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

Category: Trade Page 13 of 14

Core CPI is exactly the wrong thing to watch

Our lords and masters (h/t Americablog):

Those trends came as real income dropped 0.5 percent for the month.

The Labor Department said its Consumer Price Index increased 0.5 percent after rising by the same margin in February. That was in line with economists expectations.

Core CPI is vindication for officials at the Federal Reserve who have viewed the recent energy price spike as having a temporary effect on inflation.

Food and gasoline rose 0.8 percent, the largest gain since July 2008, after increasing 0.6 percent in February.

When thinking about inflation, think of individual’s (or companies) surplus income, that is, how much income do they have left to spend after their necessities.  Necessities include food, housing, heating and transportation.  To a lesser extent, clothes, though most people don’t need to buy clothes every month.

Goods inflation, that is to say, core inflation, is mostly in items that you don’t have to buy. Sure, you might want to, but you don’t have to have a new toaster, or TV, or computer.  Food, on the other hand, you have to have.  If you live off rapid transit, and most Americans do, then fuel for your car is something you have to have otherwise you can’t get to your job: you must buy it, at whatever price it is selling for.  Heating oil is something you have to have, freezing to death is bad.

If you earn $2k a month and your fixed bills come to $1,600, your expendable income each month is $400.  If oil and food rise enough that you have to spend an extra $50 you’ve lost 12.5% of your income.  If they rise enough to cost you $100 a month, 25%.  That margin is what matters to most people.  And for people close to the line, the extra money they must spend may kick them from surplus into a personal deficit, at which point they have to start borrowing money, usually at usurious credit card rates of over 20%.

The day laboring class is particularly vulnerable to this.  A bit of drying up of work, an increase in the price of food, and they can reach the point where they can’t afford to eat enough every day.  When that happens you either get a revolution, or you get famines.  This was particularly a factor, by the way, in Egypt.

Inflation in what people must have is what matters to most of the population.  But it isn’t what matters to your lords and masters.  Food costs and fuel costs, are, for them, roundoff errors.  If  you’re really rich, spending $1,000/day on food doesn’t even show on the scale.  So, by and large, goods inflation is what matters to them, personally, though they may have business concerns about fuel inflation (and note that inflation in oil leads to food inflation very directly.  Modern agriculture is how we turn oil into food, essentially.)

So when someone talks about core inflation being the most important form of inflation, check your wallet, it’s likely lighter than it used to be.

An update on the effect of the price of shipping oil and tax on exports

From Skuppers, in comments:

In February, the Fuel Surcharge (FSC) on shipments was 26%. It is now 31%. It keeps climbing with no end in sight. It’s not always a straight formula though, as I saw an invoice from the steam line the other day, where the customer’s freight rate is $1400, but the added FSC was about $1800. Adding a margin? Lol. But really what I want to add here could be best captured by this title: Cynical, naive, or just dumb?

In July 2010, the government instituted a tax incentive to businesses to get exports moving. I would guess their motivation was to encourage exports to increase profits to get companies to hire more workers. You know, work on that unemployment thing. So they give a tax break to exporters, and reduce their tax on profits from 35% to 15%.

My customer in Australia imports a lot of pork. They are owned by a U.S. company that supplies about 60% of their product. They got their product delivered FAS Long Beach, meaning free along side. The supplier paid for all expenses up to the side of the ship; rail to long beach, transloading, and delivery to the ship. My customer paid for everything from that point on – I acted as their agent, and so I was “technically” the exporter. Starting in August, the supplier wanted to sell the product, in order to take advantage of the tax incentive, DES – delivered ex-ship. Meaning they paid for all expenses up to the point that the ship tossed the container overboard at the foreign port. The supplier was now the exporter, in name, where they hadn’t been so before.

Was there any increase in exports? No; same business being done as before. Did the supplier hire new staff to handle the “new business?” No, in fact they let staff go; I’m still managing the shipments and getting my same ‘cut.’ So on paper, it looks like the supplier increased business by about 700 containers a year, and get a reduction of 20 points in those profits, but they haven’t really increased business, they just get the tax break.

This is just ONE business in the U.S. How many others are doing the same thing? So is the administration cynical, naive, or just dumb? Didn’t they do their homework on this? It took me about 5 minutes to figure this scheme out. How come the geniuses at Department of Commerce didn’t see this coming? Or did they? Is this just another way to get around the repatriation of foreign earned profits taxes by ‘reimbursing’ them at home (after all, money is fungible isn’t it?)?

A bit more on the oil trap

People will not ship or produce if the cost to produce+ship is higher than what they can recoup.  There is a bottom on prices despite what the idiotic supply and demand curves in textbooks show.  Contrary to what they tell you in economics 101 supply and demand is not a law, there are significant exceptions.

In fact, if the price of shipping increases enough to make production uneconomic, then people will be laid off.  When this is occurring throughout the world, you get a ripple effect.  It’s not self-reinforcing in the sense that it increases the price of oil (in fact, it decreases it), it is self-reinforcing in the sense that it does make the economy worse, because it reduces demand for a wide variety of goods, whether shipped or not.

What happens then is what we’ve seen before, the price of oil drops and you get a “recovery”, which is to say a pendulum from shitty economy to sucky economy and back again.  The current economic juggling act is about making sure the economy stays sucky, and doesn’t get to shitty, and you do that by keeping the price of oil from exploding.  When it does, you lose.

There can be no good global economy right now. There is not enough oil in the world to do it under current economic models.  Cannot be done.  You may be able to have a few places doing well, but only a few.  The solution to this is to GET OFF OIL, but no one is willing to allow that to happen, because old money wants to control the new economy and isn’t sure they can do that with current technologies.  That’s why you have idiots talking about shale oil, or using natural gas, or anything else which keeps an economy where a small group of people provide the energy for everyone else, and make a killing doing so.

So instead you have revolutions, you have unions being crushed and so on.  At its base this is all related to the price of oil.  Oil in Saudi Arabia costs about $7/barrel to produce.  Think about what that means in terms of profit, especially in a country where those profits stick to the hands of a few people.  Think about the fact that with all that money they could buy anything, unless the US has rich as rich as Saudi Princes and companies which are so large in terms of market capitalization that they can’t be bought.  (Well, or they could do ownership controls, but strangely, they prefer to be stinking rich.)

The rich MUST be kept rich.  If they aren’t, the oilarchies buy up everything.  That’s not exactly true, but it is true enough because that’s the way the people at the top think.  They know that they either stay so big they can’t be bought, or they’re bought.

Of course there’s more to this.  We could discuss regulatory and environmental (and labor, but labor is the smallest part of it) arbitrage to China (who refuse to allow outsiders to buy anything that matters, period.)  We could talk about the structure of the suburban economy, which is both profoundly unproductive and based on oil, so that any nation which embraces suburbanism can’t boom without driving up oil prices and, at this point, causing oil price spikes.  We could talk about financialization, but financialization is just a side-effect of needing lots of rich people and having less and less to sell to the world, which is about suburbanization, which is what the rich bribed the middle class with – you can have your little castle and your unearned unwarranted wealth increase in your unproductive suburb away from brown and black people, in exchange we get to be really, really rich.  Like all deals with the devil, of course, most people get cheated, but then when you decide you deserve money you didn’t earn and that being away from black people is important to you, you’ve already sold your soul.  The rich will find this out as well.

One way the price of oil hurts the economy

Promoted from comments:

I work for a small freight forwarder. How small? My boss, and myself – that’s it. Last year we shipped over 61,250 million tons of beef, pork, and chicken; mostly to Australia and Hong Kong, but several smaller markets too. You pick up the product, stuff the container, and off it goes. At each point in the transport, whether it’s rail from Chicago to Long Beach, or Long Beach to the actual port, or port to destination, fuel is used and it adds to the total price. Never mind the fuel used in the production of the meat.

In addition to the cost of the space on freight, there is something called FSC – fuel surcharge; on ocean freight it’s called Bunker, or BAF. It was about 18% 2009-2010. Then 21% last quarter of 2010. 23% in January 2011. 26% this month and expected to go up next month from there. So, if your freight rate is 3500 bucks Long Beach to Sydney, you add another 900 bucks for fuel; on every shipment. As the railcars come in to Long Beach, they need to be unloaded and the product transloaded into containers, then dreyed to the ship – that’s about 800 bucks/container – most of that is fuel. So when the P of oil goes from sub-$100 to over $115/bbl (and don’t forget that everyone along the chain is adding their margins), it adds a huge cost. At a certain point the cost of doing business becomes unprofitable to continue doing business – that point is not far off in the shipping world. Have you noticed that the price of a tasty Rib-eye has gone from about $5/lbs to over $10/lbs recently? Most of that is fuel.

In a nut-shell you have the price of product rapidly increasing, resulting in lower demand, resulting in lower quantities ordered/shipped, resulting in product scarcity, resulting in higher prices yet, resulting in lower demand…resulting in lower revenue and therefore workforce reductions…ad naseum… That’s how the price of oil plays out.

I would add, as an aside, that in the longer term this is why I think the big box stores may be a lot less big and you may see a return to more local production.  This is especially true the farther you get from the coast, navigable rivers and canals, as ground transport sucks a ton more energy than sea transport.

Is America past the point of no return economically?

This, from Numerian, is the sort of thing I was talking about when I noted that:

If you can build a factory overseas which produces the same goods for less, meaning more profit for you, why would you build it in the US?

Until that question is adequately answered, by which I mean “until it’s worth investing in the US”, most of the discretionary money of the rich will either go into useless speculative activities like the housing and credit bubbles, which don’t create real growth in the US, or they will go overseas.

Numerian notes:

We rescued the automakers so they could move to China. GM is a shadow of itself before the 2007-2008 crisis. It has shed plants and workers in the US, along with their ongoing health and other benefit obligations. But in its newly-shrunken state, its emphasis is not on the US, which rescued it from bankruptcy. GM is putting investment money in China almost entirely. Like so many other manufacturers before it, the company has ceased to be American, in the sense that its manufacturing is no longer done here and its workers no longer live here. Instead, its corporate headquarters is here, and little else. Even its profits are kept overseas to avoid paying US taxes.

He goes on to do discuss the debt trap, and notes that the US has lost its technological advantage, meaning there is no way to fix the problem now except through brutal austerity.

I don’t think this is quite true, but it’s damn near true, and it seems to be the assumption the elite is operating on.  And by the time we get rid of this bunch of loser Dems, suffer through the Republican government to come and then get another shot at someone competent, it may well be too late.

The future doesn’t happen in America any more, and that means America’s just a place with too high costs and a lot of guns.  There’s no damn reason to invest in the US except in leveraged scams, and until the US figures out a way to change that, things aren’t going to get better. Right now the US’s elites seem to think the way to fix it is to reduce wage costs till they’re competitive with China’s.

I’ve said this before, I’ll say this again: if you can get out of the US, GO!  If not hunker down and fight, and fight smart.  More on that later.

Tax Cuts for the rich create jobs outside the US

The standard right wing talking point that tax cuts for the rich and for corporations create jobs is true: Tax cuts for the rich create jobs overseas.

The tax cuts’ two bills, in 2001 and 2003 – changed laws so that personal income tax rates were reduced, exemptions for the Alternative Minimum Tax increased, and dividend and capital gains taxes also cut.

Yet in the debate, it seems of no moment to either side whether the tax cuts were effective in achieving their goal of spurring business investment and making the US economy more competitive.

Our own examination of US non-residential investment indicates that the reduction in capital gains tax rates failed to spur US business investment and failed to improve US economic competitiveness.

The 2000s – that is, the period immediately following the Bush tax cuts – were the weakest decade in US postwar history for real non-residential capital investment.

Not only were the 2000s by far the weakest period, but the tax cuts did not even curtail the secular slowdown in the growth of business structures.

Rather, the slowdown accelerated into a full decline.

The logic of this is simple enough.  If you have money to invest, you’re going to invest it where it’ll return the most.  Right now and in the past couple decades that is either in leveraged financial games, or it is in economies which are growing fast and have low costs.  The US does not have high growth compared to China or Brazil or many other developing countries.  It has high costs compared to those countries as well.

If you can build a factory overseas which produces the same goods for less, meaning more profit for you, why would you build it in the US?

Until that question is adequately answered, by which I mean “until it’s worth investing in the US”, most of the discretionary money of the rich will either go into useless speculative activities like the housing and credit bubbles, which don’t create real growth in the US, or they will go overseas.

There are a number of ways this question can be answered.

  • You could slap taxes on foreign capital flows;
  • you could slap tariffs on foreign goods produced in low cost domiciles so that companies have to produce in the US to have access to the US market;
  • you could push industries which are hard to outsource but don’t actually decrease American competitiveness.  The housing bubble increased the cost of doing real business in the US by inflating real estate costs.  A massive buildout making every building in the US energy neutral or an energy producer would increase US competitiveness.
  • you could try and do what America once did: have a tech boom.  If the future is being produced in a country then everyone has to invest there and when things are changing fast you can’t offshore production, because speed matters and offshoring is slow. This is why real wages increased during the tech boom of the 90s.

There are other answers as well, but the point is simpler: you must answer the question “why invest in the US instead of a low cost, high growth country?” Until you answer that question tax cuts will not only not do any good, but in a sense will do harm, by increasing the speed at which jobs are offshored out of America.

Greek and European Insolvency

Haven’t commented much on this, but let’s cut to the chase.  Greece is going to default.  Period.  The only question is when.  The Europeans can hold it off a year or two if they get their act together.  All of the PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain and arguably Ireland) are probably going to default eventually unless the rules by which the Eurozone, which state you can’t run too high deficits, are overturned.  All of the countries in the Eurozone, all of them, have been playing shady financial games to hide the real state of their budgets.  Every single one.

Oh, and Germany needs to put a cork in it.  Trade and balance of payments are ZERO SUM.  Every nation cannot run surpluses, it is mathematically impossible.  The more countries that do, the less Germany’s surpluses will be.  Germany’s surpluses are only possible because other countries run deficits.

When the Greeks get crammed down, hard, either through readjustment packages or because they go off the Euro and default (what I would do, but my by European friends inform me this is unthinkable to all good Eurocrats), when Spain, Ireland, Italy and Portugal get crammed down, that’ll lead to a nice demand collapse, which means less imports and worse balance of payments.  Which will make things worse for everyone else—because while balance of payments and trade are zero sum games in the sense that it has to come out to zero, prosperity is not.  If overall demand drops or grows very slowly, everyone is hurt.  Refusing to deal properly with these problems by putting Europeans and American to work by using deficit financing properly (as opposed to wasting it on tax cuts, bank bail outs and badly designed “stimulus” measures) would help everyone and pay itself back, as long as it was done in a way which also dealt with the oil bottleneck at the same time.

But that ain’t happening.  So at best we get a lousy few years economic cycle where over 80% of productivity gains go to corporate profits, wages stagnate and unemployment doesn’t recover anywhere near pre-crisis levels—or we get a second downleg of this financial crisis when China and Europe both crash out.  (It ain’t about America, babes.)  I’m waiting till the end of the summer to see where I’ll put my money (literally).  In the meantime, hold on tight.  I’d tell you to pray, but I’m not sure if crashing out or stumbling around with a bloody bandage on the stump is preferable.  I suppose the bandage.  I doubt even a second crash would be enough to make the powers that be understand they need to make fundamental changes.

Meanwhile, in the US, the strongest part of the recovery comes in medical, insurance, finance and construction.  As I said long ago, the fundamental Obama play was to try and reboot the bubbles.  Yay.

What Not Buying Oil With Dollars Means

The big news yesterday on the financial front was the Independent’s claim that Gulf Arabs and France, Japan, Russia and Japan were planning to move from buying oil in dollars to buying it in a basket of currencies, including gold and a new universal currency shared by the Gulf nations.

Buying oil in dollars is one of the foundations of the dollar’s role as the world’s primary reserve currency.  Because the the dollar is the world’s primary reserve currency Americans have been able to borrow money for significantly less than other countries are able to.  This has both made America more prosperous, and through the perverse incentives of cheap money, helped lead to the high indebtedness of American citizens and the financial crisis.

In addition, buying oil in dollars is one of the things which allowed strong dollar policies to drive the price of oil down.  Making dollars extremely scarce in the 80’s and nineties was one key factor leading to a price per barrel under $20.  Oil prices started their rise upwards after Greenspan’s Federal Reserve let loose the money spigot in the Asian crisis and the Long Term Capital fiasco.  Greenspan essentially never took his foot off the pedal from that point onwards, and oil prices soared, until last year at one point they were over $150/barrel.

So one consequence of going off the dollar is that a major benefit of the strong dollar play is taken off the table, and the US loses its ability to control the price of oil.  Since at this time, contrary to what the Feds are saying, a strong dollar play isn’t in the cards (the US needs to borrow way too much money) that’s not a big deal in the short run—in the long run it is.

But buying oil in dollars isn’t the only thing that underpins the dollar as the world’s reserve currency and to understand what buying oil in something other than dollars would mean we need to understand what else makes, or perhaps more accurately, made, the dollar so important.

Technological Revolutions: Remember the internet boom of the nineties?  Remember the way that money flooded in from the rest of the world to buy up internet stocks?  Sure, most of them turned out to be worthless, but some didn’t.  When the US was the nation most likely to create the next technological revolution you needed dollars so that when it occurred you could buy in on the ground floor.  Whether microcomputers in the 80’s or the internet in the 90’s, odds were that America was going to create the next big tech.  So foreigners needed to be in the dollar.

At this point the US is the undisputed leader in almost nothing except military tech.  As expected, US dominance of the arms sales market continues to increase, but the US can’t live on weapon sales alone.  In most other fields, including telecom, the internet, large chunks of biotech, renewable energy, ground transportation and so on the US now lags other modern economies.

The structure of the US economy, with a few large oligopolistic firms dominating the market in key fields needn’t necessarily mean no technological advances, after all Japan and Korea certainly have high concentrations of large firms, but US firms such as the telecom giants essentially don’t engage in research, don’t believe in upgrading infrastructure more than they have to and are rent seeking corporations—they provide an inferior product to a captive audience (as with insurance companies) knowing that Americans have no other options.  If they fail, they expect the US government to bail them out with huge subsidies.

This structure means that the US,  is unlikely to be the home of the next great technological revolution.  The next tech reveolution could happen in the US, with the right policies, but the Obama administration has not engaged in those policies, instead spending trillions on propping up failed business models.

Consumers of Last and Main Resort: For decades now Americans have bought a ton of consumer goods, from cars to electronics to clothes.  As time went by, more and more of these goods were bought from foreign countries, and more and more of it was bought on credit.  America and Americans have been the engine of development for Japan, the Asian Tigers, and most recently, China.  China, Japan and Korea, in particular, used mercantalist policies—that is to say they generally used trade barriers to protect their internal economy and subsidies to help their exports.  China’s main trade barrier and subsidy is its massive interventions to keep the Yuan cheap against the dollar, an intervention which has amounted to as much as 10% of China’s GDP.

That intervention has left China with a huge number of dollars denominated assets.  In effect the Chinese loaned America the money to consume Chinese goods, which simultaneously made American manufactured goods uncompetitive which meant that manufacturing employment in American dropped like a rock while new factories opened in China rather than the US.  In exchange for the money they loaned America, China industrialized.  Even if they don’t get most of the money back (and they won’t) it was a good deal for them.  As for Americans, well, Americans were able to live above their means—those who didn’t lose their jobs, anyway.

Many countries export a lot to the US.  While US consumers have pulled back significantly, they still consume a lot.  There is, as yet, no replacement for the US consumer.  China and other countries may wish there was, but there isn’t.

The American Security Product: One of the main reasons other countries were willing to, in effect subsidize the US, for decades, is that it provided the common security product—against the Soviets, then against real rogue nations, and always against pirates.

In particular, America’s navy is as large as the next 13 navies combined.   The US was responsible for keeping the world’s shipping lines open, and it was the core of the NATO hammer when a problem needed to be dealt with (for example, Serbia in the late nineties.)

But lately the US hasn’t been delivering the product in a way that the rest of the world appreciates.  Most of “old” Europe (ie. the countries with money and power) opposed it.  So did most of Asia. So did America’s allies in the Middle East.  Once in Iraq, the US couldn’t be defunded for fear of Iraq splintering, but now that it’s clear the US is leaving anyway, the possibility exists.

And then there’s the Somali pirates.  Because most of the US navy was occupied with the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, the Somali pirates got completely out of hand and the US Navy didn’t do anything about it for a long long time.  When the issue was finally dealt with, the US navy was only one of a number of navies doing so.  The US let it get out of control, and then wasn’t key to fighting it.

Now that the US no longer protects very well against the Soviets, rogue nations or pirates, and now that joint naval operations are how the Somali pirates are being dealt with, the rest of the world is wondering whether it’s worth paying for a US military which doesn’t do what they want it to do.  Only the Afghan war, which has elite support in Europe (though not popular) makes some think that perhaps the US is worth keeping on as the world’s policeman.

Buying Key Technologies Took Dollars:  Yet another reason folks wanted to have lots of dollars and access to dollars was that you needed dollars to buy certain goods.  For decades the only good commercial jet liners were Americans.  Key computer technologies needed to be bought in dollars.  Intellectual property needed to be bought in dollars.  The best military technology had to be (and still has to be) bought in dollars.  And so on.  The US wasn’t just home to the next technological revolution, it was home to all the good things you wanted to buy and which you couldn’t buy in your currency.

This is, with a few exceptions, no longer true.  The Europeans and Japanese can sell you most high end capital goods.  There is no real difference between Airbus and Boeing products (though both are essentially 30 year old technology).  The Chinese can and will sell you middle and low end goods for less than America. You don’t need dollars to buy most of what you need and want, and if something comes up really worth buying (say General Motors) well, if you’re someone who really wants it, like the Chinese, you just won’t be allowed to buy it anyway.  (The Chinese would have loved to buy GM.)

A Safe Haven For Money and For You: For decades, if you wanted a safe place to put your money and put it to work, the US was probably the best.  It was the most stable, it was impossible it could be conquered even if there was a World War III, it was the largest and could absorb the most money.  Likewise, if things went really bad in your country, it was a great place to flee to.

The financial crisis put the wisdom of placing your money in the US in question.  Bush era immigration and travel policies, not rescinded by the Obama administration, put the utility of the US as a safe haven in question as well.  And yet, to an extent, the US retains at least the first role, because there is simply no other country available.  Europe did not avoid the financial crisis, China doesn’t allow that much investment in the country and is an unsafe place to put money, and so on.  So the US retains some safe haven appeal.  At the same time, however, foreign elites have become far more uneasy about the idea and want a different option.  And for themselves, they’d rather vacation, have their second homes and educate their children in Europe.

And at last, back to oil: Of course, the final and in some ways most important reason for the dollar’s reserve currency status is that oil was sold in dollars.  This is a result of a decades long understanding between the key Gulf States, Saudi Arabia and America that the US both underwrote their security and could knock them over any time it wanted.  In exchange for America’s security umbrella and help in maintaining their regimes, oil was priced in dollars.  When they became rich in the 70s, their money flooded primarily through US banks.

Indeed, in prior years, every time an OPEC nation talked about going off the dollar as the currency for buying oil, rumor has it that the Saudis were the ones to spike the move.

Oil is the most important commodity in the world.  Ultimately all economies are underpinned by oil.  Oil is also the most important military resource.  With oil your army can move and fight.  Without it, it can’t.  In many ways WWII was fought for oil and with oil, and the powers with the oil defeated those which didn’t have it.

Which brings us back to the US military product.  As long as oil is priced in dollars, the US military can always function at full capacity, because if push comes to shove, the US can always just print more dollars.

If oil is not priced in dollars, then certain US access to oil is removed—both for the military and for the civilian population. Sure, the US can still print more dollars, but if oil isn’t priced in dollars, well, print too much and you may get inflation, even hyperinflation.  And if the oilarchies don’t approve of a particular military action, well, they can make it much more expensive.

Are the Dollar’s Days as Reserve Currency Over?

No.  They aren’t.  But they are numbered.  They aren’t over because other nations still need the US consumer.  Until the Chinese manage to create a domestic consumer society, both they and other countries can’t cut themselves lose from the US consumer.  What they will do, and what they are doing, is trying to manage how much the US borrows and to take away the US ability control the world’s money supply.  They will still have to keep the US propped up for the time being, because in so doing they are propping up themselves.  And remember always that Chinese citizens aren’t like Americans.  Take their jobs or their land or their hope and they get violent—very violent.  They have, do and will fight both the police and the military.  China’s elites know that if they don’t keep economic growth coming, their heads could literally wind up rolling.

In addition, while no one is happy with the US security product, the fact is that no one can really replace it.  The European military is not strong enough, and their navy does not have the projection ability.  Likewise with the Chinese military, who in any  aren’t trusted half as much as the Europeans, though their moral flexibility is appreciated by many regimes, who still understand you don’t invite China to station large number of troops in your country if you have half a brain.

Likewise, there is simply no replacement for the US as a haven of last resort.  China’s currency and investment controls make it unsuitable.  Europe managed its financial affairs no better than the US over the last decade, although they seem to have learned the regulatory lessons marginally better than the US.  If you need a place to store your money, and put it to work, the US may not look good, but neither does anyone else who is large enough to absorb large amounts of money.

The key break point, the end of the dollar hegemony, will come when the Chinese are able to move to a consumer economy.  At that point, the Chinese will no longer need America as consumers, and they will let the Yuan float.  The devastation this will wreck on the US economy is hard to overstate.  Standards of living will crash.  In the long run, being forced to live within its means, and no longer having to compete against massively subsidized foreign goods may turn out to be good for the US, but that won’t make you feel better as your effective income collapses or you lose your job.

This is probably two economic cycles out.  We’re talking 12 to 16 years.  So there’s time yet.  Probably.

So what does oil not being priced in dollars mean to me now?

Less money for everything.  The US will not be able to afford as large a stimulus as it should have.  It will mean borrowing costs higher than they would otherwise have been and more restricted credit (sure, theoretical interest rates may be low, but can you get a loan at those rates?)  Oil prices, and gas prices will be more volatile for the US than they were before, which is saying something.

And other countries will get more oil, relatively speaking.  Which means they will get more growth.   They will receive more investment from the oilarchies, and the US will receive less.   Relatively speaking the US economy will not be as good as it was.  This is a marginal effect, but marginal effects add up.

This is, in short, not good news.  You won’t be able to say “I lost my job because oil isn’t priced in dollars” but it will be true for some people.  Lower wages, more restricted credit, and more restricted government policy will be the price paid for the massive incompetence which lead to this moment.

And yet this does have a silver lining.  Both for other countries who deserve to be able to pay in their own currencies and for America and Americans, who need to learn to live within their means, to emphasize production again rather than consumption and who need to wean off of oil as much as possible in any case.

But it will hurt.

Page 13 of 14

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén