The massive declines in manufacturing employment were global. It led many to believe jobs were moving from the USA to China but much more accurately jobs were being eliminated everywhere. China lost more manufacturing jobs than the USA during the 1990s and early 2000s.

The manufacturing job losses have been caused by productivity improvements. And those productivity improvements have provided us much cheaper access to manufacturing goods. That continued downward pressure on prices has been a big factor in the drastic decline in inflation. The threat of excessive inflation, which was so feared in the 1980s, has been replaced by the opposite problem – the threat of deflation.

One aspect of the productivity improvement has been the global supply chains that have allowed companies to increase efficiency. The requirements of managing global supply chains are extremely complex and likely would not be possible without software to aid in the complex task.

In his book, The Great Convergence, Richard Baldwin discussed how important the decline in shipping costs had in the economics of the last 50 years (we wrote about this book in: Historical Global Economic Data and Current Issues for Globalization). Those declines in prices, aided by other factors, increased the importance of supply chains.

The last few decades have also seen dramatic changes in supply chains due to the internet. The time from manufacture to consumer has been shaved by direct shipment to consumers and nearly direct shipment to consumers via companies such as Amazon. Again software plays a central role in tying the manufacturing floor to a nearly instantaneous status of incoming orders from end users. Or in the case of software and entertainment, companies like Apple and Netflix have replaced the entire supply chain of manufacturing physical goods (DVDs, CDs…) with software.

These changes in addition to increasing efficiency are again decreasing jobs by increasing the efficiency of the economy. These changes cause harm to those that are being squeezed (both employees and companies) while the economy overall gets more goods at lower prices to consumers.

That shows how quickly things changed. The industrialization of Europe and the USA was an incredibly powerful global economic force. The rapid economic gains of Japan, Korea, Singapore, China and India in the last 50 years should be understood in the context of the last 200 years not just the last 100 years.

A central point Richard advocates for in the book is realizing that the current conditions are different from the conditions in which traditional economic theory (including comparative advantage) hold. The reasoning and argument for this claim are a bit too complex to make sensibly in this post but the book does that fairly well (not convincingly in my opinion, but enough to make the argument that we can’t assume traditional economic theory for international trade is completely valid given the current conditions).

I don’t expect this blog post to convince people. I don’t even think his book will. But he makes a case that is worth listen to. And I believe he is onto something. I have for years been seeing the strains of “comparative advantage” in our current world economy. That doesn’t mean I am not mainly a fan of freer trade. I am. I don’t think complex trade deals such as TPP are the right move. And I do think more care needs to be taken to consider current economic conditions and factor that into our trade policies.

Richard Baldwin uses 3 costs and the economic consequences of those changing over time to show globalizations history, where we are today and where we are going.

It isn’t very easy to follow but the book provides lots of explanation for the dramatic consequences of these costs changing over time.

One of his themes is that mobility of labor is still fairly costly. It isn’t easy to move people from one place to another. Though he does discuss how alternatives that are similar to this (for example telepresence and remote controlled robots to allow a highly technical person to operate remotely) without actually do moving the person are going to have huge economic consequences.

The “high spillovers” are the positive externalities that spin off of a highly knowledgable workforce.

In my opinion, it is likely politics is going to be the biggest factor going forward. This is going to provide huge benefits to countries that have relatively well managed governments (being led everywhere by politicians) such as Singapore, Norway and New Zealand big advantages. The practices in the USA of blowhards subverting government and rational policy is going to be very costly. The enormous wealth the USA has is a huge benefit that allows it to prosper even while managing itself poorly. At some level of bad policy and practice it will overcome the huge wealth advantage the USA has. At what point that happens, it is hard to predict.

I agree that protectionism is a very bad idea. I wonder if he is as confident our politicians (that we foolishly elected) will avoid plunging us into such bad policies today as when he wrote this in 2016?

The complexity of the economic consequences of international trade require knowledge, skill, patience and practical thinking to create economic gains going forward. I am worried about the foolish leaders we are electing in many of the rich countries recently. They do not appear to understand complexity or value the importance of expertise, uncertainty and implementation of economic policy. The complexity today requires more understanding, study, learning and care than was required last century but instead we are electing people with less wisdom than ever (and we were not electing incredibly wise people very often in the past).

Related: Economic Measurement Issues Arising from Globalization – How to Balance the Benefits of Foreign Workers and the Potential Damage to Citizen’s Job Prospects (2013) – The USA Doesn’t Understand that the 1950s and 1960s are Not a Reasonable Basis for Setting Expectations – The Future is Engineering (2006) – Historical Stock Returns – We Need to be More Capitalist and Less Cronyist

The data, from IMF, does not include China or India.

The chart shows data for net debt (gross debt reduced by certain assets: gold, currency deposits, debt securities etc.).

Viewing our post on the data in 2014 we can see that the USA improved on the expectations, managing to hold net debt to 80% instead of increasing to 88% as expected. Nearly every country managed to take on less debt than predicted (Vietnam took on more, but is very low so this is not a problem).

Taking on debt to invest in valuable resources (building roads, mass transit, internet infrastructure, education, environmental regulation and enforcement, health care, renewable energy…) that will boost long term economic performance can be very useful. The tricky part is knowing the debt levels doesn’t tell you whether the debt was taken on for investment or just to let current taxpayers send the bills for their consumption to their grandchildren.

Also government debt can become a huge burden on the economy (especially if the debt is owed outside the country). The general consensus today seems to be that 100% net debt level is the maximum safe amount and increasing beyond that gets riskier and riskier.

And it isn’t at all that this is a universal truth. Economically weaker countries have greater risks. And to me, if they go above 75% that starts to get very risky. The USA and Japan have extra latitude that others would be wise to realize. Taking on the same level of debt would be very troublesome for most countries. Japan has a huge percentage of their debt held internally which makes a huge difference (it is much safer).

Taking on government debt (at acceptable interest rates) and investing in economically productive projects is wise. There is a huge risk of taking on the debt given that reasonable business case but then spending in foolishly which creates big economic problems in the long run. If the investment don’t pay off the grandchildren of those taking out the debt will be stuck paying it back. But if the investments are wise the grandchildren will inherit a strong economy and benefit from the wise use of debt that was invested well.

I don’t think it takes much imagination to worry about all the ways taking on debt could result in bad long term results. I do believe in the value of wise government spending. I also do worry about politicians just rewarding those that pay give cash to them (their “campaign funds,” show a history of paying former politicians as lobbyists etc. when they leave…) instead of fulfilling their obligation to the country.

Related: Government Debt as Percent of GDP 1998-2010 for OECD – Gross Government Debt as Percentage of GDP 1990-2009: USA, Japan, Germany, China

U.S. Health-Care System Ranks as One of the Least-Efficient

None of these rankings are perfect and neither is this one. But it is clear beyond any doubt that the USA healthcare system is extremely costly for no better health results than other rich countries (and even more expensive with again no better results than most poor countries). It is a huge drain on the economy that we continue to allow lobbyists and special interests to take advantage of the rest of us via the Democrats and Republican parties actions over the last few decades.

We have to improve. The costs imposed on everyone to support those benefiting from this decades old transfer of economic wealth to health care special interests should no longer be accepted.

The top 5 countries are: Hong Kong, Singapore, Spain, South Korea and Japan. The first four have costs about 25% of the USA. Japan costs about 40% of the USA per person cost.

Mylan’s despicable actions with Epi-pen and the direct participation of both political parties in increasing the costs foisted on the health care system by Mylan is just one in hundreds of the individual actions that continue to saddle the rest of USA economy with huge costs.

Related: Out of Pocket “Maximum”, Understanding USA Health Care Costs – Decades Later The USA Health Care System is Still a Deadly Disease for Our Economy – 2015 Health Care Price Report, Costs in the USA and Elsewhere – USA Health Care Spending 2013: $2.9 trillion $9,255 per person and 17.4% of GDP – USA Spends $7,960 Compared to Around $3,800 for Other Rich Countries on Health Care with No Better Health Results (2009 data)

In 1965 foreign ownership of USA stocks totaled about 2%, in 1990 it had risen to 10% and by 2015 to 26%. That the foreign ownership is so high surprised me. Holdings in retirement accounts (defined benefit accounts, IRAs etc.) was under 10% in 1965, rose to over 30% in 1990 and to about 40% in 2015. The holdings in retirement accounts doesn’t really surprise me.

The combination of these factors (and a few others) has decreased the holding of USA stocks that are taxable in the USA from 84% in 1965 to 24% in 2015. From the report

As with much economic data it isn’t an easy matter to determine what values to use in order to get figures such as “foreign ownership.” Still this is very interesting data, and as the report suggests further research in this area would be useful.

Related: There is No Such Thing as “True Unemployment Rate” – The 20 Most Valuable Companies in the World – February 2016 (top 10 all based in the USA) – Why China’s Economic Data is Questionable – Data provides an imperfect proxy for reality (we often forget the proxy nature of data)

My plan would have 3 parts. I like a flat tax, I doubt it will ever happen, but if we could get one I would be happy. Cruz proposes that (at 10%). I am fine with his proposal to eliminate all deductions but mortgage interest and charity. I would definitely tweak that some – no more than $50,000 in mortgage interest deduction a year and the same for charity. Basically subsidizing it a bit for the non-rich is fine. Subsidizing these for the rich seems silly so I would cap the deductions in some way. I also wouldn’t mind an almost flat tax, say 12% up to $200,000 and 15% after that (or some such rates).

Cruz’s rate is far too low given the government he wants. The government budget is largely: Social Security, Medicare and Military. Then you also have debt payment which have to be paid. Those 4 things are over 80% of the spending. All the other things are just in the last 20%, you can cut some of that but realistically you can’t cut much (in percentage terms – you can cut hundreds of billions theoretically but it is unlikely and even if you did it isn’t a huge change).

We are piling on more debt than we should. Therefore we should increase revenue, not reduce it. But if we can’t increase it (for political reasons) we definitely should not reduce it until we have shown that we have cut spending below revenue for 2 full years. After that, great, then decrease rates.

The White House, Washington DC by John Hunter. See more of my photos of Washington DC.

The VAT tax on businesses replacing the corporate tax system is in Cruz’s plan and this is the best option for corporate taxes in my opinion. Another decent option is just to pass through all the earnings to the owners (I first heard this proposal from my Economics professor in College) and tax them on the earnings.

Increasing the giveaways to trust-fund baby as Cruz and Trump propose is the single worst tax policy change that can be made. I have explained previously how bad an idea this is: The estate tax is the most capitalist tax that exists. The trust-fund-baby favors should be reduced not increased. I would roll back to the Reagan Administration policy on estate tax rates.

I would raise the federal tax on gasoline by 50 cents a gallon. Use it to fund mass transit improvements and to cut the deficit and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I would want have the whole rest of the taxes revenue neutral (and use this as extra income) but if that wasn’t possible, then make the whole thing together revenue neutral.

Social Security taxes are nearly equal to other income taxes. They are highly regressive. I would eliminate the current elimination of the tax on high income earners. I would just have the tax due on all earned income (no cap). If that let me reduce the rate, great, if not fine it would just make the fund solvent for longer. I would not increase the benefits due for high earners beyond what it is now.

I would also prefer to raise the retirement age on which benefits are paid (this isn’t really something that seems likely but I would support it strongly if there was any interest). I would do this in a similar way to the last time this was done. Last time they only raised it by 2 years. I would aim for at least 3 more, but would take whatever we can get. Those increased ages would not take full affect until 20-30 years from now.

I would also strongly support Bernie Sander’s desire to increase all tax revenue and create a single payer health care system. The economic cost of the current USA health care system is an enormous burden we all suffer from every year. A single payer solution isn’t nirvana but the current system is horrible, a single payer system would be a huge improvement.

I would prefer to change unearned income taxes to be more favorable for long term investing (if such income didn’t get swept up into a flat tax). Including it in a flat tax would be my preference, I am just saying if we didn’t get that and had something more like our current system I would want a change in tax on unearned income. Dividends shouldn’t get special treatment. Capital gains should be indexed to inflation – so selling a stock 20 years later would be not calculated on just the purchase price and sales price. The post inflation gain or loss would be calculated and then I would give favorable treatment to long term investments (over 2 years).

So I would gladly take a VAT from Cruz but at a more reasonable rate (perhaps 15%) and the flat tax from Cruz but again at a more reasonable rate (perhaps 15%) and the other adjustments mentioned above. I have no idea but just based on my wild guess it seems like 15% for both might fund a single payer health care system. But if a better health care system wasn’t possible due to special interests then just set those percentages at whatever makes it revenue neutral with the other factors (reasonable estate taxes instead of trust fund baby subsidies, increase gas tax).

I would be much more willing to cut spending than either the Democrats or Republicans. There are only 3 places to cut real money and neither party wants to cut Social Security or Medicare. I don’t want to cut Medicare. I don’t want to cut Social Security benefits but I would move back the age (cutting benefits for people retiring 20+ years from now) I would also be fine cutting payments to the rich, but this is not politically feasible so I am fine not doing it.

Many Republicans want to increase military spending, few are willing to cut it; a few Democrats are willing to cut it but not many. I would be willing to cut military spending to the tune of hundreds of billions a year. We just shouldn’t try to do as much as we do militarily. It is too costly. We need to spend less. Again this isn’t so likely but unless you do this thinking you can cut taxes is foolish. If you want to cut taxes you have to cut spending. I would be willing to cut military spending to cut taxes but it is unlikely there is political will do that in the USA.

Related: Taxes per Person by Country (2010) – USA State Governments Have $1,000,000,000,000 in Unfunded Retirement Obligations (2010) – USA Federal Debt Now $516,348 Per Household (2007) – Lavishing Tax Cuts on Ourselves That Our Grandkids Have to Pay For is Bad Policy (2013)

Effectively the rich end up subsidizing the low rates for the poor, which is a very sensible setup it seems to me. The market functions fairly well even though it is distorted a bit to let the poor (or anyone that uses very little electricity) to pay low rates.

In a country like Malaysia as people become rich they may well decide to use a great deal of electricity for air conditioning (it is in the tropics). But their ancestors didn’t have that luxury and having that be costly seems sensible to me. Allowing the poor to have access to cheap electricity is a very good thing with many positive externalities. And subsidizing the rate seems to be a good idea to me.

Often you get bad distortions in how markets work when you try to use things like subsidies (this post is expanded from a comment I made on Reddit discussing massive bad investments created by free electricity from the power company to city governments – including free electricity to their profit making enterprises, such as ice rinks in Puerto Rico).

View of downtown Johor Bahru from my condo (a small view of Singapore visible is in the background)

With the model of low residential rates for low usage you encourage people to use less electricity but you allow everyone to have access at a low cost (which is important in poor or medium income countries). And as people use more they have to pay higher rates (per kwh) and those rates allow the power company to make a profit and fund expansion. Often in developing countries the power company will be semi-private so the government is involved in providing capital and sharing in profits (as well as stockholders).

The USA mainly uses central air conditioning everywhere. In Malaysia, and most of the world actually, normally they just have AC units in some of the rooms. In poor houses they may well have none. In middle class houses they may have a one or a couple rooms with AC units.

Even in luxury condos (and houses) they will have some rooms without AC at all. I never saw a condo or house with AC for the kitchen or bathrooms. The design was definitely setup to use AC in fairly minimal ways. The hallways, stairways etc. for the “interior” of the high rise condos were also not air conditioned (they were open to the outside to get good air flow). Of course as more people become rich there is more and more use of AC.

Related: Traveling for Health Care – Expectations – Looking at the Malaysian Economy (2013) – Pursuing a Growing Economy While Avoiding the Pitfalls That Befall to Many Middle Income Countries – Singapore and Iskandar Malaysia – Looking at GDP Growth Per Capita for Selected Countries from 1970 to 2010 – Malaysian Economy Continues to Expand, Budget Deficits Remain High (2012) – Iskandar Malaysia Housing Real Estate Investment Considerations (2011)

The issue I see is that a .25% Fed Funds rate is adding gasoline to the economy via low interest rates. Many people are saying an increase is like taking away the gasoline and taking out a fire extinguisher. But it really isn’t. Raising the rate to .25% is slightly decrease the amount of gas you are adding to the fire. A .25% Federal Funds rate is pouring nearly as much gas on as you are able to but not quite the absolute most you are able to.

It is also true that the Fed bailing out the too-big-to-fail bankers and banks resulted in them not only opening up the gasoline as much as possible (taking rates to 0) they even went far beyond that with new methods of pouring on gasoline that hadn’t even been considered until the bankers’ risk-taking doomed the economy (and bankrupted their institutions – without government bailouts propping them up).

The Federal Reserve has finally turned off the massive extraordinary dumping of gasoline onto the economic fire (via quantitative easing). But they have kept not only dumping lots of gasoline on the economy but doing so to the absolute maximum possible via a 0% Fed Funds rate.

Arguing for slowing the amount of fuel you are dumping into the economy is not the same as saying you are constricting the economy. We have been put into a crazy global economic condition by the too-big-to-fail bankers and the massive amounts of government and personal debt taken out. So simple analogies are not effective in making policy.

The analogies can help explain what the intent and expectation of the policy is. It is true we have created a very tenuous economic foundation (and we haven’t in any way substantial way addressed the risk too-big-to-fail bankers can throw the global economy into and we still have massive debt problems). The main beneficiaries of the central banker’s policies the last nearly 10 years are too-big-to-fail bankers and those borrowing huge amounts of money.

Those suffering from the policy are savers and I fear those that have to cope with the aftermath of this massive intervention with likely bubbles (government debt, personal debt [including education debt in the USA, etc.]). The main reason I believe rates should be raised are to begin the path to stop transferring wealth from savers to too-big-to-fail bankers and those with massive debt problems.

It is true the massively in debt governments have been given a huge transfer of wealth by central bankers and we have largely (across the globe) avoided runaway inflation. Europe has experienced some issues from one of the areas the central bankers have attempted to cover up by injecting gasoline – massive government debt. But overall governments have been able to pay much less to bondholders and therefore make deficits seem much less than they would be with more sensible interest rates.

The global economy is in a very fragile state and luckily inflation has not been a problem. But it seems to me we can’t just keep hoping that putting our feet all the way on the excelerator for years on end is really going to work without consequences. Most likely the risks increase the longer you pour on as much gasoline as you can (asset bubbles, careless taking on of debt, increasingly risky behavior by bailed out too-big-to-fail institutions…).

The risk of deflation and a deflation mentality is one of the only decent arguments (well also that inflation isn’t a risk, right now) against slowing how much gasoline is being poured into the economy (with 0% Fed Funds). The other is that the global economy is about to have real trouble even after years of pouring on as much gas as we can. But I think the risks of keeping pouring as much gas as possible is too great. We need to keep pouring on gas, just not at the absolute maximum level – so we should raise the rate to .25% this month.

I would likely wait 3+ months to do raise it to .5% though obvious depending on what happens that may change. We should get to 1% as quickly as we can, which is still very “accommodative” (pouring on gasoline). Beyond the system risks of creating instability by pouring on as much gasoline as possible continuously it also is bad as you have no room for flexibility if you wan to increase the flow of gasoline. While it is true you can resort to extra-ordinary measures such as the too-big-to-fail quantitative easing bailouts those should be restricted to emergencies such as those created when our politicians allow the behavior that necessitated those unprecedented bailouts (especially since those too-big-to-fail institution still pose huge risks today).

Related: Is Adding More Banker and Politician Bailouts the Answer? – Fed Cuts Rate to 0-.25% (2008) – The Precipitous Fall of the Ringgit Shows the Economic Risk in the Malaysian Economy

Within the market there is tons of variation those things of course are not nearly that simple, but the idea I think holds. Well if you look back at historical data the returns will include the adjustment of going from a PE of 11 to a PE of 14. Now maybe the new few decades would adjust from PE of 14 to PE of 17 but maybe not. At some point that fundamental re-adjustment will stop.

And therefore future returns would be expected to be lower than historically due to this one factor. Now maybe other factors will increase returns to compensate but if not the historical returns may well provide an overly optimistic view.

And if there is a short term bubble that lets say pushes the PR to 16 while the “fair” long term value is 14, then there will be a negative impact on the returns going forward bringing the PE from 16 to 14. That isn’t necessarily a drop (though it could be) in stock prices, it could just be very slow increases as earning growth slowly pushes PE back to 14.

Monument to the People’s Heroes with the Shanghai skyline in the background. See more photos by John Hunter

Another thing to consider is another long term macro-economic factor may also be giving long term historical returns an extra boost. The type of economic growth from the end of World War I to 1973 (just to pick a specific time, there was a big economic slowdown after OPEC drastically increased the price of oil). While that period includes the great depression and World War II, which massively distorts figures, from the end of WW I through the 1960s Europe and the USA went through an amazing amount of economic growth.

During that period the boom in communications, electricity, industrialization, air conditioning, modern farming practices (which continues booming significantly after 1973) indoor plumbing… increased the economy dramatically. We have had a subsequent period of massive boom related to computerization and software advances and health care drugs and technology. And Japan was a bit offset booming from 1950 to about 1990. And China has been booming from about 1990 to now.

While we may see similar boom, perhaps from robotics and continuing with health care technologies and perhaps India, Africa and South America could boom in massive globally macro-economicly significant ways. But it also is possible these huge macro-economic booms are not repeated. If so, it is natural that the historical stock market return would be reduced.

To a lessor extent financial engineering that was wise and useful, as apposed to just reckless gambling has boosted stock returns significantly. It is likely that won’t be repeated.

I like the idea of paying attention to long term historical data. And that has value for stock investors. But when you look at long term data you have to consider whether that data is not just providing measurements of what stock market performance can be expected to be (as say you would from testing scientific facts such as the boiling point of water). The historical stock data was true for a period of time and informs us about that period. But the next 40 years will be much different and to what extent the past data is relevant is open for debate.

Related: Global Stock Market Capitalization from 2000 to 2012 – Misuse of Statistics, Mania in Financial Markets – Are Stocks Still Overpriced? (2008) – Data Can’t Lie, But People Can Be Mislead – Investing Return Guesses While Planning for Retirement – S&P 500 Dividend Yield Tops Bond Yield: First Time Since 1958 (2008)

Based on the Federal Reserve’s 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances the Center updated the NRRI results (the entire article is a very good read).

from the NRRI report.

The lower the risk number in the chart the better, so things have not been going well since the 1990s for those in the USA saving for retirement.

As the report discusses their are significant issues with retirement planning that defy easy prediction; this makes things even more challenging for those saving for retirement. The report discusses the difficulty placed on retirees by the Fed’s extremely low interest rate policy (a policy that provides billions each year to too-big-too-fail banks – hardly the reward that should be provided for bringing the world to economic calamity but never-the-less that transfer of wealth from retirees to too-big-to-fail banks is the policy the Fed has chosen).

That exacerbates the problems of too little savings during the working career for those in the USA. The continued evidence is that those in the USA continue to spend too much today and save too little. Also you have to expect the Fed and politicians will continue to make policy that favors their friends at too-big-fail banks and hedge funds and the like. You can’t expect them to behave differently than they have been the last 50 years. That means the likely actions by the government to take from median income people to aid the richest 1% (such as bailing out the bankers with super low interest rate policies and continue to subsidize losses and privatize their winning bets) will continue. You need to have extra savings to support those policies. Of course we could change to do things differently but there is no realistic evidence of any move to do so. Retirement planning needs to be based on evidence, not hopes about how things should be.

Related: How Much of Current Income to Save for Retirement – Save What You Can, Increase Savings as You Can Do So – Don’t Expect to Spend Over 4% of Your Retirement Investment Assets Annually – Retirement Planning: Looking at Assets (2012) – How Much Will I Need to Save for Retirement? (2009)