Facebook Blogging

Edward Hugh has a lively and enjoyable Facebook community where he publishes frequent breaking news economics links and short updates. If you would like to receive these updates on a regular basis and join the debate please invite Edward as a friend by clicking the Facebook link at the top of the right sidebar.

Saturday, October 05, 2002


Japan is going to burst. Left on its present course, like the proverbial nineteenth century steamship with the boiler overheating, one day one too many of the bolts will sheer off, a boiler plate will give and then the devil take the hindmost.

Of course one of the few remaining debateable points is whether or not there is really anything left to be done. Common sense says there is, and sheer humanity says that there ought to be. That's the easy part. The tricky bit is what.

This weeks news of a cabinet reshuffle over in Tokyo could be interpreteted as a positive signal. Something is finally to be done about all those bad loans clogging up the banking system. That has to be good news doesn't it. Well yes, and no.

For one thing, the response in the Tokyo stock markets shows that some people have had a very nasty fright. The declared stance of Takenaka could cause even the not so faint of heart to tremble a little, and the appointment of Kimamura with his hitlist of 30 'zombie companies' to the FSA taskforce, could indicate that this time we should take all this seriously. Other will of course say that in Japan 'we've seen it all before'. That is, that there will be a lot of noise but little action as the warring factions battle it out. This could well be, but Koizumi has summoned a special meeting of the Japanese Diet for the 18th October, the day after the anti-deflation plan is to be announced, and Takenaka's strong talking is building up a lot of expectation. The question could be asked, can Koizumi survive politically if he does not deliver this time?

Be that as it may, the problem still remains as to whether we have really got to grips with the heart of the matter yet. Drastic surgery is, after all sometimes necessary. It's just that first it might be worth checking out whether we have a reasonable diagnosis. You see, collapsing an economy is not too difficult, it's reviving one which is often the hard part.

Morgan Stanley's Robert Alan Feldman groups the possible approaches to Japans deflation problem into four groups:

The Monetarist Approach
The IS-LM Approach
The AS-AD Approach
The Trade Theory Approach
Source: MS Global Economic Forum LINK

Actually this division is a bit schematic since of course there may be considerable overlap in policy proposals between these four lines of analysis. Thus both the monetarist and IS-LM lines can concur that monetary easing should continue, despite the fact that, as Feldman says, "the sharp acceleration of the BoJ balance sheet and of base money has been answered by equally sharp declines of the money multiplier in recent years. On the other hand those following the IS-LM approach will tend, following Krugman's lead, to emphasise fiscal expansion. Again, the best that can seem to be claimed here is that such fiscal policies have avoided an even worse recession. They do not seem to offer hope for a cure.

The trade theory analysis addresses the problem that with declining import prices relative to domestic prices consumer wlfare can actually improve within a golbal macro negative situation. This can help us understand why there are so many internal comments from Japan about what's really so bad about inflation, but offers little policy leverage apart from protectionism, which given the fact that many of the domestic industries in trouble are export dependent could prove disastrous.

This brings us to AS-AD and Takenaka. I'll let Feldman explain:

The aggregate supply curve comes from the relationship of nominal wages (and other cost components) to the price level. At a given level of nominal wages (or interest costs or oil prices), a higher level of prices would imply higher profits, and therefore more output. Thus, the AS curve is upward sloping relative to the axes just mentioned. The intersection of AD and AS curves generates an equilibrium. In order to raise the price level (i.e., to stop deflation), one can use either the AD or the AS curve. This is where things get interesting.

Traditionally, the AD curve is seen to respond more to monetary and fiscal policy than the AS curve. (Indeed, the latter is assumed to be inert with respect to policy changes.) However, this is precisely the assumption that appears to fail in Japan today. Indeed, fiscal policy over the last decade was aimed largely at keeping inefficient producers (in construction and real estate) in business, thus artificially pushing the supply curve far to the right side of the diagram, while pushing the demand curve only slightly to the right. The small movement of the AD curve may be attributable to (a) Ricardian equivalence, which pulled private demand inward when government demand moved outward, and (b) low return on capital, which lowered the multiplier effects of government programs. Ironically, according to this view, both monetary and fiscal policies actually worsened deflation.

The AS-AD approach is very much in concert with the ideas that Minister Takenaka has been proposing ever since he was the driving force behind the Economic Strategy Council of 1998. The report of that council, whose report was shelved by PM Obuchi because of the political consequences, was dusted off and improved in Mr. Takenaka’s "thick bone report" or June 2001, and reasserted in the sequel of June 2002. Moreover, the identification by the PM himself of the need for industrial restructuring lies very much in the spirit of the AS-AD approach. Because of the long association of this thread of economic theory with Messrs. Takenaka and Koizumi, the AS-AD approach is likely to be the driving force in the new cabinet. The negative effects on the economy from supply-side policies are likely to be offset by tax cuts and/or expanded unemployment benefits.

In other words, and to put it bluntly, the axe is coming out. The so called NPL (non-performing loan) problem is going to be resolved - over other peoples dead bodies. As Robert Feldman accepts in a later post "An aggressive stance on NPL disposal will inevitably create deflationary and recessionary pressures, thanks to large-scale unemployment". To attempt to accommodate this the government is also said to be preparing an emergency fiscal package to try to offset the recessionary effects of the NPL solution.

This is where, in my book, we hit the one variable too many problem. This problem has nothing to do with a well known problem in systems of simultaneaous equations. No, my version of this refers to the number of variables we economists seem able to hold in our heads when contemplating policy outcomes (a recent example of this was seen in Argentina where what appeared to be a miracle cure for hyper-inflation, the peso-dollar peg, had only one drawback, it's impact on Argentine external trade - and it is here, and only here that some similarities between the two sitautions can be seen, in the incapacities of relatively overpriced home industries to compete in their own domestic markets). The variable which seems to be being omitted from the calculations here is that of the projected consequences for national debt dynamics.

Japan already has an extremely difficult and onerous situation with its government debt, a situation which is only made liveable by the very low current interest rates. Now the resolution of the NPL problem seems to involve numbers in the region of 8% of GDP (estimates vary, and only time will tell). To this will have to be added the cost of any fiscal expansion (which could be relatively large given the size of the anticipated problem) plus any drop in revenue from the ensuing recession (which again could be large).

My point here is that this latest twist in anti-deflation policy in Japan, could be a one-shot, all-or-nothing play. Remember Japan's population is aging rapidly. Pressure on national debt can only mount in the future. (Economists like lead-lag situations, but in demography the lags are truly important: 20 years or so before any benefits can be seen. And remember even if the birth rate went up, during the first 15-20 years that would only make the problem worse as the dependency rate actually increased.) At the same time savings in health and old-age care have associated consequences for female labour market participation rates as women stay home to care for relatives. All in all a kind of negative feedback spiral. So that if this policy turn fails, and if the analysis is wrong (and if, for example demographic, pressures have a large part to play in telling the Japanese story) then it may well fail, the future for Japan and its people looks bleak indeed.

All this brings me back to the title of this piece, and its associations with Pearl Harbour. As Stephen Roach has been reminding us all for some time, the global economy
isn't exactly highly stable right now. In fact balanced-on-the-edge might be closer to the point. So what could be the consequences for a fragile global economy of a sudden and dramatic collapse in Japan. Put bluntly: would some of the flying debris find its way to New York and Frankfurt.

A minor nineteenth century economist once expressed the view that previously the the world had been over-interpreted while the real point was to change it. From where I'm sitting we abound in projects to change the world, it's on the interpretation side that we're a bit weak. Ill thought out ideas are extremely dangerous. Look at Argentina and the Peso-Dollar peg and you'll see what I mean.

So I'll close this with one thought. At the present moment reviving Argentina seems a Herculean task, not least because the responsible political class has lost all moral authority. How did it lose it? By defending with the aid of $40 billion from the IMF an untenable idea. If the Argentinians had not been asked to sacrifice so much so pointlessly during 2001. Let's hope we're not about to make the same mistake with Japan.

Sunday, September 29, 2002


I owe my discovery of this fact to Brad de Long (who describes himself on-site as 'an optimistic "computer revolution" guru') .

Google expands from sifting the past ("what's on the existing world wide web?") to sifting the present ("what's the news?"). Given what has happened to Google's competitors in the search-engine business, I would be terrified if I were running an online news service. From one perspective, I am surprised that Google does so well--it is, after all, in part at least vulnerable to problems of celebrity: things that are well-known for nothing but their well-knownness. I am also surprised that it lacks direct copiers.
Will Google be as successful in news-aggregation as it has been in web search? I have no clue, and I haven't heard anybody else have a clue either.

Source: Semi-Daily Journal LINK
Google News: LINK

On the point about the Google impact on other on-line news services, Steve Johnson in his book Emergence argues that the US network news system underwent an irreversible structural shift following a decision by CNN to allow local news affiliates full access to the CNN news feed. The result initially was imperceptible, but the profound long term consequences soon became apparent. Johnson reckons that Americans became really aware of what was happening when Jim Wooten's question to then presidential candidate Bill Clinton about his relations with Gennifer Flowers unexpectedly got covered in prime TV news. This Google decision - for somewhat similar reasons - is likely to have deeply significant - if as yet unclear - long-term consequences. As the blurb says: ' Google News is highly unusual in that it offers a news service compiled solely by computer algorithms without human intervention'. Now if they find a way to incorporate collaborative filtering and a slashdot type rating system...

On the point about direct Google copiers, possibly another book, Albert-László Barabási's Linked may offer a little insight. Power law structures in the Internet. If a same-service competitor did emerge (in fact some do exist), it would be very unlikely to be strikingly successful. A niche market, like Mackintosh's OS rivalry of Windows is always possible, some of us of course do enjoy being different. But in general, in the internet more breeds more. Of course when someone comes up with something decidedly better.....

This is the byline of a piece in today's Toronto star, and as it points out if the IMF had to be created today from scratch, there is no guarantee that in the current state of things the US would be supporting it.

If these institutions did not exist, we would have to create them. The bigger worry is that if we had to create them today, the United States might not support them. Rather than campaigning to abolish such institutions, which are essential to the functioning of the world economy, demonstrators should be campaigning to make them more effective — and their campaigns should be targeted as well at the governments of the rich countries, which run these institutions, and not simply at the institutions themselves.

The reality is that without such institutions, the billions of people who live in poverty in the developing world will not be lifted out of poverty. Campaigning against the very idea of globalization makes no sense. But campaigning for a better kind of globalization, one that balances market forces, the environment, cultural identity and social equity through better functioning institutions does.The last time the world rejected globalization, we ended up with the Great Depression of the 1930s, the horrors of World War II, and the terror of the Cold War that followed. The creation of the United Nations, and its sister institutions — including the IMF, the World Bank and the precursor to the World Trade Organization, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades — were acts of idealism designed to prevent a return to the anti-globalization of the 1930s.
Source: Toronto Star

Looking at all the angry demonstrators it is hard to remember the origins of the Fund in the depression economics of the 1930's. Obviously - as critics are quick to point out - mistakes too numerous to mention have been made. But this doesn't invalidate the objective of the IMF, to provide a more stable world economic order and to facilitate changes where capital arrives to capital starved. Remember it is capital, not labour, which is lacking in the Less Developed Countries.

The preoccupying problem is not that the IMF has - perhaps too often - got it wrong. So have we all (this is the point the majority of IMF critics seem to forget, except, of course, George Stiglitz who seems to think that things were just about fine at the World Bank when he had his hand on the tiller, somehow I don't think that all those anti-world bank demonstrators are too convinced!). It is always easy to see things more clearly after the event. Who in Europe - outside the extremes like Le Pen, or the anti-system people is really questioning if the Euro is a good idea. Ten years from now perhaps things will look different. No, the preoccupying thing is that we are moving towards a highly complex set of economic conundrum where comprehension and collaboration will be decisive - think eg of the problems of exchange rates in the G7 countries, or of third world sovereign debt - and at the same time the level of understanding and tolerance between states seems to be marking more ten years lows than the stock markets - think of the confusion this weekend with Japan banking reform, or the Schroder/Rumsfeld tiff over Iraq. It's hard to discern cause and effect here, but the reality is that we are a lot further away from global consensus now than we were twelve months ago, and this worsening in the political climate doesn't make the economic one any easier to manage.

One last point on the IMF. The star article argues that the IMF, like the other international institutions are on a learning curve (this is a point that has as much relevance for the IMF protestors as it does for the Bush administration in connection with the UN). Some commentators have suggested that the latest issue of the IMF World Economic Outlook should have presented a more positive and optimistic version of things. I couldn't disagree more. In recent years the Outlook has been moving steadily in the direction of a more quality and readable review, and the latest evolution under Kenneth Rogoff cannot but be welcomed by those who are tired of politically motivated economic forcasting (whether it come from Wall Street analysts or Japanese and Italian Finance Ministers)

Obviously its difficult for a layman like me to decide, but this piece from the NYtimes leaves me with the impression that Intel's titanium project has all the hallmarks of a major technological and commercial disaster. Firstly: decentralisation of processing power. Intel is betting on a mega processor just when things are moving in the opposite direction. Secondly: timing. Intel is moving forward with this at a time when their potential customers are more focused than ever on the bottom line. In the words of one market participant: `If it doesn't save us money we have no interest in it'. Big expensive upgrades just aren't on the horizon right now. Thirdly: the existence of a cheaper - intermediate technology - rival. AMD has an alternative to Itanium that computer makers are seriously considering. So like UMTS it could be a case of the wrong technology in the wrong place at the wrong time. And the curious thing is that as the budget mounts, and the chances of commercial success falls, the project's backers see no other alternative than to keep driving onward and upward. God, this reminds me so much of Concorde.

Itanium, a joint project of Intel and Hewlett-Packard, Silicon Valley's two largest companies, has been in the laboratory for more than a decade. Itanium is designed to excel at a sweeping array of advanced computing tasks, from solving grand scientific challenges to rendering complex graphics to slicing through vast databases. With more than 200 million transistors on each chip, it is designed to process data in big bites — 64 bits, in chipspeak — at blazing speeds.

But Google isn't buying.Eric Schmidt, the computer scientist who is chief executive of Google, told a gathering of chip designers at Stanford last month that the computer world might now be headed in a new direction. In his vision of the future, small and inexpensive processors will act as Lego-style building blocks for a new class of vast data centers, which will increasingly displace the old-style mainframe and server computing of the 1980's and 90's. It turns out, Dr. Schmidt told the audience, that what matters most to the computer designers at Google is not speed but power — low power, because data centers can consume as much electricity as a city.

Intel and Hewlett-Packard chose to start from scratch with a new design for Itanium, requiring programmers to rewrite applications. AMD has taken a more compatible approach. Opteron, which will begin shipping next year, is based on the original Intel-designed X86 instruction set. That means the chip will run all existing software intended for other Intel chips, as well as compatible processors, with only minor alterations. At a technical conference in Silicon Valley in the summer, computer designers were impressed when AMD said the new 64-bit extensions to the existing 32-bit chip required only 2 to 3 percent more silicon. That, they said, is a small price to pay for a 64-bit chip that can also run software applications written for existing 32-bit chips. "We believe customers want an easy migration path to 64 bits," said Marty Seyer, a vice president at AMD.

In the end, Itanium may be most vulnerable to a force that neither Intel nor Hewlett-Packard can control: the economy. Even if Itanium proves a technical success, the most powerful incentive for companies to shift to it lies in the high-performance computing power needed for ambitious new information technology projects. But in the sluggish economy, few companies are increasing capital spending.
Source: NY TIMES