Outside the Box

Three Competing Theories

July 18, 2011

Long-time readers are familiar with the wisdom of Lacy Hunt. He is a regular feature of Outside the Box. He writes a quarterly piece for Hoisington Asset Management in Austin, and this is one of his better ones. Read it twice.

“While the massive budget deficits and the buildup of federal debt, if not addressed, may someday result in a substantial increase in interest rates, that day is not at hand. The U.S. economy is too fragile to sustain higher interest rates except for interim, transitory periods that have been recurring in recent years. As it stands, deflation is our largest concern …”

As I write, Europe is starting to unravel. This is going to be much worse than 2008, at least as far as Europe is concerned, and odds are high that it will be very bad for the US. And the markets are still acting as if the problems in Europe can be resolved. The recent bank stress tests were a joke, as they assumed no Greek or Irish defaults. This simply can’t be. There is a banking crisis of massive proportions in our future.

As Lacy notes, we are testing the economic theories of three (I think von Mises should be added) dead white guys. The dominant theories are being shown to be wrong. The sooner we acknowledge that the better. But don’t hold your breath waiting for the major economic schools to come to grips with their failure.

This is a real problem, and there is just no way to avoid it. I wish I had more positive things to say.

Your trying to figure this out analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Like Outside the Box?

Then you'll love John's premium publication, Over My Shoulder. Each week, after sorting through vast amounts of economic, political, and investing news, John sends Over My Shoulder subscribers his pick of the week's most important commentary and data.

It's your opportunity to get the news John thinks matters most to your finances.

Learn More About Over My Shoulder


Three Competing Theories

The three competing theories for economic contractions are: 1) the Keynesian, 2) the Friedmanite, and 3) the Fisherian. The Keynesian view is that normal economic contractions are caused by an insufficiency of aggregate demand (or total spending). This problem is to be solved by deficit spending. The Friedmanite view, one shared by our current Federal Reserve Chairman, is that protracted economic slumps are also…

Discuss This

17 comments

We welcome your comments. Please comply with our Community Rules.

Comments

Page 1 of 2  1 2 > 

Greg Strebel

July 24, 2011, 2:34 a.m.

Some serious oversights in the argument.  Money supply expansion (credit creation) which is not supported by real wealth, that is, by production of actual real goods, is unavoidably simply the creation of new claims to existing wealth, and therefore is inflationary. 
Savings are, by definition, unconsumed wealth.  It is important to recognize that by saving money wages, one is deferring consumption, freeing existing products to be used by another entity who/which is borrowing those savings. 
Investment is the principal mechanism of wealth creation, using savings to create capital goods, for example, with which to create new goods.  This is the basis of the economic identity Savings = Investment.  Investment is the process by which wealth grows geometrically and raises the standard of living of the entire population.  There is no simplistic multiplier to investment but it can be readily recognized that borrowing for consumption reduces the pool of savings available for investment.  This is true whether the borrower is an individual or a government. 
It is on this point I take specific exception with Mr. Lacy’s contention that “military hardware, space exploration, and infrastructure programs” have positive multipliers.  This is a generalization which is largely false, typically ignoring opportunity costs, that is, the economic benefits which would have accrued if the resources consumed in these activities had been devoted to activities prioritized by projected economic returns in a free market.  The “bridge to nowhere” is a good example of an infrastructure program which is actually wealth destroying, with a negative return on investment.  It should be obvious that most munitions fall in the same category.
The argument that we will not see higher interest rates because the economy is “too fragile to sustain” them is a political statement rather than a statement of fact.  Greece is the current poster child illustrating that facts will overtake political preferences.  Greece cannot stand bond rates of 30%, but that is what they have been facing none-the-less.  The administration and the Federal Reserve will try to find a gap between the Scyllan cliffs of monetary expansion (QE aka money printing to purchase treasury securities) and the Charybdisian cliffs of currency revulsion and hyperinflation, but Ben and Tim will not find one.  The situation is intractable and will not be resolved by financial repression, the artificial suppression of interest rates (and wages) to below zero real rates to reduce the real burden of accumulated debt.  This is absolutely clear from the fact that the required difference between real and official CPI is already too big to hide. 
The concluding contention that deflation is the biggest concern and that long bonds are an appropriate strategy may be accurate in the very short term, but in the medium term is going to be proven to be a grave error.  Yes, a lot of money is going to evaporate when debt defaults cascade, but that does not make deflation inevitable.  The government is politically constrained to a course of money printing, albeit in acute spasms, and, in short order, the dwindling purchasing power of the dollar will result in a flood of the $5-odd Trillion of overseas dollar holdings being liquidated to acquire real goods while the dollars have any purchasing power left.

Ty Thompson

July 20, 2011, 1:16 a.m.

Low interest rates just guarantees more of the same, finance is speculation on future profits. As technology develops faster, this becomes much more of a risk. The new machine is suddenly obsolete and the profit projections no longer hold. You’re forced to eat losses running it or expand and buy a newer machine. So long as finance is the main funding of business, we will see instability.
In a high interest rate environment most investments are made with profits. Profitable businesses expand and those that aren’t don’t. The only risks are operational costs and marketability of your product. This environment may not engender explosive growth but it will be to the positive. Any losses had are against profits already generated so it does not hinder future growth(in aggregate).
The recent polls of small businesses showed that lack of credit was not hurting their plans to expand, because few were looking to in this environment. What doesn’t show up are those that do not start businesses because of excess finance. There can be an opportunity for profit but many will not take it, why? Because any yahoo with a line of credit can duplicate their efforts. I would like to see a study of how many businesses were not started due to this.

Carlos Ledezma

July 19, 2011, 10:05 p.m.

Excellent analysis.  It is incomprehensible to me that most educated professionals fail to see the logic behind the arguments posted.  Faith in the dogma that record money supply is the single most valid method to spur demand is dangerous and perhaps capricious.  The entire subject is extremely complex, yet simple at the same time.  You must choose to keep it simple.  Markets depend on confidence, consumer spending levels depend on the confidence that secure jobs and growth provide. 

Unfortunately, we keep walking along the edge of the abyss, failing to comprehend that the simplest, most promising solution is the one that is the most painful.  The first graph is the most terrifying, because it looks as if US Debt as a percentage of GDP may actually begin STABILIZING at these levels. 

We may very well suffer what Spain and other countries are experiencing, an exodus of our most talented and intelligent minds to other countries, where they feel they can grow.

John Connelly

July 19, 2011, 8:56 p.m.

Jack Connelly
This a cogent and comprehensive economic over view.  However, politics will rule the short term ( next 5-10 years or so) and politicians embrace the short term, reelection, POV.  Hence, (1) print more money and inflate our debt away; (2) start a war( 3) hire more police to subdue the “riots in the streets” when Joe Average can not stand it any more (4) and/lastly, shout the big lie as our standard of living declines.
I am in the inflation/ QE3 QE4 etc camp, and then a right wing demigod will ride in to save the day

K Delay

July 19, 2011, 5:15 p.m.

What I find to be missing is how Hunt has come to the decision to be long on Treasury bonds, especially since he has just exposed to us the reasons why we should be fearful.  On what does he base this decision?  I can understand how Japan can get away with funding its own deficits for two decades, given its deflationary price environment and the reputed Japanese nationalist loyalty.  But will the US’s creditors act like Japanese pension fund managers and Japanese private-sector purchasers of Japanese bonds?  And is the US really headed for price deflation, a la Japanese?  I wonder about the first, and doubt the second.  I would put Bond-megeddon (sorry, couldn’t resist) at November 2012 if Obama is reelected.  If he is not, then maybe Hunt will win the bet.  (Side note: I just read that even the Japanese are beginning to buy gold out of vending machines, although I don’t know the volume.)

James Grauer

July 19, 2011, 3:36 p.m.

I whole heartedly agree with Lacy Hunt’s conclusion, but arrive at the same from a different prospective.

With the phasing out of QE II by the Federal Reserve, received wisdom from the economic cognoscenti suggests that medium to long term interest rates, specifically yields on U.S. Treasury debt, will substantially increase as the lagged effects of $1.5 trillion in new reserves explode the nationâ??s money supply resulting in rampant inflation.  This tract explores the antipodal view that a combination of no new quantitative easing programs by the Fed, a cinctured banking system, an improving dollar, and an attendant sell-off in risk assets (i.e. equities and commodities) will result in dramatically lower yields on this asset class.

For those interested in the full analysis, you can peruse it at www.stomaster.com/TheEndofQEII.pdf

Tim Malik

July 19, 2011, 3:24 p.m.

Talk about pulling numbers out of the air!  It is hard to believe her rift about a 2 to 3 negative multiplier for tax increases on the wealthy, which runs contrary to common sense and has no supportable evidence.  What is this…making it up as you go?  And first-time homebuyer programs and cash for clunkers exacerbate the problem?  She confuses temporary relief with run away fraud in the finance industry. 

By the time she gets into projections on modifying the tax code, I was in speed-read mode.  At 64%-of-GDP US debt, and the largest economy in the world, by far, we have plenty of gas to burn, if we did not have House of Representative members willing to slit the wrists of every American family before tapping the assets of the mega wealthy (mega wealthy proportionally greater than ever before). 

John - you can do better than publish such rubbish as this.

David Myhre

July 19, 2011, 12:52 p.m.

Cogent article up to the last sentence. Why anyone would want to be in long maturity Treasuries is inexplicable.  Yes, debt is a problem but the casino of derivatives “betting” on default is massive.  I’ve seen esimates of global derivatives ranging from $500T to over $1,000T.  Given global debt loads, default somewhere is IMO certain. Once the first domino falls, we have global economic and fiscal chaos.  There won’t be one cent of my assets in Treasuries.

There was a recent article in Stansberry’s forum adding the total national(public and private) debt service plus cost of government showing those two items taking up more than 50% of GDP.  Clearly the private sector is starving.  And government has become obese. Politics is dysfunctional.  There is NO political will to fix our problems.  It is all theater.

I believe the only investments worth holding are things that have intrinsic value.  Currency debasement is just getting started.  And when the next crisis happens, it will make the recent “credit crisis” look like a cloudy day at the beach.

Donal PHILBY

July 19, 2011, 11:59 a.m.

Well, you wouldn’t publish my comment, but please read:
Why Banks Arenâ??t Lending: The Silent Liquidity Squeeze
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25650

You owe it to your readers not to misinform them, while helping the banks destroy the economy, the real one.

Rodney Fitts

July 19, 2011, 11:44 a.m.

I’ll give you a fourth economist, Schumpeter. We will never be Japan because our demographics and our status as world currency will save us but we are looking more like England after WWII to me. With all this discussion about our debt issue no one has seemed to be able to voice the simple truth. The U.S. is not going to default nor will it be able to madly print money to monetize its way out. Our political system will not allow either outcome. Where do you go when there is nowhere to go? the answer is nowhere.
  This situation is going to go on for a very long time as our high cost of labor and lagging educational system continues to make us less competitive. My daughter’s department at work is being outsourced to India. That departments monthly employee expensee was 2.4 million. The same work will be done in India for $148,000. When I was in China recently, I had it explained simply to me by a manager of a US company who had moved its manufacturing to China, a guy who is a West Point graduate. He simply said “there is no justification to manufacture in the United States”.
  Were do we go from here? It’s not the end of the world but it is the end of an era. Eventually housing inventories will decline but it could take decades for prices to recover to 2006 levels and in that process this country will become aware of the fact that we longer can afford to maintain the life style and the presence in the world that we have in the past. I think the dye is cast (Schumpeter’s Creative Destruction). The good news, in a way, is that through this process of declining standard of living and decreased government spending our competitiveness will increase but, once again, it could be decades. I don’t think that will happen in my life time.
  Concerning the moderate term (in my life time) you can forget both techincal anaysis and rational investing. Their relevence has been greatly dimminshed, the game has changed. There are only two truths I feel I can rely on. Reversion to the mean and the fact that the more complex a system becomes, the more susceptible it will be to external shocks. The Schiller P/E ratio has stocks over priced 40% and this world has certainly become more complex. There will be opportunities to make money but they may be only short term and will certainly require a different style of investor than what we have seen in the past.

Page 1 of 2  1 2 >