Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

Stephen King: What Happens To Us If Everyone Else Rushes For The Financial Exit?

Recommended Posts

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business...it-1783013.html

The beads of sweat must have been building up on Gordon Brown's brow last week. What if the leaders of other nations suddenly decided to raise taxes, to cut public spending or to raise interest rates in a bid to bring last year's policy stimulus to a close?

What if they collectively felt that the industrialised world was over the worst and that it would no longer be appropriate to bail economies out through unusually lax fiscal policies or unusually generous monetary policies? The UK would then be on its own. It would also be in big trouble.

As it turned out, the G20 Finance Ministers' meeting concluded with a promise to maintain expansionary policies until a recovery was firmly secured. This, of course, is a bit of a cop-out. Economies don't all recover at the same time and policymakers are bound to disagree on the nature of a genuinely secure recovery.

For the UK, this creates a particularly awkward problem. Other economies, such as France and Germany, have already stopped contracting. The UK hasn't, at least not yet.

The UK desperately needs the help of other nations to pull itself out of the recessionary mire. To see why, think about the policies which have been adopted by the Treasury and the Bank of England since the crisis began.

There's been huge fiscal expansion. While almost all other OECD countries have also turned on the fiscal spigot (with the notable exception of Iceland, which had to go through a stomach-churning fiscal contraction), few started off in such a bad underlying position. In 2009, the UK is likely to have the biggest budget deficit of any of the OECD countries, a result not only of the Government's recent expansionary policies, but also of its earlier short-sighted profligacy (see chart). The UK has the lowest interest rates (0.5 per cent) since the Bank of England was first established in 1694. And it has been the only major country where the central bank has decided to buy huge amounts of government bonds: neither the Federal Reserve nor the European Central Bank (ECB) have resorted to quite such desperate measures. As Jean-Claude Trichet, the President of the ECB, noted in the press last week, "...we are unrestricted in our ability to take decisions, given the strong institutional independence of the ECB. This reflects the clear dividing-line in the euro area between the responsibilities of the central bank and those of the fiscal sphere. That the ECB has not purchased government bonds is in line with this institutional framework." Ouch.

My point is simple. The UK has already used up its conventional policy ammunition. There is nothing left. The cupboard is bare. The Bank has resorted to the purchase of gilts with the intention of pumping money into the system because the more attractive alternatives have already been exhausted. While there are some signs that very low interest rates may be having a beneficial effect – house prices have started to rise, the stock market is more robust and business confidence has improved – we're not completely out of the woods.

Domestically, there are two obvious constraints. First, although the banks are beginning to lend more freely, they are nevertheless not likely to return to the very loose lending standards which preceded the credit crunch, such as offering very large multiples of income for first-time buyer mortgages.

Second, British households, like those in the US and Spain, have borrowed huge amounts in recent years, and even with signs of a pick-up in house prices many of these households are choosing to repay past debts. At an individual level, that's an entirely sensible decision. Collectively, however, it means that low interest rates are not providing the stimulus of old.

Thus, a sustained UK recovery from now on is, perhaps, unusually dependent on developments elsewhere in the world. If other countries do decide to bring their expansionary policies to an end, demand for British goods will fade away, and British exports won't do quite so well. That will hold back growth.

Governor Mervyn King and others at the Bank of England have long argued the need for a rebalancing of the British economy, with more resources devoted to exports and investment and fewer to domestic consumption. That, however, is a lot easier to do if demand is being stoked up elsewhere in the world. If foreign policymakers decide to put a lid on demand through the imposition of so-called "exit strategies", the UK will struggle to rebalance in a relatively pain-free way. Indeed, in those circumstances, the only option would be to encourage sterling to drop: the UK would then be able to increase its share of global markets through an increase in the competitiveness of its exports. But, politically, that's playing with fire.

As for the G20 Finance Ministers' meeting, the fault-lines are easy enough to spot. In the accompanying statement, the ministers, in classic Yes Minister-speak, promised to "develop cooperative and coordinated exit strategies, recognising that the scale, timing and sequencing of actions will vary across countries and across the types of policy measures". An appropriate translation might be "each country will do whatever it wants to do".

Meanwhile, the G20 ministers have promised to "work to achieve high, stable and sustainable growth, which will require orderly rebalancing in global demand, removal of domestic barriers and promotion of the efficient functioning of global markets." Ahead of the crisis, lots of policymakers, wrongly, thought some of these conditions were already in place. Growth, after all, was reasonable while inflation was well-behaved. Yet with huge amounts of debt in both public and private sectors, countries like the US and the UK will not achieve high and sustainable rates of growth for many a year: they will instead be paying off the debt associated with past misdemeanours. The G20 statement gives the impression that a magic wand can be waved to make all economic problems disappear. If only that were true.

Still, the official G20 Statement offered hope elsewhere, notably the aim of increasing the representation of the major emerging powers in the IMF and in other international economic institutions. That's very important for all sorts of reasons.

Emerging nations such as China, India and Brazil are much bigger than used to be. They enjoy a much bigger share of global output than before. They are the now among the biggest players in global commodity markets. And they are America's biggest creditors. If another crisis of the kind we've lived through over the last couple of years is to be avoided, it is absolutely vital that China, India, Brazil, Russia and others have big seats at the big table: they might not always be the easiest of bedfellows but, whether we like it or not, and as we have seen recently, our economic progress is increasingly linked to theirs.

Indeed, as the US and the UK lick their economic wounds, by contrast the emerging nations are likely to flourish. Low American interest rates may offer only a modest domestic stimulus, but many emerging nations also link their monetary policies to those of the Federal Reserve, and they will see a bigger boost from low rates as they don't have the same sort of banking problems holding them back.

Over the next few years, as economic growth makes a comeback, the winners are likely to be China, India and the other increasingly dynamic emerging nations. The US and the UK will only be able to watch, financially wounded, on the touchline.

So he believes the world economic demand is going to recover?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes but he's an economic expert at one of the top banks.

I stopped reading at that point.

lucky that was all the text in your post...the rest would have been ignored.

Edited by Bloo Loo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I stopped reading at that point.

lucky that was all the text in your post...the rest would have been ignored.

What else was there to add?

Stephen King is managing director of economics at HSBC

And that level of economic ability gets you to be a managing director.

Groupthink rewards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What else was there to add?

And that level of economic ability gets you to be a managing director.

Groupthink rewards.

no....he's a novelist. someone is going to jump out and cut his throat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I stopped reading when he said Germany and France had stopped contracting.

Do you think they will recover before us though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think they will recover before us though?

depends what you mean. GDP is easily manipulated. They wont be in a recession now for another 9 months. even though they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was unfortunate enough to get this far:

beneficial effect – house prices have started to rise

whywhywhywhywhywhywhy....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economists have to believe the published numbers. If they didn't they couldn't write reports and make predictions, and if they didn't do that - what would be the point of them?

Edited by Nationalist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Economists have to believe the published numbers. If they didn't they couldn't write reports and make predictions, and if they didn't do that - what would be the point of them?

Socially useless, I think the FSA chairman might say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're not going to recover. Nor are we. Unless, like Gordon Brown, you call not recovering a "recovery",
depends what you mean. GDP is easily manipulated. They wont be in a recession now for another 9 months. even though they are.

I see what you mean.

But who do you think is in the stronger position: the UK, or France and Germany?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does it mean when an economy like Germany's "recovers"?

"Recovery" implies going back to how things were before. For Germany, that involved exporting lots of stuff to countries like the UK, that couldn't afford to pay for it. Hence the massive debt imbalance that now burdens the world economy.

Similarly, when people talk of UK "recovery" in the sense of returning to BAU, they really mean re-opening the doomed casino for one last spin of the wheel.

A true recovery -- in the sense of moving on, not back -- requires economic re-adjustment, which means moving away from dependence on one country's savings financing another country's ever-growing debt.

Therefore, for a given level of production, there's an argument that the exporting/creditor nations should be boosting consumption in their economies, while the importing/debtor nations should be reining it in. They can do it by direct stimulus/austerity packages or by currency revaluation, but done it must be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   288 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.