The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Development Economics

Japanification and the end of the American Dream

Stirling Newberry and I have been writing about Japanafication for years—on blogs, at least since 2004.

Those of us who are old enough remember when Japan was THE miracle economy.  Technologically advanced, vibrant and rich.  It was eating America’s lunch, and most other countries.  For peak alarmism at this fact in a fictional form, read Michael Chrichton’s Rising Sun.

Tokyo real estate was worth more than the entire world’s real estate combined.

Then the bubble crashed.  Japanese policy was to protect the banks, and to bury the bad loans on the books.  They undertook literally decades of stimulative policy, mostly pouring useless concrete (exactly the wrong thing to do unless your country really lacks that sort of infrastructure, which Japan did not.)

To put in terms familiar to my readers, they extended and pretended.

Japan went into semi-permanent stagnation.

We have, now, the news of a quarter drop in GDP of 6.8% annualized for the last quarter.  (This is blamed on increased sales taxes, but it was coming anyway.)

The long stagnation is over (it’s been over for a bit).  Japan is actually in decline.

This is important because Japanification was always the plan for the US after the bubbles: extend and pretend, stagnate wages and employment.  Pretend.

But there were significant differences between the two countries.  Japan started with massive savings and a huge trade surplus.  It is now in trade deficit and savings compared to debt are way down.  Economic equality was relatively high, as well, spreading demand.

America came out of the financial crisis with a trade deficit, a pathetic savings rate and massive inequality.  This is why I predicted that Japanification would not work in the US.  It could not, because there was no saved fat to be used to create the long bright depression the Japanese had.

This brings us to stimulus and development (not just for developing countries).  The money must be used not for pork projects with no follow on, but to create new industries or to bring money off the sides into the economy.  Pouring concrete (and not even bothering to shore up nuclear reactors in areas which were not electorally viable) was pointless in Japan.  Buying bonds is pointless and even harmful.

Likewise you cannot have real open trade flows and expect to keep whatever you are building.  You build it, you make it work and once an industry is systemized, it can be moved to a low cost domiciale. It takes deliberate government policy to prevent that.

Monetary policy in Japan could never work, because the money went to the wrong things, and much of it immediately decamped overseas in the so-called carry trade—borrow low in Japan, buy securities somewhere else where they had a higher return.

All of this should be obvious and uncontroversial. It is not, it flies directly in the face of modern neo-liberal theory and it is that theory, in the face of decades of failure, that the Japanese followed.

The human capacity for ideologically driven stupidity and atrocity is endless. (Those who do not believed me are invited to study Church history and its effect on society from 1000 AD to 1900 AD or so.)  People will ignore the evidence in front of their eyes, years of failure and continue doing the “safe”, “orthodox” thing no matter what the results.  This is true even for well-meaning people.

Of course, in the US, Japanification has a US twist: it massively increases the wealth of the already wealthy, through unconventional monetary policy.  American leaders are far too greedy to make Japanification work: any surplus, or room to lend, or room to print money, must be given away to rich people as quickly as possible.

I point out, finally, that the first sin in Japanification was buying the bad loans.  This was a huge mistake in the US too, bailing out the banks and not forcing them and their share and bondholders to take their losses was the main mistake of the financial crisis.  Yes, things might have been worse if the US had done so (though steps mitigating the hit on the regular economy would have been easy enough to take with the 4 TRILLION dollars used bailing out rich people), but even so, the US would have recovered better afterwards.

Instead the US has an economy in which 90% of the population has seen an actual decrease in income and wealth, while 10% has seen an increase: with the 1% and the .1% and the .01% benefiting most of all.

Japanification was the plan for America. It isn’t working, it could never work, but the policies in place are nonetheless doing what is most important to their architects: they are making the rich richer, and everyone else poorer and doing it quickly.

The Bush years were the long suck.  This is the deep dive, and remember, the US isn’t in recession yet (though it is in depression).  The pain when it happens (and absent nuclear war, there is always another recession), will be unbelievable.


If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

 

Why Nations Can’t Resist Austerity

Free trade, as practiced, is designed to destroy local autonomy by making nations dependent on foreign goods, and by removing decision making from democratically elected bodies and pushing them to transnational tribunals, secret courts and laws which cannot be changed without opting out from treaties, something most countries are reluctant to do, because they need the trade once they are enmeshed.

Keynes believed that most production of basics should be local: you should manufacture most of what your country needs, in your country.  You should also, ideally, be able to feed your own population.

If you can’t make what you need or what your people (and more importantly, elites) really want, then you’re screwed.  In the modern world you need hydrocarbons, you need food, and you need the machinery which turns hydrocarbons into the industrialized lifestyle.

Your prosperous citizens probably want food your country doesn’t produce: summer vegetables in winter, possibly meat you can’t provide in large enough quantities, and so on.  They want electronic goods like smartphones that due to patents are quite expensive, and which you probably can’t make domestically.

Your elites want a vacation in Paris, a home in London, a German car, a French mistress, a New York Apartment, and a variety of luxuries that their own country doesn’t make.

If you want or need these things; if you do not have a taste for what your country can produce, in terms of basics and luxuries; if you do not ensure your country can feed itself, generate electricity and make cars or other forms of transit, you MUST do what those who control the trade regime want you to, or you will find yourself cut off from all these things.

Distributed production of necessities (which includes basic lifestyle goods and luxuries and machine goods) is anti-democratic and anti-national control in a world where the primary decision making units which are amenable to pressure from the commons, whether democratic or not, is exerted almost entirely on national and local units.

If you want to not do austerity when the Troika demands it, you must be in a position to tell the Troika to go stuff itself. If you have made yourself vulnerable, by losing your ability to feed yourself; by not developing local industry or exporting it; by your citizens acquiring a a perceived or real need for foreign goods; or by your local elites wanting to be “transnational elites” who want foreign luxuries and who feel as at home in Paris, New York and London as in their own country, then you cannot refuse to do what those who control the trade and international monetary regime tell you to do.

This is always the devil’s bargain offered in international regimes: “you can get all the stuff we have if only you open up”.  It’s true, and for many countries it works for a while.  The less you had, the shorter period it works for (countries who only have to be convinced to give up their ability to feed themselves by switching to cash crops and forcing subsistence farmers get a few years), but once you’ve given away your autonomy, the deal will, at some point, always turn bad.  Those with the whip hand, will always eventually drive you down unless you have as much power over them as they have over you.

And knowing that your elites are no longer yours, but theirs, they will always find someone to do it for them, because your elites will be eager to sell you out for the flat in New York, the vacations in the south of France, the German automobile, the French mistress, the Swiss boarding school for their children, and for the fine luxury goods their own country cannot make.

If you get yourself into this position, you must overthrow your elites, and you must figure out how to become independent again.  You must make deals with other blocs: the Russians and the Chinese, for the transition period, and figure out how to move your production of what matters back to local, and if you no longer can, how to feed yourself. You must inculcate in your elites and peoples a desire for what you make locally – local lovers, the food of your nation, the luxuries you can produce.


If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Do NOT take Western Help for your “revolution”

The BBC has admitted that Assad will remain in charge of Syria.

Now I have no mandate for Assad, by all evidence he’s a profoundly evil man who delights in torture as a way to send a message.  His excesses in this area are such that I wouldn’t be surprised if he personally gets off on it, but the fact of the matter is that the rebellion has made Syrians worse off.  Period.

I will note that when Hezbollah committed its forces I said then that Assad would probably win.  What’s worse is that any moron ought to have known that Hezbollah could not allow Assad to fall because if Assad fell, its lifeline to Iran would be severed.  The forces which were arrayed against Assad either had to win quickly enough that Hezbollah couldn’t turn the tide, or they had to cut a credible deal with Hezbollah, which due to both ideological reasons and because of the preferences of their backers, they never could.  Well, or they had to intervene directly: Western air support as in Libya.

There is no point, if you are are unhappy with your domestic regime, in accepting Western aid to overthrow it at the moment, not unless you’ve got a plan to bite the hand that feeds you.  The reason is that the West is no longer exporting prosperity, and hasn’t been for some time.  Excepting (sort of, very sort of) China, the last countries to get prosperity from the West were a few Eastern European ones; before that, the Asian Tigers.*  Instead the sphere of prosperity based on the West is in contraction, just ask the South of Europe, or Ireland.  (The Chinese sphere is another matter, though they have problems too.)

Even if you win your revolution with foreign aid, a la Libya or the Western Ukraine,  you aren’t going to be offered a good deal: the Ukraine is still going to get shafted by the IMF to the tune of a 50% cut in pensions, a 50% increase in gas prices even before Russian price increases, government austerity and selling off the crown jewels of energy companies and arable land to foreigners.  Libya is a bloody mess: again, however bad Qaddafi was, he was better than the current situation.

There is no real money; no real resources, for prosperity to be spread to new nations by the West and its allies (like Japan).  The new money being created is heavily leveraged debt piled on the back of countries who already can’t pay, money they’d be better off without.

So, don’t play with the West.  Don’t take their money and aid in overthrowing your corrupt government, unless you know exactly what you’re doing and plan to to turn on them and align with someone else.  If you do, your country will be worse off.

Though, perhaps you should take their money.  Personally, I mean.  You can get rich yourself and then escape your country, if you’re a traitor.

Non-traitors, however, shouldn’t touch Western or Saudi money for revolution.

*One might argue that the West has rarely offered prosperity to those it backs in revolution, Latin Americans would certainly agree, but it’s not quite true: the Koreans did, the Poles did, some other East Europeans.  However, now they not only don’t offer prosperity, they offer the prompt austerity and debt driven destruction of your economy.


If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Bootstrapping

Out of most crises comes opportunity.  Unemployment in the developed world, especially amongst the highly skilled, is opportunity for those countries willing to seize it.

Does your country not have the medicine it needs?  There are plenty of people capable of making and even inventing those medicines who are out of work.

Need roads and ports?  Plenty of those who can build them are out of work.

Need telecom infrastrucure?  The same.

A lot of highly skilled workers are out of work.  More want work that matters, they want to make medicines which will get to people at prices which will save lives, or build buildings which create energy and are good for those who live in them, or invent knew ways of farming.  They want to create energy sources which don’t dump carbon into the atmosphere and they want to build spaceships and get off the rock.

These people exist, and they are hungry for meaningful work, for good work.  Those who are out of work simply want a decent living, those who are working but hate their jobs will work for less if they are taken care of.

They are a way past the foreign currency bottleneck, they are a way past unfair patents and copyright.  Combined with pacts between countries to share key resources, they are a way to bootstrap up developing countries, or for wise developed countries to throw off the shackles of austerity and go back on a high growth path.  They can be used to bypass the old industries, to create the future in countries who didn’t win the last few technological and economic cycles.

They are lying on the ground, waiting only for those wise enough to offer them work that matters.

The Credit Addicts Dilemma: Why the US is hemorrhaging good manufacturing jobs

Manufacturing employment from 39

Manufacturing employment from 39

Fun graph, eh?

This is your manufacturing economy on globalization.  Bear in mind that these numbers are absolute numbers, they don’t reflect the fact that the US population has grown significantly.

According to Mike Lux:

a high level Obama administration economic adviser is quoted as saying that America’s export future resides in exporting “consulting and legal services, software, movies, and medicine.”

Whistling past the graveyard would be the kind way to characterize that statement.  Typical Summers/Geithner “brilliance” might be the less kind way of putting it.

US manufacturing was never going to stay as high as it was, relative to the size of the population, after World War II.  The majority of the world’s manufacturing capacity had just been bombed into rubble, after all.  A relative decline was always to be expected.

An absolute decline, however, is quite another matter, so let’s do a 30 second seminar on international trade and development.

No country other than a city state has ever industrialized except behind trade barriers.  None.  There are no exceptions.  Mercantalism is how states industrialize.  The trade barriers can be classic tariffs (like the US used), they can be direct subsidies, they can be through interest rate policy or  they can be through making your currency cheaper than it otherwise would be.

For good chunks of the 2000’s, the Chinese government spent about 10% of their entire GDP keeping the Yuan undervalued.  Other countries, like Japan and Korea also worked hard to keep their currencies undervalued (or the US dollar propped up, depending on how you want to look at it.)  This made their goods more competitive than they would have been otherwise and the direct result was the loss of US manufacturing jobs.  (One might also point out that this doesn’t qualify under any definition as “free” trade).

This isn’t the entire picture, just dropping the dollar won’t fix the problem, because if that happens, the US gets creamed on resource costs (read: OIL).  This means the US is in a policy bind.  Drop the dollar and get slaughtered by resource prices.  Keep the dollar high, and lose jobs.

This isn’t just a policy bind, it’s co-dependency, in the worst sense, like when a drug dealer needs a customer’s cash and the customer needs his fix.  Americans got something in exchange for this: they got cheap consumer goods, and funding for their overspending.  At some points during the 00’s the American savings rate was negative!

In exchange manufacturing and other jobs were moved directly overseas.  Off-shoring went to China, outsourcing (of legal, administrative, call center and whatnot) went to India, Canada and Ireland (because they all have large numbers of English speakers).

Breaking this policy bind is simple enough: first you have to break US dependence on oil, then you can tell the countries which are selling you drugs (which you desperately want and need, don’t blame them for your addiction to cheap credit and consumer goods) where to go.  Then you go through a very unpleasant withdrawal period, which as any ex-addict can tell you, is hell on earth.

But the status quo isn’t so hot either, is it?

Want your manufacturing jobs back?  Get off oil, then you can get off easy foreign credit and cheap consumer goods.  Then you can have them back.  And maybe once they’re back we’ll be able to buy an appliance which isn’t so lousy that it’s expected to wear out in 5 years max and be thrown to the curb.

One can dream.

How Owning Genetic Materials Drives Farmers Into Bankruptcy and Suicide

A fascinating interview with Vandana Shiva by Lohan discusses how companies like Monsanto, through their ownership of agricultural seeds, drove Indian farmers into bankruptcy and caused mass suicides. In a decade, about 200,000 farmers have commited suicide in India.  Why?

“In 1998, the World Bank’s structural-adjustment policies forced India to open up its seed sector to global corporations like Cargill, Monsanto and Syngenta,” Shiva wrote. “The global corporations changed the input economy overnight. Farm-saved seeds were replaced by corporate seeds, which need fertilizers and pesticides and cannot be saved. …

When Monsanto’s Bt cotton was introduced, the seed costs jumped from 7 rupees per kilo to 17,000 rupees per kilo. Our survey shows a thirteenfold increase in pesticide use in cotton in Vidharbha. Meantime, the $4 billion subsidy given to U.S. agribusiness for cotton has led to dumping and depression of international prices.

Squeezed between high costs and negative incomes, farmers commit suicide when their land is being appropriated by the money lenders who are the agents of the agrichemical and seed corporations. The suicides are thus a direct result of industrial globalized agriculture and corporate monopoly on seeds.

Rising prices for inputs, lower prices for the crops.  Simple enough, really.

The first suicide that we studied took place in Warrangal in Andhra Pradesh in 1997. This region is a rain-fed dry region and used to grow dry land crops such as millets, pigeon pea etc. In 1997, the seed corporations converted the region from biodiverse agriculture to monocultures of cotton hybrid. The farmers were not told they would need irrigation. They were not told that they would need fertilizers and pesticides. They were not told they could not save the seeds. The cotton seeds were sold as “White Gold,” with a false promise that farmers would become millionaires. Instead, the farmers landed in severe unpayable debt. This is how the suicides began.

Likewise these crops require a lot more water and that has led to a severe drawdown of aquifers.

VS: India is a land of varied climates, from rainforests to deserts. Seventy percent of Indian farming is rain-fed (dependent on rain not irrigation). Introducing inappropriate crops and cropping patterns has aggravated the water crisis and precipitated more frequent crop failure. Ecological agriculture needs 10 times less water than chemical farming. Green Revolution varieties, hybrids and GM crops are all bred for irrigation. On the one hand, this puts pressure on farmers in low-rainfall zones to drill tube wells, which fail — on the other hand, it leads to more frequent crop failure.

To summarize: first world subsidies on agriculture lead to first world prices that are artificially low, which leads to dumping, which reduces the price of the crops.  Something Shiva doesn’t mention is that each time a third world country moves to cash crops, that too depresses the prices as there just aren’t that many cash crops.  Having to buy seeds every year, having to buy pesticides and fertilizers and having to irrigate all increase the cost of farming significantly, and also cause drawdown of aquifers.  Once those aquifers are gone (and they are being drawn down faster than the water is being replaced) the areas in question won’t be able to grow any meaningful crops at all.

Patenting life forms is inherently problematic.  At the current time the law is that if a genetically modified seed drifts onto your land, and interbreeds with your crops, the company that owned the seed now owns all of your seeds, which you must destroy if it insists.  So once GMO seeds are introduced into an area, it becomes difficult to impossible for farmers not to use them.

The destruction of biodiversity in crops, which started with the Green Revolution, has alikewise moved into turbo-seed which have to be bought every year, which are genetically engineered, don’t change.  Monoculture crops are very vulnerable to disease and pests, but worse than that as older species are lost, we lose their genetic heritage, which could have much of value.  They may have medicinal uses we don’t know about, may have genetic features that make them resistant to specific pests or disease, or better for certain environmental conditions, and so on.  Once they’re gone, they’re gone for good.

In any case, the world needs less monoculture agriculture and more ecological agriculture.  Not just because it is more sustainable and the world is on track to create massive dust bowls in the US, China and India due to overuse of water, but because grain based diets are inherently less healthy than more varied vegetable diets.  A huge amount of the current pandemic of degenerative diseases in the 1st world, which is at its worst in the US, can be laid at the feet of the the Standard American Diet (SAD), which consists of far too much sugar, starch, grains and corn based foods denatured of natural nutrients.  This diet has contributed heavily to an epidemic of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer.  Likewise, what was once known as “adult onset diabetes” is now common in childhood, and obesity.

The real cause of the first world’s crisis in health care costs is that people are just sicker than they used to be, not just when they get old, but at every stage of their life.  And that is largely a reflection of how we now eat, combined with lack of regular exercise.  As nations famed for their good health adopt a more American diet (like the French) the incidence of obesity and chronic degenerative disease immediately rises.

It is thus in the first world’s interests to stop with the heavy subsidization of grain and corn, to allow third world nations to protect their farm economies from foreign competition and to move, themselves, to an agriculture which produces more highly nutrient dense vegetables and less grains and corn.  This will pay back, in the long run, with lower healthcare costs and a healthier, more producitve population.

And as a side benefit, there will be a lot less farmer suicides.

Page 4 of 4

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén