the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, the unemployment rate hit double digits for the first time in the 1930s.

This was more than a year after the stock market crash. Moreover, the unemployment rate rose to even higher levels under both Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt, both of whom intervened in the economy on an unprecedented scale.

Before the Great Depression, it was not considered to be the business of the federal government to try to get the economy out of a depression. But the Smoot-Hawley tariff-- designed to save American jobs by restricting imports-- was one of Hoover's interventions, followed by even bigger interventions by FDR.

The rise in unemployment after the stock market crash of 1929 was a blip on the screen compared to the soaring unemployment rates reached later, after a series of government interventions.

For nearly three consecutive years, beginning in February 1932, the unemployment rate never fell below 20 percent for any month before January 1935, when it fell to 19.3 percent, according to the Vedder and Gallaway statistics.

In other words, the evidence suggests that it was not the "problem" of the financial crisis in 1929 that caused massive unemployment but politicians' attempted "solutions." Is that the history that we seem to be ready to repeat?

The stock market crash, which has been blamed for the widespread suffering during the Great Depression of the 1930s, created no unemployment rate that was even half of what was created in the wake of the government interventions of Hoover and FDR.

Politically, however, Franklin D. Roosevelt could not have been more successful. After all, he was the only President of the United States elected four times in a row. He was a master of political rhetoric.

If Barack Obama wants political success, following in the footsteps of FDR looks like the way to go. But people who are concerned about the economy need to take a closer look at history. We deserve something better than repeating the 1930s disasters.

There is yet another factor that provides a parallel to what happened during the Great Depression. No matter how much worse things got after government intervention under Roosevelt's New Deal policies, the party line was that he had to "do something" to get us out of the disaster created by the failure of the unregulated market and Hoover's "do nothing" policies.

Today, increasing numbers of scholars recognize that FDR's own policies were a further extension of interventions begun under Hoover. Moreover, the temporary rise in unemployment after the stock market crash was nowhere near the massive and long-lasting unemployment after government interventions.

Barack Obama already has his Herbert Hoover to blame for any and all disasters that his policies create: George W. Bush.

And as for me, I'm hoping there is someone involved in all this who is looking at it from the point-of-view that the glass is improperly sized to hold the designated volume of liquid. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin