Could The USA Fall Into The Japan 18 Year Stagflation Trap?

There are now increasing opinions that the US may go the way of Japan - in having a prolonged stagflation. To refresh our memory, Japan's real estate and stock market bubble collapsed quite spectacularly sometime around 1990. The first couple of years saw a lot of wealth being erased from the real estate and stock portfolio. The following 16 odd years, even till today, basically saw Japan registering a period of stagflation or what some may refer to as the L-shaped recovery - i.e. you don't really recover. Japan made many policy mistakes (that the US should and could avoid):
a) it cut policy rates two years after the bust of its asset bubble while the US eased monetary policy aggressively after August 2007
b) it went into quantitative easing reversed ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) too slowly
c) it waited two years after the bursting of its bubbles to do a fiscal stimulus (and reversed it too early with a consumption tax) while the US did one – albeit a failed one – last year and is doing another large one now
d) it created a convoy system of zombie banks and corporate that were restructured too late while the US may become more aggressive in cleaning up the financial system
e) it had structural rigidities – like lifetime employment – that slowed down the adjustment while the US has a more flexible labor markets

If we were to look at the missteps by Japan, we might easily conclude that the US reacted much faster, swifter and the structural and employment adjustments were rapid as well. However, we must also acknowledge that Japan's bubble was in stocks and real estate - as bad as that sound, there were very little leverage or derivatives enlarging the bubble. The current credit implosion is largely driven by a leveraged credit, based on insufficient capital, propeled by new fangled derivatives. Thus in that light, the situation faced by the US was a lot worse than Japan.

Japan was in much better macro and financial shape than the US before and during its stagnation: high household and national savings and low leverage of the household sector, net foreign asset position that allowed it to finance its large fiscal deficit during the stagnation via domestic savings. The US instead has had near zero household savings and massive leverage for years, large current account deficits and is the largest net foreign debtor in the world. Thus any further fiscal stimulus by the US basically is further deficits on an already damaging deficit problem. The problems are in the US are magnified by the high debt levels on the personal level as well, and would eat immediately into consumption patterns. Whereas in Japan they still had truckloads of savings.

Fiscal policy has its limits when you are already the biggest net debtor and net borrower in the world and where you need to borrow this year $2 trillion net ($2.5 trillion gross) to finance your fiscal deficit ... and your currency is still backed by nothing. The US is taking an approach to bank recap and clean-up that looks more like Japan than the successful Swedish outright takeover/nationalization process. While the bad bank idea might work, it will require the US taxpayers to pony up another $2-$3 trillion to fund that bad bank. How many trillions of USD can you print before China and Russia turn around and say "wtf...".

The US and global economy are truly risking a near-depression if the policy reaction is not bold, aggressive, sustainable and credible. For almost every action that the Treasury or the government has proposed, there will be tons of criticisms, and that's beauty and beastly side of a true democracy. This credit crisis is not quite like any we have seen before as it involved an enormous amount of leverage, hence we have no textbook solutions to guide us. Hence, we can be assured that every single policy action, be it the TARP, the reworked and reworked stimulus plan, the bailouts, and now the bad bank idea ... will have a lot of detractors... and probably not many cheering the measures even if they agree (as no one is really sure they will work well).

We also have to remember that there are mainly two main schools of economic thought - though you could probably have tens of shools of economic thought on this - either you are a Keynesian or you are Gasparino (libertarian market purist). The latter being that mainly you think the markets should be allowed to correct itself, and bad companies should be allowed to fail, and shareholders should not be saved... or something to that effect. There are still many more who have opinions along those lines of thought which differ here and there, so you can understand why everyone is an asshole and an expert at the same time.

Back to the Japan trap, its government spending soared (after a couple of years following the correction) as a massive public works program covered the country with cement. Yet Japan also prevented the bust from performing its role of creative destruction. Businesses were reluctant to shed workers and renege on their lifetime employment guarantees. Japanese authorities encouraged banks to supply new credit to weak companies. This served to worsen the bad-debt problems within the banking system, which came to a head in the 1997 financial crisis. Academic research suggests that the increasing dominance of certain industries by so-called "zombie" firms tended to depress job creation and lower productivity. Product prices in zombie industries were low because of excess competition. Low prices and high wages reduced profits and discouraged new investment.

I was working for Nomura, the biggest Japanese securities firm then from 1988-1991, and I can say that Japan did one thing right: government spending increase. They did many things wrong which was what dragged the recession into a stagflation period for over ten years: they did not force bad banks to fail; the worst was allowing banks to not act on bad debts thus keeping technically insolvent businesses alive for years; the life-time employment culture caused many companies not to restructure; not allowing the banks to seek foreign investment to replenish their capital; not allowing foreign ownership of banks and most other companies which would have restructured many of them and given them much needed capital.

Hence to use the Japan experience to somehow link it to the futility of what the US government agencies are doing is flawed, very flawed. The bubble was deflated in stocks and property, stocks crashed because its a relatively open market with foreign participation, property died slowly as there were too many regulations preventing foreign ownership. I basically think that the US moved fast and aggressively, and industries are being restructured quickly, ... I don't like the bad bank idea but it will work best if you don't take the nationalisation route. The US will throw everything at the problems at hand. Its not much point to harp on how much money they will be flooding the system to do that. Yes, the USD is doomed for a long long depreciation. Its the lesser of two evils, throw more money at the problems... as not doing anything will be anarchy.

So, I do think that while the problems are huge, the US will be able to recover much faster and will not fall into the stagflation trap of Japan.

p/s photos: Megan Lai

Critics Of The Stimulus Plan

Its often been said that you cannot please everyone. Having watched CNBC, I can finally confirm that they have too many Republicans on the show as anchors. I am not saying that Obama's stimulus plan is perfect, far from it, but it is never going to please the majority because there are not just two sides to the stimulus plan. There are many sides you can take. If you put the top 10 economists into a room to debate the plan, I would bet that there would be 11 views.

I also think I have to put a strong protective layer on my TV screen as I am very very close to throwing things at my TV everytime Gasparino or Kudlow speak.

We have to appreciate that beneath our views and opinions on the stimulus plan are our very unique assumptions of what will work and where our inherent priorities and biases lie. Safe to say that most people who like to say things on business channels will have a view, and believe that their understanding of economics are the appropriate school of thought.

It is easy to bash the plan if you are a conservative, hence you are unlikely to find favourable articles reading Wall Street Journal. Not calling everyone is wrong but that we all need a broader context to appreciate the enormity of the task at hand. My words in purple below.

WSJ: There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.( OK, the Amtrak thing and Arts facility are a bit silly but the child subsidies sounds ok for those who require them in times like these. The global warming and carbon capture are ok as part and parcel for the US to further their advancement in cutting edge arena - the US not only need to boost employment but also invest for the long term to boost their competitive advantage in technology and other cutting edge industries).

In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities. (Both are essentials, although one can argue for a greater deployment for infrastructure). Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. (That's the bone of contention for most critics, that only 12% of actual plan is for actual stimulus. If thats the basis for judging the stimulus plan, then its a short sighted view as what brought the US to its knees is the lack of savings, lack of proper regulation, voracious appetite for debt... the plan needs to address the future as well, if not, then even after recovery the US will be left behind in many cutting edge industries, and investing in broadband, education, science are necessary to go hand in hand with jobs creation in order to sustain a more competitive USA of the future).

Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party? Here's another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator? (OK, the Smithsonian is not necessary but please, look at the bigger picture, its only $150m, same with cars, its $600m... if you guys want to get bogged down in small stuffs you will be missing the bigger picture. As for renewable energy and mass transit, these low yielding investments are necessary as backbone for business and seeking alternative energy sources.)

Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators. (This is where the Republicans come out whingeing ... you need safety nets strengthened during difficult times. Its not a yes/no question for the stimulus, and as conservatives you would shy away from supporting these measures, but they are not wrong or bad, just what you believe in and what is fair).

As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more. (Obama has already promised for more oversight and accountability. The ineffectiveness of these institutions has more to do with the previous government or rather the Republicans, so shut up... I guess if I was American I would be a Democrat).

Oh, and don't forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That's more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that "No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools." Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers. (I don't see the issue here, you need to invest in education. God knows how far behind the US is lagging behind many other countries. So what if some of it goes to teachers, you want better teachers, and people who are properly incentivised).

The larger fiscal issue here is whether this spending bonanza will become part of the annual "budget baseline" that Congress uses as the new floor when calculating how much to increase spending the following year, and into the future. Democrats insist that it will not. But it's hard -- no, impossible -- to believe that Congress will cut spending next year on any of these programs from their new, higher levels. The likelihood is that this allegedly emergency spending will become a permanent addition to federal outlays -- increasing pressure for tax increases in the bargain. Any Blue Dog Democrat who votes for this ought to turn in his "deficit hawk" credentials.

This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living -- or dead -- Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the election. We wrote the bill." So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit.

(Well, to all the conservatives, I know one thing the Republicans won't do if they were in office... they wouldn't freeze their own pay. Let the change begin, let they guy do something, you buggers had your chance, in fact, you buggers fucked it up royally during the last administration).

p/s photo: Noon Wongsawan