Paste your Google Webmaster Tools verification code here

Don’t believe the myths: Capitalism has performed well since the financial crisis

Don’t believe the myths: Capitalism has performed well since the financial crisis

Ten years ago, the financial crisis began to grip the Western economies. During the course of 2007, GDP growth slowed markedly everywhere. By the end of 2008, output was in free fall.

A key theme in economic commentary is the sluggishness of the subsequent recovery of the developed economies.

The picture is not quite as bad as it is usually painted. True, last week the Office for National Statistics announced a dip in UK growth in the first quarter of this year. But from 2009, the trough of the recession, to 2016, GDP growth averaged 2.0 per cent a year.  Not exactly a stellar performance. But from 1973, the year prior to the major oil price shock, to 2007, the British economy expanded by just 2.3 per cent a year on average. The contrast between the two periods in the US is slightly greater. From 1973 to 2007, growth averaged 3.0 per cent a year, and since 2009 it has been 2.1 per cent.

There is a very stark contrast with the experience of the 1930s, the last time there was a global financial crisis. This time is different, things have only got better. The recovery may be slower than desirable, but it has been much more widespread than in the years following the Great Depression of the 1930s.

A decisive indicator is the length of time it took not just for growth to resume, but for the previous peak level of GDP to be regained.  So in the UK, for example, the economy started to grow again in 2010. But it was not until 2013 that there had been enough growth for the economy to get back to its 2007 size.

Looking at a group of 18 developed economies, which includes all the main and medium sized ones, GDP had regained its previous peak within 3 years in no fewer than 8 of them. By 2016, everyone in the group except Finland, Italy and Spain had a GDP which exceeded its previous peak.

Three years after output began to fall in 1930, not a single economy had managed to regain its 1929 level of output. Even by 1938, output was below its 1929 level in Austria, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Spain.

Perhaps Keynes’ most powerful insight was why the slump was so prolonged. He developed the concept of “animal spirits”, which are not a mathematically based prediction of the future, but the sentiment of the narratives which companies form about the future. He wrote: “the essence of the situation is to be found in the collapse of animal spirits…. this may be so complete that no practicable reduction in the rate of interest will be enough.”

Zero interest rates and low growth! Keynes got there before us.

Still, capitalism has performed much better in the aftermath of the financial crisis of the late 2000s than it did in the crisis of the early 1930s. Animal spirits may not be buoyant, but they are in much better shape than in the 1930s.

As published in City AM Wednesday 2nd May 2017

Image: Day 20 Occupy Wall Street by David Shankbone is licensed under CC by 2.0
Read More

The OBR shouldn’t be expected to forecast so far into the future

The OBR shouldn’t be expected to forecast so far into the future

Economic forecasts have become a political hot potato. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) predictions, presented as part of the chancellor’s Autumn Statement, have put the government under pressure. The OBR has revised down its forecast for GDP growth over the next four years by 1.4 percentage points.

The real controversy is that their gloomy projections for GDP and government finances have been put down to Brexit. In the simple phrase of the OBR: “Any likely Brexit outcome would lead to lower potential output”. Lower output leads to lower tax receipts, and worse government finances.

To be fair, the OBR does say that “in current circumstances the uncertainty around the forecasts is even greater than it would be in normal times”. But just how great is this uncertainty?

Studies are published from time to time about the accuracy of economic forecasts. The best set of records is kept in America, though less systematic evidence for the UK shows that the track records are very similar in the two countries.

The Survey of Professional Forecasters (SPF) collects the forecasts on variables such as GDP growth and inflation from a wide range of forecasters. Its database goes back almost 50 years to 1968. Just one quarter ahead, the predictions are on average completely accurate. “One quarter ahead” means the next three months, so it would currently refer to the period January to March 2017.

This average accuracy conceals errors in most forecasts for any particular quarter, the errors cancel out over time. For example, the quarter from July to September 2008 marked the onset of the major recession of the financial crisis. At an annual rate, GDP fell by 1.9 per cent compared to the previous quarter. But the SPF predictions made in the April to June period for July to September were for growth of 0.7 per cent.

The SPF predictions account for only 25 per cent of the variability around the average. When we go four quarters ahead – just one year – the predictions are even worse. Negative growth, for example, has never been predicted, even though there have been 26 quarters of negative growth since 1968.

The track record, which has not got any better over time, shows that in relatively calm times, forecasts just one year ahead have a reasonable degree of accuracy. But when major changes are taking place, just when they are really needed, they have none.

The OBR cannot be blamed for producing predictions four years ahead when the track record of the forecasting community shows them to be of no value. That is what George Osborne mandated it to do when he set the independent body up in 2010. But four years ahead, almost any set of predictions is just as good – or bad – as another.

It would be much better to abolish the OBR and restore responsibility to the Treasury and, ultimately, to the politicians. If they get it wrong and are too optimistic, we can at least kick them out.

Paul Ormerod 

As published in City AM on Wednesday 30th November 

Image: Psychic by clairewinterphotography is licensed under CC by 2.0 

Read More

Forward guidance is just another delusion foisted on us by mainstream macro

Forward guidance is just another delusion foisted on us by mainstream macro

The governor of the Bank of EnglandMark Carney, was on good form last week when he appeared at the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons.

Asked what “forward guidance” meant, he answered smoothly: “The thing about forward guidance is that it is guidance that is forward. Which is not to say it is meant to be in any way accurate. Indeed, it would be surprising if it were. The most important thing about forward guidance is that the underlying economic determinants should be correct, not that it should be helpful.” Cue collective bafflement of the assembled MPs!

But the statement actually tells us a great deal about how mainstream macroeconomists believe the economy operates.

“Forward guidance” has been the key element in policy-making by the Bank since Carney himself introduced it in the summer of 2013. It is meant to give guidance about the economic circumstances in which the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) will start to raise interest rates.

The first attempt was certainly not in any way accurate. The governor stated that the MPC would not consider raising interest rates until unemployment fell to 7 per cent, which he predicted would take about three years. It took less than six months. By January 2014, the rate of unemployment had fallen to 6.9 per cent.

This just seems to have been a piece of poor analysis by the Bank. But it does not detract from the more fundamental reason economists think that forward guidance will not usually turn out to be accurate.

The forward guidance is deliberately based on the assumption that behaviour will not change. Yet the mere fact that the central bank makes a pronouncement about the future might induce people to alter their behaviour. And if behaviour changes, the forward guidance might very well prove to be inaccurate.

It is actually a sensible addition to the Bank’s armoury of policy levers. Properly managed, it might enable the Bank to nudge behaviour in directions which it believes will give a better outcome than would otherwise be the case.

The final part of Carney’s statement appears the most gnomic: “The most important thing about forward guidance is that the underlying economic determinants should be correct, not that it should be helpful”.

The governor meant that forward guidance should be given on the basis of a model of the economy which is correct.

In each of the various different macroeconomic models which exist, the assumption is made that consumers and firms form expectations about the future as if their particular model, and no-one else’s, were correct. Yet despite many years of intensive research, macroeconomists still do not agree on what constitutes the model of how the economy works.

There is a challenging academic literature on the theory of how people go about learning the correct model of the economy. But in practice economists are unable to apply it to themselves. We might reasonably conclude that it is the theory which is wrong. Forward guidance is just the latest technocratic delusion foisted on us by mainstream macroeconomics.

As Published in City AM on Wednesday 23rd November

Image: Mark Carney by The Financial Stability Board is licensed under CC BY 2.0

Read More

Brexit was the final straw: it’s time to scrap the IMF

Brexit was the final straw: it’s time to scrap the IMF

Sports fans will all be familiar with the commentator who almost always gets things wrong. “Arsenal are very much on top here” he – it is invariably a “he” – will pronounce, or “Root is looking very settled”, only for the opposition to score a goal immediately and for the Yorkshireman to be clean bowled. In economics, a similar role is played by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

In the middle of July, Remain fanatics had a field day. “The IMF has slashed its forecasts for the UK economy for next year after Brexit”, crowed the Financial Times. Maurice Obstfeld, the Fund’s chief economist, claimed that Brexit “has thrown a spanner in the works”. Global growth projections for 2017 were cut back, but most of all for the UK.

But on the first day of September, the IMF was forced to admit that growth in Britain had, in a splendidly bureaucratic phrase, “surprised on the upside”. On the same day came the news that manufacturing activity in August had posted its biggest monthly rise in 25 years. On Monday this week, the Markit purchasing managers’ index for the service sector registered the biggest monthly increase in its 20 year history.

The IMF has real form. In 1998, East Asia was experiencing a major economic crisis. Yet in May 1997, the IMF was predicting a continuation of very strong growth in most countries for the year ahead: 7 per cent for Thailand, 8 per cent for Indonesia and 8 per cent for Malaysia. They revised the projections down by December, but even these proved wildly optimistic, as the economies collapsed during 1998, registering a fall in output of over 15 per cent in Indonesia, for example, worse than America in the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Macroeconomics is the study of variables such as GDP which describe the economy at the aggregate level. Since the 1980s, it has been dominated by the concept of equilibrium. Highly mathematical models have been developed, resting on the premise that the economy can correct itself and absorb any shocks. Olivier Blanchard, the IMF’s previous chief economist, was a great enthusiast for this project. In August 2008, he published a paper which concluded with the claim “the state of macroeconomics is good”. Three weeks later, Lehman Brothers collapsed.

Apart from the European Commission itself, the IMF has been probably the biggest cheerleader for the euro. Since the inception of the single currency in 1999, a whole series of statements and technical articles from the IMF has eulogised its mystical benefits. At the end of July this year, the IMF’s own Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) was totally scathing of the Fund’s record on this. The top staff became impervious to other points of view and ignored warning signs of the financial crisis. In their view of the world, it simply could not happen.

The IMF exercises enormous influence and power. Yet its persistent ineptness makes England football managers look like world beaters. To add insult to injury, its staff enjoy tax free salaries. It’s time to close the Fund down and go back to the drawing board.

As published in CITY AM on Wednesday 7th September 2016

Image: Valsts kanceleja/ State Chancellery is licensed under CC BY 2.0

Read More

The only way could be down for shares – and Brexit is just the catalyst

The only way could be down for shares – and Brexit is just the catalyst

The Brexit vote creates many uncertainties, exciting or frightening depending on your predilection. One thing which is certain is that the Leave victory was delivered by the less-skilled sections of the electorate.

It seems part of a more general stirring up of what we might think of as the dispossessed, those who feel left behind by globalisation. In France the Front National, in the Netherlands Geert Wilders’s Party for Freedom, in Germany Alternative fur Deutschland – throughout Europe, in fact, these discontents receive an increasingly sympathetic hearing.

Equity markets have been very volatile and nervous in the face of the uncertainties which Brexit creates. But there may be a good reason for this from a longer-term perspective.

Compared to 30 years ago, stock prices both in Europe and the US are at much higher levels. A key reason underpinning this is the shift from wages to profits as a proportion of national income which has taken place. The share of wages in national income has fallen, and that of profits has risen. Profits have grown faster than the economy as a whole, and so the potential future dividend stream from shares has gone up. As a result, shares have become more valuable.

Measuring the share of wages in national income is not as straightforward as it might seem. Should it, for example, include self-employed income or the remuneration of chief executives? In February 2015, the OECD, along with the International Labour Organisation, published a detailed study of trends in the G20 economies since the early 1990s. No matter which measure was used, the data show that the wage share declined significantly in almost every member state of the G20, and nowhere was there a significant trend increase.

The changes themselves may appear small. On one measure, for example, the wage share fell from an average of 69 per cent of national income in 1990 to 65 per cent now. But in terms of, say, the UK economy, four percentage points represents nearly £80bn.

More recently, there has been a levelling off in the downward trend. The distribution of income between wages and profits has been stabilising. Does Brexit signify a tipping point, when the trends of the last few decades might start to be reversed?

The economic orthodoxy, not just in theory but in practice, has been one of open borders for both labour and capital. Both must be allowed to flow freely. But there is an increasing groundswell of public opinion against this. Donald Trump, for example, supports a 20 per cent tax on all imported goods to protect American jobs. Bernie Sanders has opposed every free trade deal which the United States has negotiated, and vowed to “take on corporations which take their jobs to China”.

It is much easier to protect wages in a world of tariff barriers and restrictions on capital movements. Boris Johnson sees Britain as a global entrepreneur, but most Brexit supporters do not. Brexit would not be the cause of a long-term downward revision to share prices, but more a symbol of why it’s happening.

As Published in CITY on Wednesday 29th June 2016

Image: The British Question by Andrew Gustar is licensed under CC BY 2.0

Read More

The poor state of macro justifies scepticism with Brexit disaster forecasts

The poor state of macro justifies scepticism with Brexit disaster forecasts

David Cameron has tried to frame the Brexit debate into one based on economics.  Standing with him is the overwhelming consensus of economists themselves, from academics to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).  Their pronouncements are not having that much impact on the electorate if the polls are to be believed.

There is justification for this public scepticism. The arguments relate to what might happen to the economy at the aggregate, or macro level.  How much will GDP rise or fall, how many jobs will be lost or created, what will happen to trade, to inflation?

At the individual level, or micro level as economists call it, a great deal of progress has been made in the past twenty years or so. But at the overall, macro level, mainstream economics has if anything gone backwards. Concepts such as rational behaviour and equilibrium have been incorporated into the thinking of macro economists, at the very time that their micro colleagues are challenging them.

Olivier Blanchard, until recently chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, has real form on the perils of believing orthodox macro economics. In August 2008, for example, just three weeks before Lehman Brothers collapsed and the worst recession since the 1930s burst on the world, he published a paper claiming that the state of macroeconomics was “good”.

The relationship between inflation and unemployment is a central building block of macroeconomics.  Economists even have a special phrase for it, the so-called ‘Phillips curve’, named after the LSE based academic who discovered it in the 1950s. The curve in theory says: the lower is unemployment, the higher is inflation.  This is the subject of Blanchard’s latest offering in the American Economic Review.

The Phillips curve is not just of academic interest. The Monetary Policy Committee, for example, has an inflation target, and unless they know what the curve looks like, they are not going to be able to do a very good job.

Blanchard sets out a formidable looking mathematical model. He then employs statistical techniques in conjunction with the theory, in the same way that, for example, the UK Treasury published one with their estimates of the trade costs of Brexit, and claims that “the US Phillips curve is alive and well”.

Up to a point, Lord Copper. For one of Blanchard’s conclusions is that “The standard error of the residual in the relation is large, especially in comparison to the low level of inflation”. Translated into English, this simply means that his model does a poor job at explaining what has been going on. This is hardly surprising.  The unemployment rate peaked in the US at just under 10 per cent in 2010. Since then it has halved to stand at 5.0 per cent.  But inflation is slightly lower, at 1.2 per cent compared to the 1.6 per cent average in 2010.  The story is just the same in the UK and Germany. Since the crisis, unemployment has fallen sharply, and inflation has edged down. Macro models are by far the weakest part of economics.

Paul Ormerod

As published in CITY AM on Wednesday 8th June

Image: Exit by Shannon Clark is licensed under CC BY 2.0

Read More