Category: Trade Page 4 of 13

On November 9, 2022

If you look up whether governments can “just print more money,” what you’ll find at most sites is the answer, “No, because it only increases the amount of money, not the amount of economic activity.”

This is not true, and it’s not true in a number of ways.

If there is under-utilization of capacity, you can print. Here’s US capacity:

The US has been running substantially under capacity for a long time.

But, you say, there was a lot of money printing (private and public, most money is created by banks, brokerages, and so on), and capacity utilization didn’t go up. In fact, it went down.

Well, yes, because the money went to other countries like China, where it increased capacity vastly, or it went into assets (the housing bubble, stock bubbles, and so on), or it bought private jets and yachts and so on.

Which is to say, it’s not just about money creation; it’s about who gets the money. Since virtually all the money creation of the past 40+ years has gone to rich people, capacity has been created for what they want. And because it was cheaper and more profitable to build capacity overseas, that’s where the money created went.

OMG THE CARNAGE!!! pic.twitter.com/1HEKwmTX7w

— Rudy Havenstein (Checkmark Goes Here) (@RudyHavenstein) November 2, 2022

In addition, there’s the fact that the US dollar is used to buy oil and is the general medium of exchange in most foreign trade. It’s also the “gold” currency, in that during crises it tends to go up, so people want to hold a store of it against bad times.

All of these factors are contingent. If oil was not sold primarily in dollars, or trade settled in dollars, for example, there’d be a lot less demand for dollars. If the trade regime didn’t allow for vast imports and exports, but the world was more autarchic, then building new industry overseas wouldn’t make any sense, and so on.

This is to say, nothing is eternal. The dollar’s position is a historical artifact, based on specific circumstances which did not, and will not, always exist.

Remember, there was a time when the center of the world economy was Britain (chart from Mike Todd).

What you see in that chart (and it’s going to keep getting worse) is the switch from London to New York; from the pound to the dollar, because the pound wasn’t the primary international currency any more AND (and this is important) the UK kept de-industrializing so there was less and less relative demand for its products, though the City of London retained an important financial role, which kept the pound higher than the economic situation of Britain would otherwise have allowed.

Developing countries, as a rule, cannot run the printing the press because people only want enough of their currency to buy whatever goods and services they produce. In addition, because most Third World countries have vast import requirements (more so as time has gone on), and their agricultural bases have been destroyed, printing money causes inflation very fast. It’s not just an internal matter, more money chasing goods, it’s that people try and use the new money to buy goods produced externally, and their exchange rate collapses.

When the US prints money, a lot of it goes into other countries reserves and the reserves of people and companies. It pools, as it were, uselessly, and to the extent that it is “more money chasing the same goods,” its effect is spread over most of the world and not just internally.

Once this was true of the British pound.

The original conception of comparative advantage was based on the assumption (true at the time) that money mostly pooled inside countries and could not be used to create production in other countries. If Britain produced less widgets because French widgets were cheaper, the money freed up in Britain would go to produce something in which they had a comparative advantage, say woolens, instead of fleeing overseas. (See Ricardo’s Caveat for the long form of why comparative advantage doesn’t work with free capital flows.)

Now, you can also print money if you give it to the useless classes, i.e., the rich. In that case, it drives bubbles (see the SPX chart above or art prices) or creates niche markets, like yachts and private jets. It doesn’t drive general inflation, it only drives inflation for what useless people want.

Unfortunately, that inflation does eventually cause various crises, but for a time, it seems “free” — you make the rich much richer without causing widespread inflation.

What matters, then, is who you give the money to, and what they spend it on. Volcker crushed wages because, in addition to wanting to make useless people richer, he didn’t want ordinary people to have more money because they would spend it on things which lead to buying more oil, and given oil prices at the time, that would lead to more inflation. He needed to smash oil prices, and he did so by smashing wages to smash oil demand.

If you print money and give it to ordinary people, and it just leads to them buying more stuff from overseas, it won’t move that capacity utilization number you see in the chart at the top very much.

But this isn’t to say that printing money doesn’t “work.” It does work. It always does something. Someone benefits. If you print a bunch of money, and make sure it goes to ordinary people in your country, and that your country increases utilization and/or increases how much it produces, then it can produce a general wave of prosperity. After all, when wages rise higher than the cost of goods and services, that’s prosperity, but companies don’t like that unless they’re still making more money because they’re selling more overall.

(That last sentence, by the way, is the secret of the post-war good era. Meditate upon it.)

You lose the power of the printing press when no one wants your currency because you can’t produce enough, or increase production, AND it isn’t necessary for other things (like international trade).

This goes in stages. Britain, outside of the EU and with less and less industry, and with less reason to send money to the City of London, is in danger of losing the power of the printing press in the way Third World countries do. “There’s no reason to buy any more of this than however much you need to buy their goods.”

At that point, you need to figure out how to re-industrialize and under a free trade order like the neoliberal one, that’s hard. Every time you try, money floods out of your country instead of increasing activity inside of it.

As for the US, it’s in an extraordinarily privileged position, but as China and the BRICS move to conduct more and more trade without dollars, and as trust in the US to run the international monetary system drops and drops due to repeated sanctions and thefts of reserves, that privilege will decline, and the US will find more and more that if it wants goods from another country, it will need to provide not dollars (though they may still be exchanged), but actual goods and services itself.

If you can’t pay with goods and services, you pay by selling your patrimony — companies, land, resources, etc.

The power of the printing press is great, but it can be used for ill and good. It can create real economic growth and widespread prosperity under the right conditions, conditions which are partially under a country’s control. But if you become too weak or poor, you can lose even the theoretical ability to create those conditions. There is essentially nothing most African countries can do to restore enough sovereignty to allow them to use the printing press for good, and if you’re a relatively rich country which does still have the freedom of the printing press, there is always the temptation to use it foolishly or venally, as the US mostly has in recent generations.

Money is a social creation. So is how we run the economy. It can be made to work for everyone, for a few people, or as a machine of impoverishment. The choice, on aggregate, is ours.

The Great Favor the West Is Doing China by Banning Equipment Needed to Make Chips

On November 7, 2022

We really are run by fools.

“If you shut out [China] with export control, [they’ll] strive toward tech sovereignty… [Then] they’ll be able to do it all by themselves and the market [for European suppliers] will be gone.”

The great problem in the neoliberal era is that the usual road for tech and industrial catch-up, protectionist tariffs is mostly closed. (This is how Britain, the US, and almost everyone created their industrial base and caught up in tech.)

Despite what a lot of people seem to think, China isn’t a command economy. It’s a capitalist one, albeit with a large state company sector. Letting markets in is explicitly how Deng created the Chinese economic miracle.

So China buys a lot from other countries. It is a trading state, and that makes it more difficult to catch up in some techs.

Now, if this was done to, say, Bangladesh, or probably even India, those countries would be screwed — they don’t have the industrial and knowledge base. But China has these things; sure, it wasn’t cost-effective to do all the research necessary to learn how to make this equipment when they could just buy it, and after all, they need to buy some things from their customers.

But if they can’t buy it, they can learn how to make it themselves. Sure, it’ll cost them two or three years. It’ll hurt. But they’ll get over it, and then they can make it for themselves.

The knock-on effect is fun, though: Once China can make this equipment, they can sell it to other countries, which means those countries (Brazil, Iran, India, etc.) don’t need to get it from the West, and sanctions become much less effective because there’s another option on the table.

So by sanctioning China, the West will soon lose its ability to sanction not just China but pretty much the rest of the world.

Fun!

This is also true of the sanctions on aircraft equipment, by the way. China, which has a rather advanced space industry, will learn how to make its own civilian aircraft, and then, instead of everyone having to get aircraft from Europe (Airbus) or the US (Boeing, though Boeing is losing the ability make aircraft), they’ll be able to get it from China (and possibly Russia as well).

Now sanctions like these have their place: You do them just before you’re about to declare war. But if we aren’t going to do that (and there are certainly factions in Washington who do want a war with China soon), then it’s just foolishness.

Let’s hope it’s just foolishness.

Growth Through Real Estate Bubbles v.s. Sustainable High Income Growth (China)

On November 4, 2022

All right. Let’s talk some basic development stuff, primarily in the neoliberal era.

Because industrial policy was disallowed with a few marginal exceptions due to the “rule based order” enforced by a variety of trade agreements and organizations, the traditional route of protecting domestic industries and growing behind tariffs became very difficult to do.

Various countries used different dodges. Russia, to get out of the Yeltsin era collapse, went whole hog into resources: advanced nations had to have oil and natural gas and minerals, and bribed key financial regions like London’s city with huge influxes of resource-money.

China did something different. They opened up partially and let foreign companies in, but they used bureaucracy to keep them under control (as had Japan, in part) and offered foreign elites huge labor arbitrage profits. They bribed the West’s elites with personal wealth, in effect. In exchange they insisted on, generally very strictly, in real technology transfer. Meanwhile, they created a protectionist bubble thru monetary policy, keeping the exchange rate in their favor.

But the other thing they did is what Turkey tried. They created a self-reinforcing property bubble. Municipalities and states built tons of new homes, people flooded in from the countryside to get the new factory jobs and the service and government and construction jobs which supported industry. Prices went up, municipal and state budgets went way up and a virtuous cycle was created, for a time.

Turkey did the same thing, but the problem is Turkey didn’t have an expanding industrial base, and that’s why Turkey imploded sooner.

All bubbles, including property bubbles are time limited. The more of a real economy you have, the longer they can run, but eventually inflation in property becomes too high, and most citizens can’t afford the housing. Meanwhile, inflationary increases in living costs make workers too pricey, and the industrial base begins to suffer.

You can start from three positions.

Like the US or UK or much of the EU you can start with an industrial base and cannibalize it, or..
Like Turkey you can start with a poor but big country and cannibalize an increasing part of your population, plus what little industry and agriculture you have (India is similar, but much larger and managed to get some industrialization out of this strategy), or..
Like China you can build your industrial base at the same time.

Whatever you do, this strategy eventually runs into the roadblock of a cost structure which becomes too high to allow actual productive industries.

At that point, you have to tame the housing market and other out of control costs (medical, food, whatever). If you don’t, you’re pushed back from 3 to 1, or if you did 2, the artificial prosperity begins to collapse. (India’s calories per capita have spent decades decreasing and someone who spent time there in the 80s, I can tell you Indians weren’t overfed to start with.)

So China’s now in a position where rather than bubbles, especially the housing bubble, being synergistic with industry and improvements in technology, they’re starting to strangle growth.

The route out (minus mercantalist imperialism, which is long run a loser too) requires you to stop relying on property bubbles, and start strangling your cost structure. The “free” money from asset bubbles has to go away, and you have to create a consumer society: not one like we have now, but one like we had in the post-war liberal era. Housing costs have to be kept at a level where people can buy or rent homes fairly easily: 30% of wages for rent or so, and at most about 5 years wages to buy a small home or condo.

Since the free profits of bubbles and speculation have to go away, companies have to make real money by providing real services and not just count on “real estate always goes up” or (America) “people have to have health care, so we’ll increase prices thru the roof.”

This is the task that China now has. It’s a hard task, akin to getting of hard drugs like heroin or SSRIs or Xanax. It hurts, because the financial pipes are reliant on what amounts to free or easy money.

During this transition, headline GDP and so on will suffer, there is no way around it minus looting expeditions, especially since simply running the printing press (something we’ll talk about in another article) defeats the point, which is making companies earn their money by providing goods and services for small markups at scale. (The post war liberal era worked on 3-4% markups for most mass goods.)

This is where China is. Where America and most of the West is similar: except it’s after destroying much of the industrial base and real consumer economy that doesn’t rely on massive price gouging on items people must have. There is no way to bring the good jobs back for most of the population in the US or UK or Canada or Australia without crushing the cost structure, strangling property speculation and prices and in the US tackling the medical and drug cartels.

China’s making the attempt. A lot of what they’re doing is clumsy and crude (but then, so was the one child law, but it worked even if it caused future problems.) So far the UK and Canada and the US and most of the West are not even trying, which is why you hear more about friend-shoring (aka to cheap places that are Western allies) rather than re-shoring, which can only be done for the goods that are either very high margin or which elites have realized are too militarily strategic to do in other countries.

This is why, as far as I’m concerned, the smart money is still on China, and if it wasn’t for climate change and ecological collapse, I’d consider it a done deal even if it took a couple more decades and a lot of screaming and shooting.

As it is, we’ll see. But China’s at least trying to do the right thing.

The Inflationary Consequences of Friendzoning and Decoupling

On October 24, 2022

During the rise of China and the “One World/Free Trade” period, one good thing which can be said for offshoring is that it helped reduce inflation.

It, indeed, drove much of the inflation reduction, with most of the rest of the inflation reduction being concerted efforts to keep wages low, with a strong assist from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to use methods like hedonics to pretend that inflation was lower than it actually was.

The new mantra is “friendzoning” — not so much bringing industry back to the US but moving it to friendly countries. Vietnam and Bangladesh are mentioned often, and Mexico will benefit as well. But friendzoning has limits, these countries don’t have the capacity to quickly take on all the production done for the US and Europe, nor do they really have the technological ability in the medium run.

This means that the determination to have a new cold war, and possibly a hot war with China will drive inflation higher for years to come.

The solution would be to, more than friendzone, re-shore: bring production back to core nations. But that would require reducing the cost structure: and I don’t mean wages so much as I do predatory finance and driving rent and housing prices down massively — about two-thirds at a minimum, along with no longer health-care predation. Do those things and wages don’t have to rise nearly as much, and the US (and Europe to a lesser extent) become much more competitive.

But to re-shore, you have to, in effect, give ordinary people a decent deal and not treat them as assets to shorn, but rather as productive assets to be cared for. (Note you don’t have to do this out of the goodness of your heart, our elites don’t have any of that.)

For the time being, this seems unlikely, so don’t expect inflation to go away. All the Federal Reserve can really do to stop it is push the economy into the dirt, but that’s not going to be a long term solution unless it stabilizes at “you’re a third world nation”, which, actually, probably won’t solve it either.

China “To Those Who Have Everything”

On September 12, 2022

This is why you don’t give away your manufacturing base. China is “gaining market share in both low and hi-tech sectors.” It is “now a more important international supplier than Germany, the U.S. and Japan combined.” China’s share of manufacturing exports grew from 17% in the 2017 to 21% in 2021.

The US recently put a ban on sending advanced AI chips to China, and the CHIPS act forbids any company which takes money from setting up new fabs in China, but it isn’t going to matter. Just as China jumped two chip generations (from 11 to 7nm) far faster than any western expert I know of thought they could, they will catch up in AI chips.

Then they will surpass.

As people at least as far back as Adam Smith pointed out, scale matters for efficiency in a lot of industrial processes. China has it. Once the US did, and before that England. Where the manufacturing floor is matters as well, it leads to faster iteration and more understanding of what works and doesn’t: “to those who have everything, more is given.”

America efforts to stem the rise of China aren’t working. The current anti-Russia sanctions are hurting Germany in particular. The entire “globalization” nonsense was a huge mistake for the West, and it will lead to a civilizational transfer of the locus of power from Europe/America to China/Asia unless climate change interferes (which it might.)

But the key thing to understand is that this is accelerating, not slowing down. In the 19th century, Britain deliberately helped America industrialize so its rich could make more money, without looking at the fact that it was a continental power with a larger population. In the late 20th and early 21st century, America did the same with China.

Helping Japan and Korea and Taiwan industrialize or reindustrialize didn’t matter that much: at the end, they are population constrained.

China isn’t. And for a few coins the West’s elites gave another civilization the opportunity to surpass it in perhaps the most important source of power in the post-industrial revolution world.

The Delusional Dishonesty of the G7 Russian Oil Price Cap

On September 5, 2022

So…

Members of the G7 have agreed to impose a price cap on Russian oil in a bid to hit Moscow’s ability to finance the war in Ukraine.

Finance ministers said the cap on crude oil and petroleum products would also help reduce global energy prices. The cap will be set at a level based on a range of technical inputs.

“We will continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes,” the G7 said.

Russia said it would stop selling oil to countries that imposed price caps.

Well, so the price cap is effectively a “we won’t buy it because you won’t sell it” policy.

There’s long been a delusion that commodities like oil are global. They operated almost as if they were for a while, but oil is produces in certain places, refined in certain places and shipped in specific pipelines, ships, trucks and trains. It has different qualities and not all refineries can handle all types of crude.

To the extent, however, that oil or natural gas or coal or whatever is subject to boycotts, it becomes less of a global market and that won’t generally decrease prices, rather the reverse, at least in the early phases of a breakdown of a global market. (In the late phase prices will diverge significantly in different countries, with extensive measures or realities in place to prevent arbitrage.)

So (2)…

UK Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi said the G7 were “united against this barbaric aggression”, adding the price cap would “curtail Putin’s capacity to fund his war”.

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said a cap would also help fight inflation, which is on the rise in many of the world’s economies.

The price cap helps achieve “our dual goals of putting downward pressure on global energy prices while denying Putin revenue to fund his brutal war in Ukraine”, she said.

Sanctions have not reduced Russia’s income, they have increased it. This won’t be an exception because most of the world isn’t onside with sanctions, including India, China, virtually all of Africa and most of South America, but by fragmenting the market it will increase prices, especially in specific areas like Europe which need to get their hydrocarbons (remember, this is not a virtual good, it has to be extracted, refined and shipped), through specific infrastructure links.

The “price cap” is thus largely a symbolic measure, which will if anything increase prices somewhat. That’s not to say it’s useless, if the plan is a new long Cold War with Russia (and almost certainly China), getting off supplies from those two countries needs to be done and done in stages.

But it sure isn’t going to decrease prices or empty Putin’s treasury. In fact, in the short to middle term it’s likely to hurt Europe, again, far more than Russia.

China Jumps Two Chip Generations Ahead: Why Chip Sanctions Backfired

On July 26, 2022

Faster than most expected:

Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp (SMIC, 中芯) has likely advanced its production technology by two generations, defying US sanctions intended to halt the rise of China’s largest chipmaker.

The Shanghai-based manufacturer is shipping bitcoin-mining semiconductors built using 7 nanometer technology, industry watcher TechInsights wrote in a blog post on Tuesday.

That would be well ahead of SMIC’s established 14 nanometer technology, a measure of fabrication complexity in which narrower transistor widths help produce faster and more efficient chips.

Since late 2020, the US has barred the unlicensed sale to the Chinese firm of equipment that can be used to fabricate semiconductors of 10 nanometers and beyond, infuriating Beijing.

Now, there’s a question if they can scale, but this is still a huge step. This means that they are ahead of Europe and the US, and behind only Taiwan and Korea. This is also sooner than almost all experts predicted: China did what Western technologists thought could not be done so quickly.

This speed, as I have noted in previous articles, is not that surprising; the technological lead always moves to the country which holds the world’s manufacturing floor. When Britain fell behind the US, it took about 30 years for them to lose their tech lead, but lose it they did. The same will happen with the US and Britain, but likely faster for obvious reasons like jets, the internet, and so on.

To put it simply, when you are right there with the factory floor, your innovation cycles are far faster, or in modern-speak, you iterate more quickly. You also have more practical experience with what actually works.

The “ban semi-equipment and semi-sales” to China card was a card, like the freezing of Russian foreign reserves, that you only get to play once at a great power. China is more than happy to subsidize chip manufacturers to learn how to make this tech domestically, and they are also crashing other key techs they’re behind in (like aviation), because it’s clear if the West would put a ban on semis, they’ll do it to anything or everything else.

China’s Job #1, and Xi has stated this publicly, is to make it so that they can’t be choked out by the US (the “West” is mealy-mouthed; the US makes the decisions, and the EU, Japan, and so on just do what they’re told, with occasional exceptions). Making Russia a locked-in junior ally with the sanctions regime made it so that China couldn’t be choked out on natural resources, and making it clear that crippling sanctions are on the board caused China to scramble to close the deficiency.

Unlike with choking out Japan over oil before WWII (which is why the Japanese felt they had to attack the US), however, the partial sanctions on China were not crippling, because unlike pre-WWII, the US is not the world’s primary industrial power, and it has its own dependencies on Chinese trade.

In realpolitik terms, because this is the case, sanctions should have been all at once, followed by war (I’m not for this, I’m massively against it, not least because of the issue of nukes). Half-assing it just gave China time to decouple its key dependencies and, as noted above, the anti-Russia sanctions were a gift from heaven to China.

The game continues, and if it were not for climate change, all the smart money would be on China as the pre-eminent world power within 20 years, probably sooner. As it is, a lot will depend on variables that humans have chosen not to control and soon will lack the ability to significantly control.