Economics is quite popular these days. It’s not so much the traditional discipline, itself, that is the focus, but a constant flagellation of its representation. Simply put, it’s not delivering the goods. Many trained economists would argue that economics is not the problem but the solution. To paraphrase “it’s the politicians, stupid!”.

The word “economics” also seem to be creeping into the title of every other book, blog or column. “The Economics of…….sex, drugs, football, hairdressing (i made that one up) and so on. The message is clear. People want to know how the world works and seek to understand it through the lens of economics, which is, as I’m repeatedly informed, only about the allocation of resources. We’ve also had Freakonomics followed up by SuperFreakonomics, just in case you didn’t get it the first time.

Diane Coyle is a serial offender is this area with 2 recent books called “Sex, Drugs and Economics” and “The Economics of Enough” (I would recommend both and happy to lend them to anyone local). These books do help us to make more sense of the way our economy works and, therefore, how our society is structured. Economics describes how people transact with each other and for what reasons. Getting into the nitty gritty of personal life seems an odd place for economics to be but research continues to show that how we make decisions is very much dependent on variables which can, to some extent, be measured and quantified. Put bluntly, incentives and pay offs do matter (unless you have no impulse control at all – read male teenagers – but this can be controlled and measured as well).

“The Economics of Enough” is a well written account of  the economic challenges facing us and how we can move forward to create more even prosperity and happiness. Diane outlines what is importance to people: happiness, nature, posterity, fairness and trust. She then looks at where the problems are: our measurement system, our values and our institutions. She then finishes off with a “Manifesto of Enough”, a ten point programme for shifting to a world of “Enough”. It’s all very useful and accurate in its conception. What I like about the book is the realisation that our values have become warped (seen readily in the fiasco of the Global Financial Crisis and its response) and our institutions have become corrupted by those same values. Changing that will require some serious reform and will face major resistance by the vested interests happy with the current situation.

Slipping nicely alongside this book is a new film called “The Economics of Happiness“, which I screened last night in Christchurch to an audience of 115 people, including 2 local MPs. This film, by Helena Norberg-Hodge, Steven Gorelick and John Page, visits themes raised by Diane in her book, but it does so in a more poetic fashion. Drawing on many years research and living in Ladakh, Helena pulls together a picture of a severely fractured global population struggling to maintain its humanity in the face of the onslaught of globalisation. The film dismantles many myths around the benefits of globalisation, describing it is ultimately a process designed for major transnational corporations to increase profits at the expense of people and planet. It’s naturally tends towards the polemical but it’s hard to dispute the evidence. Median incomes do not tell us the whole story. The constant externalisation of environmental and social costs produce a massive hidden subsidy to the global business network. The global institutions (IMF, WTO and World Bank) support and embed this process and remove sovereignty wherever possible so that business faces no impediment. We don’t pay the true costs but some one else picks up the tab.

This links back to Diane’s discussion around measurement. Economics can only be of use if the variables, that are plugged into the models, have integrity. As both Diane and Helena note, the value of integrity is missing. The pressure of profit takes few prisoners and if a cost can be ignored, it will be. Whilst Diane is still in favour of economic growth, she recognises it must come within a properly constructed framework. Helena goes further in promoting a more localized world, where we are in touch with, and close to, our processes and means of production. This approach brings the connection back into our lives and this, ultimately, is the root of the happiness we are looking for.

The clear message from these works (and others like it) is clear. There is a desire for a new approach to our economy and there is evidence to support it. The various manifestos, blueprints and proposals for reform are starting to merge in content and structure. Slowly but surely a solid platform for re-envisaging our society is coming together and a renaissance in economics may not be far away.

It all comes down to leverage which now is well understood. The new capital requirements simply squeeze poorly capitalised banks a bit harder but really make sod all difference to the underlying problem which as we all know is excess credit creation. This credit creation is also known as money supply expansion. Are credit and money the same thing? well yes and no. When you get a new loan from the bank, you have received credit. This credit appears as money in your bank account and can be converted (though usually ins’t) into note and coin. But here’s the nub. Whilst money, the the form of note and coin, cannot be destroyed (ok you could burn it), when you pay back your loan that money is cancelled…in a puff of smoke. It only existed in your imagination. Of course that same “money” can be relent but new credit can always be created as long as there is enough “equity” in the bank…….come in Tier 1 capital and other assorted IOUs.

For example, the money supply in New Zealand has contracted by nearly $10bln in the period from Feb 09 to Jul 10. That’s why there’s no money in the economy……it’s goneski. But if we dealt in real money it would never disappear; once it was created it stayed in circulation or under your bed but it could not be destroyed.

The ability of banks to inflate and deflate the economy is still very much theirs with central banks acting like the lunatics they are by playing important games with their interest rates. They haven’t quite worked out the mess they made over the last 15 years by focusing on inflation and forgetting about asset prices, leverage and moral free speculation.

Gareth Morgan notes this in his take on it but again misses the real point, as does Basel 1,2 and 3 (and probably 4 and 5). It is the quality of money supplied into an economy that is the most important aspect of the economy. Copious amounts of speculative credit has blown out the “real” economy creating a mess which could take decades to unwind.

But we need to address this sooner or later….otherwise we will get the same maneuvering again ………or is it the same manuva?

So the chickens have finally come home. And now the Euro project is in harms way. Or is this just the next stage in complete sovereign consilience? It’s fiscal consolidation or that’s the end of the road.

The real problem, if you look hard enough under the falling limbs of the EU forest, is simply debt and its modern bedfellow, leverage. The financial binge of the last decade, built upon market deregulation in the 80s, has simply finished. Apres le binge, le deluge as they might say in Paris. A bad hangover is one thing but watching bankers get on the big white telephone is no fun at all.

The debt binge primarily was brought about not so much by low interest rates (though that helped) but by the belief that capital gain was guaranteed. Stocks always go up in the long run, property always goes up in the long run…..don’t worry about income, just borrow as much as you can and buy an asset. These financial assets have become a magnet for all investors and, naturally, sellers of investment products. I wonder how many people are holding derivative products which allow them to catch the upside of the stock market with no risk unless the market falls 50%….oops. Certainly Mr Buffet has a few of those.

The return to a time when people invested in companies based on their fundamental performance and bought houses to live in is long overdue. That people cannot afford to buy a home is without doubt the result of excessive lending by banks over the last 30 years. This is the root cause of the problem. Banks have actually created the inflation we have seen in financial assets….unearned income to be exact. That asset price inflation has seen real wages fall heavily over the years consigning the average wage earner or those unable to access leveraged credit to a lifetime of renting and debt.

The maths of excessive leverage is the simple maths of compound interest….compounded.

As Paul Volcker noted in this recent piece,

“There was one great growth industry. Private debt relative to GDP nearly tripled in thirty years. Credit default swaps, invented little more than a decade ago, soared at their peak to a $60 trillion market, exceeding by a large multiple the amount of the underlying credits potentially hedged against default.”

The bottom line is very simple: we have spent our GDP already….for many years hence.

Now it’s payback time. The payback process could take many forms: bankruptcy, forced asset sales or a slow descent back to a normalized level of activity – actually living within our means. Stripping away the financial sector so it works for people and business rather than conspiring against them will be the first requirement: not so much regulation as reengineering.

Whichever route we take it will be a painful adjustment made worse by the fact that those who are in charge are actually responsible for perpetuating the current system or refusing to question and change it.

The nineties seemed so easy in comparison…yes some financial disasters but they are part of the regular boom/busy cycle..but in general times were good and there was an air of stability. Y2K came and went and in all the excitement we had ourselves caught up in a huge stock market bubble…..the tech wreck….horribly followed by 9/11 and the start of a new era in US expansionary policy.

The last decade saw the financial system gutted from the inside out. That it is still standing is a testimony the the magic that one can weave with numbers. The spread of social media and the growth of the internet was nothing if astonishing. The ability to communicate 24/7 took many by surprise and for some completely took over their lives. The rise of Apple….and the iPod generation transformed music, computing and basically created a whole new industry in itself…mind you was it much different to the Walkman and its introduction? Yes Google, Apple, MySpace, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter brought the world of media, in all its forms, to a completely new level. But that’s what technology does…we’re just moving at an exponential rate.

China and the rest of the BRIC gang really came to the party. The US ended the decade on its knees…wrapped up in wars it cannot win, with a financial system in disarray and an economy on its knees. With Japan the first industrialized economy to fail and the US not far behind, the global shape of international relations has changed. Multi-polarity is an uncomfortable idea for many and how that works out will be a real test.

On that subject climate change continues to take center stage notwithstanding the inevitable failure of the Copenhagen talks. The records all show the noughties being the warmest on record but the small matter of fiddling numbers won’t have helped bolster the case of extreme action. When arguments hinge on tiny fractions any question on their veracity can have serious consequences. As a researcher in this area for sometime i must admit even i have become somewhat sanguine over the whole thing.

When I look back over the last decade and forward to the next, it seems as if the same themes will recur:

- Financialisation of Economies: Can we remove the yoke of derivative financial instruments from the real economy?

- Technology: Will social media enable the development of a networked based economy?

- Global Politics: Can we move to a multi-polar world without the necessity of the United Nations as a de facto world government?

- Climate change: How do we manage the change in our climate and the resulting shifts in population and its attendant baggage?

There’s plenty of hope in those questions for moving to a more sustainable world. But any one of those we get wrong could easily send us into a period of darkness. Let’s hope we don’t end up taking this road.

I will explore each topic in more detail over the next few weeks.

As I’ve discussed before there is a major shift underway in the way the global market is structured. Not just in terms of currencies but also trade and influence. The BRICs have a powerful case to make: 40% of global currency reserves and almost half the world’s population (though Russia’s population is declining, a somewhat serious issue).

There is a strong feeling that the US has acted recklessly overt he last 30 years in flooding the world with $ and creating huge imbalances which have caused such chaos in global markets. So whilst there is always plenty of posturing and grandstanding, especially from the Russians, there is a real case for the US to answer:

- Global trade imbalances.

- Cowboy capitalism.

- Turbo boosted monetary expansion.

- Instability in global financial markets.

It’s also interesting that the meeting of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) was held at the same tim and the US was not invited even though it wanted to attend. There is a strong argument that there is no real alternative to the $ but that doesn’t excuse the facts. One dominant currency has not helped create a stable system. It has simply allowed to issuer to experience huge profits from seigniorage and wield extraordinary political and economic power.

And can we really take the rating agencies seriously? They are all US based organisations. Ultimately whether the $ loses influence or not depends on the alternatives. I still believe a commodity backed currency is a likely development, given the nations involved.

At the same time the development of local currencies will help create a more stable and complex system. For now though expect more talk about a $ alternative and expect it to be driven by the BRIC crew starting with the upcoming G8 summit in Italy.

Small businesses in NZ have seen no relief from high interest rates in the recent lowering of rates here. At the same time credit is hard to come by and many business owners have resorted to credit cards to keep their businesses going.

This is a troublesome state of affairs given its the productive economy that has to earn the dollars to pay back the humungous debt necklace hanging around the necks of Kiwis.

So what’s the state of play with microfinance at the moment? Well Kiva is going great guns. It’s really tapped into people’s desire to help and be generous in giving but created this new joy of creating and empowering change for people. It connects people together and that personal touch pulls the punters in.

The more tradtional p2p lending services are not finding life so easy. Charis Palmer reports here on recent developments citing problems for Prosper in the US and some success for Zopa in the UK. Locally Peermint has fallen by the wayside, Nexx hasn’t really got going and Lending Hub has joined a busy Australian market.

So there’s no shortage of platforms but it’s proving harder than expected to deliver the business. But there seems to be no platform for small businesses to secure funding. This is certainly an opportunity as there is certainly a strong and established market on the borrowing side with appropriate forms of due diligence available.

The major stumbling block for p2p start ups has been compliance with various regulatory authorities. However there may be ways around this and with politicians supportive of the small business sector the time may have come for a serious attempt to create what would be a mini-corporate bond market funded by the retail investement market direct.

Now that sounds like a major step forward in building a more productive economy.

Buying a house used to be so simple. 2-3 times your income or 3-4 if you had joint ones. This was before the days of the grand pyramid scheme known as financial deregulation. The formula was fixed at a level that had been shown to be affordable.

So what happened to the simple model?

This quote may explain it.

It’s from a piece on the sub-prime web by Michael Lewis of Liars Poker fame,

“He called Standard & Poors and asked what would happen to default rates if real estate prices fell. The man at S&P couldn’t say; its model for home prices had no ability to accept a negative number. They were just assuming home prices would keep going up“, Eisman says

Nice one. This idea, that things keep going up, seems to have become instilled into our eco-social fabric. Buy houses, buy stocks….they always go up…..well at least in the long run.

The dreaded long run that usually ends in death, mercifully for some.

With a belief system like that it’s no wonder that the recent crash will go down in the annals of history alongside the South Sea bubble, Tulip Mania and the Great Depression.

But really it’s quite simple: learn to trust numbers. They never lie.

I’ve talked about Burma but for China this is becoming a very difficult year. It was supposed to be a huge celebration, the coming out party for the slightly post-communist leviathan and a party to show the world what an amazing country it was. Alas the Tibet demonstrations rained on that parade and now the earthquake has really taken away the focus. Indeed many Chinese were unhappy that the Olympic torch procession was carrying on as normal and this saw an immediate response by the authorities who scaled back the daily relay.

This shows that the Chinese government is very senstive to public feeling within China and is keen to always be on the right side of its citizens if not those who live outisde its borders. This sensitivity has been increasing over the last 10 years and with the Olympics putting China centre stage, the rallying call for a strong sense of nationhood has been blasted out from all points. From all accounts it seems to be working.

It’s nearly 20 years since the Tiananmen Square massacre. It holds memories for me because I was in Northern Pakistan at the time, coming to the end of nearly 2 years away backpacking and working during my OE from London, and getting ready to cross the Khunjerab Pass into Western China. The idea was to head across China and catch the Trans Siberian home. It didn’t happen. I was with my Kiwi girlfriend (now my wife!) and we met an English guy who had just crossed over from China and told us the news. We were completely cut off and had no idea what ws going on. This was from the days of getting your post from the GPO Poste Restante service. Oh for an internet cafe. It was clear then that it wasn’t a good idea to cross over so we abandoned that idea and headed back down.

China has come a long way in 20 years. Sure it still is pretty ruthless when it comes to repressing dissent or “dangerous groups” like Falun Gong. And yes it still executes a lot of criminals though they say that rate is falling. It has built an enormous economy with a massive trade surplus which has enabled it to move overseas to secure resources and assets. It is however still unsure of its rightful place in the world. It’s military continues to expand posing a threat to Taiwan as well as giving itself plenty of muscle in the worlds’ oceans historically the preserve of the US Navy and before that the Royal Navy.

2008 is a big year for China. How it handles it should give us some idea of how it will turn out in the years ahead. Can it open itself up and with that accept the good and the bad, the praise and the criticism or will it revert to control and repression. Let’s hope its the former.

There’s been a bit of concern over the human rights aspects of the deal and what it means for workers conditions but it’s really simple to deal with that if it is a concern of yours:

Buy goods that you are happy to buy. Buy Kiwi made or buy ethically certified. But ultimately as a consumer you have the final say on what you purchase. So ask more questions and you’ll find your enquiries work their way up the chain. Business is business and the customer is always right. Over time wokplace conditions will improve and as China becomes more wealthy they will be able to move towards standards we take for granted here.

Lance, Jim and the NBR have all commented on the ins and outs of the deal but I think it’s a positive step to open up markets as it breaks down barriers.

However consumers will always have the final word so we’ll wait and see what the actual impact is.

This came about from a post about population reduction being the answer to reducing carbon emissions. As i noted in my previous post population growth, especially in developing countries, is putting severe pressure on all resources.

China has been on to this well in advance with its one child per couple policy.  For developed countries teenage pregnancies have been a bit of a problem and something that has not been adequately addressed. This idea fits in neatly with the premise of the “Logic of Life” by Tim Harford.

Tim notes that people make complicated  calculations about potential trade offs every day whether its to have unprotected sex or park illegally. He argues cogently that we do respond to incentives and change behaviour when the pay offs look in our favour.

For example he notes research which showed juvenile crime lower or falling in US states where the age for adult criminality was lower than in states where it was higher. The reason was simple: the payoffs were worse for juvenile criminals in states where they would be tried in the adult system. Juveniles were simply responding to the market.

So for teenage pregnancies it is a similar story. Where welfare benefits are good for both mother and baby, there is no disincentive to get pregnant. So the payoffs for riskier behaviour are ok. That’s because as a society we value the rights of the baby and choose to provide for it regardless of how it arrived.

Now imagine we said to all teenage girls that for every year until a certain age (whether 18 or 21) they would receive $200 in a savings account for not getting pregnant. That would be an interesting idea to model.

Now I am sure there are many pros and cons to this but I like the idea of policymaking taking into account how people behave rather than what officials deem to be a good or right thing to do.