Category: business cycle

Economic(s) Progress?

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

Adam Smith started a conversation in 1776 about the economic and moral benefits of the “invisible hand” in the marketplace – making society better off, in spite of there being no coordinated plan.  Karl Marx argued that the unstoppable workings of history would inevitably lead to a socialist utopia.  In 1976, the sociologist Daniel Bell wrote of the “Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism”, whereby the underlying Protestant Work Ethic is corroded because of the hedonistic consumerism in a capitalist society.  Marx was wrong.  Bell was wrong about the end of capitalism, even if his critique of an aimless society still stings.  Where do we stand today on Smith’s breakthrough claims regarding the moral and economic superiority of the “free market”?

Support for the most simplified view of markets being truly perfect reached its peak following the Reagan/Thatcher years when the totalitarian communist alternative collapsed and the Atlantic version of a mixed economy demonstrated significant ongoing advantages compared with the Nordic version with greater state involvement.  Events of the last two decades – rise of China/emerging markets and fall of US/UK from the Great Recession – have undercut the plausibility of an extreme market solution being the best,  only or final answer.

It is obvious in hindsight that the business cycle has not been tamed, that financial markets are inherently unstable and subject to “animal spirits”, that markets are not perfect and that greed will continue to drive many market participants.  In spite of the positive societal benefits of financial innovations such as options, mutual funds, checkable deposits, portfolios and securitized assets, the broad financial sector seems to be an ongoing source of the greatest failures in capitalism.  The formal definition of “perfect market theory” has not reduced volatility, but it has led to a finance sector where every possible trick is used to generate “wealth”: Ponzi schemes, the carrying trade in foreign investing, borrowing short and lending long, off-balance sheet vehicles, hedge funds and extreme leverage to name a few.

A visible part of the general business sector appears to be equally enamored of finding every possible way to create financial wealth beyond “the old fashioned way, we earn it”.  Mergers and acquisitions continue because they can reduce competition, leverage overvalued stock prices and employ low-cost borrowing, even though on average they do not provide a net return to stockholders.  Corporations manage reported earnings, producing smooth growth for quarters until the next recession provides an opportunity to report losses due to extraordinary items and business conditions.  Executive pay increases as a share of revenues, as stockholders find themselves unable to solve “the agency problem”.  Corporations promote legal and public relations executives to the highest levels because the opportunities to create incremental wealth through influencing public policy are greater than investing in new products or markets.

On the other hand, it remains clear that capitalism remains a tremendous value creating mechanism for society, with productivity growth, innovation and personal incomes rising at strong rates without any long-term end in sight.  The system’s incentives do focus resources on innovation and dynamic value creation.  In spite of John Kenneth Galbraith’s old claims in “The Affluent Society”, there appears to be no limit to the demand for personal consumption at any income levels in society.  The recent work “Richistan” notes that individuals with $5M of annual income feel they would be secure if they only earned 50% more!

In a fundamental way, we’ve come back to the basic framework and issues of economics raised in the post-war period.  What is the right role for government in a mixed economy? 

We have learned some things in the last 50 years and the consensus view is more to the right than it was in 1950 or 1970.  The dynamic long-run wealth creating role of capitalism is better appreciated, including its role as a poverty and inequality reducing strategy.  Most agree that monetary policy matters, expectations about government behavior matter and “fine tuning” is only a theory.  Market competitors are the best anti-monopoly force, so regulation should be light and focus on anti-competitive actions rather than narrowly defined market shares.  Ongoing growth of real incomes in the bottom third of society can offset rising dollar inequality.  John Rawls’ philosophical justification for some income redistribution resonates for many moderates and liberals, but Robert Nozik’s emphasis on “fair rules” alone provides conservatives with a deeply felt alternative view.  Government actors are as subject to self-interest as consumers and capitalists, especially with regard to being “captured” by those they aim to regulate.  Countervailing forces such as labor unions are blunt instruments, which may not even benefit the groups they aim to support.

Many economists would like to see the public policy debates return to the post-war topics, with the two political parties sliding from left to right within the informed framework of current economic knowledge.  Capitalism provides great value as Adam Smith demonstrated.  There are inherent risks due to relying on self-interest (as Smith also noted).  There is a role for government in counterbalancing the business cycle, maintaining fair markets, managing the self-interest of government actors and ensuring public support for capitalism in spite of the unequal distribution of benefits.  The political parties exist to find a “happy medium” on these issues.

The current political climate does not readily support this possibility.  The Republican Party has become increasingly consistent, philosophical, libertarian and monetarist in its views.  Its leaders increasingly define a single economic viewpoint: minimal government, no taxes, minimal economic regulations, rules based monetarism, minimal anti-competitive policy or enforcement, zero income redistribution, etc.  While each of these views has philosophical and substantive research support, the combination of doctrinaire views leaves no room for a sliding scale in public policy, for the only preferred solution is “zero”. 

The Democratic Party has not lost its preference for “redistributing the pie” versus “growing the pie”.  It has not helped its union supporters to evolve into a German or Japanese style alternative way.  It has championed continued protection of its public sector employee supporters from accountability or competition.  It has reached the goal of universal social welfare coverage for health care.  In spite of some tactical moves to the center on economic issues (welfare reform, the means of health care reform, international trade), the Democratic Party continues to emphasize those policy areas that increase the role of the state versus the individual, rather than identifying ways to better leverage the value creating potential of markets.

It seems that it will take more than President Obama’s slogans of “hope and change” to get our political parties and politicians to focus on the potential for increased economic growth and pragmatically justified economic roles for the government.  Perhaps, we need another “political economist” to develop a breakthrough theory of the political sector as insightful and valuable as Smith’s view of the market.

Infinite Progress

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

At the start of 2010, I put a positive spin on the nascent economic and psychological recovery with blogs on “The Sky Has Stopped Falling”, “Good Riddance to Utopian Views of 2000” and “Self-Improving Systems”.  Today, I want to promote the broader subject of “Infinite Progress”.

Economics has earned its label as “the dismal science”.  It has been serious, analytical, realistic, short-term and marginal.  Imitating calculus and physics, it has sought to optimize production functions and maximize results subject to multiple linear constraints.  Like other academic disciplines, economics has been shaped by the dominant culture.  Economics has progressed through the Physiocrats, Marxists and Marginalists who in turn proclaimed that land, labor and capital each held the key to economic value.  Even Paul Samuelson’s neoclassical synthesis focused on these three “factors of production”, while mentioning that there was some remaining role for “technology” and “entrepreneurship”.

The “law” of diminishing marginal returns emphasizes that in the short-run, with given technology, additional inputs eventually yield lower incremental results.  This is certainly true, but development and growth economists focusing on the international and business sectors have demonstrated that this fourth factor (technology/entrepreneurship) is the primary driver of progress.  In fact, rather than being subject to diminishing returns, knowledge is the one factor that is subject to increasing returns through time!

In spite of the slow recovery in the current economic cycle, I believe that we are only 50 years into the greatest productivity expansion in history.  Annual labor or multi-factor productivity growth of 2-4% has become commonplace.  Even in the recession, we experienced 6-8% productivity growth.  Productivity growth will accelerate in the coming years to a minimum of 5% annually, in spite of our various challenges (aging population, protectionism, extremism, political polarization, religious stagnation, terrorism, global warming, limited natural resources, multi-polar international powers).

In no particular order, knowledge and practice has expanded and will continue to expand in all of these fields:

  1. Trade.  Lessons were learned in the Great Depression.  Tariffs have continued to fall.  Multilateral treaties have stalled, but bilateral trade agreements are accelerating.  English is becoming the global language, followed by Mandarin Chinese and Spanish.  A majority of the global population produces at a near-subsistence level.  They will all generate modern western levels of output within 40 years, providing added value globally.
  2. Physics/Engineering.  Basic physics, mechanical and civil engineering continue to advance.  Modern materials, energy, devices and structures will advance and be refined in light of breakthrough understandings (supercollider).
  3. Chemistry.  “The Graduate” whispered “plastics” as the key to the 20th century.  Plastics has delivered, but has not exhausted its secrets.
  4. Biology.  Biotechnology and modern medicine is on the verge of major breakthroughs in individualized medicine, medical information, preventive medicine, devices, new drugs and nano-technology based solutions.  Mental health care is leveraging improved understanding of the mind, behavior and chemistry.
  5. Energy.  Delayed by politics and prices, energy exploration and solutions are emerging.  Wind, solar, nuclear, clean-coal, tidal and other answers are now real.  Break-through shale, gas and deep-sea extraction technologies are imminent.  Major investment in alternative transportation options is producing results.
  6. Natural Resources.  The food, fiber and natural resources sector continues its 200 year track record of innovation, with genetically modified organisms, drip irrigation, weather forecasting, satellite guided farming and fish markets adding value.
  7. Transportation. New highways, hiking, biking, high-speed trains, point to point aircraft, larger container ships and usage tolls suggesting continued progress.
  8. Electronics.  Songs, movies, video, instruments, observation, robots, entertainment, games, virtual reality, and the list goes on and on.
  9. Computer Power.  Moore’s Law. ‘Nuff said.
  10. Telecommunications.  Cell phones, internet, computer integration, GPS, much faster speeds.
  11. Integration.  Electronics, telecommunications, media, entertainment in one place, on demand.
  12. Community.  Tribes, cities, nations, world.  Clubs, games, blogs, social media, Face book, LinkedIn, Twitter, no limit.
  13. Specialization.  Professions, suppliers, outsourcing, matrix organizations, consultants, global suppliers, increasing economies of scale, niche markets
  14. Process Improvement.  Process, quality, cost of quality, value added, variability, bottleneck, ISO, TQM, benchmarking, process re-engineering, quantum leap, lean manufacturing, lean, six sigma, kaizen, self-improving systems.
  15. Computer Systems.  Automation, systematization, mainframes, minicomputers, personal computers, applications, man-machine, GUI, windows, mouse, ERP, cloud computing as a utility.
  16. Library Science.  Dewey decimal, multimedia, informatics, knowledge management, Wikipedia, Amazon.com, tripadvisor.com, Angieslist.
  17. Economics.  Markets, global trade, auctions, information, behavioral economics, EDI, e-commerce, capitalism embraced everywhere in one form or another.
  18. Finance.  Stocks, bonds, pork-bellies, futures, puts, calls, mutual funds, checkable deposits, insurance, hedges, securitized debt.
  19. Management/leadership.  Strategic planning.  Product innovation. Growth/margin. Core competencies.  Discipline of Market Leaders.  First or second. Operational excellence.  Situational leadership.  Theory X, Y, Z.  Motivators and de-motivators.  Covey’s 7 habits, urgent and important.  Meyers-Briggs, personality styles and Gallup talents.  Change management.  Engaged/disengaged.  Creativity and thinking hats.  Accountability/Oz Principle.  Good to Great, Both/And. 

 

Knowledge will continue to increase in every discipline.  Market pressures will ensure rapid adoption, expansion and innovation.  The work world in 2010 could not be seen in 1980.  The work world in 2040 will exhibit the same degree of discontinuous change from a much higher base.

The Sky Has Stopped Falling

tomkapostasy1 Comment

Between October, 2009 and April, 2010 the US economy lost 4.8 million jobs: nearly 700,000 jobs per month.  In the last three months it has lost a TOTAL of 100,000.

How and why employment will recover faster than expected.

  1. The change from -700,000 jobs to zero is a major trend, indicating net job creation is imminent.  Obama’s budget forecast of 100,000 adds per month is conservative political positioning so that the real results will exceed expectations.  He and his party have an election to contest in November.
  2. GDP growth was 3% in the 3rd quarter and 5% in the 4th quarter, accompanied by eye-popping labor force productivity numbers above 5%.  Some hiring is required to meet existing production needs.  It has begun.
  3. Inventory replenishment will continue as it has in all other recoveries.
  4. More than half of the stimulus money remains to work through the economy. The second stimulus package is necessary political and psychological posturing and will be too late and too little to make a material difference.
  5. Construction has nowhere to go but up after 3 years of decline.  Even with ongoing foreclosures, there is pent-up demand for new housing.
  6. Consumer durable goods’ spending is ready to bounce back.  Cars, washers and televisions have limited technical and acceptable status lives.
  7. Businesses are ready to invest in capital goods, productivity improvements, IT systems, new channels, new products and exports.  Businesses have the resources to invest after lower than average spending since 2000.
  8. 5-8% growth in China and other developing countries increases demand for US exports and raises prices for US imports.
  9. Once the global recovery is underway and the extent of US monetary expansion is plain (leading to inflation), the US dollar value will fall and US exports will increase.
  10. The retirement of the Baby Boomers will lead to specific hiring in sectors of high demand: health care, financial services, housing and travel.
  11. The retirement of Baby Boomers will increase from 2.2M per year to 3.7M per year in the next 8 years, adding an average of 1M jobs per year.
  12. The US population will continue to grow at 1% per year, leading to growth in aggregate demand of 1% per year.
  13. US labor force and total factor productivity continue at high historical rates, generating the underlying added output which leads to wages, profits and rents which create the next round of aggregate demand.
  14. There are long-term positive employment trends in a majority of the US industry sectors.  The US economy has continued its transformation into an information economy.  Manufacturing employment is now less than 10% of the total.  We may have found the bottom for this sector.

 

There are certainly national and global risks in the current economic climate.  However, the US economy has shown increasing resiliency in the last 60 years, recovering from recessions in spite of a variety of headwinds.  The economy has recovered during Republican and Democratic administrations, in spite of helpful and harmful national policies.  There are many reasons to believe that the current recovery will be strong.

10% Labor Force Growth, 1998-2007

tomkapostasyLeave a comment
 US Employment by Industry         
         
   1998   2007   Change   Pct 
 Extraction/Utilities       2.3      2.5          0.2 9%
 Construction       6.2      7.6          1.4 23%
 Manufacturing      17.2    13.7         (3.5) -20%
 Wholesale/Retail Trade      18.1    19.8          1.7 9%
 Transport/Warehouse       3.9      4.3          0.4 10%
 Information       3.1      2.9         (0.2) -6%
 Finance/Insurance       5.4      6.0          0.6 11%
 Real Estate       1.7      2.0          0.3 18%
 Profl, Bus, Adm Services      21.2    25.0          3.8 18%
 Education       2.0      2.7          0.7 35%
 Health Care      11.2    14.3          3.1 28%
 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation       1.4      1.7          0.3 21%
 Accommodations/Food       8.1      9.4          1.3 16%
 Other Services       5.3      6.0          0.7 13%
 Government      18.7    20.2          1.5 8%
    125.8   138.1        12.3 10%

Where Have All the Dollars Gone?

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

Economists enjoy the sense of security provided by the “National Income Accounts” where Gross Domestic Product, the value of all goods and services produced domestically, is always equal, by definition, to Consumption plus Investments plus Government plus Net Exports.  Reviewing the changes in the share of economic activity in the components of C+I+G+NX goes a long way towards explaining our current and future economic predicament.  The economy has changed dramatically since 1960. which will serve as a baseline for the post-war era.

During the bright days of Camelot, Consumption was 63%, Investment 15%, Government 21% and Net Exports +1%.  In 2008, Consumption was 70%, Investment 15%, Government 20% and Net Exports -5%.  In simplest terms, we are consuming 7% more thanks to the generosity of other exporting nations! 

Investment averages 16% of GDP: 11% business and 5% residential.  Business investment has reached peaks of 12-13% in 1978-85, 1998-2001 and 2007-08.  It experienced troughs of 9-10% in 1960-64, 1991-93, and 2003-04.  Business investment responds to tax and market opportunities, adding a pro-cyclical boost to the recovery.  Residential real estate follows its own pattern, reaching 5-6% peaks in 1962-64, 1972-73, 1977-79, and 2004-06, alternating with 3-4% troughs in 1966-67, 1975, 1981-82, 1990-93, and 2008.  The 3.3% share in 2008 is the lowest in the period, followed by an even lower share in 2009.  Residential real estate experienced an unprecedented 13 year run without a down cycle.  The over expansion in 2004-2006 means that the usual residential real estate recovery will be delayed for a few years.

Government consumption expenditures, excluding transfer payments, declined from 21% to 20% of GDP across the period.  Direct federal government, non-defense expenditures remained flat and immaterial at 2.5%.  National defense started at a high 10% in 1960 and remained at that level as late as 1968 before declining after the Vietnam conflict wound down.  The peace dividend allowed defense spending to fall to 6% for 1977-80.  Defense spending rose again in the waning years of the Cold War, reaching 7.4% in 1985-87, before sliding to as low as 3.8% from 1998-2001.  The terrorist response has triggered an increase to 5.1% of GDP by 2008.  Delivering the “Great Society” initiatives, state and local government spending grew from 9.5% in 1961-63 to 12.5% in 1974-76.  State and local government declined to 11% in 1983-85, remaining at 11.3% as late as 1998 before growing to 12.2% in 2002-03.  State and local government spending will act as a drag on the economy for at least 2 years.  Defense spending shows no clear trend.  Federal government spending on stimulus measures may be 3-5% of GDP in 2010.  The expected decline in stimulus spending will act as a drag on the economy in 2011.

Across 50 years the United States rejoined the world economy after the unusual post-war period of self-sufficiency and high global demand for U.S. goods.  Exports of services tripled from 1.3% to 3.9% of GDP in this period.  Exports of goods doubled from 4% to 8%, reaching 8.8% in 2008.  Total exports increased from 5% to 13% of GDP.  On the other hand, service imports doubled from 1.4% to 2.9%.  Goods imports increased five-fold, from 3% to 15% of GDP.  This 12% of GDP change has outpaced the growth in exports. 

A 2-3% trade deficit was experienced from 1984-88.  The competitive response reduced the deficit to an average of 1% for the next decade.  The deficit rapidly grew to 4% in 2000 and a high of 5.7% in 2005-06.  As pundits have noted, no nation has ever been able to run a 5% trade deficit for decades.  The unique situation of the US as the world’s currency and safest investment home, plus the growth of China’s economy and its willingness to finance the trade deficit has allowed this to continue.  In the long-run, the US dollar will fall relative to China’s currency and trade will rebalance.  There is no way to predict the timing of this change.  For a decade, the U.S. has consumed 5% more than it produced.  Consumption will fall.

Consumption is the 800 pound gorilla of GDP accounting.  Its rise from 63% to 70% of GDP is the counterbalance to the trade deficit.  Durable goods production held its own, maintaining 9% of GDP through 2003, before falling to 7.6% as the auto recession began in 2008.  Non-durable goods production dropped from 25% to 16% of GDP by 1995 and maintaining that level through 2008.  The 9% decline in non-durable goods production has been replaced by an increase in services from 30% to 47% of the economy. 

The service share was 30% as recently as 1969, so this 17% switch occurred in just 40 years.  The service share reached 45% in 2001 and has inched up slowly since then, reflecting the “jobless recovery” of the 2000’s.  Durable goods production will recover from its low level as autos and equipment age.  The trend in non-durable goods moving to import sources is likely to continue.  Without changes in the health care industry, this part of services is likely to keep growing: a short-term benefit for jobs and GDP.

Government budget, trade and savings deficits need to be repaid.  The retiring Baby Boomers need to be replaced in the labor force at high productivity rates.  Some form of improved health care market, incentives or rationing is required to limit the growth of this sector.  The U.S. has significant economic challenges to be faced.  The transition from Keynesian fiscal stimulus and easy money to a sustainable course is a necessary first step.  U.S. economic productivity, competitiveness and innovation have not been undermined by the Great Recession.  The business cycle provides a natural boost to recovery from inventory replenishment, capital spending and durable goods demand as we are already seeing.  Let’s hope that the president can have a real meeting of the minds with Congress and begin to address the long-term structural challenges faced by the country that go far beyond the 2010 and 2012 elections.

A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

“A rising tide lifts all boats”.  When economic progress is steady, or at least not interrupted for too long, this saying seems to hold true.   When everyone benefits from progress, people invest their effort into getting ahead.  Today we face the greatest economic disruption in 75 years.  Without a clear path forward, people of all political views are turning their thoughts enviously towards the boats others.  International trade, labor, spending, health care and tax policies are all being reviewed through the lens of protecting current advantages or redistributing funds.

The classic focus of redistribution is on the “rich” and the “poor”.  Bankers and corporate executives have lost the “entrepreneurial” and “value added” shields of the last 30 years.  Citizens are now concerned about the distribution of income and are willing to consider tax and regulatory changes that would have been unthinkable a decade ago.

The share of income captured by the top 1% of earners receives the most attention.  From 1917-1941, through boom, bust and preparation for war, the top 1% earned 15% of all income.  This changed dramatically during WWII and afterwards, leading to a 35 year period from 1953-1987, where income at the top was cut in half, with 8% of the total going to the top 1%.  Top 1% income grew rapidly in the late 1980’s, reaching 13% and then 15% by 1999 and 17% by 2007. 

The spread of income within the center of the population has also broadened in the last 40 years.  In real 2007 dollars, average household income has increased 30% since 1967, from $40,000 to $52,000 per year.  Families at the 20th percentile have also seen a 30% increase, rising from $17,000 to $22,000 per year.  The dollar and percentage growth at the higher percentiles has been much greater.  Households at the 80th percentile have gained 55%, with incomes rising from $67,000 to $104,000.  Those at the 90th percentile have gained 66%, boosting incomes from $85,000 to $141,000.

There is no “natural” or “optimal” distribution of income.  The US has historically had a greater concentration of wealth or income than other economically advanced nations.  As shown by the top 1%, the concentration can change dramatically through time.  However, most economists agree that there is a level of marginal taxation on income, wealth, dividends and capital gains that significantly reduces incentives for hours worked, innovation, risk taking and entrepreneurship.  

Small changes to the taxation and incentive structure of the US economy are not likely to cause too much damage.  Significant tax increases could do significant short-term and long-term damage to the economy and to those at the lower end of the economic pyramid who depend upon the rising tide to lift their boats in the long run.

Labor Market Failure and Recovery

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

After 18 months of hiring freeze, it’s time for all profit-maximizing firms to kick start their recruiting.  At present, we’re hiring too few, we’re too focused on exact hiring matches and we’re unwilling to invest in the future.

 The recession was first sensed by wise businesses in 2Q 2008.  The banking crisis of Fall, 2008 terrified even those whose careers went back to 1974-1982 when the last panic of gas prices, inflation, interest rates and Japanese competition derailed the post WWII expansion.  While the freeze and risk-averse decisions were justified at the time, they are wrong today.

 The all-in cost for a senior professional staff member is roughly $100,000 per year.  A good hire lasts for up to 10 years.  A typical hire is a $1 million investment.  In the current environment with 16M candidates chasing 3M jobs, the odds of finding a great candidate are excellent and the ability to hire at 20% below old market salaries is a given.  Firms with a strategic view of human resources should be first in line to hire these high ROI assets – TODAY.  Every good hire is a $200-300,000 addition to the firm’s net worth.

There is little joy in HR departments these days.  Hiring volume is down so the pressure is on to reduce HR staffing and to NOT use external recruiters.  The volume of applicants per position has quadrupled.  HR’s ability to use on-line application forms and screening tools has improved, but not enough.  To cope with the excess supply, HR and hiring managers have decided to make an exact match of past experience by industry and function to the position the penultimate criteria for hiring.  This allows the greatest percentage of candidates to be eliminated in the first screening. 

 Unfortunately, this means that many qualified candidates are not considered.  Narrowly experienced and over-tenured candidates are favored, even if they have had the same experience for 8 years in a row.  Firms pursuing this approach will soon find that they have hired adequate candidates who have limited upside potential.  They are also likely to find that they have made many “hiring errors” because they have not given equal weight to the questions of personal motivation/drive and teamwork/manageability.  I recommend Martin Yates “Hiring the Best” as a guide.

Firms that continue in “hiring freeze” mode have a bias towards replacement of existing positions versus investment in the staff who deliver future value.  There are thousands of highly skilled project managers, business analysts, scientists, quality specialists, product managers, marketing researchers and other professionals who are unemployed because firms are unwilling to restart the investment cycle.  This recession will end and success will depend upon investing in new products, new customers and better processes.  There may be some areas where NOT replacing a separated employee is the right choice.  Successful firms make decisions one choice at a time rather than relying on simple rules.

 Firms that have their financial house in order need to race to the labor market while supply exceeds demand and hire skilled, motivated team players to pursue the next cycle of business investments that deliver long-term value.