Author: παρακοιμώμενος

Why Barcelona are still not learning their lesson

/ παρακοιμώμενος / Leave a comment

Messi sad

Ousmane Dembele has just arrived at Barcelona for a “club record fee” of €105m plus add-ons which could take the total paid to around €140m, far eclipsing even the official updated €86m paid for Neymar that the club had to admit to two years afterwards (although the real cost may still be somewhat higher, and we may never know). Whether Dembele can emulate his predecessor in footballing terms is anyone’s guess; but more intriguing is the fact that he may emulate the superstar as a future exit – curiously, Barcelona seem not to have learned their lesson and set a buyout clause of only €400m.

€400m may seem a lot, but this summer has shown that numbers we could barely believe have a habit of becoming reality; if TV revenues increase, the figure will not seem excessive. But in any case, and more importantly, it is already not very high in the world of preventative buyout clauses. If any proof be needed that Real Madrid are better run than Barça at the moment, it can be seen in the buyout clauses currently in place. Not only is Dembele’s price, their newest signing, still way below the sums set by their arch-rivals, but so are all the rest of the squad – by some distance, too. Eight of Real’s stars have clauses higher than Lionel Messi, the best player in the world. Suarez and Busquets look at snip at just €200m.

Real Barca transfers

Source: Gab Marcotti via ESPNFC.com, updated for Asensio, Isco and Dembele

Why have Barça been so remiss and what explains this imbalance? Well first, to be fair, the Barça squad is just that much worse than Real’s. Other than the MSN, most of the others have passed their Pique (lol) and their clauses were signed in another era. Having said that, Cristiano Ronaldo’s €1bn clause was set as long ago as 2015, a full year before Neymar (Barcelona’s youngest and most marketable star) was set at only €200m rising to €250m over three years. Is it perhaps that Barcelona do not have the pull to get players to agree to prohibitive buyout numbers? Or is the board still arrogant enough to believe that players go to Barcelona for its “philosophy”? Either way, it is a failing of their fiduciary duties which would be prosecutable under UK company law.

Furthermore, Barcelona really have encountered a perfect storm. The inflation in this year’s transfer window has hit them just as an irreplaceable star has gone. To be clear, buyout clauses work very differently from normal transfer fees in terms of distorting the market. This is because a normal fee is, these days, usually paid out over a number of years; so that a transfer fee of €222m might only be about €55m per year. The rest of the market (though not the idiot fans) will “know” that the extra money available to the club who has just sold their star asset is only €55m at that point. But with a buyout, the money arrives instantly, meaning that the market is aware of both an entire €222m overhang, as well as the necessity to frantically spend most of it on a replacement. Furthermore, buyout clauses are by their very nature “supernormal”, higher than market valuations. This means that in turn they are causing inflation above normal market values when the money is spent in turn. In other words, it is not just usual “football inflation” (see my previous) but a buyout-driven super inflation. Barcelona this summer have become a footballing version of Mansa Musa I.

Of course in today’s world, only a few clubs are true “buyers”: Real Madrid, who do so from their own resources, and then PSG and Man City, who do not. Barcelona have ultimately been left on the heap as just another “selling club”, the dreadful epithet that even Man Utd had to understand when they lost Ronaldo to Real all those years ago. Barça just have not learned their lesson.

Are transfer fees really exploding?

/ παρακοιμώμενος / 1 Comment

camp_nou_coreografia_mes_que_un_club

With Neymar’s transfer to PSG, the football media has moved from just excitable to the swooning and fainting associated with young Victorian debutantes laying eyes on returning officers of the Household Cavalry. The “world record” (we will get to this in a moment) has seen the football experts go into overdrive in trying to explain how it is that so much has been paid, and how it can be justified.

Among the more interesting commentators were the crew on last week’s Guardian Football podcast, specifically award-winning Jonathan Wilson who made a couple of insightful points. The first was the likening of the football transfer market not to the clichéd and overused Dutch tulipmania of the 17th century, but to a more subtle historical event that I had not heard of before, the Indian horse market of the same period. Although Wilson does not spell it out, the point here is not that best-in-class assets become expensive (Neymar for €222m is comprehensible); it is rather what Mourinho has been warning about, that mediocre asset prices get dragged up too and that is where things become unsustainable. In other words, the Man Utd’s of this world will always spend top dollar; the real danger is when Middlesbrough are doing the same.

The second intriguing point surrounds the role of Qatar in the Neymar move. Barcelona have for many years irritated a majority of neutral fans with their holier-than-thou attitude about all matters football. It does not take a hard-core royalist like myself to be sickened by the constant nonsense about being “mes que un club”, or the self-indulgent refusal to have a shirt sponsor for so many years. But recently, the club have taken to criticizing Qatar over the forthcoming World Cup – the very people they finally took their blood money from when the caved into for money. Was this criticism a result of failing to agree a new sponsorship deal? Was PSG’s bid for Neymar driven by a Qatari government keen to demonstrate they still had retaliatory power? Both, it seems, may be a firm “yes”. Well, it couldn’t have happened to nicer people …

But really, how big a transfer fee is Neymar, anyway? Clearly a direct comparison of nominal fees is useless; so is a basic use of inflation to recalculate them. Only one analysis I have seen attempts to bring fees into historical perspective, the excellent Paul Tomkins’ blog. For the purposes of analyzing which transfers have had what impact, Tomkins and his team have used a form of “football inflation” based on average transfer prices from year to year, and inflating the nominal figures this way. Since football inflation has far outstripped CPI, this produces a top ten looking something like this:

Tomkins table

Source: https://tomkinstimes.com/2017/07/shock-transfers-now-cost-more-plus-top-100-signings-after-inflation/

Now, I like this approach. It has much to recommend it. However I believe it understates the impact of TV money on the psyche of football clubs – Tomkins’ analysis looks at correlation between the two but does not integrate them. I believe that – for the Premier League at least – another interesting way of looking at transfer prices is rebasing nominal transfer fees against the growth in TV deals. In my model, “inflation” is based entirely on the growth of TV deals struck over time (which have grown at an impressive 17.2% CAGR since 1992). In particular, I think this better reflects the thinking behind those headline-grabbing, record transfer deals as opposed to the median ones. The thesis being, that record transfers experience inflation different to normal transfers.

When this principle is applied – the Pang Index – the following numbers are generated:

Transfer records re-based to Premier League TV deal sizes

Football transfers

The blue bars represent record transfer fees paid by English clubs since the Premier League came into effect in today’s money. The grey bars were record transfers out of England (as it happens, all to Real Madrid). In this context, I have thrown in the Neymar transfer for fun. Of course this is not a perfect comparison – European clubs have very different TV deal structures and have not earned as much as English clubs have anyway; moreover the likes of PSG are barely “commercial” clubs at all these days, throwing the numbers out. Nonetheless, it makes some sense: Neymar’s fee is probably the same as a proportion of the kinds of TV money sloshing around as Veron’s transfer to Man Utd was all those years ago. No-one old enough to remember, can really be in doubt that Shearer’s £15m fee shocked us rather more than Neymar’s (let’s perhaps forget Stan Collymore for a moment).

The basic lesson is: money is here to stay; it is growing at a pace; but it makes surprises more and more difficult. Already this summer, there have been several moves rumoured to be in the same ballpark (£131m for a 31-year old Ronaldo, for instance). Actually, for the bigger clubs, it seems superstars are getting cheaper, not more expensive.

Why Chinese firms have a succession problem

/ παρακοιμώμενος / Leave a comment

Chinese society has long produced family business empires. A quick glance at any list of Asian tycoon families show them to be omnipresent, whether in Hong Kong and Taiwan or the further flung diaspora in SE Asia – including in Thailand and Indonesia where Chinese surnames have become so mutated as to be almost unrecognizable. It is not just Kwoks, Kweks and Lees, but the Hartonos and the Chearavanonts who are furthering traditional Chinese family values.

Everywhere that is, except China. It is fascinating to consider what is likely to happen on the Mainland over the next two decades, when the first generation of post-Deng businessmen finally start to retire. Many have noted the succession crisis facing these companies for some time; empirically, I have yet to meet a single 富二代 who has any intention at all of managing their parents’ business after their retirement. It is not just personal experience, either: a recent PwC survey showed some startling numbers contrasting modern China with its overseas counterparts.

Picture1

Source: PwC Family Business Survey (2016)

Fewer than one in five Chinese entrepreneurs surveyed indicated that they intended to pass down the business. This compares with somewhat higher numbers in Singapore, higher again in Malaysia and Hong Kong (c. 40%) and far less than in the most directly comparable jurisdiction, Taiwan. Here, almost three fifths of families want their children to take over – and indeed, they have already gone through one or more generational handover.

Why is this? The obvious point to make is that, as with so many other aspects, China will not be following any known development paths. But there are probably a few more specific reasons too.

First, there is the entire structure of the economy and the perceived pathway towards exit. Speaking to SMEs, many will tell you that their end game is to list the company, which is true as far as it goes. But the more important point is that they see the government as the likely ultimate inheritors of any important business, either officially or unofficially. In this sense, the incentive for dynasticism is limited and becomes less relevant the more successful a venture becomes. Instead, monetization remains the key aspiration.

Secondly, there is the creeping issue of inheritance laws. Again, we have yet to see the first real fortunes and large scale asset inheritances being tested in the Chinese legal system and anecdotally, it is notable that increasingly numbers of the Chinese middle classes have ceased to give birth abroad, fearing what the implications might be when largely domestic legacies come to be divided up under Chinese law. For companies which have now been successfully “domesticated” through policies such as a stringent foreign exchange regime, this becomes the same question writ large.

Most intriguingly of all though is the prospect of meaningful cultural change. Overseas Chinese families have an unbending sense of filial piety even today, with many younger generations taking over family businesses despite not wanting to. Modern China, post the Cultural Revolution and factoring in the One Child Policy, much less so. Furthermore, children educated in western business schools clash with their parents over management style. And for many, the rapid change in the Chinese economy means that their parents’ businesses are just too damned unsexy, as one observer notes:

The transition is particularly evident in the manufacturing industry; many children who are educated abroad shun the manufacturing sector and prefer to seek opportunities in finance and other ‘cool’ areas. Fortune Generation estimates more than 65 per cent of children whose parents own manufacturing businesses don’t want to be involved in the industry.

Why put the hours in, when you could use your parents money for funding the latest absurd tech startup?

However whilst this is all bad news for champions of Chinese traditions and parents who want to see more of their children, this does mean an impending surge of opportunities for  investors. It seems those PE funds really ought to be speaking first and foremost to the sprawling private wealth arms of the investment banks, rather than their corporate finance people.

A squad of two halves – the drag from Tottenham’s wage structure

/ παρακοιμώμενος / Leave a comment

Tottenham NY Post

Frustrations are beginning to appear around my beloved Tottenham Hotspur. Obviously, we have yet to make any new signings, even as all around us in the top six have done so – including from us with Kyle Walker’s move to Man City. It is well known that we have a shortage of money compared with our rivals – the subject of a neat video produced by Joe Devine last year. But, there has also been much commentary about how Tottenham are struggling to find the right kind of players to fit into the squad – especially as “understudies” to key players like Harry Kane and Dele.

The reality is that Tottenham faces structural problems of its own making. First, the wage cap in place is enforcing a concept of a First XI vs secondary players. Most clubs have some sort of wage structure in place, of course, but rarely at the top level is such a fuss made about it or is it so well known. A look at the figures as last season commenced (below) demonstrate this clearly: Lloris and Kane were the top earners but the whole first team plateau out before a sudden drop off as one reaches Trippier and Davies (both now ironically effectively first team players).

Tottenham wages

Source: sillyseason.com (http://sillyseason.com/salary/tottenham-hotspur-players-salaries-69471/)

Compare this with the three biggest paying clubs in the Premier League and the contrast is stark. It is not just the absolute amounts that are different; it is the distribution, and with it an entire philosophy of creating star players with a large pool of players below them. A new arrival at Spurs would question how inelastic the first team appears to be; a new arrival at Man Utd may know he won’t oust Paul Pogba, but the rest is up for grabs. Tottenham have allowed themselves to create too rigid a playing structure.

This leads onto the second structural point: no other team has quite such a disparity between the quality of our First XI and the bench. Title winning teams do not have a set first team; asking “who is willing to sit on the bench?” is to ask the wrong question altogether. The real measure is the quality of the first team squad – the 18 or so players who should be interchangeable in quality terms. This is more difficult for the striker position, since there is only one match day position available. But for the attacking midfield positions, where we play at least two (in the 3-4-2-1 formation) or three (in the 4-2-3-1), we should have at least n + 2 players of comparable quality competing.

So what is the answer? Well, one or two rumours have emerged which are of real interest: Iheanacho from Man City for instance, or Kovacic from Real Madrid (incidentally Ross Barkley is not the answer). But it seems like under the financial constraints we have, and under the wage structure we enforce, Pochettino is going to have to further rely on coaching youth players. It’s not a bad way to do it – Josh Onomah has had an excellent summer with the England U-20s, as has Kyle Walker-Peters; Harry Winks and Cameron Carter-Vickers already made their appearances last season too. I also believe that some players can be reinvented – Moussa Sissoko into a deep-lying central midfielder for instance.

Ultimately though, Spurs are going to have to rejig the way they pay their team even if they do not raise the total amounts being spent, and even to keep existing squad members happy. The current system reflects something static, sacrificing flexibility on the altar of stability. It might serve for another season, but what happens when our ambitions expand?

The Handover Hangover – Britain and Hong Kong in the age of the New Normal

/ παρακοιμώμενος / 2 Comments

HK handover

The British media, between the endless coverage of the debacle that is Brexit, the May government and the spectre of Jeremy Corbyn, recently managed to find a little time for soul-searching over Hong Kong, on the twentieth anniversary of the 1997 handover. The hand-wringing tone over whether Britain had let the people of Hong Kong led the Guardian for instance to note that:

“Theresa May’s government faces a choice between upholding legal principle and democratic values, and its chronic post-Brexit need for Chinese trade and business at any price. No prizes, or yellow umbrellas, for predicting which way May and Johnson will jump.”

The torturous link to contemporary politics aside, these op-eds convey a tone of unfulfilled potential. Chris Patten weighed in with his own personal laments over what has slowly occurred since , self-flagellating over Chinese encroachment of the former colony.

Yet much of this seems rooted in misconceptions that still seem to pervade the British establishment. For a start, the very act of suggesting that Britain should “do something” about still hints, however much denied, that she is in a position to do so. This is unrealistic not only because of the relative imbalance but also the distance and relevance of the two countries, notwithstanding the occasional bravura peeks through, wishfully claiming that “China needs Britain more than Britain needs China“. This mismatch is true politically, culturally, socially and above all, economically.

In cold economic terms, it is not only the the imbalance that demonstrates relative strength – China incurred a US$37.6bn trade surplus in 2016 for instance – but also mutual insignificance. According to data, Britain is only China’s 9th largest trading partner, accounting for just 2.7% of Chinese exports, far from enough to move the psychological needle. Compare this with Germany, for whom the UK constitutes 7.1% of exports, or even the US at 3.8%. Britain and China are simply not that relevant to each other. China matters slightly more to the UK than vice versa, accounting for 4.4% of her exports (and arguably Chinese consumption of British goods such as high end cars is less easily replicable than in the other direction), but it is still not much of a basis for negotiations or threats.

Moreover, there appears to be a parochial misunderstanding about Hong Kong’s destiny as “just another Chinese city”. Critics will say that social and political life are not the same as economic life; to that I would say one necessarily follows the other. Consider a recent piece in the Financial Times about how the Hong Kong has changed since 1997. Two visuals stand out:

Hong Kong is increasingly no longer a regional hub but more of a China port. Yet this is not just a function of being on China’s doorstep, or even of China’s desire to integrate Hong Kong as some might imagine; it is rather a consequence of the fact that the old colonial entrepot model of corporate imperialism in Asia is gone. China is a self-sustaining economy of critical mass. The days of being able to “do” China from offshore, are as absurd as believing one can cover the US from London or Toronto. This is beginning to apply to other countries too, particularly Indonesia but also Thailand and increasingly, Malaysia. The concept of largely expat financiers and traders sitting in the comfort of the Victoria harbourfront whilst servicing these jurisdictions is faintly ridiculous; and this is a global emerging markets trend.

Asia has changed. The era when its leadership still had links with their former colonial rulers, such as the Cambridge-educated Lee Kwan Yew to Britain, is over. A telling moment was the closing in 2009 of the much-loved Far Eastern Economic Review, a deeply socio-political publication inhabiting a world where Asian leaders and western discourse still understood each other. Today, nothing could be further from the truth – as countries like China pass the “peak export” phase of their development cycle, their economies and leadership are inevitably more introspective. Each country must be engaged from a truly domestic perspective and cities like Hong Kong, and to an extent Singapore, are less relevant. There is nothing Britain can or should do about this.

At least Hong Kong, despite its comparative decline, still has a future bound up with a single large power. Singapore will soon come to find that its position as a safe haven for Indonesian and Malaysian investment and private wealth is under a more serious threat – which has led to their driving ambition behind ASEAN. London, in the end, will probably feel these winds of change too.

 

Après moi, le déluge – the political genius of David Cameron in retrospect

/ παρακοιμώμενος / Leave a comment

Cameron photo.bmp

I do not intend my first piece since the election to join the superabundance of post-mortems offered up from May’s failure (more of that later). Instead I want to take a moment to think, in retrospect, about the spectacular but underappreciated political genius of her predecessor.

David Cameron’s election victory in 2015 remains the most extraordinary and understated political achievements in my active political life, and almost my entire memory (I will categorise 1992 as mere childhood). Even his most diehard critics will, I am sure, now concede how much happier they were then than now, because David Cameron actually took the message of Conservatism to the country and won.

Consider that this is a man who campaigned for austerity in 2010; failed to win a majority; and then persisted with a message of austerity again five years later to finally win an outright majority. Can we think of anyone in the current government who would be so unrelentingly on message, and who at the same time could win over the suburban liberal vote, however thin a sliver?

Coming from Twickenham, I unapologetically use it as a benchmark: seats like this, or Kingston or Richmond Park, are critical and they are the very future of the party. I got this year’s election result wrong. But I always maintained, even at the height of May-mania and the twenty point polling leads, that whilst the Tories would win a bigger majority, they would have done so on a harsher, harder and narrower basis than Cameron did, and it would come back to bite them. 2015 was a slender win, but it was far more expansive, generous and sustainable.

Cameron built a clever and delicate coalition that was a thing of genius; it could look forward to the future as a plausible long-term force, the fruits of his decontamination efforts since winning the leadership in 2005. By contrast, even with a 100+ seat majority, Theresa May was only looking backwards – in this case to Brexit – and would have had to completely reinvent herself by 2022. There was nothing futuristic about even the best case this year.

Gay marriage is a case in point. I am not a strong moral supporter of the policy per se, and it certainly does not excite me. Yet it was a stroke of political brilliance for one very simple reason: it allowed Tory-haters to move on to other issues. No doubt it convinced very few people directly to vote for the party – indeed amongst those who really cared, there may even have been a net loss of support. But what it gained was enormous, a vast swathe of people who really did not care, but for whom it checked the box of demonstrating that the party was in tune with contemporary society. This allowed the party to move onto areas where it felt stronger and direct a campaign towards an electorate that would be more open-minded.

Furthermore, Cameron understood the value of UKIP. Although some people will recall only the trouble the gadflies briefly caused the Tory Party through threatened defections, in retrospect it seems pretty clear that sometimes, it is actually better to have people outside the tent pissing in than the reverse. UKIP acted as a lightning rod for all the most undesirable (albeit necessary) aspects of Tory policy – they were an attack dog not just on Europe, but on immigration, law and order and various other themes. All the while, they could not win a seat. Whatever they cost us in some marginals which we did not win, they won us a lot more in terms of hearts and minds in marginal we did win. In addition, they proved themselves able to win votes in Labour heartlands that the Tories have since proven unable to emulate, despite all the high hopes and despite Brexit. UKIP were a great “fire ship”, and we should lament their demise.

Guardian 2015

Of course no one can ignore the calamity of his political gamble on Europe, or the fact that he lost it. Yet for me, some of the underlying questions on Europe did have to be asked sooner or later so I do not begrudge him that. I just wish he had been less complacent, campaigned better and won. But Europe is in any case a macro theme, not an issue of domestic political minutiae. David Cameron will, in coming years, be seen as one of the Tory Party’s greatest politicians, and he will be missed. The rise of Cameron was the rise of a new, winning coalition which made a lot of sense in its time and place; his demise, as we have seen, has been the corresponding demise of the Party.

Telegraph 2015

Labour’s unique “peacetime deficits” and why they really do always run out of other people’s money

/ παρακοιμώμενος / Leave a comment

Lots gets said on the campaign trail of course, much of which never surfaces again. Amongst the most pernicious claims by Labour recently are the implication that the police would be safer under Jeremy Corbyn – a man who almost certainly spent his youth referring to them as “pigs” and for all we know, throwing bricks at them – than a Tory administration. That one doesn’t really pass the smell test, though the Tories seem to have had a tough time batting it away.

However another meme has featured of late, attempting to reverse the traditional narrative of Labour being poor managers of the country’s finances  – or as Thatcher famously put it, that “they always run out of other people’s money“. Corbyn himself took aim at the the Tories’ admittedly poor record during this last Parliament on fiscal hawkishness; and meanwhile social media has been awash with this pair of pieces, claiming that “the Conservatives have been the biggest borrowers over the last 70 years“, a feisty assertion indeed.

But let us examine what is actually being said here. In his post, Richard Murphy concludes his analysis with these two lessons:

“First, Labour invariably borrows less than the Conservatives. The data always shows that. And second, Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives, and has always repaid more debt, on average. The trend does not vary however you do the data.

Or, to put it another way, the Conservatives are the party of high UK borrowing and low debt repayment contrary to all popular belief, including that of most radio presenters. Which means that the next time I am presented with that nonsense I will be very firmly rebutting it.“

This is technically true, looking at his figures. What it does not tell us however, is the real narrative, which is that once we strip aside natural deficits which were ramped up to obviously combat recession, the story is one of clear Labour profligacy. Below, I have charted GDP growth vs the budget deficit as a % of GDP at the time to demonstrate what the real macro-economic picture is.

Picture6

Far from Tom Kibasi’s recent claim that “the Conservatives remain stubbornly allergic to – or ignorant of – Keynesian macroeconomics“, the Tories have in fact been very mainstream in their use of the a cyclical deficit to offset the worst excesses of a downturn. These we might call “war deficits”. The most obvious case of this has been the deficits and increased debt incurred in the wake of the global financial crisis.

On the hand, Labour have had no problem with running up a deficit even when the economy is doing fine – in other words, refusing to make hay when the sun is shining. In particular, Gordon Brown’s second term as Chancellor saw a unique explosion of what we might call a “peacetime deficits”. This electoral extravagance was unprecedented in scale and duration, compared with previous dalliances with the same. And sure enough, when the crash came, the deficit left us with less room to manouvre than we might otherwise have had.

As an aside, Brown’s deficits also went on to limit the ability of the first Cameron administration to reduce the deficit as rapidly as they would have liked. Austerity is, after all, not merely a petty ideological point but a practical one – since the dry powder had been used up, the Coalition government could not borrow the amounts needed whilst preserving a reasonable credit rating. The whole sorry mess has been drawn out for much longer than anyone wanted or envisaged.

To be sure, the Conservative’s track record since 2010 has been nothing to write home about; but as with police funding, however bad you might think they are, it is difficult to imagine Corbyn’s to be anything other than significantly worse.

Not all imbalances are created equal

/ παρακοιμώμενος / Leave a comment

Trump Merkel

Finally, an opportunity to get my teeth into something classically “asymmetric”: trade.

A piece recently crossed my path, dripping with the complacency of either ivory-towered elites not thinking through the real world; or worse, a Koch-sponsored lobbyist who knows perfectly well the costs of globalisation but wants to hide it in the sophistry of undergrad economics in order to shift the conversation amongst those who do not know better.

It turned out, of course, to be by Dan Hannan, friend of a friend but also the kind of writer who has something of the over-enthusiastic undergrad about him, and is a paid up neo-con – hence the telltale signs above. It was misleading on a number of accounts, and I would go as far as to say, was quite mischievous.

First, the article starts by making fun of Trump’s complaint over German trade policy. Of course, broadly speaking the Germans are exporting a lot because they make great stuff. That’s fine. But the problem is that a good chunk of their competitiveness has nothing to do with their quality of manufacturing and everything to do with a form of currency manipulation, in the shape of the Eurozone. In this regard Trump is perfectly correct to say that they are “selling too much stuff” – just as many would accuse China of the same in recent years. I hope the author was not attempting to criticise the use of simple language for simple people.

Secondly, Hannan goes on to make this statement:

“Incidentally, there is nothing wrong with having a trade deficit with Germany, or with anyone else. Germans can do only two things with the American dollars that they get for their goods. Either they can import American products, or they can invest those dollars back in the United States. At the moment, they are doing a lot of the latter – to everyone’s benefit. The trade deficit is matched, down to the last dime, by the investment surplus. That is why we talk of a trade “balance.”“

This is not entirely correct. The fact is that because it is dollars and not any other currency, the Germans (or anyone else) can directly take those dollars and invest them elsewhere without the US being involved. This is the burden one bears for owning the currency of international trade, the “exorbitant privilege” of being the world’s only real currency. Of course this brings benefits to the US too, principally the ability to print as many dollars as they want and continue to borrow in it, without causing inflation or lowering their credit rating. Nonetheless, America does suffer uniquely.

Last is the issue that has been exercising Trump, Sanders, Corbyn et al (though sadly not Theresa May), namely that not all imbalances are created equal. It is all very well having a capital surplus to match your trade deficit; but the beneficiaries of a capital surplus – financial and real estate investors for instance – are not the same people losing out from the trade deficit. Capital inflows hugely benefit landowners and bankers, but don’t do so much for others.

For most large countries, it would be a pretty sad and politically unsustainable situation to rely only on capital inflows (though small entrepôts like Hong Kong or Singapore might fare better). It would almost certainly lead to unemployment and inflated asset prices – just as it has done in the US. And it won’t be the homes of unemployed steelworker in Bethlehem whose prices go through the roof either; it’s going to be the flats of white collar urbanites in Manhattan.

Herein lies the limitations of much classic economic theory. This is even before we get onto the issues of Europeans freeloading off American defense spending and so on. Really, the question is how on earth do we expect most electorates to digest enough of these nuances to make rational voting choices? With the likes of Hannan doing the talking, in all likelihood they never will.

The short term memory loss of the Keynesians

/ παρακοιμώμενος / Leave a comment

To kick on with this electoral theme, a first quick point on economics. In light of Corbyn’s now overtly socialist manifesto, and the accusations that “the Conservatives remain stubbornly allergic to – or ignorant of – Keynesian macroeconomics“, it is perhaps opportune for people to remember what the basis of Keynesianism – often in recent years confused with socialism – actually involves:

  1. Repayment of debt – after borrowing in the low interest rate part of the cycle, it is imperative to rebalance this by repaying this when interest rates rise in the upcycle;
  2. Crowding in, not crowding out – the purpose of government spending is only to pay for things that would not otherwise be paid for by the market; not to provide the same things at a subsidised rate;
  3. Tax cuts – Keynes made it very clear that the best and most efficient way to stimulate demand was not through public spending, but by returning money to consumers.

I wonder if elements of this can now be reclaimed by a responsible government, Tory or otherwise …

Quid est veritas?

/ παρακοιμώμενος / Leave a comment

PROD-JEREMY-CORBYN-THERESA-MAY

It would have been nice if I could have kicked off this blog with a profound, far-sighted piece about global imbalance in politics, trade and governance. However, circumstances dictate that now is the moment to comment on this forthcoming UK general election, and specifically, my own intentions as a long-standing Conservative Party campaigner and former local government candidate.

I have decided to abstain from this year’s General Election. Since I am living abroad, I will not bother to spoil my ballot physically, but will not cast my vote. For a few of my acquaintances this has come as a surprise but, I suspect, not a shock.

First, I should be clear that I do not support Corbyn or the Labour Party’s electoral prospects. Corbyn himself is a weak-willed do-good wannabe who will always prefer the interests of foreigners to his own people – the only really long-standing political principle he has held. The idea that his manifesto has been “costed” is an absurd joke, rather akin to initial presentations on the Millennium Dome. Furthermore, aside from the a tiny kernel of an interesting policy in the form of the land value tax, he has demonstrated very little capacity to even identify, let alone tackle, the deep-rooted issues facing Britain today beyond Brexit. Thus he has offered nothing ideological or technocratic, to solve them.

The problem is, neither has Theresa May. Those issues which we face include median wage growth, house pricing, job creation and above all sustainable financing for SMEs, the real backbone of industrial and post-industrial economies. When we look at countries at their most successful – the US post war, Japan in the 1980s, Germany today – the Mittelstand has always been the most important component of the economy; and when we are surprised by the durability of some otherwise basket-case countries like France or Italy, it is their own SME sector which is saving them.

For the first time since I have been politically conscious, the leadership of the Conservative Party does not appear in its marrow to “get it”. May and her closest advisors do not even seem curious, for the most part – there is barely anything in the Tory manifesto that shows an understanding of how (small) business works. Being marginally less harmful than Corbyn on this is not really good enough. Neither is not understanding that the long term nexus of house pricing and finance is unsustainable. This emptiness is a dangerous thing, because political choices have rarely been about “funding / cutting public services” or “stimulating growth/ taxing it” as standalone options; they are about balance of priorities. Yet we now have a choice between two parties, neither of whom offer any such equilibrium.

In the background, I have also been staunchly pro-European and remain so. Even before the manifesto launch, the cognitive dissonance in rewarding the Conservative Party with my support this year may have been too much. I needed at least one opportunity to protest against the way the referendum was called, how it was campaigned for and how Brexit policy has since been handled (and staffed, wrt David Davis, Liam Fox et al). But over the course of the campaign this nagging concern has spilled over into something altogether more irrepressible and seen me for the first time since 2001, not campaigning on the doorstep nor even trying to persuade others to vote.

It is a poor choice of options for dinner, and a shame that this inn has fallen into such disrepair. We can only hope that tomorrow’s menu might be better.