Help required: economic modelling

Following reported opinion from Marc Faber and others that we may expect sell-offs in commodities, bonds, equities and real estate, and given concerns about the quality of our currencies, the question arises, where should we hold our cash?

It seem that in the USA and UK, we are holding down interest rates to avoid crippling homeowners, the home-loan-based economy, and what's left of our industries, and also in the hope that we can repay our debts to foreigners with devalued cash. On the other side, countries like China and Japan seem to be trying to prevent their currencies from appreciating, so as to preserve their trading advantage.

So one party is letting their currencies sink, and the other is trying to stop theirs rising. To this amateur, the world's foreign exchange system looks like a bunch of corks tied to an unchained anchor and flung into the sea. Will the string on the corks hold, or break under the strain, or be abruptly cut?

Is there any computer- or board-game-based model of the world economic system, that might make it clear to me how this wretched thing works?

And how is the ordinary person to save money and preserve its value in real terms, without having to be super-sophisticated? I know something about American TIPS and British NS&I Index-Linked Savings Certifcates, but I'm leery of handing the government what little money they haven't already extracted from me in taxes. And I don't trust them to define inflation fairly.

Does anybody know how this boneshaker of a contraption actually operates, so we can make sensible decisions?

Speaker or silencer?

I now read in The Grumbler that David Davis was prevented by the Speaker of the House of Commons from delivering his resignation speech to the House, and had to go outside the building to say it to journalists instead. Words fail.

What oil hike?

The Mogambo Guru (too long absent from these pages) points out that a major factor in the increase in the price of oil, is simply the decline in the dollar. We here in the UK don't see it, because the pound is staring the dollar in the eye as both go screaming parachuteless towards the ground.

At least Richard Daughty is one who will not go gentle into that good night.

Now, isn't this what happened in the Seventies? Only we were conned into thinking it was down to wicked Arabs, when really the story was increased monetary inflation for some years pre-1974.

Marc Faber, cash and Cambodia

I said on Monday that Marc Faber was, by and large, in favour of keeping his money in his pocket, and a quick Google News trawl shows that his mind hasn't changed:

Stocks, Real Estate and Oil Are Overvalued, Marc Faber Says

Why rising inflation will trigger a bond market rout

Cambodia Starts to Beckon Private Equity
For investors, Cambodia could be the next Vietnam

The last is interesting. I have suspected for some time that Dr Faber lives in northern Thailand, not simply to hide in Shangri-La but to be nearer to the places where real bargains may be found, and so that his hunches can be informed by personal networking and under-the-radar experience. Quirky and fast-moving, he would not be the man to manage a large institutional fund: I think his lightning ex-ski champ reflexes demand more challenge.

An after-thought: if you do think cash is best, there's still the question of which currency.

Is it OK to have principles?

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis resigns his Parliamentary seat to fight a by-election on the issue of civil liberty in Britain, and Michael White in the Guardian plays the sneering curmudgeon; parti pris?

UPDATE

Someone put the text of Mr Davis' speech as a comment to Michael White's piece. Here are a couple of extracts:

This Counter Terrorism Bill will in all likelihood be rejected by the House of Lords... But because the impetus behind it is political, the government will be tempted to use the Parliament Act...
It has no democratic mandate to do this...

... I am just a piece in this chess game.

Folly? Vanity? My eye (and Betty Martin).

Are free trade and small government the answer?

Liberal economists argue consistently for free trade, libertarians argue constantly for smaller government. We can easily see the faults of over-regulation and the centralisation of power.

But what would happen to the poorest if we really did move towards laissez-faire capitalism? I don't mean the poor in India and China, who are currently benefiting from open markets; I mean the poorest in the USA and UK. Would things really sort themselves out to the good of all?

Or would we find that we'd leapt from the frying pan into the fire?

An appetite for investment risk?

How does the quote from Jonathan Wilmot in the previous post sit with the new Risk Appetite Investable Index fund his firm launched last month?

Just curious.

Cashhhhhhh... don't tell anybody

"There is now the distinct possibility of a simultaneous sell-off in global bonds, equities and commodities," said Jonathan Wilmot from Credit Suisse.

... reports Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Telegraph (I must start to read the big-words papers). Anyhow, this is what Marc Faber said months ago. Short-term, I have a feeling DE is still on for the 'flation hors d'oeuvre, with IN as the entree.

By the way, are any managers of collective investment funds actually saying the type of thing Wilmot is saying, to their clients (not the big, favoured ones, the others, the Moms 'n' Pops)?

(htp: Karl Denninger)

Please read this man

David Parsley writes in today's Sunday Express, a piece titled "Homes Panic Is A Bank Ploy" (not yet available on the Net for free, but look for it again soon). The content is self-evident, but please, read and believe him. Spread the word. Find more such pieces by optimistic counter-contrarians, and publicise them. Blow away all that negative thinking.

That way, I may have more time to sell my house at current ridiculous market prices, which for personal reasons I can't yet.

Does State expenditure inflate the market?

Charles Moore comments on Jonathan Ross' £18m 3-year deal with the BBC:

... even if it is a wonderful idea to pay Mr Ross roughly 30 times more (annualised) than the Prime Minister and 20 times more than the Governor of the Bank of England out of what is, after all, tax, it is obvious rubbish that this does not push up the market. If the BBC were not competing in this field, Mr Ross’s price to commercial channels would plummet.

Deplorably, Mr Ross is unbelievably coarse, which sends a message to his (relatively) young audience. Peter Hitchens suspects that this crassness is a cynically avaricious pretence:

Ross talks on TV in an arrogant sort of loutspeak.

I wonder if he talks like that when he’s dealing with his lawyers and his accountants.

Now that would be a fly-on-the-wall documentary to screen next to Ross' show.

So, celeb wages inflated and manners undermined by spendthrift public services.

Meanwhile, Liz Jones takes a very laudable interest in the young, especially those rotting away in the complex trap of social security benefits. And again, a market may be distorted by public money:

Her room is damp, sparsely furnished, has a stinking, threadbare carpet, and Paris mostly sits on her bed, terrified to walk to the shared bathroom in case one of the boys who slouches around outside harasses her.

Drugs are dealt openly in the corridors. Each week, ‘the council’ (I’ve never heard her use the words ‘government’, ‘Labour’ or ‘Gordon Brown’) pays the £330 rent (yes, that is £1,430 a month, more than my mortgage repayments) for her box room direct to the private landlord; on top of that, Paris is given £47 a week to live on.

That is, she was, until the council got wind she had got off her backside and found a job, just three days a week, in a clothes shop in Oxford Street (she would have loved, she told me once, to have been a fashion designer).

Although her pay is less than her rent, she has been bombarded with letters and forms, too complicated for anyone, let alone someone with dyslexia, to fill in, demanding six months’ back rent.

She is now being threatened with eviction.

The negative reinforcement is too obvious to summarise, but look at this young girl's rent as a proportion of her total "income": 87.5%!

Compare that with this, from the Guardian in December 2007:

The CML said a typical first-time buyer paid 20.6% of their income to service their mortgage in October, up from 20.4% in September, while for those moving house it rose to 17.6% from 17.5%. The figures are the highest recorded since 1991 and 1992.

There are now very many people (about 4 million) on some form of housing benefit. Is it not possible that rents, and consequently housing valuations, have been grossly distorted by such interventions? Isn't there some other way to house people without creating opportunities for modern Rachman types?

For the record - a British MP speaking in Parliament on the EU's legislative control of the UK

From Hansard's records of Parliamentary debates (click title above for link) (htp: Peter Hitchens in the Mail On Sunday newspaper):

3 Jun 2008 : Column 644
Members of Parliament (Pay and Responsibilities)
3.35 pm

Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Senior Salaries Review Body to take account of transfers of powers between Parliament and European Union institutions when making recommendations on the pay of Members of Parliament; and for connected purposes.

In virtually every occupation, it is recognised that pay should reflect responsibilities. If people receive more responsibilities, they get higher pay. If they move to a post with fewer responsibilities, they expect to receive lower pay. The same should be true of Parliament. If, as is contemplated under the Bill that deals with the European constitutional treaty, this House hands over more of its powers to European institutions, MPs’ remuneration should reflect that diminution of their responsibilities. If, on the other hand, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has promised, Parliament regains some powers, such as those over social and employment policies that were conceded in the Amsterdam treaty, that should be reflected positively when MPs’ pay is assessed.

This issue is important because Parliament is considering transferring a significant slice of its powers on energy, foreign policy, immigration and several other areas to European institutions under the Lisbon treaty. A substantial transfer of powers has already occurred under previous treaties, and this House has ceded powers on a lesser scale to devolved Parliaments and to the judiciary under the Human Rights Act 1998. The German Government estimate that more than 80 per cent. of German laws are now decided at a European level. Our own Trade Minister has admitted that

“around half of all UK legislation with an impact on business, charities and the voluntary sector stems from legislation agreed by Ministers in Brussels.”—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 29 June 2006; Vol. 683, c. WA184.]

I have heard hon. Members claim that only 10 per cent. of our laws are made in Brussels—a figure that they attribute to a Library paper, but that paper says no such thing. It remarks that the number of statutory instruments laid under the European Communities Act 1972 amounts to about 10 per cent. of all the statutory instruments passed by the House, but points out that EU statutory instruments typically enact a whole directive, which is often the equivalent of an Act of primary legislation, whereas domestic statutory instruments implement regulations. To compare the two is like comparing apples and pears, or rather pumpkins and pears given the disparity in their size. It also ignores the most plentiful fruit that comes from the European orchard—regulations, most of which are never considered by this House and which hon. Members find difficult even to obtain.

The total scale of EU legislation is enormous. Last year, the EU passed 177 directives, which are more or less equivalent to our Acts of Parliament, and 2,033 regulations, which become directly enforceable in this place, not to mention 1,045 decisions. Even that huge tally ignores the extent to which our powers are diminished by our inability to do things that we would like to do because they would conflict with European law. When I was a Minister, officials would frequently say, “No, Minister, you can’t do that”, because something was within the exclusive competence of the European Union.

If the Lisbon treaty goes through, a further salami slice of powers will be transferred to the European institutions. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who served with distinction on the European constitutional convention and who knows more about the implications of the Lisbon treaty than almost anyone else in the House, except for my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), recently told the Fabian Society:
“If the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified and devolution...continues apace, in fifteen to twenty years this House of Commons will have only two functions...to raise taxes and...to authorise war”.
She went on to say that we are making “fewer and fewer decisions that matter” to people’s daily lives, and that she could not tell her constituents that the buck stops here.

Admittedly, declaring wars kept Parliament pretty busy under the previous Prime Minister, as does raising taxes under the current incumbent of No. 10. However, our constituents want us to wage fewer wars, raise fewer taxes and focus on the huge range of issues that affect their daily lives, over which they assume and hope that we retain the powers that they pay us to exercise on their behalf.

Few voters, or even Members of this House, fully realise how many powers have been, or are about to be, transferred elsewhere. There are three reasons for this. The first is that Governments of all persuasions deny that any significant powers are being transferred. The second is that, once powers have been transferred, Ministers engage in a charade of pretence that they still retain those powers. Even when introducing measures that they are obliged to bring in as a result of an EU directive, they behave as though the initiative were their own.
Indeed, Ministers often end up nobly accepting responsibility for laws that they actually opposed when they were being negotiated in Brussels. They took the rap for costly and troublesome home improvement packs—which have added to the woes of the housing market—even though they were actually mandated by a Brussels directive. Similarly, they took the rap for fortnightly bin collections, hospital reconfiguration and a number of other measures, even though they had all been triggered by directives from Brussels. At first sight, it is odd that Ministers—who, in this Government, are not normally slow to blame others—should nobly defend and accept responsibility for Brussels’ legislative progeny, in whose conception they have often played little part. They prefer to claim paternity rather than admit impotence—the fate of the cuckold across the ages.

The third reason is that the transfer of power occurs not all in one go but by a process of salami-slicing, and it is easy to close our eyes to what is happening. As a result, there is a danger of Parliament sleepwalking into becoming little more than a provincial assembly. If that is what is happening, we should be paid accordingly—just as district councillors get less than county councillors, and county councillors get less than Members of the devolved Assemblies.

I do not have a masochistic desire to see MPs’ pay cut, but I want still less to see our powers diminish. The best way to prevent the latter might be to link pay to responsibilities. I do not know any Member of Parliament who entered Parliament to become financially better off. None the less, just as the prospect of being hanged in the morning concentrates the mind wonderfully, so the prospect of finding our pockets a bit emptier at the end of the month—and having to justify that to our spouses—might wake up those who have shut their eyes to what is happening. If we do not face up to what is happening, we will find ourselves being progressively relegated to what Bagehot called the dignified part of the constitution. As Tony Benn once rhetorically asked:
“I wonder how long it took for the yeomen of the guard to realise that they were no longer part of the regular army.”

My Bill is designed to provide a wake-up call whenever we risk going further down that route, although I accept that it has little chance of becoming law in this Parliament. Those who support the transfer of power from here to supranational institutions should logically accept that our pay should reflect the diminution of our responsibilities. But, strangely, all the Euro-enthusiasts whom I asked to sponsor the Bill declined to do so without explaining why. Too many Members are happy to avert their eyes from what is happening, so long as they retain the prestige and emoluments that were appropriate to a fully sovereign Parliament. Turkeys do not vote for Christmas.

If any Labour Members oppose the Bill, I hope that they will come out and object to it here and now, rather than trying to dispose of it by subterfuge one Friday morning. I look forward to hearing them argue for having their cake and eating it. I doubt that they would convince many of their constituents that, unlike any in other occupation, MPs’ pay should be divorced from their responsibilities.

Hugh Bayley (City of York) (Lab): We have just heard a witty and amusing speech. I was not aware that this issue was going to be raised today, but I was sitting in the Chamber listening to Transport questions and suddenly the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) rose to his feet and made this proposal. He said that he had asked a number of Euro-enthusiasts to back his Bill; I regard myself as a Euro-enthusiast, but he did not ask me. Had he done so, he would have given me advance notice that he was going to make this nonsensical proposal, and I would have been able to prepare a better speech. However, I shall certainly try to rise to the challenge that he has thrown across the Chamber.

The right hon. Gentleman argues that the volume of legislation to be considered by the House will decline as more and more powers are passed across to the European Parliament, but he knows as well as any other Member that the volume of legislation considered by this House continues to increase year by year. We have never suggested that that is an argument for increasing Members’ pay pro rata—

Stephen Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): That is a good idea.

Hugh Bayley: I note what my hon. Friend says. Nor should the passing of some legislative powers from this House to Europe be an argument for moving in the opposite direction.
I must say seriously to Members of the House that I do not think that the European Union provides a good model for the remuneration of Members of Parliament. I have just checked with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who is a sponsor of the Bill and well versed in EU matters, and she tells me that EU spend is about 0.5 per cent. of EU wealth. The spend of our national Government is probably about 40 per cent. of our national wealth, which is 50 or 60 times as much as the EU spend.

If the right hon. Gentleman is arguing that there is a serious transfer of financial responsibility from the House to Europe, that is just not based on fact. The Lisbon treaty not only does not change that fact, but it delegates some powers back to national Parliaments. The public want to see more information about MPs’ pay and allowances, but they would get less information if our pay was tied into and buried under bureaucracy from Europe. Surprisingly to my way of thinking, the Bill is proposed by a staunch opponent of Europe whom I would have thought could see that point himself.

The right hon. Gentleman is making a political point about Europe, not a serious proposal for greater transparency in the pay of Members of Parliament and greater accountability to the public for Members of this Parliament. I hope that the Bill does not receive its First Reading.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Lilley, Mr. Michael Ancram, Mr. Peter Bone, Mr. Graham Brady, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. James Gray, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. John Redwood, Ms Gisela Stuart and Mr. Charles Walker.
Members of Parliament (pay and Responsibilities)
Mr. Peter Lilley accordingly presented a Bill to require the Senior Salaries Review Body to take account of transfers of powers between Parliament and European Union institutions when making recommendations on the pay of Members of Parliament; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 October, and to be printed [Bill 113].

Stock up your larder

Reading "The Grumbler" today, I was struck by Rosie Boycott's article on our vulnerability to oil and food shortages, particularly now that so much of our food supply is dependent on the supermarkets' just-in-time logistics.

I believe the Mormons have a rule that members of their church must have 12 months' security set up for their families - I remember an old colour supplement article with a picture of a Mormon sitting on a year's supply of baked beans. Doesn't seem so daft now - and it's worth remembering why landlocked Utah is the Seagull State.

More generally, there is now a feeling that the government has failed to prepare for material and financial shocks. Genesis 41 has been obscurely referenced by George Osborne ("Our competitors used the fat years to prepare for the lean years"), though back in 2002 Treasury Committee member Dr Nick Palmer was using the same analogy, but in Gordon Brown's favour ("in the first years [Gordon Brown] repaid a lot of government debt so as to give us a really strong basis for difficult times as and when they arose").

On the financial front, I think the government cracked in 2003, when extra liquidity (simplified graph here) began to be released into the system, over-hydrating the housing market. Radix malorum est cupiditas, and that applies here if you interpret "cupiditas" in the general sense of over-attachment to worldly things, especially to power and its accompaniments.

Buffett eyes Europe

A most interesting article by Matthew Lynn in this week's Spectator. It's certainly worth reading in full, but here's a few points and questions arising:

• Buffett's got $35 billion in cash to go a-shopping, and thinks Europe is more promising than the emerging markets - partly because Europe is already in recession.
• Have European companies endured because many have remained family-owned? Is the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism too erratic and destructive?
• How important are hunches in investing? Lynn says, "Buffett doesn’t believe in extended due diligence or complex financial models. He chooses his investments based on what he feels about the people in charge, and whether he likes their products." And recently, George Soros said that for all his research, he pays attention to his own psychosomatic backaches.
• How much vital business information is conveyed - or betrayed - by tone of voice and body language? Mark McCormack said that he liked to go to meetings on his own, so that he wouldn't have to worry about unconscious non-verbal signals given away by an underling's reactions. For the same reason, he loved the opposition to come with company. Is the most important bit of investment reserach the site visit?

How many trillions?

A while ago, the pessimistic figure being discussed was $1 trillion of losses; yesterday the FT looked at the prospect of $5 trillion of liabilities emerging from off-balance obscurity, to lurch back onto already-weak bank balance sheets.

There comes a point when it gets so dire it starts to become funny. Ah well, time to clean house.

A splendid rant

Karl Denninger lays all about him vigorously today. Where are the Brit bloggers to match him? Any nominations for UK financial Jeremiah of the Year?

Democracy - a cut flower

I think we are not a democracy, but a competing selection of complex oligarchies with a mechanism for periodic bloodless overthrow.

I put the above comment about the British system on the ever-elegant Angels in Marble. Is it too cynical?

What does democracy mean here? What should it be like?

Is democracy the best system, or should we turn to authoritarianism, which seems to be working for the Russians and Chinese, as an increasing number of opinion-formers seem to be suggesting?

Is that happening anyway? Are the people watching the bottom rung of the ladder of power rise out of reach?

Why interest rates should increase - and (IMO) probably won't

Hundreds of millions of Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese, East European and other emerging market workers and many millions of enterprises have entered the global marketplace as suppliers of goods and services that are competitive with those produced by the UK (so-called "core" goods and services) and as demanders of commodities, especially energy, metals and food (so-called "non-core" goods). As a result, the price of energy, food, metals and other commodities, relative to that of manufactures and services, has risen.

Willem Buiter gives a beautifully clear and concise view of the factors affecting inflation and argues for an increase in lending rates.

But the hard, narrow path upward is often avoided, especially in "democracies" where the governing party feels its hold on power slipping.

Besides, a depreciating pound is helping maintain orders for what remains of our manufacturing industry. Why halt the pound's fall?

Maybe we should start doing our FTSE charts in Euros, so we can see the real effect of rotting currency. Like Alice and the Red Queen, when the stockmarkets stand still, they are actually falling back, once you price them against the rest of the world's money.

I note that Mish used the Red Queen's Race analogy two years ago, and presciently outlined the monetary and economic dilemma for the USA - and, I suspect, the UK:

Bernanke is trapped in "Wonderland" but unlike Alice has no way out.Bernanke gets to choose between hyperinflation and deflation. The moment he can not run fast enough, the US economy will implode. If he runs too fast, the value of the US dollar as well as the FED's power will both come to a very abrupt stop.

A long way to go yet

Equities are not cheap enough and need to decline by at least 50 percent.

These and other observations recently from Morgan Stanley's Teun Draaisma are reported here in FT Alphaville.

The return of the gods

I perceive a theme in public opinion these days, regarding democracy. Taki has a piece in the Spectator this week, saying that even in ancient Greece it was empire and aristocracy. Highly intelligent professionals like Don Boudreaux boast of their refusal to vote. It seems that people think the system will continue to run more or less for our benefit, even if we take no part in it; just as your local shop will always be there, even though you very rarely patronise it.

Yes, rule us as you wish, as long as our kettles and TVs work, as long as there is petrol for our cars and the trains run on time. What we want is broth for our bellies, now, like Esau.

We may have to re-learn our lessons the hard way, as Kipling warned... and Cavafy:

Without consideration, without pity, without shame
they have built big and high walls around me.

And now I sit here despairing.
I think of nothing else: this fate gnaws at my mind;

for I had many things to do outside.
Ah, why didn’t I observe them when they were building the walls?

But I never heard the noise or the sound of the builders.
Imperceptibly they shut me out of the world.

Oil speculation?

Pace Nick Drew's comment on the previous post, Jim in San Marcos reckons there is indeed influential speculation in the oil market.

But Karl Denninger reckons it's just money looking for a home, like the boll weevil, and ultimately deflation caused by credit writedowns should reverse the trend.