PDA

View Full Version : China Swallows Obama Stimulus Meant for U.S. Economy


Paslode
08-18-2010, 16:10
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-17/china-drains-obama-stimulus-meant-for-u-s-economy-commentary-by-andy-xie.html



China Swallows Obama Stimulus Meant for U.S. Economy: Andy Xie
By Andy Xie - Aug 17, 2010
Bloomberg Opinion

The global economy is like fried ice cream: If you don’t act fast, it turns into a mess.

American pundits, Nobel laureates included, are predicting Japan-style deflation for the U.S. and Europe. They are urging the Federal Reserve to pursue another round of quantitative easing to stop the onset of an Ice Age for Western economies. The Fed didn’t oblige at its last meeting, but it threw a bone to the deflation crowd by promising not to pull money out of its previous round of asset purchases to stimulate a recovery.

On the other side of the world, consumer prices are surging. Emerging markets as a whole now have an inflation rate of more than 5 percent. India is registering price increases of more than 13 percent. China’s are more than 3 percent. But it surely feels a lot higher for average Chinese.

Much of the “heat” comes from the property market in emerging markets. Million-dollar flats in Mumbai have panoramic views of the city’s slums. Hong Kong’s real-estate prices have almost reclaimed their 1997 peak, though the economy has barely grown since then in per-capita terms. Overpaid bankers who pay 15 percent income tax in Hong Kong are stretched to buy Beijing or Shanghai properties. Moscow is somehow always near the top of the list of the world’s most expensive cities.

The emerging markets are on fire.

Rude Awakening

Deflation prophets in the West are in for a rude awakening. Eastern fire will turn Western ice into a mess, and 2012 looks like it will be the year of melting. The fuel for the fire is coming from deflation-fighting stimulus programs, such as that of U.S. President Barack Obama.

Stimulus is prescribed as a panacea for recession. In today’s global economy, it isn’t effective in the best of circumstances and is outright wrong for what ails the West now.

Trade and foreign direct investment total half of global gross domestic product. Multinational corporations drive both. They shop around the world for the lowest-cost production centers and ship goods to wherever the demand is. Demand and supply are dislocated. So when a government introduces stimulus, the initial increase in demand doesn’t necessarily boost local supply. More importantly, if multinationals decide to invest somewhere else, there wouldn’t be an increase in jobs to sustain the growth in demand beyond the stimulus.

Just as water flows down, stimulus affects low-cost economies more, wherever it is initiated. As the West pours money into the global economy through large fiscal deficits or central banks expanding balance sheets, the emerging economies are drowning in excess liquidity. Everything is turning red-hot.

Ideal Scenario

How will this all end? Ideally, before inflation takes hold in the U.S. and Europe, the costs in emerging economies will rise high enough for multinationals to invest and hire in the West again. I wouldn’t count on that. The average wage in the developed economies is 10 times that in emerging markets. There are five people in the latter for one in the former.

A more likely scenario is that the West will have to stop stimulus programs when inflation spreads to it from the emerging economies. The most immediate channel is through rising commodity prices. It’s a tax on the West to benefit emerging economies that produce raw materials. That’s the irony: The stimulus in the West can immediately bring harm to itself. It’s also the magic of globalization.

The prices of imported consumer goods will rise with increasing labor costs in emerging economies. China’s nominal GDP is growing at about 20 percent per year. The odds are that its labor costs will surge as its worker shortage bites.

Wage Blowout

Lastly, labor in the West will demand wage increases to compensate for current and future inflation. One may argue that high unemployment rates will keep wages in check. Think again. In the 1970s, the U.S. suffered a wage-price surge even with high unemployment because workers saw through the Fed’s “growth first and inflation be damned” intention.

In 2012, the Fed will run out of excuses not to raise interest rates. As the excess liquidity in the global economy will be gigantic by then, the tightening will probably trigger a global crisis as asset bubbles burst.

What really ails the West is declining competitiveness. Globalization is pitting the Wangs in China or Gandhis in India against the Smiths in the U.S. or Gonzalezes in Spain.

Multinationals such as General Electric Co. or Siemens AG decide on whom to hire. The Wangs and the Gandhis offer productivity but have little money. So they are willing to accept low wages to accumulate wealth. The Smiths and the Gonzalezes have wealth and won’t accept Third World wages. When their governments give them money to spend, their demand just makes the Wangs and the Gandhis richer and themselves poorer with rising national debt.

The West must wait for the Wangs and the Gandhis to become rich enough so that they demand Western wages and spend like the Smiths and Gonzalezes.

It is a long and painful process for the West. And there is no way around it.

(Andy Xie is an independent economist based in Shanghai and was formerly Morgan Stanley’s chief economist for the Asia- Pacific region. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Andy Xie at andyxie88@yahoo.com.hk

Penn
09-07-2010, 21:02
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
U.S. 310,193,017
World 6,867,425,191
02:44 UTC (EST+5) Sep 08, 2010

The unemployment rate for the years 1923-29 was 3.3 percent.

In 1931 it jumped to 15.9, in 1933 it was 24.9 percent.

It remained at these extremely high levels until 1942, when it dropped to 4.7 percent.

The current unemployment rate +10% and Growing. This figure does not take into account the underground/under the table economy.

And More Cheery news from Trend Research

Market Self-Deception Continues on the Flimsiest of Excuses
A statistically meaningless increase in August private sector jobs data “eased recession concerns,” Bloomberg reported on September 3. Private sector jobs gains came in 27,000 above the consensus forecast of 40,000.
We see the touted jobs gain as nothing but statistical noise. The Bureau of Labor Statistics' 95 percent confidence interval in reporting of monthly change is +/- 129,000 jobs. Yet, “stocks climbed around the world” as a result of a statistically meaningless jobs gain. The flimsy jobs report “sent stocks to their best pre-Labor Day week in two decades” (MarketWatch).
“The worst fears were not realized,” declared Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Pierpont Securities. “The double-dip talk was probably misplaced,” said Maury Harris, chief economist at UBS Securities. These are strong conclusions to be drawn from a statistically insignificant result. But anything will do to fend off reality.
Looking behind the headlines at the BLS August jobs report, we see an unsettling picture. Total nonfarm payroll jobs fell by 54,000 from the previous month, due to a 121,000 decline in state employment jobs and federal census worker employment.
Moreover, it takes approximately double the reported 67,000 private sector jobs gain each month just to stay even with the growth in the work force.
Despite the headline emphasis on jobs gain, the most commonly reported unemployment rate (“U.3”) rose to 9.6 percent. The unemployment rate that includes that part of “discouraged workers” still counted by the government as unemployed (“U.6”) rose to 16.7 percent. The unemployment rate estimated by John Williams of shadowstats.com, which includes all discouraged workers, is 22 percent.

The U.3 unemployment rate of 9.6 percent, the “happy rate,” amounts to 14.9 million Americans out of work. The U.6 unemployment rate corresponds to 25.9 million out of work Americans. The 22 percent rate, estimated according to the official government methodology of 1980, means that 34.1 million Americans are out of work.
These are heavy numbers. Yet, “recession fears have eased” on the basis of a statistically meaningless gain of a few thousand jobs. At the August rate of job gain, it would take ten years to reduce unemployment by eight million assuming no further growth in the labor force, which would still leave us with many millions of unemployed.
Where were the 67,000 new private sector jobs, whose increase of 27,000 above expectations “eased recession fears”?
Twenty-eight thousand of the new jobs were in health care and 12,000 in social assistance. Ambulatory health care services and hospitals accounted for health care’s contribution to employment.
BLS reports that “the return to payrolls of 10,000 workers who were on strike in July” added 10,000 construction jobs. New employment for waitresses and bartenders added 12,000.

Meanwhile, manufacturing lost 27,000 jobs in August.

Astonishing, isn’t it, that 12,000 jobs for waitresses and bartenders, 10,000 returning construction strikers, and 40,000 jobs for ambulatory health care services, hospital orderlies, and social assistance can cause world stock markets to rise.

The 17th century Dutch Tulip Mania, in which single tulip bulbs sold for more than ten times the annual income of a skilled craftsman, has nothing on our modern scientific era, a time of high economics and even higher finance, when meaningless monthly job gains can send up world stock markets.
by Paul Craig Roberts


Publisher’s Note: On behalf of The Trends Research Institute, I am pleased to present this Trend Alert® from our new contributing editor, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts. A former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, columnist for Business Week, and professor of economics, Dr. Roberts served on personal and committee staffs in the House and Senate and as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He speaks with an authority bred of experience. As a former “insider” now on the outside, we welcome his bold, clear and informed analyses.
©MMX The Trends Research Institute®